**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | *  | ET Docket No. 00-258         |
|                                  | *) |                              |
| Amendment of Part 2 of the       | ** | IB Docket No. 99-81          |
| Commission's Rules to Allocate   |    |                              |
| Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile  | *  | RM-9911                      |
| and Fixed Services to Support    | *) |                              |
| the Introduction of New Advanced | ** | RM-9498                      |
| Wireless Services, including     |    |                              |
| Third Generation Wireless        | *  | RM-10024                     |
| Systems                          | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| The Establishment of Policies    |    |                              |
| and Service Rules for the        | *  |                              |
| Mobile-Satellite Service in the  | *) |                              |
| 2 GHz Band                       | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Amendment of the U.S. Table of   | *  |                              |
| Frequency Allocations to         | *) |                              |
| Designate the                    | ** |                              |
| 2500-2520/2670-2690 MHz          |    |                              |
| Frequency Bands for the          | *  |                              |
| Mobile-Satellite Service         | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
| Petition for Rule Making of the  |    |                              |
| Wireless Information Networks    | *  |                              |
| Forum Concerning the Unlicensed  | *) |                              |
| Personal Communications Service  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
| Petition for Rule Making of      | *  |                              |
| UTStarcom, Inc., Concerning the  | *) |                              |
| Unlicensed Personal              | ** |                              |
| Communications Service           |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
|                                  |    |                              |
|                                  | *  |                              |
|                                  | *) |                              |
|                                  | ** |                              |
+----------------------------------+----+------------------------------+

**THIRD REPORT AND ORDER, THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING AND SECOND
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted: January 29, 2003 Released: February 10, 2003**

**Comment Date: \[30 days from date of publication in the Federal
Register\]**

**Reply Comment Date: \[45 days from the date of publication in the
Federal Register\]**

By the Commission: Chairman Powell and Commissioner Adelstein issuing
separate statements;

> Commissioner Copps approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing
> a statement.

I. INTRODUCTION [2](#introduction)

II\. EXecutive summary [2](#executive-summary)

III\. background [4](#background)

IV\. THIRD REPORT AND ORDER [6](#third-report-and-order)

A. Background [6](#background-1)

B. Comments [11](#comments)

C. Decision [16](#decision)

V. THIRD Notice of Proposed Rule Making
[20](#third-notice-of-proposed-rule-making)

A. 1910-1930 MHz and 1990-2000 MHz Bands
[21](#mhz-and-1990-2000-mhz-bands)

B. 2020-2025 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz Bands
[31](#mhz-and-2155-2180-mhz-bands)

VI\. SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
[35](#second-memorandum-opinion-and-order)

VII\. PROCEDURAL MATTERS [36](#procedural-matters)

A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Third Report and Order
[36](#final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis-for-third-report-and-order)

B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Third Notice of
Proposed Rule Making
[36](#initial-regulatory-flexibility-analysis-for-the-third-notice-of-proposed-rule-making)

*C.* *Ex Parte* Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding
[36](#ex-parte-rules-permit-but-disclose-proceeding)

D. Comments [36](#comments-1)

E. Contact Persons [37](#contact-persons)

VIII\. ordering clauses [37](#ordering-clauses)

# INTRODUCTION

1.  In this *Third Report and Order, Third Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking, and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we continue
    our ongoing proceeding to promote spectrum efficiency by evaluating
    spectrum that may be suitable for the provision of new services,
    including Advanced Wireless Services (AWS).[^1] In the *Third Report
    and Order*, we reallocate portions of the frequency bands currently
    used by the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) to provide additional
    spectrum for Fixed and Mobile services. In the *Third Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, we seek comment on how best to use the
    reallocated MSS spectrum as well as other bands previously proposed
    for AWS use, the relocation of the Multipoint Distribution Service
    (MDS), and additional flexibility for the Unlicensed Personal
    Communications Service (UPCS) band spectrum. Finally, in the *Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, we deny a petition filed by the
    Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA) relating
    to use of the MSS band.

# EXecutive summary

2.  Our efforts to identify and allocate spectrum that can be used to
    support new services, including AWS, have focused on identifying
    both Federal Government and non-Federal Government-use spectrum that
    possess attributes suitable for the provision of new services, and
    on allocating blocks of that spectrum that can quickly and
    efficiently be made available for this end. At the same time, we
    have taken a closer look at the existing uses of those frequency
    bands that we have identified as potential candidates for the
    provision of new services, and have taken steps to reallocate,
    retain, or provide additional flexibility to these bands, as
    warranted. Thus, a larger theme of this proceeding is our effort to
    promote more efficient spectrum use which, in turn, serves the
    public interest.

3.  On November 15, 2002, the Commission issued a *Second Report and
    Order* in this proceeding that identified and allocated 90 megahertz
    of spectrum from Federal Government and non-Federal Government
    operations at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz that can be used to
    support AWS.[^2] In the instant decision, we evaluate a number of
    other frequency bands that were identified for possible AWS use, but
    not addressed in our previous decisions. In the *Third Report and
    Order* portion of our action herein, we:

    • Conclude that MSS in the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands can
    operate in less than the 70 megahertz of spectrum currently
    allocated to MSS in the 2 GHz band.

    • Reallocate the 1990-2000/2020-2025 MHz and 2165-2180 MHz bands for
    Fixed and Mobile services. This reallocates 30 megahertz of MSS
    spectrum while preserving 40 megahertz of spectrum for MSS.

    • Redistribute some 2 GHz spectrum recently abandoned as a result of
    the ongoing initial MSS milestone review. This spectrum will be
    reassigned to the authorized MSS operators that remain when we
    complete the initial milestone review.

    In the *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* herein, we:

    • Seek comment on whether we should re-designate all or a portion of
    the UPCS spectrum at 1910-1920 for new fixed and mobile uses. Five
    or ten megahertz of this spectrum could be paired with spectrum in
    the 1990-2000 MHz band to expand the existing Broadband PCS
    allocation, to allow for AWS applications, or as replacement
    spectrum for other services.

    • Retain the 1920-1930 MHz band for UPCS use and seek comment on
    whether we should provide for additional flexibility in that band,
    as well as any additional spectrum that we retain for UPCS use in
    the 1910-1920 MHz band.

    • Seek comment on making available for new services, including AWS,
    the MSS uplink band spectrum that we are reallocating at 2020-2025
    MHz. We also ask whether this band could be paired with spectrum in
    the 2.1 GHz band.

    • Seek further comment on making available for new services,
    including AWS, a 10 megahertz block that is upper adjacent to the
    existing 45 megahertz AWS allocation in the 2110-2155 MHz band. This
    spectrum block consists of the remaining 5 megahertz of the MDS band
    at 2155-2160 MHz combined with an adjacent 5 megahertz spectrum
    block in the 2160-2165 MHz band that was identified in the *Emerging
    Technologies* proceeding.

    • Seek comment on the best use of the spectrum that we make
    available by reallocating the MSS downlink band at 2165-2180 MHz.

    • Seek comment on relocation spectrum for MDS operations from the
    2150-2160/62 MHz band, including spectrum that we make available by
    reallocating the MSS downlink band at 2165-2180 MHz or,
    alternatively, spectrum that is adjacent to the Broadband PCS bands.

    In the *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* herein, we:

    • Deny a petition for reconsideration filed by CTIA that seeks
    reallocation of the entire 2 GHz MSS band for terrestrial wireless
    use.

# background

4.  The bands that we have considered in this proceeding were identified
    in the January 2001 *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order*,[^3]
    and in the August 2001 *Memorandum Opinion and Order* *and* *Further
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*.[^4] Collectively, in the *Notice*
    and the *Further Notice*, the Commission sought comment on the
    suitability for use by AWS of the 1710-1755 MHz band (scheduled for
    transfer from Federal Government to non-Federal Government use); the
    1755-1850 MHz band (a Federal Government-use band); the 2110-2150
    MHz and 2160-2165 MHz bands (used for point-to-point fixed microwave
    services and identified in the Commission's *Emerging Technologies*
    proceeding[^5] as suitable for advanced services); the 2500-2690 MHz
    band (used by Instructional Television Fixed Services (ITFS) and
    Multichannel Multipoint Distribution Services (MMDS)); the
    2150-2160/62 MHz band (used by MDS); the 1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200
    MHz bands (allocated for MSS); and the 1910-1930 MHz and 2390-2400
    MHz bands (designated for UPCS use). In the *Notice*, the Commission
    also explored the possibility of introducing AWS in the 806-960 MHz
    and 1850-1910/1930-1990 MHz bands that are currently used for
    cellular, Broadband PCS, and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR)
    services, as well as the 698-806 MHz bands that were reallocated as
    part of the transition to digital television.[^6]

5.  The Commission addressed use of the 2500-2690 MHz band in a
    September 2001 *First Report and Order* and *Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* in this proceeding.[^7] In the *First R&O and MO&O*, the
    Commission found that ITFS and MMDS licensees operating in the band
    provided important services and would be difficult to relocate, and
    the Commission decided not to relocate these incumbent
    licensees.[^8] Instead, the Commission modified the allocation by
    adding a mobile allocation to the 2500-2690 MHz band to provide
    additional flexibility for use of this spectrum.[^9] The Commission
    also affirmed its prior determination not to reallocate a portion of
    the 2500-2690 MHz band to MSS*.*[^10]

6.  In its November 2002 *Second R&O*, the Commission undertook a
    comprehensive examination of AWS spectrum needs. In July 2002, the
    Department of Commerce National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA) released a study ("*2002 Viability
    Assessment*") in which it concluded that 90 megahertz of spectrum
    consisting of the 1710-1755 MHz band and a matching 45 megahertz
    from the 2110-2170 MHz band could be reallocated without disrupting
    critical national security communications systems.[^11] In the *2002
    Viability Assessment*, NTIA also found that the 1755-1850 MHz
    Federal Government-use band (which had also been identified as
    spectrum that might support AWS) could not be made available for AWS
    for the foreseeable future.[^12] Consistent with the *2002 Viability
    Assessment*, the Commission in the *Second R&O* allocated 45 MHz of
    Federal Government-use spectrum in the 1710-1755 MHz band for AWS,
    effective January 2004 (when the spectrum is scheduled to be made
    available for mixed Federal Government/non-Federal Government
    use).[^13] The Commission also allocated a 45 MHz block of
    contiguous spectrum in the 2110-2155 MHz band for AWS.[^14] This
    spectrum consists of the 2110-2150 MHz band, which is currently used
    by point-to-point microwave facilities and subject to the relocation
    procedures adopted in the Commission's *Emerging Technologies*
    proceeding, combined with an additional 5 megahertz block (2150-2155
    MHz) that was previously allocated to MDS. The Commission noted that
    it would consider relocation spectrum and propose relocation
    procedures for MDS licensees (which continue to operate in the band)
    in a subsequent decision.[^15]

7.  As described in greater detail in the *Second R&O*, the Commission
    noted that the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) had
    identified a number of frequency bands that could be used to
    implement advanced wireless systems internationally,[^16] and
    established a set of standards -- International Mobile
    Telecommunications-2000 (IMT-2000) -- that defines key
    characteristics of advanced radio systems.[^17] The Commission did
    not formally adopt the ITU standards, but instead concluded that the
    allocation in the *Second R&O* would be able to support a wide
    variety of services, including those using the most popular
    technologies under IMT-2000. Because this proceeding involved
    spectrum that falls under the spectrum management responsibilities
    of both the Executive Branch and the Commission, the Commission's
    actions have been facilitated by the extensive cooperation among a
    variety of Federal Government stakeholders, including NTIA. The
    Federal Government-use spectrum that was considered in the *Second
    R&O* is also subject to specific requirements of an Executive
    Memorandum and legislation regarding the transfer, licensing, and
    relocation of incumbent users on this spectrum. We note that these
    Federal Government-use bands are not under consideration in the
    instant decision.

# THIRD REPORT AND ORDER

8.  This proceeding has provided us with the opportunity to explore a
    wide range of issues that affect many different frequency bands --
    including those bands identified for reallocation, those slated to
    host emerging technologies, and those that were not previously
    available for non-Federal Government use. In each of our decisions,
    we have sought to promote efficient use of spectrum in order to
    serve the public interest. Our goal here remains the same. As
    described in greater detail below, the allocations we make will
    promote efficiencies by reducing spectrum allocated for 2 GHz MSS,
    which we conclude can be accommodated in smaller spectrum bands, and
    by reallocating those bands to bring new services to the public. We
    explore in the accompanying *Further Notice* how best to use the
    spectrum we are reallocating for Fixed and Mobile services in the 2
    GHz band.

## Background 

9.  The 2 GHz MSS band includes worldwide, regional and domestic
    allocations, which are partially harmonized as described below. The
    1980-2010 MHz (uplink) and 2170-2200 MHz (downlink) bands are
    allocated to the MSS on a primary basis throughout the world and
    have been designated as the satellite component of IMT-2000.[^18] In
    Region 2 (North and South America), the 2010-2025 MHz (uplink) and
    2160-2170 MHz (downlink) bands are also allocated to the MSS on a
    primary basis.[^19] In addition, the 1980-2025 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz
    bands are also allocated to the fixed and mobile services on a
    primary basis throughout the world.

10. In the United States, the 1990-2110 MHz band is currently used by
    the local television transmission service, the cable television
    relay service, and broadcast auxiliary stations (collectively, BAS)
    for fixed and mobile purposes. The 2110-2200 MHz band is currently
    used for fixed services (FS) and MDS. In 1997, the Commission
    reallocated the 1990-2025 MHz segment of the 1990-2110 MHz band (2
    GHz BAS) for use by MSS uplinks and the 2165-2200 MHz band for use
    by MSS downlinks, effective January 1, 2000.[^20] To provide for an
    orderly transition from BAS use, the Commission allowed BAS fixed
    and mobile facilities to operate on a primary basis for up to 10
    years, after which time BAS facilities would operate on a secondary
    basis.[^21] In 2000, the Commission adopted relocation procedures
    for incumbent broadcast auxiliary services at 1990-2025 MHz and the
    fixed services at 2165-2200 MHz.[^22] The Commission recently
    suspended for one year, until September 6, 2003, the expiration date
    for the initial two-year mandatory BAS negotiation period for Phase
    1 of the relocation plan between MSS and BAS.[^23]

11. In August 2000, the Commission adopted the *2 GHz MSS R&O*, which
    established licensing and service rules for 2 GHz MSS.[^24] The
    Commission divided the 2 GHz MSS spectrum into "Selected
    Assignments" -- segments of equal bandwidth based on the number of
    applicants seeking assignments,[^25] plus an additional segment
    reserved for system expansion by operators meeting certain criteria
    for service to rural areas.[^26] The Commission also established
    milestones for system implementation and conditioned the
    authorizations on achievement of these milestones. Recognizing that
    not all systems may be implemented, the Commission indicated that it
    would evaluate what to do with any "abandoned spectrum" after the
    passage of each of the milestones.[^27] In this context, "abandoned
    spectrum" includes all licensed (or, for non-U.S.-entity access,
    reserved) spectrum that the Commission reclaims as a result of the
    system proponent voluntarily turning in its license or missing
    milestones. Possible options include: (a) redistributing the
    abandoned spectrum among systems that are operational and require
    additional spectrum; (b) making the abandoned spectrum available for
    new entrants; and (c) awarding the abandoned spectrum to operators
    serving unserved areas as per the criteria set forth in the *2 GHz
    MSS R&O*.[^28]

12. On July 17, 2001, the Commission staff issued authorizations to
    eight applicants to provide 2 GHz MSS in the United States.[^29] The
    authorizations provide each system with Selected Assignments of
    3.5/3.5 megahertz of spectrum (*i.e*., 3.5 megahertz of uplink
    spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band and 3.5 megahertz of downlink
    spectrum in the 2165-2200 MHz band), where they may operate on a
    primary basis.[^30] Commission staff delayed full implementation of
    the *2 GHz MSS R&O* with regard to an incremental 0.38/0.38
    megahertz of spectrum per licensee, though Selected Assignments were
    to be chosen in 3.88 megahertz blocks to ensure the Commission's
    ability to implement the incremental 0.38 megahertz if that decision
    were made.[^31] On October 15, 2002, ICO Global Communications
    (Holdings) Limited chose 1990-1993.88 MHz and 2172.76-2176.64 MHz as
    its Selected Assignments to serve the United States in the 2 GHz MSS
    band.[^32]

13. On August 20, 2001, we released the *Further Notice* in this
    proceeding, wherein we revisited our decision in the *2 GHz MSS R&O*
    to defer until "after achievement of each of our system
    implementation milestones" evaluation of whether to redistribute
    abandoned spectrum among MSS licensees or make it available for
    licensing additional MSS systems or for other services.[^33]
    Instead, we solicited comment regarding how to treat abandoned
    spectrum and included among the options whether to reallocate a
    portion of this spectrum for AWS. Specifically, we proposed that
    10-14 megahertz of MSS spectrum be reallocated for AWS use without
    waiting for spectrum to be abandoned.[^34] We solicited comment on
    two possible approaches to achieve reallocation, one which would
    retain Selected Assignments of 7 megahertz of spectrum (3.5
    megahertz in each direction), which are already provided in the
    authorizations, and one which would provide for Selected Assignments
    of 7.5 megahertz of spectrum (3.75 megahertz in each
    direction).[^35] Either approach would make it possible to
    reallocate the 2018/2020-2025 MHz and 2165-2170/2172 MHz bands to
    other services. Under either proposed approach, 56 to 60 megahertz
    of spectrum would be retained for MSS in the 1990-2018/2020 MHz and
    2170/2172-2200 MHz bands.[^36]

14. We also requested comment on the use of abandoned spectrum.[^37]
    Specifically, we sought comment on whether we should make abandoned
    spectrum available for AWS, redistribute it among remaining MSS
    licensees, or assign it to new MSS entrants. Under any combination
    of mechanisms ultimately adopted, we solicited comment on whether 20
    megahertz of global MSS spectrum should be retained for MSS in both
    the uplink and downlink bands.[^38] We proposed that any
    reallocation of existing MSS spectrum would not significantly impair
    any of the current licensees' right to retain its current assigned
    spectrum allotment and reasonable expectation to acquire additional
    MSS spectrum for purposes of deploying and operating a 2 GHz MSS
    system.

15. We sought comment on what limitations should be placed on MSS
    licensees' ability to designate Selected Assignments if we were to
    reallocate spectrum for AWS. In particular, we proposed to modify
    MSS authorizations pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act
    concerning the amount of spectrum available to each MSS entity for
    Selected Assignments;[^39] the bands in which those assignments
    could be made; and the location of each MSS system within each
    available band (*i.e.*, the incremental spacing of each system from
    the band edge as well as the need to "pack" the MSS systems in one
    portion of the band in order to preserve contiguous spectrum for
    other users such as AWS).[^40]

16. We also requested comment on whether MSS operators should be
    permitted to consolidate operations. Finally, we sought comment on
    how the BAS and FS relocation plans would have to be modified to
    accommodate a reallocation of spectrum for AWS, including, for
    example, what the relocation responsibilities of new MSS and AWS
    entrants would be and whether 2 GHz MSS and AWS licensees should
    share BAS and FS relocation costs on a pro rata basis.[^41]

17. The Commission requires 2 GHz MSS networks to meet an implementation
    milestone schedule as a condition of authorization. All authorized
    networks must enter into a non-contingent satellite manufacturing
    contract for the system within one year of authorization, which in
    this case was July 17, 2002, and complete critical design review
    with two years of authorization; construction and deployment of
    satellites vary from two and a half years to five years, depending
    on whether the system is comprised of geostationary or
    non-geostationary satellites.[^42] Non-compliance with
    implementation milestones will result in cancellation of the
    authorization. Operators are required to submit certification of
    milestone compliance, or filing disclosure of non-compliance, within
    ten days following the applicable milestone.[^43] The Commission
    assesses compliance with the adopted milestone schedules by
    reviewing these and other filings.[^44] All eight MSS entities
    certified compliance with the first milestone. Upon review of these
    certifications, the International Bureau cancelled authorizations
    held by Constellation Communications Holdings, Inc. (Constellation),
    Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc., and Globalstar L.P.
    (Globalstar).[^45]

18. Finally, we note that, in a separate proceeding, we have decided to
    permit MSS licensees to provide terrestrial and satellite services
    by integrating an ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) into their
    networks.[^46] Therefore, our consideration of the 2 GHz MSS bands
    must also account for these changes.

