**Before the**

**Federal Communications Commission**

**Washington, D.C. 20554**

+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+
| In the Matter of                 | * | ET Docket No. 00-258         |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Amendment of Part 2 of the       | ) | RM-9498                      |
| Commission's Rules to Allocate   | * |                              |
| Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile  | * | RM-10024                     |
| and Fixed Services to Support    |   |                              |
| the Introduction of New Advanced | * | ET Docket No. 95-18          |
| Wireless Services, including     | * |                              |
| Third Generation Wireless        | ) |                              |
| Systems                          | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition for Rule Making of the  |   |                              |
| Wireless Information Networks    | * |                              |
| Forum Concerning the Unlicensed  | * |                              |
| Personal Communications Service  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
| Petition for Rule Making of      | * |                              |
| UTStarcom, Inc., Concerning the  |   |                              |
| Unlicensed Personal              | * |                              |
| Communications Service           | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
| Amendment of Section 2.106 of    | * |                              |
| the Commission's Rules to        | * |                              |
| Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for   |   |                              |
| use by the Mobile-Satellite      | * |                              |
| Service                          | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  |   |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | ) |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
|                                  | * |                              |
+----------------------------------+---+------------------------------+

**SIXTH REPORT AND ORDER, THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER, AND FIFTH
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER**

**Adopted:** September 9, 2004 **Released:** September 22, 2004

**By the Commission:** Chairman Powell, Commissioners Copps and
Adelstein issuing separate statements.

Table of Contents

[Heading]{.underline} [Paragraph \#]{.underline}

**I. INTRODUCTION** 1

**II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY** 3

**III. backgRound** 4

**IV. SIXTH REPORT and ORDER** 7

A.  1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands 8

    i.  Background 8

    ii. Suitability as AWS Spectrum 16

    iii. Redesignation 30

B.  2020-2025 MHZ and 2175-2180 MHz Bands 43

C.  Relocation and Reimbursement 48

    i.  Relocation and Reimbursement in the 1910-1915 MHz
        Band........................... 48

    ii. Relocation and Reimbursement in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025
        MHz Bands...... 57

    iii. Relocation in the 2175-2180 MHz
         Band....................................... 74

D. Additional Flexibility in the 1920-1930 MHz
Band....................................... 77

**V. THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in ET DOCKET NO. 00-258** 82

> A. Petitions for Reconsideration to Second Report and Order 82

B.  Petitions for Reconsideration to Third Report and Order 88

**vI. FIFTH MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in ET DOCKET NO. 95-18** 98

**VII.conclusion** 106

**VIII.procedural matters** 107

A.  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Sixth Report and Order 107

B.  Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis 108

C.  Contact Persons 109

**IX.ordering clauses** 110

> APPENDIX a: FINAL RULES

APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY ANALYSIS

APPENDIX C: LIST OF COMMENTING PARTIES

# I. INTRODUCTION {#i.-introduction .unnumbered}

1.  In this *Sixth Report and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* (*Sixth R&O and Third MO&O*) in ET Docket No. 00-258, we
    continue our ongoing efforts to promote spectrum utilization and
    efficiency by evaluating spectrum that may be suitable for the
    provision of new services, including Advanced Wireless Services
    (AWS).[^1] In the *Sixth R&O*, we find that the bands 1915-1920 MHz
    paired with 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz paired with 2175-2180
    MHz -- which were all previously reallocated for Fixed and Mobile
    services -- are well suited to provide additional spectrum for AWS
    use and we designate these paired bands for such use. This action
    will provide an additional twenty megahertz of spectrum for the
    introduction of new services and technology. We also note that in a
    companion item, *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*, the Commission seeks
    comment on applicable service rules that should be adopted for the
    1915-1920/1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025/2175-2180 MHz blocks that are
    paired herein.[^2] We also modify our rules pertaining to unlicensed
    PCS services in the 1920-1930 MHz band in order to provide
    additional flexibility to users of the band to offer both voice and
    data services using a variety of technologies.

2.  In the *Third MO&O* in ET Docket No. 00-258, we deny and dismiss
    petitions for reconsideration that oppose the reallocation of ninety
    megahertz of spectrum from Federal Government and non-Federal
    Government operations in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands
    to support AWS in the *AWS Second Report and Order*,[^3] and we deny
    petitions for reconsideration that oppose the reallocation of thirty
    megahertz of spectrum from the Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) in the
    1990-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2165-2180 MHz bands in the *AWS
    Third Report and Order*.[^4] In the *Fifth Memorandum Opinion and
    Order* (*Fifth MO&O)* in ET Docket No. 95-18, we grant in part and
    deny in part a petition for reconsideration pertaining to the
    relocation procedures we adopted for Fixed Service (FS) microwave
    incumbents in the *MSS Third Report and Order and Third Memorandum
    Opinion and Order* in that docket.[^5]

    **II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

3.  On February 10, 2003, the Commission released the *AWS Third R&O* in
    ET Docket No. 00-258 that identified and reallocated thirty
    megahertz of spectrum from MSS at 1990-2000/2020-2025 MHz and
    2165-2180 MHz bands to Fixed and Mobile services to support AWS. In
    the instant decision, we evaluate a number of other frequency bands
    that were identified for possible AWS use, but not addressed in our
    previous decisions. In the *Sixth R&O* in ET Docket No. 00-258
    herein, we:

-   Make a five + five megahertz paired block of spectrum at 1915-1920
    and 1995-2000 MHz available for AWS applications by redesignating
    the 1915-1920 MHz band from Unlicensed Personal Communications
    Services (UPCS) to AWS and addressing several pending petitions for
    rulemakings and petitions for waivers relating to use of the band.
    Pairing this band with the 1995-2000 MHz band, which was previously
    reallocated from the MSS, promotes the most efficient use of the
    spectrum to support innovative mobile applications and complements
    adjacent Broadband PCS allocations, thereby allowing for quicker and
    easier deployment of services in the band.

-   Find that an additional ten megahertz of spectrum, consisting of the
    2020-2025 MHz and the 2175-2180 MHz bands, which is adjacent to MSS
    spectrum that can be used to provide terrestrial operations, should
    be made available as paired AWS spectrum. Both bands were previously
    designated for AWS use in this proceeding.

-   Adopt a reimbursement plan to compensate UTAM, Inc. (UTAM) for
    relocation expenses it has incurred in relocating incumbents from
    the 1915-1920 MHz band.

-   Address how the existing relocation and reimbursement plan for
    incumbent BAS licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz band -- which has
    already been reallocated in part for Fixed and Mobile services --
    will apply to the five megahertz spectrum block at 1995-2000 MHz and
    the five megahertz spectrum block at 2020-2025 MHz, and how the
    existing relocation and reimbursement plan will apply to the
    incumbent FS licensees in the five megahertz spectrum block at
    2175-2180 MHz -- which has also already been reallocated for Fixed
    and Mobile services.

-   Modify our existing rules for isochronous (voice) UPCS operations in
    the 1920-1930 MHz band in order to provide additional flexibility.
    These modifications will permit the deployment of additional
    unlicensed devices in the band operating on a wider variety of
    technologies.

    In the *Third MO&O* in ET Docket No. 00-258 herein, we:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Deny a petition for reconsideration jointly filed by XM and Sirius
    that claims that the Commission failed to consider their comments
    regarding use of the 2360-2395 MHz band as replacement spectrum for
    users relocated from the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands, and
    the effect that such use would have on adjacent satellite systems.

-   Deny petitions for reconsideration filed by Sprint and WCA that seek
    comparable replacement spectrum and full compensation for relocation
    costs for displaced Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) licensees
    in the 2150-2162 MHz band.

-   Dismiss a petition for reconsideration filed by PCIA that seeks
    modification of Section 101.99 of the Rules to establish a
    clearinghouse to oversee cost-sharing procedures associated with
    incumbent relocation in the 2110-2150 MHz band.

-   Deny petitions for reconsideration filed by Celsat, CTIA, ICO, SIA,
    and TMI and TerreStar that oppose the decision to reallocate
    portions of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum.

    In the *Fifth MO&O* in ET Docket No. 95-18 herein, we:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Grant in part, by clarifying certain rules, and otherwise deny a
    petition for clarification and reconsideration jointly filed by the
    American Petroleum Institute and the United Telecom Council
    concerning the negotiation and relocation procedures for incumbent
    FS licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.

# III. background {#iii.-background .unnumbered}

4.  The Commission identified a large number of potential bands to
    support the types of innovative mobile services that it has broadly
    described as "AWS" in the January 2001 *Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking and Order*,[^6] and in the August 2001 *Memorandum
    Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making* in
    this proceeding.[^7] Collectively, in the *AWS Notice* and the *AWS
    Further Notice*, the Commission sought comment on the suitability
    for use by AWS of frequency bands that included the 1910-1930 MHz
    band (designated for UPCS), the 1990-2025 MHz band (allocated for
    MSS) and other bands. More specifically, the *AWS Further Notice*
    sought comment on whether a portion of, or the entire, 1910-1930 MHz
    band should be redesignated for AWS or used as relocation spectrum
    for incumbents in other frequency bands that are displaced by new
    AWS licensees.[^8] Subsequent decisions have narrowed the spectrum
    bands under consideration. In the September 2001 *First Report and
    Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, the Commission modified the
    existing allocation in the 2500-2690 MHz band to provide additional
    flexibility, but did not reallocate the band to AWS.[^9] In the
    November 2002 *Second Report and Order*, the Commission allocated
    ninety megahertz of spectrum for AWS, consisting of forty-five
    megahertz of Federal Government-use spectrum in the 1710-1755 MHz
    band and forty-five megahertz in the 2110-2155 MHz band.

5.  In its February 2003 *AWS Third R&O, Third NPRM and Second MO&O*,
    the Commission considered use of spectrum in the 1910-1930 MHz band,
    as well as spectrum allocated to the 2 GHz MSS service in the
    1990-2025 MHz and 2165-2200 MHz bands. In the *AWS Third R&O*, the
    Commission reallocated the 1990-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and
    2165-2180 MHz bands for Fixed and Mobile services. In the *AWS*
    *Third NPRM*, the Commission identified the portion of UPCS band at
    1910-1920 MHz as spectrum that could be made available for AWS or
    other purposes and sought comment with regard to using it for paired
    or unpaired operations -- including entirely new AWS applications,
    expansion of existing Broadband PCS operations to support new and
    innovative mobile services, and as relocation spectrum for existing
    services. In a separate proceeding, ET Docket No. 95-18, the
    Commission had established the procedures by which 2 GHz MSS
    licensees would relocate BAS and FS licensees from the 1990-2025 MHz
    and 2165-2200 MHz bands, respectively. In light of the reallocation
    of a portion of this spectrum to support new Fixed and Mobile
    services, the Commission issued a *MSS Third Report and Order* in ET
    Docket No. 95-18 revising these relocation procedures to account for
    the new entrants into the band.

6.  Most recently, in conjunction with WT Docket 02-55, in its July 2004
    *800 MHz R&O*,[^10] the Commission redesignated the 1910-1915 MHz
    band from UPCS use to licensed Fixed and Mobile services, adopted a
    reimbursement plan to compensate UTAM for relocation expenses it had
    incurred in relocating incumbents from this band, and addressed
    pending petitions for rulemakings and petitions for waivers relating
    to new use of the 1910-1915 MHz band. Also, the Commission created a
    five + five pairing of the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz bands for
    licensed Fixed and Mobile services in order to assign this spectrum
    to Nextel as replacement spectrum for the relocation of certain
    Nextel operations in the 800 MHz band. Finally, the Commission
    addressed how the existing relocation and reimbursement plan for
    incumbent BAS licensees in the 1990-1995 MHz band would apply in the
    event that Nextel was the first entrant into this spectrum block.

    **IV. SIXTH REPORT AND ORDER**

7.  In the *Sixth R&O* we identify two five + five megahertz spectrum
    blocks that are especially well suited for AWS use, and find that
    such a designation will maximize the potential use of the spectrum
    and promote the deployment of high value service offerings.
    Specifically, we redesignate the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz, as
    well as the 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz spectrum blocks as
    paired bands suitable for the introduction of new technologies. The
    companion *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM* addresses licensing of the
    bands, certain relocation matters, and other technical rule issues,
    including interference issues concerning AWS and Broadband PCS. We
    address, below, matters pertaining to the redesignation, pairing,
    and relocation of incumbent services in each of these bands. We also
    modify our UPCS rules in the 1920-1930 MHz band in order to allow
    for the deployment of a greater range of unlicensed devices in this
    spectrum band.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  **1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz Bands**

## Background

8.  The 1915-1920 MHz band is a subset of a larger band at 1910-1930 MHz
    that is allocated to Fixed and Mobile services on a primary
    basis,[^11] and is designated for use by UPCS devices in the
    1915-1930 MHz band.[^12] Under the current rules, the 1915-1920 MHz
    portion of the band may be used for asynchronous (generally data)
    UPCS devices and the 1920-1930 MHz portion may be used for
    isochronous (generally voice) UPCS devices.[^13] In the *800 MHz
    R&O*, we redesignated the 1910-1915 MHz band from UPCS to licensed
    Fixed and Mobile services and assigned the spectrum to Nextel as
    replacement spectrum for relocated operations in the 800 MHz band.
    To minimize interference to adjacent band operations, we required
    Nextel to conform to the same technical standards applicable to
    licensed PCS systems.[^14] Because this decision was made relatively
    recently, much of the record in this proceeding addresses the larger
    1910-1930 MHz band. Although we now consider the smaller 1915-1920
    MHz portion of this band herein, the factors that led to our pairing
    of the 1910-1915/1990-1995 MHz bands in the *800 MHz R&O* are
    relevant to the relocation decisions we make herein.

9.  The 1995-2000 MHz band is part of a larger 1990-2110 MHz band (2 GHz
    BAS band) that is currently used by BAS licensees. In the *MSS
    Second R&O*, the Commission reallocated the 1990-2025 MHz segment to
    the MSS and established a relocation plan for incumbent BAS.[^15]
    More recently, we reallocated fifteen megahertz of spectrum in the
    1990-2025 MHz band for new AWS entrants.[^16] This fifteen megahertz
    block includes the 1990-1995 MHz band that we licensed to Nextel in
    the *800 MHz R&O*, as well as the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz
    bands that we address herein.

10. Before the 1910-1930 MHz band was made available for UPCS
    applications, this band was first used by fixed point-to-point
    microwave links. To facilitate the introduction of UPCS systems, the
    Commission established policies in the *Emerging Technologies*
    proceeding[^17] for the relocation of incumbent microwave systems
    from this band and designated a single entity, UTAM, to coordinate
    and manage the transition.[^18] The record of deployment of UPCS
    services, to date, has been mixed. Currently, the most widespread
    application of the 1920-1930 MHz UPCS band is for wireless PBX
    systems.[^19] However, a search of our equipment authorization
    database has found no UPCS equipment authorized for the 1910-1920
    MHz band.

