**Before the**

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 04-186         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Unlicensed Operation in the TV   | ) | ET Docket No. 02-380         |
| Broadcast Bands                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Additional Spectrum for          |   |                              |
| Unlicensed Devices               | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz   | ) |                              |
| Band                             | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

second report and order AND

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

**Adopted: November 4, 2008 Released: November 14, 2008**

By the Commission: Chairman Martin, and Commissioners Copps, Adelstein,
and McDowell issuing separate statements; Commissioner Tate approving in
part, dissenting in part and issuing a statement.

Table of Contents

Paragraph

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

II Introduction 2

III\. Background 11

IV\. Discussion 32

A. Licensed Vs. Unlicensed Operation 35

B. Plan For Unlicensed Use Of The TV Bands 52

1\. Methods For Determining Occupied And Unoccupied Channels 55

2\. Fixed Devices 99

3\. Personal/Portable Devices 116

C. Permissible Channels For Unlicensed Operation 137

D. Protection Of Broadcast Television And Other Services 158

E. TV Bands Database System Requirements 201

F. Technical Requirements 225

1\. Transmit Antenna Height Limits 226

2\. Transmit Power Control 230

3\. Out-Of-Band Emissions Limits 233

4\. Spectrum Sensing 237

5\. Measurement Procedures 251

6\. Spectrum Sharing 253

G. Equipment Certification Required 256

H. Equipment Certification Under A "Proof Of Performance" Standard 257

I. Other Matters 262

1\. Certification By Telecommunications Certification Bodies 262

2\. Operation In Border Areas 263

3\. Reconsideration Of Marketing Date For Unlicensed TV Band Devices 267

4\. Emergency Request For Additional Comment Period 269

V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS 270

VI\. ORDERING CLAUSES 272

APPENDIX A - Parties Filing Comments

APPENDIX B - Final Rules

APPENDIX C - Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.  In this Second Report and Order, we adopt rules to allow unlicensed
    radio transmitters to operate in the broadcast television spectrum
    at locations where that spectrum is not being used by licensed
    services (this unused TV spectrum is often termed "white spaces").
    This action will make a significant amount of spectrum available for
    new and innovative products and services, including broadband data
    and other services for businesses and consumers. The actions we take
    here are a conservative first step that includes many safeguards to
    prevent harmful interference to incumbent communications services.
    Moreover, the Commission will closely oversee the development and
    introduction of these devices to the market and will take whatever
    actions may be necessary to avoid, and if necessary correct, any
    interference that may occur. Further, we will consider in the future
    any changes to the rules that may be appropriate to provide greater
    flexibility for development of this technology and better protect
    against harmful interference to incumbent communications services.
    Briefly, the rules we are adopting provide for the following
    capabilities and safeguards:

-   We are providing for both fixed and personal/portable devices to
    operate in the TV white spaces on an unlicensed basis.

-   All devices, except personal/portable devices operating in client
    mode, must include a geolocation capability and provisions to access
    over the Internet a database of protected radio services and the
    locations and channels that may be used by the unlicensed devices at
    each location. The unlicensed devices must first access the database
    to obtain a list of the permitted channels before operating.

-   The database will be established and administered by a third party,
    or parties, to be selected through a public notice process to
    solicit interested parties.

-   Fixed devices may operate on any channel between 2 and 51, except
    channels 3, 4 and 37, and subject to a number of other conditions
    such as a restriction against co-channel operation or operation
    adjacent TV channels pending consideration of further information
    that may be submitted into the record in this proceeding. Fixed
    devices may operate at up to 4 Watts EIRP (effective isotropic
    radiated power).

-   Personal portable devices may operate on any unoccupied channel
    between 21 and 51, except channel 37. Personal portable devices may
    operate at up to 100 milliwatts of power, except that operation on
    adjacent channels will be limited to 40 milliwatts.

-   Fixed and personal/portable devices must also have a capability to
    sense TV broadcasting and wireless microphone signals as a further
    means to minimize potential interference. However, for TV
    broadcasting the database will be the controlling mechanism.

-   Wireless microphones will be protected in a variety of ways. The
    locations where wireless microphones are used, such as entertainment
    venues and for sporting events, can be registered in the database
    and will be protected as for other services. In addition, channels
    from 2 -- 20 will be restricted to fixed devices, and we anticipate
    that many of these channels will remain available for wireless
    microphones that operate on an itinerant basis. In addition, in 13
    major markets where certain channels between 14 and 20 are used for
    land mobile operations, we will leave 2 channels between 21 and 51
    free of new unlicensed devices and therefore available for wireless
    microphones. Finally, as noted above, we have required that devices
    also include the ability to listen to the airwaves to sense wireless
    microphones as an additional measure of protection for these
    devices.

-   Devices must adhere to certain rules to further mitigate the
    potential interference and to help remedy potential interference
    should it occur. For example, all fixed devices must register their
    locations in the database. In addition, fixed devices must transmit
    identifying information to make it easier to identify them if they
    are found to interfere. Furthermore, fixed and personal/portable
    devices operating independently must provide identifying information
    to the TV bands database. All devices must include adaptable power
    control so that they use the minimum power necessary to accomplish
    communications.

-   All white space devices are subject to equipment certification by
    the FCC Laboratory. The Laboratory will request samples of the
    devices for testing to ensure that they meet all the pertinent
    requirements.

-   We will permit applications for certification of devices that do not
    include the geolocation and database access capabilities, and
    instead rely on spectrum sensing to avoid causing harmful
    interference, subject to a much more rigorous set of tests by our
    Laboratory in a process that will be open to the public. These tests
    will include both laboratory and field tests to fully ensure that
    such devices meet a "Proof of Performance" standard that they will
    not cause harmful interference. Under this procedure the Commission
    will issue a Public Notice seeking comment on the application, as
    well as test procedures and methodologies. The Commission will also
    issue a Public Notice seeking comment on its recommendations. The
    decision to grant such an application will then be made at the
    Commission level.

-   The Commission will act promptly to remove any equipment found to be
    causing harmful interference from the market and will require the
    responsible parties to take appropriate actions to remedy any
    interference that may occur.

# Introduction

2.  In this Second Report and Order, we adopt rules to allow unlicensed
    radio transmitters to operate in the broadcast television spectrum
    at locations where that spectrum is not being used by licensed
    services (this unused TV spectrum is often termed "white spaces").
    This action will open for use a significant amount of spectrum with
    very desirable propagation characteristics that has heretofore lain
    fallow. These new rules will allow the development of new and
    innovative types of unlicensed devices that provide broadband data
    and other services for businesses and consumers without disrupting
    the incumbent television and other authorized services that operate
    in the TV bands. In addition, because transmissions on frequencies
    in the TV bands are less subject to propagation losses than
    transmissions in the spectrum bands where existing low power
    broadband unlicensed operations are permitted, *i.e.*, the 2.4 GHz
    and 5 GHz bands, we anticipate that allowing unlicensed operation in
    the TV bands will benefit wireless internet service providers
    (WISPs) by extending the service range of their operations. This
    will allow wireless broadband providers that use unlicensed devices
    to reach new customers and to extend and improve their services in
    rural areas. We anticipate that allowing use of the TV white spaces
    by unlicensed devices will have significant benefits for both
    businesses and consumers and thereby promote more efficient and
    effective use of the TV spectrum.

3.  The plan we are adopting will allow both fixed and personal/portable
    unlicensed devices to operate on unused television channels in
    locations where such operations will not result in harmful
    interference to TV services (including reception by cable headends
    and low power TV stations, *i.e.*, TV translator, low power TV, TV
    booster, and Class A TV stations) and other services that use the TV
    bands.[^1] We recognize the importance of protecting licensed
    services from harmful interference and the novel challenges involved
    in reliably identifying unused TV channels. We therefore are taking
    a cautious and conservative approach in this plan, balancing the
    need to provide sufficient opportunities for proponents to develop
    viable unlicensed TV band devices (TVBDs) with measures to ensure
    that such devices fully protect the important licensed services that
    operate in the TV bands. In allowing the introduction of unlicensed
    TVBDs, we also believe it is important to avoid the possibility of
    disrupting or causing uncertainty in the DTV transition, the current
    ongoing process whereby TV stations are changing from analog to
    digital (DTV) operation. As set forth in the *First Report and Order
    and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*First R&O/Further
    Notice*) in this proceeding, we have addressed this concern with
    regard to the DTV transition by restricting the marketing of
    unlicensed TVBDs until February 18, 2009, the date when the DTV
    transition will end and all full-power TV stations will be operating
    on a single channel, and only with digital signals.[^2]

4.  We anticipate that the capabilities of products for operating in
    this spectrum will develop and evolve over time and that much will
    be learned about the potential for unlicensed TVBDs to cause
    interference to licensed services and how to avoid that
    interference. We may therefore need to revisit these rules to make
    adjustments both to provide more flexibility for unlicensed devices
    and to refine the protections for licensed services. Consistent with
    our objective to allow unlicensed TVBDs to operate with the most
    flexibility and capabilities possible consistent with protection of
    licensed services, we are directing our staff to conduct a review
    and report to the Commission in two years from the date of this
    Second Report and Order on the state of these devices, including the
    types of devices on the market, the extent of their implementation,
    technical developments, any interference problems that may have
    arisen, and aspects of the rules that should be altered to increase
    features and opportunities for use or to address conflicts.

5.  We are also denying all aspects of a petition for reconsideration
    submitted by the New America Foundation and the Champaign Urbana
    Wireless Network (NAF/CUWN).[^3] In particular, we are denying their
    request that we 1) not re-open the issue of whether to permit new
    uses of the TV bands on a licensed or unlicensed basis; 2) allow
    personal/portable devices on channels 14-20; and 3) allow marketing
    of new unlicensed TV band devices prior to the end of the DTV
    transition.

6.  *Overview of Rules for Unlicensed TV Band Devices*. The new rules
    provide for operation of two types of unlicensed TVBDs that may
    provide broadband data and other types of communications
    services: 1) fixed devices, which will operate from a fixed location
    with relatively higher power and could be used to provide a variety
    of services including wireless broadband access in urban and rural
    areas, and 2) personal/portable devices, which will use lower power
    and could, for example, take the form of devices such as Wi-Fi-like
    cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home local area networks
    (LANs). In order to operate without causing interference to licensed
    services, both types of devices will be required to be able to
    reliably determine which channels are occupied by licensed
    operations at their location at any given time and to avoid
    interfering with services on those channels using the following
    methods. Devices will be required to identify unused channels as
    follows:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
a)  A fixed device must employ both geo-location/database access and
    spectrum sensing capabilities that enable the device to listen for
    and identify the presence of signals from other transmitters;

b)  A personal/portable device must either 1) be under the control of a
    fixed device or a personal/portable device that employs
    geolocation/database access and spectrum sensing or 2) employ
    geo-location/database access and spectrum sensing itself.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
7.  In addition, we are adopting rules that will allow for certification
    of personal/portable devices that do not include geo-location and
    database access capabilities and are not controlled by another
    device but rather determine available channels using spectrum
    sensing, perhaps in combination with some other techniques. These
    devices will be required to meet a "proof of performance" standard
    that they will not cause harmful interference to incumbent radio
    services. Such devices will be subject to all of the other
    requirements for personal/portable devices but would be limited to
    50 milliwatts (mW) EIRP rather than the 100 mW authorized for
    personal/portable devices for which available channels are
    determined based on the geolocation and database method. The
    certification process will require submittal of a sample for testing
    in our laboratory and in the field similar to the process that the
    FCC Laboratory followed for testing of TV band devices. The sample
    device must be a fully functioning pre-production prototype,
    identical to the device that will be marketed except for cosmetics.
    The testing will be open to the public. The application must also
    show how the device will protect the various incumbent radio
    services discussed herein. The determination of whether to certify
    the device will be based on a demonstrated ability to avoid causing
    harmful interference with an extremely high degree of reliability.
    If the device is certificated, we will permit routine certification
    of other devices that have identical characteristics (i.e., have the
    identical electrical characteristics and antenna system.). We will
    endeavor to complete the certification process within 180 days of
    submittal of the device for testing, barring any unforeseen
    circumstances.

8.  *Fixed Devices*. Fixed devices will be allowed to communicate with
    other fixed devices and with personal portable devices. These
    devices will be required to determine their geographic location
    through an incorporated geo-location capability or from a
    professional installer and to access and register with a database
    system that contains records of protected services and receive back
    either a list of the available channels at their location or
    information on the channels used in their area from which they can
    determine a list of available channels. In addition, fixed devices
    will be required to operate with antennas mounted outdoors and to
    use spectrum sensing to identify any wireless microphone operations
    and any other protected signals that might be present at their
    location but do not appear in the database. These devices will be
    required to sense, at levels as low as ‑114 dBm, TV signals (digital
    and analog), wireless microphone signals, and signals of other
    services that operate in the TV bands on intermittent basis. Fixed
    devices will be allowed to operate at up to 1 watt (W) transmitter
    output power and with a gain antenna to achieve 4 W equivalent
    isotropically radiated power (EIRP), and to communicate with other
    fixed devices and personal/portable devices, except that they may
    not communicate with personal/portable devices when operating on
    channels in the range 2-20. This plan for fixed devices is similar
    to the provisions of the draft standard for TVBDs under
    consideration by IEEE 802.22.[^4]

9.  *Personal/portable Devices*. Personal/portable devices will be
    allowed to communicate with fixed devices and with other
    personal/portable devices. These devices will be allowed to operate
    in two different modes: 1) Mode I - client, whereby a
    personal/portable device is controlled by a fixed or a
    personal/portable device operating in Mode II that has determined
    the available channels in the area and/or 2) Mode II - independent,
    whereby a personal/portable device determines the available channels
    using its own internal geo-location/database access capabilities.
    Personal/portable operations will be permitted at up to 100 mW EIRP,
    with no antenna gain, except that when operating on a channel
    adjacent to a TV station or other licensed station/service and
    within the protected coverage area of that service, operations will
    be limited to 40 milliwatts. A device operating in Mode II using its
    own internal geo-location and database access capabilities will be
    allowed to communicate with other personal/portable devices and
    function as the master device in a master/client link with another
    personal/portable device. Devices operating in either mode will be
    required to sense TV signals, wireless microphone signals, and
    signals of other services that operate in the TV bands, including
    those that operate on intermittent basis, at levels as low as
    ‑114 dBm. Personal portable devices will not be required to register
    with the database system.

10. *All Devices*. All unlicensed TV band fixed and personal/portable TV
    band devices will be permitted to operate on TV channels 21-51,
    excluding channel 37. In addition, fixed TVBDs that only communicate
    with other fixed TVBDs will be permitted to operate on channels 2
    and 5-20, except that they must avoid operation on channels used by
    private land mobile radio service (PLMRS), *i.e.*, public safety,
    and commercial mobile radio service operations on channels in
    certain markets and areas adjacent to them. Also, in individual
    markets where there are Private Land Mobile Radio Service or
    Commercial Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS/CMRS) operations on channels
    14-20, two channels in the range 21-51 will be reserved for
    operation by wireless microphones such that TVBDs will not be
    permitted on those channels. This plan for channel use is consistent
    with the requests of the various white space proponents and would
    reserve channels for a "safe harbor" for operation of wireless
    microphones and ensure protection of the public safety and other
    land mobile services that use channels 14-20. At this time, we are
    only permitting fixed TVBDs to operate on channels not that are not
    immediately next to (first adjacent on either side of) the channel
    of a TV station; personal portable devices will be allowed to
    operate on first adjacent channels to a TV station subject to the
    power limitation indicated above. All unlicensed TV band devices
    will be required to limit their out-of-band emissions in the first
    adjacent channel to a level 55 dB below the power level in the
    channel they occupy, as measured in a 100 kHz bandwidth. In
    addition, all TVBDs will be required to comply with a more stringent
    out-of-band emissions band at the edges of channels 36 and 38 that
    are adjacent to channel 37 in order to protect medical telemetry
    devices on that channel 37. Fixed devices will also be required to
    periodically transmit a signal with their identification when they
    are operating. This will facilitate identification of sources of
    interference. The database system for fixed stations and
    personal/portable devices with geo-location and database access
    capability will be managed by a database manager or managers
    selected by our Office of Engineering and Technology. The specific
    provisions of this plan are presented below.

# Background

11. The Commission provides for the operation of unlicensed radio
    transmitters in Part 15 of its rules.[^5] Under these rules,
    unlicensed devices generally operate on frequencies shared with
    authorized services and at relatively low power, *i.e*., at power
    levels 1 W or less. Operation under Part 15 is subject to the
    condition that a device does not cause harmful interference to
    authorized services, and that it must accept any interference
    received.[^6] The current Part 15 rules provide substantial
    flexibility in the types of unlicensed devices that can be operated,
    but prohibit the operation of unlicensed devices on certain
    frequencies, including the bands used for broadcast television
    service.[^7]

12. The broadcast television service operates under Part 73 of the
    rules. TV stations operate on six-megahertz channels designated
    channels 2 to 69 in four bands of frequencies in the VHF and UHF
    regions of the radio spectrum (54-72 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz and
    470-806 MHz).[^8] As noted above, television stations are now in the
    process of converting from analog to digital transmissions.[^9]
    During the transition to digital transmissions, each full service
    television station that was authorized before 1997 is required to
    broadcast on two channels, one digital and one analog.[^10] At the
    end of the transition on February 17, 2009, each full service TV
    station must cease analog operation and operate on a single digital
    channel.[^11] Because the new digital TV transmission system is more
    spectrally efficient than the analog TV transmission system, the
    Commission has relaxed some of the current analog TV channel
    separation requirements for digital operation and has eliminated
    others. Consequently, it has been able to accommodate all existing
    television stations with channels for post-transition operation in
    less spectrum. The Commission has specified that digital television
    stations will operate only on channels 2-51 after the transition and
    has reallocated television channels 52-69 for other uses.[^12]

13. To avoid interference between TV stations, stations on the same and
    adjacent channels (and in the case of analog TV service certain
    other channel relationships) must comply with minimum separation
    distance requirements and other technical provisions.[^13] As a
    result of these provisions, there are geographic areas between the
    stations on any given channel in local areas where TV service is not
    available. There are typically a number of TV channels in a given
    geographic area that are not being used by full service digital TV
    stations because such stations would not be able to operate without
    causing interference to co-channel or adjacent channel stations. The
    minimum separation distances (spacings) between stations are based
    on the assumption that the stations will operate at the maximum
    permitted antenna height and power.[^14] However, a transmitter
    operating on a vacant TV channel, *e.g.,* a channel not used by a
    high power TV station in a given geographic area due to interference
    concerns, at a lower antenna height and/or power level than a TV
    station operating at the maximum allowed facilities would not need
    as great a separation distance from co-channel and adjacent channel
    TV stations to avoid causing interference to such stations. Also, in
    some areas channels that could be used by a full service television
    station simply are not being used. This situation will remain after
    the transition.

14. In addition to full service TV stations operating under Part 73 of
    the rules, certain other licensed services are permitted to operate
    on TV channels. Class A television stations operate under Subpart J
    of Part 73 of the rules.[^15] Low power TV, TV translator and TV
    booster stations are permitted to operate under Part 74 of the rules
    on a secondary basis to full service TV stations and on an equal
    basis with Class A TV stations, provided they meet technical rules
    to prevent interference to reception of such stations.[^16] Part 74
    also permits certain broadcast auxiliary operations on TV channels
    14-69 on a secondary basis.[^17] In addition, Part 74 permits
    certain entities to operate wireless microphones on vacant TV
    channels on a non-interference basis.[^18]

15. Further, in 13 metropolitan areas, one to three channels in the
    range of channels 14-20 are used by licensees in the Private Land
    Mobile Radio Service under Part 90 of the rules and the Commercial
    Mobile Radio Service under Part 20 of the rules.[^19] In addition,
    medical telemetry equipment is permitted to operate on an unlicensed
    basis on any vacant TV channels in the range of channels 7-46, and
    unlicensed remote control devices are allowed to operate on any TV
    channels above 70 MHz (*i.e.*, above channel 4), except for channel
    37.[^20] TV channel 37 (608-614 MHz) is allocated for radio
    astronomy and the wireless medical telemetry service (WMTS) and is
    not used for TV broadcasting. The Offshore Radiotelephone Service
    uses channels 15-17 in certain regions along the Gulf of
    Mexico.[^21] In Hawaii, channel 17 is reserved for inter-island
    communications.[^22] However, no active licensees currently use this
    channel in Hawaii, so we will not provide for protection of
    inter-island communications operations on channel 17 there unless or
    until an inter-island communications system is activated in that
    state.

16. On May 13, 2004, the Commission adopted a *Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* (*Notice*) in this proceeding in which it proposed to allow
    unlicensed operation in the TV bands at locations where frequencies
    are not in use by licensed services.[^23] To ensure that no harmful
    interference will occur to TV stations and other authorized users of
    the spectrum, the Commission proposed to define the conditions under
    which a TV channel is unused and to require unlicensed devices to
    incorporate "smart radio" features to identify the unused TV
    channels in the area where they are located. For the purpose of
    minimizing interference, the Commission proposed to classify
    unlicensed TVBDs in two general functional categories. The first
    category would consist of lower power "personal/portable" unlicensed
    devices, such as Wi-Fi-like cards in laptop computers or wireless
    in-home local area networks (LANs). The second category would
    consist of higher power "fixed" unlicensed devices that would
    operate from a fixed location and could be used to provide
    commercial services such as wireless broadband Internet access. The
    Commission proposed to require that fixed devices incorporate a
    geo-location method such as a Global Positioning System (GPS)
    receiver or be professionally installed, and that they access a
    database system to identify vacant channels at their location. It
    further proposed to require that personal/portable devices operate
    only when they receive a control signal from a source such as a TV
    station or FM radio station that identifies the vacant TV channels
    in that particular area. The Commission also sought comment on the
    use of spectrum sensing to identify vacant TV channels, but did not
    propose any specific technical criteria for spectrum sensing.

17. The comments received in response to the *Notice* were divided
    between the prospective manufacturers and users of unlicensed
    devices who believe adequate safeguards can be put in place to
    prevent harmful interference to authorized services, and the
    existing users of the TV bands who are concerned about potential
    interference. A number of broadband equipment manufacturers, trade
    associations and other parties supported allowing unlicensed
    operation in the TV bands. These parties generally stated that
    unlicensed devices could operate in the TV bands without causing
    interference to authorized services. They further stated that
    allowing such operation in the TV bands could improve access to
    broadband communications by taking advantage of the favorable
    propagation characteristics of the TV spectrum and that this would
    result in more efficient use of this spectrum.[^24]

18. Full service and low power TV broadcasters generally opposed
    allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands, expressing concern
    that unlicensed devices operating under the proposed rules would
    cause interference to TV reception, particularly in weak signal
    areas.[^25] Several parties also expressed concern that unlicensed
    devices operating in close proximity to TV receivers would cause
    direct pick-up interference potentially affecting all channels.[^26]
    Manufacturers and users of wireless microphones and other broadcast
    auxiliary services submitted that unlicensed devices would cause
    harmful interference to those services. Those parties recommended
    that the Commission take a number of steps to protect auxiliary
    services.[^27] Land mobile interests expressed concern about
    allowing unlicensed operation on channels 14-20 in any part of the
    country because devices could be transported into areas where those
    channels are used for PLMRS/CMRS operations.[^28]

19. On October 12, 2006, the Commission adopted the *First R&O/Further
    Notice* in this proceeding. In that action, the Commission
    determined that the record received in response to the *Notice* did
    not contain sufficient information for it to adopt final rules for
    unlicensed TVBDs. The Commission did, however, make a number of
    initial decisions regarding TVBDs. It decided to permit fixed
    unlicensed power devices to operate in the TV bands at times and
    locations where the spectrum is not already being used by other
    authorized services. It also decided not to permit operation of
    unlicensed TVBDs on channel 37, which is used by radio astronomy and
    wireless medical telemetry services, and on TV channels 52-69, as
    that spectrum has been reallocated for other services and will no
    longer be part of the TV bands after the DTV transition. The
    Commission further decided to prohibit operation of
    personal/portable TV band devices on TV channels 14-20 to avoid
    potential conflicts with public safety services on those channels.
    In addition, the Commission stated that it will not permit marketing
    of TV band devices to commence until February 18, 2009, the date on
    which all primary, full service TV stations will be in operation on
    their permanent DTV channels.

20. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission also asked
    questions and set forth additional proposals with regard to the
    provisions necessary to implement complete and final rules for
    unlicensed TV band devices. While the Commission continued to focus
    on devices operating on an unlicensed basis, it also sought comment
    on whether such devices should instead operate on a licensed or
    hybrid basis. The Commission recognized the importance of conducting
    testing to ensure that whatever standards are ultimately adopted
    will protect incumbent radio services from interference and
    indicated that it intended to conduct extensive testing to assess
    the potential interference from low power devices operating in the
    TV bands. It also requested further comment and information on the
    means that TVBDs, both fixed and personal/portable, should be
    required to use to determine the availability of unused spectrum. It
    specifically requested comment on whether it should allow
    personal/portable devices to rely on spectrum sensing and, if so,
    the technical features and parameters of the sensing capability to
    be required. The Commission observed that IEEE 802.22 is considering
    different sensing threshold detection levels depending on the nature
    of the source signal, with levels as low as -116 dBm, and invited
    comment on this value or alternative values for the detection
    threshold. It also made specific proposals for additional parameters
    of spectrum sensing capabilities and other technical requirements.
    The Commission sought comment on whether TV band devices should be
    permitted to operate on TV channels 2-4, and whether fixed TV band
    devices should be permitted to operate on TV channels 14-20. The
    Commission also sought additional comments on several issues
    relating to the geo-location/database access and control signal
    approaches discussed in the *Notice*.

21. The comments responding to the *First R&O/Further Notice* are again
    divided on certain of the major issues in this proceeding. Two
    groups, one a coalition of hardware and software companies
    consisting of Dell, Google, HP, Intel, Microsoft and Phillips (the
    White Space Coalition) and the other a group of public
    interest/consumer organizations and wireless internet service
    providers (WISPs), led by the NAF, strongly support low power,
    unlicensed use of the TV bands. In addition, some other
    manufacturers and a number of WISPs express support for that
    approach separately from these groups. Proponents of unlicensed
    devices believe that the Commission should allow both fixed and
    personal/portable devices. They also support allowing
    personal/portable devices to rely solely on spectrum sensing to
    determine the available channels at their location. The White Space
    Coalition supports limiting unlicensed operation to channels 21-51
    (excluding 37), while the group led by the NAF believes that
    operation should be permitted on as many channels as possible,
    including channels 2-4 and channels 14-20 in locations where public
    safety and land mobile services are not using them.

22. Full service and low power TV broadcasters and cable TV interests
    generally state that any new services in the TV bands should be
    licensed to reduce the likelihood of interference to incumbent
    services. They oppose the introduction of personal/portable devices
    at this time and believe that any new services should be limited to
    fixed operation. Broadcasters contend that spectrum sensing alone is
    inadequate to protect against interference to broadcast operations
    and that sensing must be combined with geo-location/database access
    to ensure that low power devices do not operate inside the protected
    service contours of co-channel or adjacent-channel TV stations.[^29]
    Low power TV and translator operators express concern that low power
    unlicensed devices would cause interference to viewers who rely on
    reception outside their stations' protected service contours, while
    cable interests express concern about possible interference to
    reception of TV signals by cable headends that are located outside
    TV stations' protected contours. Both broadcast and cable interests
    express concern about direct pick-up interference to TV receivers,
    particularly from personal/portable devices.

23. Wireless microphone manufacturers and users again recommend that the
    Commission adopt a number of requirements to prevent interference to
    wireless microphones, including: 1) limiting new low power devices
    to fixed operation, 2) prohibiting new low power devices from
    operating on channels adjacent to occupied TV channels and/or
    reserving six vacant TV channels in each market for wireless
    microphones to ensure that spectrum is available for their use, 3)
    requiring new low power devices to incorporate spectrum sensing to
    detect wireless microphones, and 4) requiring new low power devices
    to sense for the presence of a "smart beacon" that would be operated
    when wireless microphones are in use in an area (Shure has since
    repudiated its support for a beacon requirement).[^30] Public
    safety/land mobile interests believe that new low power devices
    should not be allowed to operate on channels 14-20 anywhere in the
    country because of the difficulties in enforcing geographic
    restrictions on operation.

24. On March 30, 2007, the Commission's Office of Engineering and
    Technology released a report on the results of its DTV receiver
    testing program.[^31] This testing program examined the
    out-of-channel interference rejection performance of a
    representative sample of eight DTV receivers with fifth generation
    tuners that were available in 2005 and 2006. A total of 2055
    individual measurements were performed on these receivers. Each test
    involved feeding a desired signal to the television under test and
    injecting an interfering signal on a different channel or
    combination of channels. The different tests varied the level of the
    desired signal and interfering signal(s). In these tests, no
    receiver appeared to fully achieve the Advanced Television Systems
    Committee's (ATSC) recommended guidelines for interference rejection
    performance---guidelines that are generally more stringent than the
    receiver performance assumptions on which current DTV interference
    protection criteria are based.[^32]

25. On July 31, 2007, the Office of Engineering and Technology released
    a technical report on an initial study of prototype TV band devices
    that were submitted to the Commission's Laboratory for testing.[^33]
    This report evaluated the performance of two samples of prototype
    devices; one device had both sensing and transmitting capabilities
    (although the two functions were not linked) and the other had only
    sensing capability. This testing found that one of the two devices
    was generally able to reliably detect TV signals in the laboratory
    bench tests at the claimed -114 dBm sensing level, but did not
    perform well sensing wireless microphones. This device was not
    tested in the field at the manufacturer's request. The other device
    was not able to reliably sense either TV or wireless microphone
    signals at the -114 dBm level in either the Laboratory bench tests
    or in field tests. The builder of this device subsequently
    determined that the device's sensing function was not operating
    properly. In an anecdotal observation, the transmitter of the second
    device was found to cause co-channel and adjacent channel
    interference to TV service at distances of 87 meters and 47-50
    meters, respectively.

26. Also on July 31, 2007, the Office of Engineering and Technology
    released a second technical report describing direct pick-up
    interference tests of three digital cable ready television
    receivers.[^34] In these tests, three digital cable ready (DCR)
    receivers connected directly to cable service were examined for
    their susceptibility to interference from devices such as might
    operate within the TV white spaces. Tests were performed with the
    interfering signal source separated from the DCR receiver by
    distances of 2 meters or ten meters and, in most observations, by a
    residential wall. These tests showed that a signal as low as 6.3 dBm
    EIRP could cause interference at a distance of two meters and that a
    signal as low as 15.3 dBm could cause interference at a distance of
    10 meters.[^35] While these tests were limited in scope (only three
    receivers were tested), they nonetheless provide an empirical
    demonstration of the potential for such interference at relatively
    low power levels.

27. On October 15, 2008, the Office of Engineering and Technology issued
    a technical report on a second phase of its study of sample
    prototype TV band devices.[^36] This second phase study examined the
    performance of prototype devices from five parties. All of these
    devices had capabilities for sensing TV signals, three had
    capabilities for sensing wireless microphones and one (that of
    Adaptrum) had a transmit capability (this transmit capability was
    not linked to the devices sensing capabilities). One of the devices
    (that of Motorola) also had a geolocation/database access
    capability.

28. In the laboratory tests of TV signals, the Phase II prototype
    devices were able to detect a "clean," *i.e.*, unfaded, DTV signal
    on a single channel at levels in the range of -116 dBm to -126 dBm.
    The detection threshold sensitivity of the devices varied from -106
    dBm to ‑128 dBm when recorded off-air DTV signals, which included
    multi-path fading and other "real-world" distortion, were used. When
    the devices were tested with DTV signals present in adjacent
    channels, the staff found that in the presence of moderate-to-strong
    signals in a first adjacent channel, the detection threshold
    sensitivity of all of the devices was severely impacted. For some of
    the devices, the degradation in the detection sensitivity was as
    much as 60-70 dB. In some cases, the degradation was such that the
    detection threshold could not be measured. The Phase II Measurement
    Report indicates that this could impact significantly the ability of
    the devices to reliably detect TV signals within stations' service
    areas.

29. TV sensing field tests were performed at nine locations with four of
    the prototype devices.[^37] In most cases, the devices correctly
    reported channels as occupied when the device was operated within
    the service contour of the stations broadcasting on those channels
    and viewable signals were observed on the channels. In some
    instances, however, three of the devices incorrectly reported
    channels as unoccupied (available) when the device was operated
    within a station's service contour and the signal was viewable. All
    of the devices reported some channels as occupied when the WSD was
    operated outside of the service contours of stations broadcasting on
    those channels whether the signal was viewable or not. In addition,
    one device generally reported most channels occupied, whether the
    device was operating inside or outside any service contours and
    whether the signal was viewable or not. During the field tests, the
    Motorola device's geolocation/database access feature was used in
    combination with its sensing capabilities. In those tests, the
    Motorola device correctly reported all occupied channels used by
    stations within whose contours the WSD was operated.

30. The second phase study also examined the ability of devices to sense
    wireless microphones designed to operate under Part 74 of our rules.
    The two operating devices with wireless microphone sensing
    capability, those of Philips and I2R, were tested in the laboratory
    for their ability to detect wireless microphones (models using both
    FM/analog and digital) operating within UHF TV channels. With no
    other signals present, the devices were able to detect wireless
    microphones at levels ranging from -103 dBm to -129 dBm depending on
    the type of microphone, and the device. However, in the presence of
    DTV signals in adjacent channels, the detection threshold of both
    devices was degraded such that it affected the ability of the
    devices to reliably detect the microphone signals.

31. Finally, the second phase study conducted tests with the Adaptrum
    device's transmitter. The device's transmitter was characterized in
    the laboratory and then used to investigate interference potential
    to DTV signal reception. Anecdotal tests demonstrated that
    co-channel interference would occur at line-of-sight distances of up
    to 360 meters at an EIRP level of approximately +7 dBm when the DTV
    set was receiving a weak signal off-the-air using a receive antenna
    at a height of 9.3 meters. No interference was observed when the
    device transmitted on an immediate adjacent channel even with the
    transmitter in close proximity to the receiver with a roof-top
    antenna. No other configurations were tested for interference.
    Anecdotal tests with the Adaptrum transmitter were performed at two
    field sites to assess the interference potential from a TVBD
    transmitter to cable television reception via direct pick-up of
    signals by cable system components. These tests showed that under
    certain circumstances, when the transmit antenna was placed in close
    proximity to a cable connected TV, direct pick-up interference
    occurred. The report indicated that the direct pick-up interference
    potential appears to be highly dependent on the interconnection
    among the various receive system components (e.g., cable amplifiers,
    splitters and set-top boxes) being used

# Discussion

32. As supported by the record in this proceeding, we conclude that low
    power devices can and should be allowed to operate in the TV bands
    on frequencies that are not being used by authorized services. This
    decision will provide significant benefits for the public by
    enabling the development and operation of a wide range of new
    unlicensed wireless communications devices and systems in spectrum
    where signals are less subject to propagation losses than they are
    in the bands currently available for such devices. The propagation
    characteristics of these bands will allow the development of devices
    that can provide service at greater ranges than existing unlicensed
    devices. Proponents of broadband devices and service**s** in
    particular indicate that there is need for new broadband devices
    that will take advantage of the more desirable propagation
    characteristics of the TV bands. As indicated above, we believe that
    the propagation advantages of this spectrum will make it possible
    for WISPs and others to improve or extend their reach to customers
    in rural and other less densely populated area. We also anticipate
    that these new devices will have economic benefits for consumers and
    businesses by facilitating the development of additional competition
    in the broadband market.

33. It is, of course, most important that we ensure that new unlicensed
    devices do not interfere with the incumbent licensed services in the
    TV bands. We now conclude that, with appropriate requirements and
    conditions on their operation, it is possible for both fixed and
    personal/portable low power devices to use the TV white spaces
    without disrupting the important television, public safety, and
    other services that use these frequencies. Because unlicensed
    broadband devices will share spectrum with broadcast TV and other
    licensed services, they will need the capability to avoid causing
    harmful interference to licensed services in the TV band.
    Specifically, an unlicensed device will need to be able to determine
    whether a TV channel or portion of a TV channel is unused before it
    transmits.[^38] Additionally, an unlicensed device will need
    features that enable it to avoid occupying a frequency band or to
    cease operation on a frequency when a licensed user commences
    transmission on a channel that was previously unused by a television
    band licensed service. The rules we are adopting will require that
    unlicensed TVBDs include these capabilities.

34. The specific provisions of our plan for authorizing unlicensed
    TVBDs, including our decision to authorize these devices on an
    unlicensed basis, the requirements for fixed and personal/portable
    devices, methods and standards for protection of incumbent services,
    and the technical parameters for operation are described in the
    following sections; descriptions of the analyses and methods used in
    defining the operating characteristics of protected signals, the
    required minimum sensing capabilities, the permissible power levels,
    and the minimum distances that unlicensed devices must be from a
    licensed operation are also provided in the text below. The rules
    for these devices are set forth in Appendix B.

## Licensed vs. Unlicensed Operation

35. In the *Notice* in this proceeding, the Commission proposed to allow
    low power devices to operate in the TV bands on an unlicensed
    basis.[^39] In their responses, a number of parties suggested that
    such devices should instead operate on a licensed basis. In the
    *First R&O/Further Notice,* we sought further comment on whether the
    proposed TV band devices should operate on an unlicensed, licensed,
    or hybrid basis.[^40] The record compiled in response to both the
    *Notice* and *First R&O/Further* *Notice* includes support for
    regulating TV band devices as unlicensed, licensed and a hybrid of
    the two approaches, as discussed below.

36. A number of commenters submit that vacant spectrum in the TV bands
    should be licensed and that this regimen is necessary in order to
    enable the use of that spectrum for providing wireless broadband and
    mobile data services.[^41] These parties argue that companies need
    the assurance that they will be entitled to protection from harmful
    interference before they will make the investments necessary to
    provide these services. They claim that licensing would encourage
    innovation because a licensee would receive all of the benefits of
    its innovation instead of having to share those benefits with
    others. Other parties continue to argue that this spectrum would be
    more effectively used on an unlicensed basis.[^42] For example, the
    NAF responds that the existing unlicensed bands have been used for a
    large number of innovative products, that innovation is encouraged
    by the low barriers to entry in an unlicensed regime, and that the
    TV bands have better propagation properties than currently available
    unlicensed bands, which would cause innovation to flourish.[^43] It
    further states that many unlicensed uses such as community networks
    and rural service do not require a large infrastructure investment,
    so licensing is not needed to ensure the provision of service.
    Tropos Networks adds that the expense of acquiring licenses can make
    providing wireless broadband services prohibitive in rural and
    Native American tribal areas.[^44] Those supporting the licensed and
    unlicensed approaches argue a number of additional points and
    counter points as described below.

37. Jackson/Robyn argue that the TV bands are not well suited to the
    low-power uses planned by unlicensed advocates.[^45] They contend
    that under an unlicensed approach, devices would likely have to
    operate in 6 megahertz channels -- which are far smaller than the
    available bandwidth in the 2.4 GHz or 5.0 GHz unlicensed bands --
    because the TV band white spaces occur in 6 megahertz increments.
    Jackson/Robyn further argue that the use of this spectrum for
    low-power unlicensed devices would fail to take advantage of the
    better propagation properties of the TV bands compared to those of
    higher frequencies and to exploit the capability that it is easier
    to manufacture equipment that generates significant power in the TV
    bands than at higher frequencies.[^46] The White Space Coalition
    disputes these views, arguing that Jackson/Robyn's claim that the TV
    band is not suited to unlicensed uses is premised on the assumption
    that future unlicensed uses will be identical to the current uses of
    those unlicensed bands.[^47] It contends that the better propagation
    properties of the TV bands would make it likely that new unlicensed
    applications would be developed in the future that would not be
    possible in other bands.

38. Supporters of a licensed approach also hold that there is no need
    for additional spectrum for unlicensed devices. In this regard,
    Qualcomm submits that there is no evidence that consumers have had
    to return unlicensed devices because the unlicensed spectrum is too
    crowded.[^48] The Association for Maximum Service Television and the
    National Association of Broadcasters, in joint comments (MSTV/NAB),
    add there is over 100 megahertz of unlicensed spectrum below 2 GHz
    and that 255 MHz of spectrum in the 5 GHz band was made available
    for unlicensed use in 2003 and so there is plenty of spectrum
    available for unlicensed use.[^49] The White Space Coalition
    counters these arguments, stating that the propagation
    characteristics of the TV band are superior to the other unlicensed
    bands for many applications and that none of the other unlicensed
    spectrum is below 900 MHz.[^50]

39. Some commenters claim that a large amount of revenue could be
    generated for the U.S. Government by auctioning licenses for the TV
    band whitespaces.[^51] Based on the value of recent transactions in
    the 2.5 GHz BRS/EBS band, Jackson/Robyn give an estimate of
    \$3.7 billion to \$6 billion for the TV white spaces. Commenters
    supporting an unlicensed approach argue that Jackson/Robyn's
    estimates of auction proceeds are over-inflated. NAF states that the
    uncertainty for bidders in this band with respect to the
    availability of spectrum would be huge.[^52] It observes that there
    are currently over 5000 low power TV and TV translator stations that
    have no post-DTV spectrum assignment yet. It further points to the
    fact that low power auxiliary stations such as wireless microphones
    have the right to transmit in the whitespaces on any unoccupied TV
    channel in a possibly wide geographic area. NAF also argues there
    would be high transaction and coordination costs in using the
    licensed white spaces because the operating parameters will be
    different everywhere and that this would further depress the value
    of the white space spectrum.[^53]

40. Jackson/Robyn claim that licensed use of the TV band would allow up
    to 50% more of the TV band to be used by TV band devices than
    unlicensed use would afford.[^54] According to Jackson/Robyn, this
    efficiency would come from two sources. First, they submit that the
    use of directional antennas and power control would enable licensees
    to operate devices up to the edge of a TV station's Grade
    B/noise-limited contour, whereas unlicensed use of the band would
    require a buffer zone from 17-46 miles to ensure that unlicensed
    devices do not interfere with TV receivers within the station's
    service contour. Secondly, they submit that licensees would be able
    to negotiate with TV broadcasters to relax the interference
    requirements in individual situations, and thereby allow greater use
    of the white spaces. Jackson/Robyn state that if the Commission
    would allow TV band device licensees to negotiate interference
    rights with broadcasters, the use of the television bands could
    evolve over time to more efficient uses as market conditions and
    technology change dictate.[^55] According to NAF and the White Space
    Coalition, Jackson/Robyn's claims in this regard are not valid since
    there is no reason to believe that licensed devices will be able to
    operate any closer to broadcasters' Grade B contours than unlicensed
    devices because the same interference protection would have to be
    provided to broadcasters in either case.[^56] Furthermore, NAF
    states, allowing broadcasters to negotiate to allow greater
    interference from white space devices would be contrary to
    broadcasters' public interest obligations to provide free TV service
    to viewers because some TV viewers would lose the ability to receive
    over the air TV service.

41. MSTV/NAB are concerned about possible interference to TV
    broadcasters from unlicensed devices.[^57] They submit that if
    unlicensed devices were to cause interference to TV reception, it
    would be impossible to track down the source of the
    interference.[^58] They further argue that, as experience with other
    unlicensed uses has shown, modified devices and nonconforming
    amplifiers and directional antennas would be sold that would allow
    unlicensed devices to cause greater interference than allowed under
    the rules that the Commission adopts.[^59] MSTV/NAB state that a
    licensed regime would provide accountability for interference in
    that the licensee would be responsible for any interference that
    occurs. They submit that the identity of the licensee would be a
    matter of public record so the party responsible for resolving the
    interference could be easily located. Jackson/Robyn submit that the
    infrastructure-based architecture that licensees would be most
    likely to deploy would reduce the probability of interference
    compared to low-power unlicensed devices.[^60] On the other hand,
    the White Space Coalition states that the parameters it has proposed
    for unlicensed operation would allow unlicensed devices to avoid
    interference to broadcasters and avoid transmitting at maximum
    powers.[^61]

42. A number of parties, including the WISPA, support using a hybrid or
    "light" licensing model rather than an exclusive licensing
    model.[^62] They suggest an approach that would be similar to the
    Commission's rules for non-exclusive licensing of the 3650-3700 MHz
    band.[^63] Under their plan, fixed base stations would be registered
    in a database and registrants would not have exclusive use of the
    spectrum. These parties suggest that a database system would aid in
    the resolution of interference problems among the registered users
    by allowing potential sources of interference to be identified.
    Supporters of a hybrid approach argue that this plan would present a
    low barrier to entry, so that innovative low-cost use of the
    spectrum would still be possible.

43. In their Petition for Reconsideration, NAF/CUWN argues that the
    Commission should restore its previous tentative conclusion in favor
    of unlicensed use that was set forth in the *Notice* in this
    proceeding.[^64] They argue that the Commission provided no
    explanation for its change of course to give consideration to
    licensing use of the TV white spaces.

44. *Discussion*: As we stated in the *First R&O/Further Notice,* our
    goal in this proceeding is to allow new uses of radio on unused
    television channels at locations where such operations will not
    result in harmful interference to, or disrupt, TV and other
    authorized services.[^65] For the reasons discussed below, we
    conclude that it is in the public interest to allow TV band devices
    to operate in these bands on an unlicensed basis pursuant to
    restrictions carefully designed to protect users of incumbent
    licensed services. This approach permits us to introduce new
    innovative uses while protecting the continued operation and growth
    of the TV broadcast and other authorized services in these bands.
    Because unlicensed operations are not allowed to cause interference
    to authorized services, the interference protection status of
    existing services operating in these bands will not be affected,
    consistent with the Commission's goals in this proceeding.

45. The record developed in response to the *Notice* and *First
    R&O/Further Notice* indicates that there is a need for additional
    spectrum for unlicensed broadband devices, particularly in the lower
    frequency bands. A number of WISPs have noted that the TV
    frequencies would provide improved signal coverage over other
    unlicensed bands, including improved in-building penetration
    properties which other unlicensed bands lack. We disagree with
    Jackson/Robyn that the 6 megahertz size of TV channels and
    propagation characteristics of these bands make them inappropriate
    for unlicensed use. Unlicensed devices will not be limited to 6
    megahertz bandwidth, as they will be allowed to operate across
    multiple channels in locations where the bandwidth is available. The
    signal coverage afforded by the propagation characteristics of this
    spectrum is also desired by proponents of unlicensed devices in that
    it will facilitate the provision of improved and/or more economical
    wireless Internet service to consumers, particularly in rural areas
    where transaction costs may be higher than elsewhere. Further, as
    argued by comments filed by the White Space Coalition and other
    parties who have expressed interest in developing or operating low
    power devices in these bands, other innovative uses for this
    spectrum may emerge once it is made available for unlicensed use.

46. While we recognize the arguments in the record in support of a
    licensed approach for making the TV white space spectrum available
    for new uses, we conclude that such an approach is not practicable
    for many kinds of devices that could use these bands, and thus would
    reduce the benefits available. As we noted in the *First R&O/Further
    Notice*, a licensed model tends to work best when spectrum rights
    are clearly defined, exclusive, flexible and transferable.[^66] When
    spectrum rights lack these attributes, potential licensees face
    uncertainty and may lack incentives to invest in a license or offer
    service. We conclude that attributes supporting the successful use
    of licensing would be difficult to accomplish here, particularly if
    we want to maintain our stated goal of not affecting the
    interference protection status of existing services. The frequencies
    and amount of unused TV band spectrum will vary from location to
    location and could change over time as additional television
    stations and other primary and secondary operations are licensed or
    as existing operations change frequency. For example, the assignment
    of channels for digital operation to low power television stations
    is not scheduled to be complete by the end of the DTV transition in
    February 2009. Also, currently authorized DTV stations have recently
    been permitted to submit applications asking to modify their
    facilities and/or change channels.[^67] These changes could
    complicate licensing of the white spaces spectrum, particularly if
    the Commission were to license the spectrum pursuant to auction.
    Because we have decided to require that TV band devices protect
    other types of licensees in the bands, a licensed TV band device
    could potentially lose its ability to operate on some, or even all,
    of its authorized frequencies when new operations with higher
    allocation status are authorized to operate in the same area.[^68]

47. As discussed below, we are adopting a number of requirements for TV
    band devices that will significantly reduce the potential for these
    devices to cause harmful interference to authorized services and
    will make it possible to identify the source of any interference
    that might occur. In particular, TV band devices will be allowed to
    operate only after they have identified which channels in their area
    are available for their use. To ensure that devices adhere to this
    requirement, we are requiring that fixed and personal/portable TV
    band devices that do not operate in client mode to access a central
    database system and that fixed devices register with the database
    system. Registration of fixed TV band devices will facilitate
    locating the source of an interference problem should it occur from
    these higher power devices. We are not requiring registration of
    personal/portable devices, as the lower operating power and
    non-directional antennas of personal/portable devices will limit the
    potential interference range of those devices to the immediate
    vicinity of a device. We are also concerned that a registration
    requirement for personal/portable devices could significantly limit
    the types of devices that could operate by necessitating that a
    device includes the capability to input alphanumeric data. Thus,
    this scheme addresses the interference concerns of those commenters
    who support licensing of TV band devices.