## Comments

19. Many commenters support our proposal to reallocate at least 10-14
    megahertz of spectrum from the 2 GHz MSS bands for the provision of
    AWS.[^47] For example, VoiceStream states that the market for
    satellite services has become smaller than it was in 1997 when 70
    megahertz was allocated to the MSS in the 2 GHz, which increased the
    overall amount of spectrum allocated for MSS. It predicts that the
    number of potential MSS customers will continue to decrease as
    terrestrial services continue to build out, and that the potential
    customer base for all MSS systems in the United States is limited to
    1-2 million subscribers. It calculates that satellite providers have
    4,386 customers per megahertz of allocated spectrum (based on global
    subscribership),[^48] whereas terrestrial wireless carriers have
    648,000 customers per megahertz (based on domestic
    subscribership),[^49] and concludes that the current amount of
    allocated MSS spectrum is too large for the limited demand.[^50]
    Similarly, AT&T Wireless, which supports reallocation of the entire
    MSS band, observes that Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) end
    user growth has been much greater than estimated when we allocated
    70 megahertz for 2 GHz MSS.[^51]

20. Ericsson, The Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), Telephone and
    Data Systems (TDS), The Telecommunications Industry Association --
    Wireless Communications Division (TIA -- Wireless Division), and
    Verizon also recommend that all abandoned spectrum be reallocated to
    AWS,[^52] while Verizon further avers that all unassigned spectrum
    should be given to AWS.[^53] PFF recommends that we adopt a "zero
    tolerance" policy for failure of MSS operators to meet milestone
    requirements, and should be prepared to reallocate such abandoned
    MSS spectrum to alternative uses, most likely AWS, on an expedited
    basis should abandonment occur.[^54] Ericsson observes that the
    1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz bands could be used for Broadband
    PCS expansion.[^55]

21. Several commenters argue that MSS assignments should commence from
    2025 MHz and 2200 MHz (*i.e*., at the top of each band) and occupy
    bands on a decreasing-in-frequency basis, arguing that this would
    allow an AWS reallocation without impairing MSS licenses, and make
    future reallocation of spectrum from MSS easier.[^56] Ericsson, TIA
    -- Wireless Division, Verizon, and VoiceStream also state that the
    2165-2170 MHz band should be immediately reallocated to 3G services
    (*i.e.* for AWS applications).[^57] TIA -- Wireless Division also
    notes that such a reallocation, in conjunction with reallocation of
    the 2110-2165 MHz band, would create a 60 megahertz contiguous block
    -- which would support 6 blocks of 10 megahertz each.[^58]

22. AT&T Wireless, Cingular, CTIA, and Orange Group[^59] recommend that
    the entire 2 GHz MSS allocation (1990-2025/2165-2200 MHz) be
    reallocated for AWS,[^60] arguing that the MSS industry as a whole
    is not economically viable and noting that some 2 GHz MSS licensees
    have made such statements in filings before the Commission.[^61]
    ArrayComm and Nortel suggest that the 20/20 megahertz of global MSS
    spectrum be retained for 2 GHz MSS use and that the remainder be
    relocated for AWS.[^62] SBE recommends that the 2008-2025 MHz band
    be reallocated to support AWS.[^63] CTIA, on the other hand, argues
    that the demand for spectrum for AWS and the tentative prospects for
    MSS should compel the Commission to reject maintaining any arbitrary
    "floor" of MSS spectrum, including the 40 megahertz of spectrum
    allocated to MSS globally, and that such a floor would preclude more
    efficient use of the spectrum.[^64] Further, Nextel recommends that,
    as part of its proposed 800 MHz interference mitigation plan, we
    reallocate the 1910-1915/1990-1995 MHz bands to Nextel in exchange
    for spectrum that it would give up.[^65] Finally, WCA offers that
    MDS relocation from the 2150-2160/62 MHz band could be accomplished
    by providing MDS with the 1910-1916/1990-1996 MHz bands and allowing
    fixed or mobile use.[^66]

23. Several of the 2 GHz MSS proponents -- including Celsat America
    (Celsat), Constellation, Globalstar, Lockheed Martin, Space
    Enterprise Council, and the Satellite Industry Association (SIA) --
    oppose any reallocation of spectrum from MSS, arguing that the
    satellite service may be the only viable solution for providing AWS
    to rural and underserved areas.[^67] Lockheed Martin states that MSS
    provides many emergency communications, and the Mobile Satellite
    Users Association (MSUA) states that reallocating MSS spectrum would
    compromise many public safety operations.[^68] The
    Telecommunications Industry Association -- Satellite Communications
    Division (TIA -- Satellite Division) states that MSS provides
    important public service, particularly in disaster situations,[^69]
    and argues that we must retain global MSS spectrum because of cost
    efficiencies such as simplified system design and economies of
    scale.[^70] Globalstar and SIA state that the MSS bands are not
    designated globally for terrestrial services so a reallocation would
    not lead to global harmonization.[^71]

24. ICO and Boeing argue that any domestic reallocation that conflicts
    with the international MSS allocations at 1980-2010 MHz and
    2170-2200 MHz would impair the ability of multiple MSS systems to
    provide global service, would be a reversal of long-standing U.S.
    support of global spectrum for MSS, and would undermine U.S.
    credibility with the international community at future world radio
    conferences.[^72] In response to requests by Nextel and the MDS
    proponents for access to the 1990-1996 MHz bands, ICO is concerned
    that a reallocation of the 1990-1996 MHz band would limit the amount
    of spectrum available to its uplink operations because it has
    already constructed its system to operate within the 1985-2015 MHz
    and 2170-2200 MHz bands.[^73] TMI Communications and Company Limited
    Partnership (TMI) states that reallocation of 2 GHz MSS spectrum
    would cause coordination problems with Mexico and Canada because
    this spectrum is licensed for MSS use in these countries.[^74]

25. CTIA, and certain incumbent PCS licensees and PCS equipment
    manufactures have raised the issue of possible out-of-band emissions
    interference from 2 GHz ATC mobile earth terminals to PCS mobile
    receivers operating in the 1930-1990 MHz band, which they claim
    would not be adequately protected by our current out-of-band
    limitation of -43 + 10 log P dB for PCS mobile transmitters.[^75]
    These parties also have indicated that PCS mobile handsets would not
    be able to adequately filter out transmissions from nearby MSS ATC
    handsets; which could result in either a desensitization or overload
    of existing PCS receivers. Verizon has also expressed its concern on
    this same point.[^76] CTIA suggests that this potential for
    interference could be mitigated by providing 15-20 megahertz of
    frequency separation between PCS and ATC operations and by imposing
    much tighter out-of-band emissions limits on ATC equipment. Nextel,
    however, disagrees with CTIA and Verizon's view, contending that
    while ATC could theoretically cause interference to existing PCS
    operations in limited circumstances, the probability of such
    interference actually occurring is low. Nextel argues that a 15 MHz
    guard band between MSS/ATC mobile transmit and PCS mobile receive is
    unnecessary given the combination of contributing factors necessary
    to produce interference.[^77] According to Nextel, if the same
    analyses used by CTIA for ATC mobile transmitters and PCS mobile
    receivers were used in the 800 MHz band, it would predict
    substantial interference. However, Nextel notes that in a similar
    allocation in the 800 MHz band where the cellular mobile transmit
    band is adjacent to the Land Mobile Radio mobile transmit band,
    there are no interference problems.[^78]

26. TIA -- Satellite Division also opposes the reallocation of 10-14
    megahertz of spectrum for AWS, because such action would leave each
    MSS licensee with less than 4 megahertz of spectrum in each
    direction, which it claims is not enough to support the long-term
    provision of broad-based services.[^79] Commenters representing 2
    GHz MSS incumbents also describe anticipated growth for the service
    as a basis for rejecting the proposed reallocation. Celsat states
    that the spectrum usage by, and needs of, MSS are expected to grow
    as the service is deployed.[^80] Boeing states that MSS will support
    a viable satellite-based air traffic management system and that it
    will use the entire assigned spectrum.[^81] ICO notes that,
    according to the ITU, 206 megahertz of additional spectrum is
    predicted to be needed for MSS by 2005.[^82]

27. MSS proponents uniformly recommend redistribution of abandoned 2 GHz
    MSS spectrum to remaining MSS carriers.[^83] TMI states that
    additional flexibility should be given to MSS licensees to
    consolidate space platforms and acquire forfeited spectrum to
    enhance efficiency. It argues that no more than 10 megahertz should
    be reallocated to 3G.[^84] PFF recommends that we adopt a liberal
    policy with respect to consolidations among MSS providers and
    between MSS providers and other firms, including specifically CMRS
    providers.[^85]

## Decision

28. Based on the record, we conclude that the public interest would be
    best served by reallocating 30 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz
    MSS band for Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis and
    preserving the remaining 40 megahertz of spectrum for MSS at this
    time. We will reallocate 15 megahertz from the MSS uplink band,
    specifically the 1990-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz band segments, and
    15 megahertz from the MSS downlink band, specifically the 2165-2180
    MHz band segment. We are modifying the Table of Allocations to
    provide for Fixed and Mobile services in these bands on a co-primary
    basis. In addition, we are modifying footnote NG156 of the U.S.
    Table of Frequency Allocations,[^86] concerning Fixed and Mobile
    service status in bands shared with MSS, to remove the 1990-2000 MHz
    band. We are also creating a new non-Federal Government footnote
    that makes incumbent BAS and cable television relay service
    operations that are secondary to MSS also secondary to new Fixed and
    Mobile services. Finally, we conclude that some abandoned 2 GHz
    spectrum recently recaptured as a result of the initial MSS
    milestone review will be reassigned to the authorized MSS operators
    that remain when we complete the initial milestone review.

29. We already have concluded in this proceeding that we need to make
    spectrum available for terrestrial wireless services to promote the
    introduction of new advanced services,[^87] and we would satisfy the
    public interest by making more spectrum available to meet these
    needs. We explore alternative uses of this reallocated spectrum,
    including use of this spectrum for AWS, in the accompanying *Further
    Notice*. By retaining a reduced MSS allocation, we also serve the
    public interest by providing spectrum that can be used by those MSS
    entities that are proceeding with plans to implement service in
    these bands. We note that some commenters suggest that we should
    reallocate the entire 2 GHz MSS spectrum, but we reject that course
    because it would require us to abandon MSS entirely in this
    band.[^88] Of course, nothing in our decision today limits our
    continuing spectrum management obligations to ensure that the
    spectrum is used efficiently and effectively. This includes the
    ability of the Commission to ensure that the 2 GHz MSS band is not
    monopolized, whether through our case-by-case review of
    consolidation of transactions or our ability to open new processing
    rounds or the reallocation of spectrum if 2 GHz MSS licensees fail
    to meet their milestones.

30. Our conclusion to reallocate some MSS spectrum for Fixed and Mobile
    services is supported by the record and other public information. We
    agree with VoiceStream and other parties that the terrestrial
    wireless services have seen substantially higher subscribership
    growth than MSS, even though both services share nearly the same
    amount of spectrum.[^89] Remarkable growth in terrestrial CMRS
    subscribership has occurred since 1995 when we began allocation
    proceedings for MSS. For example, in the *Second Competition
    Report*, we estimated that, as of December 1996, there were
    approximately 46.3 million subscribers in the mobile telephone
    sector.[^90] In the *Seventh Competition Report*, we estimated that,
    as of December 2001, there were 128.5 million subscribers in the
    mobile telephone sector, which translates into a national
    penetration rate of roughly 45 percent, with 61 percent of all U.S.
    households having at least one wireless phone.[^91] This was
    approximately a 17 percent increase in the number of mobile
    telephone sector subscribers since December 2000.

31. Although, as some MSS proponents assert, the MSS industry is still
    relatively young and needs the opportunity to overcome the
    substantial start-up obstacles it has encountered, we conclude that
    a reallocation of some 2 GHz MSS spectrum should not impair the
    growth of MSS. The remaining MSS allocations, both in the 2 GHz band
    and other bands, will be sufficient to support growth of this
    service for the foreseeable future.[^92] Although several MSS
    networks have been deployed in other bands, some of the eight
    authorized 2 GHz MSS authorizations have been cancelled because
    entities did not meet the milestone conditions of their
    authorizations. On balance, it is in the public interest to
    reallocate a portion of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum to support continuing
    growth of fixed and mobile services.

32. The 30 megahertz of spectrum that will be reallocated from MSS comes
    from two sources: 14 megahertz of spectrum that was not assigned to
    any of the MSS licensees and 16 megahertz of spectrum (of the 21
    megahertz) that has been abandoned as a result of MSS licensees not
    meeting initial milestones. Presently, the International Bureau has
    cancelled three MSS authorizations, thereby recapturing 21 megahertz
    of spectrum. Sixteen megahertz of this recaptured spectrum, as well
    as the 14 megahertz of unassigned spectrum, will be reallocated
    immediately for Fixed and Mobile services. Relying on unassigned and
    abandoned spectrum as the basis for the reallocation is least
    disruptive to the MSS licensees. Further, the initial MSS milestone
    review, which is not yet completed, has already made available an
    additional 5 megahertz of abandoned spectrum that we are not
    reallocating for new services. We note that the MSS entities have
    asserted the need for access to more than 3.5 megahertz of spectrum
    in each band for their Selected Assignments.[^93] We thus conclude
    that the public interest would be served by redistributing abandoned
    2 GHz spectrum recently recaptured as a result of the initial MSS
    milestone review, above the 16 megahertz being reallocated, to the
    authorized MSS operators that remain when we complete the initial
    milestone review. Thus, it is possible that more than 5 megahertz of
    abandoned spectrum may be available for redistribution when the
    initial MSS milestone review is completed. We further note that MSS
    milestone review is an ongoing process that spans several years, and
    it is possible that not all currently authorized MSS networks will
    be deployed. As we previously stated in *2 GHz MSS R&O*, we have not
    established nor do we do so here any policy or rule regarding the
    use of additional abandoned spectrum that may result after future
    MSS milestone reviews are completed. Instead, we will evaluate
    whether to redistribute such spectrum or make it available to new
    entrants after achievement of each of our system implementation
    milestones.[^94]

33. Because we are revising the allocated spectrum for MSS and modifying
    the amount of spectrum that will constitute a Selected Assignment,
    we also modify how Selected Assignments are to be located in the
    revised MSS bandwidth. In the *2 GHz MSS R&O*, we determined that
    the MSS band plan would be divided into equal segments based on the
    number of licensed MSS systems. This incremental spacing approach
    allows MSS licensees to identify Selected Assignments working from
    either the bottom or the top of the band without requiring
    assignments to be selected in sequential order, as some commenters
    have suggested.[^95] In order to maintain this flexibility, the plan
    for each band will be based on dividing the revised MSS allocation
    in each band by the number of MSS licensees remaining when we
    complete the initial MSS milestone review. Thus, MSS licensees will
    choose Selected Assignments as an integer multiple of this amount
    from either band edge.[^96] We thus modify, pursuant to Section 316
    of the Communications Act and consistent with our decisions here,
    the 2 GHz MSS authorizations to increase the amount of spectrum for
    Selected Assignments, to require that a Selected Assignment be
    located within the revised MSS allocation, and to require that a
    Selected Assignment be chosen such that the band edge of the
    assignment is an integer multiple of the revised value from the band
    edge.[^97] We also delegate authority to the International Bureau to
    issue revised authorizations, consistent with our decisions here,
    when the initial milestone review is completed. When the
    authorizations are modified, the MSS entities, including ICO, can
    follow current procedures for notifying the Commission of their
    Selected Assignments and their selections will be put on public
    notice.

34. In deciding which segments of the MSS spectrum should be reallocated
    for Fixed and Mobile services, we recognize that the record is split
    on whether we should reallocate spectrum that overlaps the global
    MSS allocation, which consists of paired 30 megahertz bands at
    1980-2110 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz. The U.S. MSS allocation, which
    consists of two paired 35 megahertz bands, overlaps 20 megahertz of
    the international allocation in the lower uplink band (1990-2010
    MHz) and all of the 30 megahertz of the international allocation in
    the upper downlink band (2170-2200 MHz). After careful consideration
    of the record, we conclude that, on balance, the benefits to the
    public of providing additional spectrum for Fixed and Mobile
    services that overlaps the international 2 GHz MSS band outweigh the
    impact on MSS. Our decision is to reallocate MSS spectrum in a way
    that will allow new entrants to take advantage of economies of scale
    in developing and deploying new services while maintaining
    sufficient international MSS spectrum.

35. In the 1990-2025 MHz band, we are reallocating from the current MSS
    allocation a 10 megahertz block at 1990-2000 MHz, which is
    contiguous with the existing Broadband PCS allocation at 1930-1990
    MHz, and a 5 megahertz block at 2020-2025 MHz. Because the 10
    megahertz block is contiguous with the Broadband PCS band, this
    spectrum could provide needed growth spectrum for PCS providers, as
    well as facilitate new AWS equipment development and deployment.
    This reallocation will reduce by 10 megahertz the current 20
    megahertz available for the international MSS uplink allocation.
    While we recognize that globally harmonized spectrum is an important
    resource, we share CTIA's concerns regarding potential interference
    to existing PCS operations at 1930-1990 MHz.[^98] We believe that in
    this instance, these interference concerns outweigh the benefits of
    increased global harmonized spectrum. We find that we can
    accommodate the international needs of 2 GHz MSS licensees in the
    remaining 10 megahertz (uplink) + 20 megahertz (downlink) of
    overlapping international spectrum. Not all of the eight authorized
    MSS networks will be deployed, not all of the proposed MSS networks
    will be providing global service, and most MSS licensees propose to
    operate throughout the currently allocated band (2000-2020
    MHz).[^99] The remaining MSS entities will be able to adapt their
    frequency use within the U.S. to the remaining allocated spectrum
    (2000-2020 MHz), and use any spectrum within the international
    allocation (1980-2010 MHz) outside the U.S.[^100] Any newly
    authorized MSS networks could be built to accommodate the revised
    MSS allocation, assuming that sharing with incumbent MSS licensees
    is possible. We conclude that our decision to reduce the amount of
    globally harmonized MSS spectrum that will be available in the
    United States is appropriate at this time and consistent with the
    current spectrum requirements for the global portion of the 2 GHz
    MSS industry. Despite this action, we remain cognizant and
    supportive of the benefits of global spectrum harmonization, when
    appropriate.

36. In the 2165-2200 MHz band, we balance the MSS and terrestrial
    services needs by reallocating a 15 megahertz block at 2165-2180
    MHz. This reallocation will minimize the impact on MSS, as all of
    the remaining 20 megahertz domestic allocation will overlap with the
    current international MSS downlink allocation -- and, thus, 30 of
    the 40 megahertz of remaining MSS spectrum will overlap with the
    global allocation. As discussed above, we believe that MSS licensees
    should not be significantly impaired in providing satellite services
    in this band.[^101] We note that, as a result of our previous
    decision in this docket, 45 megahertz of contiguous spectrum, from
    2110-2155 MHz, will be available for AWS. We also have proposed to
    make the adjacent bands at 2155-2160 and 2160-2165 MHz available for
    AWS. We note that our decision here to reallocate the adjacent MSS
    spectrum at 2165-2180 MHz is consistent with the majority of the AWS
    proponents who favor reallocating MSS spectrum adjacent to the
    2110-2165 MHz band. Contiguous spectrum would make it easier to
    accommodate multiple licensees using larger spectrum blocks
    throughout this band. Further, as some commenters note, a flexible
    allocation at 2110-2165 MHz would overlap to a large extent the
    international allocation for a terrestrial component of advanced
    services at 2110-2170 MHz and thus will promote the timely
    introduction of new equipment and services in this spectrum.

37. As a consequence of our decision to reallocate the
    1990-2000/2020-2025/2165-2180 MHz bands, we note that coordination
    of satellite and terrestrial use with Canada and Mexico will be
    necessary. Finally, we are not reaching decisions here on several
    other issues raised in the *Further Notice*, such as the
    consolidation of MSS assignments and BAS and FS relocation issues.
    We will address those issues in further proceedings. We note, for
    example, that relocating incumbent BAS operations in the 1990-2025
    MHz band will be further complicated by our decision here.[^102] As
    we stated in the *Further Notice* when discussing possible
    reallocation of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band, the relocation
    of BAS from any portion of the band would be shared between new MSS
    entrants and other new entrants in the band.[^103] Although we
    conclude that this principle would apply as a consequence of our
    reallocation decision, we will address fully BAS relocation issues
    in a future separate proceeding. We intend to address the relocation
    issues well in advance of the September 6, 2003, expiration of the
    initial two-year mandatory negotiation period for Phase 1 of the
    relocation plan between MSS and BAS.[^104]

# THIRD Notice of Proposed Rule Making

38. Throughout this proceeding, we have identified and discussed
    numerous frequency bands that could be used to support AWS. As a
    result, we have generated a comprehensive record that has served as
    the basis for the allocation decisions we have taken to date and
    that will support our future decisions in this docket. Today's
    *Third R&O* further defines the scope of spectrum that could be made
    available for AWS or other purposes by reallocating 30 megahertz of
    MSS spectrum. In this *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Third
    Notice*), we discuss those frequency bands that are still under
    consideration in this proceeding and invite additional comment on
    their disposition. Specifically, we address the UPCS band at
    1910-1930 MHz, the MDS spectrum at 2155-2160/62 MHz, the Emerging
    Technology spectrum at 2160-2165 MHz, and the bands reallocated from
    MSS. We seek comment on these bands with respect to using them for
    paired or unpaired AWS operations or as relocation spectrum for
    existing services. We emphasize the scope of the record we have
    already developed and urge interested parties to narrow their
    discussion to specific proposals that will allow for the most
    efficient and effective use of this remaining spectrum. For example,
    parties filing comments in response to any of the issues in this
    *Third Notice* should take into account how the modification of our
    rules to allow MSS licensees to deploy ATC affects their analysis of
    the spectrum under consideration in this proceeding.

## 1910-1930 MHz and 1990-2000 MHz Bands

39. *Background*. The 1910‑1930 MHz band is allocated internationally to
    the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis and has been
    designated as a candidate band for administrations wishing to
    implement IMT‑2000 services.[^105] In the United States, the
    1910‑1930 MHz band is allocated to the fixed and mobile services on
    a primary basis,[^106] and is designated for use by low power
    unlicensed personal communications service (UPCS) devices under Part
    15 of the Commission's Rules.[^107] Because this band is located
    between the Broadband PCS mobile and base station transmit bands,
    UPCS is well suited to this band; *i.e.*, these systems can coexist
    with Broadband PCS while higher power systems would have a high
    likelihood of causing harmful interference to those systems.[^108]
    Prior to the availability of the 1910‑1930 MHz band for UPCS use,
    this band was used by fixed point‑to‑point microwave links. To
    facilitate the introduction of UPCS systems, the Commission
    established policies in the *Emerging Technologies* proceeding for
    the relocation of incumbent microwave systems from this band and
    designated UTAM, Inc. (UTAM) to coordinate and manage the
    transition.[^109]

40. Under the current rules, the 1910‑1920 MHz portion of the band may
    be used for asynchronous (generally data) UPCS devices and the
    1920‑1930 MHz portion may be used for isochronous (generally voice)
    UPCS devices.[^110] To minimize the potential of systems in each
    band interfering with other systems operating in the same band, the
    Commission adopted rules requiring UPCS devices to monitor the
    spectrum prior to transmitting. Recognizing that asynchronous and
    isochronous transmissions have different characteristics --
    asynchronous transmissions tend to be short, bursty packet data and
    isochronous transmissions tend to be longer and more predictable --
    the Commission tailored the monitoring etiquette to optimize the
    1910-1920 MHz band for asynchronous devices and the 1920-1930 MHz
    band for isochronous devices.[^111] Currently, the most widespread
    application of the 1920-1930 MHz UPCS band is for wireless PBX
    systems.

41. In the *Further Notice*, we sought comment on whether a portion of
    or the entire 1910‑1930 MHz band should be re‑designated for AWS or
    as relocation spectrum for incumbents in other frequency bands that
    are displaced by new AWS licensees.[^112] In particular, we sought
    comment on the extent to which the 1910‑1930 MHz band is being used
    or likely to be needed for UPCS devices and how the 1910‑1930 MHz
    band could be used with other spectrum being considered for AWS. We
    also asked if part of the 1910‑1930 MHz band were to be
    re‑designated, how much, and which parts, should be re‑designated,
    and whether the location of the 1910‑1930 MHz band, as adjacent to
    the Broadband PCS bands, benefits or hinders the band's possible use
    for AWS.