11. In the *AWS Third NPRM*, we revisited the issue of redesignating all
    or a portion of the 1910-1930 MHz band for Fixed and Mobile services
    with the intent of promoting AWS use. As an initial matter, the *AWS
    Third R&O* removed the 1920-1930 MHz band from consideration for AWS
    use, due to the existing isochronous UPCS voice applications that
    have been deployed in that band segment.[^20] In the *AWS Third
    NPRM*, we also sought comment on reallocation options for the
    1910-1920 MHz band. Specifically, we noted that asynchronous UPCS
    applications had not been developed since the service was authorized
    in 1994, and tentatively concluded the public interest would not be
    served if the ten megahertz of spectrum designated for asynchronous
    use in the 1910-1920 MHz band remained fallow when there were many
    applications that could put it to good use.[^21]

12. In the *AWS Third NPRM* we sought comment on how much we can reduce
    the frequency separation between the Broadband PCS base station
    transmit at 1930-1990 MHz and mobile transmit at 1850-1910 MHz in
    order to allow new systems to be deployed while continuing to
    protect existing Broadband PCS operations, and what rules we would
    have to adopt to permit such operations. We noted that Broadband PCS
    has been implemented domestically using frequency division duplex
    (FDD) technology, which requires separation between the base and
    mobile transmit frequencies, and therefore technical considerations
    relating to band separation must be addressed before considering
    redesignating spectrum in the 1910-1920 MHz band. To the extent that
    we recognized that we might not decide to pair the entire 1910-1920
    MHz band, we also sought comment as to whether we should retain the
    1915-1920 MHz band for UPCS use, but allow for greater flexibility
    of UPCS use within the entire 1915-1930 MHz band, as well as whether
    any UPCS rules changes would be appropriate if we reduced the UPCS
    band to 1920-1930 MHz.[^22] Because there was a general consensus
    that the frequency separation could easily be reduced by five
    megahertz (*i.e.* to a 15 MHz separation), we only considered this
    issue in limited detail as part of the *800 MHz R&O*.

13. The *AWS Third NPRM* also noted that the 1910-1920 MHz band (or a
    portion thereof) and the 1990-2000 MHz band (or a portion thereof)
    were well suited to be part of a paired spectrum allocation, and we
    tentatively concluded that it would serve the public interest to
    adopt a five + five megahertz or a ten + ten megahertz pairing
    within these bands.[^23] We noted that such a pairing would allow
    for a number of new uses, including an expansion of systems using
    the adjacent Broadband PCS bands. We also noted that such an
    allocation might allow for quicker design and deployment of new
    equipment because existing Broadband PCS systems operate on adjacent
    bands, and that because the 1910-1920 MHz band lacks incumbent UPCS
    users, new licensees need only address relocation as it pertains to
    the relocation of incumbent point-to-point microwave systems in the
    band. Finally, we also noted that a five + five megahertz block
    pairing could accommodate the design specifications of both existing
    high-power mobile applications (such as Broadband PCS) and systems
    (such as WCDMA and CDMA‑2000) that have commonly been proposed for
    AWS deployment.[^24]

14. In conjunction with our proposal to redesignate as much as ten
    megahertz in the 1910-1920 MHz band, we recognized that new
    licensees in the band would reap the benefits of UTAM's band
    clearing efforts and concluded that UTAM should be adequately
    reimbursed for its efforts. Therefore, we sought comment on
    proposals for reimbursing UTAM. In particular, we proposed that UTAM
    be entitled to a percentage of the total reimbursement expenses
    incurred for the 1910-1930 MHz band as of the effective date of any
    final rules adopted in this proceeding.[^25] In crafting the
    relocation obligations for Nextel in the *800 MHz R&O* with respect
    to the 1910-1915 MHz band, we generally followed these proposals.
    The Commission also established and subsequently modified a
    relocation plan for BAS incumbents in the 1990-2025 MHz band (of
    which the 1995-2000 MHz band is a subset). We address those
    procedures in greater detail, *infra*.

15. Finally, we note that there are several outstanding petitions that
    relate to use of the 1915-1920 MHz band segment. There are five
    petitions for waiver filed by Lucent, UTStarcom & Drew University,
    Ascom, Alaska Power, and RBM;[^26] and two petitions for rulemaking
    filed by WINForum[^27] and UTStarcom;[^28] most of which request
    various unlicensed use of the band. We address these pleadings in
    conjunction with our overall evaluation of the merits of using the
    1915-1920 MHz band for new AWS applications.

### Suitability as AWS Spectrum

16. As an initial matter, the record in the AWS proceeding, ET Docket
    00-258, strongly supports more spectrum for the introduction of new
    services and predicts high growth and strong demand for AWS
    services.[^29] Many commenters in this proceeding endorse the
    introduction of high power licensed services into all or part of the
    bands we identified, with the record supporting an overall need for
    additional spectrum for AWS. For example, the Information Technology
    Industry Council claims that AWS can provide a broadband
    alternative, promote competition, foster innovation, and reach new
    service areas.[^30] Also, Telephone and Data Systems assert that no
    other prospective service for which we could make an allocation
    promises the economic benefits of AWS.[^31] The development of new
    and innovative mobile service offerings would, in turn, aid in the
    development of competitive markets, and provide the types of
    economic benefits that can promote economic recovery of
    telecommunication markets.

17. Despite the robust support for additional AWS spectrum in general,
    many commenters claim that the 1915-1920 MHz band would not be a
    good candidate for such use.[^32] This band, when paired with the
    1995-2000 MHz band, is similar to the spectrum we redesignated in
    the *800 MHz R&O* in that its adjacency to and consistent frequency
    separation with existing Broadband PCS blocks would promote the
    rapid development of AWS services -- including those that are
    expected to be developed based on technologies that have been used
    in existing Broadband PCS deployments in the adjacent bands.
    However, as we recognized in the *Third NPRM*, use of the 1915-1920
    MHz band for high powered licensed services will reduce the
    separation distance between the current Broadband PCS base and
    mobile transmit bands. We had sought comment on the extent such a
    reduction would be feasible so that new systems could be deployed
    while protecting existing Broadband PCS operations. We also
    requested comment on what rules would be needed to permit such
    operations.[^33]

18. A number of parties specifically addressing these questions
    submitted documentation that they claim shows that high-powered
    licensed operations (such as those based on current Broadband PCS
    applications) could not be expanded into the 1915-1920 MHz band.
    Thus, they oppose redesignating the 1915-1920 MHz band from
    unlicensed PCS to licensed broadband wireless services.[^34] We note
    and address in greater detail below more recent filings in this
    proceeding that refute the claim that this band cannot be used for
    such high-powered applications. In general, the commenters opposing
    redesignation of the 1915-1920 MHz band for AWS state that
    redesignating this spectrum would cause harmful interference to
    adjacent Broadband PCS services. Three reasons are generally
    provided: out-of-band emissions, receiver overload, and
    unavailability of duplexers with sufficient attenuation.[^35] That
    is, by reducing the frequency separation between the mobile transmit
    and receive bands, these parties argue that a signal transmitted
    from a mobile at the upper end of the band (near 1920 MHz) would
    interfere with a mobile attempting to receive in the 1930-1990 MHz
    band. They argue that this would occur because the signal may not be
    attenuated enough by the time it reaches a mobile attempting to
    receive in the 1930-1990 MHz band and therefore could cause
    interference due to out-of-band emissions or an overload problem.
    Similarly, commenters argue that because the mobile is receiving at
    the same time it is transmitting, current duplexer technology does
    not allow for the necessary attenuation with only a ten megahertz
    separation.[^36] Generally, commenters argue that current equipment
    is designed for a twenty megahertz separation and that filters are
    not available, nor would be available cheaply, to ensure enough
    attenuation if only ten megahertz separated the transmit and receive
    bands.[^37]

19. Motorola and Verizon specifically oppose expanding licensed
    operations in the 1915-1920 MHz band because, they contend, it would
    result in harmful interference to existing Broadband PCS operations,
    particularly above 1930 MHz.[^38] Motorola, as well as UTAM, assert
    that redesignating this band would require the duplexer in a mobile
    transmitter operating at 1920 MHz to achieve at least 40 dB of
    attenuation at 1930 MHz to prevent interference. They contend this
    would require the use of split band, or two duplexers, which would
    significantly increase the size and cost of handsets. Moreover, they
    state that it is not feasible to manufacture handsets using split
    band duplexers that meet industry specifications.[^39] Additionally,
    CTIA raises a concern with in-band operations if 1915-1920 MHz were
    redesignated: AWS mobile transmitters could cause overload to other
    PCS receivers.[^40] Moreover, Sprint raises a concern about in-band
    operations, arguing that significant power limitations would have to
    be imposed on the 1915-1920 MHz band, and also asserts that
    out-of-band emissions criteria set forth in PCS industry standard,
    TIA 98-F, should be required to protect incumbent PCS users.[^41]

20. Conversely, Nextel, citing a study by Agilent, believes that it is
    feasible to allow licensed services into the 1915-1920 MHz
    band.[^42] In its comments, it states that Agilent can manufacture a
    partial band duplexer for the 1915-1920 MHz block that has
    out-of-band emissions equivalent to that of current PCS handsets.
    While it states that a full band duplexer cannot yet be produced for
    the entire existing PCS band plus the 1910-1915 MHz and 1915-1920
    MHz blocks, technology continues to advance and they expect future
    technology to address this challenge. Further, it states that even
    under worst case, as little as 1.4 meters of separation is needed
    between handsets to allow 75 percent utilization of the 1915-1920
    MHz block. Finally, Nextel states that because several different
    independent events must simultaneously occur in order for
    interference to be present,[^43] the probability of a user
    experiencing actual interference is low.

21. In light of commenters' concerns, we conducted our own analysis of
    the impact on incumbent PCS users with a ten megahertz frequency
    separation between Broadband PCS mobile and base operations if the
    1915-1920 MHz band is redesignated for AWS. The threshold issue here
    is whether, with a reduction in frequency separation from the
    current level, AWS operations are technically feasible without
    impairing incumbent PCS operations. Although we conclude, as
    discussed below, that this band is suitable for AWS, we do not
    decide here what technical requirements should be imposed on AWS.
    Because one goal of the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM* is to ensure
    that we adopt the appropriate technical rules to protect incumbent
    Broadband PCS users, we will address and plan to adopt the specific
    technical requirements necessary to provide such protection as part
    of that proceeding.

22. The purpose of the analysis we conduct here is to determine whether
    the 1915-1920 MHz should be designated for AWS, not to specify the
    specific technical parameters for AWS operations. In particular, we
    address here various technical issues raised by commenters, who
    question our proposal to reduce the frequency separation between
    Broadband PCS base and mobile operations and to designate this
    spectrum for AWS, merely to demonstrate that these issues are not so
    significant as to preclude such a decision; appropriate technical
    constraints for AWS will be addressed in the *AWS 2 GHz Service
    Rules NPRM*. Because the 1915-1920 MHz band is adjacent to the
    spectrum licensed under our Broadband PCS rules, and because we
    anticipate that new licensees are most likely to deploy PCS in this
    band, we looked at current industry standards, Commission rules, and
    existing equipment for PCS in conducting this analysis. Currently,
    the industry uses CDMA as well as GSM (and other TDMA-based)
    technologies in the PCS bands.[^44] For purposes of this analysis,
    we have worked under the assumption that new entrants into the band
    are most likely to deploy equipment using technologies based on
    current Broadband PCS operations. Accordingly, we believe that there
    are four scenarios to consider: interference from CDMA to CDMA;
    interference from GSM to GSM; interference from CDMA to GSM; and
    interference from GSM to CDMA. All parties agree that the risk of
    interference is only present under certain conditions, *i.e*., when
    a mobile transmitter in the 1915-1920 MHz band is operating at a
    close distance to a mobile receiver.[^45] The worst case occurs when
    the mobile transmitter is operating at maximum power (near the edge
    of its service area) at the upper edge of the band (near 1920 MHz)
    and the mobile receiver is trying to receive a weak signal (near the
    edge of its service area) at the lower edge of the band (near 1930
    MHz) and only free space loss is considered.[^46]

23. First, our analysis of out-of-band emissions in the worst-case
    scenario described above relies on Commission rules and industry
    standards for PCS, as appropriate. As we demonstrate below, AWS in
    the 1915-1920 MHz band will likely need to operate within stricter
    out-of-band emission limits than currently applies to PCS operations
    in the adjacent bands under the Commission's rules. This should not
    impede the introduction of AWS in the band, however, since we note
    that industry PCS standards already specify a more stringent limit
    than the Commission's rules. Although we do not decide here what
    those limits should be for AWS, we expect that AWS also could meet a
    more stringent limit. The analysis is straightforward and both CDMA
    and GSM can be analyzed similarly. We assume that a receiver cannot
    demodulate a desired signal when an interfering signal or noise is
    at the same level (*e.g*., S/I = 0 dB).[^47] Thus, we calculate the
    distance where the undesired signal (Pu) from an interfering
    transmitter equals the desired signal level and demodulation of the
    desired signal can no longer occur. We assume that the minimum
    desired signal (Pd) is equal to the receiver sensitivity of -104 dBm
    for CDMA and -102 dBm for GSM.[^48] Currently the rules for
    out-of-band emissions for broadband PCS require that the power of
    any emission outside of the authorized operating frequency range
    must be attenuated below the transmitting power (P) by a factor of
    at least 43 + 10 log (P) dB,[^49] *i.e.*, the signal at the edge of
    the channel must be -43 dBW (-13 dBm) or less. PCS systems employ a
    duplexer (filter) at the transmitter output which reduces the
    out-of-band emission level from current handsets by about
    40 dB.[^50] Therefore, the maximum out-of-band emissions at the edge
    of the PCS receive block will be ‑53 dBm. The undesired signal level
    is then set equal to the desired signal (Pu = Pd; Pu = -104 dBm for
    CDMA and -102 dBm GSM). Using our assumption of free space loss, we
    can compute the distance where the signal from a potentially
    interfering transmitter attenuates to the same level as the desired
    signal level. It is important to note that the power of the
    transmitter is irrelevant to determining the distance because the
    out of band emissions requires that the signal is at least -43 dBW
    (-13dBm) or less regardless of the actual transmit power.[^51]
    Therefore, free space loss equals 51 dB (-53 dBm -- (-104 dBm)) for
    CDMA and 49 dB (-53 dBm -- (-102 dBm)) for GSM. The corresponding
    distance where this signal attenuates to these levels is 4.41 meters
    and 3.50 meters for CDMA and GSM, respectively.[^52]

24. Our calculations indicate that for interference to occur between a
    mobile transmitter and mobile receiver, the two radios would need to
    be 4.4 meters apart or closer when only the current Commission rules
    for out-of-band emission limits are considered. In reality, other
    factors will act to reduce this distance, such as antenna gain (it
    is assumed that the mobile antenna has a gain of -3 dB) and
    shielding of the signal by the body or other obstacles.
    Nevertheless, to reduce the separation distances to 1 meter or less,
    more stringent out-of-band limits are needed, and we address this
    issue in the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*.