48. With regard to the argument that a licensing regime would encourage
    investment in the provision of services using wireless spectrum, we
    observe the stability normally provided by exclusive licensing would
    be difficult to achieve for TV band device operation. To avoid
    affecting the interference protection status of incumbent services,
    the licenses here would afford no right to interference-free
    operation. Instead, the licensee would merely have the right to
    operate on those television channels that are not currently in use
    by other higher-priority users. The specific channels and amount of
    available spectrum available at a given location could change over
    time as additional television channels are allocated, as low power
    auxiliary devices make use the channels, and the other services that
    use these bands similarly initiate new or modify existing
    operations. Hence, we do not believe that the issuance of licenses
    would necessarily provide the benefits that the proponents of
    licensing claim because of the tenuous nature of the rights that
    would actually be granted by the license. Furthermore, there has
    been tremendous growth in the development of new technologies and
    the introduction of new services that rely on unlicensed devices,
    which belies the assertion that a licensing regime is needed to
    encourage investment in spectrum development.

49. We are also not persuaded by other arguments raised in support of a
    licensing regime for TV band devices. We note that a number of
    parties draw attention to the potential revenue that could be raised
    by auctioning the unused television bands under a licensing regime.
    We believe that these arguments are misplaced and do not address our
    goal in this proceeding, which is to allow new uses on unused
    television channels in locations where such operations will not
    result in harmful interference to or disrupt TV and other authorized
    services. Thus, the regulatory model used here must be appropriate
    to facilitate new uses while protecting the various types of
    incumbent uses, not chosen merely because it could provide revenue
    from auctioning licenses. We are also not persuaded by
    Jackson/Robyn's claim that licensing TV band devices would allow the
    television bands to be used more efficiently --- *i.e.,* licensed
    users could negotiate interference protection arrangements and thus
    increase the use of available spectrum for TV band devices, which in
    turn would allow the use of the bands to evolve over time to more
    efficient uses as market conditions and technology change dictate.
    As discussed above, licensing TV band devices is not practicable
    while also protecting the present and future use of the band for
    broadcasting and other incumbent uses. Allowing licensed TV band
    devices to negotiate interference requirements with licensed users
    as Jackson/Robyn suggest would signal a fundamental shift from our
    stated goal to avoid disruption of TV and other authorized services
    by TV band devices.

50. We also find that a hybrid licensing scheme such as that which the
    Commission adopted in the 3650 MHz proceeding would not be
    appropriate here.[^69] In the 3650 MHz band, the Commission decided
    to issue non-exclusive licenses for stations providing fixed and
    mobile service. These 3650 MHz stations will be registered in a
    database which will aid the licensees in resolving interference
    problems among themselves by allowing them to identify potential
    sources of interference. However, because that band is allocated to
    the fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, the registered
    stations have no interference protection from existing stations of
    those services in the band. Although the 3650 MHz fixed and mobile
    stations must protect the previously existing satellite earth
    stations operating in that band, satellite earth station licenses in
    the band issued after 2000 are secondary and therefore have no right
    to interference protection from the new fixed and mobile
    stations.[^70] The situation in the TV bands is different. Here,
    future broadcast uses of the television band will have the right to
    interference protection from TV band devices. Not only must future
    primary use of the band by broadcasters be protected, but secondary
    uses such as low power auxiliary devices and broadcast auxiliary
    service (BAS) must also be protected. Thus, although the
    non-exclusive licensing approach would address the interference
    status among TV band devices, it would not resolve the interference
    rights between TV band devices and other licensed users in the
    bands. We find that unlicensed operation under Part 15 of our rules
    is a better fit for TV band devices because Part 15 devices must not
    cause harmful interference to licensed users, whether primary or
    secondary. Accordingly, we will authorize new devices on vacant
    spectrum in the TV bands on an unlicensed basis. Such use will be
    allowed under the rules discussed in the following sections.

51. With respect to NAF/CUWN's request that we reconsider our decision
    to reopen the issue of whether use of the TV white spaces should be
    allowed on a licensed or unlicensed basis, we note that,
    notwithstanding the petitioners' argument that this issue had been
    decided, the Commission's position on this issue in the *Notice* was
    that of a proposal, not a final decision, and it requested comment
    on that proposal and its tentative conclusions favoring unlicensed
    use. [^71] The Commission decided to request additional comment on
    this question in the *First R&O/Further Notice* after some parties
    responding to the *Notice* suggested that this spectrum should be
    assigned on a licensed basis. Specifically, in the *First Report
    and* Order, the Commission sought comment on whether the proposed
    low power operations in the TV bands should be allowed on a
    licensed, unlicensed, or hybrid basis in the interest of obtaining a
    further record on this issue. We find nothing arbitrary or otherwise
    inappropriate in that action. Accordingly, we are denying NAF/CUWN's
    request that we reverse our decision to seek further comment on the
    issue of whether to allow low power devices to operate in the TV
    white spaces on a licensed or unlicensed basis.

## Plan For Unlicensed Use Of The TV Bands

52. As we observed in the *Notice,* the development of industry
    standards for broadband unlicensed devices in other frequency bands
    has enabled the introduction of a host of new unlicensed wireless
    broadband products that can be divided into two distinct types of
    operations.[^72] The first type of operation involves the provision
    of broadband services to homes and businesses. This type of
    operation uses higher power, is primarily fixed and operated
    outdoors, may cover a substantial geographic area, and may be part
    of a service infrastructure. In this regard, Wireless Internet
    Service Providers (WISPs) are now using unlicensed devices to
    provide broadband service on a point-to-point basis over distances
    of several kilometers. The second type involves wireless portable
    computing devices, such as laptops and personal digital assistants
    (PDAs), wireless home and local area networks (LANs), and other
    short-range applications within a home or a business. Unlike the
    first type of operations, these personal/portable devices generally
    transmit with very low power and are used indoors or within a small
    localized area. Portable devices can be used for: broadband wireless
    connectivity between a cable modem, DSL modem, or other internet
    connection and in-home computing devices; broadband wireless home
    entertainment applications, such as video/home theater use; business
    applications such as wireless inventory control and wireless cash
    registers; and personal applications such as wireless headphones.
    Fixed and personal/portable operations may also be used together.

53. For the purpose of developing operating rules and interference
    protection criteria, we are, as proposed, classifying the unlicensed
    broadband devices to be used in the TV bands into these two general
    functional categories. The first category will consist of higher
    power "fixed" unlicensed devices that are operated from an installed
    outdoor location that does not change and may be used to provide a
    commercial service such as wireless broadband Internet access
    (non-commercial operations will also be permitted). The second
    category will consist of lower power "personal/portable" unlicensed
    devices, such as Wi-Fi-like cards in laptop computers or wireless
    in-home LANs. We find that both of these types of devices can be
    accommodated in the TV spectrum if they comply with appropriate
    regulatory measures to ensure that their operations are limited to
    TV channels where interference will not result. Both types of
    devices will be allowed to transmit broadband data as well as other
    types of communications.

54. We recognize that different measures are appropriate for achieving
    those protections from the two types of devices, given the
    differences in their uses and interference potential. Therefore, as
    discussed below, we are adopting different interference avoidance
    requirements for fixed and personal/portable unlicensed devices. In
    addition, we are providing for operation of personal/portable
    devices under two different modes: 1) controlled by a fixed device
    or a Mode II personal/portable device and 2) independent. In each of
    these cases, our goal is to make the technical requirements as
    simple and as reliable as possible. We believe that this approach
    will provide flexibility to permit a wide range of unlicensed
    broadband uses and applications and while ensuring that the most
    appropriate and effective mechanisms are in place to protect TV and
    other licensed services. One of the most important factors in
    avoiding interference is how to reliably determine the channels that
    are unused at the location of an unlicensed device. That subject has
    been a major issue between the incumbent licensed services and the
    proponents of unlicensed devices. We will first discuss our decision
    with respect to the methods for determining which channels are
    occupied at a given location and then address the basic elements of
    plans for operation of fixed and personal/portable device.

### Methods For Determining Occupied And Unoccupied Channels

55. With the technologies currently available, there are three principal
    methods that could be used to determine whether a portion of the TV
    band is unused at a specific time and/or location. The first
    approach involves determining the location of an unlicensed device
    and then accessing a database of licensed services to identify
    active services at that location. The device's location could be
    determined by a professional installer or by a geo-location
    technology, such as GPS, incorporated within the device. Once the
    device's location is known, an analysis would be performed for each
    channel using either an internal or external database to determine
    whether the unlicensed device is located far enough outside the
    protected service contours of licensed stations to avoid causing
    harmful interference. This would yield a list of available channels
    on which the unlicensed device could choose to operate.

56. A second method would be for an unlicensed device to receive
    information transmitted on a control signal by an external source,
    such as a broadcast station, CMRS base station, or another
    unlicensed transmitter, indicating which channels are available at
    its geographic location. Under the control signal method, a device
    would be allowed to transmit only after it receives a signal with
    information that positively identifies which TV channels are
    available for use. Control signals could be transmitted by any
    number of sources, such as broadcast TV and radio stations and/or
    licensed wireless communications providers.

57. A third method would be to incorporate spectrum listening or
    "sensing" capabilities in the unlicensed device to detect whether
    other transmitters are operating in an area. For example, a fixed
    unlicensed transmitter could incorporate an antenna and a receiver
    capable of detecting signals down to a certain threshold level that
    would be the standard for determining if a particular TV channel is
    actually in use. Generally, such sensing would have to be much more
    sensitive than the receivers used in the licensed service.[^73] The
    sensing function would examine each channel and those channels on
    which it detected no signals above the threshold would be considered
    available for operation, subject to any additional limitations that
    might be appropriate. If signals were detected above the threshold
    on a particular channel, that channel would not be eligible for
    operation. As the Commission has previously noted, there are
    techniques that can be used to increase the ability of a sensing
    receiver to reliably detect other signals in a band which rely on
    the fact that it is not necessary to decode the information in a
    signal to determine whether a signal is present.[^74]

58. In the *Notice,* the Commission proposed to require that fixed
    unlicensed TV band devices incorporate a geo-location method such as
    a GPS receiver and that they access a database to identify vacant
    channels at their location.[^75] To ensure that fixed/access devices
    operate only on unused TV channels, it proposed to require that such
    devices incorporate a method for determining geographic location
    with a minimum accuracy of 10 meters. Alternatively, the Commission
    proposed to allow fixed unlicensed devices to be professionally
    installed by a party that would determine a device's geographic
    location and contact the database system to determine the available
    unused channels at that location. It further proposed to require
    that personal/portable devices operate only when they receive a
    control signal from a source such as an FM or TV station or a CMRS
    provider that identifies the vacant TV channels in that particular
    area.[^76] The Commission also sought comment on the possibility of
    using spectrum sensing to identify vacant TV channels, but did not
    propose any specific technical criteria for that method.[^77]

59. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission sought additional
    comment and information on issues related to the appropriate
    geo-location method, including the means by which devices employing
    the geo-location/database approach would protect certain authorized
    services, such as wireless microphones, the location of which may
    not be included in the databases.[^78] The Commission also
    recognized that a number of parties suggested that spectrum sensing
    could be used to identity TV channels that would be available for
    use by unlicensed TVBDs, but noted that no party had provided
    sufficient technical information for it to adopt rules. The
    Commission therefore sought comment on whether unlicensed TV bands
    devices should be allowed to use spectrum sensing as a means to
    determine the availability of unused frequencies in the TV bands,
    and, if so, the technical features and parameters of the sensing
    capability to be required.[^79] It also requested comment on whether
    devices should be permitted to rely on spectrum sensing as the sole
    means of identifying vacant channels, or whether a device should be
    required to use both geo-location and spectrum sensing to identify
    vacant channels at its location.[^80] In considering the spectrum
    sensing approach, the Commission did observe that some parties
    responding to the *Notice* raised concerns about whether a GPS
    receiver incorporated in a TV band device would be a reliable method
    for performing geo-location because it may not work indoors or at
    outdoor locations where the GPS signal is obstructed.[^81]

60. A number of the comments received in response to the *First
    R&O/Further Notice* support the use of a geo-location/database
    approach for fixed TV band devices.[^82] Those supporting the
    geo-location/database approach generally state that this method
    would provide a means to reliably determine occupancy of TV channels
    by fixed services, but acknowledge that it does not provide for
    identifying channel occupancy by portable and/or intermittent
    services such as wireless microphones. MSTV/NAB claim that use of
    geo-location coupled with a database is the only way to ensure that
    television stations are protected from interference from TV band
    devices. Motorola notes that the geo-location/database approach
    offers flexibility for protection of licensed services as it would
    allow the restricted radius around TV stations and other protected
    coverage areas to be changed without changing the TV band
    devices.[^83] Motorola believes that the same general techniques
    that allow fixed devices to operate in the TV bands can also work
    for personal/portable deployment. It states that an "anchor"
    personal/portable or fixed device could use geo-location and
    database techniques to determine its location and send an enabling
    signal to associated personal/portable devices.[^84]

61. In addition, Motorola believes that the database should be flexible
    enough to vary the applied protection levels depending on the
    transmit power of the TV band device since the interference
    potential of TV band devices will vary with transmitted power. It
    submits that officially established protection levels should be
    contained in the database to make sure that consistent calculations
    are performed by various manufacturers' equipment. Motorola also
    supports the Commission's suggestion that a private party be engaged
    to develop and maintain such a database.[^85] The Communications
    Research Centre Canada (CRCC) describes a geo-location method that
    it states will work indoors, in which a TV band device determines
    its position by identifying the DTV stations that can be received at
    its location.[^86]

62. IEEE 802, Intel, Josephson Engineering, Motorola, and the NAF all
    believe that the proposed 10 meter accuracy requirement is more
    stringent than necessary.[^87] IEEE 802 recommends an accuracy
    standard of 30 meters as being comparable to that required by the
    Commission for fixed stations. Intel recommends an accuracy standard
    of 100 meters, stating that this distance is a small fraction of the
    required protection distance from TV stations. Motorola similarly
    recommends an accuracy of 100 meters because TV signal strength
    varies only a fraction of a dB over this distance. The NAF
    recommends 100-200 meters on the basis that this range is consistent
    with the accuracy of station coverage predictions.[^88] Commenting
    parties generally believe that the Commission should not require the
    use of a specific geo-location method such as GPS.[^89]

63. The NCTA suggests that rather than requiring Internet access in
    order for the TV band device to access the database, each television
    broadcaster could transmit a portion of the database to the TV band
    device.[^90] Nextwave Broadband supports registration of the
    location of unlicensed TV band devices in the database as a means to
    facilitate coordination among the users of these devices and to
    allow for monitoring of spectrum usage.[^91] IEEE 802.18 believes
    that fixed TV band base stations should be professionally installed,
    with site surveys, propagation/coverage predictions, and
    geo-location of the base station.[^92] The White Space Coalition
    submits that outdoor devices could incorporate a GPS capability in
    lieu of professional installation.[^93] Other parties raised
    questions about who should be considered a professional
    installer.[^94]

64. Several parties express reservations about the use of a
    geo-location/database approach. The NAF and the White Spaces
    Coalition are concerned that requiring use of a database will
    increase costs by increasing the complexity of the TV band devices
    and requiring payments to a third party to develop and maintain the
    database.[^95] Tropos Networks argues that no complete and accurate
    database of broadcast operations currently exists and that the costs
    of developing one and the associated computational software would be
    large.[^96] WISPA believes that the wireless Internet service
    provider market is too dynamic for a registration scheme to ever be
    current and accurate.[^97] These parties also reiterate their
    previous concerns that GPS does not function reliably indoors.[^98]
    For example, the White Space Coalition believes that requiring use
    of a geo-location/database approach would eliminate the flexibility
    to create decentralized networks and would restrict indoor use of TV
    band devices, as unassisted GPS does not function indoors.[^99]
    Shure, Inc. notes that a database would not protect wireless
    microphones as these devices are portable and often moved on short
    notice.[^100] Advance Broadband contends that a
    geo-location/database approach would not be effective because
    consumers would override or disable it or that the equipment might
    malfunction and result in interference to broadcasters.[^101] WISPA
    argues that use of a database isn't appropriate because it wouldn't
    take into account attenuation of the signal from the TV band device
    due to vegetation, buildings, or terrain.[^102]

65. Other comments express support for use of the spectrum sensing
    method to determine available channels.[^103] Supporters of spectrum
    sensing submit that signal detectors in the TV band are capable of
    high degrees of detection sensitivity and can detect and avoid
    broadcast signals that have undergone high attenuation in a hidden
    node situation.[^104] They further state that spectrum sensing can
    protect incumbent licensees and facilitate spectrum sharing with
    other low power devices in the TV white spaces and would be more
    cost effective and efficient than the geo-location/database
    approach.[^105] Several parties argue that spectrum sensing alone is
    adequate to determine when a TV channel is available. In statements
    representative of these parties' positions, the White Space
    Coalition argues that spectrum sensing does not depend on third
    party assisting technologies such as databases of available channels
    and would better facilitate the creation of a mass market for
    devices. It claims that spectrum sensing is a proven, well
    understood technique and that the concern raised by incumbent
    licensees that this approach is unproven is simply not the
    case.[^106] NAF argues that spectrum sensing shows great promise,
    would be cost effective to implement, and that detectors in TV band
    devices are capable of high degrees of sensitivity and can detect
    and avoid signals that have undergone 37 dB of attenuation due to
    the hidden node problem.[^107] Tropos Networks states that spectrum
    sensing could be used in both fixed and personal/portable
    devices.[^108] WISPA believes that a distributed sensing model,
    whereby interconnected devices would share sensing information,
    would be far superior to geo-location, especially over time as the
    number of sensors in an area increases.[^109]

66. The White Space Coalition argues that the Commission should allow
    personal/portable devices that rely on spectrum sensing alone to
    determine when a channel is vacant. It argues that spectrum sensing
    will protect incumbent licensees and facilitate spectrum sharing
    with other low power devices in the white spaces, while avoiding the
    operational difficulties and economic burdens associated with the
    other interference avoidance mechanisms identified in this
    proceeding. The White Space Coalition states that because spectrum
    sensing does not depend on third-party assisting technologies such
    as databases of available channels or broadcast beacons to
    implement, a spectrum sensing approach would better facilitate the
    creation of a mass market for devices, resulting in more affordable
    consumer products and more attractive prospects for wireless
    broadband, including in rural areas.[^110] The NAF and a number of
    consumer and public interest groups believe that the Commission
    should authorize personal/portable devices, arguing that mobile
    applications will provide a key driver for economies of scale, and
    that fixed applications promoted by IEEE and others offer little
    hope for the economies of scale needed to produce genuinely
    affordable equipment.[^111] The NAF also argues in separate
    technical comments that sensing can provide adequate interference
    protection to DTV receivers.[^112]

67. Parties representing TV broadcast and other licensed service
    interests argue that spectrum sensing alone is insufficient to
    adequately protect licensed services.[^113] They contend that
    sensing alone would be ineffective for preventing devices from
    operating within the protected contours of co-channel and adjacent
    channel TV stations and that any sensing capability must be combined
    with geo-location.[^114] MSTV/NAB state that the current sensing
    proposals are inadequate to protect against co-channel interference
    and that a -116 dBm minimum threshold for sensing licensed signals
    would not guarantee that an unlicensed device would be outside a
    protected TV station's service area rather than in an area of weak
    signal strength within its service area.[^115] They further argue
    that the White Space Coalition's recommended detection threshold
    level of -114 dBm fails to account for important differences in
    antenna height between outdoor TV antennas and TV band devices,
    disregards real world propagation and building attenuation, and
    ignores the potential interference distance of a TV band device over
    which protection is actually required.[^116] MSTV/NAB also submitted
    a report on a signal measurement study in the Washington,
    D.C.-Baltimore, MD area (MSTV Study) that it states found signal
    levels below the -114 dBm and -116 dBm levels that have been
    discussed in this proceeding. The MSTV reports that it measured
    signal levels below -120 dBm.[^117] In its reply comments, the NAF
    argues that the measurements in the MSTV Study are unreliable due to
    issues with the way that the measurements were taken and systematic
    methodological errors.[^118]

68. Motorola, McGraw Hill Broadcasting, and Media General also argue
    that spectrum sensing by itself would not provide adequate
    protection to users and devices that warrant protection.[^119]
    Motorola is also concerned that the sensing capabilities in devices
    would need to adapt to detect waveforms that may be devised in the
    future. The Grand Ole Opry and the Microphone Interests Coalition,
    the Professional Audio Manufacturers Alliance, and Shure submit that
    spectrum sensing is promising, but as yet unproven with respect to
    how it would work in the TV bands to protect incumbents, including
    wireless microphones.[^120] These parties believe that the
    Commission should carefully study any use of spectrum sensing.[^121]
    GE Healthcare is not confident that spectrum sensing technology
    would provide adequate protection to medical telemetry equipment
    that operates in the TV bands.[^122] Shure initially recommended a
    detection threshold of -107 dBm for detection of wireless
    microphones, but in a subsequent *ex parte* submission stated that
    it now supports the White Space Coalition's lower recommended
    threshold of -114 dBm.[^123]

69. Several parties submit that spectrum sensing should be used as an
    adjunct to the geo-location method. For example, MSTV/NAB and IEEE
    802.18 state that spectrum sensing is needed, but is insufficient on
    its own to adequately and completely protect licensed services.
    These parties argue that the geo-location and database approach are
    essential to ensure that unlicensed TVBDs operate outside the
    protected contours of both co-channel and adjacent channel TV
    stations and that sensing could be used to detect the presence of
    wireless microphones, which operate intermittently.[^124] NCTA
    states that cable headends located outside a TV station's protected
    contour may receive signals that are undetectable at ground level
    using regular receiver technology. It believes that sensing alone is
    highly imprecise and will not ensure interference protection, so
    that sensing must be combined with some type of
    geo-location/database approach.[^125]

70. With the exception of the Community Broadcasters Association (CBA),
    there is very little support in the record for adopting a plan that
    would rely on control signals to provide unlicensed devices with a
    list of channels on which they could operate. The parties that
    addressed the control signal option generally submit that this
    approach would require the establishment of an expensive
    infrastructure. [^126] The White Space Coalition and others are
    further concerned that potential control signal providers might not
    offer service unless they believe that the number of unlicensed
    devices would make it profitable to do so.[^127] Opponents of the
    control signal approach also argue that there would be an inherent
    conflict of interest for TV licensees responsible for a database and
    signaling information that controls access to the band.[^128] CBA
    supports the control signal approach and offers to have its member
    stations transmit control information.[^129]

71. *Discussion*. We find that the geo-location/database and spectrum
    sensing methods offer the most practical solutions for identifying
    unused TV channels and are therefore incorporating both of these
    methods into the rules for unlicensed TVBDs. Both of these
    approaches can be implemented using relatively cost effective
    technologies, although we do recognize that the database/system
    could involve an ongoing cost for users of unlicensed TVBDs. We also
    find that spectrum sensing, as currently presented in our
    measurement studies of prototype devices, is not sufficient by
    itself to enable unlicensed devices to reliably determine the TV
    channels that are available for use at a location. However, we
    believe that spectrum sensing offers significant potential for use
    in detecting the signals of protected services and therefore should
    be included as part of the required means for identifying available
    channels.

72. At this time, the geolocation/database approach appears best able to
    reliably identify unoccupied TV channels. Geolocation methods such
    as GPS can accurately determine the location of an unlicensed device
    and a database system can compare that information to the location
    and service areas of fixed transmitters used by broadcast television
    and other licensed services. Once the distances between an
    unlicensed device and protected transmitters/service contours are
    established, adequate and reliable protection can be provided by
    applying standardized protection criteria.[^130]

73. We recognize the significant and pioneering work of those parties
    who developed and submitted devices for testing as part of our
    investigation of spectrum sensing in this proceeding. Their efforts
    and that process has contributed greatly to our understanding of the
    challenges involved in use of spectrum sensing to determine occupied
    channels in the TV bands. From our examination of the prototype
    devices we conclude that while signal detection can and should be
    used in identifying vacant spectrum for use by TVBDs, spectrum
    sensing with capabilities as presented in the record of this
    proceeding would not, by itself, be sufficient to adequately protect
    from interference television and other licensed services that use
    the TV bands. In this regard, we observe that sensing the signals of
    transmitters operated in the licensed services that use the TV bands
    is a challenging task, as reception of those signals is often
    limited by shielding from terrain and structures and by multipath
    and other fading phenomena. This task is especially difficult in the
    case of personal/portable unlicensed devices, which can be expected
    to be used indoors and at ground level.

74. As we observed in the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the facts that
    personal/portable devices have antennas that are less efficient for
    sensing and may be in a less advantageous position for sensing
    incumbent signals (*e.g.*, a short, non-directional antenna located
    in an interior room rather than a high gain antenna on a 10 meter
    mast) increases the difficulty of reliably detecting incumbent
    transmissions. With devices operating in such situations, the signal
    strength that appears at the receive antenna of a sensing device can
    be very weak, and in particular below the -114 dBm and ­116 dBm
    minimum sensing levels suggested by the proponents and on which we
    requested comment in the *First R&O/Further Notice*.

75. Our conclusions on this issue are based on the following information
    and analysis for digital television service, the principal service
    that will operate in the TV bands on an ongoing basis. The basic
    principles and results of this analysis are also valid for the
    signals of wireless microphones and other services that use these
    bands. While we recognize that the DTV, analog TV, and wireless
    microphones each operate at minimum received signal levels, we are
    not specifying separate minimum sensing threshold levels for
    detection of their signals.[^131] Rather, we are adopting a single
    minimum required sensing detection threshold value for all TV band
    services at the minimum sensing level that appears to be technically
    feasible at this time that is adequate to protect authorized
    services operating in the TV band. We note that the commenting
    parties did not specifically address detection of analog TV signals.
    The rules will, however, require that the sensing feature of
    unlicensed TV band device detect and protect analog TV services
    because low power analog TV stations will continue to operate after
    the end of the DTV transition.

76. As discussed above, the threshold signal level for digital TV
    service in the UHF band is ‑84 dBm/6 MHz at the terminal of a DTV
    receiver.[^132] The DTV service model assumes that signals are
    received off-the-air by an antenna with 10 dBd gain that is mounted
    at 10 meters above ground (about 33 feet).[^133] To model an
    unlicensed personal/portable device, we assume that the device will
    be used indoors on a first floor location and receive signals with
    an omnidirectional (0 dBi gain) antenna. Several models for
    assessing the difference in TV signal levels between an outdoor TV
    and an indoor personal/portable device were presented in the record.
    For example, NAB/MSTV submit that signals received by a
    personal/portable device will be 27-32 dB below those received with
    an outdoor TV antenna (10 dB antenna gain + 7 dB antenna height +
    10-15 dB for building penetration = 27-32 dB).[^134] The White Space
    Coalition bases its proposal for a sensing threshold of -114 dBm/6
    MHz on the assumption of up to 30 dB difference between the location
    of a TV antenna and an unlicensed device.[^135] The NAF appears to
    indicate, based on an engineering assessment submitted with its
    technical comments, that this difference is 26-31 dB.[^136] Motorola
    submits that the received signal level at an indoor white space
    device would be 18-39.5 dB lower than that received by an outdoor TV
    antenna (10-16.5 dB antenna height + 3 dB polarization mismatch +
    5-20 dB or more building penetration = 18-39.5 dB).[^137] As
    reflected in these different models and empirical studies, there
    will plainly be significant variation in the signal attenuation from
    rooftop to indoor locations across different sites (and even at
    different locations indoors at the same residential site). To
    simplify our analysis here, we will begin by assuming a moderate
    level of attenuation as represented by these models, or 30 dB (we do
    recognize that in many cases this difference can be significantly
    higher). Thus, the -84 dBm DTV minimum service threshold less the 30
    dB difference between an outdoor TV antenna and an indoor white
    space device antenna yields a signal level that corresponds to the
    -114 dBm/6 MHz minimum sensing threshold suggested by some parties
    in the record.

77. If a TV station's signal were always at or above 41 dBµV/m (-84 dBm)
    within its service area and the difference in received signal level
    between an outdoor antenna and an indoor white space device antenna
    were always 30 dB or less, it could be anticipated that a white
    space device with a minimum sensing level of -114 dBm would be able
    to reliably detect the presence of a TV station's signal within the
    station's service area. However, in practice there will be cases
    where 1) a station's signal is below 41 dBu within its service area,
    and 2) the difference in received signal level between an outdoor
    and indoor antenna at the same structure/location will exceed 30 dB.
    In either case, if the deficiency in signal level is not offset by
    an equal or greater signal level in the other component, then the
    signal level of the TV station received at the white space device
    will be below -114 dBm. For example, a signal as received at an
    outdoor antenna is 35 dBμV/m (6 dB less than the service threshold),
    then the signal could still be detected at ‑114 dBm if the signal
    attenuation between the outdoor and indoor receive antenna positions
    were 24 dB rather than 30 dB.

78. With regard to the variability of signal levels across different
    sites, it is well established that there are locations within DTV
    stations' F(50,90) noise-limited service contours where their
    signals are below the level needed for service such that service is
    not available. Such locations are likely to occur in more distant
    portions of TV station service areas and certain other locations
    within a station's service area where, due to shielding by terrain
    or structures ("hidden nodes"), the station's signal will not be
    strong enough to be received under the standard TV service model.
    The definition of the service area of a DTV station in Section
    73.622(e) of the rules specifically recognizes that a TV station's
    signal will not be available everywhere within its service area.
    That definition provides that "\[t\]he service area of a DTV station
    is the geographic area within the station's F(50,90) contour where
    its signal strength is predicted to exceed the noise-limited service
    level."[^138] Congress also recognized that TV signal levels will be
    below the service threshold at individual locations in the Satellite
    Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004
    (SHVERA).[^139] Section 204 of the SHVERA directed the Commission to
    conduct an inquiry on whether the Commission should revise its
    digital TV signal strength standards and signal measurement
    procedures used to identify if a household is "unserved" for
    purposes of the satellite copyright license for distant
    signals.[^140] In response to this statutory charge, the Commission
    issued a *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* proposing to amend its
    rules to include procedures for measuring the field strength of
    digital television signals at individual locations.[^141] The
    variability of TV signal strengths across different nearby locations
    recognized in these established regulatory and statutory provisions
    is also apparent from the field studies in the record of this
    proceeding.[^142]

79. Further, as demonstrated by the various field measurement studies in
    the record of this proceeding, the signals of TV stations in
    particular vary substantially over short distances within the
    station service areas. These studies provide empirical indication
    that there is considerable variability in the difference in signal
    levels received with an outdoor antenna at about 9 meters and with
    an indoor antenna at differing positions within a structure. For
    example, the MSTV Study (notwithstanding the concerns expressed with
    respect to certain aspects of its methodology), a study of DTV
    signals at residences submitted by the NAF, and White Space
    Coalition's Microsoft/Philips Field Tests report consistently show
    that there is substantial variation in the DTV signal levels
    outdoors and indoors at a residence that are consistent with the
    models discussed above.[^143] These studies also show variation
    within residences of as much as 20 dB and in a few cases more. If we
    take the middle of this range of variation to be the signal level as
    that which would be determined using the 30 dB difference between an
    indoor and an outdoor antenna, then some locations would receive
    signals 10 dB higher and some would see signals 10 dB lower.[^144]
    At those positions within a structure where the signal level is
    below the middle level (up to 10 dB lower, taking half the 20 dB
    range), the signal level in our model would be lower than -114 dBm
    and as low as -124 dBm or less. At any of these levels, the signal
    would plainly not be detectable by a device that can only sense down
    to -114 dBm; a device that could sense as low as the ‑116 dBm level
    we suggested in the *First R&O/Further Notice* would also not be
    adequate to reliably detect TV signals. As discussed below, it is
    also possible that the station's signal at a nearby location would
    be strong enough to provide service, in which case interference
    could occur if an unlicensed device were to transmit.

80. The White Space Coalition contends that interference protection
    should not be afforded at locations where a TV signal is too weak to
    be received.[^145] It argues that the touchstone of a claim of
    interference is whether that interference negatively impacts a
    signal that would otherwise produce a viewable picture. We generally
    agree that interference protection should not be afforded where
    service is unavailable and our rule defining DTV service areas does
    not include areas within a station's noise-limited contour where its
    signal is predicted to be below the threshold of service.[^146]
    However, we also recognize that the signals of a low power
    unlicensed device operating at a location within a TV station's
    noise-limited contour where the station's service is not available
    also could reach areas where service is in fact available and
    thereby cause interference. The information above establishes that
    the distances between locations where service can be received and
    those where service cannot be received can be short. We therefore
    conclude that a device operating within a TV station's noise-limited
    contour at a location where the station's service is not available
    could nonetheless cause interference at locations where the
    station's service is available.

81. The variability of propagation over short distances also makes it
    impractical to evaluate the likelihood that a device located at any
    given location would cause interference. There will also be cases
    where, due to the approximate nature of predictive models, service
    will be available and received at locations within a station's
    noise-limited contour where service is not predicted to be
    available. We find that service to these viewers should be protected
    the same as viewers in locations where service is predicted to be
    available. Therefore, to ensure that TV service is properly
    protected, we will assume that a device operating on the same
    channel as a TV station could cause interference if it were located
    anywhere within a station's noise-limited contour.

82. In considering the role of spectrum sensing in detecting licensed
    signals in the TV bands, we are aware that sensing technology for
    consumer products, including the minimum threshold level needed to
    detect licensed signals in these bands and algorithms for reliably
    detecting DTV, analog TV, and wireless microphone signals at any
    sensing level, is still in its nascent stage. The performance of the
    white space development devices that we tested showed significant
    potential but also demonstrated the need for additional work on
    solutions for handling the significant dynamic range of signal field
    strengths that characterize the service in the TV bands. The devices
    examined in our Laboratory's measurement program were not able to
    sense with a high degree of accuracy both TV and wireless microphone
    performance in different real world environments where signals are
    subject to different levels and forms of fading, multipath, and
    other degradations. In particular, our measurement studies found
    that while the prototype devices were generally able to detect
    "clean" TV and wireless microphone signals on a channel with no
    other signals present, their ability to reliably detect unoccupied
    channels degraded to levels we consider unsatisfactory when the test
    signals included multipath and other fading effects and when signals
    were present on other channels. The performance of the devices was
    observed to degrade substantially and at increasing levels as the
    level of the signals on adjacent channels was raised. Both fading
    and relatively stronger signals on adjacent channels are a normal
    part of the signal conditions in the environment of the TV bands and
    any device that uses spectrum sensing to determine whether a channel
    is occupied will have to be able to perform reliably when such
    conditions are present.

83. We also find unconstructive sensing performance that incorrectly
    determines all or nearly all unoccupied channels to be occupied,
    that is the device finds all occupied channels and all or nearly
    unoccupied channels to be occupied. While a device that returns such
    results could be seen as minimizing the potential for interference
    to authorized services, it would not be practically viable because
    it would allow its transmitter to operate on very few channels or
    perhaps none.

84. In view of these results, we believe that much more developmental
    work needs to be accomplished before the spectrum sensing technique
    can be implemented as the principal means of identifying unoccupied
    channels in the TV bands, even in the case of fixed unlicensed
    devices that use outdoor antennas. Thus, we are not convinced that
    spectrum sensing as currently presented could adequately serve as
    the only means to protect TV services and other fixed protected
    contour services from interference by unlicensed TVBDs operating at
    the power levels proposed in the *Notice*. Coupled with this
    concern, we also observe that the significant distances at which
    interference could occur from an unlicensed TVBD operating at
    greater than 100 mW would make it very difficult to identify the
    TVBD as the source of the interference.[^147]

85. In view of these concerns, we will rely principally on the
    geo-location/database method to protect incumbent fixed services
    from interference from TVBDs. The service areas of fixed transmitter
    TV and low power TV stations, PLMRS/CMRS operations, production
    locations that use wireless microphones, and other operations with
    defined operating areas do not change often and their channel
    numbers, transmitter geographic coordinates, and other operating
    parameters can be stored in a database. The protected service
    contours of these fixed transmitter services are clearly defined and
    can be calculated from information in the database. Therefore, it is
    a relatively straightforward for an unlicensed TVBD with
    geo-location capability to access a database system which would
    determine whether the TVBD is sufficiently far outside the protected
    service areas of licensed TV band services to ensure that it will
    not cause interference to those services. Accordingly, we will
    require that all TV band devices use a geo-location and database
    approach to determine unused TV channels in their area on which to
    operate or to operate as a client to a device that has obtained a
    list of the unused channels using that method.

86. As the location of a fixed device does not change, it is only
    necessary to determine the device's location once, at the time of
    installation and first activation, after which the device's
    coordinates can be stored internally. We will therefore allow the
    geo-location function for fixed devices to be performed by either an
    incorporated geo-location capability or a professional installer. In
    the case that the stored coordinates in a fixed device become
    corrupted, it will be necessary for the operator to re-activate the
    devices internal geo-location function or for a professional
    installer to re-enter those coordinates in the device.
    Personal/portable devices operating on an independent basis (which
    will require use of a geo-location capability) will be required to
    re-establish their position each time they are activated and to
    re-verify their position with the database on a regular basis.
    Personal/ portable devices operating on a client basis (which will
    not require use of an internal geo-location capability) will also be
    required to receive the list of available channels in their area
    from a fixed device or personal/portable device operating in Mode II
    that has determined the available channels in the area through the
    geo-location and database method and controls the frequencies on
    which the personal/portable device operates.

87. We also recognize that a personal/portable device operating
    independently and on battery power could be relocated from its
    activation point to a different location where the available
    channels are different without being deactivated in the period
    before it re-verifies its location with the database. In such cases,
    the device could operate on a channel in use by a licensed service
    and cause interference. We will therefore require that
    personal/portable devices operating in Mode II access the database
    each time their geolocation feature detects that the device has been
    moved. In addition, to ensure that personal/portable devices
    operating in Mode II are always under control of geolocation, we
    will require that they cease transmitting at anytime they are not
    able to determine their location.

88. We recognize that requiring access of and, in the case of fixed
    devices, registration with a database will increase the costs of
    unlicensed TV band devices, both from the increased complexity of
    the devices and the potential for the database administrator to
    charge fees necessary to support its operations and will also reduce
    the manufacturer's flexibility in designing these devices. However,
    we believe that given the available alternatives, requiring use of
    geo-location and a database for fixed TV band devices is necessary
    to ensure protection of the licensed television and other services
    that operate in the TV bands. We will also permit parties to
    petition us to review any fees that appear to be excessive.

89. As discussed below in the Database Requirements section, we will
    require that the database administrator include in the database
    records on the fixed incumbent licensed users of the television
    band, including full service and low power television stations,
    PLMRS/CMRS, BAS links, and Offshore Radiotelephone Service stations.
    We also understand that there are many facilities that use low power
    auxiliary devices such as wireless microphones on a regular basis.
    In addition, cable headends and low power TV receive sites located
    outside of TV station protected service contours often use high gain
    antennas mounted on towers and/or at high elevation to receive TV
    signals and then distribute them to large numbers of subscribers and
    viewers. We believe that it would be appropriate to extend the
    protection afforded by the database system to cable headends and
    will therefore provide for registration of such facilities in the
    database. In addition, we will allow the operators of event and
    production facilities where low power auxiliary devices such as
    wireless microphones are regularly used to register those sites in
    the database.

90. Fixed and Mode II personal portable unlicensed TV band devices will
    access the database over the Internet and provide it with their
    location. The database system will then calculate which television
    channels are available for use by TV band devices at their location
    based on the information in the database and return a list of those
    channels to the TV band device. The database will register
    unlicensed fixed devices and record appropriate information,
    including the devices' location and user contact information.
    Personal/portable devices operating on either a client or
    independent basis will not need to be registered in the database.
    The registration information for fixed stations will be available to
    entities recognized by the Commission to assist TV band device users
    in coordinating efficient use of the available television channels
    at a particular location. In addition, the registration information
    could be used to assist the Commission or its designated agents in
    the identification of the source of any interference to licensed
    services from TV band devices. We are not specifically requiring
    professional installation of fixed unlicensed TVBDs or the use of
    GPS or any particular location technology in a fixed station. Our
    concern is with the accuracy and reliability of the location
    information, rather than the method used to obtain the information,
    and we believe that the requirement that a device not operate until
    and unless the geo-location/database process has been completed will
    be sufficient to ensure that devices are provided a reliable list of
    the channels used by TV and other licensed fixed transmitters in
    their area.

91. In order to ensure that fixed unlicensed TV band devices with
    radio-based geolocation capabilities are able to receive GPS or
    other location signals, we are requiring that the receive antenna
    for the geo-location function be located outdoors and at the same
    location as its subject TVBD transmitter. Personal/portable devices
    operating in Mode II with radio-based geolocation capabilities in
    most cases will also need to be located outdoors to receive
    geolocation signals; we will allow these devices to receive such
    signals through a separate antenna that is located outdoors.[^148]
    We also find that the 10 meter accuracy we proposed to specify for
    the geo-location capability, while well within the capabilities of
    the GPS system, would be more accurate than is needed for purposes
    of identifying the locations of unlicensed TVBDs. We are also
    concerned that requiring accuracy to 10 meters might preclude the
    use of other options for geo-location that are less accurate than
    GPS but would still provide an adequate degree of accuracy. We
    believe that 50 meters is a reasonable degree of accuracy for the
    geo-location capability used to determine the coordinates of
    unlicensed TV band devices. The effectiveness of the separation
    distances we are providing for TV and other services are adequate to
    provide protection in an environment where location errors of up to
    50 meters may occur. Also, an accuracy of 50 meters is readily
    achievable using commonly available methods such as GPS and will
    also provide flexibility for use of alternative geo-location
    methods. In the case of professional installation, the party who
    registers the fixed station in the database will be responsible for
    assuring the accuracy of the entered coordinates.

92. We will require that unlicensed TVBDs incorporate spectrum sensing
    capabilities to complement their geolocation/database access
    capabilities in determining channel availability. TVBDs that sense
    wireless microphone operations on a TV channel will not be allowed
    to transmit on that channel. We will also require that devices that
    detect a TV signal on a channel must cross-check with the channel
    availability report from the database to verify that the device is
    within the service area of a TV station on that channel at the
    device's location. If the channel is reported by the database as
    available at that location, *i.e.*, the device is not within the
    service areas of any TV stations that use that channel, then the
    device will be required to notify the user that the channel appears
    to be occupied.

93. We also recognize the position of IEEE 802.18, Shure, and others
    that the geo-location/database method is not suitable for
    identifying channel occupancy by devices such as wireless
    microphones that operate on an intermittent, occasional, or one-time
    basis at locations not identified in the database. Wireless
    microphones are licensed on an area basis, rather than specific
    geographic coordinates. A wireless microphone user may operate
    anywhere in that area and choose a frequency from multiple vacant
    channels available for operation. It is not practical to require
    that the locations of wireless microphones that are used in this
    manner be included in the database. There may also be TV stations
    and other regularly operating TV band licensed stations on the air
    in an area that for some reason are not in the database. We agree
    with Shure and others that spectrum sensing is the most reasonable
    and appropriate approach for detecting the presence of TV band
    services that operate on an intermittent basis or are not in the
    database. The prototype devices developed by the White Space
    Coalition, Motorola, Google and others indicate that work is under
    way to improve the performance of this technology in sensing
    wireless microphones and we believe that, at this time, it is
    satisfactory as a complement to the database system and for
    providing a capability for the detection of unregistered wireless
    microphone operations. Accordingly, we will require that all
    unlicensed TV band devices incorporate a spectrum sensing capability
    to detect wireless microphones and to use that capability in
    determining the available channels in their area.

94. Television signals and wireless microphone signals use different
    amounts of bandwidth and modulation methods and TVBDs can thus
    differentiate between them.[^149] In cases where a TVBD detects a
    wireless microphone operation on a TV channel, the device will not
    be allowed to operate on that channel. In cases where a TVBD detects
    the signal of a digital or analog TV station, we recognize that it
    is possible that the signal is being detected outside of the
    station's service area. In such cases we will not protect the TV
    service; rather, we will only require TVBDs to protect TV signals
    within a station's service areas, except relative to cable head-ends
    and translator sites as indicated below. Thus, if a device detects a
    TV signal we will require the device to avoid operation on that
    channel only if the database also provides information that the
    device is within the protected range of a TV station. Where a TVBD
    detects a TV signal outside of the protected range of any TV
    station, we will require that the device notify the user and provide
    a capability for the user to manually, at his or her discretion, set
    the device to avoid operating on that channel. This feature will
    allow users to avoid operating their TVBDs on channels where
    out-of-service area TV signals are being received locally. Thus, the
    geo-location/database process will control the list of available
    channels at a location within a TV station's service area and device
    users will have the option of avoiding additional channels detected
    outside of any station's service area.

95. Based on the submissions of Shure and IEEE.802.18 on the minimum
    sensing thresholds needed, our testing of the prototype devices, and
    the practical limits of sensing indicated in *ex parte* discussions
    with representatives of the White Space Coalition and other
    prototype developers, we conclude that sensing at a -114 dBm minimum
    detection threshold is appropriate and feasible to protect wireless
    microphones and the signals of other services that operate in the TV
    bands on an intermittent basis and for detecting TV stations that do
    not appear in the database for whatever reason.[^150] This minimum
    sensing threshold will provide the maximum likelihood of detecting
    the signals of licensed services, and particularly wireless
    microphones, in the area of an unlicensed TVBD that is consistent
    with manufacturing economics. In this regard, we believe that it is
    best to require use of the most sensitive level of detection
    capability that is economically feasible for sensing the signals of
    all services. Given that wireless microphones operate in relatively
    narrow bandwidths and that both wireless microphones and analog TV
    signals have distinctive signal characteristics, we also believe
    that the ‑114 dBm level we are adopting will provide the same or
    better protection in detecting wireless microphones and analog TV
    signals as digital television signals. Additional discussion of our
    decision on the minimum spectrum sensing threshold is provided in
    the section below on technical requirements.

96. We also anticipate that use of sensing under both the client and
    independent mode approaches for personal/portable devices will allow
    manufacturers to gain experience with sensing that could be used to
    develop improvements in such capabilities that could then perhaps
    justify greater reliance on spectrum sensing for determining whether
    TV channels are occupied. Personal/portable devices operating in the
    client mode will also be required to pass information on any signals
    that they sense back to the master device and the master device will
    then take appropriate steps with respect to its list of available
    channels to avoid the channel sensed by client devices. That is, if
    the client device senses a wireless microphone on an otherwise
    available channel the master device will be required to remove that
    channel from its list of available channels. If the client device
    senses a TV station on a channel outside the service areas of any TV
    stations, the master will be required to notify the operator and
    provide the option to remove that channel from the devices list of
    available channels. In the sections below, we present the specific
    provisions of our rules for operating under the above plans for
    determining whether TV channels are occupied or unoccupied,
    including the minimum required distances that devices using the
    geo-location/database method must be from the protected contours of
    licensed services and the requirements for spectrum sensing of
    wireless microphones.

97. While we continue to believe that the control signal approach has
    merit as a means to communicate available channels to unlicensed
    TVBDs, we also recognize the practical constraints that lead the
    commenting parties to oppose this approach and will not include a
    control signal element in the rules we are adopting.[^151] We would,
    however, revisit this option if the economics or other circumstances
    develop in a manner that would favor the viable operation of a
    control signal system.

98. We also do not believe it is necessary to require that unlicensed
    devices recognize and respond to beacon signals that would carry
    information on channels to avoid at events using wireless
    microphones, as requested by Shure and others representing wireless
    microphone interests. We believe that other actions we are taking in
    this matter, including restricting unlicensed personal/portable
    devices from operation on channels 2‑20 and adjacent channels used
    by TV and providing for registration of sites that use wireless
    microphones in the database, will ensure that wireless microphones
    are able to operate without receiving interference from unlicensed
    TV band devices. We are concerned that such beacon signals would
    occupy spectrum that could better be used for radio service
    operations themselves and would impose an additional and unnecessary
    cost on licensees.

### Fixed Devices

99. In the *Notice*, the Commission anticipated that fixed unlicensed
    TVBDs would, in general, be used by WISPs and others as base
    stations to provide Internet access and other broadband data
    services to homes and businesses, including service to both fixed
    and personal/portable services. It therefore proposed to allow fixed
    TVBDs to operate under the same technical provisions as digital
    transmission systems that operate under Section 15.247 of the
    rules.[^152] Under those provisions, fixed unlicensed TV band
    devices would be permitted to operate with transmitter output power
    up to 1 watt and to employ higher gain directional antennas, with
    requirements for transmitter output reductions for antennas with
    gains above 6 dBi. This would allow fixed devices to operate with
    the equivalent to an EIRP of 4 watts. The Commission further
    proposed to require that such devices automatically and periodically
    transmit a unique identification so that any harmful interference
    situation, should one occur, could be quickly identified and
    remedied. It also sought comment on whether these devices should be
    subject to routine evaluation for RF exposure.[^153] The Commission
    requested comment on whether additional requirements would be
    appropriate for fixed unlicensed TVBD operations. In particular, it
    asked whether it should require that all fixed devices be registered
    with an industry-accepted entity, such as a frequency coordinator,
    that maintains a registration database of all fixed transmitters
    along with their operating frequencies.