42. We also note that there are several outstanding petitions relating
    to use of the 1910-1930 MHz band. A petition for rulemaking filed by
    WINForum requests that we allow isochronous UPCS devices to operate
    over the entire 1910-1930 MHz band and correspondingly phase out
    asynchronous UPCS use in the 1910‑1920 MHz band. In addition, it
    asks that we modify certain technical requirements for UPCS devices
    to optimize the 1910-1930 MHz band for isochronous devices.[^113] In
    contrast, a petition for rulemaking filed by UTStarcom requests that
    the use of the 1910‑1920 MHz band be made available for community
    wireless networks on a coordinated basis.[^114] UTStarcom maintains
    that its proposal would permit it to establish community wireless
    networks using the UTStarcom Personal Access System (PAS). This
    system, based on the Japan RCR‑28 Personal Handy Phone System (PHS)
    standard, does not meet the current Part 15 UPCS monitoring
    etiquette rules for isochronous devices.[^115] Instead, devices
    within the system avoid interfering with each other through the use
    of a dedicated control channel. In the *Further Notice*, we
    solicited comment on these proposals, including the regulatory
    framework that we would have to establish were we to permit
    community wireless networks and/or other expanded uses of the UPCS
    band.[^116] In addition, we have pending four petitions for waiver
    relating to use of the 1910-1920 MHz band. Specifically, petitions
    submitted by UTStarcom & Drew University and Alaska Power &
    Telephone Company, Inc. (Alaska Power) request use of the 1910-1920
    MHz band for community wireless networks. Petitions submitted by
    Lucent and Ascom Wireless Solutions, Inc. (Ascom) request use of the
    1910‑1920 MHz band for isochronous UPCS devices. These petitions for
    waiver were previously placed on Public Notice.[^117]

43. The record generated to date demonstrates support for a variety of
    options, from re‑designating the entire 1910‑1930 MHz band for AWS
    use to retaining the entire 20 megahertz for UPCS. Among those
    proponents of reallocating the entire UPCS band,[^118] Ericsson and
    TIA -- Wireless Division state that the characteristics of the
    1910‑1930 MHz band suit those advanced services that can take
    advantage of unpaired spectrum technologies.[^119] Those commenters
    that support UPCS describe a band in which service has developed in
    spite of numerous challenges and difficulties. For example, UTAM
    states that equipment manufacturers have made significant
    investments in the development of UPCS products in the 1920-1930 MHz
    band and a large number of voice users exist in the band.[^120]
    UTAM/WINForum assert that delays in the widespread development of
    UPCS are due to the ongoing relocation of microwave incumbents from
    the UPCS band and the strict Part 15 spectrum etiquette required by
    the rules.[^121] These parties note particular difficulties would be
    associated with reallocation of the 1920-1930 MHz portion of the
    band. For example, NEC America (NEC) states that many wireless PBX
    systems cannot be retuned to operate in different frequency
    bands,[^122] and Avaya asserts that current users of UPCS systems
    cannot afford to replace their systems, effectively precluding the
    ability of many incumbents to migrate to other bands.[^123] There is
    also support for retention and expanded use of the 1910-1920 MHz
    portion of the band. Echoing the pending petitions relating to use
    of the band, these commenters urge the development of isochronous
    devices across the entire UPCS band,[^124] or ask that the 1910‑1920
    MHz band be used for community wireless networks to serve rural,
    tribal, and underserved areas.[^125] In addition, Avaya, NEC,
    Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative, Inc., *et al.* (collectively, the
    Rural Commenters), and UTAM state that if the Commission were to
    re-designate any of the UPCS band for AWS, the band clearing
    administration and coordination efforts of UTAM would have to be
    addressed, and that UTAM's expenses should be reimbursed.[^126]

44. In the *Third R&O*, we reallocate the 1990-2000 MHz band from MSS to
    fixed and mobile use. This band is adjacent to the current PCS base
    station transmit band at 1930-1990 MHz and the remaining MSS uplink
    band at 2000-2020 MHz. Although the 1990-2000 MHz band was
    previously allocated to MSS, currently there are no MSS operations
    in the band. Currently it is used by the BAS as part of the
    1990-2110 MHz band. At the time that 1990-2025 MHz band was
    reallocated to MSS, the Commission adopted a transition plan to
    accommodate the BAS. In the *Further Notice*, we sought comment,
    generally, on how spectrum reallocated from MSS should be used.

45. Finally, we note that several existing licensees have asked that we
    consider using a portion of these bands as replacement spectrum. For
    example, Nextel, in conjunction with its "Private Wireless Coalition
    Consensus Plan" for resolving public safety and CMRS interference
    issues in the 800 MHz band, has asked that we re-designate the
    1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz bands to Nextel in exchange for
    spectrum that Nextel would surrender for reassignment to public
    safety systems.[^127] Similarly, WCA has offered a proposal to
    relocate MDS Channels 1 and 2/2A to the 1910-1916/1990-1996 MHz
    bands and allow fixed or mobile use.[^128]

46. *Reallocation*. We recognize that UPCS equipment manufacturers,
    distributors, and end users have invested considerable efforts and
    resources in the development and deployment of isochronous devices
    in the 1920-1930 MHz band, and that re-designation of the 1920-1930
    MHz band for AWS would upset the reasonable expectations of these
    parties. Thus, we are no longer proposing to reallocate the
    1920-1930 MHz portion of the UPCS band to support AWS applications.
    In contrast, we note that asynchronous UPCS applications have not
    been developed for the 1910-1920 MHz band as the Commission had
    envisioned when it authorized this service in 1994.[^129] A search
    of our equipment authorization database reveals that there is not
    any UPCS equipment authorized for this band. We do not believe that
    the public interest is served if we allow this 10 megahertz of
    spectrum to remain fallow when there are many applications that can
    put it to good use.

47. As an initial matter, we note that because the 1910-1920 MHz band is
    adjacent to the 1850-1910 MHz Broadband PCS spectrum and the *Third
    R&O* creates a 10 megahertz fixed and mobile allocation at 1990-2000
    MHz that is adjacent to the 1930-1990 MHz Broadband PCS block[^130]
    one option is to pair spectrum from the UPCS band, 1910-1920 MHz,
    with spectrum from the 1990-2000 MHz band for an expansion of
    Broadband PCS services.[^131] Other options include pairing and
    redesignating this spectrum for AWS, or using the bands to support
    the relocations of existing licensees under proposals such as those
    set forth by WCA or Nextel, as discussed below. Such a pairing could
    consist of two 5 megahertz blocks -- *i.e.* the 1910-1915 MHz band
    paired with the 1990-1995 MHz band -- or two 10 megahertz blocks,
    consisting of the entire 20 megahertz of spectrum in these two
    bands. We seek comment on such pairings.

48. We believe that it would serve the public interest to adopt a 5 + 5
    megahertz or a 10 + 10 megahertz pairing within these bands.[^132]
    For example, pairing these bands could allow for use of existing PCS
    equipment with little modification and easier manufacture and design
    of equipment, thereby enabling significant economies of scale. In
    addition, because the 1910-1920 MHz band lacks incumbent UPCS users,
    new licensees need only address relocation as it pertains to the
    relocation of incumbent point-to-point microwave systems in the
    band.[^133]

49. We note that pairing the 1910-1920 MHz and 1990-2000 MHz bands in 5
    megahertz increments (*i.e.* either 1910-1915 MHz paired with
    1990-1995 MHz or 1910-1920 MHz paired with 1990-2000 MHz) is
    consistent with many possible uses of the bands. For example, the
    existing channel block assignments for Broadband PCS consist of 2x5
    megahertz in the D, E, and F blocks.[^134] In addition, we note that
    the IMT-2000 standards being considered for AWS include WCDMA, which
    is based on paired 5 MHz channel blocks and CDMA‑2000, which uses
    multiple 1.25 megahertz carrier channels to provide higher data
    rates. Finally, such a pairing would also create the possibility of
    granting the request of Nextel or WCA. Accordingly, we seek comment
    on whether spectrum in these bands should be paired and
    re-designated for AWS with the likelihood that we would be able to
    use our existing Broadband PCS rules to promote rapid deployment of
    service in the band[^135] or whether the bands should be used to
    support the relocation of existing licensees under proposals such as
    those set forth by WCA or Nextel.

50. As mentioned above, Broadband PCS has been implemented domestically
    using FDD technology which requires separation between the base and
    mobile transmit frequencies. Because this band separates the
    Broadband PCS base and mobile transmit frequencies, some commenters
    question the usefulness of the band for AWS and express concern that
    Broadband PCS receivers will be subject to harmful interference if
    spectrum in the 1910‑1930 MHz band is re‑designated for
    higher‑powered uses.[^136] Other commenters, such as Ericsson,
    endorse the use of the band for AWS as long as there are sufficient
    safeguards to protect existing Broadband PCS operations.[^137]
    Currently, the UPCS band provides 20 megahertz of spectrum for
    separating the Broadband PCS base and mobile transmit bands. Based
    on the record of this proceeding, it appears possible to reduce this
    separation by 5 to 10 megahertz without leading to harmful
    interference to existing Broadband PCS systems.[^138] We seek
    comment on how much we can reduce the frequency separation between
    the Broadband PCS base and mobile transmit bands in order to allow
    new systems to be deployed while protecting existing Broadband PCS
    operations, and what rules we would have to adopt to permit such
    operations. As an example, we could ensure that existing Broadband
    PCS is protected but allow for use of the entire 1910-1920 MHz band
    by adopting out-of-band emission limits that are tighter than those
    employed under our current PCS rules.

51. We note that in the *Third R&O*, we reallocated the 1990-2000 MHz
    band from MSS.[^139] MSS operations, including ATC, may exist above
    2000 MHz. In this regard, new operations in the 1990‑2000 MHz band
    will need to take into account these adjacent band operations when
    developing and deploying new services and equipment. Licensees and
    operators in this band should take measures both to ensure that
    their operations are protected from MSS/ATC operations and will
    protect MSS and ATC operations from interference. For example, a PCS
    licensee operating in the band could eliminate potential
    interference from MSS/ATC operations by deploying additional base
    stations. Because the 1930-1990 MHz band is used for base station
    transmit by current PCS operators, we expect new operations in the
    band to follow that same convention. Accordingly, if this band is
    used for expanded PCS, licensees may be required to deploy
    additional base stations to avoid interference from MSS/ATC
    operations. With regard to interference to MSS/ATC, we request
    comment on whether we should adopt the same out-of-band limits for
    operations as we adopted for MSS/ATC (*i.e*., a combination of
    ‑43 + 10 log P and ‑70 + 10 log P) or whether we should adopt a
    single ‑70 + 10 log P requirement for out-of-band emissions. We
    believe that base stations could easily achieve limits of ‑70 + log
    P at the band edge. We seek comment on this matter.

52. We also ask for comment on whether we should retain the 1915-1920
    MHz band for UPCS use, but allow for greater flexibility of UPCS use
    within the entire 1915-1930 MHz band. We note the record includes
    comments that claim that the 1920‑1930 MHz band is seeing continuing
    growth in the deployment of isochronous devices -- particularly
    wireless PBXs -- and that assert that there is a need for more
    spectrum for such uses in certain locations. By extending
    isochronous unlicensed use under the existing rules to the 1915-1920
    MHz band, we would make an additional 5 megahertz of spectrum
    available for wireless PBXs and other UPCS devices, including voice
    and data devices.[^140] By leaving the 1915-1920 MHz band segment
    unlicensed in this manner, we could further encourage the deployment
    -- in both urban high-density and rural areas -- of low power
    innovative Part 15 devices in this band. We seek comment on flexible
    UPCS use of the 1915-1930 MHz band. Commenters should take into
    account the existing base of isochronous devices in the band. For
    example, as noted above the monitoring etiquette differs for
    isochronous and asynchronous devices. Based on these differences and
    the differences between the way each type of device operates, can a
    single monitoring etiquette be used for these devices? Could the
    current monitoring etiquette for isochronous devices be used? In
    addition, we seek comment on whether we need to modify any other
    existing technical requirements[^141] now specified for isochronous
    and asynchronous devices if they share the band, and if so,
    specifically how. Commenters should also address whether any
    proposed modifications to the UPCS rules would also be appropriate
    if we reduce the UPCS band to 1920-1930 MHz.

53. In light of the above discussion, we note that retaining the
    1915-1930 MHz band for UPCS would result in an expanded PCS band of
    only 1910-1915 MHz, not 1910-1920 MHz as previously discussed. Thus,
    such action would result in an asymmetric pairing of 5 megahertz
    (1910-1915 MHz) + 10 megahertz (1990-2000 MHz) or a symmetric
    pairing of 5 megahertz (1910-1915 MHz) + 5 megahertz (1990-1995 MHz)
    and an unpaired 5 megahertz block (1995-2000 MHz). Parties should
    also provide comment on the best use of the 1995-2000 MHz spectrum.
    For example, if the 1995-2000 MHz band remains unpaired, could it be
    used to support low-power unlicensed devices or point-to-point
    licensed services?

54. Finally, we seek comment on whether systems such as those proposed
    by UTStarcom for community wireless networks could also coexist in a
    reduced UPCS band. The UTStarcom system, based on PAS technology
    used in other countries, does not adhere to the monitoring etiquette
    specified in our rules. Rather, a central control channel is used to
    instruct handsets which channel to use. We note that such systems
    are designed to operate essentially in the 1910-1920 MHz band.[^142]
    Would these systems be able to work in the 1915-1930 MHz band, or
    even the 1920-1930 MHz band?[^143] In addition, UTStarcom asserts
    that these types of systems would cause co-channel interference to
    UPCS devices at significant distances.[^144] In general, we note
    that our unlicensed rules have allowed for the development and
    introduction of successful consumer and business devices.[^145] We
    believe that unlicensed spectrum should be available to the widest
    possible range of technologies, and conclude that the introduction
    of systems such as those geared for community wireless networks
    would serve the public interest. Accordingly, we seek comment on
    whether techniques exist to allow community wireless network systems
    to share the remaining UPCS frequencies with isochronous devices.
    Commenters who advocate expanding the rules to include these systems
    should provide specific proposals for rule changes. Commenters
    should also address both the possibility of a UPCS band consisting
    of 1915-1930 MHz and a UPCS band consisting of 1920-1930 MHz.
    Because it appears that systems based on current PAS technology
    cannot share the band with existing isochronous UPCS devices,
    comments supporting community wireless networks should specifically
    address potential interference and propose mechanisms for addressing
    such concerns. For example, could a limited monitoring requirement
    be placed on PAS systems? Could such a requirement be accomplished
    only at the base station or must there be a similar requirement at
    the mobile station? We note that existing UPCS devices, such as
    wireless PBXs, are operated primarily indoors and in urban areas.
    Could a geographic restriction be placed on such systems (*e.g*.,
    only allow them to operate in certain areas)? Commenters in favor of
    such restrictions should address how they could be enforced.

55. Pending the outcome of these further proceedings, we will hold the
    petitions for waiver that relate to use of the UPCS band in
    abeyance.

56. *Reimbursement.* Our proposal to re-designate all or part of the
    1910-1920 MHz band raises several issues regarding reimbursement and
    relocation of existing operations. As noted above, unlicensed system
    operators, through UTAM, have been clearing the 1910-1930 MHz band
    of incumbent microwave systems. With respect to the 1990-2000 MHz
    band, the ultimate disposition of that band (*i.e.*, auctioned for
    AWS or used in part for relocating Nextel or MDS, etc.) will affect
    the relocation of incumbent operations. The *Third R&O* notes that
    the Commission will address these issues in a separate Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking.[^146] Therefore, we do not address relocation
    issues related to the 1990-2000 MHz band herein.

57. In its comments, UTAM states that it and its industry members have
    expended considerable efforts and financial resources in clearing
    the UPCS bands of incumbent fixed microwave links.[^147] In its most
    recent report, UTAM demonstrates that it has cleared 91 percent of
    the microwave facilities from the 1910‑1920 MHz band.[^148] We note
    that because no asynchronous UPCS equipment has been deployed in
    this band, UTAM has not been recovering its band clearing
    expenses.[^149] Because we propose to re-designate as much as 10
    megahertz in the 1910-1920 MHz band, new licensees will reap the
    benefits of UTAM's band clearing efforts.

58. Avaya, the Rural Commenters, and other parties argue that the
    investments of the UPCS industry should be taken into account in
    re-designating the UPCS bands.[^150] We agree. In other bands, when
    the Commission has reallocated spectrum, the general policy is that
    incumbent users, who have made substantial investments in their
    systems should be made whole -- either through a monetary payment or
    by receiving comparable facilities in another frequency band. In
    this band, we note that there are no deployed systems. However,
    UTAM, acting under the framework set up by the Commission, has
    invested a significant amount of time, effort, and resources into
    clearing the 1910-1920 MHz band in anticipation of future use by
    UPCS. Consistent with Commission policy for licensees, we believe
    that they, too, should be made whole.

59. Because we are proposing to remove up to half of the current UPCS
    spectrum, we propose that UTAM be entitled to a percentage of the
    total reimbursement expenses incurred for the 1910-1930 MHz band as
    of the effective date of any final rules we adopt in this
    proceeding.[^151] This percentage would represent the percentage of
    the 1910-1930 MHz band that we ultimately re-designate. For example,
    if we re-designate 10 megahertz -- half of the band -- then UTAM
    would be entitled to 50 percent of its total reimbursement expenses.
    If we instead re-designate the 1910-1915 MHz band segment, then UTAM
    would be entitled to a 25 percent reimbursement. We note that the
    party (or parties) obligated to reimburse UTAM will depend on our
    final decision with respect to the 1910-1920 MHz band. As an
    example, if we license the 1910-1915 MHz band segment in conjunction
    with Broadband PCS expansion, we propose that each future Broadband
    PCS licensee in that band contribute towards reimbursing UTAM a
    pro-rated portion of the total reimbursement. We note that this
    pro-rated amount could be based on the number of licenses,[^152] the
    value of licenses as determined by auction, or could be calculated
    by other means, and we seek further comment on the specific
    calculation we should employ. If the spectrum is to be used for the
    relocation of existing licensees, it may be inequitable to expect
    these relocated licensees to reimburse UTAM. Thus, for those
    commenters that propose that the 1910-1920 MHz band (or a portion
    thereof) be used to relocate existing licensees, we seek comment on
    the means by which UTAM should be reimbursed, including proposals as
    to what parties should pay these expenses and how such a payment
    should be apportioned between parties.

60. We propose our overall reimbursement approach for several reasons.
    First, because some microwave systems may operate in portions of
    both the 1910-1920 and 1920-1930 MHz band, UTAM can continue to
    clear these systems and still recover its incurred expenses in the
    1910-1920 MHz band. Second, because incumbent microwave systems were
    deployed across the entire 1910-1930 MHz band and UTAM has cleared
    most microwave links across the whole band, we believe that this
    represents the most reasonable and easiest approach to implement. We
    observe that the vast majority of the 1910‑1930 MHz band has been
    cleared by UTAM over a period of several years, rendering
    retroactive calculations for apportionment difficult and complex.
    Finally, this reimbursement plan allow us to seek additional comment
    on how much of the UPCS band we re-designate, while proposing a
    mechanism that will allow relocation efforts to continue in the
    1910-1930 MHz band without disruption. We seek comment on these
    proposals.

61. After the effective date of the rules adopted in this proceeding, it
    is possible that UTAM may continue to encounter microwave systems
    that operate in portions of the band that we re-designate and
    portions of the band that remains designated for UPCS, and that UTAM
    will incur some expenses for clearing a portion of the re-designated
    band. Similarly, a new licensee in the 1910-1920 MHz band (or a
    subset of that band, if we re-designate a smaller amount of
    spectrum) may incur expenses under the Emerging Technology
    relocation rules for microwave systems that they need to clear from
    the band. In these cases, we propose that on a case-by-case basis
    the new PCS entrant and UTAM reimburse each other on a pro-rata
    basis, based on the amount of relative spectrum cleared for each
    service.[^153] We seek comment on these proposals.

## 2020-2025 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz Bands

62. *Background.* In the *Third R&O*, we reallocate spectrum in the
    2020-2025 MHz and 2165-2180 MHz bands that were formerly allocated
    for MSS. Although these bands are reallocated for fixed and mobile
    services, we have not made a decision on the best use for these
    bands. In addition, still outstanding in this proceeding is the
    disposition of the remaining MDS spectrum at 2155-2160/62 MHz and
    the Emerging Technology spectrum at 2160-2165 MHz. We now address
    all these bands and invite additional comment on how best to use
    these resources.

63. As described in the *Third R&O* and above, the 2020-2025 MHz band is
    currently allocated to MSS for uplinks and is currently used by
    BAS.[^154] Also described in the *Third R&O* is the 2165-2180 MHz
    band, which is currently allocated to MSS for downlinks and is
    currently used by the fixed service.[^155]

64. The 2160-2165 MHz band is currently used in the United States for
    non-Federal Government fixed services and mobile services licensed
    under the Fixed Microwave Service in Part 101 of the Rules, the
    Public Mobile Services under Part 22 of the Rules, and the Domestic
    Public Fixed Radio Services under Part 21 of the Rules.[^156] The
    Commission originally identified this band for new advanced fixed
    and mobile services in the 1992 *Emerging Technologies* proceeding
    and adopted rules and procedures to permit new licensees to relocate
    existing fixed service microwave licensees from this spectrum
    band.[^157] In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to make this
    band available for advanced mobile and fixed communication
    services.[^158]

65. The 2155-2160/62 MHz band is a subset of the MDS band. In the
    *Further Notice*, the Commission requested comment on whether the
    entire 2150-2160/62 MHz band should be reallocated for AWS, and if
    so, how this band might be used with other spectrum being considered
    for AWS.[^159] In the *Second R&O*, the Commission reallocated a
    5 megahertz portion of the MDS band at 2150-2155 MHz, but deferred
    to a later proceeding issues relating to MDS licensees, including
    the disposition of the remaining MDS spectrum and identification of
    replacement spectrum and relocation procedures.