25. The record demonstrates that technology exists that can meet more
    stringent standards than the current Commission rules for rejection
    into the PCS receive block with only a ten megahertz
    separation.[^53] The industry standards are much more stringent than
    the Commission's -13 dBm out-of-band limit, ranging from -61dBm/MHz
    to -76 dBm/MHz, depending on the technology used.[^54] In addition,
    Agilent argues that it can produce a split-band duplexer (for
    1910-1920 MHz) that would provide the same attenuation as those used
    in current phones.[^55] Thus, current technology permits us to
    consider AWS out-of-band limits that are significantly more
    stringent than existing Commission PCS rules. For example, if
    out-of-band emissions for AWS were limited to a level of -60 dBm at
    the edge of the receive band (at 1930 MHz)which would be comparable
    to the out-of-band emission limits used for existing GSM and TDMA
    systems, the operating environment would be no worse than exists
    today with the three different PCS technologies in use and thus
    should be sufficient to address out-of-band concerns. For the CDMA
    case, using -60 dBm as the duplexer rejection into the receive block
    and ignoring the antenna gain and body shielding, the separation
    distance where the transmitted signal attenuates to the level of the
    receiver sensitivity is 2 meters, assuming free space propagation
    loss.[^56] This is comparable to the 1 meter of separation that
    commenters argue is needed between mobile users and thus is
    sufficient to protect current PCS systems. Further, this short
    distance coupled with the low probability of occurrence of the
    worst-case scenario (both mobiles at the edge of coverage, both
    operating at the edge of the band, both simultaneously active, and
    both in close proximity to each other) make interference of this
    nature highly unlikely. For the GSM case, the worst-case scenario is
    even less likely to occur when considering that the condition of
    simultaneous activity is further precluded by the unlikely condition
    that both units are synchronized and using the same time slot.[^57]
    These issues regarding an appropriate out-of-band emission limit for
    AWS operations at 1915-1920 MHz are fully explored in the *AWS 2 GHz
    Service Rules NPRM.*

26. This out-of-band analysis is valid for all four interference cases
    we identified above -- *i.e.*, interference from CDMA to CDMA;
    interference from GSM to GSM; interference from CDMA to GSM; and
    interference from GSM to CDMA. However, for the case of potential
    interference of CDMA to GSM and of GSM to CDMA, there are still
    other factors that act to mitigate its occurrence. First, CDMA is a
    spread spectrum technique whereby the power spectral density is low
    across the 1.25 megahertz bandwidth and the signal looks similar to
    noise. Since GSM uses only a 200 kilohertz bandwidth, selective
    filtering would keep the amount of energy from the CDMA signal that
    could interfere very low. Also, because of the nature of CDMA, it
    would only appear as noise. Thus, it is possible that a GSM system
    could experience a slight reduction in range. However, because
    systems are designed such that adjacent cells overlap in order to
    allow for handoff, such reduction should have a negligible effect on
    system performance. In the GSM interference to CDMA case, the
    disparity in the bandwidths will cause a GSM signal to appear as
    narrowband interference to CDMA similar to selective frequency
    fading. Being a spread spectrum technique, CDMA is designed to work
    under such circumstances (*e.g.*, forward error correction, bit
    interleaving, etc.). Thus, this situation should not cause
    significant degradation to a CDMA system. For all the foregoing
    reasons, we conclude that out-of-band emissions should not pose a
    serious risk to the introduction of AWS in the 1915-1920 MHz band,
    provided appropriate technical constraints are imposed, and thus
    concerns raised by commenters here about out-of-band emissions do
    not preclude our decision to designate this band for AWS. As we
    noted above, we explore in the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM* issues
    concerning appropriate out-of-band emissions for AWS in this band
    and invite additional technical studies.

27. Secondly, we believe that interference due to receiver
    overload---*i.e.,* when a strong signal, such as the transmit mobile
    signal, causes a non-linear response in the receiver---is also
    unlikely if appropriate technical limits are imposed. Currently, the
    PCS rules specify a power limit of 2 watts eirp.[^58] However, due
    to many factors, such as RF safety and battery life concerns, PCS
    mobile transmitters generally operate at lower levels. For example,
    CDMA mobile transmitters generally operate with a peak power of 200
    milliwatts eirp (23 dBm), and GSM and TDMA transmitters tend to
    operate with peak power levels of around 1 watt without causing
    overload to mobile receivers.[^59] Recently, Sprint tested a number
    of existing PCS phones for susceptibility to degradation caused by
    overload. This data indicates that six of the seven phones could
    tolerate an interfering AWS signal at a level of -20 dBm or less
    without experiencing any degradation and that the worst phone could
    tolerate a level of about -23 dBm without experiencing
    degradation.[^60] These values represent the measured RF signal
    power of the AWS transmitter at the antenna port. Sprint concludes
    from its tests that significant power limitations are needed to
    avoid adverse impact from overload. We agree with Sprint that some
    limitations of output power are needed to protect existing PCS
    operations. For example, if AWS mobile transmissions are limited to
    200 mW (23 dBm) or less, we believe that overload concerns would be
    addressed. An AWS transmitter at 200 mW (23 dBm) will produce -21
    dBm or less at the antenna port of a victim receiver at a distance
    of 1 meter.[^61] Based on the above recent Sprint data, six of seven
    phones would experience no impact from an AWS transmitter at this
    level. For the worst phone tested, the separation would increase to
    about 1.5 meters. In practice, these distances would generally be
    reduced since PCS phones do not generally operate at full power and
    other propagation factors would tend to mitigate the actual received
    power. We thus conclude that concerns about receiver overload do not
    preclude designating this band for AWS, and we will explore the
    matter of appropriate power limits in the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules
    NPRM*.[^62]

28. We conclude that AWS operations in the 1915-1920 MHz band are
    technically feasible with a ten megahertz frequency separation
    between Broadband PCS mobile and base operations. We recognize, as
    discussed above, that additional technical constraints may need to
    be placed on AWS to avoid impairing incumbent PCS operations.
    Although we conclude here that this band will be designated for AWS,
    one goal of the *AWS 2 GHZ Service Rules NPRM* is to adopt technical
    rules that will protect existing PCS operations from interference.

29. We also conclude that AWS operations can be deployed in the
    1995-2000 MHz band. Several parties contend that technical
    constraints will need to be placed on new AWS operations in the
    1995-2000 MHz band in order to avoid interference to adjacent MSS
    operations in the 2020-2025 MHz band.[^63] However, we note that
    prior to the reallocation of MSS spectrum in the 1990-2000 MHz band
    to fixed and mobile services, existing Broadband PCS was immediately
    adjacent to the MSS. Thus, by redesignating the 1995-2000 MHz for
    AWS, fixed and mobile services will remain adjacent to MSS.[^64]
    Because we previously determined that PCS can exist adjacent to MSS,
    we likewise find that the 1995-2000 MHz band is suitable for an AWS
    designation. As with the 1915-1920 MHz band, we will consider
    specific technical requirements that are necessary for new AWS
    entrants as part of the *AWS 2 GHZ Service Rules NPRM.*

### Redesignation 

30. Given our analysis, above, and our intent to develop technical rules
    that will protect existing PCS operations from interference, we
    cannot agree with those commenters that claim that the 1915-1920 MHz
    band is unsuitable for AWS for technical reasons. We note that some
    commenters that generally support additional AWS spectrum did not
    recommend redesignation of the 1915-1920 MHz band, basing their
    conclusions on the belief that unacceptable and unpreventable
    interference would occur. For example, in Verizon's comments to the
    *AWS Third NPRM*, it applauds the Commission for continual efforts
    to identify and make available additional spectrum that will
    facilitate provision of wireless services,[^65] and yet also opposes
    the reallocation of 1915-1920 MHz due to PCS guard band
    concerns.[^66] We believe that the wealth of commenters that endorse
    the designation of additional AWS spectrum as a general matter
    provide additional support for our specific redesignation of the
    1915-1920 MHz band for such use.[^67]

31. Nevertheless, we note that some commenters offer alternate proposals
    for use of the band. Rather than redesignate the 1915-1920 MHz band
    for new and innovative licensed mobile services, some commenters
    state that the 1910-1920 MHz band should remain unlicensed --
    generally though expansion and liberalization of the existing
    isochronous UPCS rules in order to promote additional voice-based
    applications in the band -- or, in the event that we reallocate the
    1910-1915 MHz band segment (the effective action we ultimately
    undertook in the *800 MHz R&O*), that we should retain the 1915-1920
    MHz band for UPCS. Proponents of this option claim that isochronous
    UPCS should be extended because the current asynchronous designation
    has not resulted in service, continued low power (UPCS) use would
    reduce potential interference to high power adjacent band Broadband
    PCS licensees, and demand exists to expand unlicensed voice
    applications beyond the existing ten megahertz.[^68] Because the
    1915-1920 MHz band is currently lying fallow and no commenter has
    suggested that asynchronous applications for the band will be
    developed or deployed in the near future, we agree with commenters
    who believe that we should take some action to put this band to a
    higher and more efficient use. Allowing expanded isochronous UPCS
    operations into this band is one option for doing so. Licensing it
    for high power AWS use is another.

32. Proponents of an isochronous UPCS expansion claim that there is an
    interest in and need for more spectrum to deploy unlicensed devices.
    For example, Ascom and Ericsson contend that by modifying the
    existing isochronous UPCS rules, we would also be able to promote
    the use of additional devices such as those meeting the IMT-2000
    specifications for unlicensed devices.[^69] Similarly, Siemens
    suggests that by extending isochronous UPCS use to the 1915-1920 MHz
    band and implementing several technical changes to the Rules, the
    Commission could allow for the introduction of products using DECT
    technology into the United States.[^70] ICO Global Communications
    (ICO) and Motorola indicate that the growing demand for UPCS devices
    and need for more isochronous UCPS spectrum support the expansion of
    the 1920-1930 MHz band rules into the 1910-1920 MHz band.[^71]

33. Other commenters that promote expansion of isochronous UPCS
    applications into the 1915-1920 MHz band, including UTStarcom, JSM,
    and PHS MoU, recommend that we modify the rules to support community
    wireless networks -- in particular, the wireless local loop/limited
    mobility systems associated with the Japanese standard RCR-28 and
    commonly marketed as the "Personal Handyphone System" (PHS).[^72]
    Such use, these commenters claim, would allow small entities the
    opportunity to provide new services that are different from those
    currently available in the licensed service bands,[^73] and would
    permit the deployment of existing technology to areas of lower
    volume use.[^74]

34. As mentioned, *supra,* the lack of UPCS devices operating in the
    1910‑1920 MHz band has prompted the filing of five petitions for
    waiver from Lucent, UTStarcom & Drew University, Ascom, Alaska
    Power, and RBM Communications (RBM); and two petitions for
    rulemaking from WINForum and UTStarcom, which all request certain
    rule changes to these bands. In general, these pleadings seek to
    deploy existing isochronous UPCS equipment in the 1910-1920 MHz band
    in specific areas where additional spectrum is needed to provide
    high capacity indoor wireless communications, or propose to deploy
    local wireless systems based on the PHS standards. In an earlier
    proceeding, we dismissed in part the petitions for waivers and
    petitions for rulemakings made only with respect to the 1910-1915
    MHz band.

35. In its petition for waiver, Lucent requests that it be allowed to
    use the 1910-1920 MHz band for its Definity PBX voice system within
    the confines of Cook County, Illinois. It claims that several of its
    customers need high-capacity indoor wireless communications and that
    the existing ten megahertz of spectrum reserved for voice in the
    1920-1930 MHz band is insufficient to meet those needs. Also,
    UTStarcom & Drew University request permission to use the 1910-1920
    MHz band to install the UTStarcom Personal Access System (PAS) on
    the campus of Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, in order to
    provide wireless telephone service to the students and staff, as an
    extension of the university's wired telephone system. It states that
    the PAS system complies with Japan's PHS Standard RCR-28 but does
    not meet Part 15 requirements for either isochronous or asynchronous
    devices and typically operates at higher power levels than mandated
    by Part 15. It further states that once Broadband PCS Block C
    licensees are selected in Auction #35 (for the 1895‑1910 MHz band
    paired with the 1975‑1990 MHz band) it would be possible to
    negotiate use of that spectrum on the Drew University campus with
    the winning licensee. Also, Ascom requests that it be allowed to use
    the 1910-1920 MHz band for its Freeset DCT 1900 PBX voice system
    within the confines of Cook County, Illinois; New York City; and San
    Francisco County, California, because several of its customers, who
    are boards of trade or stock exchange entities, need high-capacity
    indoor wireless communications. Ascom submits that the ten megahertz
    of spectrum reserved for voice in the 1920‑1930 MHz band is, again,
    insufficient to meet such needs. In addition, Alaska Power requests
    a waiver of Part 15 asynchronous spectrum etiquette to operate a
    community wireless voice system over the 1910-1920 MHz (data) band,
    in order to serve small rural areas in Alaska that are currently
    unserved or underserved by wireless service providers. Finally, in
    its waiver request, RBM requests permission to operate voice devices
    in the 1915-1920 MHz band for providing low-power fixed wireless
    local loop telephone service in Las Vegas, Nevada. More
    specifically, RBM requests that the Commission waive Sections 15.319
    and 15.321 of the Rules to provide their service as an enhancement
    of its competitive local exchange carrier.

36. In its petition for rulemaking, WINForum asks the Commission to
    allow isochronous UPCS devices to use the 1910‑1920 MHz band and to
    phase out asynchronous use in this band, thereby providing twenty
    megahertz of spectrum (1910‑1930 MHz) for isochronous devices, and
    also to modify certain technical requirements for UPCS devices in
    Part 15. WINForum further requests that the Commission modify the
    frequency stability requirements for asynchronous UPCS data
    devices.[^75] In its petition, UTStarcom requests that the 1910-1920
    MHz band be made available for licensing via competitive bidding to
    permit the establishment of community wireless network service,
    using PAS which is based on Japan's RCR-28 PHS standard.[^76]
    Subsequently, UTStarcom modified its requests to seek changes to the
    Part 15 rules for coordinated unlicensed operation in the 1910-1920
    MHz band for its PAS system, with coordination performed by UTAM,
    using the existing UTAM coordination infrastructure.[^77]

37. We agree with the commenters and petitioners that an expansion of
    the isochronous UPCS rules is preferable to the current inefficient
    use of the 1915-1920 MHz band. However, we cannot conclude that
    expanded UPCS use is preferable to the types of high powered
    licensed applications that the band could support by being
    redesignated for AWS applications. Operations in the existing
    Broadband PCS bands have been extremely successful and with new data
    offerings becoming available, carriers expect subscribership to
    continue to experience substantial growth. Thus, this additional
    spectrum will help to ensure that providers have sufficient spectrum
    to accommodate these new services and additional subscribers. The
    proven public demand for licensed mobile services that are expected
    to provide the foundation for AWS applications and the need to
    provide additional spectrum to support their continued deployment
    will allow us to put this spectrum to a higher use than it can serve
    as an expansion of UPCS.