100. As indicated above, in the *First Report and Order* the Commission
     decided to allow fixed low power devices to operate in the TV
     bands, subject to final technical rules to be adopted in this
     subsequent action to ensure that they do not cause interference to
     authorized services within the TV bands.[^154] It gave several
     reasons for reaching this decision. First, there will be
     significant unused spectrum available in many parts of the country
     after the DTV transition, either because of the minimum separations
     required between authorized stations to avoid interference or
     because available TV channels have not been assigned (due to lack
     of demand) and other services are not using those vacant channels.
     The Commission also found it reasonable to expect that existing
     technology can be adapted to allow devices to identify unused
     spectrum in a given geographic area, and noted that the IEEE 802.22
     Working Group was in the process of developing a standard to enable
     fixed devices to successfully share spectrum with authorized
     services in the TV bands.

101. With respect to transmit power, Shure believes that fixed devices
     should be limited to 1 watt conducted power and 4 watts EIRP.[^155]
     IEEE 802 supports the proposed power limits and states that it may
     be possible to increase them in the future.[^156] CWLab believes
     that a fixed system using an antenna with a beamwidth of less than
     120 degrees should be allowed an EIRP of 25 watts, while Shared
     Spectrum Company believes that fixed network systems should be
     permitted peak power levels of 10 watts.[^157] The Society of
     Broadcast Engineers, on the other hand, argues that 4 watt EIRP
     devices are not low power products and that they would not be
     suitable for unlicensed Part 15 operation because they would
     inevitably cause interference to broadcast TV and other stations
     operating in the TV bands. It believes that the proposed power
     limit should be reduced by a factor of 100 (20 dB) for TV band
     devices to be rightfully characterized as Part 15 products.[^158] A
     number of parties express support for the IEEE 802.22 model for
     fixed operation.

102. MSTV/NAB believe that the Commission should develop rules for fixed
     operation based on IEEE 802.22's draft plan for fixed access,
     including its prohibition on co-channel and first adjacent channel
     operation and use of a combination of geo-location and spectrum
     sensing to determine channel availability. In that plan, spectrum
     sensing would be employed as an added rather than sole protection.
     MSTV/NAB state that this approach would enable a broadband plan
     without endangering television reception.[^159] Cox Broadcasting,
     ION Media Networks, McGraw-Hill Broadcasting and Media General also
     believe that if the Commission allows fixed operation, then it
     should follow the IEEE 802.22's recommendations.[^160]

103. Microsoft believes these devices should be exempt from routine
     evaluation for radiofrequency (RF) exposure. It states that the
     proper RF exposure context for unlicensed TV band fixed devices is
     a device with 1 W transmit power and a 5λ/8 vertical antenna in an
     occupational/controlled environment and mounted on a tower or roof.
     Microsoft states that to reach the maximum permissible exposure
     (MPE) limit, an individual would have to remain within one inch
     (six inches for a high power device) of the antenna of a device
     operating at maximum transmit power and at 100% duty cycle for a
     period of 6 minutes. It states that this is not likely to happen in
     the real world.

104. *Discussion*. We are adopting rules for fixed TV band devices that
     are based on a system architecture model that is generally similar
     to the model being developed in the IEEE 802.22 Working Group.
     Under the plan we are adopting, unlicensed TVBDs will be allowed to
     provide wireless broadband services, *e.g.,* wireless Internet
     access, and other services using multiple vacant TV channels and
     will be permitted to operate on a fixed, point-to-point or
     point-to-multipoint basis. A fixed system will consist of a
     permanently located base station transmitting to one or more fixed
     devices or to personal/portable end user devices.

105. As proposed, we will generally limit fixed unlicensed TV band
     devices to a peak transmitter output power of one watt with a
     maximum antenna gain of 6 dBi and require that transmitter power be
     reduced by the same amount in dB that the maximum antenna gain
     exceeds 6 dBi. This will allow fixed unlicensed TVBDs to operate
     with the equivalent of 4 watts EIRP. If the maximum antenna gain
     exceeds 6 dBi, the transmitter power will be required to be reduced
     by the amount in dB that the antenna gain exceeds 6 dBi so that the
     EIRP does not exceed 4 watts. Transmitter power will be measured at
     the antenna input to account for any cable losses between the
     transmitter and the antenna. We continue to believe that 4 watts
     EIRP is sufficient to allow fixed devices to communicate at ranges
     that will serve community and rural users while minimizing the
     potential for interference to broadcast television and other
     authorized services in the TV bands. These power/antenna limits are
     the same as those permitted for spread spectrum transmitters
     operating in the 915 MHz band under Section 15.247 of the rules and
     have proven sufficient for WISPs to provide broadband services in
     that higher frequency band. Because the TV band frequencies are
     below 915 MHz and have better propagation characteristics than
     higher frequencies, operation at the power levels we are adopting
     will allow improved coverage for wireless broadband service
     providers.

106. We also recognize that there are advantages, such as reduced
     infrastructure costs and increased service range, to operation of
     unlicensed TVBDs at even higher power levels. We will not, however,
     generally allow operation of these devices at power levels greater
     than 4 watts EIRP for two reasons. First, operation at higher power
     levels would increase the risk of interference in congested areas
     and thus could make sharing spectrum between TV band device users
     more difficult. This concern extends to higher EIRP levels using
     high gain antennas with narrow beamwidths, as such effective power
     levels would pose greater interference potential in the direction
     of the antenna's main beam. Second, inasmuch as we do not have
     experience with unlicensed wireless broadband operations in the TV
     bands, we find it prudent to take a more cautious approach in
     setting power limits to minimize the risk of interference to
     authorized users of the TV bands. Nevertheless, the Commission will
     further explore in a separate Notice of Inquiry whether higher
     powered unlicensed operation might be accommodated in the TV white
     spaces in rural areas.

107. With respect to SBE's concern that 4 watts EIRP is too high for an
     unlicensed device and could possibly result in interference to
     broadcast and auxiliary stations, we believe that other aspects of
     the plan we are adopting adequately address this concern. In
     particular and as discussed below, we are requiring TV band devices
     to incorporate specific interference avoidance features to prevent
     interference to authorized users in the TV bands and the technical
     parameters for those features were developed based on the 4 watt
     EIRP power level. We also believe that the requirement for fixed
     devices to operate at outdoor locations will provide sufficient
     separation from consumer TV receivers to avoid direct pick-up
     interference from their operations to cable service.

108. In order to ensure that unlicensed TV band fixed devices can be
     identified if interference occurs, we are requiring that all such
     devices transmit identifying information and be registered with the
     database system. The identification signal will be required to
     conform to a standard established by a recognized industry
     standards setting organization. We will expect the identification
     signal to carry sufficient information to identify the device and
     its location.

109. Devices must be designed so that they will not transmit (beyond the
     brief messaging necessary to complete the registration process in
     the case of a device connecting to the internet through another
     fixed device) unless they are currently registered and have
     received an authorizing response from the database system. To
     register a fixed device, the party responsible for the device will
     be required to provide the database system the device's FCC
     identifier (FCC ID) and serial number, the geographic coordinates
     of the device's location (from the geo-location capability), the
     responsible party's name, the name of a contact person, and the
     contact's address, e-mail address and telephone number. The
     required registration can be accomplished the first time the device
     accesses the database to determine the available channels in its
     area. While registration in the database system will pose some
     additional burden, we observe that manufacturers of internet access
     equipment and computing software now typically request that users
     register their equipment or software purchase with its
     manufacturer/producer. Thus, systems with registration capability
     are already widely in use and both manufacturers and users are
     familiar with registration procedures. The process to be
     implemented by the database operator for registering unlicensed TV
     band fixed base stations is expected to be similar to these
     existing registration procedures. We therefore do not believe that
     it will be unduly burdensome to develop or comply with this
     registration procedure.

110. We note that the IEEE 802.22 draft standard does not provide for
     fixed devices to communicate with personal/portable devices.
     However, under the rules we are adopting, fixed TVBDs will be
     allowed to communicate with personal/portable devices operating
     independently or using a master/client model. We believe that
     allowing communications between fixed and personal/portable devices
     will significantly enhance the service benefits of both types of TV
     white space devices. In this regard, a fixed base will be able to
     provide direct internet access and other services that may be
     developed to a large number of personal/portable devices within its
     service range.

111. For purposes of these devices, we are defining the terms "master"
     and "client" as we have for other types of Part 15 devices.[^161]
     That is, a master device is one that operates in a mode in which it
     has the capability to transmit without receiving an enabling
     signal, to select a channel, and to initiate a network by sending
     enabling signals to other devices. A client device is one whose
     transmissions are under the control of the master and is not able
     to initiate a network. A network always has at least one device
     operating in master mode and also some devices that may be capable
     of operating only in client mode and some devices that may be
     capable of operating in either mode. All fixed TVBDs will be
     allowed to operate in master mode. Those personal/portable devices
     communicating on a master/client basis with a fixed device will be
     required to use channels/frequencies as directed by the fixed
     device. Thus, a personal/portable device operating under this
     arrangement will pose no more risk of interference to a licensed
     service than the fixed device, and because it will use less power
     will generally pose less risk of causing such interference. We note
     that, because the fixed master device will not transmit if its
     service area would cause harmful interference to a licensed user in
     the database, the client devices would by definition be within that
     service area and would likewise not cause harmful interference.

112. If a fixed unlicensed TV band device that does not have a direct
     connection to the internet (that is a connection provided by a
     source other than another TV band fixed device) has not yet been
     initialized and registered with the database system and can receive
     the transmissions of another fixed TV band device, we will allow
     the device needing initialization to transmit on either a channel
     that the other TV band device has transmitted on or on a channel
     which the other TV band device indicates is available for
     use.[^162] The TV band device needing initialization must then
     immediately use its communications link with the other TV band
     device to access the database to register its location and receive
     a list of channels that are available for it to use. From that
     point on, the newly registered TV band device must only use the
     television channels that the database indicates are available for
     it to use and not the channels indicated or used by the other TV
     band device.[^163]

113. Unlicensed TV band fixed devices must also comply with the
     Commission's RF exposure guidelines.[^164] As Microsoft observes,
     we recognize that it is likely that the radiating antennas of these
     devices will generally be the same as their receive antennas and
     therefore be located outdoors and at some height above ground.
     However, there are no requirements that those locations be in areas
     where they are restricted from persons who do not understand that a
     radiating structure is present and the need to avoid that area or
     minimize the time spent there. Accordingly, we will apply to these
     devices our exposure guidelines for publicly
     accessible/uncontrolled locations. The maximum permissible exposure
     (MPE) for a 4 W EIRP transmitter operating in the frequency range
     from channels 5-51 (76 MHz to 698 MHz) varies from an exposure
     level of 0.2 to 0.47 mW/cm^2^. The required separation distance
     from people for safe exposure when the exposure limit is 0.2
     mW/cm^2^ (the most restrictive limit over the 76 MHz to 698 MHz
     range) is about 40 cm, or 15.7". We believe that RF exposure from
     devices operating at 4 W EIRP in this band can be effectively
     controlled by measures that can be taken by the party installing
     the device to ensure that persons maintain a distance of at least
     40 cm from a device's the radiating antenna. We therefore will not
     require that unlicensed TV band fixed devices be subject to our
     requirements for routine evaluation for compliance with our RF
     exposure guidelines. Rather, we will require that new units of such
     devices be accompanied by instructions on measures to take to
     ensure that persons maintain a distance of at least 40 cm from the
     device, as well as any necessary hardware that may be needed to
     implement that protection.

114. As indicated above, we are requiring that all unlicensed fixed
     TVBDs register with the database system. This registration will
     provide a means of identifying devices in investigations of any
     cases of interference that may arise. We believe that registration
     with the database system using the on-line method presented in the
     section below on Database System Requirements will minimize the
     impact of this requirement on operators of fixed unlicensed TV band
     devices.

115. The rules we are adopting will allow TVBDs to communicate with each
     other in various network configurations. For example, multiple
     fixed TVBDs could be organized into a service network comprised of
     a base station and associated customer premises equipment that
     communicate through the base station, as described in the IEEE
     draft standard. Alternatively, a fixed TVBD could initiate
     communication directly with any other fixed TVBD, without
     designating any one fixed TVBD as a central relay point. The
     specific technical requirements and standards for fixed devices are
     discussed in the Technical Standards section below.

### Personal/Portable Devices

116. In the *Notice* and *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission
     observed that non-fixed personal/portable devices generally pose a
     greater risk of harmful interference to authorized operations than
     fixed devices because the locations where non-fixed devices are
     used change, making identification of both unused TV frequencies
     and the devices themselves, if they cause interference,
     substantially more difficult.[^165] It also noted that such devices
     may not be able to sense transmissions of licensed services as well
     as fixed devices because they will have antennas that are less
     efficient and may be located in less advantageous positions.[^166]
     In view of these concerns, the expected ubiquitous use of such
     devices, and the importance of protecting television service, the
     Commission proposed to limit personal/portable unlicensed TVBDs to
     100 mW and to require that that they have a permanently attached
     antenna with a maximum gain of 6 dBi, for a maximum EIRP of 400 mW.
     The Commission also requested comment on whether personal/portable
     devices should be required to transmit an identifying signal and
     the information to be carried on that signal.[^167]

117. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission further noted
     that the IEEE 802.22 standard under development is limited to fixed
     point-to-point and point-to-multipoint operations and does not
     address the non-fixed personal/portable class of devices the
     Commission proposed to allow in the *Notice*. The Commission
     therefore sought comment on how non-fixed unlicensed devices could
     operate in the TV bands under the different sharing schemes under
     consideration in this proceeding.[^168] It further requested
     comment on whether such devices should be subject to routine
     evaluation for RF exposure.

118. Harris Corporation (Harris) supports the Commission's proposal to
     allow personal/portable devices to operate with a maximum power of
     100 mW and to incorporate a permanently attached 6 dBi gain
     antenna.[^169] The White Space Coalition also supports a maximum
     power of 100 mW for personal/portable devices, but with a maximum
     antenna gain of 0 dBi, which is 6 dB less than proposed by the
     Commission.[^170] The Consumer Electronics Association believes
     that the maximum power for personal/portable devices should be 20
     mW with a 0 dBi gain antenna to minimize direct pick-up
     interference to TV receivers, while NCTA believes the maximum power
     should be in the range of 10-20 mW to avoid that type of
     interference.[^171] Wireless microphone manufacturers recommend
     reducing the proposed power level for personal/portable devices to
     minimize the possibility of interference to wireless microphones.
     In this regard, ATK Audiotech suggests 50 mW, Telex suggests 20 mW,
     and Shure suggests 10 mW with a maximum antenna gain of 0
     dBi.[^172] These parties did not provide an analytical basis for
     their suggested parameters.

119. TV broadcasters argue that unlicensed personal/portable devices
     should not be allowed to operate in the TV bands. MSTV/NAB claim
     that personal/portable devices are not compatible with existing
     operations in the broadcast TV spectrum because no method exists
     today or the foreseeable future for preventing interference from
     such devices to the reception of DTV services.[^173] Other
     broadcast interests, including Cox Broadcasting, McGraw-Hill, and
     Media General, also state that the Commission should not allow
     personal/portable TV band devices at this time due to the potential
     for interference to DTV reception.[^174]

120. Manufacturers and users of wireless microphones also express
     concerns about permitting personal/portable devices to operate in
     the TV bands due to the potential for interference to wireless
     microphones. Shure believes that it would be premature to consider
     allowing personal/portable devices in the TV bands because these
     devices pose a greater risk of harmful interference than fixed
     devices. It states that personal/portable devices are inherently
     unpredictable for frequency coordination and sharing purposes, may
     be in a less advantageous position for sensing transmission, change
     locations randomly, and are impossible for incumbent users to
     identify as a source of interference.[^175] It further notes that
     neither the IEEE nor any other technical group has offered any
     comprehensive analysis and proposal for protecting incumbent
     operations from interference caused by personal/portable
     devices.[^176] The Professional Audio Manufacturers' Alliance and
     Audio Technica believe that the Commission should not allow
     personal/portable devices in the TV bands until after it has
     experience with fixed devices, while Grand Ole Opry and Microphone
     Interests Coalition believe that personal/portable devices are
     unsuitable for the white spaces and should be prohibited.[^177]

121. Microsoft submits that personal/portable unlicensed TV band devices
     should be exempt from routine evaluation for RF exposure. It states
     that the appropriate RF exposure context for personal/portable
     devices is for public/uncontrolled exposure from a device with 100
     mW transmit power and a λ/4 vertical antenna. Microsoft indicates
     that to reach the MPE limit set forth in our rules, an individual
     would have to remain within 1 inch (7 inches for a high power
     device) of the device antenna when the device is operating at full
     power and 100% duty cycle for a period of 30 minutes. [^178] It
     contends that the likelihood of that happening in the real world
     approaches zero. Microsoft further observes that the Commission
     routinely exempts mobile devices in bands below 1.5 GHz that
     radiate less than 1.76 dBW ERP (3.9 dBW EIRP) from environmental
     evaluation for RF exposure.[^179]

122. *Discussion*. We understand the concerns of parties representing
     broadcast TV and other TV band licensees with respect to the
     potential for interference to their operations from unlicensed
     personal/ portable broadband devices, and are adopting technical
     requirements for personal/portable devices to control interference
     which are accordingly rigorous. We believe that with the safeguards
     we are adopting, these types of devices can operate successfully on
     TV white spaces without causing interference to licensed services.
     As we observed previously in this proceeding, personal/portable
     devices pose a greater risk of interference to licensed TV band
     service because the locations where these non-fixed devices are
     used will change, making the task of determining unused TV
     frequencies by the devices more complicated. In addition, the
     transitory nature of such devices makes it difficult for others to
     identity the devices if they cause interference. As a number of the
     commenting parties observe, the fact that a non-fixed
     personal/portable broadband device (*e.g.*, a device installed in
     laptop computer) is likely to be moved around with some frequency
     is likely to make it difficult for TV and other users to locate the
     device if it causes interference. For example, a device operating
     indoors for a short period of time in a neighborhood might cause
     interference that disrupts TV service for the households in that
     neighborhood while it operates. Because personal/portable devices
     will generally operate intermittently and their antennas will
     generally not be located where they are visible, the interference
     from such operations would be very difficult to identify and
     control.

123. At the same time, we recognize the significant benefits that
     unlicensed wireless communications in other bands have brought to
     both businesses and consumers using personal/portable digital
     devices and believe that propagation advantages of the TV bands
     would further enhance the capabilities of those products.
     Accordingly, we have developed a plan that will allow operation of
     unlicensed personal/portable devices in the TV bands in a manner
     that provides manufacturers and users considerable flexibility in
     design and use of products, subject to conservative controls on
     their operation to protect TV and other licensed services. As
     discussed below, this plan provides for use of spectrum sensing,
     but at the present time not as the sole means of determining
     whether channels are occupied or unoccupied. We have sought to make
     the controls and technical requirements of this as simple and as
     reliable as possible to encourage the development of new products
     and assure the operators of licensed services that they will be
     protected. We are also providing for certification of devices that
     rely on spectrum sensing alone to determine available channels
     under a separate plan, as discussed in a subsequent section.

124. As discussed above, we will allow personal/portable devices to
     operate under two alternative approaches: Mode I client and Mode II
     independent. In Mode I, client devices will be under control of a
     fixed or a Mode II personal/portable device that has determined the
     available channels in the area. In Mode II, devices operating
     independently will use their own internal geo-location/database
     access capabilities to determine the channels available for
     location in the area. In either mode, the list of available
     channels that can be used by a device will be determined though the
     geo-location/database method. For the reasons indicated above, we
     are not requiring that personal/portable devices register with the
     database system.

125. Personal/portable devices operating in either mode will also be
     required to perform spectrum sensing that can detect wireless
     microphone, TV and other authorized signals at levels as low as
     -114 dBm over the 6-MHz channel bandwidth to determine whether
     channels are vacant. We believe several purposes are served by
     requiring spectrum sensing. Although spectrum sensing did not
     perform consistently in our testing, we expect it will continue to
     develop and improve. While the principal means of protecting TV
     service will be through the geo-location and database requirements,
     sensing can serve as a back-up for detecting TV signals inside the
     protected service areas where there may be errors in the database.
     As such and as further explained below, this function will advise
     the user of the presence of a signal so that they can take
     appropriate action. We are aware that TV signals are often present
     at levels below -114 dBm within a station's service area and that
     sensing at this level may not reliably detect TV signals in such
     cases. However, given that the geo-location and database access
     approach provides a reliable means for protecting TV service, we
     believe that it is not critical that the sensing function be
     capable of detecting signals below the -114 dBm level. Further,
     while we are establishing provisions to ensure that channels are
     available for operation of wireless microphones, a sensing
     capability provides at least some means to detect such devices that
     may be operating on an itinerant basis on virtually any channel. We
     find that detection at a level as low as -114 dBm is appropriate
     for detection of wireless microphone signals in a 200 kHz
     bandwidth. We believe that this level of sensitivity is also
     acceptable detection of ATSC digital signals in a 6 MHz bandwidth
     and NTSC analog television signals in a 100 kHz bandwidth as a
     complement to the geolocation and database requirement.

126. We will permit personal/portable devices operating in either mode
     to transmit with up to 100 mW EIRP. We recognize the concerns of
     the cable interests that there is a potential for direct-pick-up
     interference and their position that power levels should therefore
     be limited to a lesser value. We appreciate that the tests
     described on our report on direct pick-up interference to three
     digital cable ready receivers and the anecdotal tests performed by
     our engineers in the laboratory and field in our second series of
     tests of white space developmental devices indicated that there is
     some potential for direct pick-up (DPU) interference to cable
     service from TV white space transmitters. We also note, however,
     that this occurred at relatively close spacings within the user's
     premises and could be corrected by removing consumer-installed
     splitters and wiring that effectively reduce the shielding to
     interfering signals as well as reduce the desired signal levels
     available at the TV receiver. Further, when just the cable
     converter box was used to connect directly to the TV receiver,
     interference declined dramatically and was virtually non-existent
     on the digital tier of channels. Cables systems are rapidly moving
     to digital technology which should further alleviate the potential
     for interference. Consumers generally should be able to correct any
     interference to their own devices by increasing the separation,
     re-orienting the devices, or using wiring with improved shielding.
     We also note that, in our tests, with a 10 meter separation between
     devices on separate sides of a wall, such as in a townhouse, the
     interference did not occur at signals below 100 mW for two
     receivers and a bit under 50 mW for a third. The interference was
     also a function of the physical relationship between the devices,
     such as whether the interfering signal was located towards the
     front or rear of the TV receiver. In addition, as discussed below,
     we are requiring that TVBDs use dynamic power reduction, and in
     locations in townhouses and apartments where the operating
     distances are apt to be relatively short, the power level would
     typically be adjusted automatically to less than the maximum
     permitted power of 100 mW. In contrast, reducing the permitted
     power of the device could make it unviable in locations where the
     separations are greater. Accordingly, we are not persuaded at this
     time that the risk of DPU interference is sufficiently great to
     warrant a reduction in power that could impede the viability of
     certain TVBD applications. Nevertheless, we will closely monitor
     for any reports of this type of interference and will expect the
     equipment suppliers to cooperate in helping consumers to rectify
     any such interference.

127. We are adopting the White Space Coalition's recommendation to limit
     the EIRP of personal/portable devices with antenna gain to a
     maximum of 0 dBi in either case in order to further reduce the
     potential for interference. That is, if the gain of a device's
     antenna exceeds 0 dBi, we will require a reduction in the maximum
     transmitter power to below 100 mW by the same amount in dB that the
     antenna gain exceeds 0 dBi. We will further require the antenna to
     be permanently attached to prevent user substitution of higher gain
     antennas.

128. We will not require that unlicensed TV band personal/portable
     devices transmit basic identifying information when they are
     operating. We find that an identifying signal will not be of
     significant value in identifying the source of or, more
     importantly, resolving any interference that these devices might
     cause. In this regard, the identifying code will not serve to
     identify a device, its operator, or its location as that
     information will not be recorded in the database system. We also
     believe that the range of potential interference from
     personal/portable devices will be sufficiently short that any
     persistent interference that might occur from a device that is
     regularly used at the same location could be resolved by
     traditional methods of local knowledge from those TV viewers
     receiving the interference and/or direction finding. In addition,
     these devices will operate on a transient basis such that a device
     could be relocated and its interference resolved before steps could
     be taken to identify and locate the device using information
     transmitted in its signal.

129. The plan for Mode I client operation by personal/portable devices
     will protect licensed services in a manner similar to the
     master/client provisions the Commission adopted for unlicensed
     U-NII devices operating in the 5 GHz band and is supported by the
     various parties, including broadcasters.[^180] This approach will
     allow personal/portable TV band devices to be built into laptop
     computers and other portable devices and operate whenever they are
     in close proximity to a fixed or Mode II personal/portable device
     or are able to independently perform geo-location and contact the
     database. Personal/portable devices will be allowed to communicate
     with other personal/portable devices on a master/client basis, with
     a device that incorporates geo-location/database access and sensing
     to determine the available channels serving as the master unit.
     Personal/portable devices operating as client devices in such cases
     will again be required to use channels/frequencies as directed by
     the master device. Devices that both make use of
     geo-location/database access and sensing may, of course, also (and
     preferably) communicate with one another and share their sensing
     information.

130. If the user of a personal/portable unlicensed TV band device that
     does not have a geo-location capability intends to operate the
     device in Mode I as a client to another unlicensed TV band device
     (either a fixed device or a personal/portable device that uses a
     geo-location/database access capability) and the personal/portable
     device can receive the transmissions of such other TV band device,
     we will allow the personal/portable device to initiate contact by
     transmitting on either a channel that the TV band device with a
     geo-location/database access capability has transmitted on or on a
     channel which the other device indicates is available for use. The
     personal/portable TV band device will be required to immediately
     use its communications link with the other TV band device to obtain
     a list of channels that are available for it to use.

131. Personal/portable devices operating in a Mode II independent basis
     will protect licensed services using the same geo-location/spectrum
     sensing and database access/registration plan as fixed devices.
     Such devices will be required to obtain a list of available
     channels at its location from the database.

132. The rules we are adopting will allow personal/portable devices to
     communicate with each other in network configurations over short
     distances. For example, a Mode II independent device could
     communicate directly with other Mode II independent devices or with
     several Mode I client devices. We will permit personal/portable
     TVBDs to be used in the operation of "mesh" networks, only where a
     means is provided to ensure that each device is operating
     consistent with the channels available at its particular location.
     That is, we will not permit personal/portable devices operating on
     a client basis to relay information from one client device to
     another unless some means is used to ensure that each device is
     operating within the parameters for its particular location. This
     will allow use of personal/portable devices in that manner and such
     operation could facilitate the expansion of broadband service in a
     community. Nonetheless, we are concerned and need to ensure that
     that the range of a mesh network of client devices does not extend
     out to distances where the available channels would change, with
     the result that some licensed services would be subject to
     interference.

133. We envision that both the Mode I and Mode II approaches will often
     be incorporated into the same personal/portable device. That is, a
     personal/portable device could function as a master device when it
     is able to use geo-location/sensing and database access to identify
     unused TV channels in its area. If it cannot rely on these
     techniques but is near a fixed device or another personal/portable
     device that can act as a master, it could operate in client mode if
     it makes contact with a master station.

134. With respect to RF exposure, we first observe that
     personal/portable TV band devices could operate as either "mobile"
     or "portable" devices as defined in Sections 2.1091 and 2.1093 of
     the rules, respectively.[^181] Under Section 2.1091, a mobile
     device is a transmitter designed to be used in other than fixed
     locations and to generally be used in such a way that a separation
     distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally maintained between
     the transmitter's radiating structure(s) and the body of the user
     or other nearby persons. Such devices that operate on frequencies
     below 1.5 GHz are subject to routine environmental evaluation for
     compliance with the RF exposure guidelines only if their effective
     radiated power (ERP) is 1.5 watts or more. The 100 mW EIRP limit
     for personal/portable TV band devices is equivalent to 61 mW ERP;
     therefore personal/portable devices that are designed for operation
     in mobile exposure conditions such that the radiating structure(s)
     are maintained at distance of at least 20 centimeters from the body
     of the user or other persons will not be subject to our
     requirements for routine evaluation for RFE.[^182]

135. Section 2.1091 provides that a portable device is a transmitter
     designed to be used so that the radiating structure(s) of the
     device is/are within 20 cm of the user. The MPE standards for such
     devices are specified in terms of the Specific Absorption Rate
     (SAR) of RF energy by the body as specified in Section 2.1093(d).
     Inasmuch as users of unlicensed TV band devices cannot generally be
     expected to be aware of the potential effects of RFE, we believe it
     is appropriate to apply the standards for general population/
     uncontrolled exposure in Section 2.1093(d)(2). Under those
     standards, the SAR limits are 0.08 W/kg as averaged over the whole
     body, with spatial peak SAR not exceeding 1.6 W/kg as averaged over
     any 1 gram of tissue, except for the hands, feet, wrist, and
     ankles, where the spatial peak SAR shall not exceed 4 W/kg as
     averaged over any 10 grams of tissue. In order to avoid unnecessary
     SAR testing for low output power personal/portable devices, we find
     it is desirable to establish an average power threshold whereby
     devices operating below that threshold will not be subject to such
     testing. In developing a threshold, we first observe that SAR is
     proportional to the average power absorbed in tissues and does not
     generally have clear and direct relationships with either the
     average or peak power of a TVBD. However, the energy absorption
     characteristics of tissues for energy on frequencies in the 76 -
     698 MHz range, are relatively flat, as compared to higher
     frequencies (above 1 GHz); therefore, a single conservative average
     power threshold can be sufficient as a threshold for all TVBD
     frequencies.

136. Based on the absorption characteristics of tissues in the 76 - 698
     MHz range, we are applying a source-based time-average output power
     threshold of 20 mW as the triggering point for routine SAR
     evaluation for personal/portable TVBDs. This standard also allows
     margin to account for simultaneous transmissions by transmitters in
     the device operating in other frequency bands that may increase
     exposure potentials. Accordingly, personal/portable TVBDs that meet
     the definition of portable devices under Section 2.1093 and operate
     with time-averaged output of less than 20 mW will not be subject to
     routine evaluation for compliance with the RFE guidelines; such
     devices that operate with time-average output power greater than
     that level will be subject to the routine evaluation requirements.
     The specific technical requirements and standards for
     personal/portable devices are discussed in the Technical Standards
     section below.

## Permissible Channels For Unlicensed Operation

137. In the *Notice*, the Commission stated its belief that unlicensed
     TV band devices should be allowed access to the largest practicable
     number of the 68 television channels. It also indicated that
     certain channels did not appear suitable or appropriate for use by
     unlicensed devices. In this regard, the Commission proposed to
     exclude unlicensed devices from operating on TV channels 2-4 to
     avoid possible interference to TV interface devices such as VCRs,
     DVDs, DVRs, satellite and cable boxes that operate on or adjacent
     to those channels.[^183] It further proposed to exclude unlicensed
     devices from channel 37, which is used for radio astronomy and the
     wireless medical telemetry service (WMTS), and from channels 52-69,
     which have been reallocated for new non-broadcast, uses. In
     addition, it tentatively concluded that channels 14-20 are not
     suitable for use by unlicensed devices in markets where they are
     used for PLMRS and CMRS operations.[^184] Using the same criteria
     specified in the rules for protection of land mobile operations
     from low power TV, TV translator, TV booster, and Class A TV (LPTV)
     stations, the Commission therefore proposed not to allow unlicensed
     devices to operate within 134 km or 131 km from the center
     coordinates of metropolitan areas where PLMRS/CMRS services operate
     on co- and adjacent channels, respectively.[^185] With the
     exception of these channels, the Commission proposed to allow
     unlicensed TV band devices to operate on any unused TV channel.
     Thus, it proposed to make TV channels 5-36 and 38-51 generally
     available for unlicensed operation and channels 14-20 available in
     locations where they are not used by the PLMRS or CMRS. In the
     *Notice*, the Commission also sought comment on the possibility of
     designating one or two locally vacant channels for use only by
     wireless microphones.[^186]

138. In the *First Report and Order and Further Notice*, the Commission
     adopted its proposals to exclude unlicensed TV band devices from
     channel 37 in order to protect radio astronomy and medical
     telemetry, and from channels 52-69 as those channels have been
     reallocated to new uses.[^187] With respect to channels 14-20, it
     decided to prohibit personal/portable TV band devices on these
     channels everywhere in order to protect public safety and other
     PLMRS/CMRS operations, as such devices could be easily transported
     and used anywhere, including within the service areas of PLMRS/CMRS
     and other licensed operations. The Commission did, however, not
     make a decision on whether to allow fixed unlicensed devices to
     operate on channels 14-20 in areas of the country where those
     channels are not being used for PLMRS/CMRS or other authorized
     services. It noted that prohibiting operation of fixed TV band
     devices on channels 14-20 everywhere would preclude operation of
     such devices in many areas where these channels are not used since
     PLMRS/CMRS operations only use one to three channels in 13
     metropolitan areas and other services on those channels, such as
     the Offshore Radiotelephone Service, similarly operate only in a
     few areas. The Commission therefore sought additional comment on
     whether fixed unlicensed TV band devices should be allowed to
     operate on channels 14-20 in areas where those channels are not
     used by PLMRS/CMRS and other operations.[^188]

139. The Commission sought further comment on whether it should exclude
     channels 2-4 from use by TV band devices because of possible
     interference to TV interface devices such as VCRs, DVRs and MVPD
     terminal devices that typically use those channels in output
     connections to TV receivers.[^189] In particular, it sought comment
     on whether TV interface devices would be more susceptible to
     interference from low power TV band devices than other TV
     receivers; on whether the cabling between a TV interface device and
     a TV receiver typically provides adequate shielding from unwanted
     signals on channels 2-4; and the extent to which such signals may
     be picked-up directly within the TV receiver. It also sought
     comment on how much longer consumers can be expected to use TV
     interface devices that connect to a TV through the tuner (antenna
     or cable television input) rather than an alternative interface
     connection. A number of parties commented on these issues. In
     addition, several parties submitted comments regarding additional
     channels on which the operation of TV band devices should be
     restricted.

140. In their Petition for Reconsideration, NAF/CUWN ask the Commission
     to reconsider its decision to prohibit personal/portable TV band
     device operation in channels 14-20.[^190] They argue that the
     Commission should defer a decision on this issue until it is more
     familiar with the available technologies for mobility. NAF/CUWN is
     concerned that no parties will develop the necessary technologies
     to permit use of channels 14-20 for mobile devices if the
     Commission forecloses this possibility now. They contend that the
     Commission's decision to exclude personal/portable devices from
     channels 14-20 is imposing unnecessary costs on the public through
     an overabundance of caution.

141. The NAF and the CEA submit that fixed unlicensed TV band devices
     can operate on channels 14-20 without interfering with PLRMS/CMRS
     operations through the use of geo-location capabilities and a
     database containing the markets where these channels are
     used.[^191] These parties submit that not allowing use of these
     channels in other areas would needlessly remove a large amount of
     white space since PLRMS/CMRS operations only make use of one to
     three channels in a small portion of the United States. Motorola
     suggests that channels 14-20 be reserved for TV band devices used
     by public safety agencies.[^192] It believed that this would
     prevent interfering uses and satisfy a great need in the public
     safety community.

142. The Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) argues that
     unlicensed TV band devices should not be allowed to operate on
     channels 14-20 anywhere in the country.[^193] The LMCC believes
     that even if these devices are banned from an "exclusion zone"
     around the area used for PLMRS/CMRS operations, some users of the
     devices will not adhere to the restrictions. It states that there
     would be no way to identify nonconforming unlicensed devices in the
     dense urban areas where these channels are used. LMCC furthermore
     submits that spectrum sensing would not be effective in identifying
     PLMRS/CMRS channels because radios in those services are used only
     intermittently. Los Angeles County adds that fixed devices can
     always be moved to areas where they would interfere with PLMRS/CMRS
     operations.[^194] Comm Enterprises claims that PLMRS/CMRS use of
     these channels may expand after the end of the digital transition
     and that such growth warrants prohibiting unlicensed devices from
     operating on them.[^195]

143. Most of the commenting parties that address this issue continue to
     oppose the use of channels 2-4 for TV band devices in order to
     avoid interference with TV interface devices.[^196] For example,
     CEA states that there is potential to cause interference to the
     installed base of analog receivers which might be connected to
     digital-to-analog converter boxes or receiving their content from a
     terminal device of a multichannel video program distributor such as
     cable or satellite that uses channels 3 or 4.[^197] However, the
     NAF appears to suggest that channels 2-4 could be used by TV band
     devices if shielded cables are used to connect the interface device
     to the TV.[^198] The National Cable Television Association (NCTA)
     counters that the interference to TV interface devices in fact
     generally results from leakage into the television receiver, so
     that use of shielded cables would not prevent interference.[^199]
     NCTA submits that leakage into television receivers will occur on
     all VHF channels and that TV band devices should therefore be
     limited to only UHF frequencies.

144. GE Healthcare (GE) requests that TV band devices not be allowed on
     channels 33-36 until February 18, 2010 in order to allow medical
     facilities time to replace grandfathered medical telemetry systems
     that operate on those channels.[^200] GE and The American Society
     of Healthcare Engineering note that medical telemetry devices that
     operate on channels 33-36 are currently being sold in areas where
     those channels are vacant.[^201] GE also argues that stricter
     spurious emissions limits are needed to protect WMTS devices that
     operate on channel 37. In addition, GE asks that the Commission
     restrict operations of TV band devices on channels 36 and 38 or
     require that professional installation and coordination with WMTS
     systems to ensure that the emissions in channel 37 are kept below
     50 microvolts/meter at WMTS facilities. GE further requests that we
     require fixed TV band device operators to notify nearby hospitals
     before beginning operation.[^202] The White Space Coalition
     responds that granting GE's request to protect channels 33-36 would
     only serve to encourage more grandfathered devices on those
     channels. [^203] GE subsequently submitted an emissions mask for
     TVBDs that it states would address its concerns about adjacent
     channel overload and spurious emissions interference from TVBDs to
     WMTS devices on channel 37.[^204]

145. The National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) requests that we
     place additional limits on channel use by unlicensed TV band
     devices to protect radio astronomy.[^205] Specifically, it requests
     that TV band devices be prohibited on channels 4, 5, 36, and 38 in
     the vicinity of the Very Large Array (VLA) radio telescopes and on
     channel 36 and 38 near the Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) in order
     to protect radio astronomy operations in bands between channels 4
     and 5 and in channel 37.[^206] In addition NRAO requests that the
     Commission require that all TVBDs operating in the vicinity of
     certain radio astronomy sites such as the National Radio Quiet
     Zone,Error: Reference source not found the individual VLA
     installations, and the VLBA be coordinated with the NRAO.

146. In its reply comments in response to the *First Report and Order
     and Further Notice*, the White Space Coalition suggests that
     unlicensed TV band devices (both fixed and personal/portable) be
     allowed to operate only on unoccupied channels in the range 21-51.
     The White Space Coalition indicates that this plan would avoid any
     direct pick-up interference problems on VHF channels, accommodate
     public safety operations on channels 14-20 and provide reserved
     spectrum for operation of wireless microphones.[^207]

147. Shure suggests that the Commission designate six television
     channels in each market for use by wireless microphones.[^208]
     Shure notes that wireless microphones can use channels adjacent to
     broadcast television stations, and states that if unlicensed TV
     band devices were prohibited from using adjacent channels, those
     channels would be available for wireless microphones. It also
     observes that in rural areas there are fewer television stations
     and hence will be fewer adjacent channels so that wireless
     microphones would be assured of available channels for their
     use.[^209]

148. *Discussion*. As indicated in the *Notice*, we believe it is
     important that TV band devices be allowed to operate on the largest
     practicable number of television channels.[^210] This will maximize
     the opportunities for operation of unlicensed devices in all areas,
     and will be particularly important for the successful
     implementation of unlicensed devices in areas where the TV bands
     are congested with other services. As discussed throughout this
     proceeding, however, there are certain channels that are not
     suitable or appropriate for use by unlicensed by TV band devices.
     Accordingly, as discussed below we will allow both fixed and
     personal/portable unlicensed TV band devices to operate on channels
     21-36 and 38-51. In addition, we will allow fixed devices to
     operate on channels 2 and 5-13 and channels 14-20 outside of areas
     where PLMRS/CMRS services operate.[^211] Thus, fixed TVBDs will be
     allowed to operate on a total of 48 channels and personal/portable
     TVBDs will be allowed to operate on 30 channels. In prohibiting
     personal/portable devices from operating on channels 14-20, we are
     maintaining our previous decision not to allow personal/portable
     devices on those channels and thereby denying NAF/CUWN's request
     for reconsideration of that decision.

149. We will prohibit operation of TVBDs on channels 3 and 4 in order to
     prevent direct pick-up interference to TV interface devices such as
     VCRs, DVRs, and MVPD terminal devices. Those devices typically
     modulate their output signals on TV channels 3 or 4 and pass the
     signals to a receiver through a shielded cable. Depending on the
     effectiveness of the shielding on TV interface devices, modulation
     and, where included, TV reception circuitry, emissions from an
     unlicensed TV band device on channels 3 or 4 could cause
     interference to the output of the TV interface device. In addition,
     as indicated in the tests conducted by our engineers, TV receivers
     themselves appear to be more susceptible to direct pick-up
     interference on channels 3 and 4. While there was not a significant
     amount of other new empirical information in the record on the
     susceptibility of TV interface devices or TV receivers, NCTA does
     provide credible information indicating that most analog TV
     receivers have been seriously lacking in shielding at channels 3
     and 4.[^212]

150. We also have no information that the shielding of new DTV receivers
     and TV interface devices has improved significantly. In addition,
     we note that such devices are invariably used with shielded cables,
     and we see no indication that the shielding on the connecting
     cables used with such devices is the principal source of the
     susceptibility to interference; rather, the potential for
     interference arises from inadequacies in the shielding within the
     devices themselves. Thus, we see no basis for concluding that such
     interference can be prevented through the use of shielded cables as
     NAF suggests. In view of the fact that there are many millions of
     VCRs, DVDs, DVRs, satellite and cable set-top boxes now in service,
     interference to the operation of those devices from unlicensed TV
     band devices interference could result in widespread disruption of
     consumers' video services. We therefore find that it necessary to
     take a cautious approach and place channels 3 and 4 off-limits to
     unlicensed TV band devices.

151. One of our considerations in this matter is to ensure that channels
     remain available for use by wireless microphones. While we are
     aware that many wireless microphones are now operated, without the
     required license, we nonetheless understand the important function
     that wireless microphones serve and find that it is in the public
     interest to preserve spectrum in the TV bands that is available for
     their use. As discussed below, we conclude that the Coalition's
     suggestion to preserve unoccupied TV channel space below channel 21
     for wireless microphones is an appropriate solution for providing
     spectrum to meet wireless microphone needs while also satisfying
     the needs of unlicensed TVBDs.[^213] We also recognize that there
     is interest by WISPs and others in using fixed TVBDs to reach rural
     and other underserved areas that are at distances not reachable
     with lower power devices operating at higher frequencies. The VHF
     and lower UHF bands appear particularly well suited for those
     purposes. We believe that if we restrict use of channels 5-20 to
     fixed devices on those channels to communications with other fixed
     devices we can meet the needs of those desiring to provide service
     at a distance and also limit the number of TVBDs that could
     potentially conflict with wireless microphone use.

152. We also remain concerned about possible interference from
     unlicensed TVBDs to public safety and other important
     communications operations in the PLMRS. While the
     geo-location/database and client operation provisions of the rules
     we are adopting herein will serve to provide a high degree of
     assurance that PLMRS/CMRS, Offshore Radiotelephone Service and
     other authorized services on channels 14-20 are protected, we
     continue to believe that the nomadic nature and expected high
     numbers of personal/portable devices poses some potential for
     interference to those services. Given that parties who are expected
     to manufacture TVBDs anticipate that channels 21-51 will provide
     adequate spectrum resources for their products, we choose to be
     conservative in protecting the PLMRS/CMRS services and will
     prohibit personal/portable devices from channels 14-20 and are
     therefore denying NAF/CUWN's request for reconsideration in this
     regard. We do not have the same concerns with regard to fixed
     point-to-point or point-to-multipoint operations that will be fewer
     in number and remain in place. Accordingly, we will only allow
     fixed devices that communicate with other fixed devices to operate
     on channels 5-20.

153. We will therefore allow operation of fixed TV band devices on
     channels 14-20 in those areas of the country where the channels are
     not being used for PLMRS/CMRS or other authorized services,
     including the Offshore Radiotelephone Service. As we describe
     elsewhere in this Second Report and Order, we are requiring that
     fixed TV band devices avoid operating on channels that will
     interfere with PLMRS and CMRS operations. The TVBD database will
     contain information on the locations and channels used for
     PLMRS/CMRS, the Offshore Radiotelephone Service and other
     authorized services to prevent TV band devices from operating on
     the channels used by those services.[^214]

154. We will allow all unlicensed TV band devices to operate on
     unoccupied television channels in the channel range 21-51, with the
     exception of channel 37. This will provide a large number of
     channels within the same area of the spectrum that can potentially
     be used for unlicensed TVBDs, and thereby maximize the
     opportunities for operation of unlicensed devices in all areas.
     Allowing TVBD operations on two large blocks of UHF spectrum will
     increase the likelihood of locating blocks of available channels.
     This plan would also comport in large degree with the channel
     availability plan for TVBDs suggested by the White Space Coalition.

155. We reaffirm our decision not to allow TVBDs to operate on channel
     37 in order to protect radio astronomy and WMTS operations. As
     indicated above, medical telemetry devices used in hospitals and
     other healthcare facilities also operate on other channels in the
     television bands on a noninterference basis under Part 15 of our
     rules. As discussed below, we are adopting strict out-of-band
     emissions limits for TVBDs operating on channels 36 and 38. We are
     applying these to both fixed and personal/portable TVBDs. Given
     these very strict limits, we do not believe it is necessary to
     require coordination fixed TVBDs with medical facilities.

156. We understand the NRAO's concerns with respect to protection of
     radio astronomy operations from potential interference from TVBDs
     and also recognize that there is need to protect the Table Mountain
     Radio Receiving Zone that is used by the Federal Government for
     sensitive radio research. To ensure that these sensitive facilities
     are protected from potential interference, we will not allow
     unlicensed TV band devices to transmit on any channel within and in
     the vicinity of radio astronomy observatories. These facilities
     include the Allen Telescope Array, the Arecibo Observatory (which
     includes the islands of Puerto Rico, Desecheo, Mona, Vieques and
     Culebra), the Green Bank Telescope (which is in the National Radio
     Quiet Zone), the Very Large Array (VLA) and the Very Long Baseline
     Array (VLBA) stations. We will also prohibit TV band devices from
     operation on any TV channel within and in the vicinity of the Naval
     Radio Research Observatory (which is in the National Radio Quiet
     Zone) and within the vicinity of the Table Mountain Receiving Zone
     to protect the sensitive radio research efforts at those
     facilities.[^215] As recommended in the NTIA letter, we will apply
     these restrictions to operation of both fixed and personal/portable
     unlicensed devices within 2.4 km of the coordinates of the radio
     astronomy observatories, the Naval Radio Research Observatory and
     the Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone. We do not find it
     necessary to restrict operation of TVBDs within the boundaries of
     National Radio Quiet Zone except within and in vicinity of the two
     research facilities therein. We observe that these facilities are
     generally located in less populated areas so that prohibiting TVBDs
     from operating in the local areas around them will affect a
     relatively few potential users of TVBDs.

157. We also recognize that many wireless microphones now in licensees
     inventories are configured to operate on UHF channels and that
     manufacturers and users of those devices will need to migrate their
     systems that are currently configured for operation on channels in
     the 700 MHz range (channels 52-69) to channels within the DTV core
     spectrum. These considerations will necessitate access to and use
     of a significant number of the UHF channels by wireless
     microphones. In a recent *ex parte* statement, Shure requested that
     we reserve several channels in the UHF spectrum for wireless
     microphones.[^216] In general, we believe that it is not necessary
     to reserve spectrum to protect fixed uses of wireless microphones
     such as studios because those facilities may register with the
     database. However, it is not practical to register the locations of
     electronic news gathering crews and other media activities that
     operate on an itinerant basis. We believe that our decision to
     prohibit personal/portable TVBDs from operation on channels below
     channel 21 will generally ensure that an adequate number of UHF
     channels are available for interference free operation of these
     important itinerant wireless microphone uses. However, the number
     of UHF channels available will be more restricted in markets where
     there are PLMRS/CMRS operations in addition to TV and other
     authorized uses. We will therefore reserve two channels where TVBDs
     will not be permitted in each of the markets where PLMRS/CMRS
     operations are present in order to preserve spectrum for wireless
     microphone operation. For such cases, we are adopting Shure's plan
     that the reserved channels in each market be the first channels
     open on either side of channel 37. For example, if channels 36 and
     39 were used by local TV stations, the reserve channels would be
     channels 35 and 38. The reservations of these channels will be
     recorded in the database.

## Protection of Broadcast Television and Other Services

158. In this section, we describe the technical criteria that will be
     used for determining when a TV channel can be considered vacant for
     the purpose of allowing operation of an unlicensed device on that
     channel. We first address full service TV stations, which will all
     operate with digital signals after the end of the DTV transition,
     and low power TV stations, which may be either analog or digital
     after the end of the transition because there is as yet no
     requirement for analog low power TV stations to convert to digital
     by a specific date. We also address the specific criteria to be
     used for protection of other licensed services that use the TV
     bands, including the PLRMS/CMRS, cable headends and translator
     receive sites, the Offshore Radiotelephone Service, and wireless
     microphones and other Part 74 services.