66. Internationally, the 2150-2160 MHz band is allocated to Fixed and
    Mobile services on a primary basis.[^160] Before the adoption of the
    *Second R&O*, the 2150-2160 MHz band was allocated domestically to
    the Fixed Service on a primary basis.[^161] MDS operations in the
    band are regulated under Part 21 of our Rules.[^162] This band is
    generally operated as two channels - channel 1 (2150-2156 MHz) and
    channel 2A (2156-2160 MHz).[^163] Licensees may also use channel 2
    (2156-2162 MHz) on a limited basis in 50 cities.[^164] In addition,
    MDS may use spectrum in the 2500-2690 MHz band.[^165]

67. In 1992, when the 2160-2165 MHz band was reallocated to emerging
    technologies,[^166] the Commission implemented a policy by which
    incumbent MDS licensees that were using the 2160‑2162 MHz band would
    continue such use on a primary basis.[^167] However, any MDS station
    that applied for use of this band after January 16, 1992 would be
    granted only on a secondary basis to emerging technology use.[^168]
    In 1996, the Commission auctioned licenses for MDS channels on a
    Basic Trading Area (BTA) basis, but licenses for the 2160-2162 MHz
    band by licensees using MDS channel 2 were secondary to Emerging
    Technology licensees.[^169] Currently, there are 16 MDS stations
    operating with such status.[^170]

68. *Proposal.* We tentatively conclude that the MDS spectrum at
    2155-2160/62 MHz and the Emerging Technology spectrum at 2160-2165
    MHz, in conjunction with the former MSS spectrum at 2020-2025 MHz
    and 2165-2180 MHz, should be made available for new fixed and mobile
    services, including AWS. We envision that this spectrum could be
    offered in equally sized paired blocks to support FDD or TDD
    applications, or a combination of these technologies. We note that
    the record includes a number of proposals that could result in
    spectrum efficiencies. For example, the residual MDS spectrum at
    2155-2160/62 MHz could be combined with the 2160-2165 MHz band to
    create a 10 megahertz block suitable for AWS use. Moreover, this
    spectrum is adjacent to the 2110-2155 MHz frequency band that we
    allocated to AWS in the *Second R&O* -- creating a total of 55
    megahertz of contiguous spectrum that can be used for AWS. We
    recognize that there are numerous benefits to such an allocation:
    contiguous spectrum will create synergies in equipment design and
    facilitate the introduction of multiple AWS licensees using large
    spectrum blocks; it could provide opportunities for asymmetric
    spectrum usage; and a flexible allocation at 2110-2165 MHz closely
    matches the international allocation for a terrestrial component of
    advanced services at 2110-2170 MHz, which will aid the deployment of
    new equipment and services in the band.

69. We also note that 5 megahertz of spectrum in the 2155-2180 MHz band
    could be paired with the 5 megahertz being made available at
    2020-2025 MHz and that the remaining 20 megahertz could be used to
    provide an asymmetric pairing or TDD operations. Alternatively, the
    2155-2180 MHz band could be used to support TDD operations in a 15
    megahertz portion and as relocation spectrum for MDS in the
    remaining 10 megahertz portion. Other options also exist. For
    example, MDS licensees could retain the 2155-2160 MHz band and we
    could provide a contiguous allocation starting at 2160 MHz to
    replace the spectrum reallocated from 2150-2155 MHz in the *Second
    R&O*. We note that WCA has proposed a plan by which MDS operations
    would be completely relocated from these bands.[^171] To develop a
    complete record, we believe that all spectrum options should be
    explored.

70. We seek comment on potential uses of the 2020-2025 MHz and 2155-2180
    MHz bands. Comments should identify specific band plans and
    frequency pairings and describe how such proposals will result in
    spectrum efficiencies. Commenter should discuss any technical
    limitations that would be necessary to protect existing adjacent
    band operators, including MSS/ATC operations in the 2000-2020 MHz
    and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Commenters may also wish to consider how
    this spectrum could be used in conjunction with the 1910-1920 MHz
    and 1990-2000 MHz bands, discussed elsewhere in this *Third Notice*.
    In addition, commenters should focus on how any spectrum recommended
    for MDS relocation is comparable to the spectrum on which they are
    currently licensed.

71. In the *Further Notice*, the Commission proposed that if relocation
    were deemed necessary, MDS incumbents would be entitled to
    comparable facilities or adequate replacement spectrum.[^172] In the
    *Emerging Technologies* proceeding, we allowed new entrants to
    provide incumbents with comparable facilities using any acceptable
    technology.[^173] Under this policy, incumbents must be provided
    with replacement facilities that allow them to maintain the same
    service in terms of throughput, reliability and operating
    costs.[^174] We continue to believe that, to minimize disruption to
    existing services and to minimize the economic impact on licensees
    of those services, a similar approach is warranted for MDS. In the
    *Further Notice*, we also asked for a suggested timeframe for
    clearing the band as well as the types and magnitude of costs that
    would be involved. The Commission also requested comment on whether
    the spectrum sharing conclusions of an FCC study of MDS use of the
    2500-2690 MHz band apply to the 2150-2160 MHz band,[^175] and
    invited comment on the public interest costs and benefits of adding
    a mobile allocation to the 2150-2160 MHz band.[^176]

72. We seek comment on the amount and location of spectrum needed to
    relocate MDS operations at 2150-2160/62 MHz. In particular, we seek
    to minimize disruption to existing services and to minimize the
    economic impact on MDS licensees providing those services. We note
    that our relocation policies do not dictate that systems be
    relocated to spectrum-based facilities or even to the same amount of
    spectrum as they currently use, only that comparable facilities be
    provided.[^177] We further note that under our relocation policies
    only stations with primary status are entitled to relocation.[^178]
    Because secondary operations, by definition, cannot cause harmful
    interference to primary operations,[^179] new entrants are not
    required to relocate secondary operations. As stated above, MDS
    stations licensed after 1992 to use the 2160-2162 MHz band are on a
    secondary basis. Thus, in some cases, a portion of MDS channel 2 has
    secondary status, and this portion would not be entitled to
    relocation. Stations licensed prior to 1992 for MDS channel 2
    (2156-2162 MHz) operate on a primary basis over the entire channel
    and thus, are entitled to relocation. Comparable facilities can be
    provided by upgrading equipment to digital technology and making use
    of efficient modulation and coding techniques. In addition, some
    existing MDS equipment could likely be retuned, but it is also
    likely that some operations may move to another medium.[^180] Given
    advances in technology, *e.g.,* changing from analog to digital
    modulation and the flexibility provided by our existing relocation
    procedures to make incumbents whole, we believe that current MDS
    operations could be accommodated using substantially less spectrum
    than that of the existing 2150-2160/62 MHz allocation. We seek
    comment on how the relocation obligation should be applied to
    post-1992 licensees operating on MDS channel 2. We also seek comment
    on the amount of spectrum necessary for MDS relocation. For example,
    can current MDS operations be supported using 10 megahertz or less,
    or must 12 megahertz be provided? Commenters should explain how the
    types of services existing licensees are providing and the operating
    status (*i.e.*, primary or secondary) of those stations affects
    their view.

73. We also seek additional comment on the appropriate relocation
    spectrum for MDS. Comments should address what spectrum should be
    used to accommodate existing MDS operations and how such spectrum is
    adequate to provide comparable facilities to minimize disruption to
    existing services. In particular, comments should address whether
    MDS operations could co-exist with incumbent users in suggested
    relocation bands or whether those incumbent users also would need to
    be relocated, including the costs to relocate those incumbents.

# SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

74. CTIA filed a petition for rule making on May 18, 2001,[^181]
    requesting that the 2 GHz MSS bands be reallocated for other uses
    (such as terrestrial wireless services) and also asking that the
    Commission withhold grant of 2 GHz MSS licenses.[^182] In the
    *Further Notice*, we granted the petition insofar as we proposed to
    reallocate 10-14 megahertz of spectrum for AWS, and denied it
    insofar as it requested reallocation of the entire 2 GHz MSS band
    and delaying of the licensing of MSS systems in the band.[^183] We
    stated that our actions in the *Further Notice* would better serve
    the public with respect to these issues and was consistent with the
    International Bureau's granting of the MSS licenses on July 17,
    2001.[^184] In its petition for reconsideration,[^185] CTIA claims
    we made an error by acting on its petition without first placing it
    on public notice, and asks that we vacate our decision to reject its
    petition for rulemaking, place the petition on public notice, and
    consider it *ab initio*. CTIA also claims that we failed to
    articulate a reasoned decision for rejecting its request and,
    further, that we could not reasonably rely on the grant of the MSS
    licenses because that action prejudged our consideration of CTIA's
    petition.[^186]

75. Although we did not place CTIA's petition on public notice, our
    decision in that regard did not prejudice CTIA. We note that various
    parties filed responsive comments addressing reallocation of the
    entire 2 MSS GHz band in IB Docket No. 99-81,[^187] which
    demonstrates that the public was provided the opportunity to submit
    comment on the reallocation question raised by CTIA's petition, and
    did so. Moreover, the Commission has already raised and duly
    considered this reallocation question. The same day the Commission
    adopted the *Further Notice* that considered the reallocation of
    some MSS spectrum, it initiated a separate proceeding to explore
    whether MSS licensees should be afforded additional
    flexibility.[^188] Together, these proceedings explored the larger
    issue of MSS use that is also reflected in CTIA's petition. The
    *Third R&O* we adopt today concludes that a portion of the MSS
    spectrum should be reallocated to support AWS, but rejects a
    complete reallocation of the band. Accordingly, CTIA's original
    petition for rule making is now moot, and we deny its petition for
    reconsideration.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Third Report and Order

76. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
    U.S.C. § 603, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic
    impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this
    document. The FRFA is set forth in Appendix C.

## Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making

77. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 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 proposals suggested in this
    document. 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 this
    *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* provided in paragraph 79,
    below. Comments must have a separate and distinct heading
    designating them as responses to the IRFA.

## *Ex Parte* Rules -- Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding

78. This is a permit-but-disclose notice and comment rule making
    proceeding. *Ex parte* presentations are permitted, except during
    the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided
    in the Commission\'s rules. *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1202,
    1.1203, and 1.2306(a).

## Comments

79. Pursuant to 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 or
    before **\[30 days from date of publication in the Federal
    Register\]**, and reply comments on or before **\[45 days from date
    of publication in the Federal Register\]**. Comments may be filed
    using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) or by
    filing paper copies. *See Electronic Filing of Documents in
    Rulemaking Proceedings*, 63 Fed. Reg. 24121 (1998).

80. Comments filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file
    via the Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Generally,
    only one copy of an electronic submission must be filed. If multiple
    docket or rulemaking numbers appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, however, commenters must transmit one electronic copy of
    the comments to each docket or rulemaking number referenced in the
    caption. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should
    include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and
    the applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit
    an electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions
    for e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to
    ecfs@fcc.gov, and should include the following words in the body of
    the message, \"get form \<your e-mail address.\" A sample form and
    directions will be sent in reply. Parties who choose to file by
    paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. If more
    than one docket or rulemaking number appear in the caption of this
    proceeding, commenters must submit two additional copies for each
    additional docket or rulemaking number.

81. 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). The Commission\'s contractor, Vistronix,
    Inc., will receive hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper
    filings for the Commission\'s Secretary at 236 Massachusetts Avenue,
    N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 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 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 mail, Express Mail, and Priority Mail
    should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554.
    All filings must be addressed to the Commission\'s Secretary, Office
    of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.

## Contact Persons

82. For further information, contact Jamison Prime at (202) 418-7474,
    <jprime@fcc.gov>, Office of Engineering and Technology.

# ordering clauses

83. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7(a),
    301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308, 309(j), 316, and 332
    of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections
    151, 154(i), 157(a), 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308,
    309(j), 316, and 332 the THIRD REPORT AND ORDER, THIRD NOTICE OF
    PROPOSED RULEMAKING, AND SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER is
    hereby ADOPTED.

84. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules set forth in Appendix A WILL
    BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

85. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN of the proposed
    regulatory changes described in this Notice, and that comment is
    sought on these proposals.

86. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Reconsideration filed by
    the Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association IS DENIED.

87. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that authority IS DELEGATED to the
    International Bureau to modify Mobile-Satellite Service licenses
    pursuant to Section 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
    amended, 47 U.S.C. § 316, consistent with the decisions adopted
    herein.

88. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer Information
    Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this
    THIRD REPORT AND ORDER, THIRD NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING, AND
    SECOND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, including the Final Regulatory
    Flexibility Analysis and the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
    Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
    Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

**APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES**

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR parts 2 and 25 as follows:

**PART 2 \-- FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS**

1\. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.

2\. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
follows:

a\. Revise pages 48 and 49.

b\. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, revise
footnotes NG156 and NG168 and add footnotes NG177 and NG178.

**[§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.]{.underline}**

The revisions and additions read as follows:

\* \* \* \* \*

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 5.149     |           |           | 1755-1850 | 1755-1850 |         |
| 5.341     |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.385     |           |           | FIXED     |           |         |
| 5.386     |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.387     |           |           | MOBILE    |           |         |
| 5.388     |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           | G42       |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|           |           |           | 1850-2025 | 1850-2000 | RF      |
|           |           |           |           |           | Devices |
|           |           |           |           | FIXED     | (15)    |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | MOBILE    | P       |
|           |           |           |           |           | ersonal |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           | Communi |
|           |           |           |           |           | cations |
|           |           |           |           |           | (24)    |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           | Fixed   |
|           |           |           |           |           | Mi      |
|           |           |           |           |           | crowave |
|           |           |           |           |           | (101)   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 1930-1970 | 1930-1970 | 1930-1970 |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     | FIXED     | FIXED     |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    | MOBILE    | MOBILE    |           |           |         |
| 5.388A    | 5.388A    | 5.388A    |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388     | Mobile-   | 5.388     |           |           |         |
|           | satellite |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | (Earth-   |           |           |           |         |
|           | to-space) |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.388     |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 1970-1980 |           |           |           | NG177     |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388A    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388     |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 1980-2010 |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE-   |           |           |           |           |         |
| SATELLITE |           |           |           |           |         |
| (Earth-   |           |           |           |           |         |
| to-space) |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.351A    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388     |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.389A    |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.389B    |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.389F    |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|           |           |           |           | 2000-2020 | Sa      |
|           |           |           |           |           | tellite |
|           |           |           |           | MOBILE-   |         |
|           |           |           |           | SATELLITE | Communi |
|           |           |           |           |           | cations |
|           |           |           |           | (Earth-   | (25)    |
|           |           |           |           | to-space) |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2010-2025 | 2010-2025 | 2010-2025 |           | NG156     |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     | FIXED     | FIXED     |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    | MOBILE    | MOBILE    |           |           |         |
| 5.388A    |           | 5.388A    |           |           |         |
|           | MOBILE-   |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388     | SATELLITE | 5.388     |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | (Earth-   |           |           |           |         |
|           | to-space) |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.388     |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.389C    |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.389D    |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.389E    |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.390     |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|           |           |           |           | 2020-2025 |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | FIXED     |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | MOBILE    |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | NG177     |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2025-2110 |           |           | 2025-2110 | 2025-2110 | TV      |
|           |           |           |           |           | Au      |
| SPACE     |           |           | SPACE     | FIXED     | xiliary |
| OPERATION |           |           | OPERATION | NG23      |         |
| (Earth-   |           |           |           | NG118     | Broad   |
| to-space) |           |           | (Earth-   |           | casting |
| (space-   |           |           | to-space) | MOBILE    | (74F)   |
| to-space) |           |           |           | 5.391     |         |
|           |           |           | (space-   |           | Cable   |
| EARTH     |           |           | to-space) | 5.392     | TV      |
| EXP       |           |           |           | US90      | Relay   |
| LORATION- |           |           | EARTH     | US222     | (78)    |
| SATELLITE |           |           | EXP       | US346     |         |
| (Earth-   |           |           | LORATION- | US347     | Local   |
| to-space) |           |           |           |           | TV      |
| (space-   |           |           | SATELLITE |           | Trans   |
| to-space) |           |           | (         |           | mission |
|           |           |           | Earth-to- |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           |           |           | (101J)  |
|           |           |           | space)    |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           | (space-   |           |         |
| 5.391     |           |           | to-space) |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| SPACE     |           |           | SPACE     |           |         |
| RESEARCH  |           |           | RESEARCH  |           |         |
| (Earth-   |           |           | (Earth-   |           |         |
| to-space) |           |           |           |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           | to-space) |           |         |
| to-space) |           |           | (space-   |           |         |
|           |           |           | to-space) |           |         |
| 5.392     |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           | 5.391     |           |         |
|           |           |           | 5.392     |           |         |
|           |           |           | US90      |           |         |
|           |           |           | US222     |           |         |
|           |           |           | US346     |           |         |
|           |           |           | US347     |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+

Page 48

+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2110-2345 |           |           |           |           | Page 49 |
| MHz (UHF) |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| Inte      |           |           | United    |           | FCC     |
| rnational |           |           | States    |           | Rule    |
| Table     |           |           | Table     |           | Part(s) |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| Region 1  | Region 2  | Region 3  | Federal   | No        |         |
|           |           |           | G         | n-Federal |         |
|           |           |           | overnment | G         |         |
|           |           |           |           | overnment |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2110-2120 |           |           | 2110-2120 | 2110-2155 | D       |
|           |           |           |           |           | omestic |
| FIXED     |           |           | US252     | FIXED     | Public  |
|           |           |           |           | NG23      | Fixed   |
| MOBILE    |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388A    |           |           |           | MOBILE    | \(21\)  |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| SPACE     |           |           |           |           | Public  |
| RESEARCH  |           |           |           |           | Mobile  |
| (deep     |           |           |           |           | (22)    |
| space)    |           |           |           |           |         |
| (Earth-   |           |           |           |           | Fixed   |
| to-space) |           |           |           |           | Mi      |
|           |           |           |           |           | crowave |
| 5.388     |           |           |           |           | (101)   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2120-2160 | 2120-2160 | 2120-2170 | 2120-2200 | US252     |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     | FIXED     | > FIXED   |           |           |         |
|           |           | >         |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    | MOBILE    | > MOBILE  |           |           |         |
| 5.388A    | 5.388A    | > 5.388A  |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388     | Mobile-   |           |           |           |         |
|           | satellite |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | (space-   |           |           |           |         |
|           | to-Earth) |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.388     |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|           |           |           |           | 2155-2160 | D       |
|           |           |           |           |           | omestic |
|           |           |           |           | FIXED     | Public  |
|           |           |           |           | NG23      | Fixed   |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           | \(21\)  |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           | Fixed   |
|           |           |           |           |           | Mi      |
|           |           |           |           |           | crowave |
|           |           |           |           |           | (101)   |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2160-2170 | 2160-2170 | 5.388     |           | 2160-2180 | D       |
|           |           |           |           |           | omestic |
| FIXED     | FIXED     |           |           | FIXED     | Public  |
|           |           |           |           | NG23      | Fixed   |
| MOBILE    | MOBILE    |           |           | NG153     |         |
| 5.388A    |           |           |           |           | \(21\)  |
|           | MOBILE-   |           |           | MOBILE    |         |
| 5.388     | SATELLITE |           |           |           | Public  |
| 5.392A    |           |           |           |           | Mobile  |
|           | (space-   |           |           |           | (22)    |
|           | to-Earth) |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           | Fixed   |
|           | 5.388     |           |           |           | Mi      |
|           | 5.389C    |           |           |           | crowave |
|           | 5.389D    |           |           |           | (101)   |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.389E    |           |           |           |         |
|           | 5.390     |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2170-2200 |           |           |           | NG178     |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| MOBILE-   |           |           |           |           |         |
| SATELLITE |           |           |           |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           |           |           |         |
| to-Earth) |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.351A    |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.388     |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.389A    |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.389F    |           |           |           |           |         |
| 5.392A    |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
|           |           |           |           | 2180-2200 | Sa      |
|           |           |           |           |           | tellite |
|           |           |           |           | MOBILE-   |         |
|           |           |           |           | SATELLITE | Communi |
|           |           |           |           |           | cations |
|           |           |           |           | (space-   | (25)    |
|           |           |           |           | to-Earth) |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           |           | NG23      |         |
|           |           |           |           | NG168     |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+
| 2200-2290 |           |           | 2200-2290 | 2200-2290 |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| SPACE     |           |           | SPACE     |           |         |
| OPERATION |           |           | OPERATION |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           |           |           |         |
| to-Earth) |           |           | (space-   |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           | to-Earth) |           |         |
| to-space) |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           | (space-   |           |         |
| EARTH     |           |           | to-space) |           |         |
| EXP       |           |           |           |           |         |
| LORATION- |           |           | EARTH     |           |         |
| SATELLITE |           |           | EXP       |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           | LORATION- |           |         |
| to-Earth) |           |           |           |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           | SATELLITE |           |         |
| to-space) |           |           | (         |           |         |
|           |           |           | space-to- |           |         |
| FIXED     |           |           |           |           |         |
|           |           |           | Earth)    |           |         |
| MOBILE    |           |           | (space-   |           |         |
| 5.391     |           |           | to-space) |           |         |
|           |           |           |           |           |         |
| SPACE     |           |           | FIXED     |           |         |
| RESEARCH  |           |           | (line     |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           | -of-sight |           |         |
| to-Earth) |           |           | only)     |           |         |
| (space-   |           |           |           |           |         |
| to-space) |           |           |           |           |         |
+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+-----------+---------+

\* \* \* \* \*

NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES

\* \* \* \* \*

NG156 The band 2000-2020 MHz is also allocated to the fixed and mobile
services on a primary basis for facilities where the receipt date of the
initial application was prior to June 27, 2000, and on a secondary basis
for all other initial applications. Not later than September 6, 2010,
the band 2000‑2020 MHz is allocated to the fixed and mobile services on
a secondary basis.

\* \* \* \* \*

NG168 The band 2180-2200 MHz is also allocated to the fixed and mobile
services on a primary basis for facilities where the receipt date of the
initial application was prior to January 16, 1992, and on a secondary
basis for all other initial applications. Not later than September 6,
2010, the band 2180-2200 MHz is allocated to the fixed and mobile
services on a secondary basis.

\* \* \* \* \*

NG177 In the bands 1990-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz, where the initial
filing date for facilities in the fixed and mobile services was prior to
June 27, 2000, said facilities shall operate on a primary basis and all
later-applied-for facilities shall operate on a secondary basis to
Advanced Wireless Services. Not later than September 6, 2010, all such
facilities in the bands 1990-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz shall operate on
a secondary basis to Advanced Wireless Services.

NG178 In the band 2165-2180 MHz, where the initial filing date for
facilities in the fixed and mobile services was prior to January 16,
1992, said facilities shall operate on a primary basis and all
later-applied-for facilities shall operate on a secondary basis to
Advanced Wireless Services. Not later than September 6, 2010, all such
facilities in the band 2165-2180 MHz shall operate on a secondary basis
to Advanced Wireless Services.

\* \* \* \* \*

**PART 25 -- SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS**

3\. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY**: 47 U.S.C. 701-774. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301,
302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 307, 309 and 332, unless otherwise noted.

4\. Section 25.201 is amended by revising the definition for 2 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service to read as follows:

**[§ 25.201 Definitions.]{.underline}**

\* \* \* \* \*

*2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service*. A mobile-satellite service that
operated in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz frequency bands, or in
any portion thereof.