38. As part of our proposal to reallocate the 1910-1920 MHz band (or a
    portion thereof) in the *AWS Third NPRM*, we also proposed options
    for pairing the 1910-1920 MHz band with the 1990-2000 MHz band for
    reallocation to AWS, expansion of Broadband PCS, or for the
    relocation of existing services.[^78] The 1915-1920 MHz band is
    particularly well suited for such use because of its adjacency to
    and identical frequency separation with the existing Broadband PCS.
    Pairing 1915-1920 MHz with 1995-2000 MHz would benefit from the
    design of high power PCS equipment in the adjacent Broadband PCS
    bands, which in turn would promote the rapid design and deployment
    of new systems and result in economies of scale. Such a pairing
    would, as a practical matter, increase the deployment options
    available to new licensees under an AWS designation. Also, this
    pairing would maximize the value of the spectrum by achieving
    greater spectrum efficiency.

39. We also find that due to similar characteristics and proximity to
    Broadband PCS, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band pairing is
    comparable to the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz band pairing we
    adopted in the *800 MHz R&O*.[^79] Accordingly, we conclude that
    those comments that relate to use of the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995
    MHz bands as paired AWS spectrum are also applicable to the
    1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz paired bands.[^80] For instance,
    pairing the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands would allow for
    the rapid introduction of terrestrial wireless services. Many
    potential high-power licensed mobile service providers are designed
    to operate on distinct base station transmit and mobile receive
    bands that incorporate adequate frequency separation between the
    bands. Thus, paired use of these two five megahertz blocks is
    consistent with many possible technologies, including the IMT-2000
    standards that are widely expected to be employed in the provision
    of AWS.

40. Thus, we find that the 1915-1920 MHz band will allow for the
    deployment of AWS applications, and is particularly well suited for
    this purpose when paired with the 1995-2000 MHz band. By contrast,
    many of the proposals for expanded unlicensed voice applications
    relate to discrete geographic regions or are based on an expansion
    of existing UPCS applications in specific urban markets where
    parties claim there is robust UPCS use in specialized environments,
    such as stock and commodity exchanges. We further note that the
    record indicates that while systems based on the PHS technology can
    be deployed in the 1915-1920 MHz band, such use would be at the
    upper end of the spectrum in which they have been designed to
    operate and would somewhat limit the scope of operation. For
    example, UTStarcom states that entities using this five megahertz
    block could offer local loop voice services in smaller communities
    and in-building wireless loop applications in urban settings, but
    that to do so it would have to eliminate a two megahertz guard band
    between PHS and isochronous UPCS spectrum and move the PHS control
    channels into the band, and that PHS applications would have the
    effect of reducing the capacity of UPCS operations that are in close
    proximity to the new PHS systems.[^81] The PHS MoU Group indicates
    that while PHS can operate in the 1915-1920 MHz band, it will be
    necessary to use additional spectrum in order to provide data
    applications.[^82] Because the *800 MHz R&O* took the 1910-1915 MHz
    band out of consideration for continued UPCS use, new UPCS
    applications that are based on an extension and modification of the
    isochronous UPCS rules -- including PHS systems -- would be able to
    use no more than five megahertz of additional spectrum. Taken
    together, all of these factors serve as limitations on the ultimate
    utility of the 1915-1920 MHz band as isochronous UPCS spectrum.

41. Based on our determination that additional spectrum is needed for
    AWS use, and because the characteristics of the 1915-1920 MHz band
    that make it well suited for such use, we conclude that such a
    designation will promote efficient use of the spectrum, allow for
    the rapid introduction of high-value services, and is otherwise
    preferable to the other option that has been put forth --
    introduction of isochronous UPCS rules into the band. Based on our
    discussion above, we find that it is technically feasible to
    introduce AWS in the band without impairing incumbent PCS with a
    separation distance between the Broadband PCS mobile and base
    transmit bands of ten megahertz, and we intend to develop technical
    rules to ensure that AWS in this band will not interfere with
    existing PCS operations. Further, we conclude that, given the
    opportunity, licensees and manufacturers will develop equipment and
    business plans that put this spectrum to use that will benefit the
    public. For these reasons, and given the lack of unlicensed use of
    the 1915-1920 MHz band under the existing rules, we find that the
    public interest is best served by redesignating five megahertz of
    spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz band for AWS on a primary basis to
    support the types of high powered mobile applications associated
    with AWS and Broadband PCS expansion and pairing it with the five
    megahertz of spectrum at 1995-2000 MHz that we previously designated
    for AWS. Accordingly, we modify the Table of Allocations to reflect
    the applicable rule parts for these services, and update Part 15
    rules to remove the 1915-1920 MHz band from asynchronous UPCS use.
    Because their pleadings are inconsistent with the AWS designation
    for the 1915-1920 MHz band we adopt herein, we deny the waiver
    petitions from Lucent, Ascom, Alaska Power, RBM, and UTStarcom &
    Drew University.[^83] We likewise deny the petitions for rulemaking
    from WINForum and UTStarcom.

42. We discuss in greater depth, below, relocation and reimbursement
    procedures to accommodate incumbent users in these bands. We also
    address rule modifications that we can make in the remaining UPCS
    frequencies -- *i.e.* the 1920-1930 MHz band -- to promote
    deployment of the expanded voice-based applications, such as those
    using DECT technology, that commenters have sought to deploy
    throughout the UPCS spectrum.

## 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands

43. *Background.* In the *AWS Third R&O*, the Commission reallocated the
    2020-2025 MHz band to Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis
    to promote the introduction of new advanced services, but did not
    specify how services could best be structured in the band.[^84] The
    2020-2025 MHz band was among the spectrum that had been previously
    allocated to MSS for uplinks on a primary basis, and is currently
    used by BAS incumbents who are transitioning to a more spectrally
    efficient channel plan in the 2025-2110 MHz band. The *AWS Third
    NPRM* sought comment on the potential uses of the 2020-2025 MHz
    band, including pairing this five megahertz block with an
    equal-sized amount of spectrum in the 2155-2180 MHz band.[^85] The
    *AWS Third NPRM* asked for specific band plans, frequency pairings,
    and technical limitations needed to protect adjacent band operators,
    including MSS operations (including terrestrial operations by a MSS
    licensee under its Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC)
    authorization) in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.

44. Our proposals generated a wide variety of suggestions, as commenters
    indicated that this band could be used to promote both new
    technologies -- such as AWS in paired and unpaired configurations --
    as well as be used as spectrum for displaced services, such as
    relocated Federal Government licensees or UPCS. CTIA, for example,
    recommends that the 2020-2025 MHz band should be made available for
    AWS use, but notes that such use would need to account for potential
    interference to and from adjacent operations.[^86] Motorola notes
    that the band has 'limited utility' for AWS due to its size,
    frequency separation from other AWS blocks, and proximity to the MSS
    uplink band.[^87] AT&T Wireless suggests that the block could either
    be used as unpaired spectrum suitable for TDD technologies, or as
    relocation spectrum for government operations displaced from the
    1710-1755 MHz band.[^88] In addition, Ad Hoc states that this band
    should be used as replacement spectrum for displaced UPCS at 1.9
    GHz.[^89] Lastly, SBE, among others, claims that PCS-like services
    (including AWS) operating in the 2020-2025 MHz band would cause
    interference to and receive interference from adjacent BAS
    operations in the 2025-2110 MHz band.[^90] Ericsson, in its comments
    to the *AWS Third NPRM*, originally recommended the creation of a
    paired spectrum block at 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz. Doing so,
    Ericsson stated, would increase spectrum efficiency by designating
    bands that are compatible with adjacent services, creating valuable
    contiguous spectrum.[^91] However, in response to the SBE filing,
    Ericsson concludes that the value of the paired band would be
    diminished due to the potential for interference to and from
    adjacent BAS operations, and instead endorses other comments that
    recommend that the band be used for the relocation of Federal
    Government operations.[^92]

45. *Decision.* As an initial matter, we recognize that many of the
    comments have been outdated by more recent developments in this
    proceeding. For example, some of the bands identified by commenters
    are no longer available to be paired. We also reject those comments
    that would have us make this band available for Federal Government
    operations because we have already proposed relocation procedures
    that would not require Federal Government relocation into the
    band.[^93] Moreover, such a designation would limit use of this
    spectrum by the public and would require us to re-evaluate our BAS
    relocation procedures to accommodate the entry of Federal Government
    users in the band. We also disagree with those commenters that
    support relocating displaced UPCS to this five megahertz block,
    given our previous analysis of asynchronous UPCS operations, the
    conclusion that there are no current operations to be displaced, and
    our findings that additional AWS spectrum will promote new
    technologies and services, make efficient use of the spectrum, and
    use the spectrum to its highest potential.

46. As part of our decision to redesignate the 2020-2025 MHz and
    2155-2180 MHz bands in the *AWS Third R&O*, we also proposed options
    for pairing the 2020-2025 MHz band with spectrum in the 2155-2180
    MHz band for new Fixed and Mobile services, including AWS. Because
    these bands have been redesignated for AWS, we find the 2020-2025
    MHz band suitable for pairing with the 2175-2180 MHz band. We also
    note that AWS entrants may also benefit from the introduction of
    terrestrial services in the adjacent MSS band under MSS/ATC
    authority. Pairing 2020-2025 MHz with 2175-2180 MHz could benefit
    from the design of equipment in the adjacent MSS spectrum -- in
    particular, equipment deployed to provide MSS/ATC service -- which
    in turn could allow for potential economies of scale and generally
    promote the more rapid deployment of new service offerings.[^94]

47. We are cognizant of the technical considerations that the licensees
    must account for in developing systems in such close proximity to
    BAS operations in the 2025-2210 MHz band, and note that some
    commenters raised concerns about the potential for adjacent channel
    interference to BAS receivers.[^95] In recent proceedings, we have
    addressed similar concerns and found similar spectrum to be suitable
    for terrestrial use.[^96] Moreover, in the companion *AWS 2 GHz
    Service Rules NPRM*, we seek comment on the specific technical
    limits necessary to protect adjacent operations while permitting AWS
    use of the band. As a general matter, however, we continue to
    believe that the 2020-2025 MHz band is best suited for AWS use, and
    that potential licensees will ultimately have sufficient flexibility
    to put this spectrum to its best use.

## Relocation and Reimbursement

### Relocation and Reimbursement in the 1915-1920 MHz Band

48. *Background.* In the *AWS Third NPRM*, we proposed that if we were
    to reallocate all or a portion of the 1910-1920 MHz band, we would
    implement a reimbursement plan that would repay UTAM a percentage of
    the expenses it incurred in clearing the UPCS band of microwave
    links.[^97] We sought comment on this proposal and the method by
    which UTAM should be repaid. Those parties that commented on this
    issue generally agree with our proposal, and support the adoption of
    a reimbursement plan that would compensate UTAM for its
    expenses.[^98]

49. UTAM, which supports retention of the entire 1910-1920 MHz band for
    UPCS, also states that in the event we reallocate spectrum in this
    band, we must ensure that new licensees fully and fairly compensate
    UTAM for the relocation of incumbent microwave users. In its
    comments, UTAM generally concurs that the reimbursement plan we
    proposed -- which is based on the cost-sharing model we previously
    adopted for the relocation of microwave incumbents to allow for the
    introduction of licensed PCS -- would provide such compensation.

50. In addition, UTAM raises several points as to how we should
    implement a reimbursement plan for reallocated UPCS spectrum. First,
    UTAM states that its compensation must be adjusted to include the
    base *pro rata* percentage of total costs it has incurred. To do
    this, UTAM notes that certain of its microwave relocation
    cost-sharing obligations are being paid in installments for links
    that have been moved by third parties, and asks that it be
    compensated for the pro-rata share of the present value of these
    future costs in one lump sum.[^99] Second, UTAM states that new
    licensees should be required to follow the same cost-sharing rules
    as existing licensees that are adjacent to the UPCS band. In other
    words, if UTAM relocates a microwave link that accrues to the
    benefit of a new licensee, UTAM believes that the new licensee
    should be responsible for paying the relocation costs proportionate
    to the number of licenses benefiting from the relocation. This same
    cost-sharing obligation would apply to UTAM paying for reimbursement
    if a licensee relocated a link that accrued to the benefit of UTAM's
    members.[^100] Also, UTAM states that a new licensee should, as a
    precondition to the grant of a license, be required to make its
    reimbursement payment to UTAM. This precondition, UTAM claims, would
    be similar to that of the payment of auction funds as a prerequisite
    to licensing. New licensees would therefore be able to factor the
    microwave relocation payment into a licensee's bidding strategy, in
    the event the spectrum is auctioned.[^101] Finally, UTAM suggests
    that we consider allocating reimbursement costs among multiple new
    licensees entering the band by POPs as an effective, simple, and
    manageable means of cost recovery.[^102] We note that in the
    companion *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM* the Commission seeks
    comment on the licensing scheme in the 1915-1920 MHz band.
    Therefore, we take no action with respect to UTAM's comments
    concerning schedule of reimbursement. Rather, UTAM may raise these
    issues in response to the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*.

51. Nextel agrees with our proposal for reimbursing UTAM's incurred
    relocation costs. PCIA, which also supports our general relocation
    proposal, proposes that we establish a band-clearing cost-sharing
    clearinghouse to manage the relocation compensation in the
    allocation of UPCS bands to AWS.[^103] PCIA states that many AWS
    licensees would benefit from UTAM relocating incumbent microwave
    links from the UPCS bands, because AWS licensees licensed in
    different geographic service areas could cause interference to or
    receive interference from a single incumbent licensee. PCIA asks
    that we develop a band-clearing cost-sharing clearinghouse, similar
    to the cost-sharing procedures for PCS in Part 24 of the
    Commission's Rules, to provide reimbursement for UTAM and
    incumbents.[^104]

52. We note that in the *800 MHz R&O*, the Commission adopted a
    reimbursement plan that obligated Nextel to reimburse UTAM
    twenty-five percent -- on a *pro rata* basis -- for the costs
    incurred for relocating microwave incumbents from the 1910-1915 MHz
    band.[^105] Nextel has to pay this amount before it begins
    operations in the band. After this time, Nextel and UTAM can seek
    reimbursement - based on actual costs -- for costs incurred for
    clearing incumbents that benefits spectrum whose relocation
    obligations would otherwise be borne by the party that is
    responsible for that band. These rules take effect as of the date in
    which Nextel receives its nationwide license for the 1910-1915 MHz
    band. Because a reimbursement plan has been established for the
    1910-1915 MHz band between Nextel and UTAM in the *800 MHz R&O*, we
    address the above comments as they pertain to the 1915-1920 MHz
    band.

