Before the\
National Telecommunications and Information Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce\
Washington, DC 20230

+-----------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+
| In the Matter of                  | )      | Docket No.              |
|                                   |        | 060602142-6142-01       |
| The President's Spectrum Policy   | )      |                         |
| Initiative Spectrum Sharing       |        |                         |
| Innovation Test-Bed               | )      |                         |
|                                   |        |                         |
|                                   | )      |                         |
+-----------------------------------+--------+-------------------------+

To: National Telecommunications and Information Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce

**Comments OF CINGULAR WIRELESS LLC**

Cingular Wireless LLC ("Cingular"), by its attorneys, hereby responds to
the *Notice of Inquiry* seeking comment on the creation of a test-bed to
evaluate innovative methods for spectrum sharing among federal and
non-federal users ("*Notice*").[^1] Cingular has been proactively
working with homeland security and public safety officials to develop
applications that would permit federal use of CMRS networks.[^2] The
availability of a test-bed program could facilitate additional efforts
at federal/commercial spectrum sharing provided the following criteria
govern:

-   The test-bed should not be deployed in congested spectrum or
    spectrum allocated pursuant to competitive bidding;

-   The test-bed should be controlled by the government and should not
    become a vehicle for endorsing a single, proprietary technology; nor
    should it be focused on opportunistic sharing between licensed and
    unlicensed devices;

-   The test-bed should be available for a wide variety of tests
    utilizing a variety of technologies; and

-   Prior to gaining access to the test-bed, a party must (i)
    demonstrate that the experiment will not cause harmful interference
    to any incumbent operator, (ii) describe the purpose of the test,
    and (iii) provide pre-experiment assumptions and predictions. This
    information, as well as any and all results from the test-bed
    experiments and demonstrations, should be publicly available.

# INTRODUCTION

The instant proceeding arises out of a May 29, 2003 Executive Memorandum
establishing the "Spectrum Policy Initiative" ("SPI") which called for
an analysis of spectrum use by the Federal government and
recommendations for promoting "more efficient and beneficial use of
\[this\] spectrum without harmful interference to critical incumbent
users."[^3] The impetus for the SPI was the recognition that spectrum is
a limited resource and that the Federal government may not be utilizing
spectrum efficiently at a time when demand is increasing
tremendously.[^4] The SPI sought to "unlock the economic value and
entrepreneurial potential" of government spectrum, while also protecting
incumbent government operations.[^5] In particular, the SPI charged the
Department of Commerce with developing recommendations for permitting
access to federal spectrum by state and local governments and the
private sector.[^6] The SPI also directed the Department of Commerce to
facilitate policy changes that would create "a higher degree of
predictability and certainty in the spectrum management process as it
applies to incumbent users."[^7]

In June 2004, the Department of Commerce issued two reports in response
to the SPI. Both reports recommended that the FCC and NTIA jointly
develop a Spectrum Sharing Innovation Test-Bed to study the feasibility
of spectrum sharing among federal and non-federal users. The instant
proceeding was initiated to evaluate the test-bed concept.[^8]

## the test-bed program should BE used to evaluate joint use of spectrum by federal and non-federal users and should be deployed in non-congested spectrum 

The Administration correctly observes that the test-bed program may not
be successful if the objectives of the program are not properly
established.[^9] Test-beds that merely permit the evaluation of new
technologies will not be informative unless the tests are designed to
achieve a common goal. The objective of the test-bed program, however,
was clearly spelled-out by the Department of Commerce --- to study the
feasibility of federal and non-federal users sharing the same
spectrum.[^10] Accordingly, the program should be limited to
technologies designed to facilitate spectrum sharing between federal and
non-federal users.[^11]

Moreover, the test-bed program is an outgrowth of the SPI which seeks to
"promote the more efficient and beneficial use of spectrum without
harmful interference" to incumbents.[^12] Consistent with this
objective, test-beds should be implemented in a manner that protects
incumbent users.[^13] The best way to achieve this objective is to
deploy test-beds in areas where there are relatively few incumbent
users, which requires an analysis of both spectrum bands and geography.
To that end, the Administration rightfully requests comments on what
steps should be taken to protect incumbent users in the candidate
frequency bands.[^14]

The first step in identifying test-bed locations that would minimize
potential interference should be the elimination of congested spectrum
at potential locations. This requires the elimination of most
"commercial" spectrum below 5 GHz (with the possible exception of very
rural areas) given the wide recognition that this spectrum is extremely
congested.[^15] The optimal location for test-beds is within spectrum
located above 5 GHz.