\* \* \* \* \*

5\. Section 25.202 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4)(ii) to read
as follows:

**[§ 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance and emission
limitations.]{.underline}**

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

\(4\) \* \* \* \* \*

\(ii\) The following frequencies are available for use by the 2 GHz
Mobile-Satellite Service:

2000-2020 MHz: User-to-Satellite Link

2180-2200 MHz: Satellite-to-User Link

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX B: PROPOSED RULES**

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 15 as follows:

**PART 15 -- RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES**

1\. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows:

**AUTHORITY**: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A.

2\. Section 15.319 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:

**[§ 15.319 General technical requirements.]{.underline}**

\(a\) The 2390-2400 MHz band is limited to use by asynchronous devices
under the requirements of Section 15.321. \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

3\. Section 15.321 is amended by revising the title, paragraphs (a) and
(b) to read as follows:

**[§ 15.321 Specific requirements for asynchronous devices operating in
the 2390-2400 MHz band.]{.underline}**

\(a\) Operation shall be contained within the 2390-2400 MHz band. The
emission bandwidth of any intentional radiator operating in these bands
shall be no less than 500 kHz.

\(b\) All systems of less than 2.5 MHz emission bandwidth shall start
searching for an available spectrum window within 3 MHz of the band edge
at 2390 or 2400 MHz while systems of more than 2.5 MHz emission
bandwidth will first occupy the center half of the band. Devices with an
emission bandwidth of less than 1.0 MHz may not occupy the center half
of the sub-band if other spectrum is available.

\* \* \* \* \*

**APPENDIX C: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)[^189] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order (Notice)*,[^190] as well as the
*Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making* (*Further Notice*).[^191] The Commission sought written public
comments on the proposals in the *Notice* and *Further Notice*,
including comment on each IRFA. This present Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^192]

**Need for, and Objectives of, the Third Report and Order**

The *Third Report and Order* (*Third R&O*) continues our efforts to
allocate spectrum that can be used for the provision of advanced
wireless services (AWS) to the public, which in turn supports our
obligations under Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunication Act[^193]
and, more generally, serves the public interest by promoting rapid and
efficient radio communication facilities.

The *Third R&O* discusses the need for spectrum allocations of
sufficient size and with particular characteristics so as to allow for
the provision of AWS. Specifically, it evaluates spectrum that was
formerly allocated to the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS). The Commission
previously concluded that 2 GHz MSS licensees could operate using a
smaller amount of spectrum than that which had previously been
allocated. The *Third R&O* allocates spectrum for fixed and mobile
services (which could be made available for AWS) in the 1990-2000 MHz,
2020-2025 MHz, and 2165-2180 MHz bands.

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

There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the rules and
policies proposed in the IRFA.

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

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 rules adopted herein.[^194] The RFA generally defines
the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^195] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^196] 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).[^197]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated ad is not dominant in its
field."[^198] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^199] "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally
means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000."[^200] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 governmental
entities in the United States.[^201] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96%, have populations
of fewer then 50,000.[^202] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio
is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96%) are small
entities.

[Radiotelephone Operators]{.underline}. The Commission has not developed
service rules for AWS spectrum, nor has it attempted to categorize
potential licensees for this spectrum. However, because many of the
comments we received in support of our efforts to allocate spectrum for
AWS were submitted by commercial radiotelephone operators and because
licensees of AWS-like bands in other countries include incumbent
commercial radiotelephone operators, we believe that there is a high
likelihood that the class of AWS licensees may ultimately consist of one
or more radiotelephone operator. Therefore, we examine this category in
greater depth. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
small businesses in the category "Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications."[^203] Under that SBA category, a business is small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^204] According to the Bureau of the
Census, only twelve firms from a total of 1238 cellular and other
wireless telecommunications firms operating during 1997 had 1,000 or
more employees.[^205] Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were
cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small
businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there
are 1807 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several
licenses. According to the most recent *Trends in Telephone Service*
data, 858 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
either cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or
Specialized Mobile Radio telephony services, which are placed together
in that data. We have estimated that 291 of these are small under the
SBA small business size standard.[^206] Accordingly, based on this data,
we estimate that not more than 291 radiotelephone operators would be
affected by a decision to make additional spectrum available for AWS.

[Geostationary, Non-Geostationary Orbit, Fixed Satellite, or Mobile
Satellite Service Operators (including 2 GHz MSS systems)]{.underline}.
The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to geostationary or non-geostationary orbit, fixed-satellite
or mobile-satellite service operators. The SBA has developed a small
business size standard for Satellite Telecommunications Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having \$12.5 million or less in annual
receipts.[^207] In addition, a second SBA size standard for Other
Telecommunications includes "facilities operationally connected with one
or more terrestrial communications systems and capable of transmitting
telecommunications to or receiving telecommunications from satellite
systems,"[^208] and also has a size standard of annual receipts of
\$12.5 million or less. According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there
were 324 firms in the category Satellite Telecommunications, total, that
operated for the entire year.[^209] Of this total, 273 firms had annual
receipts of \$5 million to \$9,999,999 and an additional 24 firms had
annual receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,990.[^210] Thus, under this
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. In
addition, according to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 439 firms
in the category Satellite Telecommunications, total, that operated for
the entire year.[^211] Of this total, 424 firms had annual receipts of
\$5 million to \$9,999,999 and an additional 6 firms had annual receipts
of \$10 million to \$24,999,990.[^212] Thus, under this second size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

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

The *Second R&O* addresses the possible use of frequency bands below 3
GHz to support the introduction of new AWS, but does not propose service
rules. Thus, the item contains no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in developing its 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."[^213]

Providing spectrum to support the introduction of new advanced mobile
and fixed terrestrial wireless services is critical to the continuation
of technological advancement. First and foremost, the Commission
believes that providing for expanded use of the frequency bands
identified in the *Third R&O* in order to allow for a wide range of
voice, data, and broadband services over a variety of mobile and fixed
networks will provide substantial new opportunities for small entities,
including (but not limited to) small entities that are radiotelephone
operators.

In prior decisions, we determined that MSS operations could exist within
a 40 megahertz allocation, and this spectrum is not at issue in the
current proceeding. Instead, the *Third R&O* addresses the use of 30
megahertz of abandoned MSS spectrum (*i.e.* spectrum available for
reallocation because licensees either failed to satisfy Commission rules
pertaining to system construction of because they voluntarily
relinquished their authorizations). For this spectrum, we contrast the
public benefits of the allocation of AWS and the potential that small
entities will be involved in the provision of AWS with the likelihood
that, at the time of MSS system implementation, no small businesses will
be providing MSS. For this reason, we believe that the reallocation of
spectrum from MSS in the *Third R&O* will actually provide small
entities with opportunities that would have otherwise been unavailable.

**Report to Congress:**

The Commission will send a copy of the Third Report and Order including
this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.[^214] In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the Third Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Third Report and Order
and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal
Register.[^215]

**APPENDIX D: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)[^216] the Commission
has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the
possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies
and rules proposed in this Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (*Third
NPRM*). Comment is requested in this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments
on the *Third NPRM* as provided above in paragraph 77. The Commission
will send a copy of the *Third NPRM*, including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. *See* 5
U.S.C. § 603(a). In addition, the *Third NPRM* and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.

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

The *Third NPRM* proposes to reallocate five megahertz of spectrum in
the 1910-1915 MHz band that can be paired with spectrum in the 1990-1995
MHz band to support fixed and mobile services, including AWS. It
proposes that additional flexibility be afforded to the remaining UPCS
spectrum (1915-1930 MHz) in order to support a variety of UPCS devices,
including voice and data devices, and asks whether additional unlicensed
devises -- such as community wireless networks -- could also coexist in
the band. The *Third NPRM* also proposes to reallocate spectrum at
2155-2165 MHz that was previously identified as candidate spectrum for
AWS, and seeks the most appropriate means to relocate Multipoint
Distribution Service (MDS) licensees operating in the 2150-2160/2162 MHz
band. Together, these proposed actions continue our efforts to identify
spectrum that is suitable for AWS, and to allocate our existing in such
a way as to promote overall efficient use.

**Legal Basis**

The proposed action is authorized under Sections 1, 4(i), 7(a), 301,
302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308, 309(j), 316, and 332 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i),
157(a), 301, 302(a), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, 308, 309(j), 316, and
332.

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

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 rules adopted herein.[^217] The RFA generally defines
the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^218] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^219] 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).[^220]

A small organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which
is independently owned and operated ad is not dominant in its
field."[^221] Nationwide, as of 1992, there were approximately 275,801
small organizations.[^222] "Small governmental jurisdiction" generally
means "governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages,
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than
50,000."[^223] As of 1992, there were approximately 85,006 governmental
entities in the United States.[^224] This number includes 38,978
counties, cities, and towns; of these, 37,566, or 96%, have populations
of fewer then 50,000.[^225] The Census Bureau estimates that this ratio
is approximately accurate for all governmental entities. Thus, of the
85,006 governmental entities, we estimate that 81,600 (96%) are small
entities.

[Radiotelephone Operators]{.underline}. The Commission has not developed
service rules for AWS spectrum, nor has it attempted to categorize
potential licensees for this spectrum. However, because many of the
comments we received in support of our efforts to allocate spectrum for
AWS were submitted by commercial radiotelephone operators and because
licensees of AWS-like bands in other countries include incumbent
commercial radiotelephone operators, we believe that there is a high
likelihood that the class of AWS licensees may ultimately consist of one
or more radiotelephone operator. Therefore, we examine this category in
greater depth. The SBA has developed a small business size standard for
small businesses in the category "Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications."[^226] Under that SBA category, a business is small
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.[^227] According to the Bureau of the
Census, only twelve firms from a total of 1238 cellular and other
wireless telecommunications firms operating during 1997 had 1,000 or
more employees.[^228] Therefore, even if all twelve of these firms were
cellular telephone companies, nearly all cellular carriers were small
businesses under the SBA's definition. In addition, we note that there
are 1807 cellular licenses; however, a cellular licensee may own several
licenses. According to the most recent *Trends in Telephone Service*
data, 858 carriers reported that they were engaged in the provision of
either cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), or
Specialized Mobile Radio telephony services, which are placed together
in that data. We have estimated that 291 of these are small under the
SBA small business size standard.[^229] Accordingly, based on this data,
we estimate that not more than 291 radiotelephone operators would be
affected by a decision to make additional spectrum available for AWS.

[Fixed Microwave Services]{.underline}. The *Third NPRM* proposes to
reallocate a 5 megahertz spectrum block (2160-2165 MHz) that is licensed
to fixed point-to-point microwave services and was previously identified
for reallocation for advanced services in the Commission's *Emerging
Technologies* proceeding.[^230] Microwave services include common
carrier,[^231] private‑operational fixed,[^232] and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.[^233] At present, 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. For purposes of this FRFA, we will use the SBA's
definition applicable to wireless and other telecommunications companies
-- *i.e.*, an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.[^234] According to
Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 977 firms in this category,
total, that operated for the entire year.[^235] Of this total, 965 firms
had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^236] Thus, under this size
standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small.

We note that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number
of licensees. We estimate that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees
(excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. Of these licenses, approximately 890
are issued for frequencies in the Emerging Technology bands affected by
this proceeding. In addition, the band contains approximately 13
licenses in the paging and radiotelephone service and 40 Local
Television Transmission Service licenses. Thus, assuming that these
entities also qualify as small businesses, as many as 943 small business
licensees could be affected by the rules we adopt. We note that these
entities have been subject to relocation under rules originally adopted
in the Commission's *Emerging Technologies* proceeding. The *Third NPRM*
anticipates that these general relocation rules will continue to apply
to FS microwave licensees and does not propose to modify the class of
licensees that are subject to these relocation provisions.

[Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS)]{.underline}. The *Third NPRM*
proposes to reallocate spectrum for MDS licensees that currently operate
in the 2155-2160 MHz band (and the 2155-2162 MHz band in some cases).
This service has historically provided primarily point-to-multipoint,
one-way video services to subscribers.[^237] The Commission recently
amended its rules to allow MDS licensees in the 2500-2690 MHz band to
provide a wide range of high-speed, two-way services to a variety of
users.[^238] In connection with the 1996 MDS auction, the Commission
defined small businesses as entities that had annual average gross
revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of \$40
million.[^239] The Commission established this small business definition
in the context of this particular service and with the approval of the
SBA.[^240] The MDS auction resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining
licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (BTAs).[^241] Of the
67 auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. At this
time, we estimate 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 are considered small entities.[^242] After adding the
number of small business auction licensees to the number of incumbent
licensees not already counted, we find that there are currently
approximately 440 MDS licensees that are defined as small businesses
under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. Because the Commission's
action only affects MDS operations in the 2155-2160 MHz band (and
2155-2162 MHz band in some cases), the actual number of MDS providers
who will be affected by the proposed reallocation will only represent a
small fraction of those 440 small business licensees.

[Unlicensed Personal Communications Service (UPCS)]{.underline}. As its
name indicates, UPCS is not a licensed service. UPCS consists of
intentional radiators operating in the frequency bands 1910-1930 MHz and
2390-2400 MHz, that provide a wide array of mobile and ancillary fixed
communication services to individuals and businesses. The *Third NPRM*
affects UPCS operations in the 1910-1920 MHz band; operations in those
frequencies are limited to asynchronous (generally data) applications.
There is no accurate source for the number of operators in the UPCS. The
Commission has not developed a definition of small entities applicable
to UPCS equipment manufacturers. However, the SBA has developed a small
business size standard, Cellular and Other Wireless Carriers, which
consists of all such companies having 1500 or fewer employees.[^243]
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 977 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the entire year.[^244] Of this total,
965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional 12
firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^245] Thus, under this
size standard, the great majority of firms can be considered small.
However, no equipment authorizations have been issued for devices
operating in the 1910-1920 MHz band.

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

The *Third NPRM* addresses the possible use of frequency bands below 3
GHz to support the introduction of new AWS, but does not propose service
rules. Thus, the item contains no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other
compliance requirements.

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

The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that
it has considered in developing its 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."[^246]

Providing spectrum to support the introduction of new advanced mobile
and fixed terrestrial wireless services is critical to the continuation
of technological advancement. As an initial matter, we believe that the
provision of additional spectrum that can be used to support AWS will
directly benefit small business entities by providing new opportunities
for the provision of innovative new fixed and mobile wireless services.

We realize that some entities must be displaced to clear a sufficient
quantity of contiguous spectrum to support new services. We endeavored
to avoid this effect by identifying unencumbered spectrum, but spectrum
in the suitable frequency range is heavily used already and a sufficient
amount of unencumbered spectrum simply does not exist. We have also
sought to minimize an adverse impact by proposing to reallocate
frequency bands for those incumbents, including small entities, which
might be accommodated in other spectrum. The spectrum we propose to
allocate in the 2160-2165 MHz band was previously identified as an
Emerging Technology band; thus, we have previously considered relocation
consequences and established relocation procedures for incumbent
operators in this band. Small entities operating in this band have known
for a decade that they are subject to relocation and may have taken
steps (such as deploying more efficient systems in different spectrum in
lieu of upgrading existing equipment) that could minimize the
consequences of relocation vis-à-vis licensees in another spectrum band
that had not heretofore been identified as a candidate for reallocation.
Thus, the existing relocation procedures should serve to ease the
relocation of small entity incumbents in the 2160-2165 MHz band, and
make reallocation of this band a preferable alternative to the
reallocation of other bands where we would have to establish new
relocation rules.

The Commission has already received extensive comments in this
proceeding on issues related to the possible reallocation of the
2150-2160 MHz (2.1 GHz) spectrum for advanced wireless purposes.
Comments filed by the multipoint distribution/instructional television
fixed services industry and several equipment manufacturers argue that
the 2.1 GHz band is necessary for the continued roll-out of fixed
wireless services across the country. Other commenters support the use
of 2.1 GHz for advanced wireless services. In a recent decision, the
Commission determined that it was necessary to reallocate MDS operations
at 2150-2155 MHz to create a 45 megahertz block of contiguous spectrum
that can be used to provide advanced services, but did not decide how to
relocate these operations or what to do with remaining MDS operations in
the 2155-2160/62 MHz band. One option proposed is the reallocation of
the remaining MDS spectrum. By taking this action, we would be able to
provide opportunities associated with the provision of contiguous and/or
paired blocks of spectrum that can be used for fixed and mobile
applications, including AWS.

The *Third NPRM* discusses reallocation of UPCS spectrum in the
1910-1920 MHz band for AWS. Because no equipment is currently certified
for this band, we conclude that our decision is unlikely to affect any
users or equipment manufactures that are small entities. We also explore
options for providing increased flexibility of unlicensed use in the
remaining UPCS spectrum, including modifying our rules to allow for
expanded voice-based applications in the 1915-1920 MHz portion of the
band if we decide to reallocate only the 1910-1915 MHz band segment. We
note that we had sought comment on use of the entire 1910-1930 MHz band
for AWS, and that the record reflects that numerous small entities may
use or manufacture UPCS voice equipment on the 1920-1930 MHz portion of
the band. Thus, the *Third R&O* represents a means to provide additional
opportunities both to small entities that provide AWS while providing
minimal disruption to small entities that are UPCS users and
manufacturers (and possibly providing additional benefits, if the
proposal to expand permitted UPCS use of the 1915-1920 MHz band is
adopted). For this reason we conclude that our action is preferable to
other alternatives, such as retaining the existing UPCS allocation in
its entirety.

**Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed
Rules:**

None.

**Appendix E: MDS Stations in the 2160-2162 MHz Band**

**Primary MDS Stations**

  ------------ ----------------------- --------------- ------------------
  Call Sign    Licensee Name           Certification   Location
                                       Date            

  WPG39        American Telecasting of 6/84            Colorado Springs,
               Colorado Springs, Inc.                  CO

  WLK290       James D. and Lawrence   7/88            New Orleans, LA
               D. Garvey d/b/a                         
               Radiofone                               

  WLK246       Indianapolis MDS Co.    1/88            Indianapolis, IN

  WLK242       Michael Kelley          5/88            Martinsburg, WV
               Revocable Trust                         

  WLK228       San Francisco MDS Co.   10/89           San Francisco, CA

  WLK227       New York MDS, Inc.      8/87            New York, NY

  WHT747       Washington MDS Co.      1/88            Washington, DC

  WHT702       St. Louis MDS Co.       8/87            St. Louis, MO

  WHT594       Detroit MDS Co.         5/86            Detroit, MI

  WHT573       DCT Communications,     12/88 (MOD)     San Bernardino, CA
               Inc.                                    

  WHT571       WorldCom Broadband      9/84            Baltimore, MD
               Solutions, Inc.                         

  WHT570       Private Networks, Inc.  8/85            Houston, TX

  WHT566       Milwaukee MDS Co.       7/84            Milwaukee, WI

  WHT564       CS Wireless Systems,    1/86            Dallas, TX
               Inc.                                    

  WHT562       Chicago MDS Co.         6/84            Chicago, IL

  WHI966       WorldCom Broadband      2/89            Albany, NY
               Solutions, Inc.                         

  WHD479       Los Angeles MDS Co.,    7/86            Los Angeles, CA
               Inc.                                    

  WHB522       Phoenix MDS Co.         1/82            Phoenix, AZ

  WGX394       DCT Communications,     12/86           Anaheim, CA
               Inc.                                    

  WGW352       Wireless Broadcast      7/88 (MOD)      Sacramento, CA
               Services of America                     

  WGW309       Atlanta MDS Co.         8/87            Atlanta, GA

  WFY976       Bay Area Cablevision,   9/87            San Jose, CA
               Inc.                                    

  WFY900       CS Wireless Systems,    10/85           Fort Worth, TX
               Inc.                                    

  WFY852       CS Wireless Systems,    8/84            San Antonio, TX
               Inc.                                    

  WFY642       Broadcast Data Corp.    3/84            Oklahoma City, OK

  WDU606       Broadcast Data Corp.    7/88 (MOD)      Columbus, OH

  WCU552       Minneapolis MDS Co.     11/82           Minneapolis, MN
  ------------ ----------------------- --------------- ------------------

**Secondary MDS Stations**

  --------------- ----------------------------- ------------- ---------------
  Call Sign       Licensee Name                 Application   Location
                                                Date          

  WMY475          American Telecasting of       4/96          Denver, CO
                  Denver, Inc.                                

  WMY429          George W. Bott                9/96          Grand Island,
                                                              NY

  WKR65           American Telecasting, Inc.    8/98          Las Vegas, NV

  WHD358          James A. Simon                7/93          Ft. Wayne, IN

  KNSE435         WorldCom Broadband Solutions, 3/02          Pittsburgh, PA
                  Inc.                                        

  KNSD242         Teewinot Licensing Co.        4/98          Twin Falls, ID

  KNSC851         American Telecasting of       12/97         Cincinnati, OH
                  Cincinnati, Inc.                            

  KNSC792         WorldCom Broadband Solutions, 8/97          Boston, MA
                  Inc.                                        

  KNSC662         WorldCom Broadband Solutions, 4/97          New Haven, CT
                  Inc.                                        

  KNSC655         Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, 3/97          Maysville, MO
                  Inc.                                        

  KNSC303         Wireless Telecommunications,  8/96          Salisbury, MD
                  Inc.                                        

  20000420AAC\*   CS Wireless Systems, Inc.     8/2000        Addison, TX

  20000420AAP\*   CS Wireless Systems, Inc.     8/2000        Arlington, TX

  20000420AAH\*   CS Wireless Systems, Inc.     8/2000        Irving, TX

  20000420AAF\*   CS Wireless Systems, Inc.     8/2000        Plano, TX

  20000420AAA\*   CS Wireless Systems, Inc.     8/2000        Dallas, TX
  --------------- ----------------------------- ------------- ---------------

\* Indicates a developmental license.