53. *Decision.* In conjunction with our redesignation of the 1915-1920
    MHz band for AWS, we find that UTAM must be fully and fairly
    reimbursed for relocating incumbent microwave users in this band. We
    agree with commenters that UTAM should be made whole for the
    investments it has made in clearing the UPCS bands. Accordingly,
    UTAM is entitled to reimbursement of twenty-five percent -- on a
    *pro-rata* basis -- of the total costs it has incurred, including
    its future payment obligations for links it has relocated, as of the
    date that a new entrant gains access to the 1915-1920 MHz spectrum
    band. A new AWS licensee in the 1915-1920 MHz band must pay this
    amount before it begins operations in the band, and under any
    specific terms or conditions that we adopt in the *AWS 2 GHz Service
    Rules NPRM*.

54. Our decision to require new entrants in the 1915-1920 MHz band to
    reimburse UTAM a *pro rata* share of costs, in addition to being
    consistent with the comments supporting a reimbursement mechanism
    for UTAM, offers a fair and easy procedure to implement. Because
    UTAM has already cleared most of the incumbent microwave links
    deployed across the entire 1910-1930 MHz band, this reimbursement
    plan represents the most reasonable and easiest approach to address
    the relocation costs that UTAM has already incurred. We believe that
    such a course is superior to the difficult and complex prospect of
    making retroactive calculations for apportionment and represents an
    equitable and administratively efficient means of compensating UTAM.
    We note that no party has objected to this approach.

55. We also agree with UTAM that we should apply the same cost-sharing
    obligations to new entrants that we have imposed on licensees on
    channels that are adjacent to the UPCS bands with respect to
    subsequent band clearing expenses.[^106] Thus, we will allow a new
    entrant in the band -- whether it is an AWS licensee, UTAM, or
    Nextel (which was assigned the 1910-1915 MHz band in the *800 MHz
    R&O*) -- to seek reimbursement for the proportion of any additional
    relocation costs that benefits spectrum whose relocation obligations
    would otherwise be borne by the party that uses or is otherwise
    responsible for that spectrum band. For example, if in order to make
    spectrum in the 1915-1920 MHz band available for use after it has
    paid its *pro rata* share of UTAM's band clearing expenses, an AWS
    licensee relocates incumbent microwave links that remain in both the
    1915-1920 MHz and the 1920-1930 MHz spectrum, the AWS licensee may
    seek reimbursement from UTAM for the actual costs associated with
    the relocation of microwave facilities in the 1920-1930 MHz
    band.[^107] The same reimbursement scheme would apply between the
    new entrant and Nextel for any microwave links in both the 1910-1915
    MHz and 1915-1920 MHz spectrum bands that are relocated prior to the
    time that Nextel calculates its band clearing expenses pursuant to
    the band clearing offset process established in the *800 MHz
    R&O.*[^108] Similarly, we will allow UTAM to recover any additional
    expenses incurred in clearing incumbent fixed microwave systems in
    the 1920-1930 MHz band that are attributable to clearing the
    1915-1920 MHz band. To implement our decision with respect to the
    1915-1920 MHz band, we are amending our rules to reflect this
    reimbursement plan.[^109]

56. We find it unnecessary to establish a cost-sharing clearinghouse, as
    suggested by PCIA, at this time. As an initial matter, we do not
    agree that the 1915-1920 MHz band will have the same complexities
    that were present in the Broadband PCS spectrum that led to the
    adoption of the cost-sharing clearinghouse procedures that PCIA
    would have us use as a model. Because UTAM has cleared most of the
    microwave incumbents from the 1910-1930 MHz band, new AWS entrants
    in the five megahertz of former UPCS spectrum will need to
    coordinate reimbursement payments with UTAM and -- perhaps -- a few
    remaining incumbent microwave licensees in the 1915-1920 MHz band,
    Nextel, other AWS licensees in the 1915-1920 MHz band, and/or MSS
    licensees for any residual microwave link relocations not already
    undertaken by UTAM. By contrast, entrants in the much larger
    Broadband PCS bands subject to the cost-sharing clearinghouse did
    not have the benefit of UTAM having already largely cleared the
    bands of microwave incumbents. In a similar vein, to the extent that
    AWS licensees in the BAS bands (1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz)
    actually incur relocation obligations, they will join Nextel and MSS
    licensees in an already established relocation process whose
    incumbent BAS licensees will be relocated market-by-market. This
    scenario may be sufficiently different, from the more complex
    link-by-link relocation that was required for Broadband PCS
    deployment, to make a cost-sharing clearinghouse unnecessary. We
    also note that because the companion *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*
    seeks comment on licensing the AWS bands using a geographic area
    licensing scheme, it would be difficult to set forth a comprehensive
    cost-sharing clearinghouse plan now. In fact, we can envision
    scenarios -- such as adoption of a single nationwide license for the
    AWS bands -- in which there would be no cognizable role for a
    clearinghouse administrator.

### Relocation and Reimbursement in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz Bands

57. The 1990-2110 MHz band (2 GHz BAS band) is currently used
    extensively by the BAS for mobile TV pickup (TVPU) operations,
    including electronic newsgathering (ENG) operations to cover events
    of interest.[^110] The original 2 GHz BAS channel plan divided the
    band into seven channels, each consisting of between 16.5 and 18
    megahertz.[^111] In the *MSS Second R&O*, the Commission reallocated
    the 1990-2025 MHz segment to the MSS and established a relocation
    plan for incumbent BAS.[^112] The Commission adopted a two-phase
    relocation plan with a cutover schedule based on market size in
    which the BAS would eventually have access to seven 12 megahertz
    channels in the 2025-2110 MHz band at the end of the
    transition.[^113] The Commission also identified four broad
    categories of BAS markets -- "LA" (Los Angeles television market),
    "Metro" (remaining top 30 television markets), "Light" (television
    markets 31-100), and "Rural" (television markets 101 and
    above).[^114] The Commission specified different relocation
    schedules for BAS facilities based on the size of the market.[^115]
    For example, BAS incumbents in markets 1-30 were to be relocated on
    an earlier schedule than incumbents in markets 31-100.

58. In the *MSS Third R&O,* the Commission modified the plan that 2 GHz
    MSS licensees were to follow when relocating incumbent BAS licensees
    in the 1990-2025 MHz band.[^116] The modified plan provides for the
    relocation of BAS licensees to the 2025-2110 MHz band in a single
    step, retains the distinction of BAS licensees by market size, and
    requires the relocation of those licensees within the time periods
    specified for their respective market categories.[^117] The
    Commission also noted that, subsequent to its establishment of the
    BAS relocation plan, it had reallocated fifteen megahertz of
    spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band for new AWS entrants.[^118] The
    Commission concluded that it was necessary to give these new AWS
    entrants a realistic opportunity to seek early use of the band in
    exchange for the relocation of incumbent users, while minimizing the
    disruption to BAS incumbents to the extent possible.[^119] The
    Commission found that, given the need to provide for rapid
    introduction of AWS in the 2 GHz BAS band, a two-phase relocation
    was no longer appropriate.[^120]

59. In order to provide early access to the 1990-2025 MHz spectrum for
    MSS licensees while maintaining the integrity of the BAS system, the
    Commission set up a negotiation structure that provided for a
    one-year mandatory negotiation period, consistent with those
    procedures established in the *Emerging Technologies*
    proceeding.[^121] Under this structure, incumbent BAS licensees in
    television markets 1-30 were required to negotiate in good faith
    with the new MSS entrant to facilitate relocation from the
    band.[^122] Upon expiration of the mandatory negotiation period, the
    new MSS entrant could involuntarily relocate incumbent BAS licensees
    to the seven narrower channels in the 2025-2110 MHz band that make
    up the revised BAS channel plan.[^123] Once BAS licensees in markets
    1-30 and all fixed BAS stations, regardless of market size, had been
    relocated, MSS licensees could begin their nationwide operations in
    the 2000-2020 MHz band. On the date the first MSS licensee begins
    operations, all BAS licensees in markets 31-210 were required to
    cease operations on existing channels 1 and 2 (1990-2025 MHz) and
    BAS operations would no longer be permitted in that spectrum.[^124]
    Also on this date, a one-year mandatory negotiation period would
    begin between MSS licensees and BAS incumbents in markets 31-210.
    Although MSS licensees may involuntarily relocate BAS incumbents at
    any time after the expiration of the one-year mandatory negotiation
    period, BAS incumbents in markets 31-100 must be relocated to the
    seven narrower channels in the 2025-2110 MHz band that make up the
    revised BAS channel plan within three years of the date the first
    MSS licensee begins operations, and BAS incumbents in markets
    101-210 must be relocated within five years of this date.[^125]

60. *Nextel-BAS Relocation Plan*. Recently, in the *800 MHz R&O*, the
    Commission addressed Nextel's obligations, as a new entrant, to
    relocate incumbent BAS systems in the 1990-1995 MHz band.[^126]
    Specifically, the Commission, as a condition on Nextel's 1.9 GHz
    licenses, required Nextel to follow a relocation procedure based on
    a joint relocation plan submitted by MSTV, NAB, and Nextel and
    relocate all BAS licensees in the 1990-2025 MHz band to comparable
    facilities within thirty months after the effective date of the *800
    MHz R&O.*[^127]

61. The mandatory negotiation periods for Nextel and BAS licensees end
    on May 31, 2005 for stage-one relocations (stage-one ends eighteen
    months after the effective date of the *800 MHz R&O*) and on March
    31, 2006 for stage-two relocations (stage-two ends thirty months
    after the effective date of the *800 MHz R&O*).[^128] The Commission
    stated that MSS licensees may voluntarily join in these negotiations
    in order to relocate BAS operations in markets 31 and above and any
    fixed BAS operations, regardless of market size. We encouraged MSS
    licensees to work cooperatively with Nextel in these negotiations
    because all parties would collectively benefit from the expeditious
    relocation of BAS incumbents to the new band plan.[^129]

62. Under the *800 MHz R&O,* Nextel is entitled to seek *pro rata*
    reimbursement of eligible clearing costs incurred during the
    36-month 800 MHz band reconfiguration period from MSS licensees that
    enter the band prior to the end of that period.[^130] Nextel would
    pay all upfront costs and receive credit for BAS relocation in the
    800 MHz true-up process, less any MSS-reimbursed expenses.[^131]
    Thus, Nextel would no longer be entitled to reimbursement from other
    entrants to the band after receiving credit for its relocation costs
    at the 800 MHz true-up.[^132] Further, Nextel\'s right to seek
    reimbursement from any MSS entrants entering before the end of the
    36-month reconfiguration period would be limited to costs Nextel
    incurred for clearing the top 30 markets and relocating all fixed
    BAS facilities, regardless of market size, and to an MSS licensee\'s
    *pro rata* share of the 1990-2025 MHz spectrum.[^133] The Commission
    believed that limiting the amount of Nextel's reimbursement in this
    manner struck an appropriate balance that was not unreasonably
    burdensome on Nextel or MSS licensees.[^134]

63. Similarly, Nextel is also obligated to reimburse MSS licensees for
    Nextel's *pro rata* share of the MSS licensees' relocation expenses,
    should the MSS licensee trigger involuntary relocation or otherwise
    participate in the relocation process before Nextel has completed
    its nationwide clearing of the band. Any reimbursement by Nextel to
    MSS licensees would have to occur before the 800 MHz true-up period
    ends, so that these reimbursement expenses can be accounted for at
    the 800 MHz true-up. Both Nextel and MSS licensees under the MSS
    plan must clear the entire 1990-2025 band (a total of thirty-five
    megahertz of spectrum) while only operating in 1990-1995 MHz (a
    total of five megahertz of spectrum) and in 2000-2020 MHz (a total
    of twenty megahertz of spectrum), respectively. Therefore, Nextel's
    *pro rata* share represents the costs to relocate one-seventh of the
    spectrum.[^135]

64. *MSS-BAS Relocation Plan.* In the *800 MHz R&O,* the Commission also
    decided not to alter the underlying relocation rules that were
    established for MSS entrants in the *MSS Third R&O* except to
    modify, on reconsideration, one aspect of the existing MSS plan to
    relocate BAS incumbents to complement Nextel's plan for entry into
    the band and to address BAS relocation issues raised in the
    petitions for reconsideration of the *MSS Third R&O*. On
    reconsideration, the Commission decided to no longer require BAS
    licensees in TV markets 31-210 to cease operations on channels 1 and
    2 (1990-2008 MHz and 2008-2025 MHz, respectively) until they have
    been relocated to the new band plan at 2025-2110 MHz. The Commission
    found that this modification was appropriate to accommodate Nextel's
    entry into the band under the adopted Nextel-BAS plan, which did not
    require BAS incumbents in markets 31 and above to cease operations
    on these two channels without receiving compensation prior to
    vacating the spectrum.[^136]

65. Under the *800 MHz R&O,* MSS licensees would retain the option of
    accelerating the clearing of those markets so that they could begin
    operations before Nextel has completed nationwide clearing. We
    recognized that the parties would have to work cooperatively to
    ensure a smooth transition for BAS incumbents and to facilitate that
    process, we required Nextel to file with the Commission and copy the
    MSS licensees, within thirty days after the effective date of the
    *800 MHz R&O*, its plan for the relocation of BAS operations in the
    markets that will be relocated during stage one (*i.e.*, within
    eighteen months).[^137] MSS licensees would have thirty days to
    review the Nextel plan and identify to Nextel and the Commission
    which of the top thirty TV markets and fixed BAS operations, if any,
    they intend to invoke involuntary relocation.[^138] If MSS licensees
    chose not to trigger involuntary relocation, Nextel would proceed
    under its plan to relocate BAS incumbents. The Commission found that
    the best way to ensure the continuity of BAS -- a critical part of
    the broadcasting system by which emergency information and
    entertainment content is provided to the American public -- during
    the transition was to retain the existing MSS relocation rules but
    also to overlay procedures by which Nextel may relocate BAS
    incumbents. Therefore, we noted that we expect Nextel and MSS
    licensees to work together to minimize the disruption BAS licensees
    will experience in the transition.[^139]

66. *Discussion.* In the *MSS Third R&O*, we noted that with the
    redesignation of the 1990-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands in the
    AWS proceeding, non-MSS licensees that may begin service later will
    benefit from the band clearing paid for by MSS licensees. We
    therefore stated that we will provide an equitable mechanism by
    which MSS licensees can recover some of the relocation costs
    incurred from other licensees who will benefit from the band
    clearing of incumbent BAS operations from the 1990-2025 MHz band.
    However, we deferred setting forth comprehensive procedures that new
    Fixed and Mobile service providers (including AWS entrants) in these
    bands must follow to reimburse MSS licensees that will have incurred
    relocation costs.[^140] Now that the existing BAS relocation and
    cost sharing obligations for Nextel and MSS licensees in the
    1990-2025 MHz band have been decided and are summarized above, we
    discuss how these relocation procedures would apply to new AWS
    entrants in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands.