In addition to identifying the spectrum location for the test-beds,
geographic parameters must be established. The Administration asks
whether steps should be taken to protect incumbent users, and whether
any geographic limitations should apply to the test-bed.[^16] The
Administration must limit the test-bed to rural areas to minimize the
risk of harmful interference to incumbents. Because fewer incumbents
will be located in these areas, limiting test-beds to rural areas will
minimize the risk of harmful interference to incumbents.

The Administration should reject any proposals for a nationwide
test-bed. Such an approach would limit the number of simultaneous
experiments possible on the same spectrum band. Moreover, it would be
extremely difficult to assess the interference potential to incumbents
from a nationwide test-bed.

## The test-bed should be controlled by the government and should not become a vehicle for endorsing a single, proprietary technology

The test-bed program was proposed by the Department of Commerce in
response to the SPI because:

> Spectrum policymakers must not only anticipate, but must also help
> create an environment for important new technology developments. . . .
> In order to explore the real-world potential of increased technical
> cooperation between government and industry, NTIA and the FCC should
> establish a pilot program to allow for sharing in two segments of
> approximately 10 MHz. This approximately 20 MHz of spectrum would
> provide a field to test the potential of new technologies that
> increase the efficient use of spectrum through increased sharing.[^17]

The use of test-beds also would improve the ability of the United States
to maintain global leadership in communications technology, a key goal
of the SPI.[^18] Global leadership can be maintained by constant
innovation and experimentation, which would be possible under the
test-bed program. The program will have little impact on global
leadership, however, if it allows only limited simultaneous testing. The
ability to quickly trial numerous new technologies is critical to the
ability of the United States to remain at the forefront of
communications policy and technology. Accordingly, the test-bed program
should be designed to permit simultaneous tests of a wide variety of
technologies.

Flexibility should be encouraged so that simultaneous tests of
incompatible air interfaces and access technologies are possible. For
example, it should be possible to conduct a test in one area utilizing
Frequency Division Duplex access, while a test evaluating the merits of
Time Division Duplex access is being conducted simultaneously in another
test-bed. Criteria should not be established that would inhibit the
ability to test a wide variety of incompatible technologies on a
simultaneous basis.

The test-bed program was proposed to facilitate collaboration between
the government and industry and increase technical cooperation in the
development of new technologies.[^19] Consistent with this goal, the
test-beds should be controlled by the government and should not be
available to test proprietary technologies.[^20] The test-bed program
should be used to share information throughout the government and
private sector in order to promote the development of new, efficient
technologies designed through a public/private partnership.

To facilitate the collaboration envisioned by the Department of Commerce
for the test-bed program, any party seeking to utilize a test-bed should
be required to provide a detailed description of the proposed experiment
and objectives to the FCC and NTIA. This submission should be publicly
available and specify the following:

-   Test objective;

-   Pre-test assumptions;

-   Control criteria;

-   Detailed analysis describing why the test will not cause
    interference to incumbents; and

-   Predicted results.

Moreover, once the experiment has been completed,[^21] the test-bed
user(s) should be required to report its technical results and
conclusions to the FCC and NTIA. These findings, which again should be
publicly available, could be incorporated into the report requested by
the Department of Commerce summarizing the results of the test-bed
program.[^22]

# conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the Administration should establish test-beds
that are designed to operate on frequencies above 5 GHz in rural areas.
Moreover, the test-bed program should permit multiple, simultaneous
tests of incompatible technologies and should be designed to foster
collaboration between and among the private sector and Federal
Government.

> Respectfully submitted,

Cingular Wireless llc

> By: \_[/s/]{.underline}\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
>
> J. R. Carbonell
>
> Carol L. Tacker
>
> M. Robert Sutherland
>
> 5565 Glenridge Connector
>
> Suite 1700
>
> Atlanta, GA 30342
>
> \(404\) 236-6364
>
> *Its Attorneys*

July 10, 2006

[^1]: *The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative Spectrum Sharing
    Innovation Test-Bed*, Docket No. 060602142-6142-01, *Notice of
    Inquiry*, 71 Fed. Reg. 33282 (June 8, 2006) ("*Notice*").