**Appendix F: List of Commenting Parties**

**Commenters to the *Notice of Proposed Rule Making***

**[Comments (due February 22, 2001)]{.underline}:**

Ad Hoc MDS Alliance (MDS Alliance)

Alan Dixon

American Association of School Administrators

American Association of Community Colleges

American Federation of Teachers

American Petroleum Institute

Arizona Board of Regents for Arizona State University

ArrayComm

Association of America's Public Television Stations

AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T Wireless)

Austin Community College

Baypoint TV

Black Hawk College

Blooston Law Firm (Blooston)

Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Burlington County College

Canadian Wireless Telecommunications Association

Catawba Valley Community College

Catholic Television Network (Catholic)

CDMA Development Group (CDMA Group)

CelPlan Technologies

Central Dakota Telecommunications Consortium

Champion Industries

Chilean Telecommunications Administration (Chile or Chilean Government)

Cingular Wireless (Cingular)

Cisco Systems (Cisco)

Clearwire Technologies (Clearwire)

Community Telecommunications Network

Cook Inlet Region (Cook Inlet)

Council of the Great City Schools

Cellular Telecommunications and Internet Association (CTIA)

DCT Los Angeles (DCT LA)

Digital Broadcast Corporation

Dutchess Community College

Education Community of the United States

Education Service Center Region 9

Ericsson

Eureka College

Halifax Community College

Henry County Board of Education

Illinois Institute of Technology (IIT)

IPWireless

ITFS Spectrum Development Alliance

Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (JPL)

Joint Comments of CTIA, TIA, and PCIA

K-12 Community

Lee County School District

LinkAir Communications (LinkAir)

Lucent Technologies (Lucent)

MMDS Mankato

Motorola

National Academy of Science (National Academies)

National ITFS Association (National ITFS)

National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)

Network for Instructional TV

Nokia

Nortel Networks (Nortel)

Northern Arizona University Foundation

Nucentrix Broadband Networks (Nucentrix)

Oklahoma States Regents for Higher Education

Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)

Petroleum Communications

Public Utility Commission of Texas (Texas PUC)

Qualcomm

Qwest Wireless (Qwest)

Radio Advisory Board of Canada (RAB of Canada)

Rebekah E. Adams

Red Partnerships

Richardson Independent School District

The Rural Telecommunications Group

San Diego County Office of Education

San Diego County Superintendent of Schools

San Jose State University/William D. Nance

Siemens

SkyCable TV of Madison

Sprint Corporation (Sprint)

Software Defined Radio

South Carolina Educational Television Commission

Spectrumlink Networks (Spectrumlink)

Superintendent of Huntsville City Schools

Tarrant County College

Telephone and Data Systems

TIA

Treacy Lau

University of Colorado

University of North Carolina

Verizon Wireless (Verizon)

Virginia Communications

VoiceStream Wireless Corporation (VoiceStream)

Wireless Communications Association International (WCA)

Wireless One of North Carolina

Worldcom

Yuba Community College District

**[Reply Comments (due March 9, 2001)]{.underline}:**

Adams Telecom

ArrayComm

AT&T Wireless Services

Baypoint TV

Brown University

Catholic Television Network

Cingular Wireless

Cisco Systems

Clearwire Technologies

Council of the Great City Schools

CTIA

Education Community of the United States

Illinois Institute of Technology

Information Technology Industry Council

ITFS Spectrum Development Alliance

LinkAir Communications

Microband Corporation of America

Motorola

National ITFS Association

Network for Instructional TV

Nortel Networks

Nucentrix Broadband Networks

Orange Group

Qualcomm

Red Partnerships

Siemens

Spectrumlink Networks

Sprint Corporation

Telephone and Data Systems

The University of North Carolina

Verizon Wireless

VoiceStream Wireless Corporation

Wireless Communications Association International

Wireless One of North Carolina

Worldcom

**Commenters to the *Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making***

**[Comments (due October 9, 2001)]{.underline}:**

21st Century Telesis/Robert Hart

Ad Hoc MDS Alliance

American Petroleum Institute

APCO

ArrayComm

ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio

AT&T Wireless Services

Avaya

Aviatel Communications

Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative

Blooston

The Boeing Company

Bryan P. King

Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association (CTIA)

Celsat America

Cingular Wireless

Constantine Fantanas

Constellation Communications Holdings

Ericsson

Globalstar

iBee Communications

Iridium Satellite

Lockheed Martin Corporation

Orange Group

Midstate Communications

Midvale Telephone Exchange

Mobile Satellite Users Association

Motorola

MSTV and NAB

NEC America

New ICO Global Communications

Nickolaus E. Leggett

Nokia

Nortel Networks

Nucentrix Broadband Networks

Panasonic

Paul Toth-NA4AR

Penasco Valley Telephone Cooperative

PHS MoU Group

The Progress & Freedom Foundation (PFF)

Qualcomm

Quantum Communications

RNI Communications

The Rural Telecommunications Group

Satellite Industry Association

Siemens

Skycross

Society of Broadcast Engineers

Sprint Corporation

TDD Coalition

Telecom Consulting Associates (TCA)

Telecommunications Industry Association-Wireless Communications Division
(TIA)

Telephone and Data Systems

TMI Communications and Company, Limited Partnership

UTAM

UTStarcom

Verizon Wireless

Wireless Communications Association International

Wireless Information Networks Forum (WINForum)

WorldCom

**[Reply Comments (due November 5, 2001)]{.underline}:**

2 GHz Broadcast Group

Ad Hoc MDS Alliance

ArrayComm

ARRL, The National Association for Amateur Radio

Avaya

The Boeing Company

Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative, Midstate Communications, Midvale
Telephone Exchange, and Penasco Valley Telephone

CDMA Development Group

CTIA

Celsat America

Cingular Wireless

Constellation Communications Holdings

Cox Broadcasting and Cosmos Broadcasting Corporation

DCT Los Angeles

Globalstar

Meredith Corporation

Motorola

MSTV and NAB

National Telephone Cooperative Association

New ICO Global Communications

Nucentrix Broadband Networks

Orange Group

Public Safety Wireless Network

Siemens

Society of Broadcast Engineers

Space Enterprise Council

Sprint Corporation

TDD Coalition

Telephone and Data Systems

TMI Communications and Company, Limited Partnership

UTAM and Wireless Information Networks Forum (UTAM/WINForum)

UTStarcom

VoiceStream Wireless Corporation

Wireless Communications Association International

WorldCom

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

Re: *Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
Bands*

Re: *Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support Introduction of New
Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems*

Today the Commission releases a family of orders that grants flexibility
to licensees that provide substantial satellite service, strictly
enforces our satellite milestone policies, and reallocates 30 MHz of
spectrum for terrestrial use. Taken together, these orders reflect the
Commission's commitment to vigorously guard the public's spectrum
resource and to ensure that resource is used efficiently in the public
interest. In addition, these orders will further increase the portfolio
of spectrum-based services emerging as viable competitors in the voice
and broadband marketplace. While I believe today's orders represent the
optimal outcome under the constraints of the existing licensing regime,
they also highlight areas of our current spectrum policy that warrant
particular attention, from the Commission and Congress, if we are to
maximize the public interest in spectrum policy.

First, we grant existing satellite providers in three bands the option
of using their spectrum assignments on the ground as well as in space.
Under our traditionally bifurcated licensing regime, satellite and
terrestrial spectrum rights have been assigned independent of one
another. In some cases, assignment of either satellite or terrestrial
rights effectively barred the assignment of the other because of
interference concerns. Advances in technology have changed some of these
assessments. Sharing is now often possible between satellite and
terrestrial, fixed services. Indeed, in cases where the services are
severable, the Commission has decided to license the rights to different
parties. In other cases, the capacity of two independent services to
share is far more limited.

In the bands at issue here, the satellite-based services as well as the
proposed terrestrial services are mobile, making sharing less feasible.
Moreover, the satellite services are already licensed and, in two of the
three bands at issue, satellite licensees are already offering service.
In the end, I concluded that granting additional rights to existing
satellite licensees best protected those services from harmful
interference and ensured the spectrum currently allocated to satellite
services in these three bands was fully utilized. The dissent argues
that the Commission should have sought additional comment on our
authority to assess a fee on satellite licensees who would be granted
these additional rights. As an initial matter, it should be pointed out
that the Commission already sought comment in this proceeding on that
very issue. Further comment seems unproductive. However, I concur in the
recommendation of the Spectrum Policy Task Force that Congress consider
granting the Commission fee authority. Authorizing such fees would
provide the Commission with an important tool for ensuring efficient use
of the public spectrum resource.

Second, today's orders emphasize the importance of milestones in our
satellite licensing regime. The Commission has long acknowledged that
satellite-based communications present unique challenges. Specifically
there is often a tremendous lag time between the filing of an
application and the actual provision of service. The ITU satellite
filing and coordination regime further complicate this process. The time
and regulatory resources involved strongly counsel in favor of policies
that ensure satellite spectrum goes to providers committed to using the
spectrum promptly. Strict enforcement of milestones ensures this result.
We will continue to be vigilant that satellite licensees fulfill their
obligations to build systems -- or the spectrum will be returned and
re-licensed. Adherence to the obligation to construct new systems also
advances our goal of multiple, facilities-based competitors in all
sectors of the communications marketplace, including satellite services.

While milestone enforcement is an important policy, the Commission is
also examining its satellite policies in a broader context to determine
whether our processes unduly hinder market access, and thereby limits
competition in voice, broadband, and other markets. The Commission is
currently reassessing its satellite licensing regime to determine what
improvements can be made. Our current system takes much too long and
makes the challenges associated with launching and operating a satellite
service all the more complex. Satellite providers should succeed or fail
in the marketplace on their own merits -- not to have their business
plans atrophy on the shelf while the FCC takes years to issue a license.
We can and must do better.

Finally, the Commission today reallocates 30 MHz of spectrum at 2 GHz
previously allocated for satellite use. The Commission also seeks
comment on reallocating additional spectrum in the Big LEO band. These
actions are not taken lightly. However, I believe that the
highest-valued use of this spectrum is no longer for satellite service,
and it is more prudent to explore other uses.

Going forward, it would be best if the Commission were not called upon
to make such command-and-control determinations. If, for example,
Congress were to repeal the international satellite competitive bidding
prohibition in the ORBIT Act as the Task Force recommended, the
Commission would be able to adopt a flexible allocation including
satellite and terrestrial uses. If mutually exclusive applications were
then accepted for filing, the resulting auction would allow the
marketplace -- rather than the Commission -- to decide the highest
valued use of the spectrum in question. I believe such an outcome would
maximize the public interest and, accordingly, ask Congress to consider
allowing the FCC the option of distributing flexible spectrum rights via
auction.

Once the Commission determined that 30 MHz of satellite spectrum at 2
GHz would be reallocated, we faced the challenging task of selecting the
appropriate bands. One of the most difficult aspects of that decision
was to reallocate 10 MHz of globally harmonized spectrum at 1990-2000
MHz. Globally harmonized spectrum is a vital resource and we remain
committed to the ITU process and the goals of global harmonization.
However, the United States had years ago determined that the 1930-1990
band would be used for PCS. That service succeeded beyond our greatest
expectations. Although during this period the Commission had yet to
issue 2 GHz satellite licenses because of continuing international
allocation issues, it had established certain technical operating
parameters. As we came closer to a decision in these proceedings, it
became increasingly clear that there would be interference issues
between the PCS providers at 1930-1990 and satellite operators above
1990. The resulting interference may well have jeopardized the
reliability and success of each service. Thus, although I highly value
internationally harmonized operations, I determined that the ability of
both services to operate reliably outweighed international concerns in
this circumstance. Although I am disappointed that both interests could
not be accommodated, I believe in the end stronger satellite and
terrestrial services will result.

The decisions we reach today are significant and complex. The
Commission's talented staff deserves credit and recognition for the long
hours and tireless efforts that culminated in these orders' adoption.
Together their efforts will allow for more efficient utilization of the
spectral resource, the development of innovative service offerings, and
more diverse and competitive alternatives for consumers throughout the
country.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**Approving in Part, Dissenting in Part**

Re: *Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support Introduction of New
Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems;
ET Docket No. 00-258*

*The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
Mobile-Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band; IB Docket No. 99-81*

I write separately because I believe that the Commission should not
abandon a substantial amount of rare globally harmonized satellite
spectrum.

In today's Order the Commission decides to reallocate 10 MHz of globally
harmonized spectrum as part of a reallocation of a total of 30 MHz from
mobile satellite services (MSS) to advanced wireless services (AWS). I
fully support the goal of providing adequate spectrum to new terrestrial
services, and would have provided exactly the same amount of spectrum
for AWS. My preference, however, was to choose less problematic
frequencies.

The United States led the fight to win globally harmonized MSS spectrum
in 1992. Soon thereafter, however, the Commission abandoned the plan to
have a world-wide MSS band and allocated 10 MHz to PCS. This reduced by
one-third the globally harmonized spectrum available to fledgling MSS
operators, although it provided much-needed spectrum to PCS operators.
This action engendered significant international disappointment and
injured U.S. spectrum planning credibility.

Now we reallocate 50 percent more of the remaining globally harmonized
MSS spectrum to AWS, leaving MSS licensees with only a third of what was
originally fought for by U.S. negotiators. This will raise costs of
satellite design and construction, make trans-national interference
coordination more difficult, especially where satellite and terrestrial
licensees must coordinate, and may further erode U.S. credibility
internationally when we next fight for harmonized spectrum.

Maintaining MSS use of this spectrum certainly has costs. The majority
believes that abandoning globally harmonized spectrum is necessary to
reduce possible future interference. Reducing potential interference
both to PCS and MSS is critically important. However, claims of
potential interference were raised extremely late in this proceeding and
the effect on interference of our decision is poorly understood, at
best. If concerns about interference exist, we should confront them
directly, seeking the efficient level of protections and a solution that
doesn't do damage to our standing in the international community, if
possible. For me, the values described above, and hard-won, globally
harmonized spectrum, are just too valuable to walk away from.

**SEPARATE STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

Re: *Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support Introduction of New
Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems;
ET Docket No. 00-258*

*The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
Mobile-Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band; IB Docket No. 99-81*

My decision to support the shift of our domestic 2 GHz Mobile Satellite
Services (MSS) allocation is not made lightly. I recognize the hard work
of Commission staff and industry personnel at the 1992 World
Administrative Radio Conference (and at subsequent conferences) in
securing a global allocation of MSS spectrum in the 2 GHz band. However,
over 10 years later, it now appears that our domestic economy and
communications marketplace is better served by a shift in our country's
2 GHz MSS allocation.

I believe that this shift will serve many purposes. It will help
minimize the potential for harmful interference to the millions of
Americans who use Personal Communications Services (PCS) phones in the
1930-1990 MHz band from ancillary terrestrial handsets operating in the
MSS band. The explosive growth of PCS phones is unprecedented, and no
one could have ever imagined the proliferation of commercial mobile
radio services over the past several years. The shift also will help
minimize the potential for harmful interference from PCS base station
transmitters into the terrestrial base receivers that MSS licensees will
begin deploying once they receive authority to provide ancillary
terrestrial services. Finally, the shift allows us to consider the use
of paired spectrum in the 1910-1920 and 1990-2000 MHz bands for expanded
PCS services, for advanced wireless services, for unlicensed services,
or as replacement spectrum for other services.

I recognize that there may be a potential economic and engineering
impact on certain 2 GHz MSS licensees as a result of our decision today.
However, I am hopeful that those licensees seeking to serve global
markets can work with our International Bureau so that they are able to
use spectrum allocated for globally harmonized use. Similarly, I hope
that regional or domestic systems in the 2 GHz MSS band will make
frequency selections outside of the global allocation, but which still
fall within the 2 GHz MSS spectrum that is harmonized with the rest of
Region 2.

Finally, I express my strong support for the efforts of our Commission
staff in preparing for WRC-03 and future international conferences and
meetings. I sincerely hope that our decision does not undermine the
efforts of these dedicated professionals in their dealings and
negotiations with members of the international communications community.
It cannot be emphasized enough that today's decision is made at the
Commission level based on circumstances no one could have predicted at
the time the original 2 GHz MSS allocation was made.

[^1]: Advanced Wireless Services is the collective term we use for new
    and innovative fixed and mobile terrestrial wireless applications
    using bandwidth that is sufficient for the provision of a variety of
    applications, including those using voice and data (such as internet
    browsing, message services, and full-motion video) content. In an
    ongoing service rules proceeding for 90 megahertz of spectrum for
    AWS, we have proposed to adopt rules that will provide innovative
    and agile licensees with the flexibility to quickly adapt to changes
    in technological capabilities and marketplace conditions into the
    future, and have stated that our goal for the AWS-designated
    spectrum is "to put this spectrum to its highest value use with
    minimal transaction cost." Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
    Services, WT Docket No. 02-353, *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 17
    FCC Rcd 24135 (2002). Although AWS is commonly associated with
    so-called third generation (3G) applications and has been predicted
    to build on the success of such current-generation commercial
    wireless services as cellular and Broadband PCS, the services
    ultimately provided by AWS licensees are only limited by the fixed
    and mobile designation of the spectrum we allocate for AWS and the
    service rules we ultimately adopt for the bands.

[^2]: 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, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Second Report
    and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002) (*Second R&O*).

[^3]: 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, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 596 (2001) (*Notice*).

[^4]: 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, ET Docket No. 00-258, ET Docket No.
    95-18, and IB Docket No. 99-81, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 16 FCC Rcd 16043 (2001)
    (*Further Notice*).

[^5]: Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage the Establishment of
    Services Using New and Innovative Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9,
    *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 7
    FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 6495
    (1993); *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 8
    FCC Rcd 6589 (1993); *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1943
    (1994)*; Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7797
    (1994), *aff\'d*, Association of Public Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
    (collectively, "*Emerging Technologies* proceeding").

[^6]: *Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 610-13 ¶¶ 34-38.

[^7]: 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, ET Docket No. 00-258, *First Report and
    Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 17222 (2001)
    (*First R&O and MO&O*).

[^8]: *Id*.

[^9]: *Id.*

[^10]: *Id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 17241 ¶¶ 35-36.

[^11]: United Stated Department of Commerce, National Telecommunications
    and Information Administration, "*An Assessment of the Viability of
    Accommodating Advanced Mobile Wireless (3G) Systems in the 1710-1770
    MHz and 2110-2170 MHz Bands*," Report, July 22, 2002 (*2002
    Viability Assessment*) (incorporated into ET Docket No. 00‑258 and
    also available from NTIA at
    <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/threeg/va7222002/3Gva072202web.htm>).

[^12]: *Id.*

[^13]: *Second R&O* at ¶¶ 25 & 48.

[^14]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 27-47.

[^15]: *Id.* at ¶ 41.

[^16]: *Id.* at ¶¶ 2 & 4. *See also* WRC 2000 Final Acts S5.317A:
    WRC-2000 Final Acts Res. 223. ITU identified the 806-960 MHz,
    1710-1885 MHz, and 2500-2690 MHz bands for possible terrestrial use
    for its International Mobile Telecommunciations-2000 standards and
    recognized that some administrations will use the 698-806 MHz for
    these purposes. The ITU also recognized that jurisdictions will need
    to protect existing services operating in the spectrum, that not all
    bands will be allocated for advanced wireless systems in all
    jurisdictions, and that advanced services will not have priority
    over other allocated services.

[^17]: These standards are intended to maximize the commonality of radio
    interfaces and provide a transition path to advanced systems from
    existing technologies. See *Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 598-600 ¶¶ 3-4
    for additional background.

[^18]: *See* ITU *Radio Regulations*, Edition of 2001, Resolution 212
    (Rev. WRC-97) and Resolution 716 (Rev. WRC-2000). In an uplink band
    terminals on Earth transmit up to the satellite. In a downlink band
    the satellite transmits down to the terminals.

[^19]: All of the 2 GHz MSS allocations are now effective
    internationally, except that MSS use of the 1980-1990 MHz band
    (allocated domestically to Broadband PCS) may not commence in Region
    2 before January 1, 2005. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote 5.389A,
    5.389C, and 5.389D. However, MSS use of the 1980-1990 MHz band must
    not cause harmful interference to or constrain the development of
    the fixed and mobile services in the United States and certain other
    Region 2 countries. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote 5.389B. In
    addition, MSS use of the Region 2 allocations (2010-2025 MHz and
    2160-2170 MHz) may not cause harmful interference to or constrain
    the development of the fixed and mobile services in Regions 1 and 3;
    or, until January 1, 2005, in certain Region 2 countries. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 2.106, footnotes 5.389E and 5.390.

[^20]: *See* Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service,
    *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, 12 FCC Rcd 7388 (1997) (*2 GHz MSS Allocation
    Order*), *aff'd on recon*., *Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 23949 (1998)
    (affirming 2 GHz MSS allocation and seeking further comment on
    relocation issues).

[^21]: Specifically, footnote NG156 reads as follows: "The band
    1990-2025 MHz is also allocated to the fixed and mobile services on
    a primary basis for facilities where the receipt date of the initial
    application was prior to June 27, 2000, and on a secondary basis for
    all other initial applications. Not later than September 6, 2010,
    the band 1990-2025 MHz is allocated to the fixed and mobile services
    on a secondary basis." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote NG156*.*

[^22]: *See* Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, *Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 12315 (2000). The BAS relocation plan
    calls for a two-phase relocation with two-year mandatory negotiation
    periods in each phase that will clear current BAS Channel 1
    (1990-2008 MHz) followed by BAS Channel 2 (2008-2025 MHz). Under the
    adopted two-phase relocation plan, when MSS entrants clear BAS
    Channel 1 in the top 30 markets, BAS channel 1 would no longer be
    used in any television market; MSS entrants will have up to 5 years
    to relocate BAS Channel 1 operations in the remaining television
    markets. In the event that an agreement for relocation is not
    reached by the end of a particular negotiation period, the MSS
    licensee(s) have the option of involuntary relocation of BAS
    incumbents.

[^23]: Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket
    No. 95-18, *Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 15141 (2002). The Commission took
    this action in order to maintain the status-quo while it decided
    whether the BAS relocation plan needs further revision in light of
    issues raised in other related rule making proceedings under
    consideration.

[^24]: The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile
    Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, *Report and Order*, IB Docket
    No. 99-81, 15 FCC Rcd 16127 (2000) (*2 GHz MSS R&O*).

[^25]: *Id.*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16138 ¶ 16. Under the *2 GHz MSS R&O*, the
    number of system proponents is determined at the time that the first
    2 GHz MSS system is authorized. *Id*.

[^26]: *Id.*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16146-47 ¶¶ 35-39.

[^27]: *2 GHz MSS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16139 ¶ 18.

[^28]: *Id*., 15 FCC Rcd at 16144-49 ¶¶ 31-44.

[^29]: *See* *The Boeing Company*, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd
    13691 (Int'l Bur. 2001); *Celsat America, Inc*., Order and
    Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 13712 (Int'l Bur. 2001); *Constellation
    Communications Holdings, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd
    13724 (Int'l Bur./OET 2001); *Globalstar, L.P.*, Order and
    Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 13739 (Int'l Bur./OET 2001); *ICO Services
    Limited*, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13762 (Int'l Bur./OET 2001); *Iridium
    LLC*, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 13778 (Int'l Bur. 2001);
    *Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc.*, Order and Authorization, 16
    FCC Rcd 13794 (Int'l Bur./OET 2001); *TMI Communications and
    Company, Limited Partnership*, Order, 16 FCC Rcd 13808 (Int'l Bur.
    2001).

[^30]: Each 2 GHz MSS operator identifies the specific frequencies of
    its Selected Assignment when the first satellite in its system
    reaches its intended orbit and notifies the Commission in writing of
    its selection. *2 GHz MSS R&*O, 15 FCC Rcd at 16138 ¶ 16. Consistent
    with the *2 GHz MSS R&*O, an operator may also elect to operate
    outside its Selected Assignment on a secondary basis with respect to
    other 2 GHz MSS operators, subject to certain conditions. *Id.*, 15
    FCC Rcd*.* at 16139-40 ¶ 19.