159. *Protection of TV services*. Full service TV stations and Class A
     TV, low power TV, TV translator and TV booster stations are
     generally protected from interference within defined signal
     contours. The signal level defining a television station's
     protected contour varies depending on the type of station, *e.g.*,
     analog or digital TV, and the band in which a TV station
     operates.[^217] Different protected contour values are specified
     for both analog and digital stations that operate in the low VHF
     band (channels 2-6), the high VHF band (channels 7-13) and the UHF
     band (channels 14-69). In the *Notice*, the Commission proposed to
     use the criteria from the Part 73 and Part 74 rules to define the
     areas that unlicensed TV band devices must protect from harmful
     interference.[^218] The Commission proposed to require that all
     such unlicensed operations protect TV service within the contours
     defined by these criteria, which are set forth in Table 1:

     Table 1

     Criterion for Definition of TV Station Protected Contours

+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
| Type of station    | Protected          |           |               |
|                    | contour[^219]      |           |               |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | Channel            | Contour   | Propagation   |
|                    |                    |           | curve         |
|                    |                    | (dBu)     |               |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
| Analog TV          | Low VHF (2-6)      | 47        | F(50,50)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | High VHF (7-13)    | 56        | F(50,50)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | UHF (14-69)        | 64        | F(50,50)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
| Analog Class A,    | Low VHF (2-6)      | 62        | F(50,50)      |
| LPTV, translator   |                    |           |               |
| and booster        |                    |           |               |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | High VHF (7-13)    | 68        | F(50,50)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | UHF (14-69)        | 74        | F(50,50)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
| Digital TV         | Low VHF (2-6)      | 28        | F(50,90)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | High VHF (7-13)    | 36        | F(50,90)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | UHF (14-51)        | 41        | F(50,90)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
| Digital Class A    | Low VHF (2-6)      | 43        | F(50,90)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | High VHF (7-13)    | 48        | F(50,90)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+
|                    | UHF (14-51)        | 51        | F(50,90)      |
+--------------------+--------------------+-----------+---------------+

160. The Commission proposed to prohibit fixed/access devices from
     operating on the same channels used by TV services (co-channel) and
     on the first adjacent channels to channels used by TV services
     (adjacent channels).[^220] It also proposed to prohibit
     personal/portable devices only from operating co-channel to
     channels used by TV services. The Commission indicated that it
     believed that the potential for harmful interference to adjacent
     channel television operations from personal/portable devices (which
     would operate with lower power) would be sufficiently low that it
     would not need to impose adjacent channel restrictions on these
     devices.

161. Whether or not interference to TV reception occurs depends on the
     desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio needed for acceptable
     service. This D/U ratio will vary depending on the type of station
     and the nature of the undesired signal. In the *Notice*, the
     Commission stated that it expected the signals from unlicensed
     devices to appear "noise-like" and that the carrier-related
     interference mechanisms that can affect analog television would not
     occur.[^221] Given the expected noise-like character of signals
     from unlicensed devices that would make them appear similar to DTV
     signals, the Commission proposed to use the same protection
     criteria that are currently specified in the rules for digital
     television.[^222] These criteria are set forth in Table 2:

     Table 2

     TV Interference Protection Criteria

  ------------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------
  Type of station                Protection ratios       

                                 Channel separation      D/U ratio (dB)

  Analog TV, Class A, LPTV,      Co-channel              34
  translator and booster                                 

                                 Upper adjacent          -17

                                 Lower adjacent          -14

  Digital TV and Class A         Co-channel              23

                                 Upper adjacent          -26

                                 Lower adjacent          -28
  ------------------------------ ----------------------- ----------------

162. The Commission proposed to require that these service and
     protection criteria be used in conjunction with appropriate
     computational software, including use of the Commission's
     propagation curves, and a television station engineering database
     for coordination and deployment of unlicensed fixed/access
     devices.[^223] It also proposed not to apply the adjacent channel
     D/U criteria to fixed/access devices between channels 4 and 5,
     channels 6 and 7, and channels 13 and 14 because of the frequency
     separations that exist between those channels.[^224] That is, those
     channels are not actually on adjacent frequencies.[^225] While the
     commenting parties generally agree on the need for limitations on
     the use of both fixed and personal/portable devices to protect
     co-channel operations and for higher power fixed devices to avoid
     operating on channels adjacent to those used by TV services, there
     was disagreement on whether personal/portable devices should be
     permitted to operate on channels adjacent to those used by TV
     services.[^226] The White Spaces Coalition argues that
     personal/portable devices should be allowed on channels adjacent to
     occupied channels, and that transmit power control combined with
     over-the-air sensing can ensure that personal/portable devices
     comply with the mandated D/U ratios for protection of licensees on
     adjacent channels. It further states that an outright ban on
     adjacent channel use is not necessary or advisable and would only
     create an artificial scarcity of white spaces in congested
     areas.[^227] On the other hand, MSTV/NAB holds that any operation
     of a TV band device on a TV station's first adjacent channel will
     harm reception. They calculate that operation of a 100 mW device on
     a first adjacent channel could cause interference at distances up
     to 780 meters, and that a 400 mW device on an adjacent channel
     could cause interference at distances up to 1.5 kilometers.[^228]

163. A number of parties express concern that the proposed rules would
     not adequately protect against interference to broadcast services
     because viewers may be able to receive service outside of stations'
     protected contours. Low power TV and TV translator operators
     express concern that the proposals would protect their stations to
     a higher field strength level, and therefore a relatively shorter
     service distance, than full service broadcasters, while viewers who
     depend on low power stations can receive service well beyond the
     specified protected contour.[^229] The Society of Broadcast
     Engineers (SBE) states that the *Notice* overlooked the fact that
     Part 74 allows operation of broadcast auxiliary links from
     temporary sites for up to 720 hours per year, and that no
     provisions were made for special temporary authorization (STA) of
     broadcast auxiliary links on TV channels.[^230]

164. Some commenting parties indicate concerns over the methodology that
     will be used to calculate stations' protected contours and the
     required separation distances from unlicensed devices. Several
     parties state that the Commission's propagation curves by
     themselves are not sufficiently accurate to predict service and
     that the methodology in OET Bulletin No. 69 should be used.[^231]
     Parties also question whether the proposed D/U ratios are
     appropriate. IEEE 802 believes that the D/U ratios may need to vary
     depending on the type of modulation used by the desired and
     undesired emitters, while Cohen, Dippell and Everist (CDE) believes
     that the Commission should update the ratios for TV band devices if
     the Part 73 D/U ratios are modified based upon studies of the
     current generation of DTV receivers.[^232]

165. *Discussion.* We will require TV band devices to protect both full
     service and low power TV services from interference within the
     protected contours specified in the rules for full service TV
     stations. That is, TV band devices will be required to protect low
     power TV services their 41 dBμV/m, the same threshold of service
     they protect for full service TV stations. The Commission's
     decision to establish higher protected service thresholds for low
     power stations was a compromise between providing a reasonably
     sized service area for the communities expected to be served by
     LPTV stations and accommodating the large number of expected LPTV
     stations.[^233]  However, we recognize that that many people at
     locations beyond the specified protected contours for low power TV
     stations can readily receive and do rely on over-the-air reception
     of those services (Class A, LPTV, translators and boosters).
     Because we do not wish for viewers who rely on low power TV
     services to lose service as a result of interference from
     unlicensed TV band devices, we are requiring TV band devices to
     provide the same level of protection to low power services that
     they do to full service TV stations. We emphasize that the
     application of the full service digital TV service thresholds to
     low power stations herein only applies with respect to TVBDs; we
     are not altering the low power digital TV service thresholds in any
     other context or application under our rules.

166. We recognize that in some instances viewers receive TV service
     off-the-air at locations beyond the protected contours specified
     for full service stations. However, the protected contours
     generally define the practical limit of where TV service can be
     received by most people, particularly for digital TV service which
     is not viewable at all below a certain signal level. Beyond those
     contours, we do not consider service to be present and thus
     protected. We will therefore base the required separation between
     TV band devices and full and low power TV stations on the protected
     contours specified for full service TV stations. We note that TV
     receive antennas used in weak signal areas near the edge of a
     protected contour need to be high gain, and therefore highly
     directional, mounted on high masts and aimed toward the TV station
     being received. While it is possible that a TVBD could be within
     the reception pattern of such antennas, we believe that in most
     cases they will be in locations under those patterns and thus their
     signals will be attenuated relative to those of the desired
     television signals. These factors will help minimize the likelihood
     of interference to persons receiving weak over-the-air signals.

167. We will require TV band devices to protect full service and low
     power TV reception within their own contours using the proposed D/U
     ratios. We note that the protected contours for low power stations,
     at which the C/U ratios will apply, are generally much smaller in
     distance from the transmitter than for full service stations. These
     D/U ratios are specified in the rules to establish definitions of
     service and protection rights among stations consistent with the
     need to provide for adequate service to viewers and the
     considerations of the Commission's overall responsibilities for
     managing the radio spectrum. We believe it is reasonable and
     appropriate to continue to apply these same service and rights
     definitions with respect to unlicensed devices. None of the
     commenting parties argue that we should use less stringent
     standards for protection. We note the concerns of IEEE 802 and CDE
     with regard to the facts that the susceptibility of TV receivers to
     interference from unlicensed TVBDs could vary depending on the
     transmission methods used by such devices and that the receiver
     tests have indicated that the performance may be different from the
     standards in the rules. We do not expect that the susceptibility of
     TV receivers with respect to unlicensed TVBDs will vary much, if at
     all, from their susceptibility to interference from undesired TV
     signals, as these devices are expected to operate with signals that
     have wide bandwidth, noise-like characteristics similar to those of
     DTV signals. In the case of devices that use less than the same
     bandwidth as a DTV signal, we would expect the susceptibility of
     receivers to interference from such devices to be relatively lower
     than from wider bandwidth signals.

168. As proposed, and consistent with the rules for full service and low
     power TV stations, the protected contours of full service and low
     power digital TV stations will be calculated using the F(50,90)
     curves, and the protected contours of low power analog TV stations
     will be calculated using the F(50,50) curves.[^234] Because we are
     not permitting fixed or personal/portable TV band devices to
     operate in the same channel as a TV station within the station's
     protected contour, the coverage prediction elements in OET Bulletin
     No. 69 that predict locations within that contour where service
     might not be available are not applicable.[^235]

169. We recognize and encourage TV receiver performance
     standards-setting by industry. While we do not have regulations for
     the sensitivity and immunity performance of TV receivers, we are
     encouraged that manufacturers have designed their products to
     performance levels that generally meet industry-developed
     standards, recognizing their perceptions of what is acceptable to
     the market. With regard to TV receiver rejection of undesired
     signals on first-adjacent channels, we note that ATSC Standard A/74
     specifies a ratio of -33 dB, fully 5 and 7 dB more stringent than
     our planning factor values, and that our tests of DTV receiver
     performance demonstrate that those improved selectivity values are
     included in consumer receivers and set-top boxes. We therefore use
     the A/74 value in our analysis of the interference potential of
     TVBDs.

170. We are adopting our proposals to prohibit unlicensed devices from
     operating co-channel to a TV station and fixed devices from
     operating on a channel adjacent to a TV station in order to protect
     the TV service from interference. After further consideration, we
     have also decided to allow limited operation of personal/portable
     operation on channels adjacent to a TV station. Our analyses
     underlying these decisions and the rules for operation of
     personal/portable devices on adjacent channels are set forth
     below.[^236] We also recognize that prohibiting fixed devices from
     operating on first adjacent channels will have the effect of
     limiting the number of channels that are available for use by those
     devices in some markets. We will remain open to possible solutions
     for operating the higher power fixed devices on adjacent channels
     and will revisit this matter if such a solution is developed. We
     therefore encourage interested parties to continue to explore
     possible options for operating on first adjacent channels that will
     not increase the potential for interference to television service
     and to submit them for our consideration when they have reach a
     state of development that will allow for a proper evaluation.

171. *Adjacent channel interference*. The proposed D/U ratios for
     adjacent channel protection, which are taken from ATSC
     Recommendation A/74, are 33 dB for both the lower and upper
     adjacent channels, respectively. An interfering signal on a first
     adjacent channel would have to be that amount in dB higher than the
     desired signal to cause interference to TV service. Interference
     could occur whenever an adjacent channel TVBD signal is -51 dBm or
     higher.[^237] We use the same TV reception models described above
     for analyzing the potential for TVBDs to cause co-channel
     interference to TV reception to examine the potential for TVBDs to
     cause adjacent channel interference to TV reception. We also use
     two typical models of DTV indoor and outdoor reception and TVBD
     operation to evaluate the potential for interference from adjacent
     channel personal/portable devices to DTV reception.

172. In the case of a fixed TVBD in free space, a 4 W EIRP signal (36
     dBm) impinging on a standard DTV receiving system (OET-69
     parameters) at an antenna separation of 16 meters (approximately 50
     feet, a reasonable distance between rooftop mounted TV and TVBD
     fixed antennas on adjacent structures) would produce a receive
     carrier level of -8.1 dBm. Assuming that the fixed TVBD signal is
     at an azimuth in the main beam of the TV receive antenna,
     interference could occur to TV service at any location where a TV
     signal is -51 dBm or less on a first adjacent channel. Under that
     criterion for TV signal strength (-28 dBm is typically considered a
     relatively "strong" TV signal and -53 dBm is considered a medium TV
     signal), this essentially means that adjacent channel interference
     from a fixed TVBD could occur almost anywhere within a station's
     service area. Therefore, at this time, we are only prepared to
     permit fixed TVBDs on channels that are not first adjacent to a TV
     channel.

173. With regard to personal/portable TVBDs, we first consider indoor
     reception. In general, we believe that the TVBD and a nearby DTV
     receiving antenna would not be located such that free space
     propagation conditions would apply. That is, there will generally
     be scattering objects (*e.g.*, furniture, persons, fixtures,
     conductive or dielectric constituents of wall and/or floor
     construction) within the Fresnel ellipsoid about the ray between
     the two antennas.[^238] Thus, we find that the variation with
     distance for indoor propagation is generally greater than the
     distance squared result applicable to free space and we therefore
     assume a distance variation having an exponent of 2.5. At the
     ­84 dBm threshold for DTV service, interference could occur whenever
     an undesired signal is higher than -51 dBm on a first adjacent
     channel. In the indoor scenario, a 100 mW (20 dBm) TVBD signal at
     10 meters (53 dB of non-free space attenuation) and after 10 dB of
     wall attenuation, and 3 dB of polarization mismatch *i.e.*, -46
     dBm, would exceed that level by 5 dB. In other words, that signal
     level would likely not cause interference in a neighboring
     residence or office, except at locations only where DTV signals are
     relatively weak indoors, *i.e.*, where DTV signals are at or below
     -79 dBm.

174. We next consider outdoor TV reception and an outdoor TVBD. As
     indicated above, at the -84 dBm service threshold, interference
     could occur whenever an undesired signal is higher than ­51 dBm on a
     first adjacent channel. We again use 16 meters as the horizontal
     distance between the TVBD and the outdoor antenna and this results
     in a slant range distance between the two of about 18 meters (60
     feet) for a signal strength of -28 dBm (53 dB of free space
     attenuation).[^239] We consider that a personal/portable TVBD near
     ground level would be outside of the main receive pattern of the TV
     antenna, so that instead of receiving 10 dBd gain, the device's
     signal might only receive -2 dBd gain. We again assume 3 dB of
     polarization mismatch. Under these conditions, the TVBD signal
     level at the TV receiver would be -40 dBm. That signal level would
     not cause interference to the outdoor DTV reception of a
     neighboring residence or business at locations unless DTV signals
     are at or below ‑73 dBm, *i.e.*, at fairly low levels.

175. We also consider outdoor TV reception and an indoor TVBD. Again, at
     the ‑84 dBm service threshold, interference could occur whenever an
     undesired signal is higher than -51 dBm on the first adjacent
     channels. Using the 16-meter horizontal separation distance, and -2
     dBd gain of the TV antenna in the direction of the TVBD, and
     including 13 dB of building penetration loss and 3 dB of
     polarization mismatch, the signal level of the TVBD signal would be
     -53 dB, which is below the threshold of interference.

176. We believe that if the EIRP of these devices is limited to 40 mW
     and out-of-band emissions are properly controlled, as described
     below, these devices can operate on first adjacent channels to TV
     stations without posing an undue risk of interference to TV
     service. In particular, a 40 mW power limit would reduce the signal
     strength of a TVBD by 4 dB from the maximum allowed 100 mW and
     thereby provide adequate protection for indoor DTV reception from
     TVBD interference on both the first upper adjacent channels and
     marginal protection for outdoor DTV reception from such TVBD
     signals. We understand that the proponents of personal/portable
     TVBDs believe that more power is needed for those devices to
     operate on a mobile basis. However, from our analysis above we are
     concerned that if those devices were to operate at higher power the
     likelihood of interference to TV service would increase
     significantly.

177. We also observe that additional considerations will serve to
     further minimize the potential for a personal/portable TVBD
     operating at 40 mW to cause interference to adjacent channel DTV
     reception. First, the out-of-band emissions mask we are adopting
     for TVBDs is much more stringent in the first adjacent channels
     than the DTV emissions mask on which the adjacent channel D/U
     protection ratios in the rules were based. Out-of-band emissions
     constitute co-channel interference in a first adjacent channel that
     cannot be addressed by receiver selectivity. Reducing those
     emissions will decrease the interference potential of first
     adjacent channel TVBD signals to some degree. Second, the DTV
     Receiver Study prepared by our Laboratory indicated that DTV
     receivers on the market are typically able to handle adjacent
     channel signals at levels higher even than the -33 dB value in ATSC
     Recommendation A/74. That study found that the median adjacent
     channel D/U ratio for the sampled receivers was -38 dB when the
     desired DTV signal was near the threshold level for service.[^240]
     Finally, we observe that nearly all outdoor TV receiving antennas
     are horizontally polarized, while all antennas submitted for the
     prototype TVBDs were vertically polarized. It can be expected that
     some polarization mismatch beyond the assumed value of 3 dB will
     occur, particularly in the situation when both TVBD and TV antenna
     are located outdoors, reducing the level of the TVBD signal at the
     TV receiver. Thus, while we recognize that there will be variation
     in the propagation paths between DTV receivers and adjacent channel
     TVBD transmitters and that a minority of DTV receivers may perform
     at adjacent channel D/U ratios closer to those in the rules, we
     believe that this solution will provide adequate protection against
     TV interference when personal/portable devices operate on adjacent
     channels.

178. We observe that several commenters, including among others Google
     and Motorola, submitted comments stating that adjacent channel
     operations by fixed devices is possible. Google suggest that we
     allow operation of fixed TVBDs on channels adjacent to TV channels
     using variable transmit power up to 1 watt, where actual allowed
     power would be determined based on a formula and the use of a
     prediction of TV station signal levels using geolocation and the
     TVBD database.[^241] Similarly, Motorola supports using D/U ratios
     to protect TV adjacent channel TV operations and requests that TWVS
     devices be permitted to vary power depending on the adjacent
     channel TV signal strength.[^242] We believe that these methods may
     have merit in providing for more flexible operations of TVBDs. We
     agree in principle that fixed TVBDs could operate on an adjacent
     channel where the adjacent channel signal level is strong and an
     adequate margin is established to ensure against harmful
     interference to nearby viewers. However, we note that such
     approaches to protecting adjacent TV channels are predicated on
     using an appropriate means to predict the adjacent channel signal
     strength at each location. Propagation models that are currently
     available generally have a significant statistical variation and
     the actual TV signal strengths in an area can vary from the
     predicted signal strengths by as much as 20 to 30 dB due to
     shadowing, multipath fading and other propagation variables. The
     information submitted into the record thus far has not demonstrated
     how the prediction model could be made sufficiently reliable to
     ensure against harmful interference. Accordingly, we are not
     allowing the operation of fixed TVBDs on adjacent TV channels at
     this time. We recognize, however, as indicated by Google and
     Motorola that the availability of adjacent channels may be critical
     for certain applications. Therefore, we will defer a final decision
     on allowing operation of fixed devices on adjacent channels and
     will keep the record open pending the development of additional
     information demonstrating that a reliable method can be developed
     to address the above concerns.

179. *Application of TV Protection Criteria -- Table of Separation
     Distances.* As discussed above, the Commission proposed in the
     *Notice* to require that the TV station service and protection
     criteria be used in conjunction with appropriate computational
     software, including use of the Commission's propagation curves and
     a television station engineering database, for determining whether
     a TV channel is vacant at a particular location. This approach
     would require calculation of the protected service contours for
     each co-channel and adjacent channel TV station analyzed at a given
     location and calculation of protection ranges from the TV band
     device to ensure that a TVBDs is far enough from the protected
     contours of co-channel and adjacent channel TV stations that the
     D/U ratios are met at locations within the contours of those
     stations. This is essentially the same approach that is used to
     ensure that low power TV stations do not cause interference to full
     service TV stations or to other low power TV stations.

180. In evaluating that approach, we now note that the Commission has
     not previously specified D/U ratios in Part 15 of the rules to
     protect licensed services from interference by unlicensed devices.
     Rather, as in the case of Part 15 medical telemetry devices that
     operate in the TV bands and radio frequency identification devices
     that operate at 433 MHz, it has adopted the simpler approach of
     specifying minimum required separation distances between unlicensed
     devices and the services being protected.[^243] A table of minimum
     required separation distances between TV station contours and TV
     white spaces devices would similarly be easier to implement than
     D/U ratios and provide certainty as to whether a particular TV band
     device is far enough away from TV stations' service areas to avoid
     causing interference. Accordingly, we are adopting this alternative
     approach for ensuring that fixed TV band devices do not cause
     interference to TV service. The table of separation distances we
     are specifying in the rules will provide protection that is
     functionally equivalent to that which would be provided under the
     D/U ratio approach.

181. In developing the table of separation distances, we believe it is
     desirable to minimize complexity for compliance. In this regard, we
     have balanced this goal of simplicity with the need to provide
     assurance that TV services will be adequately protected. Given that
     the power of fixed TVBDs will be limited to 4 watts EIRP, the most
     important variable in determining the separation distance between a
     particular TVBD and a TV station's protected contour is the height
     of the device's antenna above ground. For example, using the FCC
     curves in Section 73.699 of the rules and the D/U protection ratios
     specified above, we find that a transmit antenna at a height of 30
     meters transmitting with 4 watts EIRP could cause co-channel
     interference to a TV receiver with an antenna 10 meters above
     ground at a distance of 14.4 kilometers and adjacent channel
     interference at 0.74 kilometers. [^244] For transmitting antennas
     at lesser heights, the FCC curves do not provide usable data, so
     the Okumura propagation model is applied.[^245] Using that same
     transmit antenna at less than 10 meters above ground, interference
     could be caused by a TVBD to a TV receiver at a distance of
     8.0 kilometers to a co-channel TV station and 0.1 kilometers to an
     adjacent channel TV receiver. A similar calculation applied to a
     TVBD antenna at 3 meters above ground level calculates that
     interference can be avoided if separation distances of 6.0
     kilometers and 0.1 kilometers are maintained for co and adjacent
     channel TV stations, respectively. As discussed below, we are
     limiting the maximum antenna height of fixed unlicensed TVBDs to
     30 meters above ground level and find that this will appropriately
     balance the needs of unlicensed fixed TVBDs to achieve adequate
     service range while minimizing the range at which those operations
     could impact licensed services. We will use these distances in our
     rules as shown in Table 3:[^246]

     Table 3

     Minimum Required Separation Distances between Fixed Unlicensed TV
     Band Devices

     and TV Service Contour Edges

+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Antenna Height of        | Required Separation |                     |
|                          | (kilometers)        |                     |
| Unlicensed Device        |                     |                     |
|                          | From Digital or     |                     |
|                          | Analog TV (Full     |                     |
|                          | Service or Low      |                     |
|                          | Power) Protected    |                     |
|                          | Contour             |                     |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|                          | Co-channel          | Adjacent Channel    |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Less than 3 meters       | 6.0 km              | 0.1 km              |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 3 -- Less than 10 meters | 8.0 km              | 0.1 km              |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 10 -- 30 meters          | 14.4 km             | 0.74 km             |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

182. *Protection of translator receive sites and cable headends*. TV
     translator receive sites are often located on high towers or at
     high elevations and use high gain antennas to receive a full
     service station's signal well beyond the station's service
     area.[^247] Cable headends are facilities that acquire and
     distribute video service signals over a cable television system.
     Broadcast TV signals are often received off-the-air at a cable
     headend for retransmission over the cable system. In many cases,
     the cable headend will use an antenna with high gain mounted high
     up on a tower to receive a TV station's signals well beyond the
     station's service area in a manner similar to that used by TV
     translators.

183. TV translator operators express concern that their receive sites
     are often outside of the service contour of the full service
     stations they re-transmit and request that those sites be protected
     no matter where they are located.[^248] The National Translator
     Association (NTA) recommends protecting translator reception in a
     keyhole shaped area in front of the translator receive site on a
     line to the station being received. It suggests that the Commission
     protect reception over a 60 degree arc to a distance of
     80 kilometers for co-channel reception, and 20 kilometers for
     adjacent channel reception.[^249]

184. Cable operators similarly request that cable headends be protected
     from interference from unlicensed devices, even where the headends
     are located outside the protected contours of the stations being
     received for transmission over a cable system, in order to ensure
     that cable systems will continue to be able to deliver broadcast TV
     signals to their subscribers.[^250]

185. *Discussion.* We find that is important to avoid disruption of TV
     service to viewers who are located beyond TV station service areas
     and able to receive those signals through retransmission on TV
     translators (as well as low power TV and Class A TV stations;
     collectively we will refer to these as TV translators herein) and
     cable systems. While those viewers are in fact located beyond the
     areas where we normally protect TV services, in these cases TV
     services have *de facto* been extended and valuable service is
     being provided to a significant number of households. If a TV band
     device were to be located between the TV translator/cable headend
     and station and then operate on one or more of the channels being
     received by those facilities in a manner that results in
     interference, TV reception to the households the cable system
     services could be disrupted. We therefore will protect TV
     translator receive sites and cable headends.

186. We will protect TV translator receive sites and cable headends
     using the criteria recommended by the NTA.[^251] Specifically, to
     prevent interference within the main reception beam of the TV
     translator station or cable headend receive antenna, operation of
     TV band devices will be prohibited co-channel and adjacent channel
     to the channel(s) being received by these facilities over an arc of
     +/- 30 degrees from a line between the receive site and the TV
     station(s) being received. The protected zone will extend to the
     edge of the TV station protected contour, and will be limited in
     distance to 80 kilometers from the protected contour for co-channel
     operation and to 20 kilometers from the protected contour for
     adjacent channel operation. We believe that there are very few
     cases where a translator receive site or cable headend could be
     farther outside a TV station protected contour than 80 kilometers
     and still receive a usable signal.

187. In addition, to prevent interference to TV translators and cable
     headends from unlicensed TV band devices outside the main beam of
     the cable TV or translator receive antenna, we will prohibit TVBDs
     from operating co-channel to the channel(s) being received by these
     facilities within 8 kilometers and from operating adjacent channel
     within 2 kilometers in all directions off the +/- 30 degree arc.
     Again this protection will be afforded only to TV translators and
     cable headends located within 80 kilometers of a TV station's
     service area. These protections will be afforded to TV translators
     and cable headends that register their location and the channel(s)
     they receive with the unlicensed TVBD database. Parties that
     operate such facilities and that want to take advantage of these
     protection criteria will be responsible for requesting the database
     administrator to register their receive site locations and received
     TV station channels in the database; facilities not registered will
     not be protected. To prevent unnecessary entries into the database,
     we will only permit translator receive sites and cable headends to
     be registered if they are outside the protected contour of the TV
     station being received.

188. *Protection of fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Services (BAS) links*. TV
     studio transmitter links (STLs), TV relay stations and TV
     translator relay stations may be authorized to operate fixed
     point-to-point service on UHF TV channels 14-69 on a secondary
     basis.[^252] The maximum EIRP for these services is 35 dBW (3,162
     watts), although the Commission can authorize higher power if the
     license application is accompanied by an engineering analysis
     demonstrating why this limit needs to be exceeded.[^253]
     Transmissions are one-way from a transmitter to a receiver, and a
     system can have more than one link. Except for the temporary links
     addressed by SBE in its comments, the Commission's Universal
     Licensing System (ULS) contains information on BAS fixed links,
     including the frequency and the geographic coordinates of both the
     transmitter and receiver.[^254] The ULS shows approximately 220
     authorized fixed broadcast auxiliary links in channels 14-51 that
     are in active status. These links typically range in distance from
     a few kilometers to tens of kilometers, although the Commission has
     authorized links to operate over distances in excess of 100
     kilometers. The Commission did not propose specific protection
     criteria for this these BAS links in either the *Notice* or *First
     R&O/Further Notice,* and no parties suggested criteria in their
     comments. However, because it is a licensed service it must receive
     protection from unlicensed TV band devices.

189. We find that the most appropriate way to protect fixed BAS links is
     to specify an exclusion zone near the receive sites similar to the
     zone we are allowing for translator receive sites and for cable
     headends located outside the protected service contour of a TV
     station. Specifically, we will not allow TV band devices to operate
     co-channel or adjacent channel to a fixed BAS link receiver within
     +/‑ 30 degrees of the line extending from the BAS transmitter to
     the receiver. The protection zone for BAS links will similarly
     extend to a maximum distance of 80 kilometers from the receiver
     toward the transmitter for co-channel operations and to 20
     kilometers from the receiver toward the transmitter for adjacent
     channel operation. In addition, to prevent interference from TV
     band signals outside the main beam of the BAS receive antenna, we
     will prohibit co-channel operation of TV band devices within
     8 kilometers and adjacent channel operation within 2 kilometers of
     BAS receive sites in all directions off the +/- 30 degree arc.
     These restrictions will be applied via the TV bands database; that
     is, the database will be required to include records for BAS links
     and their technical information and to calculate the exclusion
     areas where unlicensed TV band devices are not allowed to operate.
     Permanent fixed BAS receiver sites are already recorded in the
     Commission's database, so the licensees of those sites will not
     need to take any action because the designated database
     administrator(s) will be responsible for obtaining and entering
     that information from our database. However, we note SBE's concern
     that temporary fixed BAS links and those operating under STAs are
     not in the database. We will therefore allow parties operating such
     links the option of registering those facilities with the database
     if they so desire to obtain the same protection as permanent fixed
     BAS links.

190. *Protection of PLMRS/CMRS services*. As discussed above, the
     PLMRS/CMRS operates on one or two channels in the range of 14-20 in
     13 metropolitan areas and the communications systems on these
     channels are principally used in support of public safety
     operations. In addition, a number of PLMRS/CMRS operations have
     been authorized under waivers at locations beyond the 130 kilometer
     protection zones around the 13 metropolitan areas where they are
     permitted to operate.[^255] In the *Notice,* the Commission
     proposed to require TV band devices to protect PLMRS/CMRS
     operations using the same criteria in Part 74 of the rules that are
     applied to TV translator, low power TV and Class A TV
     stations.[^256] That is, it proposed to require TVBDs to protect
     PLMRS/CMRS operations within a 130 kilometer radius of the
     designated geographic coordinates for each of the 13 metropolitan
     areas. The field strength from a TV band device on a co- or
     adjacent channel would not be permitted to exceed 52 dBµV or 76
     dBµV, respectively, at the 130 km protected radius of the
     PLMRS/CMRS metropolitan area. Based on these field strength
     criteria, the Commission proposed to specify that a co-channel TV
     band device would have to be 4 kilometers or farther outside this
     protected radius and an adjacent channel TV band device would have
     to be 1 kilometer or farther outside this protected radius.[^257]

191. Microsoft states that, given the low duty cycle nature and
     comparatively low power levels likely for unlicensed services in
     the TV bands compared to the often 100% duty cycle of low power TV
     stations, the Commission's proposals for protecting the PLMRS/CMRS
     seem unduly conservative and constraining.[^258] Microsoft does
     not, however, recommend any alternative protection criteria.
     Motorola argues that TV band devices should operate no closer than
     15 kilometers outside the 130 kilometer protected radius, rather
     than 4 kilometers as proposed by the Commission.[^259] Motorola
     derives this separation distance from an analysis in which it
     believes that the Commission should 1) define a power spectral
     density limit of 8 dBm/3 kHz consistent with Part 15 rules, 2)
     consider antenna height and terrain variation, and 3) define an
     interference level to PLMRS/CMRS of 21 dBμV/25 kHz.

192. We are adopting the proposed protection criteria and therefore will
     require that co-channel TV band devices be located at least 4
     kilometers outside the PLMRS/CMRS protection radius of the 13
     metropolitan markets and that adjacent channel TV band devices be
     located at least 1 kilometer outside this protection radius. These
     values were derived using the same criteria used to protect
     PLMRS/CMRS operations from low power TV stations, and no party has
     demonstrated that they would provide inadequate protection.[^260]
     Therefore, we decline to adopt a different definition of
     interference to the PLMRS/CMRS or adopt additional protection
     requirements (*i.e.,* a power spectral density limit) for TV band
     devices as requested by Motorola. We note that the criteria in Part
     74 of the rules were developed for protecting PLMRS/CMRS operations
     against interference from analog TV signals, which have a very
     non-uniform power spectral density due to the high percentage of
     power concentrated near the video carrier. Because the current
     rules adequately protect the PLMRS/CMRS with no power spectral
     density limit, there is no need to specify a power spectral density
     limit for TV band devices, which we expect will generally have a
     much more uniform power spectral density than analog TV.

193. In the case of PLMRS/CMRS operations that have been authorized
     under waivers at locations beyond the 130 kilometer protection
     zones around the 13 metropolitan areas, we note that the boundaries
     of those areas are based on a geographic area (generally that of a
     county government area) rather than being defined by a point
     radius. In those cases, mobile units do not operate beyond the
     geographic boundary of the waiver area. However, the Commission's
     Universal Licensing System (ULS) contains the coordinates of the
     licensed PLMRS/CMRS base stations rather than the geographic
     boundaries of the area covered by the waiver. Therefore, the most
     practical way to provide protection to PLMRS/CMRS operations
     pursuant to waivers is to provide a protected zone around each base
     station licensed under the waiver. The rules specify that the
     maximum distance a PLMRS/CMRS base station may operate from the
     geographic center coordinates in the 13 metro areas is 80
     kilometers, and then provide an additional 50 kilometer zone of
     protection for those stations from low power TV operations.[^261]
     Thus, new/relocated low power TV stations must not be located
     within 130 km of a co-channel PLMRS/CMRS base station. We will
     protect PLMRS/CMRS operations under waivers at the same 50
     kilometer distance from base stations as in the 13 metro areas. As
     discussed above, to prevent interference within a PLMRS/CMRS
     protected zone, co-channel and adjacent channel TVBDs must be
     located at least 4 kilometers and 1 kilometer outside the protected
     zone, respectively. Thus, we will specify that co-channel
     unlicensed TVBD devices may operate no closer than 54 kilometers
     from a base station operating under a waiver, and that adjacent
     channel unlicensed TVBDs may operate no closer than 51 kilometers
     from a base station operating under a waiver.

194. *Offshore Radiotelephone Service*. The Offshore Radiotelephone
     Service is a primary radio service that operates on TV channels
     15-17 in designated areas along and within the Gulf of
     Mexico.[^262] This service is intended to provide public message
     service between offshore subscribers and central stations. It is
     used principally for communications between workers at offshore oil
     facilities and stations on the coast. Operation of low power TV
     stations is prohibited within designated geographic areas along the
     Gulf coast on channels 15-18 to prevent interference to the
     Offshore Radiotelephone Service.[^263] The Commission did not
     specifically propose protection criteria for the Offshore
     Radiotelephone Service in either the *Notice* or *First R&O/Further
     Notice,* and no parties addressed this issue in comments. However,
     it is a licensed service and therefore must be protected from
     interference from unlicensed TV band devices. We believe it is
     reasonable to protect Offshore Radiotelephone Service from
     unlicensed TVBDs in the same manner as we protect those operations
     from low power TV stations. Accordingly, are prohibiting unlicensed
     devices, both fixed and personal/portable from operating on
     channels 15-18 within the designated geographic areas that low
     power TV stations must avoid to protect the Offshore Radiotelephone
     Service. This will be accomplished through the use of the
     geo-location and database capabilities.

195. *Protection of wireless microphones and other Part 74 devices*. Low
     power auxiliary stations, which include wireless microphones, cue
     and control communications systems and camera synchronization
     devices, are allowed to operate on vacant TV channels with power
     levels of 50 mW in the VHF bands and 250 mW in the UHF bands on a
     secondary basis under Part 74 of the rules.[^264] Wireless assist
     video devices (WAVDs) are similarly allowed to operate under Part
     74 on channels 8-12 and 14-51, excluding channel 37, with a power
     level of 250 mW.[^265] Operations in these services are licensed,
     so unlicensed TV band devices are required to provide interference
     protection to them. The licenses for low power auxiliary and WAVD
     devices can specify multiple operating channels, but do not specify
     the exact geographic coordinates where the devices can operate.
     Further, these devices operate intermittently, rather than
     continuously like TV stations

196. As indicated above, wireless microphone manufacturers and users
     request that we protect these devices through several measures,
     including: 1) limiting new low power devices to fixed operation, 2)
     prohibiting new low power devices from operating on channels
     adjacent to occupied TV channels and/or reserving six vacant TV
     channels in each market to ensure that there is spectrum available
     for wireless microphones, 3) requiring new low power devices to
     incorporate spectrum sensing to detect wireless microphones, and 4)
     requiring new low power devices to sense for the presence of a
     "smart beacon" that would operate when wireless microphones are in
     use in an area.

197. We recognize that protection of low power auxiliary devices and
     WAVDs involves somewhat different considerations than fixed
     services that continuously, or nearly continuously, occupy the same
     channels/frequencies or area wide mobile services. The nature of
     these devices and their use is such they operate for relatively
     short periods of time at various times (albeit sometimes on a
     frequent and scheduled) basis and the specific frequencies they use
     for operation often change from time to time, even at locations
     such as major event venues. As a result, there are no existing
     databases that can identify which TV channels are in use by
     wireless microphones and WAVDs at a given location and a spectrum
     sensing feature that would be able to reliably detect active
     microphone operation would not be effective at times when the
     microphones are not operating.

198. We believe that wireless microphones can be adequately protected
     under an approach that provides for registration of sites and times
     where microphones are operated and also includes spectrum sensing
     as a back-up to the registration system. Under the plan we are
     adopting, wireless microphone licensees will be allowed to register
     the sites where they operate along with the days and times when
     they operate. The database system will then prohibit operation of
     unlicensed TVBDs from operating near that site on the channels and
     at the times used for wireless microphones. Wireless microphone
     licensees will be allowed to register sites and times on a
     permanent or temporary basis. In addition, as indicated above,
     TVBDs will be required to look for and detect wireless microphones
     at signal levels as low as -114 dBm/6 MHz. This will provide
     protection for microphones that operate on channels on which
     unlicensed TVBDs are also allowed to operate.[^266] We are not
     requiring that unlicensed TVBDs be able to receive and respond to a
     smart beacon signal identifying the presence of wireless microphone
     signals for the reasons discussed above.

199. The protection of wireless microphone registered sites will be
     limited to facilities with wireless microphone use at well defined
     times and locations.[^267] Unlicensed TV band devices will be
     required to include the channels used by wireless microphones and
     other low power auxiliary devices at such venues in their
     determinations of available channels for operation. Event site
     registrations will indicate the type of event, the TV channels
     used, the geographic coordinates of the event site, whether use of
     channels at the site is on an on-going permanent basis, the days
     and times when the site operates, or if site operates on an
     occasional basis, the dates of such operation. Registration of
     temporary sites will also be permitted. Unlicensed TVBDs will not
     be allowed to operate within one kilometer of the recorded
     geographic coordinates of registered event venues on the channels
     specified as in use by the registrant during the designated times
     when low power auxiliary devices are used. This separation distance
     recognizes the fact that wireless microphones and other devices
     used at an event site will be at relatively strong signal levels
     compared to unlicensed TVBD signals at that distance and also
     allows for wireless microphone use around the area occupied by
     large event venues such as stadiums, fairgrounds etc. In the case
     of very large venues such as race tracks and other event sites that
     may occupy more than a significant portion of the area within a one
     kilometer geographic square, the operator/coordinator/licensee will
     be allowed to submit multiple registrations to specify the
     coordinates of more than one point in the facility. As discussed
     further in the section on the TV bands database, the Commission
     reserves the right to request that the database administrator
     remove voluntarily submitted data that is inaccurate or not
     justifiable, *e.g.,* is filed for the purpose of limiting other
     parties' legitimate use of the white spaces rather than protecting
     authorized services. In addition to these protections, the TVBD
     channel usage plan and our decision to reserve two UHF channels in
     the range 21-36 and 38-51 will ensure that channels are available
     for itinerant microphone operations.

200. We do not find it desirable to reserve channels for wireless
     microphone use in all markets. Such an approach would restrict the
     availability of spectrum for TVBDs and we see no reason to restrict
     TVBD operations on frequencies at locations and times where there
     are no microphone operations.[^268] In addition, wireless
     microphones will have access to those channels where TVBDs are not
     allowed to operate. While the channels where TVBDs are not allowed
     to operate may not be open in all markets, in many markets there
     will be channels on which wireless microphones may operate without
     the need for special measures to receive protection from TVBDs.

## TV Bands Database System Requirements

201. As indicated above, all unlicensed fixed TV band devices and all
     personal/portable devices, except for those that operate in Mode I
     under control of a fixed or Mode II personal/portable device, will
     be required to access a TV bands database to obtain information on
     the available channels at their location and all unlicensed fixed
     TVBDs will be required to register their operations. In the
     *Notice* and the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission made
     proposals and asked for comment on a number of specific provisions
     relating to this database system.[^269] In particular, the
     Commission requested comment on the information about authorized
     stations that should be in a database, such as geographic
     coordinates, type and class of station, transmit power level,
     antenna height and other antenna characteristics, the means by
     which an unlicensed device would access the database, and how often
     the database would need to be updated. In this section we address
     the specific plan for operation of the database system, including
     the information to be stored in the database, the requirements that
     apply to unlicensed TVBDs for accessing the database system, the
     responsibilities of a database administrator, and database
     administrator selection.

202. In comments responding to the *Notice*, Entravision Holdings, LLC
     (Entravision) and NTA state that a device that automatically checks
     a database should do so continuously, and that a maintenance
     routine that allows a frequent check of the accurate functioning of
     the automatic facilities should be approved with the equipment
     certification.[^270] Itron suggests that we require unlicensed
     TVBDs to automatically check the database daily or weekly.[^271]
     However, Josephson Engineering, Inc. states that monthly or
     bimonthly database checks should be sufficient because there is a
     significant delay between the issuance of a TV station construction
     permit and actual occupancy of a frequency.[^272]

203. Motorola submits that the database system could be managed by a
     third party. It further states that channel availability
     information should be in a standard format and updated regularly
     through authorized database registration and that third party
     providers of database information *e.g.*, a frequency coordinator,
     industry association, or local broadcast group, should be
     responsible for its accuracy.[^273] Harris similarly believes that
     the database should be updated at least weekly and states that a
     device should shut down if it does not receive database
     updates.[^274] Motorola submits that the database should contain
     the Commission's officially established service contour levels to
     make sure that consistent calculations are performed by various
     manufacturers' equipment.[^275] It states that the information in
     the database should include the TV transmitter location, ERP,
     antenna height above average terrain (HAAT), radiation center above
     ground level (RCAGL), FCC service code, license status, and call
     sign. In addition, Motorola believes that the database should be
     flexible enough to include different protection levels depending on
     the transmit power of the TV band device since the interference
     potential of TV band devices will vary with transmitted power.
     Motorola supports the Commission's suggestion that a private party
     be selected to develop and maintain the database. [^276] CBA
     suggests that the funding of the database could come from a
     one-time fee assessed at the purchase of white space devices.[^277]

204. *Database system plan and operation*: We are adopting a database
     plan that will provide for efficient and effective management of
     licensee and TVBD records and the identification of available
     channels for TVBDs. As an initial matter, we will consider
     authorizing more than one entity to operate a TV bands database.
     Thus, depending on expressed interest to a solicitation for
     database managers, the Commission could select multiple database
     administrators that could offer services on a competitive basis. In
     this regard, we are mindful that sufficient safeguards must be put
     in place to ensure that TVBD users would receive the same set of
     available channels regardless of which database it queries such
     that entities compete solely on the basis of cost and speed and
     efficiency of service. The database(s) will be a privately owned
     and operated service that unlicensed TV band devices must contact
     to obtain information on channel availability at the locations
     where they are operated and, in the case of fixed devices, to
     register their operation at those locations. We will permit
     database administrators to charge fees for registration of fixed
     devices and the provision of lists of available channels to fixed
     devices and personal/portable devices. We believe that third
     parties will be in the best position to develop and manage a
     database in a fair and equitable manner and to address the
     day-to-day operational demands. Any TV bands database will be
     required to contain information on: 1) all of the authorized
     services that operate in the TV bands using fixed transmitters with
     designated service areas, including full service and low power TV
     stations, 2) the service paths of broadcast auxiliary
     point-to-point facilities, 3) the geographic regions served by
     PLMRS/CMRS operations on channels 14-20, 4) regions served by the
     Offshore Radiotelephone Service, and 5) the locations of cable
     headends and low power TV receive sites that are outside the
     protected contours of the TV stations whose signals they receive.
     In addition, a TV bands database will be required to contain the
     locations of registered sites where wireless microphones and other
     low power auxiliary devices are used on a regular or scheduled
     basis. A TV bands database will be required to register unlicensed
     TV band devices in accordance with the rules and to provide such
     devices with a list of the available channels at the specific
     locations where they are operating.

205. Unlicensed TV band devices, except for those operating as a client
     to a either a fixed device or a personal/portable device operating
     in Mode II, will be required to contact a TV bands database through
     the Internet to obtain a list of available channels at their
     location in accordance with the rules set forth herein. Database
     administrator(s) will define protocols so that TV band devices can
     access a database automatically without human intervention. A TV
     bands database will calculate the television channels that are
     available for use by unlicensed TV band devices at their individual
     locations based on the information in the database and consistent
     with the separation distances set forth in the rules and then
     return a list of those channels to the TV band device on an
     approximately real-time basis. A device may then transmit only on
     those channels which the database indicates are available for its
     use.[^278] The database system will also record registration
     information from each fixed TV band device. The registration
     information will include the device's location (geographic
     coordinates) and contact information for its user/operator. This
     registration information will assist TV band device users in
     coordinating efficient use of the available television channels at
     a particular location. In addition, should any interference to
     licensed services occur, the registration information will assist
     in the identification of the source of any such interference.
     Finally, a TV bands database will include provisions for sharing
     registration data with any other Commission authorized TV bands
     database.

206. In considering a minimum interval for re-contacting the database
     system, it is important to note that protection is afforded not
     only to TV and other fixed facilities that do not change often, but
     also to mobile/portable facilities such as wireless microphones. As
     already described, we will allow venues where wireless microphones
     and other low power auxiliary devices are used on a regular or
     scheduled basis to register such usage in the TV bands database.
     Because such usage could change on a daily basis, we will require
     fixed and mode II TVBDs to recheck the database, at a minimum, on a
     daily basis. Rechecking in this manner will also provide for timely
     protection of new or modified licensed facilities. This approach
     accounts for the continual changes that will occur over time as new
     licenses are issued or inaccuracies are corrected. We believe that
     because database access will be done automatically over the
     internet, rechecking the available channels will not be burdensome.
     If a device fails to contact a TV bands database on any given day,
     it will be required to cease transmitting after a one-day grace
     period. That is, it must cease operating at 11:59 PM on the day
     following a day when it does not contact a TV bands database. This
     grace period will allow for situations where there has been a
     sustained power loss, an internet outage, or other circumstances
     that disrupt a device's ability to contact a TV bands database. In
     accessing a TV bands database to update its list of available
     channels, a device will only need to provide its identification
     information, current location and, for fixed devices, any changes
     in its registration information.

207. In addition to the daily database update requirement,
     personal/portable devices operating in Mode II will be required to
     re-establish their location coordinates and to access a TV bands
     database for a list of available channels each time they are
     activated, *i.e.*, powered on, or move. If such a device maintains
     a powered on state for one-day or more, the device will then be
     required to re-check a TV bands database as described above. We
     find that these measures will ensure that both fixed and
     personal/portable devices properly maintain a current list of
     available channels.

208. *Database information*. To ensure that a TV bands database contains
     sufficient elements to both determine available TV channels for a
     given location and to register fixed TVBDs, we must define the set
     of data elements for the database. The elements for the various
     types of systems that will be in the database is described below.
     Additionally, we note that for all coordinates we will require that
     they be referenced to the North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83) and
     as described above, we will require accuracy to within 50 meters.