[^2]: For example, on May 2, 2006 at Rash Field in the Inner Harbor of
    Baltimore, Maryland, Cingular participated in a demonstration of
    public safety applications available over a commercial IP multimedia
    subsystem ("IMS"). IMS permits the sharing of different media during
    a single transmission --- *i.e*., numerous applications such as
    voice communications, video feeds, and file transfers can be
    utilized simultaneously.

[^3]: White House Executive Memorandum, *Improving Spectrum Management
    for the 21^st^ Century* (Nov. 2004); 69 Fed. Reg. 1568, 1569 (Jan.
    9, 2004) ("Presidential Memorandum").

[^4]: *Id.* ("focus on improving spectrum management policies and
    procedures to stimulate more efficient and beneficial use of
    Government spectrum").

[^5]: *Id.* at 1568.

[^6]: *Id.* at 1569-70.

[^7]: *Id.* at 1569.

[^8]: *See Notice*, 71 Fed. Reg. at 33282-83.

[^9]: *Id*. at 33283.

[^10]: *See* National Telecommunications and Information Administration,
    U.S. Department of Commerce *Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^ Century
    -- The President's Spectrum Policy Initiative: Report 2
    Recommendations From State and Local Governments and Private Sector
    Responders*, at 23 (June 2004) ("Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^
    Century").

[^11]: Test-beds should not be utilized to evaluate the possibility of
    authorizing additional commercial operations into existing
    commercial allocations. The test-bed also should not be used to
    evaluate the interference temperature concept. The Department of
    Commerce properly separated this concept from the test-bed proposal.
    The FCC's Spectrum Policy Task Force ("SPTF") and Telecommunications
    Advisory Committee ("TAC"), as well as NTIA, all have concluded that
    additional study is required before this concept can be implemented.
    *See, e.g.,* Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^ Century at 19; *Spectrum
    Policy Task Force*, ET Docket No. 02-135, *Report,* at 5, 28 (Nov.
    2002) ("SPTF Report"); FCC Technological Advisory Council II, Second
    Meeting Report at 8-9 (Nov. 23, 2001) ("FCC TAC II Second Report").
    In particular, the SPTF and TAC concluded that a comprehensive study
    of the noise floor was necessary prior to implementing the concept
    in any manner, even on a trial basis. *See, e.g.,* SPTF Report at 5,
    28; FCC TAC II Second Report at 8-9.

[^12]: Presidential Memorandum, 69 Fed. Reg. at 1569.

[^13]: *Id*.

[^14]: *See Notice*, 71 Fed. Reg. at 33283.

[^15]: *See Revision of Part 22 and Part 90 of the Commission\'s Rules
    to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems; Implementation
    of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act \-- Competitive
    Bidding,* WT Docket No. 96-18, *Notice of Proposed Rule Making,* 11
    F.C.C.R. 3108, 3139 (1996) (stating that with this rulemaking the
    Commission plans to encourage more efficient use of spectrum in
    congested areas, such as PCS); *Amendment of Part 90 of the
    Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems
    in the 800 MHz Frequency Band and Implementation of Section 309(j)
    of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding 800 MHz SMR,* PR
    Docket No. 93-144, *Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,* 10
    F.C.C.R. 7970, 7985 (1994) (noting that SMR spectrum is
    significantly more congested than broadband or cellular); Spectrum
    Policy Task Force, Report of the Spectrum Rights and
    Responsibilities Working Group, at 13 (Nov. 15, 2002) (noting the
    rapid proliferation of PCS); SPTF Report at 10 (noting that some
    bands, such as those used by cellular base stations, are heavily
    used).

[^16]: *See Notice*, 71 Fed. Reg. at 33283.

[^17]: Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^ Century at 23.

[^18]: *See* Presidential Memorandum, 69 Fed. Reg. at 1569.

[^19]: *See* Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^ Century at 23.

[^20]: *See Notice*, 71 Fed. Reg. at 33284.

[^21]: The test-beds should not be utilized to conduct experiments of an
    indefinite duration. Cingular suggests that test duration should not
    exceed twelve months.

[^22]: *See* Spectrum Policy for the 21^st^ Century at 23. Of course,
    the FCC and NTIA should have the discretion to withhold information
    that may undermine national security.