[^31]: If the Commission had applied the formula adopted in the *2 GHz
    MSS R&O*, each licensee would have been assigned 3.88 megahertz in
    each direction (*i.e.,* 35 megahertz divided by 8 licensees, plus
    1). Instead, each licensee was assigned 3.5 megahertz of spectrum
    until the Commission decided in this proceeding whether to apply the
    formula as initially adopted (which would provide each of the 8 MSS
    licensees with .38 megahertz of additional spectrum in each
    direction) or to modify assignments under one of two proposed
    options.

[^32]: *See* Letter of Cheryl A. Tritt, Counsel to ICO Satellite
    Services G.P. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission, File No. 188-SAT-LOI-97; IBFS Nos.
    SAT-LOI-19970926-00163; SAT-AMD-20000612-00107;
    SAT-AMD-20001103-00155 (October 15, 2002) (2 GHz MSS Selected
    Assignment Notification, Annual Section 25.143(e) Report, and
    Section 25.121(d)(2) Certification). We note that over the course of
    this proceeding, ICO has filed under a number of names, including
    ICO Satellite Services G.P. and ICO Global Communications (Holdings)
    Ltd. For purposes of our discussion, we use the name "ICO" in all
    references.

[^33]: *Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16054 ¶ 22 n.65 (citing *2 GHz
    MSS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16139 ¶ 18).

[^34]: *Id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16055 ¶ 24.

[^35]: One approach was to base the distribution of 2 GHz MSS spectrum
    on ten 3.5/3.5 megahertz Selected Assignments. Each of the eight 2
    GHz MSS licensees would choose Selected Assignments of 3.5/3.5
    megahertz. The remaining 14 megahertz of spectrum (two 7 megahertz
    assignments) would consist of the segment originally reserved for
    system expansion and the segment that would have been assigned to
    Inmarsat Horizons, which withdrew its application prior to
    licensing. Ten megahertz of spectrum (5 megahertz in each direction)
    could be reallocated for AWS, and 4 megahertz (2 megahertz in each
    direction) could be retained for MSS system expansion or made
    available for AWS or other services. If retained for MSS, the 2/2
    megahertz could be distributed among the 2 GHz MSS systems or made
    available for other MSS systems.

    Another approach would be to make 5/5 megahertz of spectrum
    available for reallocation to other services, and to distribute the
    remaining 30/30 megahertz among the MSS licensees. The eight 2 GHz
    MSS licensees would choose Selected Assignments of 3.75/3.75
    megahertz each.

[^36]: *See Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16055-56 ¶ 27.

[^37]: *Id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16056 ¶ 28.

[^38]: *See id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16056 ¶ 29.

[^39]: *See* 47 U.S.C. § 316.

[^40]: *Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16057 ¶ 31.

[^41]: *Id.*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16056-59, ¶¶ 29-35.

[^42]: *Non-geostationary satellite systems* must begin physical
    construction of all satellites in the system within two and a half
    years of authorization, and complete construction and launch of the
    first two satellites within three and a half years of grant.
    *Geostationary satellite systems* must begin physical construction
    of all satellites in the system within three years, and complete
    construction of, and launch, one satellite of its constellation into
    its assigned orbital location within five years of authorization.
    The entire system must be launched and operational within six years
    of authorization. *Id.*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16177-78 ¶ 106.

[^43]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.143 (e)(3). Failure to file a certification
    or disclosure of non-compliance will result in automatic
    cancellation of an authorization. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.161.

[^44]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 25.143 (e)(1).

[^45]: Applications of Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc. and ICO
    Global Communications (Holdings) Limited for Transfer of Control,
    Constellation Communications Holdings, Inc. and ICO Global
    Communications (Holdings) Limited for Transfer of Control, Mobile
    Communications Holdings, Inc. for Modification of 2 GHz MSS License,
    and Constellation Communications Holdings, Inc. for Modification of
    2 GHz MSS License, File Nos. SAT-T/C-20020719-00104,
    SAT-T/C-20020718-00114, SAT-MOD-20020719-00105 and
    SAT-MOD-20020719-00103, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, DA 03-285
    (Int'l Bur., 2003); Application of Globalstar, L.P. For Modification
    of License for a Mobile-Satellite Service System in the 2 GHz Band,
    File Nos. 183/184/185/186-SAT-P/LA-97; 182-SAT-P/LA-97(64),
    *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, DA 03-328 (Int'l Bur., 2003).

[^46]: Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Bands, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB
    Docket No. 01-185, FCC 03-15 (rel. Feb. 10, 2003) (*ATC Order*).

[^47]: *See, e.g.*, Ericsson Comments to the *Further Notice* at 11-13;
    PFF Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3; Motorola Reply Comments
    to the *Further Notice* at 6-7; TDS Reply Comments to the *Further
    Notice* at 2.

[^48]: VoiceStream states that the Mobile Satellite Users Associations
    Comments in IB Docket No. 01-185 at 3 (October 22, 2001) stated that
    "By the end of 2000, there were close to 750,000 mobile satellite
    terminals commissioned for operation around the globe." VoiceStream
    counts 171 megahertz of MSS spectrum, consisting of L-band systems
    (1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz); Big LEO systems (1610-1626.5
    MHz and 2483.5-2500); and 2 GHz MSS systems (1990-2025 MHz and
    2165-2200 MHz) VoiceStream Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at
    9 (VoiceStream is now known as T-Mobile).

[^49]: VoiceStream identifies 123,000,000 U.S. subscribers. *Id.* at 10.
    The current number of domestic subscribers may be higher, as
    indicated by statistics published by CTIA. On January 30, 2002, the
    CTIA web site ([www.wow-com.com](http://www.wow-com.com/)) claimed
    "137,458,902 current U.S. Wireless Subscribers." VoiceStream
    identifies 190 megahertz of terrestrial wireless spectrum and
    counted 50 megahertz for cellular, 120 megahertz for Broadband PCS,
    and an estimated 20 megahertz for the SMR spectrum that Nextel uses
    in its services.

[^50]: VoiceStream Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 8-9;
    VoiceStream Reply Comments to the CTIA Petition for Reconsideration
    at 5-6.

[^51]: AT&T Wireless observes that in 1994, the Commission predicated
    that there would be 54 million CMRS users by the year 2000, but that
    CMRS end user growth has been more than twice as fast as the
    Commission envisioned, with the industry serving approximately 122
    million customers today. In contrast, AT&T Wireless states that the
    MSS industry does not even serve 1 percent of that total. Thus, AT&T
    Wireless asserts that the "marketplace has clearly spoken and the
    Commission's allocation decisions should respond to end user demand,
    not MSS licensees' unrealistic promises." *See* AT&T Wireless
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 9.

[^52]: TDS Reply Comments to the *Notice* at 3; TIA -- Wireless Division
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6**;** PFF Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 3; Verizon Comments to the *Further Notice* at
    3.

[^53]: Verizon Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3.

[^54]: PFF Comments to the *Notice* at 3.

[^55]: Ericsson Notice of *Ex Parte* Presentation, ET Docket No. 00-258,
    dated Sept. 18, 2001.

[^56]: *See, e.g.,* TIA -- Wireless Division Comments to the *Further
    Notice* at 7; Motorola Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 7.
    Similarly, TDS states that 2 GHz MSS should use contiguous bands, so
    any reclaimed spectrum should also be contiguous. TDS Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at 7-8.

[^57]: *See* Ericsson Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2; TIA --
    Wireless Division Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6; VoiceStream
    Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 8.

[^58]: TIA -- Wireless Division Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6.

[^59]: Orange Group recommends the reallocation of the Region 1 and 3
    bands (1980-2010 MHz and 2170-2200 MHz) for terrestrial wireless
    systems, which we conclude is a recommendation to reallocate all
    current 2 GHz MSS spectrum because the remaining MSS spectrum (the
    2010-2025 MHz band paired with the 2165-2170 MHz band) would be both
    small and asynchronous, and therefore unlikely to support MSS
    licensees under the current structure of that service. Orange Group
    Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 7. Orange Group notes that
    the terrestrial component of IMT-2000 (1920-1980 MHz paired with
    2110-2170 MHz) has a 190 megahertz duplex separation and that the
    1990-2010 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands have this same duplex
    separation. Orange Group asserts that the use of 190 megahertz
    duplex separation would allow easier manufacture and design of
    terminal equipment, which would enable economies of scale and global
    roaming. *See* Orange Group Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4.

[^60]: *See* AT&T Wireless Comments to the *Further Notice* at 8-9;
    Cingular Comments to the *Further Notice* at ii, 7-13; CTIA Reply
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3-8. Cingular further recommends
    that reallocated MSS spectrum be used for Frequency Division Duplex
    (FDD) operations, with the 1990-2010 MHz band paired with the
    2180-2200 MHz band and the 1710-1780 MHz band paired with the
    2110-2180 MHz band, and that reallocated MSS spectrum in the
    2010-2025 MHz band be used for Time Division Duplex (TDD) operations
    or, alternately, as replacement spectrum for incumbents in other
    bands -- such as MDS -- that are being cleared for possible AWS use.
    Cingular Comments to the *Further Notice* at 11.

[^61]: *See* AT&T Wireless Comments to the *Further Notice* at 8;
    Cingular Comments to the CTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 6;
    CTIA Reply Comments to the CTIA Petition for Reconsideration at 7-9.
    Moreover, AWS proponents observe that Globalstar has filed for
    bankruptcy and assert that this proves the MSS industry is not
    viable. In addition, AWS proponents argue that MSS use of the
    1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz is an inefficient use of valuable
    spectrum. AWS proponents also state that MSS is not viable and is
    unable to deliver promised service to rural and underserved areas.

[^62]: *See* ArrayComm Comments to the *Further Notice* at 9 & 13;
    Nortel Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6.

[^63]: *See* SBE Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 1 & 5.

[^64]: CTIA Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6-7.

[^65]: *See* Nextel Notice of *Ex Parte* Presentation, ET Docket No.
    00-258, dated Aug. 9, 2002. Nextel initially recommended the
    2020-2025/2170-2175 MHz bands. *See* Nextel Notice of *Ex Parte*
    Presentation, ET Docket No. 00-258, dated Nov. 21, 2001 at 29.

[^66]: *See* Letter from WCA, *et. al.*, to FCC Chairman Powell, July
    11, 2002, in ET Docket 00-258, concerning "Compromise Solution for
    Relocating MDS from 2150-2162 MHz." (*WCA Letter*) This letter was
    sent jointly by WCA, Bellsouth, Nucentrix, Sprint, and Worldcom. WCA
    is the trade association of the MDS industry. The other parties hold
    the majority of licenses in the 2150-2160 MHz band. We note that the
    1910-1916 MHz UPCS band and the 1990-1996 MHz MSS band is the same
    spectrum (1910-1915 MHz/1990-1995 MHz) that Nextel has identified.

[^67]: Celsat Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3; Lockheed Martin
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5; Globalstar Reply Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at 4; Space Enterprise Council Reply Comments
    to the *Further Notice* at 1; Constellation Comments to the *Further
    Notice* at ii-iii; SIA Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2.

[^68]: Lockheed Martin Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5; MSUA
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4.

[^69]: TIA -- Satellite Division Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3.

[^70]: TIA -- Satellite Division Comments to the *Further Notice* at
    4-5.

[^71]: Globalstar Comments to the *Further Notice* at i-ii; SIA Comments
    to the *Further Notice* at 2, 5 & 6.

[^72]: ICO Comments to the *Further Notice* at 27-28; Boeing Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at 7. *But see* Cingular Reply Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 5 (challenging the MSS proponents' argument that
    a reallocation of MSS spectrum would harm U.S. credibility in the
    international community).

[^73]: ICO Comments to the *2002 Viability Assessment* at 4-6. ICO also
    argues that a reallocation of the 1990-1996 MHz band would impair
    its ability to comply with one of our 70 percent frequency agility
    requirements and thus require it to modify its system at great cost.
    *Id.*

[^74]: TMI Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2.

[^75]: Letter from Diane Cornell, Counsel, Cellular Telecommunications
    and Internet Association to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission at 4-10. *Ex Parte* filing in IB Docket
    No. 01-185 and ET Docket No. 00-258 (filed Jan. 14, 2003).

[^76]: Letter from Donald C. Brittingham, Director, Wireless Spectrum
    Policy, Verizon Corp. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal
    Communications Commission at 1-6. *Ex Parte* filing in IB Docket No.
    01-185 and ET Docket No. 00-258 (filed Jan. 6, 2003).

[^77]: *See* Letter from Regina M. Kenney, Esq., to Marlene H. Dortch,
    Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. *Ex Parte* filing on
    behalf of Nextel in IB Docket No 01-185 and ET Docket No. 00-258
    (filed Jan. 23, 2003). Nextel notes that interference from an
    MSS/ATC handset to a PCS handset only occurs when both mobiles are
    close to each other, both mobiles are making call, the desired
    signal for the PCS mobile is weak, and the MSS/ATC mobile is
    operating at maximum power. Nextel states that the probability of
    all these factors occurring at the same time is very low.

[^78]: *Id.* at 6-8.

[^79]: TIA -- Satellite Division Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4.

[^80]: Celsat Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3-5, 7-8.

[^81]: Boeing Opposition to the CTIA Petition for Reconsideration at i.

[^82]: ICO Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at ii, 3.

[^83]: Boeing Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6-7 ("the Commission
    should make clear that \[abandoned\] spectrum must first be made
    available to the remaining 2 GHz MSS licensees that have met their
    milestones"; Celast Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6-8
    ("Any abandoned 2 GHz MSS spectrum should be made available to the
    remaining 2 GHz MSS licensees."); Constellation Reply Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at 8 ("A regulatory structure that provides for
    the pro rata assignment of . . . spectrum among the 2 GHz MSS
    systems that are actually financed and implemented will result in
    the most practical utilization of the 2 GHz MSS bands"); TMI
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 7 ("A *pro rata* share \[of
    abandoned 2 GHz spectrum\] should be offered to remaining operators
    (which have met their milestones) as a means to ensure that viable
    systems will develop.").

[^84]: TMI Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2, 7-8; TMI
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2.

[^85]: *See* PFF Comments to the *Notice* at 3.

[^86]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote NG156.

[^87]: *Second R&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23200, ¶ 12.

[^88]: As discussed in the *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order* portion
    of this document, *infra*, we likewise reject the petition for
    reconsideration filed by CTIA that relates to its petition for
    rulemaking to reallocate the entire 2 GHz MSS spectrum.

[^89]: VoiceStream Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 8-9
    (calculating an average 648,000 United States customers per
    megahertz on 190 megahertz of spectrum allocated to terrestrial
    wireless services versus less than 5000 global customers per
    megahertz on the spectrum that is allocated to MSS).

[^90]: *See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget
    Reconciliation Act of 1993 \[and\] Annual Report and Analysis of
    Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile
    Services, Second Report*, FCC 97-75, rel. March 25, 1997 at 5
    (*Second Competition Report*) (stating that "CMRS encompasses
    approximately 44 million cellular subscribers, 34 million paging
    subscribers, and 2.3 million specialized mobile radio
    transmitters."). However, in the *Seventh* *Competition Report*, 17
    FCC Rcd at 12988 n.10, the Commission uses the term "mobile
    telephone segment," which includes the provision of mobile telephony
    services by cellular, Broadband PCS, and digital SMR operators.
    Following the definition of the most recent report, we are not
    including paging subscribers for comparison purposes.

[^91]: *See Seventh Competition Report*, 17 FCC Rcd at 12988, 13004 &
    13015.

[^92]: In addition to the MSS allocations at 2 GHz, additional MSS
    allocations in the U.S. are: 1) L-band, 1525-1559 MHz (downlink) and
    1626.5-1660.5 MHz (uplink); 2) "Big LEO" band, 1610-1626.5 MHz
    (uplink) and 2483.5-2500 MHz (downlink); and 3) 3-4 megahertz across
    several bands for MSS data services ("Little LEO"). Currently, MSS
    licensees in the 1.6 GHz and 2.4 GHz bands (referred to as Big LEO
    systems) are providing service in the United States. Among the
    licensees that operate Low-Earth Orbit (LEO) satellites in these
    bands, Globalstar is operating under Chapter 11 bankruptcy
    protection and Iridium emerged from bankruptcy in December 2000.
    Globalstar states that its Big LEO MSS system had 75,535 worldwide
    commercial customers as of June 30, 2002. *See* "Globalstar presents
    ATC technology, discusses bankruptcy," RCR Wireless News, July 29,
    2002, at 17. Iridium Satellite LLC. (Iridium) re-initiated
    commercial service at the end of March 2001 and we have no
    information on its subscriber numbers at this time. We note,
    however, that Iridium has entered into a contract with the U.S.
    Department of Defense to provide unlimited airtime to 20,000
    Government workers. This contract was recently renewed for an
    additional year and there are options for renewal through 2005.
    *See* Iridium Press Release, Dec. 18, 2002, "Defense Department
    Exercises First Renewal Option of Contract" available at
    http://www.iridium.com/corp/iri_corp-news.asp?newsid=51. ICO, one of
    the eight 2 GHz MSS licensees, is the only one to have launched a
    satellite, and it has six additional assembled satellites. ICO has
    stated that it intends to commence commercial service in 2003.

[^93]: *See, e.g.* *,* Boeing Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3-6;
    Globalstar Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4-6; ICO Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at 15-16; Celsat Reply Comments to the *Further
    Notice* at 7-8.

[^94]: *See* *2 GHz MSS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16139, ¶ 18.

[^95]: In the *2 GHz MSS R&O*, we also determined that we would not pair
    assignments in the uplink and downlink bands and, rather, provide
    MSS licensees with the flexibility to choose an assignment in one
    band independent of the chosen assignment in the other band. *See
    id.*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16141, ¶ 23.

[^96]: We recognize that if the Commission decides to assign MSS
    licensees additional spectrum through, for example, a distribution
    of abandoned MSS spectrum, the integer spacing of Selected
    Assignments may have to be modified so to accommodate the amount of
    assigned spectrum per licensee.

[^97]: The Commission has the authority to modify the 2 GHz MSS
    authorizations by rulemaking. *See, e.g.*, *Community Television,
    Inc. v. FCC* , 216 F.3d 1133, 1140-41 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (upholding
    Section 316 modification of broadcast licenses during the DTV
    transition, which would ultimately move licensees from one channel
    to another, but observing that the FCC had not "wrought a
    fundamental change to the terms of those . . . licenses").

[^98]: We note in the companion *ATC Order* that we have also adopted
    stricter out-of-band emission limits and other service requirements
    to further protect existing PCS operations. *See ATC Order, supra*
    n.46.

[^99]: *See supra* ¶ 17; *see also supra* n.29 (citing the Commission
    staff's July 17, 2001, authorizations to eight applications to
    provide 2 GHz MSS in the United States, wherein some applicants
    disclosed plans to construct single geostationary satellite systems
    that would not provide global service).

[^100]: For example, ICO has constructed its satellites to operate
    across the 1990-2015 MHz segment of the uplink band and thus will
    have 15 megahertz of bandwidth available for satellite use within
    the U.S. ICO thus will meet the 70 percent frequency agility
    requirement for MSS systems in this band.

[^101]: For example, ICO has constructed its satellites to operate
    across the 2170-2200 MHz segment of the downlink band and thus will
    have 20 megahertz of bandwidth available for satellite use within
    the U.S. ICO thus will meet the 70 percent frequency agility
    requirement for MSS systems in this band.

[^102]: For example, BAS Channel 1 covers 1990-2008 MHz. Phase 1 of the
    BAS relocation plan makes the first MSS entrants responsible for
    clearing this channel, and allows them to seek reimbursement from
    later entering MSS operators. As a result of our decision here, a
    portion of BAS Channel 1 will now be used by other new entrants and
    thus raises the issue of those new entrants and the MSS parties
    sharing BAS relocation expenses.

[^103]: *See Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16057 ¶ 33.

[^104]: In the *Further Notice*, we did not propose, nor do we suggest
    here, that 2 GHz MSS entities would be entitled to relocation
    compensation as a consequence of reallocating MSS spectrum for other
    services. We note, in particular, that the *Emerging Technologies*
    relocation policies were intended to prevent disruption of existing
    services and minimize the economic impact on licensees of those
    services. *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 (1993). None of the authorized 2 GHz MSS systems are
    now operational, thus there is no need to prevent disruption to
    existing services. Further, most 2 GHz MSS systems are in the early
    stages of construction, having just recently certified that they
    have met the first construction contract requirement under milestone
    review. Thus, most 2 GHz MSS systems can accommodate in their system
    design and construction the allocation changes made here with little
    or no economic impact. ICO constructed its system at its own risk
    prior to receiving a U.S. authorization. Nonetheless, the ICO system
    is capable of operating across the revised allocated MSS bandwidth,
    and thus the economic impact on ICO should be minimal.

[^105]: 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote 5.388. International footnote 5.388A
    states that the 1910‑1930 MHz and other frequency bands may be used
    by high altitude platform stations as base stations to provide
    IMT‑2000 services. 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, footnote 5.388A.

[^106]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^107]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 15 ‑ Radio Frequency Devices. Subpart D of
    Part 15 is titled "Unlicensed Personal Communications Service
    Devices."

[^108]: Domestically, Broadband PCS systems have been implemented as
    frequency division duplex (FDD) systems. Such systems generally
    require a duplex gap -- an unused frequency block -- to provide
    isolation between base and mobile transmit frequencies.

[^109]: *See* Amendment of the Commission\'s Rules to Establish New
    Personal Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Fourth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 7955 (1995). UTAM is the
    Commission's frequency coordinator for UPCS devices in the 1910-1930
    MHz band. The UPCS band relocation policies are codified at 47
    C.F.R. §§ 101.69‑101.81.

[^110]: Asynchronous devices are defined as those "that transmit RF
    energy at irregular time intervals, as typified by local area
    network data systems," and isochronous devices are defined as those
    "that transmit at a regular interval, typified by time-division
    voice systems." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.303(a)-(d). Specific
    requirements for the operation of asynchronous devices in the
    1910-1920 MHz band are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 15.321 and specific
    requirements for the operation of isochronous devices in the
    1920-1930 MHz band are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 15.323.

[^111]: The purpose of the monitoring requirement is to allow systems
    that use different air interfaces to coexist harmoniously in the
    same band. The rules require asynchronous devices to monitor the
    spectrum that its transmission is intended to occupy for at least 50
    microseconds prior to initiating a transmission with a monitoring
    threshold not more than 32 dB above the thermal noise power for a
    bandwidth equivalent to the emission bandwidth of the device. *See*
    47 C.F.R. § 15.321 Isochronous devices are limited to specific
    channels and must monitor for at least 10 or 20 milliseconds
    depending on the design of the system. The monitoring threshold must
    not be more than 30 dB above the thermal noise power for a bandwidth
    equivalent to the emission bandwidth of the device. *See* 47 C.F.R.
    § 15.323.