67. As discussed above, under the *800 MHz R&O*, Nextel is obligated to
    complete the relocation of all BAS incumbents by May 2007.[^141]
    Under the MSS plan, MSS licensees may begin operations once the top
    thirty BAS markets and all fixed BAS stations, regardless of market
    size, have been cleared[^142] and must certify that their systems
    are operational by no later than July 2007.[^143]

68. We first conclude that AWS licensees that do not begin operations in
    the 1990-2025 MHz band until after this spectrum has been cleared
    will not have to participate in the relocation process of incumbent
    BAS licensees. These AWS licensees will receive unencumbered
    spectrum, the value of which will be reflected in the auction price.
    Further, these late-entering AWS licensees will not have any
    reimbursement obligation to Nextel, if Nextel has received credit
    for BAS relocation costs in the 800 MHz true-up. These AWS licensees
    may, under certain circumstances, have reimbursement obligations to
    MSS entrants, as discussed below; otherwise, these AWS licensees
    would not have a reimbursement obligation to MSS entrants.[^144]

69. We will require an AWS licensee that enters the band prior to the
    milestones established for Nextel and MSS licensees to participate
    in the BAS relocation process as discussed below. AWS licensees
    shall generally follow a relocation plan modeled on the policies set
    forth in our earlier *Emerging Technologies* proceeding and, in
    particular, follow the requirement that new entrants provide
    comparable facilities to incumbents that are relocated.[^145]
    Accordingly, AWS licensees must provide comparable facilities to BAS
    incumbents that are relocated.[^146] Further, AWS licensees, Nextel
    and MSS licensees, each of which individually is authorized to
    operate on a fraction of the band, will mutually benefit from the
    clearance of all BAS licensees in the band.[^147] An AWS licensee
    will be responsible, similar to other new entrants, to relocate all
    BAS operations from 1990-2025 MHz, even if it ultimately does not
    build its own facilities in some geographic areas. As we determined
    in the *MSS Third R&O* and affirmed in the *800 MHz R&O,* a
    one-phase relocation plan avoids the possibility of BAS operations
    on three different band plans, and eliminates the potential
    disruption and down time to BAS associated with being relocated
    under two different phases in a short period of time.[^148] We also
    note that our decision to accommodate AWS entrants into the band
    does not alter our need to minimize the disruption to incumbent BAS
    operations during the transition. Therefore, we believe that, in the
    event BAS relocation has not been completed, including AWS licensees
    as participants in the relocation of all BAS operations from the
    1990-2025 MHz band strikes an appropriate balance that is not unduly
    burdensome on AWS entrants, while also fair to the BAS incumbents
    and the other entrants in the band.

70. An AWS licensee, like Nextel, uses a terrestrial network and has a
    different interference potential between its service and BAS than
    that of MSS and BAS. Unlike satellites, whose signals can blanket
    the whole country simultaneously, a terrestrial network is limited
    to discrete geographic areas served by multiple base stations. Thus,
    the terrestrial nature of an AWS licensee's service allows for the
    gradual relocation of incumbents during a geographically-based
    build-out period. In the *800 MHz R&O,* we allowed Nextel to
    determine its own schedule for relocating incumbent BAS facilities
    in a TV market as follows: Nextel must relocate incumbent BAS
    licensees before beginning operation in a particular BAS market, but
    Nextel may determine the markets it wishes to serve. Thus, whereas
    we had established a relocation process based on specific markets
    (1-30, 31-100, and 101-210) for MSS, Nextel's operations would only
    affect those markets where it chooses to deploy its service. We
    therefore required Nextel to relocate incumbent BAS operations in
    every BAS market it wished to serve, regardless of market size,
    prior to commencing operations and within a thirty-month timeframe.
    We concluded that the differences between the terrestrial nature of
    the Nextel's service and the ubiquitous service that will be
    provided by MSS warranted these distinctions in the relocation
    procedures.[^149] Similarly, we will now require an AWS licensee to
    relocate incumbent BAS licensees before beginning operations in
    every BAS market it wishes to serve.

71. Further, the integrated nature of BAS operations makes isolated,
    link-by-link relocation infeasible. Therefore, as a practical
    matter, we note that it may be necessary for the AWS licensee to
    relocate more BAS facilities than an interference analysis might
    indicate as technically necessary in order to meet the comparable
    facility requirement for relocating BAS operations.[^150] We also
    recognize that the AWS licensee is likely to deploy its service in
    some locations in a manner that does not correspond to the geography
    of the BAS market areas, and note that the AWS licensee will be
    obligated to relocate all incumbent BAS operations in all affected
    BAS markets, including those markets where the AWS licensee provides
    partial, minimal, or no service.[^151]

72. We also decide to generally follow the cost-sharing principle that
    the licensees that ultimately benefit from the spectrum cleared by
    the first entrant shall bear the cost of reimbursing the first
    entrant for the accrual of that benefit, except as discussed below.
    Therefore, the first entrant may seek reimbursement from
    subsequently entering licensees for a proportional share of the
    first entrant's costs in clearing BAS spectrum, on a *pro rata*
    basis according to the amount of spectrum each licensee is assigned.
    Should it choose to, Nextel, as the first entrant, is entitled to
    seek *pro rata* reimbursement of eligible clearing costs incurred
    during its 36-month 800 MHz reconfiguration period from AWS
    licensees that enter the band prior to the end of that period.[^152]
    As we determined in the *800 MHz R&O,* Nextel is not entitled to
    reimbursement from other entrants -- which in this case are AWS
    entrants -- to the band after receiving credit for its relocation
    costs at the 800 MHz true-up.[^153] Further, Nextel\'s right to seek
    reimbursement from any AWS entrants entering before the end of the
    36-month 800 MHz reconfiguration period will be limited to an AWS
    licensee\'s *pro rata* share of the 1990-2025 MHz spectrum.[^154]
    Similarly, an AWS licensee will also be obligated to reimburse MSS
    licensees for the AWS licensee's *pro rata* share of the MSS
    licensees' relocation expenses, should the MSS licensee trigger
    involuntary relocation or otherwise participate in the relocation
    process before Nextel has completed its nationwide clearing of the
    band.[^155]

73. All entrants must clear the entire 1990-2025 MHz band (a total of
    thirty-five megahertz of spectrum) while only operating in 1990-1995
    MHz (a total of five megahertz of spectrum for Nextel), in 2000-2020
    MHz (a total of twenty megahertz of spectrum for MSS), and in
    1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz (a total of ten megahertz of
    spectrum for AWS). Therefore, the *pro rata* share for AWS
    licensees, collectively, represents the costs to relocate
    two-sevenths of the spectrum (one-seventh for each five megahertz
    block). In the accompanying *AWS 2 GHz* *Services Rules NPRM*, we
    seek comment on issues related to the specific relocation and cost
    sharing obligations (*e.g.*, the actual apportionment of relocation
    costs among the various entrants, negotiation periods, etc.) of new
    AWS licensees entering the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands
    prior to the completion of the nationwide band clearing by Nextel
    and/or MSS licensees.

### Relocation in the 2175-2180 MHz Band

74. The 2175-2180 MHz sub-band is within the larger 2165-2200 MHz band
    that was previously allocated in ET Docket No. 95-18 from FS to MSS.
    As noted above, incumbent operations in this band include legacy
    Fixed and Mobile services. When the Commission allocated this band
    for MSS, it decided that the principles of the *Emerging
    Technologies* proceeding codified in Part 101 of our rules would
    apply, but in a slightly modified form.[^156] For example, the
    Commission decided that relocation of incumbent FS licensees by new
    MSS licensees would be subject only to a mandatory negotiation
    period. Furthermore, in light of various factors that related
    specifically to MSS roll-out, including MSS milestone considerations
    and the potential for ATC offerings by MSS, the Commission also
    decided to shorten the length of the mandatory negotiation period
    and specify its starting date with the publication of the *MSS Third
    R&O and Third MO&O* in the Federal Register. As part of the *AWS
    Further Notice*, the Commission also asked how these relocation
    principles would apply to new AWS entrants into the portion of the
    band that had been reallocated from MSS to the Fixed and Mobile
    services in order to support new AWS applications.[^157] Although
    our recent actions have focused primarily on the complex issues
    related to the portion of the MSS allocation that is currently
    occupied by incumbent BAS licensees, we note that the record that
    has been developed in this proceeding and the rules that are
    currently in effect support application of the *Emerging
    Technologies* relocation procedures to the 2175-2180 MHz band.

75. Subsequently, in the *AWS Second R&O*, we addressed the relocation
    procedures that would apply to new AWS entrants in the 2110-2150 MHz
    band that sought to relocate the incumbent FS licensees in that
    band.[^158] We concluded that "the modified relocation procedures .
    . . represent\[ed\] the best course."[^159] We reasoned that "\[a\]
    unified approach to our rules and procedures serves the public
    interest, and can promote the rapid development of AWS, which many
    commenters support."[^160]

76. Given our decision in the *AWS Second R&O* to apply the modified
    procedures to AWS licensee relocation of FS in the 2110-2150 MHz
    band, we conclude that it is appropriate to apply the same
    procedures to the relocation of FS by AWS licensees in the 2175-2180
    MHz band. Specifically, sections 101.69 through 101.82 of the rules
    set forth the provisions governing the transition from FS to ET
    services, including both the more generic ET relocation procedures
    for PCS and AWS and the MSS modifications. For example, these rules
    set forth, among other matters, provisions regarding voluntary and
    mandatory periods, sunset provisions, involuntary relocation
    procedures, and the allocation of reimbursement expenses by
    subsequently entering ET licensees. By making the modified MSS
    provisions applicable in the 2175-2180 MHz band, new AWS entrants
    will be governed by the same relocation rules that apply to AWS
    entrants in the other bands subject to Part 101 relocation. In
    short, we believe that relocation procedures for AWS in the
    2175-2180 MHz band that are consistent with the relocation
    procedures discussed in this and related proceedings will foster a
    more efficient roll-out of AWS, will minimize confusion among the
    parties, and will thereby serve the public interest.

## Additional Flexibility in the 1920-1930 MHz Band

77. As noted earlier above, several commenters requested that we modify
    the 1915-1930 MHz UPCS band. In general, commenters either requested
    that we extend the isochronous UPCS band from 1920-1930 MHz to
    include the 1915-1920 MHz band or that we modify the rules for
    1920-1930 MHz band to allow additional devices to access the band.
    As an initial matter, we note that this *Sixth R&O* redesignates the
    1915-1920 MHz band for AWS. In doing so, we decline to extend the
    isochronous UPCS band down to 1915 MHz. However, this action does
    not preclude the consideration of additional flexibility in the
    remaining UPCS band at 1920-1930 MHz. Specifically, the DECT Forum
    requests that we modify the Part 15 rules to remove the specific
    channels, to expand the maximum channel bandwidth from 1.25
    megahertz to 2.5 megahertz, and to remove the requirement to follow
    a specific algorithm for searching for an open channel (*i.e.*, the
    packing rule).[^161] Ericsson, Siemens, and Inventel also state that
    the UPCS band would be more useful if certain changes are made to
    the isochronous UPCS rules.[^162]

78. VTech and UTStarcom disagree with requests to change the Part 15
    rules to allow for more flexible unlicensed use in the 1920-1930 MHz
    band. Specifically, VTech contends that changing the Part 15 rules
    consistent with the request of DECT Forum would negatively impact
    current unlicensed voice systems by decreasing channel
    availability.[^163]

79. Several factors must be weighed when considering whether to modify
    the rules for the 1920-1930 MHz UPCS band. We must look at the
    potential benefits consumers would reap should additional
    flexibility be granted and we must similarly examine the potential
    for such flexibility to negatively impact existing systems. In this
    regard, we note that the existing UPCS rules have been in place
    since 1993 and in the intervening eleven years there has only been
    limited use of the UPCS band. In addition, our experience has been
    that when provided with flexibility manufacturers will innovate and
    produce products that the market will support. Therefore, we agree
    with DECT Forum and are modifying the rules for UPCS in the
    1920-1930 MHz band to provide additional flexibility for the use of
    other types of voice based systems. Specifically, we will remove the
    requirement to use specified channels, allow devices to transmit
    with a maximum bandwidth of 2.5 megahertz, and we will delete the
    packing rule. In addition, we will allow asynchronous operation in
    this band. We believe that these changes will promote the
    introduction of spectrally efficient equipment that will be widely
    supported by the public.

80. We recognize that by changing the current rules we may impact
    existing wireless PBX systems.[^164] The use of wider channels by a
    new system located near an existing system could preclude the use of
    some channels by a wireless PBX system. Further, the wider channels
    could partially overlap existing channels and cause interference. We
    believe, however, that because these devices all operate at
    relatively low power, they would need to be in close proximity of
    each other to cause interference. Therefore, we believe that the
    probability of interference occurring is low. In addition, we note
    that wireless PBX systems can also take advantage of the additional
    flexibility by using wider channels and thus increasing the data
    rate. The ability to have higher throughputs should ameliorate some
    of the concerns of the potential for fewer available channels as
    high order modulation techniques and coding can be used to attain a
    better than one for one channel replacement (*i.e.*, the throughput
    on one 2.5 megahertz channel may be greater than the throughput of
    two separate 1.25 megahertz channels).

81. In sum, we believe that the potential benefits of additional
    flexibility outweigh the potential consequences that wireless PBX
    systems may experience. Allowing greater flexibility in the
    1920-1930 MHz band will provide an opportunity for unlicensed use to
    expand and maximize the use of this spectrum. For the reasons
    provided, we are modifying Part 15 as specified above.[^165]

# THIRD MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER in et docket no. 00-258

A.  **Petitions for Reconsideration to *AWS Second Report and Order***

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
82. In the AWS *Second R&O* in ET Docket No. 00-258, the Commission
    allocated ninety megahertz of spectrum from Federal Government and
    non-Federal Government operations at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz
    to be used to support AWS.[^166] In response to this decision, there
    were four Petitions for Reconsideration filings by Sirius and XM,
    jointly, Sprint, WCA, and PCIA.[^167]

83. On February 24, 2003, Sirius and XM filed a joint petition for
    reconsideration regarding the reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz and
    2110-2155 MHz bands, in which they claim that the Commission
    reallocated the bands without addressing their comments regarding
    potential interference if incumbent Federal Government users were
    relocated to the 2360-2395 MHz band.[^168] They ask us to consider
    their comments "either on reconsideration of the *Second Report and
    Order* or in the future proceeding the Commission has stated it will
    initiate."[^169] In the *AWS Fourth NPRM*, adopted June 13, 2003, we
    made proposals pertaining to the relocation of incumbent Federal
    Government users in the AWS bands and specifically discussed Sirius
    and XM's comments.[^170] Because we have already satisfied their
    request, we deny the Sirius/XM Petition.