209. The information collected from fixed unlicensed TV band devices
     will include:

     \(1\) FCC Identifier (FCC ID) of the device[^279]

     \(2\) manufacturer's serial number of the device

     \(3\) device's coordinates (latitude and longitude)

     \(4\) name of the individual or business that owns the device

     \(5\) name of a contact person responsible for the device's
     operation

     \(6\) address of the contact person

     \(7\) email address of the contact person

     \(8\) phone number of the contact person.

210. The information collected from personal/portable unlicensed TV band
     devices, which will not be registered and only access the database
     for available channels, will include:

     \(1\) FCC Identifier (FCC ID) of the device

     \(2\) manufacturer's serial number of the device

     \(3\) device's coordinates (latitude and longitude)

211. The FCC ID and serial number of the TV band device will uniquely
     identify individual fixed unlicensed TV band devices. This
     information will assist the Commission if compliance issues
     concerning devices arise. A fixed TV band device will be required
     to update any information that has changed when it makes its daily
     check with a TV bands database to determine if the list of
     available channels at its location has changed. If a fixed device
     does not check the database for three months, its registration will
     be removed from the database.

212. A database administrator will not be responsible for resolving
     claims of interference from TVBDs. If there is a claim of
     interference, a database administrator, upon request from the
     Commission, must provide TVBD identifying information. If a device
     is found to be causing interference, the Commission may then
     require that the party responsible for the unlicensed device take
     corrective actions or cease operating the device until the
     interference is resolved. In addition, if a representative of the
     Commission attempts and is unable to contact the person responsible
     for a device that is determined to be causing interference, the
     Commission may require the TV bands database to return a message of
     "no channels available" to the device at its next scheduled
     re-check. This will effectively shut down the device until contact
     is made with the responsible party so that the interference can be
     resolved. The database administrator will rescind a "no channels
     available" status for that device only upon authorization by the
     Commission.

213. Now, regarding services that will be protected a TV bands database
     will contain the following information on full-power television
     stations, digital and analog Class A stations, low-power television
     stations (LPTV), television translator stations, and television
     booster stations:

     \(1\) transmitter coordinates (latitude and longitude)

     \(2\) effective radiated power (ERP)

     \(3\) height above average terrain of the transmitter (HAAT)

     \(4\) horizontal transmit antenna pattern (if the antenna is
     directional)

     \(5\) channel number

     \(6\) station call sign

     A TV bands database will also be required to include data on the
     distributed transmission system (DTS) facilities of stations using
     that technology and to use that data in determining the protected
     service areas of such stations.[^280] The information for full
     service TV stations is available on the Media Bureau's Consolidated
     Data Base System (CDBS).[^281]

214. A TV bands database will also include information on Broadcast
     Auxiliary Service (BAS) facilities, which use vacant television
     channels for fixed point-to-point links. For permanent links, this
     information is available from the Commission's Universal Licensing
     System (ULS).[^282] For temporary BAS links, the party authorized
     to operate the link may voluntarily submit this information to a TV
     bands database. For each BAS link the TV bands database will
     contain:

     \(1\) transmitter coordinates (latitude and longitude)

     \(2\) receiver coordinates (latitude and longitude)

     \(3\) channel number

     \(4\) call sign

215. In some geographic regions, certain television channels from
     channel 14through channel 20 are set aside for use by PLMRS and
     CMRS operations. These regions are specified in the Commissions
     rules.[^283] A TV bands database will contain the center
     coordinates (latitude and longitude) for each of these regions and
     the television channels used in each region. For each of these
     regions, a TV bands database will include the following data
     elements:

     \(1\) region name

     \(2\) channel(s) reserved for use in the region

     \(3\) geographic center of the region (latitude and longitude)

     \(4\) call sign

216. In addition, numerous PLMRS and CMRS licenses have been granted in
     these channels outside of the identified geographic regions under
     waivers to the Commission's rules.[^284] These "waiver" licenses
     are specified in various ways such as, for example, by allowing a
     particular transmitted power and antenna height for a base station
     at a specified location or by specifying a geographic area of
     coverage, such as the boundaries of a local county administrative
     area. The database can be populated by information pertaining to
     facilities authorized by the Commission via an extract from the
     Wireless Telecommunication Bureau's ULS database. This database
     contains information on license holders, facility operation
     parameters (frequency, location, etc.), and any special conditions
     that apply. For each of these waiver licenses the following
     information will be placed into a TV bands database:

     \(1\) transmitter location (latitude and longitude) or geographic
     area of operations

     \(2\) effective radiated power

     \(3\) transmitter height above average terrain (if specified)

     \(4\) antenna height above ground level (if specified)

     \(5\) call sign

     In cases where the operator of a PLMRS/CMRS system licensed under a
     waiver operates multiple transmitters (not including systems that
     are licensed to operate in a coverage area), information on each
     transmitter will be required to be maintained in a TV bands
     database.

217. The Offshore Radiotelephone Service uses channels 15-18 along the
     coast of the Gulf of Mexico.[^285] The Commission's rules designate
     four regions to protect this service.[^286] For each of the four
     regions a TV bands database will contain the following information:

> \(1\) geographic boundaries of the region (latitude and longitude for
> each point defining the boundary of the region

\(2\) channel(s) used by the service in that region

218. As noted above, cable television systems often use antennas at
     their headends to receive broadcast television signals and then
     retransmit those signals to subscriber households throughout the
     cable system. In many cases, cable systems are able to receive
     broadcast TV signals at locations outside a stations' protected
     service contour by using high gain antennas mounted on top of
     buildings or tall towers. Records identifying cable systems that
     receive TV stations outside of their service areas are not
     currently maintained in the Commission's databases. As indicated
     above, we are extending protection to the reception of TV signals
     by such cable headends. We are therefore allowing cable operators
     to register, with a TV bands database, their headends that receive
     TV signals outside of a station's protected contour and requiring
     that a TV bands database afford protection to those facilities in
     accordance with the provisions indicated above. A TV bands database
     will collect the following information to register a cable headend:

     \(1\) name and address of cable company

     \(2\) location of the headend receiver (latitude and longitude)

> \(3\) channel number of each television channel received, subject to
> the following condition: channels for which the cable headend is
> located within the protected contour of that channel's transmitting
> station are not eligible for registration in the database

\(4\) call sign of each television channel received and eligible for
registration.

\(5\) location (latitude and longitude) of the transmitter of each
television channel received

219. Television translator and low power stations, including Class A TV
     stations, rebroadcast the signal of a full service station or
     another low power station. Like many cable headends, TV
     translators/low power stations often receive the signal of the
     station they retransmit outside the retransmitted station's
     protected contour.[^287] The TV translators and low power stations
     that currently receive the signal they retransmit off-the-air at
     locations beyond the originating station's protected service
     contour are not currently recorded in the Commission's databases.
     To protect the reception of signals at the receive sites of these
     stations, we will allow the licensees of such translators and low
     power stations to register their receive sites with a TV bands
     database and require the database to afford those sites protection
     in the same manner as similarly situated cable headends. A TV bands
     database will collect the following information to register a
     translator/low power receive site:

     \(1\) call sign of the TV translator or low power TV station

     \(2\) location of the TV translator or low power station receive
     site (latitude and longitude)

> \(3\) channel number of the retransmitted television station, subject
> to the following condition: a channel for which the television
> translator receive site is located within the protected contour of
> that channel's transmitting station is not eligible for registration
> in the database

\(4\) call sign of the retransmitted television station

> \(5\) location (latitude and longitude) of the transmitter of the
> retransmitted television station

220. As discussed above, low power auxiliary stations such as wireless
     microphones and wireless assist video devices operate in the
     television bands on a secondary basis under Part 74 of the
     Commission's rules.[^288] These devices are usually licensed to
     operate over a broad geographic area and a wide range of television
     channels. The use of these devices is sometimes sporadic and
     nomadic and registration of the locations of such operations'
     locations in a TV bands database would not be practical. However,
     in many cases wireless microphones and wireless assist video
     devices are used regularly and predictably, such as at major
     sporting events facilities, movie studio lots, and television
     studios. For these situations, the low power auxiliary device users
     will be allowed to register in a TV bands database, the location
     where the devices are used to aid in avoiding interference from TV
     band devices. In the case of large event facilities such as race
     tracks and golf courses, we will allow multiple registrations with
     different geographic coordinates to enable protection of the entire
     site. We will require that requests for registration of low power
     auxiliary devices that operate on a seasonal basis, only on certain
     days within a week or only at specific times include such
     information; TVBDs will be restricted from operation in the
     channels used at registered sites only on days and at times when
     low power auxiliary devices at the sites are in operation. Low
     power auxiliary registrations will be valid for no longer than a
     year, after which they may be renewed. The database will collect
     the following information on registered sites that use low power
     auxiliary devices :

     \(1\) name of the individual or business that owns the low power
     auxiliary device(s)

     \(2\) the name of a contact person

     \(3\) an address for the contact person

     \(4\) an email address for the contact person (optional)

     \(5\) a phone number for the contact person (optional)

     \(6\) coordinates where the device(s) are used (latitude and
     longitude)

     \(7\) channels used by the low power auxiliary devices operated at
     the site

     \(8\) specific months, days and times when the device(s) are used.

221. *Database Administration*. The Commission does not maintain a
     database of all TV and other stations and operations in the TV
     bands that could be accessed regularly in real-time by a large
     number of TVBDs dispersed throughout the country. We will designate
     one or more database administrators from the private sector to
     create and operate a TV bands database or databases. We recognize
     the interests of Google and other TVBD proponents in ensuring that
     database services be made available on a fair and low cost (or no
     cost) basis and believe that providing for authorization of more
     than one party to operate a TV bands database will serve that
     purpose. The Commission will issue a Public Notice requesting
     proposals from entities desiring to administer a TV bands database.
     Any entity that ultimately administrators such a database must make
     its services available to all TV band device users on a
     non-discriminatory basis. In addition, to ensure stability for
     these new devices, we will require each database administrator to
     provide services for a five-year term, which, at the Commission's
     discretion, may be renewed. In the event that there is only a
     single a database administrator and that entity does not wish to
     continue at the end of its term, it will be required to transfer
     its database along with the IP address(es) and URL(s) used to
     access the database to another designated entity and would be
     allowed to charge a reasonable price for conveyance of that
     resource.

222. If the Commission chooses multiple entities to administer TV bands
     databases, we must ensure that each database contains consistent
     information so that regardless of which database a TVBD queries, it
     receives the same list of available channels in an area. Because a
     TVBD will only be required to contact a single TV bands database,
     there is a need for the TV bands databases to share accurate and
     timely registration information so that each database has a timely
     view of the radio environment and can make the best channel
     recommendations possible. Therefore, we will require that each TV
     bands database, at a minimum on a daily basis, provide to each
     other TV bands database, all registration information it receives
     during the previous day. This data sharing requirement extends only
     to registrations of fixed devices and protected facilities that are
     not otherwise captured in Commission databases, including wireless
     microphone and wireless assist video device locations, cable
     headends, and TV translator/low power receive sites. The databases
     can obtain information on other services, such as full service TV,
     land mobile licenses, etc. directly from Commission databases. We
     believe that this sharing requirement is extremely important to the
     success of TVBDs as it decreases the burden on any one database and
     also foster cooperation between the various database
     administrators. Although we are requiring the TV bands databases to
     share information daily, we will leave the actual implementation
     details up to the database administrators. Once the specific
     entities are selected, they will need to agree on a specific
     protocol and data format requirement so that manufacturers can
     build standard devices that can work with any of the databases and
     each database can easily transmit and receive data from each other
     database. In addition, the database administrators may agree
     whether to share on a more frequent timeframe than daily.

223. A TV bands database will obtain much of the information on licensed
     use of the television bands for populating the database from the
     existing Commission databases. The TV bands database will be
     required to synchronize itself with the existing Commission
     databases at least once a week so that the information in the TV
     bands database remains current. Entities operating facilities that
     are entitled to protection but that are not licensed by the
     Commission, *e.g.*, cable headends and TV translator/low power TV
     station receivers, will register their facilities through a process
     established by the database administrators. We will allow the TV
     bands databases to charge fees necessary to support the creation
     and operation of the database. These fees may be imposed on the
     operators of the TV band devices in order to access the database
     and/or on the manufacturers of TV band devices, but not on users of
     the television bands who are not currently in the Commission's
     database and desire to be included in the database. We do not
     believe it is appropriate to charge operators of licensed service
     for protection of their operations from unlicensed devices. We
     believe that competition among databases will serve to keep fees
     low and reasonable. However, if parties believe that the fees
     charged by a TV bands database are excessive, they may petition the
     Commission for relief.

224. We recognize that there is potential for inaccurate information to
     be entered into the database, for omissions to occur, and for
     records to be present for licensed facilities that are no longer
     operating. Such inaccuracies could be introduced in several ways.
     For example, any errors that might inadvertently be present in a
     Commission database could be transferred to a TV bands
     database.[^289] In addition, the fact that we are permitting
     information on certain services in the TV bands to be voluntarily
     provided introduces another potential for error. Parties submitting
     such information could inadvertently provide inaccurate
     coordinates, channel or other information, and there is also the
     potential that a party could knowingly provide false information on
     channel use at a location. The database administrators will be
     expected to respond quickly to verify and/or correct data in the
     event that a party brings claims of inaccuracies in the database to
     its attention, including advising the Commission of any errors that
     may appear in the Commission's records. Further, the Commission
     reserves the right to request the removal of voluntarily submitted
     information from a TV bands database in the event that such
     information is determined to be inaccurate or not in compliance
     with the rules.

## Technical Requirements

225. In this section, we describe the technical requirements that are
     applicable to unlicensed TV band devices, *i.e*., both fixed and
     personal/portable. There are two general categories of
     requirements. The first consists of transmission system
     characteristics that are similar to those required for most types
     of transmitters, including the transmitter power, antenna
     characteristics and out-of-band emission limits. The second
     category consists of specific standards and requirements for the
     procedures to be used to enable unlicensed TV band devices to use
     the TV white space without causing interference to TV and other
     authorized services.

### Transmit Antenna Height Limits

226. As the transmit antenna height of a fixed unlicensed TV band device
     is increased, both the device's signal coverage and the distance at
     which it could cause interference to other RF operations in the TV
     bands services also increase. In the *First R&O/Further Notice,*
     the Commission sought comment on whether any requirements are
     necessary with respect to transmitter height, such as a limit on
     maximum antenna height or a requirement for reduced power when a
     higher antenna is used.[^290] We did not receive any comments
     specifically addressing this issue with respect to fixed devices.
     However, the White Space Coalition submits that height restrictions
     should not be imposed on personal/portable devices, arguing that
     such restrictions would be impossible to administer and are
     unnecessary given the low power of the devices.[^291]

227. Our analysis indicates that the height of a TV band device's
     transmit antenna can significantly affect the distance at which
     interference could occur to licensed services in the TV bands. For
     example, as indicated above, a transmit antenna at 10 meters with 4
     watts EIRP could cause interference to a TV receiver with a 9 meter
     antenna at a distance of 9 kilometers, while that same transmit
     antenna at 30 meters could cause interference to that TV receiver
     at a distance of 18 kilometers and at 100 meters could cause
     interference at 30.5 kilometers. We therefore conclude that in
     order to further limit the potential interference range of fixed
     unlicensed TVBDs it is necessary to limit the height of antennas
     used with those relatively higher powered devices. We are not
     imposing height restrictions on the lower powered personal/portable
     devices.

228. In considering this issue, we observe that the distance that fixed
     unlicensed TVBDs must be separated from protected service areas is
     directly related to the maximum allowed antenna height, that is,
     the minimum required separation distance must increase as the
     maximum allowed antenna height increases. We believe that an
     antenna height limit of 30 meters will appropriately balance the
     needs of unlicensed fixed TVBDs for range to reach receivers while
     minimizing the range at which those operations could impact
     licensed services.

229. We agree with the White Space Coalition that it is not practical to
     administer an antenna height limit for personal/portable devices.
     However, those devices will not be used in the same manner as fixed
     devices with gain antennas mounted outdoors that maximize the
     propagation range of their signals. Rather, personal/portable
     devices will be used indoors, so that their signals will be
     attenuated by exterior walls, and will have a maximum of 0 dBi net
     antenna gain. These factors will significantly reduce the range at
     which signals from a personal/portable device will be of sufficient
     field strength to cause interference. We believe that these
     considerations, coupled with the fact that operation of a
     personal/portable device on an upper floor of a building would
     increase the likelihood of sensing the signals of any licensed
     services in the area, will adequately ensure that unlicensed
     personal/portable TV band devices do not cause interference when
     used above ground level.

### Transmit Power Control

230. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission proposed to
     require unlicensed TV band devices to incorporate transmit power
     control (TPC) that would automatically limit emissions to a level
     6 dB below the maximum permitted transmit power if that level is
     sufficient to accomplish the desired communications.[^292] It also
     proposed not to apply the TPC requirement to devices whose maximum
     transmit power capability is at least 3 dB below the maximum
     permissible transmit power. The Commission sought comment on
     whether it should require a greater range for transmit power
     control, such as the ability to operate 9 or 12 dB below the limits
     if that is sufficient to achieve the desired communications. The
     Commission has previously applied the proposed TPC provisions to
     Unlicensed-National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices that
     operate in spectrum at 5 GHz.[^293] The Commission also sought
     comment on whether it should require all devices to use transmit
     power control and to operate with the minimum power necessary to
     achieve reliable communication,.

231. The Consumer Electronics Association agrees with the proposed
     requirements for transmit power control and believes that it is not
     necessary for the Commission to require a greater dynamic range
     because manufacturers will likely go beyond 6 dB as a matter of
     good design practice.[^294] Other parties also support requiring
     TPC in TV band devices to reduce the potential for interference to
     services in the TV bands, but believe that the Commission should
     require a dynamic range greater than 6 dB. Shure supports requiring
     TV band devices to incorporate TPC and to operate at the minimum
     power needed to conduct desired communication, rather than at the
     proposed 6 dB reduction, to reduce interference to incumbent users
     and also improve co-existence among unlicensed devices.[^295] The
     White Space Coalition recommends a TPC range of 25 dB, with devices
     using the minimum power necessary for reliable communications,
     while IEEE 802.18 recommends a 30 dB range with one dB steps
     between power levels.[^296] The White Space Coalition states that
     transmit power control can reduce the output power of a TV band
     device to as low as one-third of a milliwatt as appropriate.[^297]

232. *Discussion.* The use of transmit power control to avoid using more
     power than necessary for a given communication is a sound spectrum
     management practice that promotes efficient use of this resource.
     This technique enables communications while minimizing the
     potential for interference and is now a practicable feature for
     transceivers. We will therefore require all fixed and
     personal/portable TV band devices to incorporate transmit power
     control to limit their operating power to the minimum necessary for
     successful communication. We are not, however, adopting our
     proposal to apply the U-NII transmit power control requirements to
     unlicensed TVBDs or to specify alternative operating parameters for
     transmit power control as recommended by some parties. After
     examining the record and the range of power control options
     recommended by manufacturers, we now conclude that it would be more
     appropriate to simply require that TVBDs limit their operating
     power to the minimum necessary for successful communications and
     let manufacturers determine the range of power control that is
     appropriate for their individual products. We acknowledge the
     Consumer Electronics Association statement that manufacturers will
     likely incorporate transmit power control as a matter of good
     design practice and note that the developing IEEE 802.22 standard
     has provisions for transmit power control with a wide dynamic
     range. We also note that the White Space Coalition states that it
     intends to incorporate transmit power control into its devices.
     While we are not specifying the technical parameters for transmit
     power control, we will require applicants for certification to
     describe a device's transmit power control feature mechanism in the
     application.

### Out-Of-Band Emissions Limits

233. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission proposed to
     require that emissions from an unlicensed device outside that
     device's channel of operation comply with the limits in Section
     15.209 of the rules.[^298] These are the same out-of-band limits
     that apply to most intentional radiators operating under Part 15 of
     the rules, and at frequencies above 30 MHz are also the same as the
     limits that apply to most unintentional radiators, including
     computers and radio and TV receivers. However, the Commission
     recognized the concerns of some parties that these emission levels
     may be too high for devices that operate in the TV bands and sought
     comment on whether other emission limits would be more appropriate.

234. The White Space Coalition initially argued that the current Section
     15.209 out-of-band emission limits are adequate to protect against
     interference, except on adjacent channels.[^299] However, in a
     subsequent filing, the White Space Coalition recommended that we
     adopt an out-of-band emissions mask that requires emissions from a
     device to be 55 dB below the highest average power in the band, as
     measured in 500 kHz segments, at the edges of the 6 MHz channel in
     which the device is operating. Tropos Networks believes that the
     Section 15.247 out-of-band emission limits for spread spectrum and
     digitally modulated devices should apply to TV band devices, except
     in restricted bands.[^300] However, other parties, including IEEE
     802.18, Shure and NAB/MSTV claim that these limits, which resolve
     to the 15.209 limits at low signal levels, are too high and should
     be substantially reduced for devices operating in the TV
     bands.[^301] NAB/MSTV argue that the Section 15.209 limits were not
     problematic previously because unlicensed devices were prohibited
     from operating in the TV band, so that emissions in the TV band
     were far separated in frequency from the channels to which TV
     receivers tune and therefore well below the Section 15.209 limits.
     They further submit that until recently most unlicensed devices
     operated with narrow bandwidths, so out-of-band emissions were
     generally narrowband spikes that presented low interference risks.
     MSTV/NAB state that broadband unlicensed TVBDs will have wide
     out-of-band emissions that may be right at the limit. They observe
     that the Section 15.209 limits are 5 dB higher than the 41 dBμV/m
     field strength of a UHF DTV station at the edge of its protected
     contour, and in fact need to be 23 dB lower than that level to
     avoid causing interference.[^302] GE Healthcare believes that the
     Section 15.209 limits are not strict enough to protect the WMTS on
     channel 37 and requests that we adopt a more stringent mask for
     protection of WMTS devices on that channel.[^303] In an *ex parte*
     letter of May 8, 2008, Dell, Inc. and Google support GE
     Healthcare's proposal for an emissions mask in channels 36 and 38
     to protect WMTS devices. CTIA asks the Commission to ensure that
     operation of unlicensed TV band devices do not cause interference
     to 700 MHz band commercial wireless operations.[^304]

235. We find that the emissions mask suggested by the Coalition will
     adequately protect against interference from out-of-band emissions
     from signals at the maximum 40 mW (16 dBm) power level that
     adjacent channels will be allowed to use. At the 10 meter distance
     we are using for the range at which a user can be expected to
     exercise control of interference, a 40 mW signal propagating over a
     free-space path would produce a signal level of -32 dBm at an
     indoor receiver using an antenna with 0 dBi gain or, in the worst
     case, -24 dBm radiating directly into an outdoor antenna with 10
     dBd (dB reference to a dipole) gain and 4 dB cable loss.[^305]
     However, we also believe that in the great majority of instances a
     personal/portable device will not transmit directly into a TV gain
     antenna but rather will be off to the side and/or below the rooftop
     level of the TV antenna so that the received TVBD signal will be
     picked up at less than maximum gain and could in fact be negative.
     Thus, we will ignore the gain factor of outdoor antennas in this
     analysis and use only the -32 dBm signal level at the edge of a
     TVBD users premises. We also believe that it is appropriate to
     consider that a TV set or a receiver in some other TV band service
     that might receive interference from a personal/portable TVBD would
     be located in the premises of someone else would be on the other
     side of some structural elemental such as a wall and therefore, as
     detailed above, assume 10 dB of wall attenuation, 3 dB of
     polarization mismatch, and an additional 5 dB to account for indoor
     propagation which is generally greater than free space resulting in
     18 dB of attenuation of the TVBD signal, so that the signal would
     be no higher than -50 dBm in the adjoining premise.

236. The mask suggested by the Coalition would reduce emissions at the
     edges of the channel to ‑55 dB below the average power level in 500
     kHz. Using that mask would reduce the out-of-band emissions
     appearing at a TV receiver to -110 dBm or to 23 dBμV/m at the
     receiver's antenna, which is well below the service threshold for
     DTV reception and the Section 15.209 limit and in fact below the
     noise floor for 6 MHz. This mask is also more restrictive than the
     DTV emissions mask in the first adjacent channel for signals of the
     same power level. We also see no reason to extend the -23 db "weak
     signal" signal to noise ratio provision of Section 73.622(c)(3) to
     protection against adjacent channel interference but instead will
     use the standard 15 db signal-to-noise ratio in that rule section.
     Given that ‑110 dBm is more than the standard 15 dB signal-to-noise
     ratio below the -84 dBm DTV reception threshold (and is in fact
     below the -107 dBm thermal noise floor in a 6 MHz channel), we
     conclude that TVBD signals complying with the -55 dB mask will
     adequately avoid the interference concerns expressed by MSTV/NAB.
     We also observe that the performance of the Adaptrum transmitter
     demonstrates that meeting this mask is feasible. While we believe
     that the emissions mask is less critical for fixed devices that
     will not operate on adjacent channels, we will require those
     devices to comply with the same mask as personal/portable devices.
     This will ensure that out-of-band emissions from all TVBDs pose the
     minimum potential for interference. Accordingly, we will require
     that emissions from unlicensed TVBDs be at least 55 dB below the
     highest average power in the 6 MHz channels adjacent to the 6 MHz
     channel in which the device is operating.[^306] Beyond 6 MHz from
     the edge of the operating channel, radiated emissions from TVBD
     devices shall meet the requirements of Section 15.209. In addition,
     we are adopting GE Healthcare's proposal for a mask in channels 36
     and 38 to protect WMTS devices in channel 37. All TVBDs will be
     required to comply with this more stringent requirement for
     suppression of out-of-band emissions into channel 37.

### Spectrum Sensing

237. As discussed above, we are requiring TVBDs to be capable of
     detecting DTV stations, analog (NTSC) TV stations (because low
     power analog stations may continue to operate after the DTV
     transition), and wireless microphones at a minimum signal level of
     -114 dBm. In this section, we discuss and specify the technical
     requirements for spectrum sensing by unlicensed TV band devices.

238. Detection *Bandwidth and Sensing Antenna.* In the *First
     R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission sought comment on the
     appropriate detection threshold for TV band devices that
     incorporate spectrum sensing. The Commission noted that IEEE 802.22
     was considering detection threshold values as low as -114 dBm,
     referenced to an omnidirectional receive antenna with a gain of 0
     dBi, and sought comment on this value or alternative values for the
     detection threshold.[^307] The Commission noted that there is a
     relationship between the sensing receiver bandwidth and ability of
     a device to detect weak signals. A receiver with a wide bandwidth
     is not able to detect as weak a signal as a receiver using a narrow
     bandwidth because the thermal noise in a receiver is proportional
     to the bandwidth. The Commission sought comment on whether there is
     a need to specify a sensing bandwidth in addition to a detection
     threshold, or whether it is necessary to specify only the
     characteristics of the signals to be detected as discussed below
     and leave the sensing bandwidth to the manufacturer's
     discretion.[^308] Shure recommends a detection bandwidth of 200 kHz
     for wireless microphones.[^309]

239. IEEE 802.18 believes that the sensing antenna should have a minimum
     gain of 0 dBi, assuming the antenna is omnidirectional, but
     believes that the Commission's rules should allow alternative
     approaches, such as an electronically rotated high gain antenna
     that scans 360 degrees.[^310] IEEE 802.18 recommends a requirement
     that the sensing antenna be located outdoors at a minimum height of
     10 meters above the ground to ensure that it is not shadowed by
     either terrain or man made structures.[^311] The White Space
     Coalition is not opposed to a requirement that the receive antenna
     have a gain of 0 dBi, but argues that a minimum sensing height
     requirement is not practical for personal/portable devices.[^312]

240. We are specifying detection bandwidths for TVBDs to ensure
     uniformity of detection capabilities between devices. We find that
     a detection bandwidth of 6 MHz is appropriate for digital TV
     because that is the nominal occupied bandwidth of an ATSC signal, a
     detection bandwidth for analog TV is 100 kHz, which is
     representative of the visual carrier bandwidth of an NTSC signal,
     and a detection bandwidth for wireless microphones is 200 kHz,
     recommended by Shure and IEEE as being representative of the
     bandwidth in which they typically operate.

241. As proposed, we will require that the -114 dBm detection threshold
     be referenced to a 0 dBi gain receive antenna for both fixed and
     personal/portable devices. That antenna design will maximize the
     likelihood of sensing signal on an omnidirectional basis. We will
     also require that the receive antenna used with fixed devices be
     located at least 10 meters above the ground to maximize the
     likelihood that it's reception is not blocked from receiving
     signals originating from any direction. We will allow alternative
     approaches for the sensing antenna, *e.g.,* electronically
     rotate-able antennas, provided the applicant for equipment
     authorization can demonstrate that its sensing antenna provides at
     least the same performance as an omnidirectional antenna with 0 dBi
     gain.[^313] We agree with the White Space Coalition that sensing
     antenna receive height requirements are impractical for
     personal/portable devices and decline to impose such requirements.

242. *Channel Availability Check Time, Move Time, and Non-Occupancy
     Period*. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission proposed
     to require that unlicensed TV band devices that use sensing to
     determine the availability of unused TV band frequencies perform
     sensing for a certain period of time before accessing a channel and
     periodically thereafter to ensure that the channel is still
     available, *i.e.*, unoccupied.[^314] The Commission sought comment
     on whether sensing for 30 seconds would be a necessary or
     sufficient period of time for the initial channel availability
     check when a device is placed in operation, *i.e.*, turned-on. It
     also proposed to require that devices re-check the channel at least
     every 10 seconds to ensure that they are not on the air for
     extended periods of time causing harmful interference to authorized
     services in the TV bands that are not present during an initial
     sensing check. The Commission did not propose to require unlicensed
     devices to remain off-the-air for any prescribed period of time
     after a channel is first determined to be occupied because it
     believed that the requirement to perform sensing before operating
     would ensure that devices will not cause harmful interference to
     authorized services that are already on the air.

243. The White Space Coalition argues that it is not necessary for the
     Commission to specify a channel availability minimum sensing period
     because the optimum check time will be dictated by the algorithms
     implemented by each manufacturer to meet the minimum detection
     threshold. It also submits that because of the "always on" nature
     of services in the TV bands, a re-check interval of one minute is
     more appropriate than 10 seconds, because the shorter 10 second
     interval would reduce the throughput of TV band devices.[^315] The
     White Space Coalition states that a period of 10 seconds after
     detecting a station is sufficient and appropriate for a device to
     vacate a channel, and that it is unnecessary to specify a
     non-occupancy period because devices would be required to confirm
     that a channel is unoccupied before commencing operation.[^316]
     IEEE 802.18 recommends that we require that TV band devices check
     for the presence of wireless microphones every two seconds, but
     states that a recheck interval of 10 seconds or longer is adequate
     for DTV signals.[^317]

244. Shure advocates that a TV band device be required to monitor a
     channel for 30 seconds before transmitting to detect wireless
     microphones that operate intermittently. It believes that an
     unlicensed device should vacate a channel within two seconds after
     detecting that it is occupied. Shure further submits that if the
     Commission does not adopt a requirement that unlicensed devices to
     avoid for a period of time channels detected as occupied
     (non-occupancy period), then it should require TV band devices to
     engage in periodic re-sensing every 10 seconds.[^318] Tropos
     Networks agrees that the proposed 30 second channel check and 10
     second re-check intervals are reasonable.[^319]

245. We will require that an unlicensed TV band device perform a channel
     availability check for at least 30 seconds before first accessing a
     channel each time the device is activated, *i.e.*, powered-up after
     being off. This will allow sufficient time for the TVBDs to ensure
     that the channel is unoccupied, and in particular, to verify that
     there are no wireless microphones operating intermittently on that
     channel. We will also require that an unlicensed TVBD perform
     periodic monitoring of channels being used at intervals not to
     exceed one minute. This will ensure that the TVBD can detect the
     signal of an authorized TV band service, particularly wireless
     microphones, which may commence operation after the device begins
     using a channel. While we did not propose to set a specific time
     limit within which a TVBD must vacate a channel after detecting an
     authorized user, we conclude that such a requirement is needed to
     ensure that a TVBD device vacates a channel quickly to prevent
     interference to other users. We therefore are requiring that TVBDs
     vacate a channel found to be occupied subsequent to a devices'
     initial sensing operation within a two second interval, as
     suggested by Shure. This will provide a reasonable time interval
     for the TVBDs to terminate its use of the channel while minimizing
     interference to the service that has commenced operation on that
     channel.

246. We decline to adopt a non-occupancy period during which a TVBD must
     remain off a channel after determining that it is occupied. The
     requirements to monitor a channel for 30 seconds before commencing
     operation, combined with the requirement to periodically monitor a
     channel being used and quickly vacate when an authorized user
     begins operation, will adequately protect against operation on
     occupied channels. We recognize the White Space Coalition's
     concerns that a channel re-check interval of ten seconds could
     affect throughput capacity, and agree that under most circumstances
     the users of the spectrum will not change rapidly and a channel
     re-check time of one minute should be sufficient.

247. *Distributive Sensing and Display of Available Channels*. In the
     *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission recognized that
     distributive sensing, whereby multiple receivers/antennas at
     different locations share sensing information, offers an approach
     for mitigating the hidden node problem. It requested comment on how
     a distributed sensing approach could be employed on an unlicensed
     basis. The Commission also indicated that it intended to consider
     other measures that would promote sharing and further protection of
     licensed services by devices using spectrum sensing.[^320]

248. Shure, the White Space Coalition, and WISPA support requiring
     unlicensed TV band devices to use distributed sensing, although the
     White Space Coalition believes that a sensing threshold of -114 dBm
     is sufficient to detect TV band signals in any case.[^321] Shure
     recommends that we require distributed sensing by at least two TV
     band devices, stating this approach would immensely improve the
     ability of devices to detect wireless microphones and overcome the
     hidden node problem. WISPA states that a distributed sensing
     approach would improve the ability to detect the signals, and that
     the performance of such capability would improve over time as the
     number of sensors in an area increases.

249. We agree with these parties that distributive sensing will improve
     the ability of unlicensed TVBDs to detect the signals of licensed
     services. Use of this approach will better enable these devices to
     avoid using occupied channels when they are located in hidden nodes
     or areas where there are signal nulls. We are therefore requiring
     that unlicensed TVBDs communicating in a local area group or
     network, either directly with one another or linked through a
     common base station, share information on channel occupancy
     determined by sensing. If any device in a local area group or
     network determines that a channel is occupied, all other linked
     devices will also be required to treat a sensed signal as if they
     detected it themselves. However, we also recognize that the service
     range of wireless microphones is limited to very short distances
     and that the coverage of a network of TVBDs could extend to areas
     beyond which some TVBDs on the network would not pose a threat to
     the operation of a detected microphone system. We therefore will
     limit the application of the distributive sensing provision with
     respect to wireless microphones to only require that all TVBDs that
     are in direct communication with one another treat a wireless
     microphone signal detected by one as if they detected it
     themselves.

250. In order to aid users in responding to any complaints of
     interference that may arise, we are also requiring that an
     unlicensed TVBD be able to provide its user with a list of
     available channels as determined by the TV bands database and
     sensing. This information could be provided through the devices
     set-up menu or other feature that is readily accessible by the
     user. While the commenting parties did not specifically address
     this measure, we find that including this capability in unlicensed
     TVBDs will greatly simplify answering questions about the channels
     they are using and provide a means to readily examine whether a
     device is sensing a licensed TV band service. We also do not
     believe that inclusion of this feature in devices will have a
     significant cost impact as the current channel availability
     information must be resident in a device at all times in order for
     it to function in compliance with the rules adopted herein. In
     addition, we are requiring that the user manual for the TVBD
     include information advising consumers of the potential for harmful
     interference and steps that they can take to identify and remediate
     the interference, such as increasing the separation of the device
     from other communications equipment and contacting the manufacturer
     for technical assistance.

### Measurement Procedures

251. In the *First R&O/Further Notice*, the Commission stated that it
     intended to develop interim measurement procedures that will be
     provided when final rules are adopted. It indicated that these
     procedures would draw on the measurement procedures for 5 GHz U-NII
     devices, to the extent those procedures are relevant to unlicensed
     devices in the TV bands and the rules it adopts for their
     operation, and its general measurement procedures for unlicensed
     devices as specified in Section 15.31 of the rules.[^322] The
     Commission also presented proposals on certain specific measurement
     issues. With regard to testing the sensing detection threshold, it
     proposed to subject the sensing capabilities of unlicensed devices
     to an ATSC DTV signal, an NTSC signal and a 200 kHz FM signal with
     peak levels adjusted to the threshold level. It also observed that
     the test procedure for 5 GHz U-NII devices calls for performing the
     detection tests a number of times and specifies pass/fail ratios.
     The Commission stated that it does not believe such an approach is
     appropriate for detection of TV band signals because it should be
     simpler to detect signals from the types of transmitters operating
     in the TV spectrum than for radars, but invited comment in this
     regard.

252. A new measurement procedure is needed for evaluating compliance by
     unlicensed TVBDs with the spectrum sensing and other technical
     requirements that we are adopting herein. While the spectrum
     sensing requirements for TVBDs are somewhat similar to the U-NII
     dynamic frequency selection (DFS) requirements, as we observed in
     the *First R&O/Further Notice*, there are important differences
     between TV band and U-NII devices. For example, TV band devices
     must be capable of detecting signals at a significantly lower
     threshold than U-NII devices. Also, the types of signals that must
     be detected (TV, wireless microphone, PLMRS/CMRS, and certain other
     signals) have different spectral characteristics than radar
     signals. Further, there are other new requirements for TVBDs,
     including geo-location accuracy, that are not addressed in any
     current measurement procedures. Due to the complexity of the
     requirements necessary to protect authorized services in the TV
     bands, we expect that it will take some time to develop the
     appropriate procedures. We plan to develop these measurement
     procedures as expeditiously as possible. Consistent with the
     Commission's actions in the U-NII proceeding, our Office of
     Engineering and Technology will release the procedure for
     unlicensed TV band devices when it is completed and the Commission
     will accept data that has been measured in accordance with that
     procedure pursuant to Section 2.947(a) of the rules.[^323]

### Spectrum Sharing

253. In the *First R&O/Further Notice,* the Commission stated that it
     anticipates that industry will develop protocol standards that
     facilitate shared use of the TV white space spectrum.[^324] It
     expressed concern, however, that in the absence of some minimal
     mandatory requirements, a single device or network of devices could
     conceivably monopolize use of a channel at a given location or
     area. The Commission therefore invited comment as to whether it may
     be necessary or appropriate for the Commission to establish minimal
     technical requirements to facilitate sharing by TV band devices. It
     cited examples of such requirements that might include limitations
     on the duration of transmissions and a requirement to repeat
     spectrum sensing at intervals more frequently than ten seconds.

254. The White Space Coalition states that it is not opposed to a
     minimal regulatory requirement to ensure spectrum sharing among
     devices. It proposes a maximum channel occupancy time of 400
     milliseconds, followed by a minimum 100 millisecond interval during
     which a device may not transmit.[^325] However, IEEE 802.18 opposes
     restrictions on the duration or duty cycle of unlicensed
     transmissions, arguing that the sharing protocols it is developing
     will render regulatory restrictions unnecessary.[^326] Tropos
     believes that Commission requirements to facilitate spectrum
     sharing would ill serve innovation and may undermine the
     Commission's objective to promote competition.[^327] CEA believes
     that the Commission should leave any spectrum sharing initiatives
     in the hands of industry, which it claims has proven more facile in
     adopting self-regulatory standards that improve spectrum efficiency
     than government regulation.[^328]

255. We see no demonstrated need at this time for mandatory spectrum
     sharing provisions for TVBDs and therefore are not adopting such
     rules. We also note that the IEEE industry group is already
     developing standards for spectrum sharing between TVBDs. In
     addition, we are concerned that any spectrum sharing requirements
     we might adopt now could conflict with the developing industry
     standards or otherwise limit manufacturers' flexibility in
     designing TVBDs. We further observe that the requirements we are
     adopting for TVBDs to periodically re-check a channel for
     availability will prevent a device from transmitting continuously.
     We also advise the involved industries and other interested parties
     that we may revisit this decision in the future if it appears that
     regulatory requirements for spectrum sharing between TVBDs are
     needed.

## Equipment Certification Required

256. We are requiring TVBDs to be certificated under our equipment
     authorization program. The applicant for an equipment authorization
     of a device based on geo-location and database access and sensing
     must meet all of the usual requirements for an application for
     equipment certification as specified in Parts 2 and 15 of the FCC
     rules.[^329] In addition, we will require an applicant to submit a
     sample of the device for testing at the FCC Laboratory to determine
     compliance with all of the pertinent requirements for a TVBD. The
     device will only be certified once it has been found through
     testing to meet all of the FCC requirements. This is the process
     that the Commission has generally followed for new technologies
     that must meet complex standards and raise significant interference
     concerns. For example, we have taken a similar approach relative to
     certification of ultrawideband devices and to new 5 GHz unlicensed
     devices that include spectrum sensing to avoid causing interference
     to Department of Defense radars. As noted below, we are not
     allowing certification of TVBDs by Telecommunications Certification
     Bodies at this time. The FCC laboratory will act on such
     applications under delegated authority pursuant to section 0.241(b)
     of the Commission's rules.

## Equipment Certification Under A "Proof Of Performance" Standard

257. As indicated above, we are providing a special equipment
     certification procedure for approval of sensing only devices that
     demonstrate the ability to detect protected services with a high
     level of accuracy. In providing this procedure, we recognize that
     cognitive radio technology, including sensing, is in its nascent
     stage of development for commercial applications. Cognitive radio
     technology holds great promise for increasing access spectrum
     access to the benefit of consumers and businesses and we find it in
     the public interest to continue to encourage the development of
     this technology. We also recognize that the TV band prototype
     devices that were submitted to the Commission for evaluation were
     designed primarily to demonstrate the capability of using spectrum
     sensing for interference avoidance. While the devices were able to
     detect the signals of incumbent services under certain conditions,
     they were not able to do so under others. For example, it does not
     appear that the devices were designed to cope with certain
     real-world conditions such as strong adjacent channel signals or
     the challenges of operating in noisy environments. This made it
     particularly difficult to fully validate the performance of the
     technology and develop standards that would ensure a high degree of
     confidence that devices relying on sensing alone would not
     interfere. Nevertheless, we believe that these problems can be
     solved. As an incentive to continue to develop this technology, we
     will provide for certification of devices under the conditions and
     process described below.

258. We therefore are adopting rules that will allow for certification
     of personal/portable devices that rely solely on a spectrum sensing
     capability and do not include geo-location and database access
     capabilities. These sensing only devices will be required to meet a
     "proof of performance" standard where they must demonstrate with an
     extremely high degree of confidence that they will not cause
     harmful interference to incumbent radio services. Devices
     authorized under this procedure will be subject to all rules for
     personal/portable devices, except that out-of-an abundance of
     caution with regard to their interference potential, such devices
     will be limited to 50 mW EIRP rather than the 100 mW permitted for
     personal/portable devices that use the geolocation and database
     method.

259. Manufacturers must submit an application for certification in
     accordance with Part 2, Subpart J of the Commission's rules. The
     application must include a full explanation of how the device will
     protect the incumbent radio services against harmful interference.
     In addition to the procedures of Part 2, Subpart J of the
     Commission's rules, the applicant must submit a pre-production
     sample for laboratory and field testing. The pre-production sample
     device must be identical to the device expected to be marketed.

260. The Commission will process this application in the following
     manner. Applications will be placed on Public Notice for a minimum
     of 30 days for comments and 15 days for reply comments. Applicants
     may request that portions of their application remain confidential
     in accordance with section 0.459 of this chapter. This Public
     Notice will include proposed test procedures and methodologies.
     After the comment period, the Commission will test the devices to
     evaluate proof of performance, including characterization of its
     sensing capability and its interference potential. The testing will
     be open to the public. Subsequent to the completion of testing, the
     Commission will issue by Public Notice, a test report including
     recommendations. The Public Notice will specify a minimum of 30
     days for comments and, if any objections are received, an
     additional 15 days for reply comments. The ultimate decision on
     whether to certify a device that relies solely on sensing will be
     made by the full Commission.

261. The determination of whether to certify the device will be based on
     a demonstrated ability to avoid causing harmful interference with
     an extremely high degree of reliability. As noted above, there has
     been much discussion in this proceeding as to the effectiveness of
     sensing at particular levels. We note that we are adopting a
     detection threshold of ‑114 dBm for devices that rely on
     geolocation and database access. However, this particular level may
     or may not be the appropriate sensing threshold for these sensing
     only devices. The decision by the Commission whether to certify the
     equipment will rest on its performance in avoiding interference,
     not any particular sensing level. If the device is certificated, we
     will permit routine certification of other devices that have
     identical characteristics (*i.e*., have the identical electrical
     characteristics and antenna system). We will endeavor to complete
     the certification process within 180 days of submittal of the
     device for testing, barring any unforeseen circumstances.

## Other Matters

### Certification By Telecommunications Certification Bodies

262. In the *First R&O/Further Notice,* the Commission proposed that
     Telecommunications Certification Bodies (TCBs) initially not be
     permitted to certify TV band devices because these devices would
     contain new technologies and many questions about the application
     of the rules may arise.[^330] Specifically, the Commission proposed
     to place TV band devices on the list of types of devices that TCBs
     are excluded from certifying until it has more experience with them
     and can advise TCBs on the application of the rules.[^331] Both the
     Consumer Electronics Association and Shure support this proposal
     and no parties opposed it.[^332] We continue to believe that we
     should exclude TCBs from granting applications for certification of
     unlicensed TV band devices at this time for the reasons indicated
     above. We will therefore limit the processing of those applications
     to our Laboratory Division until such time as we gain experience
     with unlicensed TVBDs and the technology used in those products
     becomes mature such that the application review process becomes
     routine. Accordingly, we will not allow TCBs to certify TV band
     devices until further notice.

### Operation In Border Areas

263. The allotment and assignment of TV channels in the border areas
     with Canada and Mexico are subject to agreements with each of those
     countries. Low power TV assignments within 32 kilometers (20 miles)
     of the Canadian border must be referred to the Canadian authorities
     for approval.[^333] In addition, low power UHF TV stations that are
     located less than 40 kilometers (25 miles) from the Mexican border,
     and low power VHF TV stations that are less than 60 kilometers (37
     miles) from the Mexican border, must be referred to the Mexican
     government for approval.[^334] In the *Notice,* the Commission
     proposed to prohibit unlicensed TV band devices from operating at
     less than these distances from the Canadian and Mexican borders
     until agreements are reached with those countries.[^335] The
     Commission also sought comment on how to ensure that unlicensed
     devices using vacant TV channels do not operate within the border
     areas and whether the methods used to ensure that these devices
     operate only on vacant TV channels could be adapted to preclude
     operation in the border areas. In the *First R&O/Further Notice,*
     the Commission sought comment on whether the agreements with Canada
     and Mexico would need to be modified before unlicensed TV band
     devices could operate in the border areas.[^336]

264. The White Space Coalition argues that the agreements with Canada
     and Mexico do not need to be modified because they relate to
     restrictions on TV station operations and not on devices that
     operate in the TV bands using significantly less power than TV
     stations. It further argues that the use of unlicensed TV band
     devices is not inconsistent with those agreements, assuming the
     devices use spectrum sensing to avoid Canadian and Mexican TV
     signals.[^337] NAF, et al., believe that given the low power and
     sensing capabilities proposed in this proceeding, there is no risk
     to either Canadian or Mexican television operations. They also
     believe that geo-location is another reliable option. The NAF, et
     al., also submit that the Commission should interpret the legal
     requirement for coordination as existing only where a device can
     potentially interfere.[^338] IEEE 802.18 states that operation of
     fixed devices can easily be controlled using geo-location to ensure
     that they do not violate the necessary separation from the
     border.[^339]

265. We find that fixed TV band devices should not be permitted to
     operate within the border areas specified in our Canadian and
     Mexican agreements until we have an opportunity to negotiate any
     necessary changes to those agreements with Canada and Mexico. The
     fixed TV band devices that operate with outdoor antennas at an EIRP
     of up to 4 watts will be somewhat similar in operation to low power
     TV stations. Therefore, in keeping with the low power broadcasting
     agreements with Canada and Mexico, we will not permit fixed TV band
     devices to operate on any channels within 32 kilometers of the
     Canadian border, within 40 kilometers of the Mexican border on UHF
     channels, or within 60 kilometers of the Mexican border on VHF
     channels.[^340] These distance restrictions will be enforced
     through the use of a device's geo-location and database access
     capabilities, which all fixed devices must incorporate.

266. We will apply these same restrictions on the use of unlicensed
     personal/portable TV band devices within the border areas. While
     personal/portable devices will operate with significantly lower
     power, in order to avoid any uncertainty in administering our
     agreements with our neighboring administrations, we believe it is
     also necessary to restrict operation of those devices in the border
     areas. Personal/portable devices that operate in Mode II using a
     geo-location/database access capability will be required to use
     that capability to determine whether they are located in a border
     area. Devices operating in Mode I on a client basis without a
     geo-location/database access capability will be prevented from
     operating in the border areas in that they will operate relatively
     close to an associated base station (fixed or personal/portable)
     that uses a geo-location/database access capability that will keep
     it from operating in the border areas. The requirement that all
     personal/portable devices incorporate sensing to a level of -114
     dBm will further minimize the risk of interference to TV stations
     in Canada and Mexico.