[^112]: *Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16048, ¶ 9.

[^113]: WINForum seeks modifications to certain technical rules, *e.g.*,
    47 C.F.R. §§ 15.301 (definition of peak transmit power), 15.319(e)
    (antenna gain), 15.321 (frequency stability), in conjunction with
    its proposed rule for the 1910‑1920 MHz band. We note that WINForum
    did not ask for any changes to the monitoring requirement.

[^114]: UTStarcom first requested licensed use of the 1910-1920 MHz
    band. It now proposes "coordinated unlicensed operation" in the
    1910‑1920 MHz band for its PAS system, with the coordination
    performed by UTAM using the existing UTAM coordination
    infrastructure. *See* UTStarcom Comments to the *Further Notice* at
    6.

[^115]: UTStarcom Petition at 2. UTStarcom later submitted specific
    proposed technical changes to Part 15 in order to facilitate the use
    of its PAS system. *See* *Ex Parte* Comments of UTStarcom in
    RM-10024, filed May 23, 2001, at 1-3 (seeking modifications to the
    spectrum etiquette requirements of 47 C.F.R. § 15.307 and certain
    technical rules in 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.319 and proposing new rules in 47
    C.F.R. §§ 15.320 (specific requirements for associated controlling
    and controlled isochronous devices operating in the 1910‑1920 MHz
    band) and 15.321(c) (specific requirements for asynchronous devices
    operating in the 1910‑1920 MHz and 2390‑2400 MHz bands))*.*

[^116]: *See* *Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16049-50, ¶ 13. *See also*
    Report No. 2320, *Public Notice*, (Mar.10, 1999) (listing WINForum
    Petition for Rulemaking, RM-9498, filed Jan. 8, 1999) and Report No.
    2459, *Public Notice*, (Dec. 14, 2000) (listing UTStarcom Petition
    for Rulemaking, RM-10024, filed on Nov. 6, 2000). *See also infra* ¶
    54.

[^117]: *See* DA 99-1242 (Lucent Petition for Waiver, rel. Jun. 24,
    1999); DA 00-2061 (UTStarcom & Drew University Petition for Waiver,
    rel. Sept. 8, 2000); DA 00-2833 (Ascom Petition for Waiver, rel.
    Dec. 15 2000); and DA 01-2308 (Alaska Power Petition for Waiver,
    rel. Oct. 5, 2001).

[^118]: *See, e.g.*, ArrayComm Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5;
    Ericsson Comments to the *Further Notice* at 7-8; Orange Group
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4; Siemens Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2; TDS Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6;
    and TIA Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4.

[^119]: *See* Ericsson Comments to the *Further Notice* at 7-8; TIA
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4. ArrayComm, which recommends
    that the 1910‑1930 MHz band be used for time division duplex (TDD)
    technology, notes that the 1910‑1920 MHz band is used for TDD
    operations in many parts of the world. ArrayComm Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at n.7.

[^120]: UTAM/WINForum Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3-4. In
    addition, Motorola states that the market for isochronous devices is
    beginning to emerge. *See* Motorola Comments at 20. NEC states that
    the number of UPCS end users grew 31 percent in 2000. *See* NEC
    Comments at 10.

[^121]: UTAM/WINForum Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5-6.

[^122]: *See* NEC Comments to the *Further Notice* at 14. NEC also
    claims that re‑designation would be unduly burdensome and would
    deter future investment in UPCS because it would create stranded
    equipment, which may cause manufacturers to exit the UPCS market.

[^123]: *See* Avaya Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2 & 6.

[^124]: For example, UTAM/WINForum states that UPCS spectrum usage is
    "vibrant" and that it is increasing as microwave migration
    continues. UTAM/WINForum Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at
    3-8. *See also* Avaya Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5 and 7;
    Nortel Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3-10; NEC Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2-4.

[^125]: *See* Blackfoot Telephone Cooperative (Blackfoot) Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at 2; Midstate Comments to the *Further Notice*
    at 2; Midvale Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2; Penasco Valley
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 2; UTStarcom Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2; Rural Commenters Reply Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2; NTCA Reply Comments to the *Further Notice*
    at 2; *Ex Parte* Comments of the Rural Commenters in ET Docket No.
    00-258, filed March 19, 2002. *See* *also* Panasonic Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2; Quantum Communication, Inc. Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2; RNI Communications Corp. Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 2; RTG Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5,
    Telecom Consulting Associates, Inc. Comments to the *Further Notice*
    at 6; PHS MoU Comments to the *Further Notice* at 1; Robert Hart
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 1*.*

[^126]: *See* Avaya Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6; NEC Reply
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6; Rural Commenters Reply
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4; and UTAM Reply Comments to
    the *Further Notice*. *See also* Nortel Comments to the *Further
    Notice* at 5 (suggesting that UPCS users, manufacturers,
    distributors, and users should be afforded the same level of
    relocation funding as other displaced services). UTAM recently
    stated that it has cleared 98 percent of the microwave facilities
    from the 1920‑1930 MHz band and 91 percent from the 1910‑1920 MHz
    band. In addition, UTAM states that it has incurred more than \$60
    million in liabilities relocating incumbent microwave links from the
    1910‑1930 MHz band. *See* "UTAM Report to the FCC" (filed July 1,
    2002 in GEN Docket No. 90-314) (*UTAM Report*).

[^127]: *Ex Parte* comments of Nextel in WT Docket 00-258, filed Aug. 9,
    2002. *See also* "Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800
    MHz Band," WT Docket No. 02-55. Since Nextel's proposal is part of
    the record in WT Docket 02-55 and comments have already been filed
    on Nextel's proposal, we do not invite comment here on this issue.

[^128]: *See WCA Letter, supra* n.66. We believe that if existing MDS
    licensees deployed more robust, spectrally efficient equipment upon
    relocation, WCA's proposal could also be implemented within the
    1910-1915 and 1990-1995 MHz bands.

[^129]: At that time, the Commission anticipated that the band would be
    used for data applications such as high-speed, high-capacity LANs*.
    See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New Personal
    Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Second Report and
    Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 7700 (1993).

[^130]: *See supra* ¶ 35.

[^131]: If this approach is taken, we would propose specific licensing
    and service rules in a subsequent Notice of Proposed Rule Making.

[^132]: We could also adopt an asymmetric pairing for these bands. *See
    infra* ¶ 53.

[^133]: Microwave systems operating with paired frequencies use the
    1910-1930 MHz band paired with the 2160‑2180 MHz band. We note that
    UTAM previously relocated certain microwave incumbents from the
    1910‑1920 MHz band in conjunction with the designation of the
    1910-1930 MHz band for UPCS use. We discuss proposed modifications
    to the existing relocation and reimbursement procedures for the
    1910-1920 MHz band to account for these relocations in ¶¶ 56-61,
    *infra*. We observe that the rules adopted in the 1992 *Emerging
    Technologies* proceeding apply to this band. *Emerging Technologies
    First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 7
    FCC Rcd at 6890, ¶¶ 23-24. This relocation right was affirmed in the
    *Emerging Technologies Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Notice
    of Proposed Rulemaking and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 23949 (1998). The
    rules are codified in 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69-101.101.99. Because these
    procedures are well known, parties can move expediently to initiate
    any relocation deemed necessary. For these reasons, we believe that
    service providers can roll out service in this band quickly.

[^134]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.229.

[^135]: We make no decision with respect to whether our Broadband PCS
    rules would be most appropriate for this band, and note that we
    would propose specific licensing and service rules in a subsequent
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

[^136]: CTIA Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3. *See also, e.g.*,
    Avaya Comments to the *Further Notice* at 10; Motorola Comments to
    the *Further Notice* at ii, 15 & 18; Nortel Comments to the *Further
    Notice* at 3-5; TIA Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4; UTAM
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 16; UTStarcom Comments to the
    *Further Notice* at 3-4. *See also* *Ex Parte* comments of Motorola
    in WT Docket 00-258, filed Dec. 18, 2002 at 8 (suggesting that it
    would be feasible to extend the Broadband PCS spectrum by 5-6
    megahertz to leverage existing equipment and technology).

[^137]: *See* Ericsson Comments to the *Further Notice* at 7-8.

[^138]: *See, e.g.*, letter from Regina M. Kenney, Esq. to Marlene H.
    Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. *Ex Parte*
    filing on behalf of Nextel in IB Docket No 01-185 and ET Docket No.
    00-258 (filed Jan. 23, 2003).

[^139]: *See supra* ¶ 35.

[^140]: *See* UTAM Comments to *FNPRM* at 13-14 (stating that
    isochronous applications can support both voice and data). UTAM
    further notes that isochronous data systems are also efficient, as
    both Digital Enhanced Cordless Telephony (DECT) and Personal
    Handyphone Service (PHS) offer data rates on the order of 384 to 552
    kbps. *See also* NEC Comments to *Further Notice* at 25 (stating
    that the ability to provide both data and voice on a converged
    wireless platform would increase the deployment of wireless PBXs).

[^141]: Specific requirements for the operation of asynchronous devices
    in the 1910-1920 MHz band are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 15.321 and
    specific requirements for the operation of isochronous devices in
    the 1920-1930 MHz band are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 15.323. Because
    the isochronous etiquette is intended for "circuit switched" devices
    that transmit at regular intervals -- thus they would take control
    of a communication channel for longer time periods -- and the
    asynchronous etiquette is for "packet data" transmitted in bursts at
    irregular intervals, there are different monitoring timing intervals
    for each type of etiquette.

[^142]: UTStarcom Petition for Rulemaking at 2. The PAS system operates
    on a subset of the frequencies from 1893.5 to 1919.6 MHz. UTStarcom
    avers that the system can support large number of users through very
    small cells if it is allowed to use all 10 MHz in the 1910-1920 MHz.
    *Id.*, at 3.

[^143]: *See* UTStarcom *Ex Parte* Comments in RM-10024 and RM-9498,
    filed March 23, 2001, *Proposed Part 15 Changes*. The PAS system
    utilizes a control channel in the 1910-1911.25 MHz band. Although
    the control channel frequency can be changed within this frequency
    band, it is questionable whether the control channel may be moved to
    a sub-band within 1915-1930 MHz.

[^144]: *See* UTStarcom *Ex Parte* Comments in RM-10024 and RM-9498,
    filed November 15, 2002, *Potential Interference to Existing UPCS
    Systems Resulting From Co-Channel and Adjacent Channel Operation of
    UTStarcom Networks*, at 1.

[^145]: *See, e.g.*, Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below
    900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380, *Notice of
    Inquiry*, 17 FCC Rcd 25632 (2002).

[^146]: See *supra* ¶ 37.

[^147]: UTAM Comments to the *Further Notice* at 3.

[^148]: *See* *UTAM Report, supra* n.126.

[^149]: To recover its band clearing expenses, UTAM charges a fee for
    each deployed UPCS handset. So far, there has been no UPCS equipment
    using the 1910-1920 MHz band.

[^150]: Avaya Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6; Rural Commenters
    Reply Comments to the *Further Notice* at 4. *See also* NEC Reply
    Comments to the *Further Notice* at 6; UTAM Reply Comments to the
    *Further Notice*; Nortel Comments to the *Further Notice* at 5.

[^151]: New licensees are subject to the relocation rules established in
    the *Emerging Technologies* proceeding for clearing incumbent
    microwave stations from the portion of the 1910-1930 MHz band that
    is re-designated. *See* *supra* n.133.

[^152]: For example, if the Commission eventually issues 10 licenses for
    the 1910-1915 MHz band, a Broadband PCS licensee would be
    responsible for 1/10 times the number of its licenses of the total
    amount to be reimbursed to UTAM.

[^153]: For example, if UTAM clears a microwave link which uses a 20
    megahertz channel across the entire 1910-1930 MHz band, and we
    re-designate the 1910-1915 MHz band for advanced services, then UTAM
    would seek reimbursement of 25 percent of the costs incurred from
    the new entrant(s) in the 1910-1915 MHz band.

[^154]: *See supra* ¶ 10.

[^155]: *Id.*

[^156]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Parts 21, 22, and 101.

[^157]: *Emerging Technologies First Report and Order and Third Notice
    of Proposed Rule Making*, 7 FCC Rcd at 6890, ¶¶ 23-24. This
    relocation right was affirmed in the *Emerging Technologies
    Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 23949 (1998).

[^158]: *See Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 618, ¶ 52.

[^159]: *See Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16060-61, ¶¶ 38-41.

[^160]: In Region 2 (the Americas) this band is also allocated for MSS
    downlinks on a secondary basis.

[^161]: Prior to February 25, 1974 footnote NG23 made the 2150-2162 MHz
    band available for assignment to stations in the International Fixed
    Public Radiocommunication Services in the Caribbean. A review of our
    licensing database finds that there are no such licensees. In a
    separate proceeding, we are proposing to delete footnote NG23. *See*
    Amendment of Parts 2, 25, and 87 of the Commission\'s Rules to
    Implement Decisions from World Radiocommunication Conferences
    Concerning Frequency Bands Between 28 MHz and 36 GHz and to
    Otherwise Update the Rules in this Frequency Range, ET Docket No.
    02-305, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 17 FCC Rcd 19756 at ¶ 103
    (2002).

[^162]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 21---Domestic Public Fixed Radio Services.
    Subpart K of Part 21 is titled "Multipoint Distribution Service."

[^163]: Under an informal agreement among MDS licensees, the principal
    use of the 2150-2160/2 MHz band is for response stations
    transmitting to hub stations, which is generally known as upstream
    communications. *See generally* Sprint Comments to the *Notice* at
    21 and WCA Comments to the *Notice* at 42-43. A response station in
    a two-way system is a customer-premises transceiver used for the
    reception of downstream and transmission of upstream signals as part
    of a large system of such stations licensed under the authority of a
    single license. A maximum e.i.r.p. of 33 dBW (2000 watts) per 6 MHz
    is permitted. A hub station is a receive-only station licensed as
    part of a system of response stations in a two-way system and used
    for the purpose of receiving the upstream transmissions of those
    response stations.

[^164]: The 2 megahertz at 2160-2162 MHz can only be assigned where
    there is evidence that no harmful interference would occur to any
    authorized co-frequency point-to-point facility. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    21.901(c).

[^165]: There are other MDS channels in the 2596-2644 MHz, 2650-2656
    MHz, 2662-2668 MHz, and 2674-2680 MHz bands, as well as response
    channels in the 2686-2690 MHz band. Historically, the 2150-2162 MHz
    and 2500-2690 MHz bands were predominantly used for one‑way analog
    video transmission. Increasingly, MDS operators are using these
    bands for two-way digital broadband services. In October 1996, the
    Commission decided to allow high‑speed digital data applications,
    including Internet access. Then, in 1998, the Commission approved
    the use of two‑way transmissions, effectively enabling the provision
    of voice, video, and data services. In 2001, a mobile, except
    aeronautical mobile, service allocation was added to the 2500-2690
    MHz band. *See* *First R&O and MO&O*, 16 FCC Rcd 17222 (2001).

[^166]: *See Emerging Technologies First Report and Order and Third
    Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 7 FCC Rcd at 6889, ¶ 17.

[^167]: Our licensing database indicates that there are 27 MDS licenses
    for the 2160-2162 MHz band on a primary basis. These stations are
    listed in Appendix E. We note that the Wireless Telecommunications
    Bureau is currently conducting an effort to verify the status of all
    existing MDS licenses. *See* Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
    Seeks to Verify ITFS, MDS, and MMDS License Status and Pending
    Applications, *Public Notice*, DA 02-2751 (rel. Oct. 18, 2002).

[^168]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 21.901(c). The Commission provided the MDS
    service with an extra 2 megahertz in the 50 largest metropolitan
    areas so that there would be sufficient bandwidth (6 MHz) for a
    second analog television channel.

[^169]: *See* <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/> for information on
    Auction 6. This auction made available a maximum of 78 MHz of
    primary spectrum in each BTA, but with the caveat that BTA licensees
    would protect incumbent stations. In the MDS Bidder Information
    Package, the Commission noted: "In 1992, the 2160-2162 MHz frequency
    was reallocated to emerging technologies, and thus, any subsequent
    MDS use of these 2 MHz will be secondary." *See* FCC Auction \[for\]
    Multipoint and/or Multichannel Distribution Service (MDS)
    Authorizations for Basic Trading Areas, Bidder Information Package
    (1995), at 21 (available at
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases.html>).

[^170]: These stations are listed in Appendix E.

[^171]: *See WCA Letter, supra* n.66 (proposing that MDS operations be
    relocated to spectrum in the 1910-1915/6 MHz and 1995-1995/6 MHz
    bands).

[^172]: *Second R&O*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16061, ¶ 40.

[^173]: *Emerging Technologies Third R&O*, 8 FCC Rcd 6589, 6591 & 6603
    ¶¶ 5 & 36 (1993).

[^174]: *See, e.g.,* 47 C.F.R. § 101.91.

[^175]: *See* FCC Releases Staff Final Report "Spectrum Study of
    2500-2690 MHz Band: The Potential for Accommodating Third Generation
    Mobile Systems" Seeks Comment on Final Report in Pending Spectrum
    Allocation Proceeding (ET Docket No. 00-258), DA 01-786, *Public
    Notice*, 12 FCC Rcd 10272 (2001). The study concluded that MDS and
    AWS sharing would not be possible in the 2500-2690 MHz band, and
    that it would not be possible to relocate MDS users on the band
    without jeopardizing the unique and valuable services that MDS users
    provide.

[^176]: *See Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16061, ¶ 40.

[^177]: For example, in ET Docket No. 95-18, the Commission adopted a
    policy in which new MSS entrants would relocate incumbent BAS
    systems operating in the 1990-2110 MHz band in two phases to the
    2008-2110 MHz band and then to the 2025-2110 MHz band -- a reduction
    of 35 megahertz of spectrum. The Commission determined that BAS
    could achieve comparable facilities in the reduced spectrum because
    the relocation would entail an upgrade of equipment from analog to
    digital. *See* Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules
    to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite
    Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, *Second Report and Order and Second
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd. 12315 (2000).

[^178]: Currently, there are 27 stations with primary status. *See*
    Appendix E.

[^179]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.105(c)(2).

[^180]: *See* Wireless Communications Association Reply Comments to the
    *Notice* at 34 n.89.

[^181]: Petition for Rulemaking of the Cellular Telecommunications &
    Internet Association Concerning Reallocation of 2 GHz Spectrum for
    Terrestrial Wireless Use, Petition for Rulemaking (filed May 18,
    2001).

[^182]: See *2 GHz MSS R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 16127. At the time the
    petition was filed, the Commission had reallocated the 1990-2025 MHz
    and 2165-2200 MHz bands and established service rules for MSS.

[^183]: See *Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd at 16054, ¶ 23.

[^184]: AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless and Cingular filed an
    application for review of the MSS license grants on August 16, 2001.
    We will address that application for review separately.

[^185]: Introduction of New Advanced Mobile and Fixed Terrestrial
    Services; Use of Frequencies Below 3 GHz; Petition for Rulemaking of
    the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association Concerning
    Reallocation of 2 GHz Spectrum for Terrestrial Wireless Use,
    *Petition for Reconsideration*, ET Docket No. 00-258 (filed October
    15, 2001) (CTIA Petition for Reconsideration).

[^186]: CTIA Petition for Reconsideration.

[^187]: CTIA referenced this docket in the caption of its petition.

[^188]: Flexibility of Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
    Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz
    Band, IB Docket No. 01-185, ET Docket No. 95-18, *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking*, 16 FCC Rcd 15532 (2001).

[^189]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA (codified at 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).

[^190]: 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, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 596 (2001).

[^191]: 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, ET Docket No. 00-258, ET Docket No.
    95-18, and IB Docket No. 99-81, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 16 FCC Rcd 16043 (2001).

[^192]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^193]: Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    codified at 47 U.S.C. § 157.

[^194]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^195]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^196]: 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."

[^197]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^198]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^199]: Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office
    of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^200]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^201]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of
    Governments."

[^202]: *Id.*

[^203]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513322.

[^204]: *Id*.

[^205]: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic
    Census, Information - Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size,
    Table 5 -- Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax at
    64, NAICS code 513322 (October 2000).

[^206]: *See Trends in Telephone Service*, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, Wireline Communications Bureau, Table 5.3, page
    5-5 (May 2002).

[^207]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517410 (formerly 513340).

[^208]: *Id*. NAICS code 517910 (formerly 513390).

[^209]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax:
    1997," Table 4, NAICS code 517410 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^210]: *Id.*

[^211]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Receipt Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax:
    1997," Table 4, NAICS code 517910 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^212]: *Id.*

[^213]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

[^214]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^215]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

[^216]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA (codified at 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).

[^217]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^218]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^219]: 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."

[^220]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^221]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^222]: Department of Commerce, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1992 Economic
    Census, Table 6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office
    of Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration).

[^223]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^224]: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, "1992 Census of
    Governments."

[^225]: *Id.*

[^226]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 513322.

[^227]: *Id*.

[^228]: U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic
    Census, Information - Subject Series, Establishment and Firm Size,
    Table 5 -- Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income Tax at
    64, NAICS code 513322 (October 2000).

[^229]: *See Trends in Telephone Service*, Industry Analysis and
    Technology Division, Wireline Communications Bureau, Table 5.3, page
    5-5 (May 2002).

[^230]: Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage the Establishment of
    Services Using New and Innovative Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9,
    *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 7
    FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 6495
    (1993); *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 8
    FCC Rcd 6589 (1993); *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1943
    (1994)*; Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7797
    (1994), *aff\'d*, Association of Public Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
    (collectively, "*Emerging Technologies* proceeding").

[^231]: 47 CFR 101 *et seq*. (formerly, part 21 of the Commission\'s
    Rules).

[^232]: Persons eligible under parts 80 and 90 of the Commission\'s
    rules can use Private Operational-Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47
    CFR 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.

[^233]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission\'s Rules. *See* 47 CFR Part 74 *et seq*. 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.

[^234]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (formerly 513322).

[^235]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^236]: *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 "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^237]: For purposes of this item, MDS includes single channel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and the Multichannel
    Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS). *See* 66 Fed. Reg. 36177.

[^238]: Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution
    Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to
    Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, *Report
    and Order*, 13 FCC Rcd 19112 (1998), *recon.*, 14 FCC Rcd 12764
    (1999), *further recon.*, 15 FCC Rcd 14566 (2000).

[^239]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 21.961 and 1.2110.

[^240]: 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, *Report and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9670
    (1995), 60 Fed. Reg. 36524 (July 17, 1995).

[^241]: Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) were designed by Rand McNally and are
    the geographic areas by which MDS was auctioned and authorized. *See
    id.* at 9608.

[^242]: 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.

[^243]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517212.

[^244]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^245]: *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 "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^246]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).