84. Also, Sprint and WCA each filed a petition for reconsideration that
    challenged the Commission's decision to reallocate the 2150-2162 MHz
    band from MDS without both identifying comparable replacement
    spectrum and full compensation for their relocation costs.[^171]
    More specifically, in its comments Sprint states that the Commission
    did not consider all of the comments, concerns, and proposals
    submitted before making a decision to reallocate spectrum from MDS
    to AWS use.[^172] Also, WCA states that taking away previously
    auctioned spectrum without replacement spectrum and reimbursement
    for relocation costs undermines the auction process.[^173]

85. On May 14, 2003 AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless filed a joint
    Opposition to the Petitions for Reconsideration of Sprint and
    WCA.[^174] AT&T and Verizon agree that MDS should be given
    comparable replacement spectrum and reimbursement for relocation
    costs, but should avoid decisions that are not in the public
    interest.[^175] It states that the most logical place to relocate
    MDS is to the 2500-2690 MHz band. Here, displaced MDS licensees can
    provide traditional wireless cable services, two-way services,
    expand operations and meet additional spectrum needs easily, and
    exploit economies of scale in equipment development.[^176]

86. Although the Commission did not adopt the MDS Industry Compromise as
    a mechanism to resolve MDS relocation costs and replacement
    spectrum, the Commission decided to relocate displaced MDS licensees
    from the 2150-2162 MHz band to the 2.5 GHz band as part of the *2.5
    GHz MDS Restructuring R&O*.[^177] Specifically, this item makes
    available twelve megahertz of comparable spectrum to the displaced
    2.1 GHz MDS users, providing full compensation for the amount of
    spectrum previously designated for AWS use. For these reasons, we
    deny the Sprint Petition for Reconsideration and the WCA Petition
    for Reconsideration as moot since the issues raised no longer apply
    and have been dealt with in a separate proceeding.

87. PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association, filed a Petition for
    Partial Reconsideration to the allocation decision we adopted in the
    *AWS Second R&O* on February 24, 2003, regarding the issue of how
    new licensees are to share with each other the cost of relocation of
    incumbent licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz band. It proposed that
    Section 101.99(a) of the Commission's Rules be modified so as to
    establish a band-clearing cost-sharing clearinghouse for the
    2110-2150 MHz band. PCIA made the same request in comments it filed
    in response to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No.
    02-353.[^178] We first addressed this issue in conjunction with the
    service rules we adopted for the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz
    bands and now seek comment on the cost sharing matters that are the
    subject of PCIA's petition in the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*. We
    therefore dismiss PCIA's petition because we will fully consider
    these issues in that rulemaking proceeding.

    A.  **Petitions for Reconsideration to *AWS Third Report and
        Order***

88. In the *AWS Third R&O*, the Commission reallocated the MSS
    1990-2000/2020-2025 MHz and 2165-2180 MHz bands for Fixed and Mobile
    services. In response to this reallocation decision, five Petitions
    for Reconsideration were filed by Celsat, CTIA, ICO, Satellite
    Industry Association (SIA), and TMI Communications and Company and
    TerreStar Networks Inc. (TMI and TerreStar).[^179]

89. Several satellite entities filed Petitions for Reconsideration
    against the reallocation of MSS spectrum for other services. ICO
    questions the rationale behind the Commission's decision to
    reallocate thirty megahertz of MSS spectrum, including all but ten
    megahertz of the globally allocated uplink spectrum. ICO provides
    several reasons it believes the MSS spectrum, or portions of, should
    not have been reallocated. First it states that the decision did not
    consider the public interest nor the short amount of time MSS
    licensees had access to spectrum to build out networks.[^180]
    Furthermore, ICO believes that the Commission should not have
    reallocated globally harmonized spectrum, particularly the 1990-2000
    MHz segment. ICO notes that this change will cause problems to its
    MSS operations, having already chosen its Selected Assignment in
    this band segment for its operations.[^181]

90. SIA also disagrees with the decision to reallocate MSS spectrum
    before MSS is given time to grow and develop, and states that the
    Commission has no justification for reallocating globally allocated
    satellite spectrum.[^182] Recognizing that there are advantages to
    harmonized spectrum, SIA states that there are benefits for all
    communications services by globally harmonizing spectrum: reduction
    in equipment costs, encouragement of new innovation, and creation of
    new market opportunities.[^183] SIA contends that by reallocating
    the globally harmonized MSS spectrum, the Commission is not
    supporting its own policy to promote international spectrum
    allocations.[^184] Finally, SIA states that the reasons provided for
    reallocation, including possible new uses, and concerns about
    interference to PCS disregard documented technical analysis and the
    public interest benefit of retaining the globally allocated 2 GHz
    MSS spectrum.[^185]

91. The Petition for Reconsideration filed jointly by TMI and TerreStar
    raises some of the same issues as ICO and SIA. Similarly, it
    contends that there was not justification for taking away so much of
    the MSS spectrum, including the global spectrum, which will affect
    the development of this industry and the areas which it
    services.[^186] TMI and TerreStar also state that the method in
    which MSS spectrum is distributed among MSS licensees should
    consider current authorizations waiting to be restored and should
    not be distributed until these pending authorizations are
    complete.[^187] Additionally, TMI and TerreStar want to make sure
    that reallocating MSS spectrum for AWS will not affect the current 2
    GHz MSS milestone review policies.[^188]

92. In response to the petitions filed by ICO, SIA, and TMI and
    TerreStar (collectively, the "MSS Petitions"), Boeing and Globalstar
    supported SIA's petition, while CTIA and WCA, as well as AT&T,
    Verizon, and Cingular (jointly, the "Carriers"), filed against these
    three petitions.[^189] Boeing and Globalstar generally support all
    arguments raised by SIA.[^190] More specifically, GlobalStar asserts
    that there is a lack of technical evidence showing that the reason
    for reallocating global MSS spectrum was to avoid interference with
    the adjacent PCS band.[^191] Filing an opposition to the MSS
    Petitions, the Carriers and CTIA state that there was more than
    adequate justification for reducing the amount of MSS spectrum,
    including licensees not meeting milestone obligations, unassigned
    spectrum being unused and growing demands for more CMRS
    spectrum.[^192] The Carriers and CTIA also contend that it was shown
    in various contexts that both a guardband and emission limits were
    required to prevent interference to PCS operations, which provides
    sufficient reason to remove a portion of MSS globally harmonized
    spectrum.[^193]

93. In addition to opposing the Petitions filed by the satellite
    entities, CTIA filed a Petition for Reconsideration regarding
    reallocation of all unassigned spectrum, or spectrum from licensees
    that miss their 2 GHz milestones, to services other than MSS.[^194]
    CTIA states that instead of giving MSS more spectrum than their
    business plans support, the remaining spectrum, after providing each
    MSS licensee with seven megahertz of spectrum, should be
    reallocated. More specifically, CTIA claims that there was no
    rationale for retaining forty megahertz of spectrum for MSS even
    with authorization of ATC operations.[^195] It states that ATC
    cannot be an economic driver in the success of MSS and does not
    provide a public interest reason for an increase in MSS spectrum
    given that one of the benefits of ATC is that it does not require
    additional spectrum.[^196]

94. AT&T Wireless, Verizon Wireless, and Cingular Wireless (jointly, the
    "Carriers") filed a joint response that supported CTIA's
    petition.[^197] The Carriers find the decision to grant each MSS
    licensee more than seven megahertz of spectrum peculiar, given the
    fact that in the *MSS Service Rules Order* the Commission found that
    seven megahertz was sufficient for MSS to commence service.[^198]
    The Carriers contend that MSS licensees should be held to meeting
    their milestones with their current seven megahertz of spectrum
    before being given additional spectrum for expected long-term growth
    and needs.[^199] Additionally, the Carriers question whether more
    spectrum is needed provided that ATC was authorized for use in 2 GHz
    MSS systems in the *MSS* *ATC R&O*,[^200] in which it was stated
    that ATC improves more efficient use of spectrum by MSS licensees to
    provide more and better services with the same amount of
    spectrum.[^201]

95. Boeing and ICO each filed an Opposition to CTIA's Petition for
    Reconsideration refuting the arguments raised regarding insufficient
    rationale for retaining forty megahertz of 2 GHz MSS spectrum.[^202]
    First, Boeing and ICO state that the Commission considered the
    public interest when making its decisions in the *MSS Service Rules
    Order* to authorize MSS. More specifically, the Commission
    participated in various international meetings to encourage globally
    harmonized spectrum for MSS and the record supported MSS to provide
    service in rural and underserved areas.[^203] Furthermore, Boeing
    avers that since acquiring MSS spectrum, their need for more
    spectrum has increased, which has been provided through technical
    showings.[^204] Based upon this requirement and others alike from
    MSS applicants it states that the decision to authorize a minimum
    amount of spectrum to MSS licensees and a mechanism in which to grow
    is fully supported by the record, showings of planned services, and
    the need to increase service to the public.[^205]

96. We find that the Commission provided sufficient evidence and support
    from the public record to reallocate the 1990-2000 MHz, 2020-2025
    MHz, and 2165-2180 MHz bands for AWS. In the *AWS Third Report and
    Order* of ET Docket 00-258 the Commission reallocated these bands
    for Fixed and Mobile services on a primary basis because there was a
    need to make more spectrum available for terrestrial wireless
    services to promote the introduction of new advanced services. Also,
    the Commission explained that the reallocation of this spectrum
    should not impair growth of MSS, especially since the decision was
    based upon unassigned and abandoned spectrum. The reallocation has
    not, we note, impaired the MSS milestone review. Further, we do not
    believe that the reallocation of some global MSS spectrum will
    impair the ability of the currently-authorized 2 GHz MSS systems to
    operate successfully. We note, for example, that the amount of
    globally harmonized spectrum available for the currently-authorized
    2 GHz MSS systems should be sufficient, as four of the five
    currently-authorized 2 GHz MSS licensees plan to deploy
    geostationary orbit MSS networks providing regional service rather
    than non-geostationary orbit MSS networks providing global service.
    Therefore, we deny the petitions for reconsideration filed by CTIA,
    ICO, SIA, and TMI and TerreStar. We also agree with the MSS
    licensees that they should be given an opportunity to begin
    operations with the forty megahertz that remained after the 2 GHz
    MSS reallocation. The Commission also determined that it was in the
    public interest to permit the remaining forty megahertz of spectrum
    to be used by those MSS entities that are proceeding with plans to
    implement service in the 2 GHz MSS bands.[^206] Because of this
    finding and our contemporaneous decision to permit MSS operators to
    provide ATC, MSS licensees will be able to introduce new services
    while using the spectrum more efficiently. We continue to believe
    that MSS use of this spectrum would serve the public interest.[^207]
    Therefore, we deny CTIA's Petition for Reconsideration.

97. Finally, Celsat's Petition for Reconsideration asks the Commission
    to revisit the decision made in the *MSS Service Rules Order* to
    allow licensees to select any available spectrum in the upper and
    lower MSS bands to make up Selected Assignments. Celsat states that
    MSS licensees should instead be required to choose spectrum pairs
    with a uniform separation distance.[^208] ICO, in its Opposition,
    supports the existing Independent Selection model, by which
    licensees are permitted to choose their own Selected Assignment from
    within the bands.[^209] Because the *AWS Third R&O* took no action
    with respect to the existing Independent Selection rule that was
    previously adopted in the *MSS Service Rules Order* and that has
    become final, we deny Celsat's Petition as untimely.

# FIFTH memorandum opinion and order in et docket no. 95-18

98. In the *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O*, the Commission addressed,
    among other matters, the relocation of FS incumbents by MSS/ATC
    licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band. Specifically, the Commission
    clarified that TIA TSB 10-F, or its successor, is an appropriate
    interference standard that may be used for determining interference
    from MSS/ATC stations to incumbent FS operations in the 2 GHz band;
    clarified that FS incumbents relocated through the negotiation
    process are eligible for reimbursement for relocation to leased
    facilities or alternative media, but declined to extend
    reimbursement eligibility to FS incumbents that voluntarily
    self-relocate; declined to establish separate "rolling" negotiation
    periods for each FS incumbent as they are approached by MSS
    licensees for relocation negotiation; amended the rules to specify
    that the time period for calculating the mandatory FS negotiation
    periods and the ten-year sunset period commence upon publication of
    this Report and Order in the Federal Register; clarified that an
    assignment or transfer of control does not disqualify a FS incumbent
    from relocation eligibility; and declined to require MSS licensees
    to relocate FS incumbents from which the MSS operation would only
    receive, but not cause, interference prior to the ten-year sunset
    date.[^210]

99. In response, The American Petroleum Institute and the United Telecom
    Council (API/UTC) filed a joint petition for clarification and
    reconsideration concerning four aspects of the decisions pertaining
    to FS relocation.[^211] First, API/UTC urge the Commission to
    clarify that a two-year mandatory negotiation period will apply with
    respect to relocation of non-public safety licensees by AWS
    licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz band. API/UTC further request that
    the Commission announce the onset of the mandatory negotiation
    period for AWS licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz band, as well as the
    onset of the ten-year "sunset" period, by Public Notice following
    the auction of spectrum in this band and the completion of the
    licensing process. With respect to the 2180-2200 MHz band, API/UTC
    request that the Commission reinstate the two-year mandatory
    negotiation period for non-public safety incumbent licensees in
    order to ensure that there will be an opportunity for meaningful
    negotiations. Finally, API/UTC urge the Commission to require
    relocation of paired FS links in the 2130-2150 MHz band whenever a
    new MSS licensee relocates incumbent FS operations in the 2180-2200
    MHz band.

100. *AWS issues.* API/UTC state that certain amendments to sections
     101.69 and 101.73 of our rules that the Commission adopted in the
     *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O* result in gaps and uncertainties
     about the negotiation periods and sunset provisions for FS
     relocations from the 2110-2150 MHz band by AWS licensees.[^212]
     Petitioners further state that these issues result from the
     deletion of references to the 2110-2150 MHz band that were codified
     in the previous versions of these two rule sections.

101. Petitioners correctly surmise that references to the 2110-2150 MHz
     band were inadvertently omitted when the Part 101 rule sections
     were amended in *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O*. Those amendments
     were not intended to modify the provisions established elsewhere in
     this and related proceedings that govern the relocation of FS
     incumbents in the 2110-2150 MHz band under circumstances where such
     relocation is triggered in the first instance by AWS licensees.
     Therefore, we amend the relevant sections in Part 101 to restore
     the previous references to the 2110-2150 MHz band and clarify that
     the modified FS relocation provisions (including the negotiation
     and sunset periods) adopted in the *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O*
     apply to MSS/ATC licensees that initially trigger relocation of FS
     incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band. We also make other minor
     editorial changes in these sections to conform the range of
     frequencies specified to those recently allocated in this and other
     proceedings for the transition from FS to emerging technology, PCS,
     AWS, MSS/ATC and other related services.