### Reconsideration Of Marketing Date For Unlicensed TV Band Devices

267. In their Petition for Reconsideration, NAF/CUWN request that we
     reverse our decision to prohibit the marketing of TV white space
     devices until the DTV transition ends on February 17, 2009, and
     instead authorize marketing of such devices as soon as we develop
     rules and certify that devices comply with them. NAF/CUWN argue
     that there is no technical reason why devices using any of the
     mechanisms the Commission will approve cannot operate prior to the
     analog switch off date. They also contend that if the transition is
     to go smoothly, the vast majority of stations must be converted to
     digital operation and the public must be ready to receive digital
     signals well before February 17, 2009. They further argue that
     delays will impose considerable and needless costs on the public.
     NAF/CUWN state that because TVBDs will represent new devices
     operating under new rules, developers will need to start from
     scratch when innovating with the new equipment rather than simply
     building on past experience and existing software. They contend
     that the sooner the Commission allows properly certified devices on
     the market, the sooner the learning and experimentation can begin.

268. We are maintaining our decision to prohibit the marketing of
     unlicensed TV band devices until the DTV transition ends on
     February 18, 2009. In this regard, we remain concerned that
     allowing operation of unlicensed devices during the transition
     period could cause uncertainty for the broadcast television about
     possible interference. For example, in the transition period
     stations will be changing channels and otherwise operating in
     manners that are temporary. This changing pattern of TV channel
     usage will affect the availability of channels that could be used
     by unlicensed devices. We believe that it is quite reasonable for
     broadcasters to be uncertain about whether their services are
     adequately protected from interference from unlicensed devices in
     such an environment. We further note that, as reflected in the
     issues raised in the third DTV period review, all stations will not
     be fully converted well before the end of the transition.[^341] We
     also are not persuaded by NAF/CUWN's argument that the proscription
     on marketing of unlicensed TVBDs until the transition ends will
     impede the development of unlicensed TVBDs. That development
     process, including completion of the certification requirement, can
     take place prior to the actual marketing of devices. Given that
     there are only a few months remaining before the end of the
     transition, the period of time between when devices are certified
     and otherwise ready for marketing and the end of the transition
     will be long in any case.

### Emergency Request For Additional Comment Period

269. On October 17, 2008, several broadcast interests filed an
     "Emergency Request" asking the Commission to issue a public notice
     seeking comment on the Phase II Test Report.[^342] The requesters
     contend that the report expresses conclusions that are not
     supported by the data in the report and that the public has not had
     opportunity to review and comment meaningfully on the results of
     the report. This request is denied. The testing process has been
     open and members of the public, including persons representing the
     requesters and their interests, have observed the testing and have
     been privy to the data as it was collected. All have had
     opportunity on a continuing basis to comment and they have done so,
     as has been demonstrated in numerous *ex parte* submissions related
     to, referring to, or based on the testing.

# PROCEDURAL MATTERS

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

270. The Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, required by the
     Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 604, is contained in
     Appendix B.

## Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

271. This Second Report and Order contains new or modified information
     collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
     and will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
     for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA, Public Law 104-13. A
     modification is required to the Form 731 (OMB 3060-0057).

## Contact Persons

272. For additional information concerning this Second Report and Order
     and Memorandum Opinion and Order, please contact Mr. Hugh L. Van
     Tuyl at (202) 418-7506, Mr. Nicholas Oros at (202) 418-0636, or Mr.
     Alan Stillwell at (202) 418-2925, or via the Internet at
     Hugh.VanTuyl@fcc.gov, Nicholas.Oros@fcc.gov, and
     Alan.Stillwell@fcc.gov, respectively.

# ORDERING CLAUSES

273. Accordingly, **IT IS ORDERED** that, pursuant to the authority
     contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), and 307 of the
     Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 USC Sections 154(i),
     302, 303(c), 303(f), and 307 this Second Report and Order **IS
     HEREBY ADOPTED**.

274. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that Part 15 of the Commission\'s rules
     **IS AMENDED** as specified in Appendix B, and such rule amendments
     shall be effective 30 days after publication of the text thereof in
     the Federal Register. This Second Report and Order contains
     information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork
     Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, that are not
     effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. 
     The Federal Communications Commission will publish a document in
     the Federal Register following approval of the information
     collection by the Office of Management and Budget (\"OMB\")
     announcing the effective date of those rules.

275. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302,
     303(e) 303(f), 303(g), 303(r) and 405 of the Communications Act of
     1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g),
     303(r) and 405, the petition for reconsideration filed by the New
     America Foundation and the Champaign Urbana Wireless Network **IS
     DENIED**.

276. **IT IS FURTHER ORDERED** that, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 302,
     303(e) 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of
     1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(g)
     and 303(r), the Emergency Request filed by The Association For
     Maximum Service Television, Inc., The National Association of
     Broadcasters, The ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX Television Networks, and
     The Open Mobile Video Coalition **IS DENIED**.

277. **IT IS FURTHER ORDE**RED that the Commission's Consumer and
     Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, **SHALL
     SEND** a copy of the Second Report and Order, including the Final
     Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Government accountability
     Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
     801(a)(1)(A).

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Marlene H. Dortch

     Secretary

# APPENDIX A {#appendix-a .unnumbered}

# Parties Filing Comments {#parties-filing-comments .unnumbered}

**[Comments on NPRM]{.underline}**

1.  Adaptrum, Inc.

2.  Alan Greagor

3.  Association of Public Safety Communications Officials

4.  Association of Public Television Stations

5.  ATK Audiotek

6.  Attron Networks, LLC

7.  Audio-Technica U.S., Inc.

8.  Chip Brown

9.  Chuck Profito

10. Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.

11. Commercial Broadcasting Corporation

12. Community Broadcasters Association

13. Consumer Electronics Association

14. County of Los Angeles

15. Cox Broadcasting, Inc.

16. CWLab

17. Dan Lubar

18. Dustin Goodwin

19. Entravision Holdings, LLC

20. Harris Corporation

21. IEEE 802

22. Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc.

23. Intel Corporation

24. International Communications Industries Association, Inc.

25. Itron, Inc.

26. James M. McKinion

27. James Stoffo

28. John Laprise

29. John Notor

30. John Terrill

31. Jon M. Peha

32. Josephson Engineering, Inc.

33. Karl Winkler

34. Kenneth DiPietro

35. Kenneth Youngquist

36. KHEM Television

37. Lee Good, RTS

38. Mark Koskenmaki

39. Marlon K. Schafer

40. Metropolitan Area Networks, Inc.

41. Michael Falaschi

42. Michael J. Marcus

43. Michael Mason

44. Michiana Wireless

45. Microsoft Corporation

46. Motorola, Inc.

47. NAB and MSTV

48. NAMM, the International Music Products Association

49. National Academy of Sciences

50. National Cable & Telecommunications Association

51. National Radio Astronomy Observatory

52. National Systems Contractors Association

53. National Translator Association

54. New America Foundation, et al.

55. Noah Miller

56. NPG of Oregon, Inc.

57. NYCwireless.net

58. Old Colorado City Communications

59. OnlyInternet Broadband & Wireless, Inc.

60. Pappas Telecasting Companies

61. Paul Burkholder

62. Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company

63. Professional Audio Manufacturers' Alliance

64. PVT Networks, Inc.

65. QUALCOMM Incorporated

66. R. Kent Parsons

67. Raymond D. Meredith, Jr.

68. Rebekah Morris

69. Red River Broadcasting Co., LLC

70. Region 1 Translator Association

71. Ron Wallace

72. Ronald E. Wallace

73. Sascha D. Meinrath

74. Sennheiser Electronic Corporation

75. Shared Spectrum Company

76. Shure Incorporated

77. Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

78. Southwest Colorado TV Translator Association

79. Stelios Valavanis

80. Symmetrical Networks, Inc.

81. Syncom Media Group, Inc.

82. Telecommunications Industry Association

83. Telex Communications, Inc.

84. Tim Foster

85. Tony Ray

86. Total RF Marketing, Inc.

87. Tropos Networks

88. Vaxeo.com

89. WDLP Broadcasting Co., LLC

90. White Pine Television District No. 1

91. Wi-Fi Alliance

92. Wireless Broadband Operators Coalition

93. Wireless Internet Service Providers Association

94. Wireless Unleashed

95. Yochai Benkler

96. Zachary C. Miller

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

1.  700 MHz Advancement Coalition

2.  Alan B. Greager

3.  Allcom Communications, Inc.

4.  BPS Networks

5.  Brendan Geaney

6.  Cameron Communications Corporation

7.  Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.

8.  Community Broadcasters Association

9.  Consumer Electronics Association

10. EarthLink, Inc.

11. Information Technology Industry Council

12. Intel Corporation

13. KBDI, Channel 12

14. Kennebec Telephone Company

15. Land Mobile Communications Council

16. Lanham Rattan

17. Motorola, Inc.

18. NAB and MSTV

19. NARTE

20. National Translator Association

21. New America Foundation, et al.

22. North Dakota Network Company

23. OnTarget Technologies, LLC

24. Pitkin County FM-TV Department

25. Ponderosa Telephone Company

26. PVT Networks, Inc.

27. QUALCOMM Incorporated

28. Red River Rural Telephone Association

29. Shared Spectrum Company

30. Shure Incorporated

31. Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc.

32. Timothy X Brown

33. Webster Calhoun Cooperative Telephone Association

**[Comments on Further NPRM]{.underline}**

1.  Advanced Broadband Solutions, Inc.

2.  American Society for Healthcare Engineering -- ASHE

3.  American Federation of Television and Radio Artists

4.  Comm Enterprises, LLC

5.  Communications Research Centre Canada

6.  Community Broadcasters Association

7.  CompTIA

8.  Consumer Electronics Association

9.  County of Los Angeles

10. Cox Broadcasting, Inc.

11. CTIA -- The Wireless Association

12. Dell, Google, HP, Intel, Microsoft and Philips ("The Coalition")

13. Entravision Holdings, LLC

14. GE Healthcare

15. Guitar Center, Inc.

16. IEEE 802.18 Radio Regulatory Technical Advisory Group

17. ION Media Networks

18. Itron, Inc.

19. James R. McDonald

20. Joint Comments of Broadcasters

21. Kenneth E. Lewetag

22. KJLA, LLC

23. Land Mobile Communications Council

24. Martin J. Jackson

25. McGraw-Hill Broadcasting Company, Inc.

26. Media General, Inc.

27. Motorola, Inc.

28. MSTV & NAB

29. National Cable and Telecommunications Association

30. National Translator Association

31. National Radio Astronomy Observatory

32. Qualcomm Incorporated

33. R. Kent Parsons

34. Radio-Television News Directors Association

35. Recording Artists' Coalition

36. Region 1 Translator Association

37. Shure, Inc.

38. The Brattle Group

39. The Professional Audio Manufacturers Alliance

40. The National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences

41. Tropos Networks

42. TV Transmission Antenna Group, Inc.

43. Wi-Fi Alliance

44. Microphone Interests Coalition

45. NAF, et al.

46. Thomas C. Smith

**[Reply comments on Further NPRM]{.underline}**

1.  Audio-Technica U.S., Inc.

2.  Capitol Broadcasting Company, Inc.

3.  DC Access, LLC

4.  Dell, Google, HP, Intel, Microsoft and Philips ("The Coalition")

5.  EchoStar Satellite LLC

6.  Grand Ole Opry and Microphone Interests Coalition

7.  Hubbard Broadcasting Company, Inc.

8.  Motorola, Inc.

9.  MSTV and NAB

10. NAMM, The International Music Products Association

11. National Translator Association

12. National Cable and Telecommunications Association

13. NAF, et al

14. NextWave Broadband, Inc.

15. Professional Audio Manufacturers Alliance

16. Roadstar Internet

17. Shure, Inc.

18. The Brattle Group

19. Tropos Networks

20. Wireless Internet Service Providers' Association

**[Comments on Technical Reports]{.underline}**

1.  Cohen, Dippell and Everist, P.C.

2.  Community Broadcasters Association

3.  DTV Manufacturers

4.  LG Electronics, Panasonic and TTE

5.  Microphone Interests Coalition

6.  Microtune, Inc.

7.  Motorola, Inc.

8.  MSTV and NAB

9.  NAF, et al.

10. National Cable & Telecommunications Association

11. Philips Electronics North America Corporation

12. Samsung Electronics

13. Shure, Inc.

14. Sony Electronics, Inc.

15. Sprint Nextel Corporation

16. White Space Coalition

In addition to the above-listed comments, over 30,000 parties submitted
filings outside of the Commission's designated comment and reply comment
periods.

# APPENDIX B {#appendix-b .unnumbered}

# Final Rules {#final-rules .unnumbered}

Part 15 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:

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

**AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a**

2\. Section 15.37 is amended by adding a new paragraph (n) to read as
follows:

**Section 15.37 Transition provisions for compliance with the rules.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(n\) Marketing of TV band devices operating under Subpart H of this
section is not permitted prior to February 18, 2009.

3\. A new Subpart H is added to read as follows:

**Subpart H -- Television Band Devices**

**Section 15.701 Scope.**

This subpart sets out the regulations for Television Band Devices
(TVBDs) which are unlicensed intentional radiators operating on
available channels in the broadcast television frequency bands at 54-60
MHz, 76 - 88 MHz, 174 - 216 MHz, 470 - 608 MHz and 614 - 698 MHz bands.

**Section 15.703 Definitions.**

(a) Available Channel. A television channel which is not being used by
    an authorized user at or near the same geographic location as the
    TVBD and is acceptable for use by an unlicensed device under the
    provisions of Section 15.709 of this chapter. A TVBD determines
    television channel availability either from the *TV bands database*
    or *Spectrum Sensing*.

(b) Client Device. A TVBD operating in *Client Mode*.

(c) Client Mode. An operating mode in which the transmissions of the
    TVBD, including frequencies of operation, are under control of the
    *Master Device*. A device in client mode is not able to initiate a
    network.

(d) Fixed Device. A TVBD that transmits and/or receives
    radiocommunication signals at a specified fixed location. Fixed
    TVBDs may operate as part of a system, transmitting to one or more
    fixed TVBDs or to personal/portable TVBDs.

(e) Geo-location. The capability of a TVBD to determine its geographic
    coordinates within a specified level of accuracy.

(f) Master Device. A TVBD operating in *Master Mode*.

(g) Master Mode. An operating mode in which the TVBD has the capability
    to transmit without receiving an enabling signal. The TVBD is able
    to select a channel itself and initiate a network by sending
    enabling signals to other devices. A network always has at least one
    device operating in master mode.

(h) Mode I Operation. Operation of a personal/portable TVBD operating
    only on the *Available Channel* identified by either the fixed TVBD
    or Mode II TVBD that enables its operation. Mode I operation does
    not require use of a *Geo-location* capability or access to the *TV
    bands database* and requires operation in *Client Mode*.

(i) Mode II Operation. Operation of a personal/portable TVBD whereby the
    device determines the *Available Channels* at its location using its
    own *Geo-location* and *TV bands database* access capabilities.
    Devices operating in Mode II may function as *Master Devices*.

(j) Network Initiation. The process by which a fixed or Mode II TVBD
    sends control signals to another similar device or to a *Client
    Devices(s)* and allows them to begin transmissions.

(k) Operating Channel. An *Available Channel* used by a TVBD for
    transmission and/or reception.

(l) Personal/portable Device. A TVBD that transmits and/or receives
    radiocommunication signals while in motion or at unspecified
    locations.

(m) Receive site. The location where the signal of a full service
    station is received for rebroadcast by a television translator or
    low power TV, including Class A TV, station.

(n) Spectrum Sensing. A process whereby a TVBD listens to a television
    channel to detect whether the channel is occupied by a radio signal.

(o) Television band device (TVBD). Intentional radiators operating on
    *Available Channels* in the broadcast television frequency bands at
    54-60 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 470-608 MHz and 614-698 MHz.

(p) TV bands database. A database of authorized services in the TV
    frequency bands that is used to determine the *Available Channels*
    at a given location for use by TVBDs.

**Section 15.705 Cross reference.**

\(a\) The provisions of Subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to
TVBDs, except where specific provisions are contained in subpart H.

\(b\) The requirements of subpart H apply only to the radio transmitter
contained in the TVBD. Other aspects of the operation of a TVBD may be
subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In
particular, a TVBD device that includes a receiver that tunes within the
frequency range specified in Section 15.101(b) or contains digital
circuitry not directly associated with the radio transmitter is also
subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.

**Section 15.706 Information to the user.**

\(a\) For TV band device, the instructions furnished the user shall
include the following or similar statement, placed in a prominent
location in the text of the manual:

> NOTE: This equipment has been tested and found to comply with the
> rules for TV band devices, pursuant to Part 15 of the FCC Rules. These
> rules are designed to provide reasonable protection against harmful
> interference. This equipment generates, uses and can radiate radio
> frequency energy and, if not installed and used in accordance with the
> instructions, may cause harmful interference to radio communications.
> However, there is no guarantee that interference will not occur in a
> particular installation. If this equipment does cause harmful
> interference to radio or television reception, which can be determined
> by turning the equipment off and on, the user is encouraged to try to
> correct the interference by one or more of the following measures:

-   Reorient or relocate the receiving antenna.

-   Increase the separation between the equipment and receiver.

-   Connect the equipment into an outlet on a circuit different from
    that to which the receiver is connected.

-   Consult the manufacturer, dealer or an experienced radio/ TV
    technician for help.

\(b\) In cases where the manual is provided only in a form other than
paper, such as on a computer disk or over the Internet, the information
required by this section may be included in the manual in that
alternative form, provided the user can reasonably be expected to have
the capability to access information in that form.

**Section 15.707 Permissible Channels of operation.**

\(a\) All TVBDs are permitted to operate in the frequency bands 512-608
MHz and 614-698 MHz, except that in the 13 metropolitan areas listed
Section 90.303(a) of this chapter and nearby areas where private land
mobile services and commercial land mobile services are authorized by
waiver, operation of TVBDs is prohibited on the first available channel
on each side of TV channel 37 (608-614 MHz). These channels will be
listed in the TV bands database.

\(b\) Operation in the bands 54-60 MHz, 76-88 MHz, 174-216 MHz, 470-512
MHz is permitted only for fixed TVBDs that communicate only with other
fixed TVBDs.

\(c\) Fixed and Mode II TVBDs shall only operate on available channels
as determined by the TV bands database and in accordance with the
interference avoidance mechanisms of section 15.711 of this part.

\(d\) Mode I TVBDs shall only operate on available channels provided to
it from a Fixed or Mode II TVBD.

**Section 15.709 General technical requirements.**

\(a\) Power limits for TVBDs are as follows:

> \(1\) For fixed TVBDs, the maximum conducted output power over the TV
> channel of operation shall not exceed one watt. Transmitter power will
> be measured at the antenna input to account for any cable losses
> between the transmitter and the antenna. If transmitting antennas of
> directional gain greater than 6 dBi are used, the maximum conducted
> output power shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the directional
> gain of the antenna exceeds 6 dBi.
>
> \(2\) For personal/portable TVBDs, the maximum conducted output power
> over the TV channel of operation shall not exceed 100 milliwatts;
> except that for personal/portable TVBDs that do not meet the adjacent
> channel separation requirements in Section 15.712(a), the maximum
> conducted output power shall not exceed 40 milliwatts. If transmitting
> antennas of directional gain greater than 0 dBi are used, the maximum
> conducted output power shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the
> directional gain of the antenna exceeds 0 dBi.
>
> \(3\) TVBDs shall incorporate transmit power control to limit their
> operating power to the minimum necessary for successful communication.
> Applicants for certification shall include a description of a device's
> transmit power control feature mechanism.
>
> \(4\) Maximum conducted output power is the total transmit power in
> the entire emission bandwidth delivered to all antennas and antenna
> elements averaged across all symbols in the signaling alphabet when
> the transmitter is operating at its maximum power control level. Power
> must be summed across all antennas and antenna elements. The average
> must not include any time intervals during which the transmitter is
> off or is transmitting at a reduced power level. If multiple modes of
> operation are possible (*e.g.,* alternative modulation methods), the
> maximum conducted output power is the highest total transmit power
> occurring in any mode.

\(b\) Antenna requirements.

\(1\) For personal/portable TVBDs, the antenna shall be permanently
attached.

> \(2\) The receive antenna used with fixed devices shall be located
> outdoors at least 10 meters above the ground. The antenna system shall
> be capable of receiving signals of protected services equally in all
> directions. The transmit antenna used with fixed devices may not be
> more than 30 meters above the ground.
>
> \(3\) For both Fixed and personal/portable TVBDs, the provisions of
> Section 15.204(c)(4) do not apply to the receive antenna used for
> spectrum sensing.

\(c\) Undesirable emission limits for TVBDs are as follows:

> \(1\) In the 6 MHz channels adjacent to the operating channel,
> emissions from TVBD devices shall be at least 55 dB below the highest
> average power in the band.
>
> \(2\) The above emission measurements shall be performed using a
> minimum resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz with an average detector.  A
> lower resolution bandwidth may be employed near the band edge, when
> necessary, provided the measured energy is integrated to show the
> total power over 100 kHz.
>
> \(3\) At frequencies beyond 6 MHz from the edge of the operating
> channel, radiated emissions from TVBD devices shall meet the
> requirements of Section 15.209 of this part.
>
> \(4\) Emissions in the band 602 -- 620 MHz must also comply with the
> following field strength limits at a distance of one meter.

+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Frequency (MHz)            | Field Strength                          |
|                            |                                         |
|                            | dBμV/meter/120 kHz                      |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 602 - 607                  | 120 -- 5\[F(MHz) -- 620\]               |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 607 - 608                  | 95                                      |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 608 - 614                  | 30                                      |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 614 - 615                  | 95                                      |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| 615 - 620                  | 120 -- 5\[620 -- F(MHz)\]               |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+

> \(5\) TVBDs connected to the AC power line are required to comply with
> the conducted limits set forth in Section 15.207 of this part.

\(d\) Compliance with radio frequency exposure requirements. To ensure
compliance with the Commission's radio frequency exposure requirements
in §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter, fixed TVBDs shall be
accompanied by instructions on measures to take to ensure that persons
maintain a distance of at least 40 cm from the device, as well as any
necessary hardware that may be needed to implement that protection.
These instructions shall be submitted with the application for
certification. Personal/portable TVBDs that meet the definition of
portable devices under Section 2.1093 of this chapter and that operate
with a source-based time-averaged output of less than 20 mW will not be
subject to routine evaluation for compliance with the radio frequency
exposure guidelines, while devices that operate with a source-based
time-average output power greater than 20 mW will be subject to the
routine evaluation requirements.

**Section 15.711 Interference avoidance mechanisms.**

\(a\) Except as provided in Section 15.717, television channel
availability for a TVBD is determined based on either the geo-location
and database access mechanism described in paragraph (b) of this section
or spectrum sensing described in paragraph (c) of this section.

> \(1\) A TVBD shall rely on the geo-location and database access
> mechanism to identify available television channels consistent with
> the interference protection requirements of Section 15.712. Such
> protection will be provided for the following authorized services:
> digital television stations, and digital and analog Class A, low
> power, translator and booster stations; translator receive; fixed
> broadcast auxiliary service links; private land mobile service/
> commercial radio service (PLMRS/CMRS) operations; offshore
> radiotelephone service; and cable system head-ends. In addition,
> protection shall be provided in border areas near Canada and Mexico in
> accordance with Section 15.712(g) of this part.
>
> \(2\) For low power auxiliary services authorized pursuant to Section
> 74.801-74.882 of this chapter, including wireless microphones, a TVBD
> shall rely on the geo-location and database access mechanism to
> identify available television channels to provide interference
> protection to registered locations of such operations, consistent with
> the requirements of Section 15.722, and shall rely on spectrum sensing
> to identify available television channels to provide interference
> protection to all other operations.

\(b\) Geo-location and database access.

> \(1\) The geographic coordinates of a fixed TVBD shall be determined
> to an accuracy of +/- 50 meters by either an incorporated geo-location
> capability or a professional installer. In the case of professional
> installation, the party who registers the fixed TVBD in the database
> will be responsible for assuring the accuracy of the entered
> coordinates. The geographic coordinates of a fixed TVBD shall be
> determined at the time of installation and first activation from a
> power-off condition, and this information may be stored internally in
> the TVBD. If the fixed TVBD is moved to another location or if the
> stored coordinates become altered, the operator shall re-establish its
> geographic location and store this information in the TVBD either by
> means of the device's incorporated geo-location capability or through
> the services of a professional installer.
>
> \(2\) A Mode II personal/portable device shall incorporate a
> geo-location capability to determine its geographic coordinates to an
> accuracy of +/- 50 meters. The device must re-establish its position
> each time it is activated from a power-off condition.
>
> \(3\) (i) Fixed devices must access a TV bands database over the
> Internet to determine the TV channels that are available at their
> geographic coordinates prior to their initial service transmission at
> a given location. Operation is permitted only on channels that are
> indicated in the database as being available for TVBDs. Fixed TVBDS
> shall access the database at least once a day to verify that the
> operating channels continue to remain available. Operation must cease
> immediately if the channel is no longer available.
>
> \(ii\) Mode II personal/portable devices must access a TV bands
> database over the Internet to determine the TV channels that are
> available at their geographic coordinates prior to their initial
> service transmission at a given location. Operation is permitted only
> on channels that are indicated in the database as being available for
> TVBDs. A Mode II personal/portable device must access the database for
> a list of available channels each time it is activated from a
> power-off condition and re-check its location and the database for
> available channels if it changes location during operation. A Mode II
> personal/portable device that has been in a powered state shall
> re-check its location and access the database daily to verify that the
> operating channel(s) continue to be available.
>
> \(iii\) If a fixed or mode II TVBD fails to contact the TV bands
> database during any given day, it may continue to operate until 11:59
> PM of the following day at which time it must cease operations unless
> it has contacted the TV bands database during the intervening period.
>
> \(iv\) Personal/portable devices operating in Mode I shall obtain a
> list of channels on which they may operate from a master device.
>
> \(4\) All geographic coordinates shall be referenced to the North
> American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83).

\(c\) Spectrum sensing.

> \(1\) Detection threshold.
>
> \(i\) All fixed and personal/portable TVBDs must be capable of
> detecting ATSC digital TV, NTSC analog TV and wireless microphone
> signals using analog or digital modulation methods. The required
> detection thresholds are.

(A) ATSC signals:  -114 dBm, averaged over a 6 MHz bandwidth;

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(A) NTSC signals:  -114 dBm, averaged over a 100 kHz bandwidth;

(B) Wireless microphone signals:  -114 dBm, averaged over a 200 kHz
    bandwidth.

> \(ii\) The detection thresholds are referenced to an omnidirectional
> receive antenna with a gain of 0 dBi. If a receive antenna with a
> minimum directional gain of less than 0 dBi is used, the detection
> threshold shall be reduced by the amount in dB that the minimum
> directional gain of the antenna is less than 0 dBi. Minimum
> directional gain shall be defined as the antenna gain in the direction
> and at the frequency that exhibits the least gain. Alternative
> approaches for the sensing antenna are permitted, *e.g.,*
> electronically rotateable antennas, provided the applicant for
> equipment authorization can demonstrate that its sensing antenna
> provides at least the same performance as an omnidirectional antenna
> with 0 dBi gain.
>
> \(2\) Low power auxiliary device channel availability check time. A
> TVBD may start operating on a TV channel if no wireless microphone or
> other low power auxiliary device signals above the detection threshold
> are detected within a minimum time interval of 30 seconds.
>
> \(3\) TV channel availability check time. A TVBD is required to check
> for TV signals for a minimum time interval of 30 seconds. If a TV
> signal is detected on a channel indicated as available for use by the
> database system, the device will provide a notice of that detection to
> the operator of the device and a means for the operator to optionally
> remove the channel from the device's list of available channels.
>
> \(4\) In-service monitoring. A TVBD must perform in-service monitoring
> of an operating channel a minimum of once every 60 seconds. There is
> no minimum channel availability check time for in-service monitoring.
>
> \(5\) Channel move time. After a wireless microphone or other low
> power auxiliary device signal is detected on a TVBD operating channel,
> all transmissions by the TVBD must cease within two seconds.
>
> \(6\) Personal/portable devices operating in the client mode shall
> identify to the fixed or Mode II personal/portable device those
> television channels on which it senses any signals above the detection
> threshold. The fixed or Mode II device shall respond in accordance
> with the provisions of this paragraph as if it had detected the signal
> itself.
>
> \(7\) TVBDs communicating either directly with one another or linked
> through a base station must share information on channel occupancy
> determined by sensing. If any device in a local area group or network
> determines that a channel is occupied, all other linked devices will
> also be required to respond in accordance with the provisions of this
> paragraph as if it had detected the signal itself.

\(d\) A TVBD must incorporate the capability to display a list of
identified available channels and its operating channels.

\(e\) Fixed TVBDs shall transmit identifying information. The
identification signal must conform to a standard established by a
recognized industry standards setting organization. The identification
signal shall carry sufficient information to identify the device and its
geographic coordinates.

\(f\) If a fixed TVBD device does not have a direct connection to the
Internet and has not yet been initialized and registered with the TV
bands database, consistent with Section 15.713, but can receive the
transmissions of another fixed TVBD, the device needing initialization
may transmit on either a channel that the other TVBD has transmitted on
or on a channel which the other TVBD indicates is available for use to
access the database to register its location and receive a list of
channels that are available for it to use. Subsequently, the newly
registered TVBD must only use the television channels that the database
indicates are available for it to use. Such client fixed devices must
re-contact their master device to review their list of available
channels at least once every 60 seconds. A fixed device may not operate
as a client to another fixed device.

\(g\) A personal/portable TVBD operating in Mode I may only transmit
upon receiving the transmissions of fixed or Mode II TVBD. A
personal/portable device operating in Mode I may transmit on either an
operating channel of the fixed or Mode II TVBD or on a channel the fixed
or Mode II TVBD indicates is available for use.

**Section 15.712 Interference protection requirements.**

\(a\) *Digital television stations, and digital and analog Class A TV,
low power TV, TV translator and TV booster stations*:

> \(1\) Protected contour. TVBDs must protect digital and analog TV
> services within the contours shown in the following table. These
> contours are based on the R-6602 curves contained in Section 73.699 of
> this chapter.

+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
| Type of station              | Protected    |       |               |
|                              | contour      |       |               |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
|                              | Channel      | Co    | Propagation   |
|                              |              | ntour | curve         |
|                              |              |       |               |
|                              |              | (dBu) |               |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
| Analog: Class A TV, LPTV,    | Low VHF      | 47    | F(50,50)      |
|                              | (2-6)        |       |               |
| translator and booster       |              |       |               |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
|                              | High VHF     | 56    | F(50,50)      |
|                              | (7-13)       |       |               |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
|                              | UHF (14-69)  | 64    | F(50,50)      |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
| Digital: Full service TV,    | Low VHF      | 28    | F(50,90)      |
| Class A TV,                  | (2-6)        |       |               |
|                              |              |       |               |
| LPTV, translator and booster |              |       |               |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
|                              | High VHF     | 36    | F(50,90)      |
|                              | (7-13)       |       |               |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+
|                              | UHF (14-51)  | 41    | F(50,90)      |
+------------------------------+--------------+-------+---------------+

> \(2\) Required separation distance. Fixed TVBDs and personal/portable
> TVBDs operating in Mode II must be located outside the contours
> indicated in paragraph (1) of this section of co-channel and adjacent
> channel stations by at least the minimum distances specified in the
> following table. Alternatively, Mode II personal/portable TVBDs may
> operate at closer separation distances, including inside the contour
> of adjacent channel stations, provided the power level is reduced as
> specified in Section 15.709(a)(2).

+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Antenna Height of        | Required Separation |                     |
|                          | (km)                |                     |
| Unlicensed Device        |                     |                     |
|                          | From Digital or     |                     |
|                          | Analog TV (Full     |                     |
|                          | Service or Low      |                     |
|                          | Power) Protected    |                     |
|                          | Contour             |                     |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
|                          | Co-channel          | Adjacent Channel    |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| Less than 3 meters       | 6.0 km              | 0.1 km              |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 3 -- Less than 10 meters | 8.0 km              | 0.1 km              |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+
| 10 -- 30 meters          | 14.4 km             | 0.74 km             |
+--------------------------+---------------------+---------------------+

\(b\) *Translator receive sites and cable headends*: For translator
receive sites and cable headends registered in the TV bands database,
TVBDs may not operate within an arc of +/-30 degrees from a line between
the registered translator or cable headend receive site and the TV
station being received within a distance of 80 km from the receive site
for co-channel operation and 20 km for adjacent channel operation.
Outside of this +/-30 degree arc, TVBDs may not operate within 8 km from
the receive site for co-channel operation and 2 km from the receive site
for adjacent channel operation.

\(c\) *Fixed Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) Links*: For permanent BAS
receive sites appearing in the Commission's Universal Licensing System
or temporary BAS receive sites registered in the TV bands database,
TVBDs may not operate within an arc of +/-30 degrees from a line between
the BAS receive site and its associated permanent transmitter within a
distance of 80 km from the receive site for co-channel operation and 20
km for adjacent channel operation. Outside this +/-30 degree arc, TVBDs
may not operate within 8 km from the receive site for co-channel
operation and 2 km from the receive site for adjacent channel operation.

\(d\) *PLMRS/CMRS operations*: TVBDs may not operate at distances less
than 134 km for co-channel operations and 131 km for adjacent channel
operations from the coordinates of the metropolitan areas and on the
channels listed in Section 90.303(a) of this chapter. For PLMRS/CMRS
operations outside of the metropolitan areas listed in Section 90.303(a)
of this chapter, co-channel and adjacent channel TVBDs may not operate
closer than 54 km and 51 km, respectively from a base station.

\(e\) *Offshore Radiotelephone Service*: TVBDs may not operate on
channels used by the Offshore Radio Service within the geographic areas
specified in Section 74.709(e) of this chapter.

\(f\) *Low power auxiliary services, including wireless microphones*:

> \(1\) TVBDs will not be permitted to operate within 1 km of the
> coordinates of registered wireless microphone sites during designated
> times when wireless microphones are used.
>
> \(2\) (A) TVBDs will not be permitted to operate within 134 km of the
> 13 metropolitan areas listed in Section 90.303(a) of this chapter. ,
>
> \(B\) TVBDs will not be permitted to operate on the first available
> channel on each side of TV channel 37 (608-614 MHz) within 134 km of
> the 13 metropolitan areas listed in Section 90.303(a) of this chapter.
> If one or both of those channels are occupied by a licensed service in
> one or more of these metropolitan areas, operation of TVBDs is
> prohibited on the first channel adjacent to the occupied channel(s).

\(g\) *Border areas near Canada and Mexico*:

> \(1\) Fixed and personal/portable TVBDs shall not operate within 32
> kilometers of the Canadian Border.
>
> \(2\) Fixed and personal/portable TVBDs shall not operate within 40
> kilometers of the Mexican border on UHF channels, or within 60
> kilometers on VHF channels.

\(h\) *Radio astronomy services:* Operation of fixed and
personal/portable TVBDs is prohibited on all channels within 2.4
kilometers at the following locations.

\(1\) The Naval Radio Research Observatory in Sugar Grove, West
Virginia.

> \(2\) The Table Mountain Radio Receiving Zone (TMRZ) at 40°07'50" N
> and 105°15'40" W.
>
> \(3\) The following facilities.

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Observatory**       | **Longitude**         | **Latitude**          |
|                       |                       |                       |
|                       | **(Deg/Min/Sec)**     | **(Deg/Min/Sec)**     |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Allen Telescope Array | 121 28 24 W           | 40 49 04 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Arecibo Observatory   | 066 45 11 W           | 18 20 46 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Green Bank Telescope  | 079 50 24 W           | 38 25 59 N            |
| (GBT)                 |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Very Large Array      | 107 37 04 W           | 34 04 44 N            |
| (VLA)                 |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| **Very Long Baseline  |                       |                       |
| Array (VLBA)          |                       |                       |
| Stations**            |                       |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Pie Town, AZ          | 108 07 07 W           | 34 18 04 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Kitt Peak, AZ         | 111 36 42 W           | 31 57 22 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Los Alamos, NM        | 106 14 42 W           | 35 46 30 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Ft. Davis, TX         | 103 56 39 W           | 30 38 06 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| N. Liberty, IA        | 091 34 26 W           | 41 46 17 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Brewster, WA          | 119 40 55 W           | 48 07 53 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Owens Valley, CA      | 118 16 34 W           | 37 13 54 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| St. Croix, VI         | 064 35 03 W           | 17 45 31 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Hancock, NH           | 071 59 12 W           | 42 56 01 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| Mauna Kea, HI         | 155 27 29 W           | 19 48 16 N            |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

**Section 15.713 TV bands database.**

One or more entities will be designated to serve as database
administrator.

\(a\) Purpose. The TV bands database serves the following functions:

> \(1\) To determine and provide to a TVBD, upon request, the available
> TV channels at the TVBD's location. Available channels are determined
> based on the interference protection requirements in Section 15.712 of
> this part.
>
> \(2\) To register the identification information and location of fixed
> TVBDs.
>
> \(3\) To register protected locations and channels as specified in
> paragraph (b)(2) of this section, that are not otherwise recorded in
> Commission licensing databases.

\(b\) Information in the TV bands database.

> \(1\) Facilities already recorded in Commission databases. Identifying
> and location information will come from the official Commission
> database. These services include:
>
> \(A\) Digital television stations
>
> \(B\) Digital and analog Class A television stations
>
> \(C\) Low power television stations
>
> \(D\) Television translator and booster stations
>
> \(E\) Broadcast Auxiliary Service stations (including receive only
> sites), except low power auxiliary stations
>
> \(F\) Private land mobile radio service stations
>
> \(G\) Commercial mobile radio service stations
>
> \(H\) Offshore radiotelephone service stations
>
> \(2\) Facilities that are not recorded in Commission databases.
> Identifying and location information will be entered into the TV bands
> database in accordance with the procedures established by the TV bands
> database administrator(s). These include:
>
> \(A\) Cable television headends
>
> \(B\) Television translator station receive sites
>
> \(C\) Sites where low power auxiliary stations, including wireless
> microphones and wireless assist video devices, are used and their
> schedule for operation
>
> \(D\) Fixed TVBDs

\(c\) Restrictions on registration.

> \(1\) Television translator station receive sites within the protected
> contour of the station being received are not eligible for
> registration in the database.
>
> \(2\) Cable television headends within the protected contour of a
> television channel are not eligible to register that channel in the
> database.

\(d\) Determination of available channels.

> \(1\) The TV bands database will determine the available channels at a
> location using the interference protection requirements of section
> 15.712 of this part, the location information supplied by a TVBD, and
> the data for protected stations/locations in the database. The TV
> bands database will also check for proximity of a TVBD to the Canadian
> and Mexican borders where operation may be prohibited pursuant to
> Section 15.712(g) of this chapter.

\(e\) TVBD initialization.

> \(1\) Fixed and Mode II TVBDs must provide their location and required
> identifying information to the TV bands database in accordance with
> the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section.
>
> \(2\) Fixed and Mode II TVBDs shall not transmit unless they receive,
> from the TV bands database, a list of available channels.
>
> \(3\) Fixed TVBDs register and receive a list of available channels by
> either connecting directly to the internet or by receiving information
> from another fixed TVBD.
>
> \(4\) Mode II TVBDs register and receive a list of available channels
> by connecting directly to the internet.

\(f\) Fixed TVBD registration.

> \(1\) Prior to operating for the first time or after changing
> location, a fixed TVBD must register with the TV bands database by
> providing the information listed in (c)(3) of this paragraph.
>
> \(2\) The party responsible for a Fixed TVBD must ensure that the TVBD
> registration database has the most current, up-to-date information for
> that device.
>
> \(3\) The TVBD registration database shall contain the following
> information for fixed TVBDs:
>
> \(A\) FCC identifier (FCC ID) of the device

\(B\) manufacturer's serial number of the device

\(C\) device's geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude (NAD 83)
accurate to +/‑ 50 m)

\(D\) name of the individual or business that owns for the device

\(E\) name of a contact person responsible for the device's operation

\(F\) address for the contact person

\(G\) email address for the contact person

\(H\) phone number for the contact person.

\(g\) A personal/portable device operating in Mode II shall provide the
database its FCC Identifier (as required by Section 2.926 of this
chapter), serial number as assigned by the manufacturer, and the
device's geographic coordinates (latitude and longitude (NAD 83)
accurate to +/- 50 m)

\(h\) The TV bands database shall contain the listed information for
each of the following:

> \(1\) Digital television stations, digital and analog Class A, low
> power, translator and booster stations:

\(A\) transmitter coordinates (latitude and longitude in NAD 83)

\(B\) Effective radiated power (ERP)

\(C\) height above average terrain of the transmitter (HAAT)

\(D\) horizontal transmit antenna pattern (if the antenna is
directional)

\(E\) channel number

\(F\) station call sign

\(2\) Broadcast Auxiliary Service.

\(A\) transmitter coordinates (latitude and longitude in NAD 83)

\(B\) receiver coordinates (latitude and longitude in NAD 83)

\(C\) channel number

\(D\) call sign

> \(3\) Metropolitan areas listed in section 90.303(a) of this chapter.

\(A\) region name

\(B\) channel(s) reserved for use in the region

\(C\) geographic center of the region (latitude and longitude in NAD 83)

\(D\) call sign

> \(4\) PLMRS/CMRS base station operations located more than 80 km from
> the geographic centers of the 13 metropolitan areas defined in section
> 90.303(a) of this chapter (*e.g.,* in accordance with a waiver).

\(A\) transmitter location (latitude and longitude in NAD 83) or
geographic area of operations

\(B\) Effective radiated power

\(C\) transmitter height above average terrain (if specified)

\(D\) antenna height above ground level (if specified)

\(E\) call sign

> \(5\) Offshore Radiotelephone Service. For each of the four regions
> where the Offshore Radiotelephone Service operates.

\(A\) geographic boundaries of the region (latitude and longitude in NAD
83 for each point defining the boundary of the region

\(B\) channel(s) used by the service in that region

> \(6\) Cable Television headends.

\(A\) name and address of cable company

\(B\) location of the headend receiver (latitude and longitude in NAD
83, accurate to +/‑ 50 m)

\(C\) channel number of each television channel received, subject to the
following condition: channels for which the cable headend is located
within the protected contour of that channel's transmitting station are
not eligible for registration in the database

\(D\) call sign of each television channel received and eligible for
registration

\(E\) location (latitude and longitude) of the transmitter of each
television channel received

> \(7\) Television translator and low power TV, including Class A TV
> stations, receive sites.

\(A\) call sign of the TV translator station

\(B\) location of the TV translator receive site (latitude and longitude
in NAD 83, accurate to +/- 50 m)

\(C\) channel number of the retransmitted television station, subject to
the following condition: a channel for which the television translator
receive site is located within the protected contour of that channel's
transmitting station is not eligible for registration in the database

\(D\) call sign of the retransmitted television station

\(E\) location (latitude and longitude) of the transmitter of the
retransmitted television station

> \(8\) Low power auxiliary stations, including wireless microphones and
> wireless assist video devices. Sites with significant wireless
> microphone use at well defined times and locations may be registered
> in the database. Multiple registrations that specify more than one
> point in the facility may be entered for very large sites.
> Registrations will be valid for no more than one year, after which
> they may be renewed.

\(A\) name of the individual or business that owns the low power
auxiliary device(s)

\(B\) an address for the contact person

\(C\) an email address for the contact person (optional)

\(D\) a phone number for the contact person

\(E\) coordinates where the device(s) are used (latitude and longitude
in NAD 83, accurate to +/- 50 m)

\(F\) channels used by the low power auxiliary devices operated at the
site

\(G\) specific months, days and times when the device(s) are used.

\(h\) Commission requests for data.

> \(1\) A TV bands database administrator must supply upon request by
> the Commission, any information contained in the database.
>
> \(2\) A TV bands database administrator must remove information from
> the database, upon direction, in writing, by the Commission

**Section 15.714 TV bands database administration fees.**

\(a\) A TV bands database administrator may charge a fee for provision
of lists of available channels and for registering Fixed TVBDs and
temporary BAS links.

\(b\) The Commission, upon request, will review the fees and can require
changes in those fees if they are found to be excessive.

**Section 15.715 TV bands database administrator.**

The Commission will designate one or more entities to administer a TV
bands database. Each database administrator shall:

> \(a\) Maintain a database that contains the information described in
> Section 15.713 of this part.
>
> \(b\) Establish a process for downloading and storing in the database
> necessary and appropriate information from the Commission's databases
> and synchronizing the TV bands database with the current Commission
> databases at least once a week to include newly licensed facilities or
> any changes to licensed facilities.
>
> \(c\) Establish a process for registering Fixed TVBDs and registering
> and including in the database facilities entitled to protection but
> not contained in a Commission database, including cable headends and
> TV translator receiver sites.
>
> \(d\) Establish a process for registering facilities where Part 74 low
> power auxiliary devices are used on a regular basis.
>
> \(e\) Provide lists of available channels to Fixed and
> personal/portable TVBDs that submit to it the information required
> under Section 15.713(f) based on their geographic location.
>
> \(f\) Make its services available to all unlicensed TV band device
> users on a non-discriminatory basis.
>
> \(g\) Provide service for a five-year term. This term can be renewed
> at the Commission's discretion.
>
> \(h\) Respond in a timely manner to verify, correct and/or remove, as
> appropriate, data in the event that the Commission or a party brings
> claim of inaccuracies in the database to its attention.
>
> \(i\) Transfer its database along with the IP addresses and URLs used
> to access the database and list of registered Fixed TVBDs, to another
> designated entity in the event it does not continue as the database
> administrator at the end of its term. It may charge a reasonable price
> for such conveyance.
>
> \(j\) The database must have functionality such that upon request from
> the Commission it can indicate that no channels are available when
> queried by a specific TVBD or model of TVBDs.
>
> \(k\) If more than one database is developed, the database
> administrators must cooperate to develop a standardized process for
> providing on a daily basis or more often, the data collected for the
> facilities listed in section 15.713(b)(2) of this part to all other TV
> bands databases.

**Section 15.717 TVBDs that rely on spectrum sensing.**

\(a\) Parties may submit applications for certification of TVBDs that
rely solely on spectrum sensing to identify available channels. Devices
authorized under this section must demonstrate with an extremely high
degree of confidence that they will not cause harmful interference to
incumbent radio services.

\(1\) In addition to the procedures in Subpart J of Part 2 of this
chapter, applicants shall comply with the following.

> \(i\) The application must include a full explanation of how the
> device will protect incumbent authorized services against
> interference.
>
> \(ii\) Applicants must submit a pre-production device, identical to
> the device expected to be marketed.

\(2\) The Commission will follow the procedures below for processing
applications pursuant to this section.

> \(i\) Applications will be placed on Public Notice for a minimum of 30
> days for comments and 15 days for reply comments. Applicants may
> request that portions of their application remain confidential in
> accordance with section 0.459 of this chapter. This Public Notice will
> include proposed test procedures and methodologies.
>
> \(ii\) The Commission will conduct laboratory and field tests of the
> pre-production device. This testing will be conducted to evaluate
> proof of performance of the device, including characterization of its
> sensing capability and its interference potential. The testing will be
> open to the public.
>
> \(iii\) Subsequent to the completion of testing, the Commission will
> issue by Public Notice, a test report including recommendations. The
> Public Notice will specify a minimum of 30 days for comments and, if
> any objections are received, an additional 15 days for reply comments.

\(b\) The device shall meet the requirements for personal/portable
devices in this subpart except that it will be limited to a maximum EIRP
of 50 mw and it does not have to comply with the requirements for
geo-location and database access in Section 15.711(b). Compliance with
the detection threshold for spectrum sensing in Section 15.711(c),
although required, is not necessarily sufficient for demonstrating
reliable interference avoidance. Once a device is certified, additional
devices that are identical in electrical characteristics and antenna
systems may be certified under the procedures of Part 2, Subpart J of
this chapter.

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# APPENDIX C {#appendix-c .unnumbered}

# Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis {#final-regulatory-flexibility-analysis-1 .unnumbered}

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),[^343] an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the *Notice
of Propose Rule Making* (*NPRM*) in ET Docket No. 04-186[^344] and an
additional IRFA was incorporated in the *First Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* (*Further Notice*) in ET Docket
No. 04-186.[^345] The Commission sought written public comment on the
proposals in the *NPRM* and in the *Further Notice*, including comment
on the IRFAs. No comments were received in response to either IRFA. This
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^346]

**A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Second Report and Order**

This Second Report and Order allows low power unlicensed transmitters to
operate in the TV broadcast bands at locations where spectrum is not
being used by authorized services. The new rules provide for operation
of two types of unlicensed devices that may provide broadband data and
other types of communications services: 1) fixed devices, which will
operate from a fixed location with relatively higher power and could be
used to provide a variety of services including wireless broadband
access in urban and rural areas, and 2) personal/portable devices, which
will use lower power and could, for example, take the form of devices
such as Wi-Fi-like cards in laptop computers or wireless in-home local
area networks (LANs). In order to operate without causing interference
to licensed services, both types of devices will be required to be able
to reliably determine which channels are occupied by licensed operations
at their location at any given time and to avoid interfering with
services on those channels. The specific compliance requirements are
described in Section D below.

The actions in this Second Report and Order will open for use a
significant amount of spectrum with very desirable propagation
characteristics that has heretofore lain fallow. These new rules will
allow the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed devices
that provide broadband data and other services for businesses and
consumers without disrupting the incumbent television and other
authorized services that operate in the TV bands. In addition, because
transmissions on frequencies in the TV bands are less subject to
propagation losses than transmissions in the spectrum bands where
existing low power broadband unlicensed operations are permitted,
*i.e.*, the 2.4 GHz and 5 GHz bands, the Commission anticipates that
allowing unlicensed operation in the TV bands will benefit wireless
internet service providers (WISPs) by extending the service range of
their operations. This will allow wireless broadband providers that use
unlicensed devices to reach new customers and to extend and improve
their services in rural areas. The Commission anticipates that allowing
use of the TV white spaces by unlicensed devices will have significant
benefits for both businesses and consumers and thereby promote more
efficient and effective use of the TV spectrum.

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

No comments were received in response to either the IRFA in the *NPRM*
or the IRFA in the *Further Notice.*

**C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
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.[^347] The RFA generally defines
the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^348] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^349] 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).[^350]

*Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
Manufacturing.* The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:
"This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless communications
equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments are:
transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS
equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and
radio and television studio and broadcasting equipment."[^351] The SBA
has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which
is: all such firms having 750 or fewer employees.[^352] According to
Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041 establishments
in this category that operated for the entire year.[^353] Of this total,
1,010 had employment of under 500, and an additional 13 had employment
of 500 to 999.[^354] Thus, under this size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.

*Wireless Service Providers*. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for wireless firms within the two broad economic census
categories of \"Paging\"[^355] and \"Cellular and Other Wireless
Telecommunications.\"[^356] Under both categories, the SBA deems a
wireless business to be small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For
the census category of Paging, Census Bureau data for 2002 show that
there were 807 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year.[^357] Of this total, 804 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and three firms had employment of 1,000 employees or
more.[^358] Thus, under this category and associated small business size
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. For the census
category of Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications, Census
Bureau data for 2002 show that there were 1,397 firms in this category
that operated for the entire year.[^359] Of this total, 1,378 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees, and 19 firms had employment of
1,000 employees or more.[^360] Thus, under this second category and size
standard, the majority of firms can, again, be considered small.

**D. Description of Projected Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements**

Unlicensed transmitters are currently required to be authorized under
the Commission\'s certification procedure as a prerequisite to marketing
and importation, and TV band devices would be subject to a certification
requirement. The existing certification procedure in the Commission's
rules will be used for TV band devices, except that TV band devices that
rely on spectrum sensing as the sole method of determining whether a
channel is available will have additional certification requirements
which are described below. The compliance requirements for TV band
devices are as follows.

[Fixed devices]{.underline}

-   may communicate with other fixed devices and with personal/portable
    devices

-   are permitted to operate on TV channels 2-51, excluding channels 3,4
    and 37; may not operate on adjacent TV channels; and, must not use
    any channels used locally by the private land mobile radio service
    (PLMRS)

-   determine their geographic location by means of an incorporated
    geo-location capability or a professional installer

-   access a database system to determine the available channels at a
    location

-   use outdoor antennas

-   are allowed up to 1 watt (W) transmitter output power with a gain
    antenna to achieve up to 4 W effective isotropic radiated power
    (EIRP)

-   Must register identifying information in a database to help
    investigate any potential interference due to higher powered
    operations.

    [Personal/portable devices]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   may communicate with fixed devices and with other personal/portable
    devices

-   are permitted to operate on TV channels 21-51, excluding channel 37

-   can operate in two different modes:

    -   Mode I - client, controlled by a fixed device that has
        determined the available channels in the area

    -   Mode II - independent, in which the device determines the
        available channels using its own internal geo-location/database
        access capabilities

-   100 milliwatts (mW) EIRP, but limited to 40 mW EIRP when operating
    adjacent to occupied channels.

    [All TV band devices]{.underline}

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   must be capable of sensing TV and wireless microphone signals at
    levels as low as ‑114 dBm

    -   Operation prohibited on channels where wireless microphones are
        detected

    -   Will provide an additional indication as to whether a TV channel
        is occupied

    -   Will encourage the further development of sensing technology

The purpose of the TV bands database system for fixed and Mode II
personal/portable devices is to identify all services in the TV bands
that are eligible for protection. A TV band device will send its
geographic coordinates to the database, which will return a list of
channels available at that location. The Commission will issue a Public
Notice to solicit interested parties in administering the database. The
database will contain information about licensed services operating in
the TV bands obtained from the Commission's databases, including full
service and low power TV stations, Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS)
links, and PLMRS operations under waivers. In addition, the database
will contain voluntarily submitted information on services in the TV
bands that are either not in the Commission's databases or are not
licensed by specific coordinates, such as wireless microphones.

The Second Report and Order provides for certification of devices that
rely on sensing alone based on a proof of performance standard. The
manufacturer may submit an application for certification of a device
that meets all of the requirements for a TV band device except for
geo-location and database access. The application would be available to
the public, except for information that may qualify as a trade secret
under our rules. A fully functioning pre-production prototype would need
to be submitted to the Commission for laboratory and field testing. The
testing will be open to the public. The determination of whether to
certify the equipment will depend on whether the device is shown to
provide a high level of confidence that it will not interfere with
incumbent radio services. It must perform at least as well as a device
that uses geo-location and database access for interference avoidance.
Once a device is certified under these provisions, the Commission would
certify other devices that are electrically identical under the usual
certification process.

The Second Report and Order imposes new reporting requirements on
parties operating fixed TV band devices. Operators of fixed TV band
devices will be required to register their location and information
about the operator with a TV bands database. When a fixed TV band device
queries the database the first time, the device will be registered in
the database system. Operators of fixed TV band devices must supply the
following registration information and update this information, as
necessary, when performing the daily database queries to verify
continued channel availability. The Commission may ask a database
administrator for this information in the event that a device is found
to be causing interference.

> \(1\) FCC identifier (FCC ID) of the device

\(2\) manufacturer's serial number of the device

\(3\) device's coordinates (latitude and longitude accurate to within 50
m)

\(4\) name of the entity, whether an individual or business, responsible
for the device

\(5\) name of a contact person responsible for the device's operation

\(6\) address for the contact person

\(7\) email address for the contact person

\(8\) phone number for the contact person.

As noted above, the Commission's Office of Engineering and Technology
will designate a party or parties to administer the database of
authorized services in the TV bands. Much of this information will be
obtained from the Commission's databases, including information on full
service and low power TV stations, Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS)
links, and PLMRS operations under waivers. However, the database will
also contain information submitted voluntarily by parties operating
services in the TV bands that are either not listed in the Commission's
databases or are not licensed by specific coordinates. These services
include BAS links authorized on a temporary basis, receive sites for TV
translators and cable TV systems, and sites where wireless microphones
are used regularly and predictably, such as major sporting events. The
purpose of this voluntarily submitted information is to prevent TV band
devices from causing interference to services that do not appear in the
Commission's database. The submission of such information is strictly
voluntary, but services operated by parties that do not submit this
information may not be protected against interference from TV band
devices.

**E. 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."[^361]

The rules adopted in the Second Report and Order may have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. For an entity
that chooses to manufacture or import equipment for the subject bands,
the rules would impose costs for compliance with equipment technical
requirements. The costs for fixed and Mode II personal/portable devices
include incorporating a geo-location method to determine the geographic
coordinates and the ability to access a database of authorized services
in the TV bands, for which a fee may be charged by the database
administrator. The costs for all TV band devices include incorporating
the ability to detect TV and wireless microphone signals. However, the
burdens for complying with these rules would be the same for both large
and small entities. Therefore, no disproportionate burden of compliance
would be sustained by small entities. Further, the rules adopted in the
Second Report and Order are ultimately beneficial for both large and
small entities because they will provide for more efficient and
effective use of the TV spectrum and allow the development of new and
innovative types of wireless devices and communication services for
businesses and consumers. Also, because transmissions in the TV band are
subject to less propagation attenuation than transmissions in other
bands where lower power operations are permitted (such as unlicensed
operations in the 2.4 GHz band), operations in the TV bands can improve
the service range of wireless operations, thereby allowing operators to
reach new customers.

**F. Report to Congress**

The Commission will send a copy of the Second Report and Order,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the
Congressional Review Act.[^362] In addition, the Commission will send a
copy of the second Report and Order, including the FRFA, to Congress and
the Government Accountability Office. A copy of the Second Report and
Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
Federal Register.[^363]

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN KEVIN J. MARTIN**

**Re: *Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No.
04-186; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in
the 3 GHz Band*, *ET Docket No. 02-380***

Today's approval of rules authorizing the use of television (TV) "white
spaces" spectrum is a significant victory for consumers.

Today's action was advocated by a diverse coalition of consumer groups,
technology leaders and Internet pioneers. Opening the white spaces will
allow for the creation of a WiFi on steroids. It has the potential to
improve wireless broadband connectivity and inspire an ever-widening
array of new Internet based products and services for consumers.
Consumers across the country will have access to devices and services
that they may have only dreamed about before. I fully expect that
everything from enhanced home broadband networks, to intelligent
peer-to-peer devices, and even small communications networks will come
into being in TV "white spaces."

More specifically, the rules adopted by the Commission establish a
framework for enhanced wireless communications by building on a proven
concept: the safe deployment of new, intelligent devices in the unused
spectrum that exists between television channels.

We do so without disrupting TV services, wireless microphones, or other
permitted uses of this spectrum. I have always said that opening the
white spaces must be conditioned on protecting primary spectrum users
from interference.

We have been cautious in our approach. Significantly, the Commission
embarked on extraordinary testing. Not only did the Commission consider
thousands of comments, ideas and recommendations submitted by the
public, we opened up the testing of the prototype white spaces devices
that had been submitted to the FCC. For months, both proponents and
opponents of opening the white spaces participated in laboratory and
field testing conducted by our engineers. OET also released a lengthy
and detailed report of its findings to the public.

Normally, the Commission adopts prospective rules about interference and
then certifies devices to ensure they are in compliance. Here, we took
the extraordinary step of first conducting this extensive interference
testing in order to prove the concept that white space devices could be
safely deployed.

Prior to going to market any white space device will undergo a rigorous
certification process. Today's item protects broadcasters' operations.
It also protects entertainment, sports and other significant venues,
including the unlicensed operation of many wireless microphones and
other wireless devices in those areas. Additionally, channels have even
been set aside to protect wireless microphones in major markets.

In order to protect broadcasters, all white space devices must initially
use geo-location in conjunction with database consultation to ensure
they can operate in a particular location without interference.
Manufacturers remain free to demonstrate that sensing-only devices can
operate safely and efficiently, without causing interference to
television viewers. Such devices will only be deployed after they have
demonstrated their effectiveness through a vigorous, public, proof of
performance process.

Similarly, manufacturers are challenged to show ways that devices using
higher power levels that authorized today can be deployed on adjacent
channels.

In conjunction with our other actions today regarding Verizon-Alltel and
Sprint-Clearwire, opening up the TV white spaces furthers the goal of
making wireless a powerful, competitive broadband platform and offers
significant benefits to consumers across the country.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

**Re: *Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No.
04-186; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in
the 3 GHz Band*, *ET Docket No. 02-380***

            One of the great lessons of history I quickly learned here
at the FCC is the power of technology to turn scarcity into abundance. 
Once upon a time, it seemed that certain swaths of the public airwaves
could support only a few expensive, bulky "brick" telephones (so named
because of their forbidding size and weight).  These early phones
permitted just 30 minutes of scratchy voice communications on a single
battery charge.  Today, thanks to the extraordinary work of America's
great engineers and inventors, the same amount of spectrum can support
millions of full-featured, relatively inexpensive, multimedia
handsets---like the popular iPhone---that perform many of the functions
of a desktop computer for days between charges. 

            Or, to take an example even closer to today's item, we have
learned in the past decade that unlicensed bands---once derided as "junk
spectrum" suitable only for garage door openers---can actually support
Wi-Fi connectivity for tens and even hundreds of millions of users every
day.  Something that seemed of marginal value has given us broadband in
homes, airports, hotels, coffee shops, and downtown areas---developments
that are changing the ways in which we live.  Just stop by a Starbucks
and look at how many people are typing away on laptops.  That, to me, is
the most important lesson of the wireless revolution: as technology
marches on, the real winners are American consumers.  This process is as
it should be---the airwaves, after all, are the ***people's***
airwaves.  And it is the FCC's job to make sure that the American people
continue to extract full value from their property. 

            So in setting responsible spectrum policy, the FCC must
always recognize that technology cannot stand still, and that even as we
protect existing users from harmful interference, we also have to
promote innovation---because until someone finds a way to make more
electromagnetic spectrum, it is only ***innovation*** that can improve
the wireless choices available to consumers. 

            For four years, the FCC has been considering proposals to
authorize unlicensed devices in the TV white spaces.  The proponents
have argued that we can enable a whole new generation of wireless
devices---bringing new broadband connectivity to our rural and urban
communities---without harming free, over-the-air TV.  Does this seem
almost too good to be true?  Of course.  But so did the modern cellular
industry, the explosion of Wi-Fi devices, and so many other innovations
at comparable stages in their development.  Even the notion of
transmitting high quality video through the air to millions of TV sets
must have seemed pretty fantastical when it was first demonstrated
decades ago.  This is the history of wireless innovation in a
nutshell---the nearly miraculous becomes commonplace.

            My approach throughout this process has been to let the
engineering analysis drive our decision-making.  The good news is that
the process---while far from perfect---has involved a great deal of
serious study and public openness.  In fact, the last round of testing
was conducted with engineers and lawyers from all sides looking over the
shoulders of the FCC's engineers as they performed their bench and field
testing.  While I do not envy the Commission's engineers for undergoing
this level of scrutiny as they go about their daily tasks, I think it's
fair to say that few other engineering analyses at the FCC have been as
lengthy or open as this one. 

            The results of our testing have shown that there is merit in
the initial positions of ***both*** sides in this debate---and I believe
our conclusion today reflects this point.  For example, the white spaces
proponents initially argued that spectrum-sensing alone would be
adequate.  Our testing has shown that this approach, right now, is not
ready for prime time.  That is why our decision does not authorize
devices today that rely exclusively on sensing---though we do create a
process for evaluating the next generation of such devices. 

            Instead, today, we move towards a compromise
technology---geo-location---that represents a simpler and more
conservative approach to protecting existing licensed users of the
television band.  We also have built in several forms of
belt-and-suspender protections.  First, we still will have a chance to
"kick the tires" of these devices at the certification stage---to make
sure they operate as designed.  Second, because we permit these devices
to operate under our Part 15 unlicensed rules, they must protect
broadcast licensees and shut off if they create harmful interference. 
Third, because we use geo-location technology, we retain the ability to
require particular makes and models of white space devices to turn off
if they have a manufacturing flaw.  Fourth, to the extent that we
consider certifying a next-generation sensing-only device, we have
established a process to make sure that all parties have an opportunity
to be present during the testing process. So, though there will never be
metaphysical certainty when it comes to interference issues, I am
comfortable that the FCC and its dedicated engineers have approached
this issue with the necessary seriousness and developed an approach that
will adequately protect over-the-air viewers. 

            In this lengthy process, some parties have come forward with
arguments for licensed use of the TV white spaces, either in whole or in
part.  As I have stated before, I think that both licensed and
unlicensed regimes benefit consumers.  The key is to get the right mix. 
In the past few years, we have auctioned off almost 150 MHz of new
***licensed*** spectrum.  The time has now come, I believe, to increase
the amount of ***unlicensed*** spectrum---especially the amount of
spectrum below 1 GHz.  The order we vote on today will do exactly that. 

            Some have called this new technology "Wi-Fi on
steroids"---and I hope they are right.  Certainly, this new technology,
taking advantage of the enhanced propagation characteristics of TV
spectrum, should be of enormous benefit in solving the broadband deficit
in many rural areas.  Indeed, I agree with the view of several of my
colleagues that it should be quite possible, at some point, to authorize
higher-power devices in rural areas that will support backhaul and
broadband infrastructure.  That is why I support our commitment to issue
a Notice of Inquiry on this topic---which should give the Commission
more than enough time to build a record and act before the first
commercially-ready devices enter the market.

            Today's item represents the culmination of a lot of hard
work by the Commission's skilled engineers and staff in our Office of
Engineering and Technology and elsewhere.  I want to thank them for
their dedication to this task and their accomplishment in charting a
course that accommodates both existing users and innovators in this
spectrum.  Ultimately, this careful threading of the needle between the
path-breaking and the tried-and-true will reap huge benefits for the
American people.   

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

**Re: *Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No.
04-186; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in
the 3 GHz Band*, *ET Docket No. 02-380***

Today the Commission takes a critically important step towards managing
the public's spectrum to promote efficiency, and to encourage the
development and availability of innovative devices and services.

White spaces are the blank pages on which we will write our broadband
future. I have long called for not only a "third pipe" into the home but
a "third channel" directly to consumers, wherever they may roam. Today,
we make a key advance toward a third channel for broadband competition
and deployment. This Order is a central element of the national
broadband strategy that I have advocated for quite some time.

Today's decision is consequential to our nation's future because
wireless broadband has the potential to improve our economy and quality
of life in even the remotest areas. One of the best options for
promoting broadband and competition across the country, particularly in
rural areas, is maximizing the potential of spectrum-based services.
Because we are a nation of innovators and entrepreneurs, the
Commission's decision to open fallow spectrum to new uses will give our
country an opportunity to reclaim its place as a world leader in
broadband deployment.

Wireless devices have become a central part of many of our lives. As the
market continues to expand, so too does our need for spectrum and
infrastructure that can meet the rising demands. Our job as a Commission
is to pack as much data as possible over the public spectrum without
causing harmful interference. Unlicensed spectrum holds by far the most
promise for maximizing the use of white spaces. Our balanced approach in
this order provides the flexibility and low barriers to entry needed to
provide an opportunity for everyone to make the best use of this
under-used spectrum. It also implements safeguards to protect those that
already make valuable use of the spectrum.

The results of the Office of Engineering and Technology's study show
that geo-location technology offers an accurate and dependable means of
protecting spectrum incumbents from interference. I am pleased with our
decision to require both master-client based and independent based
devices to utilize geo-location technology and database access for
identifying vacant channels. Because broadcasters have such a vital role
in local communities, preservation of consumers' television reception
and other services is critical to acceptance of new white spaces
devices. Although spectrum-sensing technology has not yet been proven to
offer the same level of protection, I applaud our support for its
continuing development and look forward to the innovation it may bring.

I am pleased that my colleagues have agreed to provide details regarding
the certification process for white space devices. These additional
details will provide an avenue for public comment on this process and
ensure that the resulting process is fully vetted by interested parties.

Many have raised the concern that broadcasters and users of wireless
microphones will suffer harmful interference as a result of this Order.
The Office of Engineering and Technology assures us that there are
adequate protections here to prevent harmful interference to licensed
users, and I accept their assurances.

It is small consolation to those that feel justifiably aggrieved by the
process that there was overwhelming support for acting now, and that
more time was unlikely to change the outcome. This process is not a
model of transparency. When the Commission puts expediency ahead of an
open process, it creates unnecessary resentment from parties that
believe they were not given a fair hearing. This is not the process I
would have undertaken, but since our independent engineering staff
justifies the decision on the basis of their best expert analysis, I
approve this item.

An issue of great concern remains, though, that many unwary consumers
purchased wireless microphones that may not comport with Commission
rules. An investigation is underway, and if we find that Commission
rules were violated, we must act to protect the many musicians,
performers and others who will need to ensure their equipment continues
to work. While I am hopeful the protections we adopt today are
sufficient, we will need to closely follow the impact on users of
wireless microphones, and devise solutions, considering all spectrum at
our disposal, so they can continue to use them with confidence they will
function as they have come to expect.

I am pleased that the Chairman and my colleagues have agreed to launch a
separate Notice of Inquiry (NOI) into the best use of the white space
spectrum for higher powered unlicensed operations in rural areas. In
order for the white spaces to achieve maximum utilization in rural
areas, rural wireless Internet service providers will need cheap,
available and reliable backhaul. We need to explore all ways of
achieving this. Variable power limits deserve our consideration as one
possible means. I would have preferred that these questions were raised
in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking rather than an NOI, and that they
covered all spectrum, but getting this discussion underway is a positive
development.

Historians looking at American telecommunications policy may well view
today as a day that heralded change not only with the nationwide vote
that is taking place at the polls, but also the vote that takes place
here to open the white spaces for broadband deployment. Both portend
great progress for our future technological development. Just as I
enthusiastically voted at the polls earlier this morning, I vote again
enthusiastically for this item here today.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER ROBERT M. McDOWELL**

**Re: *Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No.
04-186; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in
the 3 GHz Band*, *ET Docket No. 02-380***

To paraphrase astronaut Neil Armstrong as he became the first person to
step on the moon, today the FCC is making both a small step and a giant
leap. It will be a giant leap for American consumers to be able to use
the untapped television "white spaces." At the same time, we enter this
new frontier with a small step in the form of a prudent and cautious
order that sets up safeguards to ensure that new unlicensed devices do
not cause harmful interference with licensees and other users of these
frequencies.

While new broadband technologies are the most likely uses of these
channels, the most exciting part about our action today is that we are
creating the opportunity for an explosion of entrepreneurial brilliance.
Our de-regulatory order will allow the market place to produce new
devices and new applications that we can't even imagine today. Not only
will the lives of millions of Americans be enriched by these new
technologies, but I am confident that imaginative use of the TV white
spaces could actually improve our safety as well.

We owe this historic moment to several white spaces pioneers including
former FCC Chairman Michael Powell who initiated this proceeding four
years ago, many Members of Congress, countless entrepreneurs and, of
course, my Commission colleagues. I also acknowledge our chief engineer
and technologist, Julie Knapp, and his entire OET team. Thank you for
your patience, openness, fortitude and counsel.

To those who have expressed concern regarding the results of this
proceeding, I would like to offer them comfort in the form of the text
of today's order. As a preliminary matter, I note that the empirical
data we have studied suggests a very real potential for deployment of
new personal/portable devices, and it would be premature to either
wholly endorse or close the door entirely on future developments.
Accordingly, it is appropriate that the steps today are limited in
scope, define an outline for our future approach toward device
certification and allow for any and all changes that may be required by
future circumstances.

We have listened carefully to the arguments of broadcasters, cable TV
operators, wireless microphone companies and entertainers, and today's
order addresses their concerns. In short, all avenues of modification
and improvement remain open. And I thank my colleagues for working
collectively to strengthen and clarify these protections. In fact, as
technology improves, I expect that one day we will likely look back on
this order and think of it as quaint; but today it is state-of-the-art.

Our decision today also obviates the need for artificial government
mandates, such as those imposed on the C Block of our 700 MHz auction.
Make no mistake, I have long advocated application and device
portability as well as free and open networks. Consumers want these
features, and the market started working on delivering them years before
unnecessary, counterproductive and after-the-fact Commission mandates.
Therefore, if such mandates were not necessary then, they are even more
unnecessary after our action today. Robust unlicensed use of white
spaces will give nimble entrepreneurs the freedom to disrupt the market
in positive and constructive ways that will force incumbents to keep
pace with this new revolution. As a result, the pressure created by
dynamic competition will knock down barriers created by walled gardens
and pry open closed networks. This liberation will come about not
through increased regulation, but through increased competition. Our
ultimate shareholders, American consumers, will reap the dividends.

I also appreciate my colleagues' support for a notice of inquiry to
commence an examination of possible other limited uses of white spaces,
such as point-to-point backhaul in rural areas as a substitute for
special access. This is an idea that was raised in our original notice,
is thoroughly discussed on the record, and is already ripe for decision.
I still believe that a further notice of proposed rulemaking would have
presented us with a clearer path toward a closer examination.
Nonetheless, I hope my colleagues in the next Commission will move
forward expeditiously on what I believe to be a win-win solution.

Here is the challenge: all wireless services have to be backhauled to
the PSTN and the Internet via a network of some kind. Over the years,
some people in the tech industry, as well as some of my colleagues, have
complained about a lack of competition in the special access market
which, they allege, artificially drives up backhaul costs. Competitive
local exchange carriers (CLECs) and competitive wireless carriers
presented us with a possible solution to this challenge for rural areas
which enjoy more unused spectrum than urban areas and suffer from the
least amount of special access competition. Some form of limited white
spaces point-to-point licensing may allow entrepreneurs to find more
efficient paths for their backhaul needs while leaving the lion's share
of white spaces spectrum on the table for unlicensed users.

I am disappointed by some in the tech industry and public interest
community who seem to oppose the Commission even discussing this issue
while also complaining about the condition of the special access market.
All of us should remember that CLECs, wireless companies and their
supplier partners are also part of the tech industry and their voices
should be heard as well. Hopefully, this notice of inquiry can plant the
seeds of progress to find a workable solution that inures to the benefit
of all parties, but mainly, American consumers.

Our decision today is revolutionary. It does more than simply foster the
development of exciting new wireless services. It also has the potential
to sustain the continuing good health of an "old" technology: television
broadcasting, by protecting the interests of the millions of consumers
who continue to rely on broadcasting for their news, entertainment and
public safety information.

Accordingly, I strongly support today's order.

> **STATEMENT OF**
>
> **COMMISSIONER DEBORAH TAYLOR TATE**
>
> **APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART**

**Re: *Unlicensed Operation in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No.
04-186, Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in
the 3 GHz Band*, *ET Docket No. 02-380***

In the midst of the present economic downturn gripping our nation and
the world, there is one bright spot on the horizon -- American
technology and the American entrepreneurial spirit, especially in the
communications and technology sector, which hold the promise of future
innovation, investment, jobs and economic growth. One of the more
promising areas of innovation cannot even be seen -- the "white spaces"
that represent the unused portions of spectrum in the bands presently
allocated to TV broadcast operations. Today's item advances us on a path
to facilitate use of the white spaces for new wireless services,
including broadband services, for all Americans.

These are first steps only, ones that hopefully will move us towards
modernization and more effective use of the unused portions of this
spectrum. Indeed, these are revolutionary times in an evolutionary
industry, with the promise of even yet unseen innovative devices on the
horizon. Many visions exist for how unlicensed use of the white spaces
will evolve, but evolve they certainly will. Hopefully, this item will
help facilitate the deployment of unlicensed devices and services that
enable consumers to enjoy more television programming and video than
ever before, and that will allow families to transfer and network
information, photos, and much more across multiple devices, technologies
and platforms in their homes. Similarly, communities of users may find
they are able to communicate seamlessly through mesh networks rather
than traditional phone lines. Finally, as someone who has championed
rural America, I hope that this item will facilitate services, including
broadband, to rural areas and thus help reduce the digital divide that
is far too prevalent in rural communities across our nation.

In considering this order, I have listened to and weighed seriously the
concerns of an amazingly broad array of interests. In the end, I have
tried to reach a reasonable position that takes into account all
interests, including, most especially, the interests of the American
consumer. The order is not perfect -- it precludes licensed services and
lacks needed language regarding a specific and expedited complaint
process for broadcasters, cable providers, wireless microphones and
individual users in the case of interference. Nonetheless, the order
ultimately may help promote the innovation and investment in advanced
services that consumers have come to expect from the communications and
technology sector. Accordingly, I would like to address several
important public policy goals, as well as some of my concerns regarding
how this item falls short of our mandate to advance the interests of the
American public.

[Measures to Address Interference]{.underline}

In crafting public policy, one must weigh the benefits and costs of
various options. In this case, the potential costs of enabling
unlicensed use of the white spaces are substantial. Specifically, this
order enables a vision for entirely new services and devices but ones
that also hold a real risk of causing interference with existing
services, including broadcasting, cable television, and wireless
microphones, among others.

Addressing interference in the use of the spectrum has always been one
of the primary roles of the Federal Communications Commission since its
creation by Congress in 1934. Our predecessor agency, the Federal Radio
Commission, also assumed this important responsibility starting as early
as 1927. Clearly, addressing interference is one of the crucial tasks
this agency takes most seriously and performs most effectively.

Within the Commission, the Office of Engineering and Technology (OET) is
the team responsible for conducting the research, analysis, and
evaluation of devices that use the airwaves in this country. This group
of talented staff has spent the past four years carefully considering
whether and to what extent unlicensed devices may utilize the white
spaces in the broadcast spectrum without causing undue harm to incumbent
users. I have placed much faith in the Chief of OET, Julie Knapp, and
his entire staff of engineers. Their recommendations, while always
useful in any rulemaking, played an especially persuasive role in my
final decision to support this item.

I have been assured by Chief Knapp and our top engineers that the risks
of interference have been appropriately considered. Ultimately, as the
Commission's most recent report states, the extensive testing by OET has
provided "proof of concept" for some types of unlicensed devices to use
the white spaces. Further, as this order makes very clear, [all
devices]{.underline} that in the future will be used in the U.S. market
must first be tested and approved by the Commission, in effect
demonstrating not only that there is "proof of concept" but also "proof
in practice." While some commenters have criticized our testing process,
both our 2007 and 2008 reports on the test results were peer reviewed by
other expert staff within the Commission. In addition, these tests were
open to the public, and at various points during this long process the
work of our OET engineers was observed by members of the press,
Congressional staff, broadcasters and other industry representatives, as
well as other interested parties. I am proud of this transparent and
open process and encourage OET to continue this commitment going
forward.

Based on the results of these tests, this order establishes a number of
significant technical rules related to unlicensed use of the white
spaces in the broadcast bands. Power limits are more restricted -- to 40
milliwatts, or a fraction of what wireless microphones are authorized to
employ in these frequencies -- when operated in a channel immediately
adjacent to a broadcast service, while a higher power limit applies in
non-adjacent channels.

In addition, and of critical importance to incumbent providers, the item
will create a database of existing operations in specific channels and
entire geographic areas that will remain [unavailable]{.underline} to
all unlicensed operations. Incumbent providers may register their
locations and unlicensed devices will be required to first verify that
channels are available [prior to]{.underline} accessing them. This
requirement to use this database will ensure that broadcast operations,
broadcast auxiliary services (BAS), cable head-ins, public safety
operations, and venues such as sports stadiums and theatres may register
their locations and receive complete protection.

The Commission, through our Enforcement Bureau and in consultation with
the Office of Engineering and Technology, will investigate complaints of
interference and take appropriate action, as we do with all cases of
interference. I regret that my colleagues were unwilling to set forth in
this item a more specific and swift process to deal with complaints of
interference. I remain concerned that the item is too vague and does not
provide necessary protections after the interference has occurred.

I also would like to acknowledge the legitimate concerns of the many
industries that already provide valuable services using the core TV
bands. Regarding the concerns of my friends in the broadcasting
industry, I want to recognize the important service they provide,
especially all they currently are doing to make the DTV transition as
smooth as possible. Over 90 percent of Americans are now aware of the
DTV transition, thanks in large part to the more than \$1 billion
invested by the broadcasters and the cable industry in PSAs and other
public education efforts. The DTV transition is an extraordinary
opportunity for consumers to receive revolutionary TV picture quality
and additional programming, as well as new wireless services that will
be available in the 700 MHz band when those channels are vacated. In
addition, broadcasters play a key role in providing emergency alerts to
the public. It is, therefore, imperative that TV broadcasting continue
to be protected from interference. The power limits and other technical
rules, proposed by OET and adopted herein, are designed to do just that.

Regarding similar concerns by cable operators, I also recognize the
potential for interference, both to cable head ends as well as to cable
connections inside the home. The item takes steps to protect cable head
ends by restricting use of white spaces devices in the geographic areas
in which head ends are located. With regard to cable systems in the
home, OET has attempted to establish power limits that will lower the
risk of interference between devices in the home, though this risk is
not, in my mind, fully mitigated. However, the Commission does not
generally focus on interference that users cause to themselves. Just as
we have all learned to move devices away from each other in the office
and we no longer place our cell phones next to the computer, so might
consumers need to reduce interference inside their home by moving
devices, at least until the next generation of cable equipment becomes
more widely disseminated. I encourage device manufacturers and indeed
the Commission to provide information to consumers regarding these
devices as they come online, as well as establishing 800 numbers, arming
call centers with tech-specific solutions, email alerts, software
"fixes" that lower power and other forms of outreach to consumers.

Regarding the concerns of facilities and events managers -- including
Broadway, sports stadiums, churches, my friends at the Grand Ole Opry,
and many others -- the geographic database provides a critical line of
defense. In addition, the item will make spectrum available in two
channels above Channel 20 in those markets that are particularly
congested due to public safety operations in Channels 14 -- 20. Taken
together, these measures should protect the vast majority of wireless
microphones.

[Remaining Concerns]{.underline}

While the use of white spaces by unlicensed devices holds great promise
and I am excited about their potential, I also have several significant
concerns that I believe we should have addressed and encourage a future
Commission to re-address.

With regard to the possibility of interference, I regret that the Order
does not include language that would specifically state the legal
responsibilities of those who provide these new unlicensed devices. In
particular, I would like providers of these devices to have clear notice
of what they must and must not do under the Commission's rules. Perhaps
more important still, I wanted to ensure that our rules specify that, in
the event of significant interference caused by an unlicensed device,
the party responsible for this device will also be responsible for
rectifying the problem and [assume the cost]{.underline}. Some companies
have assured us that this will be the case; that their business
reputation requires it and it is indeed "good business" for them to
correct the situation. However, the potential impact of millions of
devices in the marketplace calls for a prudent process for recall,
provisions for mitigating interference caused by faulty equipment, and a
clear exposition of fines and penalties for violations. I felt it was
imperative to deal with this on the front end, but today's item is not
sufficiently clear on these matters. I hope the next Commission will
address this [before]{.underline}, rather than after, any harm occurs.

In addition, I am disappointed that this item does not take more
specific steps to address higher-power fixed operations in rural areas,
which could have been used to provide much needed backhaul, a key
component of broadband service in rural communities. While I understand
that the Commission will issue a Notice of Inquiry on this issue, this
is too little and too late. Rural consumers need help now, and the
record on the various options -- including licensed approaches -- is
sufficiently developed for the Commission to take action today.

More fundamentally, and most troubling about today's order, the
Commission's decision makes it difficult if not impossible to allow
anything other than unlicensed use in the white spaces of the roughly
300 megahertz that comprise the TV broadcast spectrum. Other valuable
uses, such as licensed operations, are precluded. I am not convinced
that [all]{.underline} of the white spaces in Channels 2 -- 51 needed to
be made available for unlicensed use. Indeed, many of the companies that
have discussed with me their exciting new business models have focused
only on the use of Channels 21 -- 51.

As with any policy decision, we must be cognizant of the opportunity
cost -- that is, we must look with a clear head at that which we are
giving up. This is extremely valuable spectrum -- beachfront property
spectrum -- with estimates of the value of white spaces under a licensed
approach ranging from \$8 billion to over \$24 billion. Even if the low
estimates in this range are the most accurate, we must consider this
lost value to the U.S. Treasury and, ultimately, to taxpayers. Even more
important than the lost auction revenues, the consumer benefits of
spectrum use in a licensed regime are many times greater than what
service providers pay to the U.S. Treasury. Of course, the benefits to
consumers of services in unlicensed bands also may be significant. But
if all white spaces spectrum in this band is set aside for unlicensed
use -- rather than appropriately balancing licensed and unlicensed
approaches -- we are likely to ignore the huge value of alternative
uses. In short, we need to consider the tradeoffs, and the American
consumer -- in urban as well as rural areas -- will suffer if we do not.

Based on my conversations with OET, independent engineers and various
members of the White Spaces Coalition, it would appear that allowing
unlicensed use of the white spaces only in Channels 31-51 would be
sufficient to provide four channels -- that is, 24 megahertz -- in even
the most congested markets and many, many more channels in suburban and
rural markets. As an example, 24 megahertz is greater than the amount of
spectrum made available in the largest block in the 700 MHz auction held
this spring. In that auction, the C block sold for \$3.7 billion,
despite significant use restrictions that arguably lowered the final
bid. While four channels of white spaces creating 24 megahertz would not
represent contiguous spectrum, this nonetheless would be sufficient for
broadband services in these highly congested markets. Other urban
markets would have somewhat more spectrum available, while rural markets
might have as much as 100 megahertz more spectrum available.

Accordingly, I am not convinced that making Channels 21 -- 51 available
only for unlicensed use is necessary to create the types of exciting new
services that have been predicted. I am even less convinced -- and the
record does not support -- that we must make the entire core TV band,
Channels 2 -- 51, available for such use. This is more spectrum than was
requested by most of the parties who argued that they could provide new
and innovative services using Channels 21 -- 51. Therefore, while I
supported moving forward to allow a portion of the white spaces be made
available for unlicensed use, I respectfully dissent from including all
channels in the band plan in this order.

I thank Chief Julie Knapp, the fine staff at OET, and all those who have
worked so hard on this item, including the many hours spent testing and
analyzing devices. However, this was only a step on this incredible
technology journey. Testing on individual devices will now commence and
must be subject to the same stringent, thorough, and transparent
procedures and reporting we have seen thus far in this process,
consistent with the Commission's procedures for all device
certifications. In addition, it is of critical importance that the
Commission establishes and ensures a process that will immediately
respond to and mitigate any interference experienced by incumbent users
and individual consumers alike.

[^1]: As discussed below, the TV spectrum is also used on a licensed
    basis by wireless microphone, private land mobile radio, commercial
    mobile radio, broadcast auxiliary, off-shore radio, and radio
    astronomy operations. TV translators are low power TV stations that
    receive a signal from a full service TV station on one channel and
    retransmit that signal on a different channel in an area where the
    full service TV station is not normally received. Low power TV
    stations operate similar to TV translators and may retransmit the
    signals of a full service TV station and also originate programming.
    TV booster stations also operate similar to TV translators but
    transmit on the same channel as their full service station and
    within the service area of that full service station. Class A
    stations operate under technical rules similar to low power TV and
    TV translator stations but are subject to certain minimum operating
    requirements for service hours and locally originated programming.

[^2]: *See First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
    Making* in ET Docket Nos. 02-380 and 04-186, 21 FCC Rcd 12266
    (2006).

[^3]: *See* Petition for Reconsideration of the *First R&O/Further
    Notice* submitted by the NAF and the Champaign Urbana Wireless
    Network, December 18, 2006.

[^4]: *See* IEEE 802.22/D0.2 "Draft Standard for Wireless Regional Area
    Networks Part 22: Cognitive Wireless RAN Medium Access Control (MAC)
    and Physical Layer (PHY) specifications: Policies and procedures for
    operation in the TV Bands," prepared by the IEEE 802.22 Working
    Group of the LAN/MAN Standards Committee, November 2006. We note,
    however, that the IEEE 802.22 plan does not provide for fixed
    devices to communicate with personal/portable devices on a
    master/client basis.

[^5]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 15.

[^6]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.5.

[^7]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.205 and 15.209. Section 15.205 sets forth
    the restricted bands for operation where unlicensed intentional
    radiators are not allowed to operate. Section 15.209 provides the
    general radiated emission limits that apply to intentional
    radiators, including limits on their out-of-band emissions. Remote
    control and medical telemetry devices are the only unlicensed
    transmitters that are currently permitted to operate in the TV
    bands. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242.

[^8]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.603(a). After February 17, 2009, only low
    power television stations will be permitted to operate on channels
    52-69.

[^9]: *See* for example, Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact
    upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket 87-268,
    *Sixth Report and Order*, 12 FCC Rcd 14588 (1997).

[^10]: The analog and digital TV channels currently used by full service
    TV stations are set forth in Sections 73.606 and 73.622 of the
    rules, respectively, *see* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.606 and 73.622. In
    developing the initial Table of Allotments for stations' digital TV
    operations, the channels were selected to minimize or prevent
    interference between digital stations and between analog and digital
    stations. Requests for modification of stations on channels in the
    initial (1998) DTV Table of Allotments are evaluated for technical
    acceptability using minimum desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal
    ratios, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(c). New digital allotments added
    after the initial digital TV Table of Allotments must meet minimum
    separation distances to both digital and analog TV stations, *see*
    47 C.F.R. § 73.623(d). The Commission has issued a *Report and
    Order* in the third DTV periodic review in which it, *inter alia*,
    modified the technical standards for new stations and modifications
    of digital and analog stations to prepare for stations' final
    conversion to all digital operation, *see* *Report and Order* in MB
    Docket No. 07-91,23 FCC Rcd 2994 (2007).

[^11]: *See* Title III of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L.
    109--171, 120 Stat. 4, 21 (Feb. 8, 2006).

[^12]: *See Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, *supra; see
    also*, *First Report and Order* in WT Docket No. 99-168, 15 FCC Rcd
    476 (2000), *Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 97-157, 12 FCC Rcd
    22953 (1998) and *Report and Order* in GN Docket No. 01-74, 17 FCC
    Rcd 1022 (2002).

[^13]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.610, 622, 623, and 699.

[^14]: The separations differ depending on the zone where the stations
    are located and whether the stations are in the VHF or UHF band.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(d).

[^15]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 73 Subpart J. Class A TV stations operate at
    the power levels permitted for low power television stations under
    Part 74 of the rules, but have certain protection rights with
    respect to full service analog and digital TV stations that are not
    available to TV translator and low power stations.

[^16]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 74 Subpart G.

[^17]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.602(h). This rule section permits TV
    studio-transmitter links, TV relay stations, and TV translator relay
    stations to be authorized to operate fixed point-to-point service on
    UHF TV channels 14-69 on a secondary basis, subject to the
    provisions in Part 74, subpart G.

[^18]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.861.

[^19]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 90 Subpart L and 47 C.F.R. Part 22 Subpart
    E.

[^20]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242. Effective October
    16, 2002, the Commission ceased granting certifications for new
    medical telemetry equipment that operates on TV channels, but there
    is no cutoff on the sale or use of equipment that was certified
    before that date, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 15.37(i). To provide spectrum
    for wireless medical telemetry equipment, the Commission established
    the Wireless Medical Telemetry Service to operate on a primary basis
    in 13.5 megahertz of spectrum in three spectrum blocks at 608-614
    MHz (TV channel 37, which the WMTS now shares with radio astronomy),
    1395-1400 MHz, and 1427-1429.5 MHz. *See* Amendment of Parts 2 and
    95 of the Commission\'s Rules to Create A Wireless Medical Telemetry
    Service, *Report and Order,* ET Docket No. 99-255, 15 FCC Rcd 11206
    (2000). *See also,* Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 27, and 90 of the
    Commission\'s Rules to License Services in the 216-220 MHz,
    1390-1395 MHz, 1427-1429 MHz, 1429-1432 MHz, 1432-1435 MHz,
    1670-1675 MHz, and 2385-2390 MHz Government Transfer Bands, WT
    Docket No. 02-8, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 16920
    (2003).

[^21]: See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 NG66(b) and 47 C.F.R. § 22.1007.

[^22]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.591.

[^23]: *See Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in ET Docket Nos. 02-380 and
    04-186, 19 FCC Rcd 10018 (2004).

[^24]: *See* Intel *Notice* comments at 2, Microsoft *Notice* comments
    at 3, Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) *Notice* reply comments
    at 3, Motorola *Notice* comments at 1, Telecommunications Industry
    Association (TIA) *Notice* comments at 4, IEEE 802 *Notice* comments
    at 4, NAF *Notice* comments at 1, and Wireless Internet Service
    Provider's Association (WISPA) *Notice* comments at 4.

[^25]: *See*, for example, National Cable and Telecommunications
    Association (NCTA) *Notice* reply comments at 4, National
    Association of Broadcasters and Association for Maximum Service
    Television (NAB/MSTV) *Notice* reply comments at 6, Society of
    Broadcast Engineers (SBE) *Notice* reply comments at 1, Community
    Broadcasters Association (CBA) *Notice* reply comments at 3,
    National Translator Association (NTA) *Notice* comments at 1,
    Entravision Holdings *Notice* comments at 2, Southwest Colorado TV
    Translator Association *Notice* comments at 1, Syncom Media Group
    *Notice* comments at 1, Cox Broadcasting (Cox) *Notice* comments at
    8, Pappas Telecasting (Pappas) *Notice* comments at 8, and Region 1
    Translator Association *Notice* comments at 2.

[^26]: Direct pick-up interference occurs when undesired signals are
    received on the internal circuitry of a receiver, rather than at its
    input terminal as received from an attached antenna. *See* NAB/MSTV
    reply comments at 14, CEA comments at 10, and NCTA comments at 5.

[^27]: *See*, for example, Shure *Notice* comments at 9, Telex
    Communications *Notice* comments at 2, ATK Audiotek *Notice*
    comments at 2, Michael Mason *Notice* comments at 2, Total RF
    Marketing *Notice* comments at 6, Society of Broadcast Engineers
    *Notice* comments at 2, Sennheiser Electronic Corporation *Notice*
    comments at 2, National Systems Contractors Association *Notice*
    comments at 3, and Professional Audio Manufacturers' Alliance
    *Notice* comments at 3.

[^28]: *See* Motorola reply comments at 4, Land Mobile Communication
    Council (LMCC) *Notice* reply comments at 3, Industrial
    Telecommunications Association (ITA) *Notice* comments at 1, County
    of Los Angeles *Notice* comments at 2, and Association of Public
    Safety Communications Officials (APCO) *Notice* comments at 3.

[^29]: The protected service contour for DTV and analog TV stations are
    contours that define the edge of a station's service area where the
    availability of service is limited by noise. The DTV and analog
    protected service contours are generally termed the "noise-limited"
    and "Grade B" contours, respectively; the definitions of these
    contours are set forth in Sections 73.622(e) and 73.683 of the
    rules, respectively. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.622(e) and 683. The
    definitions of the protected service contours of low power DTV and
    analog stations are specified at signal strength levels that are
    higher than the noise-limited levels. *See* Sections 73.6010, 74.707
    and 74.792 of the rules; *see* also 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.6010 and 74.707
    and 792.

[^30]: *See* Shure *ex parte* comments in ET Docket No. 04-186 submitted
    May 6, 2008.

[^31]: *See* Office of Engineering and Technology, "Interference
    Rejection Thresholds of Consumer Digital Television Receivers
    Available in 2005 and 2006," OET Report FCC/OET 07-TR-1003, March
    30, 2007 (DTV Receiver Study). Peer review of this report was
    undertaken in accordance with OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin
    for Peer Review, 70 Fed. Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).

[^32]: The ATSC provides recommended guidelines for DTV receiver
    performance in its document, "ATSC Recommended Practice: Receiver
    Performance Guidelines," ATSC Doc. A/74, 17 June 2004. The DTV
    Receiver Study found that, after taking into account differences
    between the Gaussian-noise interferer used for most of the tests and
    the 8-VSB interferer specified by the ATSC, the best-performing
    receiver failed to meet the guidelines at only one channel offset,
    and by only 1 dB. A second receiver failed to meet the voluntary
    guidelines by 1 to 2 dB at two channel offsets. The remaining five
    receivers failed to meet the guidelines at two to 16 channel
    offsets; the worst failure for each of those receivers ranged from
    about 8 to 24 dB.

[^33]: *See* Office of Engineering and Technology "Initial Evaluation of
    the Performance of Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices," OET
    Report FCC/OET 07-TR-1006, July 31, 2007 (Initial Measurements
    Report). Devices were submitted for this initial testing by
    Microsoft Corporation and Philips Electronics North America
    Corporation. Peer review of this report was undertaken in accordance
    with OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70 Fed.
    Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).

[^34]: *See* Office of Engineering and Technology "Direct-Pickup
    Interference Tests of Three Consumer Digital Cable Television
    Receivers Available in 2005," OET Report FCC/OET 07-TR-1005, July
    31, 2007 (Direct Pickup Report). Peer review of this report was
    undertaken in accordance with OMB Final Information Quality Bulletin
    for Peer Review, 70 Fed. Reg. 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).

[^35]: The tests for two meters separation were conducted both with and
    without an intervening wall between the interferer and the TV
    receiver. The tests with ten meter separation distances were only
    conducted with an intervening wall between the interferer and the TV
    receiver.

[^36]: *See* Office of Engineering and Technology "Evaluation of the
    Performance of Prototype TV-Band White Space Devices Phase II," OET
    Report FCC/OET 08-TR-1005, October 15, 2008 (Phase II Measurement
    Report). Devices were submitted for the Phase II measurement study
    by Adaptrum, the Institute for Infocomm Research (I2R), Microsoft
    Corporation, Motorola, and Philips Electronics North America
    Corporation. The report is available at
    http://www.fcc.gov/oet/projects/tvbanddevice/Welcome.html under
    Published Reports. The release of this report was announced by
    Public Notice. *See* "The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology
    Releases Report on Tests of Prototype TV White Space Devices,"
    Public Notice, DA 08-2243, ET Docket No. 04-186, rel. Oct. 15, 2008.
    Peer review of this report was undertaken in accordance with OMB
    Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review, 70 Fed. Reg.
    2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The peer review was announced by Public
    Notice. *See* "The FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology
    Releases Peer Review Panel Report on Tests of Prototype TV White
    Space Devices," Public Notice, DA 09-2390, ET Docket No. 04-186,
    rel. Oct. 28, 2008.

[^37]: The Microsoft sample devices ceased functioning during the test
    process and were not repaired or replaced. As a result, only limited
    tests were conducted on these devices.

[^38]: We note that the ability to make this determination is unrelated
    to the determination of whether a household is "served" or
    "unserved" for purposes of the Satellite Home Viewer Improvement
    Act. *See* 17 U.S.C. § 119(a)(2)(B) and (d)(10).

[^39]: *See Notice* at ¶ 14.

[^40]: *See First R&O/Further Notice* at ¶¶ 26-32.

[^41]: *See* Charles L. Jackson and Dorothy Robyn (Jackson/Robyn)
    *Further* Notice comments at 26-32; Cox Broadcasting *Further
    Notice* comments at 6; Qualcomm Inc. *Further Notice* comments at 2;
    MSTV *Further Notice* reply comments at 31; FiberTower Corp. and the
    Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. (RTG) *ex parte* comments at
    4-10 (urging that the vacant TV band spectrum be licensed for fixed
    services to promote broadband deployment in rural areas and to meet
    the urgent need for wireless backhaul facilities); Sprint Nextel
    Corp. and T-Mobile USA, Inc. *ex parte* comments; National
    Telecommunications Cooperative Association *ex parte* comments; GE
    Healthcare *ex parte* comments; CTIA *ex parte* comments at 2
    (suggesting that the Commission adopt a licensing approach while
    reserving a portion of the TV band spectrum for future unlicensed
    use); CTIA and Rural Cellular Association *ex parte* comments at
    2-4; Comptel, RTG, Sprint Nextel Corp., FiberTower Corp. *ex parte*
    comments (suggesting that vacant TV band spectrum be licensed for
    fixed services using the Commission's Part 101 rules) and the
    Wireless Internet Service Providers Association *ex parte*
    presentation July 31, 2008 at 7.

[^42]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 21-23;
    IEEE 802.16 *Further Notice* comments at 5; NAF *Further Notice*
    comments at 9-58; and Tropos Networks *Further Notice* at 5.

[^43]: *See* NAF *et al*. *Further Notice* comments at 42. NAF also
    contends that under the First Amendment the Commission has no right
    to prevent people from speaking via the use of radio communications
    by requiring exclusive licensing where the threat of interference
    does not exists. *Id*. at 53-58.

[^44]: *See* Tropos Networks *Further Notice* comments at 4.

[^45]: *See* Jackson/Robyn *Further Notice* comments at 24-25.

[^46]: *Id.* at 24. *See also* FiberTower Corp. and RTG *ex parte*
    comments at 16-17; CTIA *ex parte* comments at 15-16.
    Jackson/Roberts also hypothesize that low-power personal devices
    such as those the unlicensed advocates envision could be supported
    under a licensed model. They state that device manufacturers could
    contract with a licensee to allow consumers who purchase the devices
    to use them in the white space spectrum. Jackson/Robyn *Further
    Notice* comments at 6. NAF argues that no manufacturer has expressed
    an interest in such an arrangement, licensees would avoid such an
    arrangement because it would be difficult for them to prevent
    unauthorized use of their spectrum, and consumers would be limited
    to buying equipment from a single manufacturer (instead of the large
    number of choices, for example, available with Wi-Fi). NAF Further
    *Notice* comments at 40.

[^47]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 25.

[^48]: *See* Qualcomm Inc. *Further Notice* comments at 6.

[^49]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* comments at 38. FiberTower Corp.
    and RTG *ex parte* comments at 16.

[^50]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 23.

[^51]: *See* Jackson/Robyn *Further Notice* comments at 56-57; MSTV/NAB
    *Further Notice* reply comments at 32-33. FiberTower Corp. and RTG
    *ex parte* comments at 24-26.

[^52]: *See* NAF *et al*. *Further Notice* comments at 47-50.

[^53]: The National Telecommunications Cooperative Association believes
    that the unused TV band spectrum should be licensed but not
    auctioned because the resources of rural carriers are better spent
    on providing services rather than on buying spectrum. *See* National
    Telecommunications Cooperative Association *ex parte* comments.

[^54]: *See* Jackson/Robyn *Further Notice* comments at 15-16.

[^55]: *Id.* at 49-50.

[^56]: *See* NAF *et al*. *Further Notice* technical reply comments at
    12; the White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 19, 23.

[^57]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* comments at 2-5. *See also*
    FiberTower Corp. and the RTG *ex parte* comments at 18-21
    ("Overcrowding and interference would be much worse in the TV white
    spaces because of the excellent propagation characteristics."); CTIA
    *ex parte* comments at 2-3; CTIA and Rural Cellular Association *ex
    parte* comments at 4-5.

[^58]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* reply comments at 31-32 noting
    that interference is avoided in 2.4 GHz band by the fact that the
    propagation distances are short so in effect property owners are
    acting as their own interference coordinators. They state that the
    propagation properties of the TV band are such that this will not be
    the case in unlicensed white space operation.

[^59]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* comments at 30.

[^60]: *See* Jackson/Robyn *Further Notice* comments at 41.

[^61]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at
    4-16.

[^62]: *See* Nextwave Broadband Inc. reply comments at 2-3; IEEE 802.16
    comments at 5 (IEEE would prefer a completely unlicensed approach
    but supports a hybrid scheme as an acceptable and viable
    alternative), WISPA *ex parte* presentation of July 31, 2008 at
    7-16.

[^63]: The rules for licensed operation in the 3650-3700 MHz band on a
    non-exclusive basis are set forth in 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.1301-.1337.

[^64]: *See* *Notice* at ¶¶ 14-16.

[^65]: *See First R&O/Further Notice* at ¶ 1.

[^66]: *Id.* at ¶ 27.

[^67]: On August 3 2004, the Commission imposed a freeze on the filing
    of certain requests for changes to TV and DTV channels and service
    areas. *See* Public Notice, "Freeze on the Filing of Certain TV and
    DTV Requests for Allotment or Service Area Changes," 19 FCC Rcd
    14810, 14810-11 (2004) ("*August 2004 Filing Freeze PN*"). This
    freeze was imposed prior to the commencement of the channel election
    process, in order to provide a stable database for developing the
    post-transition DTV Table. The freeze precluded parties from filing
    the following: (i) petitions for rulemaking to change DTV channels
    within the current DTV Table; (ii) petitions for rulemaking to
    establish a new DTV channel allotment; (iii) petitions for
    rulemaking to swap in-core DTV and NTSC channels; (iv) applications
    to change DTV channel allotments among two or more licensees; (v)
    petitions for rulemaking by licensees/permittees to change NTSC
    channels or communities of license; (vi) applications to maximize
    DTV or analog TV facilities; and (vii) certain Class A television
    station applications. The freeze did not prevent the processing of
    pending applications. *See* *id*.; s*ee also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.1690,
    73.3533, 73.3538. On May 30, 2008, the Commission lifted this
    freeze. That action effectively allowed stations to file
    applications for maximization of their facilities and any desired
    channel changes, immediately and the Commission encouraged stations
    to file promptly. That action did not, however, lift the current
    freeze on filing of petitions for allotment of DTV channels for new
    stations, or for changes in community of license. *See* Public
    Notice, "*Commission Lifts the Freeze on the Filing of Maximization
    Applications and Petitions for Digital Channel Substitutions,
    Effective Immediately,"* DA-1213, released May 30, 2008.

[^68]: *See* *First R&O/Further Notice*, at ¶ 14.

[^69]: *See* Wireless Operations in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, ET Docket
    No. 04-151, *Report & Order*, 20 FCC Rcd 6502 (2005); *see also*
    Rules for Wireless Broadband Services in the 3650-3700 MHz Band, WT
    Docket No. 05-96; Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below
    900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380, *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 22 FCC Rcd 10421 (2007).

[^70]: *Id*. at ¶ 7.

[^71]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 16.

[^72]: *See Notice* at ¶ 18.

[^73]: Spectrum sensing is also susceptible to a potential shortcoming
    that is sometimes referred to as the "hidden node problem." In the
    case of unlicensed devices in the TV band, this problem could arise
    when there is signal blockage between the unlicensed device and a TV
    station, but no blockage between the TV station and a TV receiver
    and no blockage between the unlicensed device and the same TV
    receiver. In such a case, the sensing receiver in the unlicensed
    device may not detect the presence of the TV signal because it is
    blocked, and the unlicensed device may therefore commence
    transmissions on an occupied channel, thus causing interference at
    the TV receiver. *See* *ex parte* presentation by Shared Spectrum
    Company in ET Docket No. 02-380, on September 29, 2003.

[^74]: For example, a TV band spectrum sensing function could be made
    more sensitive, *i.e.*, made to detect lower signal levels, by using
    bandwidths much smaller than a 6 MHz TV channel and/or looking for
    specific features of the TV signal such as the pilot for digital TV
    or the visual and audio carriers for analog TV. *See Notice of
    Proposed Rule Making and Order* in ET Docket No. 03-108, 18 FCC Rcd
    26859 (2003).

[^75]: *See Notice* at ¶ 26.

[^76]: *Id.* at ¶ 21.

[^77]: *Id.* at ¶ 20.

[^78]: *See Further Notice* at 12285.

[^79]: *Id.* at ¶ 33.

[^80]: *Id.* at ¶ 30.

[^81]: *See* NAB/MSTV *Further Notice* comments at 14, IEEE 802 comments
    at 8, and Society of Broadcast Engineers *Further Notice* comments
    at 3.

[^82]: The geo-location/database method is supported by the American
    Society for Healthcare Engineering of the American Hospital
    association (*Further Notice* comments at 5-6), Communications
    Research Centre Canada (*Further Notice* comments at 1), IEEE 802.18
    comments at 21, Motorola *Further Notice* comments at iii and reply
    comments at 5-6, MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* reply comments at 16-17,
    NCTA (*Further Notice* comments at 6), and the WISPA (*Further
    Notice* reply comments at 3).

[^83]: *See* Motorola *Notice* reply comments at 6.

[^84]: *See* Motorola *Further Notice* reply comments at 6.

[^85]: *See* Motorola *Notice* comments at 20.

[^86]: *See* Communications Research Centre Canada *Notice* comments at
    1.

[^87]: *See* IEEE 802 *Notice* comments at 9, Intel *Notice* comments at
    19, Motorola *Notice* reply comments at 8 and NAF *Notice* reply
    comments at 24.

[^88]: *See* IEEE 802 *Notice* comments at 9, Intel *Notice* comments at
    19, Josephson Engineering *Notice* comments at 4, Motorola *Notice*
    reply comments at 8 and NAF *Notice* reply comments at 24.

[^89]: *See* Intel *Notice* comments at 19, Josephson Engineering
    *Notice* comments at 3, Motorola *Notice* reply comments at 8 and
    NAF *Notice* reply comments at 24.

[^90]: *See* NCTA *Notice* reply comments at 13-14.

[^91]: *See* Nextwave Broadband *Notice* comments at 5.

[^92]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Notice* comments at 21. This approach requires
    that each DTV station transmit a unique identification code or
    "watermark" that can be detected by the TV band device.

[^93]: *See* White Space Coalition *Notice* comments at 10.

[^94]: *See* Tropos *Notice* comments at 4 and Harris *Notice* comments
    at 8.

[^95]: *See* Coalition *Notice* comments at 10; NAF *Notice* technical
    comments at 13. The NAF believes that use of geo-location and a
    database should not be required, but instead should be one option of
    several possible ways TV band devices could avoid interference. NAF
    *Notice* comments at 69.

[^96]: *See* Tropos Networks *Notice* comments at 12.

[^97]: *See* WISPA *Notice* comments at 3.

[^98]: *See* Coalition *Notice* comments at 10 and Thomas C. Smith
    *Notice* comments at 10.

[^99]: *See* White Space Coalition *Notice* comments at 9-11.

[^100]: *See* Shure *Notice* comments at 10.

[^101]: *See* Advanced Broadband *Notice* comments at 4.

[^102]: *See* WISPA *Notice* comments at 2.

[^103]: The spectrum sensing method is supported by CEA (*Further
    Notice* comments at 3-5), the White Space Coalition (*Further
    Notice* comments at 5-7), NAF, *et al.* (*Further Notice* comments
    at 63-67), and Tropos Networks (*Further Notice* comments at 10).

[^104]: *See* for example, NAF, *et al.* *Notice* comments at 63-64. A
    "hidden node" is a location where an obstruction is present between
    the sensing receiver and the signal to be detected. In this case,
    the sensing receiver may fail to detect that a channel is occupied
    and begin transmitting, thus causing interference to other nearby
    parties attempting to receive that channel along an unobstructed
    path.

[^105]: *See* for example, NAF, *et al. Notice* comments at 65 and White
    Space Coalition *Notice* comments at 3.

[^106]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 3-4.

[^107]: *See* NAF *Further Notice* comments at 65-66.

[^108]: *See* Tropos Networks *Further Notice* comments at 10.

[^109]: *See* WISPA *Further Notice* comments at 3.

[^110]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 3.

[^111]: *See* NAF, et al. *Further Notice* comments at 83.

[^112]: *See* NAF *Further Notice* technical comments at 17.

[^113]: *See* for example, Grand Ole Opry and Microphone Interests
    Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at 4, IEEE 802.18
    *Further* Notice comments at 6-7, and MSTV/NAB *Further Notice*
    comments at 9-10.

[^114]: *See* MSTV and NAB *Further Notice* reply comments at 11.

[^115]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further* Notice comments at 11-13.

[^116]: *See* MSTV and NAB *Further Notice* reply comments at 14.

[^117]: *See* "DTV Signal Measurements in the Washington-Baltimore Area"
    MSTV, attachment to the MSTV/NAB comments on Commission's Initial
    Prototype Devices Report, August 15, 2007 (MSTV Field Study).

[^118]: *See* NAF reply comments to the Commission's Initial Prototype
    Devices Report, September 4, 2007 at 12-17.

[^119]: *See* Motorola *Further Notice* reply comments at 5, McGraw Hill
    Broadcasting *Further Notice* comments at 3, and Media General
    *Further Notice* comments at 2.

[^120]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* reply comments at 5.

[^121]: *See* Professional Audio Manufacturers Alliance *Further Notice*
    reply comments at 4.

[^122]: *See* GE Healthcare *Further Notice* comments at 6.

[^123]: *See* Shure *Notice* comments at 14 *Notice Reply* comments at
    7.

[^124]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 6, NAB and MSTV
    *Further Notice* reply comments at 11, and Shure *Further Notice*
    comments at 14-16.

[^125]: *See* NCTA *Further Notice* reply comments at 12-13.

[^126]: *See* for example, White Space Coalition *Notice* comments at
    9-10.

[^127]: *Id.*

[^128]: *See* NAF, *et* al, *Notice* comments at 68-69, Tropos Networks
    *Notice* comments at 12-13, and White Space Coalition *Notice*
    comments at 9-10.

[^129]: *See* CBA *Further Notice* comments at 4.

[^130]: The specific protection criteria for licensed services are
    discussed in the section below on protection of broadcast television
    and other services.

[^131]: The service threshold values for signals in the UHF TV band are:
    DTV signals -84 dBm, analog TV ‑63 dBm, and wireless microphones -87
    dBm.

[^132]: Most DTV stations operate on UHF frequencies. Other analytical
    values are appropriate for use in evaluating a minimum sensing
    threshold for the high VHF and low VHF bands (see below), but our
    conclusion on the issue of whether sensing should be permitted to be
    used as the only means of determining the availability of channels
    for use by white space devices can be adequately explained by only
    examining signals in the UHF band.

[^133]: *See* *Sixth Report and Order* in MM Docket No. 87-268, 12 FCC
    Rcd 14558 (1997) at ¶¶ 183-195 and Appendix B; *see also* "OET
    Bulletin No. 69, Longley-Rice Methodology for Evaluating TV Coverage
    and Interference," FCC Office of Engineering and Technology,
    February 6, 2004 at Table 4 (OET-69 is available at
    http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Documents/bulletins/oet69/oet69.pdf.
    Using this receive system model, the ‑84 dBm signal strength (in
    milliwatts) needed for UHF service at the receiver terminal means
    that the minimum field strength (in microvolts) needed to receive a
    signal is 41 dBu. The formula for this model and the conversion of
    received field strength into signal strength is provided in OET-69,
    page 4.

[^134]: *See* MSTV *Further Notice* comments at footnote 29 and written
    *ex parte* submission, May 21, 2007.

[^135]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 6

[^136]: *See* NAF *Further Notice* technical comments at 17. The NAF
    specifically states that it "believes a sensitivity level in the
    range of -110 to -115 dBm should be adequate to protect TV receivers
    given mobile powers of 100 mW." We subtracted -84 dBm from these
    figures to obtain the values indicated above, but recognize that the
    NAF may have considered other factors in their suggestion for a
    minimum sensing threshold.

[^137]: *See* Motorola written *ex parte* presentation of October 18,
    2007 at 17-20.

[^138]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.682(e). Section 73.622(e) further provides that
    "\[w\]ithin this contour, service is considered available at
    locations where the station's signal strength, as predicted by the
    Longley-Rice propagation model, exceeds \[the noise-limited service
    levels."

[^139]: The Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of
    2004, Pub. L. No. 108-447, § 204, 118 Stat 2809, 3393 3423-24,
    (2004), codified at 47 U.S.C. §339(c)(1). The SHVERA was enacted as
    title IX of the "Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005."

[^140]: On December 9, 2005, as required by Section 204(b) of the
    SHVERA, the Commission issued a *Report to Congress, "Study of
    Digital Television Field Strength Standards and Testing Procedures"*
    (*SHVERA Report*), ET Docket No. 05-182, 20 FCC Rcd. 19504 (rel.
    Dec. 9, 2005).

[^141]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in ET Docket No. 06-94, 21
    FCC Rcd 4735 (2006) at ¶ 5. Therein, the Commission indicated that
    while these measurement procedures would be generally applicable for
    measuring digital TV signal strengths, they would specifically be
    used in determining if a household is served by a digital television
    signal as part of an evaluation of the household's eligibility to
    receive a distant digital network signal from a satellite television
    provider.

[^142]: *See* The White Space Coalition's written *ex parte*
    presentation "Microsoft/Philips Field Tests" Report of September 20,
    2007; *see also* MSTV Field Study.

[^143]: With respect to its indoor measurements, the MSTV Study showed
    significant variations in the field strength of local TV stations in
    different rooms and outdoors at ground level at residential
    locations within the stations' service areas, while at the same time
    reception was generally available on the homes' DTV receiving
    system. *See also* Attachment to NAF Technical comments, "White
    Spaces Engineering Study: Can Cognitive Radio Technology Operating
    in the TV White Spaces Completely Protect Licensed TV Broadcasting?"
    Working Paper #16, (NAF Study) Mark Sturza and Farzad Ghazvinian,
    January 2007. The NAF conducted field tests at three residences
    located 25-26 miles from local DTV station transmitters (these sites
    would be expected to be moderate field strength locations) and found
    variations in DTV field strengths within individual residences of
    39.1 dB, 35.3 dB, and 22.4 dB. The White Space Coalition's
    "Microsoft/Philips Field Tests" Report of September 20, 2007
    indicated a number of instances in which DTV signal strengths varied
    by more than 20 dB at different locations within a
    building/residence and one site where the DTV signal variation
    within a room was more than 30 dB. *See* "Microsoft/Philips Field
    Tests," presented to OET September 20, 2007 (PowerPoint
    presentation).

[^144]: We understand that an argument could be made for using the
    highest level of the 20 dB range in indoor measurements as the
    signal level that would be determined using the 30 dB difference
    between an indoor and an outdoor antenna. However, use of the middle
    of this range provides a conservative analysis and does not change
    the basic conclusion of our analysis in any case.

[^145]: White Space Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at 9-10.

[^146]: 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e).

[^147]: Using the TM90 propagation model (this model is for short
    distances and low antennas), for the situation in which an indoor
    unlicensed TV band device would impact an outdoor DTV antenna at 30
    feet, our staff calculates that a 100 mW signal could cause
    interference at a distance of 1400 meters in locations where the DTV
    co-channel D/U ratio is 23 dB and at a distance of 900 meters in
    locations where the DTV co-channel D/U ratio is 15 dB. *See*
    "Propagation in Suburban Areas at Distances less than Ten Miles,"
    William Daniel and Harry Wong, January 25, 1991. We also note that
    the anecdotal transmitter tests at out Laboratory showed co-channel
    interference at 360 meters (1180 feet), which was the maximum
    possible separation that could be achieved at the Laboratory.

[^148]: If the separate antenna became detached such that the Mode II
    personal/portable device is no longer able to determine its location
    it will be required to cease transmitting.

[^149]: A TV signal occupies essentially all of a 6 MHz TV channel
    whereas a wireless microphone occupies only a 200 kHz segment of a
    TV channel (multiple wireless microphones can use a single TV
    channel). In addition, wireless microphones use different analog and
    digital modulation methods than the analog and digital modulation
    methods used for television transmissions.

[^150]: *See* Shure *Notice* comments at 14 and IEEE 802.18 *Further
    Notice* comments at 9. We also note that the White Space Coalition
    recommended a minimum sensing threshold level of -114 dBm in their
    comments responding to the *Further Notice*, at 7. While a sensing
    threshold of -114 dBm may not identify a TV station not in the
    database at every location within the station's service area, the
    station's signal will be above that level at enough locations that
    its presence will be identified and reported to the database
    administrator so that the database can be corrected. We note that a
    -114 dBm detection threshold in 6 MHz is equivalent to -132 dBm in a
    100 kHz bandwidth.

[^151]: Although we appreciate the CBA's offer that its member stations
    could serve as control signal transmitters, its member stations
    could not provide the near ubiquitous coverage that would be needed
    to support a viable control signal system for unlicensed TVBD
    devices.

[^152]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 25; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 15.247(b)(3).

[^153]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b) and 2.1091.

[^154]: *See First Report and Order* at ¶ 17.

[^155]: *See* Shure *Notice* reply comments at 20.

[^156]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Notice* comments at 6.

[^157]: *See* CWLab *Notice* comments at 3 and Shared Spectrum Company
    *Notice* reply comments at 5.

[^158]: *See* Society of Broadcast Engineers *Notice* comments at 1.

[^159]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* comments at 33.

[^160]: *See* Cox Broadcasting *Further Notice* comments at 4, ION Media
    Networks *Further Notice* comments at 3, McGraw-Hill Broadcasting
    *Further Notice* comments at 3, and Media General *Further Notice*
    comments at 2.

[^161]: *See Report and Order* in ET Docket No. 03-133, 18 FCC Rcd 24484
    (2003) at Appendix C; *see also* 47 C.F.R. § 15.202.

[^162]: In this context, "not initialized" means that the TV band device
    has not yet registered with and accessed the database to determine a
    list of available channels.

[^163]: Because of the relatively low power that TV band devices will be
    permitted to use, both of the TV band devices will be located fairly
    close to one another. The lists of television channels available for
    use by the two devices are therefore likely to be the same in most
    cases. There will, however, be cases where a fixed device that
    obtains its internet connection through another fixed device may be
    located in the service area of a different group of licensed
    stations. This is particularly likely to occur if a fixed device
    obtains service from another fixed device that itself does not have
    a direct connection to the internet.

[^164]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b).

[^165]: *Id.*

[^166]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 18.

[^167]: *See* *Notice* at ¶ 22.

[^168]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 18.

[^169]: *See* Harris *Notice* comments at 6.

[^170]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 5.

[^171]: *See* Consumer Electronics Association *Notice* comments at 5
    and NCTA *Further Notice* comments at 12.

[^172]: *See* Telex *Notice* comments 4 and Shure *Notice* reply
    comments at 7.

[^173]: *See* MSTV and NAB *Further Notice* comments at 34.

[^174]: *See* Cox Broadcasting *Further Notice* comments at 4,
    McGraw-Hill *Further Notice* comments at 3, and Media General
    *Further Notice* comments at 3.

[^175]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* comments at 6.

[^176]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* comments at 8.

[^177]: *See* Professional Audio Manufacturers' Alliance *Further
    Notice* comments at 8, Audio Technica *Further Notice* comments at 9
    and Grand Ole Opry and Microphone Interests Coalition *Further
    Notice* comments at 2.

[^178]: The standards for RF exposure are contained in Section 1.1310 of
    the rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 1.1310.

[^179]: For the purpose of radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation,
    mobile devices are defined as a transmitting device designed to be
    used in other than fixed locations and to generally be use in such a
    way that a separation distance of at least 20 centimeters (7.9
    inches) is normally maintained between the transmitter\'s radiating
    structure(s) and the body of the user or nearby persons. *See* 47
    C.F.R. §2.1091(b). The Commission routinely exempts mobile devices
    in bands below 1.5 GHz that radiate less than 1.5 watts ERP (3.9 dBW
    EIRP) from environmental evaluation for RF exposure. *See* 47 C.F.R
    §2.1091(c).

[^180]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(h)(2)(i). Master and client modes are
    defined in the U-NII compliance measurement procedure found in the
    appendix of the *Memorandum Opinion and Order* in ET Docket No.
    03-122, 21 FCC Rcd 7672, 7682 (2006).

[^181]: 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.1091 and 2.1093

[^182]: EIRP is referenced to a theoretical point source radiator,
    whereas ERP is referenced to a dipole radiator. Power measurements
    of EIRP are 1.64 (2.15 dB) times higher than measurements of ERP for
    the same transmit output power level. Therefore, 400 mW EIRP is
    equivalent to 244 mW ERP (400 mW/1.64).

[^183]: *Notice* at ¶¶ 33-37.

[^184]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.305 and 47 C.F.R. § 22.625. PLMRS/CMRS base
    stations must be located within 80 kilometers (50 miles) of the
    center of the cities where they are permitted to operate on channels
    14-20 (470-512 MHz), and mobile units may be operated within 48
    kilometers (30 miles) of their associated base station or stations.
    Thus, mobile stations may be operated at up to 128 kilometers (80
    miles) from the city center. We also note that there are numerous
    licensed land mobile operators, including public safety entities
    that currently operate, pursuant to waiver, on defined channels in
    channels 14-20 at specified locations outside those markets
    specifically designated in the Part 90 rules. *See, e.g.*, Goosetown
    Enterprises Inc., 16 FCC Rcd 12792 (2001).

[^185]: Under this approach, PLMRS/CMRS operations would be protected
    within a circle of radius 130 kilometers from the city center
    coordinates. This is the area in which such operations are permitted
    under the rules. As is the case for LPTV stations, the field
    strength from an unlicensed device on a co- or adjacent channel
    would not be permitted to exceed 52 dBu or 76 dBu, respectively, at
    the 130 km protected contour of the PLMS/CMRS metropolitan area.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.709(d).

[^186]: *Id*. at ¶ 38.

[^187]: *First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking* at ¶¶ 19-21.

[^188]: *Id*. at ¶ 56.

[^189]: *Id*. at ¶ 57.

[^190]: *See* NAF/CUWN Petition for Reconsideration at 7-8.

[^191]: *See* NAF et al. comments at 78; CEA comments at 6.

[^192]: *See* Motorola comments at 10-11.

[^193]: *See* LMCC comments at 9.

[^194]: *See* The County of Los Angeles *Further Notice* comments at 2.

[^195]: *See* Comm Enterprises, LLC *Further Notice* comments at 6.

[^196]: *See* CEA *Further Notice* comments at 6; NCTA *Further Notice*
    comments at 13-15; Echostar *Further Notice* comments at 2; IEEE
    802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 23-24.

[^197]: *See* CEA *Further Notice* comments at 6.

[^198]: *See* NAF et al. *Further Notice* comments at 83. The NAF notes
    that the use of channels 2-4 would result in significantly more
    whitespace because these channels are considered undesirable for
    DTV. *Id*.

[^199]: *See* NCTA *Further Notice* comments at 13-15.

[^200]: *See* GE Healthcare *Further Notice* comments at 5. As indicated
    above, wireless medical telemetry devices operate on channels 7-13
    (174-216 MHz) and channels 14-46 (470-668) MHz on an unlicensed
    basis under Sections 15.241 and 15.242 of the rules; WMTS devices
    operate on channel 37 (608-614 MHz) on a licensed basis under
    Sections 95.1101-1113 of the rules. WMTS devices are also authorized
    to use the frequency bands as 1395-1400 MHz and 1427-1429.5 MHz.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.241-.242 and 47 C.F.R. § 95.1101-.1113. Section
    15.37(i) also provides that new equipment approvals may no longer be
    obtained for medical telemetry devices operating under Sections
    15.241 or 15.242 after October 22, 2002. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.37(i).

[^201]: *See* GE Healthcare comments at 3; American Society of
    Healthcare Engineering *Further Notice* comments at 4.

[^202]: *See* GE Healthcare *Further Notice* comments at 6, 8-9.

[^203]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at
    34.

[^204]: *See* GE Healthcare *ex parte* submission of May 6, 2008.

[^205]: *See* NRAO *Further Notice* comments at 8.

[^206]: *See* Section 15.712(h) of the rules in Appendix B for the
    locations of these radio astronomy facilities.

[^207]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at
    29-31.

[^208]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* reply comments at 8.

[^209]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* comments at 12-14.

[^210]: *See Notice* at ¶ 17.

[^211]: Conversely, fixed devices will be excluded from channels 3 and
    4, channels 14-20 in areas where PLMRS/CMRS services operate, and
    channel 37; personal/portable devices will be excluded from channels
    2-20 and channel 37.

[^212]: NCTA *Further Notice* comments at 10-11. NCTA includes in
    Appendix II of its comments a study of the shielding effectiveness
    analog TV receiver performed by Carl T. Jones Corporation in 1993,
    "Customer Premises Equipment Performance and Compatibility Testing,"
    Section 3. This study examined the direct-pickup performance of 35
    television sets that comprised a representative sample of various
    manufacturers and models and found that the television receivers
    provided very poor shielding at the low VHF channels.

[^213]: We emphasize that in this proceeding we are not altering the
    channels on which wireless microphones may operate.

[^214]: If use of these channels by PLMRS/CMRS and other services is
    expanded in the future, we will require that the database be updated
    to include those expansions.

[^215]: *See* letter of March 1, 2005 from Frederick R. Wentland,
    Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration to Edmond J.
    Thomas, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal
    Communications Commission (NTIA letter).

[^216]: *See* *ex parte* submission of Shure

[^217]: As indicated above, the protected contours are defined by 47
    C.F.R. § 73.683(a) for analog TV stations, 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.6010(a)
    for Class A TV stations, 47 C.F.R. § 74.707(a)(1) for low power TV,
    TV translator and TV booster stations, 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e) for
    digital TV stations, 47 C.F.R. § 74.792 for digital low power TV and
    TV translator stations, and 47 C.F.R. § 73.6010(d) for digital Class
    A stations.

[^218]: *See Notice* at ¶¶ 29-32.

[^219]: The methodology for determining station protected contours and
    the propagation curves are described and presented in Sections
    73.684 and 73.699 of the rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 73.684 and
    73.699.

[^220]: *See Notice* at ¶ 30. Adjacent channels are the first channels
    immediately above and below the channel on which a TV station
    operates.

[^221]: *See Notice* at 10032.

[^222]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.623(c).

[^223]: *See Notice* at ¶ 31.

[^224]: The frequency separation between channels 4 and 5 is 4 MHz,
    between channels 6 and 7 is 86 MHz and between channels 13 and 14 is
    254 MHz.

[^225]: The frequencies used for the individual television channels are
    set forth in Section 73.603 of the rules. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.603.

[^226]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 9, and MSTV/NAB
    *Further Notice* comments at 16.

[^227]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further* Notice comments at 15.

[^228]: *See* MSTV/NAB *Further Notice* comments at 16.

[^229]: For example, s*ee* National Translator Association *Notice*
    comments at 1, Entravision Holdings comments to the *Notice* at 2,
    and Community Broadcasters Association *Notice* comments at 5*.* We
    note that "full service" TV stations, which are subject to the
    public service requirements of Part 73 of the rules, 47 C.F.R. Part
    73, are also sometimes referred to as "full power" stations; however
    in some cases low power stations actually operate with higher power
    and to service larger areas than some full service stations.

[^230]: *See* SBE *Notice* comments at 3.

[^231]: *See* Entravision Holdings *Notice* comments at 3, National
    Translator Association *Notice* comments at 1, Syncom Media Group
    *Notice* comments at 1, and Pikes Peak Broadcasting Company *Notice*
    comments at 1.

[^232]: *See* IEEE 802 *Notice* comments at 15 and CDE *Notice* comments
    at 6.

[^233]: *See Report and Order* in BC Docket No. 78-253, 51 R.R. 2^nd^
    476 (1982). Section 74.792 provides that the protected contours of
    digital low power and TV translator stations are: 43 dBu on channels
    2-6, 48 dBu on channels 7-13 and 51 dBu on channels 14-69, *see* 47
    C.F.R. § 74.792(a). The same contour values were adopted for analog
    Class A TV stations in view of the provision in the Community
    Broadcasters Protection Act of 1999 (which enabled the Class A
    service) to preserve the service areas of those LPTV stations that
    qualified to be upgraded to Class A status.  The LPTV and Class A TV
    digital contour values were chosen to yield digital service areas of
    roughly comparable size to analog LPTV areas. These signal levels
    compare to the full service television protected service thresholds
    of 28 dBu on channels 2-6, 36 dBu on channels 7-13 and 41 dBu on
    channels 14-69, *see* 47 C.F.R. § 73.622(e).

[^234]: As the Commission previously decided, TVBD devices will not be
    permitted to operate until after the end of the DTV transition when
    full service analog broadcasting ceases.

[^235]: The principal function of OET Bulletin No. 69 is to calculate
    the area served by a DTV station. The OET Bulletin No. 69 method
    calculates the protected contour of a station as part of the
    prediction method , and it refers to the methods in the rules for
    calculating a TV station's protected contour, *i.e.,* the F(50,90)
    curves for digital TV stations and the F(50,50) curves for analog TV
    stations.

[^236]: These analyses reflect the scenarios for reception of TV.

[^237]: As stated above, the threshold signal level for digital TV
    service in the UHF band is ‑84 dBm at the terminal of a DTV
    receiver. Thus, using the 33 dB D/U for adjacent channel protection,
    -84 dBm + 33 dB yields an adjacent channel signal threshold of -51
    dBm.

[^238]: A Fresnel zone or ellipsoid is defined as the area around the
    visual line-of-sight into which radio waves spread after they leave
    the antenna. Radio waves reflecting off objects within this zone
    generally arrive out of phase with signals that travel directly. The
    effect is a reduction in received signal strength compared to radio
    transmissions through an unobstructed Fresnel zone.

[^239]: For the distance between the personal/portable device and the
    rooftop TV antenna, we assumed the antenna is 8 meters above the
    device at one meter and that the rooftop antenna is separated
    horizontally by 16 meters. We then calculated the slant-range
    distance between the two locations.

[^240]: *See* DTV Receiver Study at pp. 5-9, 15-13.

[^241]: *See* Google *ex parte* presentation of October 27, 2008.

[^242]: *See* Motorola *ex parte* presentation of October 28, 2008.

[^243]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.240 and 15.242.

[^244]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 73.699.

[^245]: *See* Okumura, Y., *et. al.*, "Field Strength and its
    Variability in VHF and UHF Land-Mobile Radio Service," [Review of
    the Electrical Communication Laboratory, Vol. 16, Nos. 9-10,
    1968.]{.underline}

[^246]: In specifying the distances in Table 3, we assume that the TVBD
    antenna is located in an area where it is not situated significantly
    above the average terrain elevation. While there could be some
    increased potential for interference from a device that is located
    on high terrain, we believe that such installations will be
    infrequent. In addition, our registration requirement will make it
    possible to identify and rectify any interference that might arise
    from locating a device on high terrain.

[^247]: A TV translator receive site is a facility at which a translator
    receives the full service station signal it retransmits (note that
    it is not one of the individual viewer locations that receive a
    translator's signal).

[^248]: *See* National Translator Association *Notice* comments at 6.

[^249]: *See* National Translator Association *Further Notice* comments
    at 4.

[^250]: *See* NCTA *Further Notice* comments at 15.

[^251]: The record does not address specific protection standards for
    cable headends. However, given that the receive circumstances for TV
    translators and cable headends located outside TV services are
    essentially the same, we believe that the same protection measures
    are appropriate for both.

[^252]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §74.602(h). A TV STL station is a fixed station
    used for the transmission of TV program material and related
    communications from the studio to the transmitter of a TV broadcast,
    Class A TV or low power TV station. A TV relay station is a fixed
    station used for transmission of TV program material and related
    communications for use by TV broadcast, Class A TV and low power TV
    stations. A TV translator relay station is a fixed station used for
    relaying programs and signals of TV broadcast or Class A TV stations
    to Class A TV, low power TV and TV translator stations. *See* 47
    C.F.R. § 74.601.

[^253]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §74.602(h)(1).

[^254]: *See* SBE *Notice* comments at 3-4.

[^255]: *See Notice at* ¶¶ 35-36. The areas where PLMRS/CMRS operations
    are permitted on a waiver basis are identified on the Commission's
    Universal Licensing System Database at
    http://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/UlsSearch/searchLicense.jsp

[^256]: *See Notice at ¶¶; see als*o 47 C.F.R. § 74.709.

[^257]: *See Id*.

[^258]: *See* Microsoft *Notice* comments at 21.

[^259]: *See* Motorola *Further Notice* comments at 12.

[^260]: Specifically, these values are the distances to the 52 dBu and
    76 dBu contours, which were calculated by our staff using the FCC
    F(50,10) curves in Section 73.699 of the rules with an effective
    radiated power of 4 watts EIRP and an antenna height of 30.5 meters.

[^261]: The transmitter sites of PLRMS/CMRS base stations must be
    located not more than 80 kilometers from the geographic center
    coordinates of the 13 metropolitan areas, and mobile units must be
    operated within 48 kilometers of their associated base station.
    *See* 47 C.F.R. § 90.305. Low power TV stations must protect
    PLMRS/CMRS operations to 130 kilometers from the geographic center
    coordinates of the 13 metro areas. Thus, low power TV stations must
    protect PLMRS/CMRS operations to 50 kilometers from the nearest base
    station. *See* 47 C.F.R. §74.709(b).

[^262]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.1001, *et seq*.

[^263]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.709.

[^264]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.861(e).

[^265]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.870.

[^266]: The technical standards for this sensing requirement are
    discussed in the technical requirements section below.

[^267]: Significant wireless microphone use includes instances where one
    or more microphones are in operation for a period of time not less
    than one hour and can include single events at a site.

[^268]: As discussed above, we are, however, reserving two channels in
    the UHF range for low power auxiliary/wireless microphones in those
    markets where one or more channels in the range 14-20 are used for
    PLMRS/CMRS operations.

[^269]: *See* *Notice* at ¶¶ 26-28 and *First R&O/Further Notice* at ¶¶
    50-51.

[^270]: *See* Entravision *Notice* comments at 5, NCTA *Notice* comments
    at 3.

[^271]: *See* Itron *Further Notice* comments at 5-6.

[^272]: *See* Josephson *Notice* comments at 2.

[^273]: *See* Motorola *Notice* comments at 10.

[^274]: *See* Harris *Notice* comments at 8.

[^275]: *See* Motorola *Further Notice* comments at 20.

[^276]: *Id*.

[^277]: *See* CBA *Further Notice* comments at 4.

[^278]: We will require that fixed TV band devices be designed such that
    consumers and installers cannot override the functionality of the
    device to access a database to obtain a list of available television
    channels and transmit only on those channels contained in the list.

[^279]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.926.

[^280]: *See* Digital Television Distributed Transmission System
    Technologies, *Report and Order,* MB Docket No. 05-312, adopted
    November 3, 2008, FCC 08-256, released November 7, 2008. DTS
    involves the operation of multiple transmitters on the same channel
    to provide coverage of viewers within a TV station's authorized
    service area.

[^281]: The CDBS is available at http://www.fcc.gov/mb/cdbs.html.

[^282]: The ULS database is available at
    http://wireless.fcc.gov/uls/index.htm?job=home.

[^283]: The 13 regions where channels are set aside for PLMRS/CMRS
    operations are identified in Section 90.303 of the rules, 47 C.F.R.
    § 90.303. Base stations may be located within 80 km. (50 mi.) of the
    center of the geographic region and mobile stations may be located
    within 48 km. (30 mi.) of the base stations. 47 C.F.R. § 90.305.
    Consequently, mobile stations may be located within 128 km. (80 mi.)
    of the center coordinates of the geographic region.

[^284]: Some of these licenses have been issued under explicit waivers
    to our rules. Others have been issued without a formal waiver
    request and grant (in effect an informal waiver). For simplicity, we
    shall refer to all of these PLMRS/CMRS licenses outside of the
    geographic regions specified in 47 C.F.R. 90.303(b) as having been
    granted under a waiver to our rules since they do not technically
    comply with our rules.

[^285]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 22.1007.

[^286]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 74.709(e). This rule defines four regions in
    which low-power television stations cannot operate. TV band devices
    will be excluded from these same four areas to protect the Offshore
    Radiotelephone Service.

[^287]: Many TV translators receive the signal they retransmit without
    needing to receive the retransmitted station's signal over-the-air.
    For example, they may obtain the signal of the station they
    retransmit through use a fixed point-to-point microwave link or
    wireline connection. Other translators may receive the signal they
    retransmit via a receiver located within the retransmitted stations
    protected contour. In those cases, the translator receive sites need
    not be listed in a TV bands database.

[^288]: 47 C.F.R. § 74.801-82.

[^289]: While we make every effort to ensure that our databases are
    complete and accurate, sometimes errors do occur; we correct any
    such errors as we become of aware of them and will continue to do
    so.

[^290]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 44.

[^291]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 16.

[^292]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 45.

[^293]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.407(h)(1).

[^294]: *See* Consumer Electronics Association *Further Notice* comments
    at 3.

[^295]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* comments at 16.

[^296]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at 6
    and IEEE 802.18 *Notice* comments at 17.

[^297]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* reply comments at
    4.

[^298]: *See* *Further Notice* at ¶ 59 and 47 C.F.R. § 15.209.

[^299]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 29. The
    White Space Coalition also suggested that adjacent channel
    interference protection can be accomplished using a combination of
    spectrum sensing and transmit power control to meet the adjacent
    channel D/U ratios. *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice*
    comments at 15.

[^300]: *See* Tropos Networks comments at 13-14. Section 15.247 of the
    rules which addresses spread spectrum transmitters requires
    out-of-band emissions to be attenuated at least 20 dB below the
    level of the fundamental signal, but in no case less than the
    Section 15.209 limits. Emissions in restricted bands may not exceed
    the Section 15.209 limits. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.247. The requirement
    to attenuate out-of-band emissions 20 dB below the level of the
    fundamental emission may be significantly less stringent than the
    Section 15.209 limit, depending on the transmitter power used.

[^301]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Notice* comments at 27, Shure *Notice*
    comments at 20-21, and NAB/MSTV *Notice* comments at 21-24.

[^302]: *See* NAB/MSTV *Notice* reply comments at 22-23.

[^303]: *See* GE Healthcare *Further Notice* comments at 7-8.

[^304]: *See* CTIA *Further Notice* comments at 3.

[^305]: Free space attenuation of a 600 MHz signal 10 meters from a
    non-directional antenna is approximately 48 dB. The attenuation
    varies slightly over the TV band depending on the specific frequency
    of operation.

[^306]: To determine compliance with the OOBE, the average power, in 500
    kHz segments, in the first adjacent 6 MHz channel is compared to the
    highest average power in the 6 MHz channel in which the device is
    operating. Since the resolution bandwidth generally used for making
    measurements in the 30 MHz to 1000 MHz band is 100 kHz, this
    measurement may be performed using a minimum resolution bandwidth of
    100 kHz as long as the same RBW is used in both channels. A lower
    resolution bandwidth may be employed near the band edge, when
    necessary, provided the measured energy is integrated to show the
    total power over the RBW used to make the in-band measurement.

[^307]: *See Further Notice* at ¶¶ 37-39.

[^308]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 43.

[^309]: *See* Shure *Notice* comments at 14.

[^310]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 16.

[^311]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 12.

[^312]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 16.

[^313]: Minimum directional gain is defined as the antenna gain in the
    direction and at the frequency that exhibits the least gain.

[^314]: *See* *Further Notice* at ¶¶ 40-41.

[^315]: We note that while wireless microphones tend to operate on an
    intermittent basis over periods of time, *i.e.*, an evening, an
    afternoon, a one or two hour program, etc., the predominant method
    of modulation used by those devices is frequency modulation (FM) in
    which the carrier is always on. However, we are also aware that some
    digital wireless microphones are now available that use digital
    modulation schemes that may or may not be on for the full period of
    an event.

[^316]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 14.

[^317]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 12-14.

[^318]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* comments at 15.

[^319]: *See* Tropos Networks *Further Notice* comments at 10.

[^320]: *See* *Further Notice* at ¶¶ 42 and 47.

[^321]: *See* Shure *Further Notice* comments at 14 and *Notice* reply
    comments at 7, White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at
    17, and WISPA *Further Notice* reply comments at 3.

[^322]: As indicated above, the U-NII compliance measurement procedure
    is set forth in the appendix to the *Memorandum Opinion and Order*
    in ET Docket No. 03-122. *See also* 47 C.F.R. § 15.31.

[^323]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.947(a)(1).

[^324]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 47.

[^325]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 17.

[^326]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 18.

[^327]: *See* Tropos Networks *Further Notice* comments at 11.

[^328]: *See* CEA *Further Notice* comments at 5.

[^329]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Parts 2 and 15.

[^330]: *See Further Notice* at ¶ 64. All unlicensed transmitters and
    most licensed transmitters are required to be certified by the
    Commission or a designated Telecommunication Certification Body
    (TCB) before they may be legally marketed within the United States.
    In establishing the requirements for TCBs, the Commission stated
    that while it intended to allow TCBs to certify a broad range of
    equipment, certain functions should continue to be performed by the
    Commission. These functions include certifying new or unique
    equipment for which the rules or requirements do not exist or for
    which the application of the rules is not clear.

[^331]: The Commission's Laboratory maintains a list of types of devices
    that TCBs are excluded from certifying. Once it determines that TCBs
    have the necessary expertise to certify an excluded device, the
    Laboratory will remove it from the list.

[^332]: *See* Consumer Electronics Association comments at 7 and Shure
    comments at 21.

[^333]: *See* *Working Arrangement for Allotment and Assignment of VHF
    and UHF Television Broadcasting Channels under the Agreement between
    the Government of the United States of America and the Government of
    Canada Relating to the TV Broadcasting Service,* dated March 1,
    1989. This agreement is available on the Commission's web site at
    http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/can-bc/can-tv.pdf.

[^334]: *See Agreement Amending the Agreement Relating to Assignments
    and Usage of Television Broadcasting Channels in the Frequency Range
    470-806 MHz (Channels 14-69) along the United States-Mexico Border,*
    dated November 21, 1988. This agreement is available on the
    Commission's web site at
    http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/lpuhfbc.pdf. *See*
    *also*, the untitled amendment to the United States-Mexican
    agreement on VHF stations dated September 14-26, 1988, available on
    the Commission's web site at
    http://www.fcc.gov/ib/sand/agree/files/mex-bc/lpvhfbc.pdf. The
    agreements may require coordination at greater distances from the
    border depending on the ERP and HAAT of the LPTV station.

[^335]: *See Notice* at ¶ 46.

[^336]: *See First R&O/Further Notice* at ¶ 65.

[^337]: *See* White Space Coalition *Further Notice* comments at 30-31.

[^338]: *See* NAF, et al. *Further Notice* comments at 87-88.

[^339]: *See* IEEE 802.18 *Further Notice* comments at 24.

[^340]: The distances we specify are the minimums specified in the
    agreements because those distances would apply to a station with the
    proposed maximum unlicensed device power of 1 watt into a 6 dBi gain
    antenna (2.43 watts ERP).

[^341]: *See* *Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* in MB Docket No. 07-91,
    *supra*.

[^342]: *See* Emergency Request filed by The Association For Maximum
    Service Television, Inc., The National Association of Broadcasters,
    The ABC, NBC, CBS, and FOX Television Networks, and The Open Mobile
    Video Coalition, filed Oct. 17, 2008.

[^343]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, *see* 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has
    been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
    Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857
    (1996).

[^344]: *NPRM*, 19 FCC Rcd at 10018.

[^345]: *Further Notice*, 21 FCC Rcd at 12299.

[^346]: *See* 5 U.S.C. 603, Title II, 110 Stat 857 (1996).

[^347]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^348]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^349]: 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."

[^350]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^351]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, "334220 Radio and
    Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment
    Manufacturing";
    http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.

[^352]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.

[^353]: U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census,
    Industry Series, Industry Statistics by Employment Size, NAICS code
    334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov. The
    number of "establishments" is a less helpful indicator of small
    business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
    "firms" or "companies," because the latter take into account the
    concept of common ownership or control. Any single physical location
    for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be
    owned by a different establishment. Thus, the numbers given may
    reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including
    the numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census
    breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the total number
    of such entities for 2002, which was 929.

[^354]: *Id*. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or
    more.

[^355]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517211.

[^356]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212.

[^357]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517211 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^358]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^359]: U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Establishment and Firm Size (Including Legal Form of
    Organization," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Nov. 2005).

[^360]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is for firms with "1000
    employees or more."

[^361]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1) -- (c)(4).

[^362]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^363]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).