102. We decline to adopt the API/UTC suggestion that the Commission
     should -- in like manner to the MSS/ATC provisions adopted in the
     *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O* -- specify a date certain or,
     alternatively, announce by public notice the start of the mandatory
     negotiation and sunset periods for AWS-triggered FS relocations in
     the 2110-2150 MHz band. For FS relocation by AWS licensees under
     the current rules, mandatory negotiations will commence when the
     AWS licensee informs the fixed microwave licensee in writing of its
     desire to negotiate.[^213] Petitioners argue that a date certain
     approach or, alternatively, a public notice approach, would provide
     greater certainty for all interested parties. We note, however,
     that this issue is beyond the scope of the *MSS Third R&O and Third
     MO&O* which addressed issues solely related to FS and BAS
     relocation by MSS/ATC licensees -- but not by AWS licensees.
     Consequently, it is procedurally inappropriate for petitioners to
     raise this AWS-related issue here in a petition for reconsideration
     of the *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O.* Beyond this procedural
     infirmity, we note that special circumstances, including the amount
     of time that has elapsed since adoption of the *MSS Second Report
     and Order*, as well as MSS milestone considerations, warranted the
     modifications to the MSS/ATC relocation/negotiation procedures,
     including the adoption of the date certain start of the FS/MSS
     negotiation periods, that were adopted in the *MSS Third R&O and
     Third MO&O*. As petitioners recognize, those special circumstances
     are not applicable to relocations by AWS licensees. While we do not
     disregard the beneficial intent stated by petitioners, we also do
     not believe that changes to the status quo are supported either by
     notice or by substantive comment in the current record.

103. *MSS/ATC issues*. API/UTC argue that the Commission should
     reconsider its decision to shorten the mandatory negotiation period
     between FS and MSS/ATC licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band.
     Petitioners argue, in support, that the earliest milestone to
     launch a MSS satellite will not occur until January 2005 and that
     most MSS licensees need not launch until July 2006. [^214]
     Petitioners further argue that MSS licensees need not choose the
     exact five megahertz of spectrum in which they will operate in the
     2180-2200 MHz band until that time. By then, petitioners argue, the
     mandatory negotiation period will have expired. Consequently, it is
     contended, relocation will occur - if at all - through the
     involuntary negotiation process. At the same time, as noted above,
     petitioners acknowledge that special circumstances prevailed
     concerning the roll-out of MSS/ATC upon which the Commission relied
     in modifying the MSS/ATC negotiation periods in the 2180-2200 MHz
     band.[^215]

104. We decline to adopt two-year, and three-year, mandatory negotiation
     periods, respectively, for non-public safety and public safety FS
     licensees, that would commence with the December 8, 2003,
     publication of the *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O* in the Federal
     Register as sought by petitioners. API/UTC has presented no new
     information that was not previously considered that would warrant
     revisiting the matter. In light of all the factors that were fully
     discussed in the *MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O*, including those
     acknowledged by petitioner, we believe that the rationale and
     circumstances that supported the decision to shorten the mandatory
     negotiation period remain essentially unchanged. Therefore, we
     continue to believe that the modified MSS/ATC negotiation periods
     of one-year, and two-years, for non-public safety and public safety
     FS licensees, respectively, reflect a proper balance of equities
     between FS and MSS/ATC licensees that will serve the public
     interest.

105. Finally API/UTC urges us to *require* relocation of both paths in a
     paired FS link whenever an MSS/ATC licensee relocates an FS link in
     the 2180-2200 MHz band. We decline to adopt this request. As an
     initial matter, we agree with petitioners that technical and
     economic considerations will generally make it more feasible to
     relocate both paired links in a two-way FS system at the same time.
     However, we are not persuaded by petitioners\' concern that leaving
     the decision about relocating both links to the negotiation process
     would require incumbents to \"prove over and again \-- perhaps with
     costly and time-consuming engineering studies \-- what is already
     known and apparent.\"[^216] Indeed, petitioners recognize that
     situations may exist where neither party believes that relocating
     both links is necessary or practical. Petitioners also recognize,
     and we concur, that it should be readily apparent in most instances
     whether relocation of both paired links is the more appropriate
     course of action. In this light, we believe that the \"good faith\"
     requirement that prevails over all mandatory negotiations is
     sufficient to avoid unfairness to, or abuse by, any party.
     Furthermore, as noted throughout this proceeding, MSS/ATC licensees
     are likely to shoulder substantial financial burdens due to FS
     relocation. This burden could be somewhat mitigated in situations
     where relocation of only the 2180-2200 MHz path of a paired link
     might be appropriate. Therefore, we continue to believe that
     refraining from explicitly requiring relocation of both paired FS
     links and, thereby, leaving the matter to the good faith
     negotiation process, is a reasonable balance of equities that will
     serve the public interest.

# conclusion

106. In the *Sixth R&O*, we have redesignated the 1915-1920 MHz band and
     1995-2000 MHz bands for AWS use after finding that a separation
     distance of ten megahertz between PCS base and mobile transmit
     bands is sufficient to avoid interference with the adoption of
     appropriate technical limits; likewise redesignated the 2020-2025
     MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands for AWS use; adopted a UTAM
     reimbursement plan for the 1915-1920 MHz band and addressed
     reimbursement and relocation procedures for incumbent licensees in
     the 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands; denied
     the petitions for waiver and petitions for rulemaking related to
     the 1910-1920 MHz band; and provided additional flexibility for
     UPCS operations in the 1920-1930 MHz band. In the *Third MO&O* we
     addressed the petitions for reconsideration that were filed
     addressing actions in the *Second R&O* and *Third R&O* in the ET
     Docket 00-258 proceeding. Finally, in the *Fifth MO&O*, in ET
     Docket No. 95-18, we clarified the rules governing relocation of FS
     licensees by MSS and AWS licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz and
     2180-2200 MHz bands. We find that the actions taken herein will
     serve the public interest, promote growth of new and innovative
     services, and will make the most efficient use of this spectrum.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
V.  **PROCEDURAL MATTERS**

## Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Sixth Report and Order

107. Consistent with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, *see* 5 U.S.C. §
     604, the Commission has prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility
     Analysis (FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on
     small entities of the rules amended in this document. The FRFA is
     set forth in Appendix B.

     B. Final Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis

108. This Report and Order does not contain an information collection
     subject to the Paperwork Reduction act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law
     104-13.

## C. Contact Persons {#c.-contact-persons .unnumbered}

109. For additional information concerning this Sixth Report and Order,
     Fifth MO&O, and Third MO&O, contact Shameeka Hunt or Priya
     Shrinivasan at (202) 418-2062 or via the Internet at
     Shameeka.Hunt@fcc.gov, or Priya.Shrinivasan@fcc.gov, respectively.

# IX. Ordering Clauses {#ix.-ordering-clauses .unnumbered}

110. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
     303(f) and (r), 309, 316, 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
     amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 151, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 309, 316,
     and 332, the Report and Order and the rules specified in Appendix A
     ARE ADOPTED.

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

112. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Rulemaking filed by
     the Wireless Information Networks Forum and UTStarcom Inc., and the
     Petitions for Waiver filed by Lucent Technologies Inc., UTStarcom
     Inc. and Drew University, Ascom Wireless Solutions Inc., Alaska
     Power & Telephone Company Inc., and RBM Communications ARE DENIED.

113. 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) and
     405, the joint petition for clarification and reconsideration filed
     by the American Petroleum Institute and the United Telecom Council
     (API/UTC), in ET Docket No. 95-18, IS GRANTED IN PART to the extent
     discussed herein, and otherwise IS DENIED.

114. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed
     by Sirius and XM, Sprint, and WCA ARE DENIED.

115. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Partial Reconsideration
     filed by PCIA-The Wireless Infrastructure Association IS DISMISSED.

116. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitions for Reconsideration filed
     by Celsat, CTIA, ICO, SIA, and TMI and TerreStar ARE DENIED.

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

     FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

     Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary

     **APPENDIX A: FINAL RULES**

     For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
     Communications Commission amends 47 CFR Parts 15, 74, 78, and 101
     as follows:

     **PART 15 -- RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES**

### 1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows: {#the-authority-citation-for-part-15-continues-to-read-as-follows .unnumbered}

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544A.

2.  Section 15.301 is amended to read as follows:

    **§ 15.301 Scope.**

    This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed personal
    communications services (PCS) devices operating in the 1920-1930 MHz
    and 2390-2400 MHz frequency bands.

3.  Section 15.303 is amended by modifying paragraph (g) to read as
    follows:

    **§ 15.303 Definitions.**

\* \* \* \* \*

\(g\) *Personal Communications Services (PCS) Devices \[Unlicensed\]*.
International radiators operating in the frequency bands 1920-1930 MHz
and 2390-2400 MHz that provide a wide array of mobile and ancillary
fixed communication services to individuals and businesses.

\* \* \* \* \*

4.  Section 15.311 is amended by modifying the title and text to read as
    follows:

**§ 15.311 Labeling requirements.**

In addition to the labeling requirements of §15.19(a)(3), all devices
operating in the frequency band 1920-1930 MHz authorized under this
subpart must bear a prominently located label with the following
statement: \* \* \*

5.  Section 15.319 is amended by modifying paragraph (a) to read as
    follows:

**§ 15.319 General technical requirements.**

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

\* \* \* \* \*

6.  Section 15.321 is amended by modifying the title and paragraphs (a)
    and (b) to read as follows:

**§ 15.321 Specific requirements for asynchronous devices operating in
the 2390-2400 MHz band.**

\(a\) Operation shall be contained within the 2390-2400 MHz band. \* \*
\*

\(b\) All systems of less than 2.5 MHz emission bandwidth shall start
searching for an available spectrum window within 3 MHz of the band edge
at 2390 or 2400 MHz while systems of more than 2.5 MHz emission
bandwidth will first occupy the center half of the band. \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

7.  Section 15.323 is amended by revising title, removing and reserving
    paragraph (b), and modifying paragraphs (a), (c), (c)(5), (c)(11),
    and (d) to read as follows:

**§ 15.323 Specific requirements for devices operating in the 1920-1930
MHz sub-band.**

\(a\) Operation shall be contained within the 1920-1930 MHz band. The
emission bandwidth shall be less then 2.5 MHz. The power level shall be
as specified in § 15.319(c), but in no event shall the emission
bandwidth be less than 50 kHz.

\(b\) \[removed and reserved\]

\(c\) Devices must incorporate a mechanism for monitoring the time and
spectrum windows that its transmission is intended to occupy. \* \* \*

\(5\) If access to spectrum is not available as determined by the above,
and a minimum of 40 duplex system access channels are defined for the
system, the time and spectrum windows with the lowest power level below
a monitoring threshold of 50 dB above the thermal noise power determined
for the emission bandwidth may be accessed. A device utilizing the
provisions of this paragraph must have monitored all access channels
defined for its system within the last 10 seconds and must verify,
within the 20 milliseconds (40 milliseconds for devices designed to use
a 20 milliseconds frame period) immediately preceding actual channel
access that the detected power of the selected time and spectrum windows
is no higher than the previously detected value. The power measurement
resolution for this comparison must be accurate to within 6 dB. No
device or group of co-operating devices located within 1 meter of each
other shall during any frame period occupy more than 6 MHz of aggregate
bandwidth, or alternatively, more than one third of the time and
spectrum windows defined by the system.

\* \* \*

\(11\) An initiating device that is prevented from monitoring during its
intended transmit window due to monitoring system blocking from the
transmissions of a co-located (within one meter) transmitter of the same
system, may monitor the portions of the time and spectrum windows in
which they intend to receive over a period of at least 10 milliseconds.
The monitored time and spectrum window must total at least 50 percent of
the 10 millisecond frame interval and the monitored spectrum must be
within 1.25 MHz of the center frequency of channel(s) already occupied
by that device or co-located co-operating devices. If the access
criteria is met for the intended receive time and spectrum window under
the above conditions, then transmission in the intended transmit window
by the initiating device may commence.

\* \* \*

\(d\) Emissions outside the sub-band shall be attenuated below a
reference power of 112 milliwatts as follows: 30 dB between the sub-band
and 1.25 MHz above or below the sub-band; 50 dB between 1.25 and 2.5 MHz
above or below the sub-band; and 60 dB at 2.5 MHz or greater above or
below the sub-band. Emissions inside the sub-band must comply with the
following emission mask: In the bands between 1B and 2B measured from
the center of the emission bandwidth the total power emitted by the
device shall be at least 30 dB below the transmit power permitted for
that device; in the bands between 2B and 3B measured from the center of
the emission bandwidth the total power emitted by an intentional
radiator shall be at least 50 dB below the transmit power permitted for
that radiator; in the bands between 3B and the sub-band edge the total
power emitted by an intentional radiator in the measurement bandwidth
shall be at least 60 dB below the transmit power permitted for that
radiator. "B" is defined as the emission bandwidth of the device in
hertz. Compliance with the emission limits is based on the use of
measurement instrumentation employing peak detector function with an
instrument resolution bandwidth approximately equal to 1.0 percent of
the emission bandwidth of the device under measurement.

\* \* \* \* \*

**PART 74 -- EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCASTING AND
OTHER PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES**

The authority citation for Part 74 continues to read as follows:

AUTHORITY: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 307, 336(f), 336(h) and 554.

8.  Section 74.690 is revised to amend sections (a) to read as follows:

    **§ 74.690 Transition of the 1990-2025 MHz band from the Broadcast
    Auxiliary Service to emerging technologies.**

    \(a\) New Entrants are collectively defined as those licensees
    proposing to use emerging technologies to implement Mobile Satellite
    Services in the 2000-2020 MHz band (MSS licensees), those licensees
    authorized after July 1, 2004 to implement new Fixed and Mobile
    services in the 1990-1995 MHz band, and those licensees authorized
    after September 9, 2004 in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz
    bands. New entrants may negotiate with Broadcast Auxiliary Service
    licensees operating on a primary basis and fixed service licensees
    operating on a primary basis in the 1990-2025 MHz band (Existing
    Licensees) for the purpose of agreeing to terms under which the
    Existing Licensees would relocate their operations to the 2025-2110
    MHz band, to other authorized bands, or to other media; or,
    alternatively, would discontinue use of the 1990-2025 MHz band. New
    licensees in the 1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands are subject
    to the specific relocation procedures adopted in WT Docket 04-356.

\* \* \* \* \*

**PART 78 -- CABLE TELEVISION RELAY SERVICE**

9.  The authority citation for Part 78 continues to read as follows:

    AUTHORITY: Secs. 2, 3, 4, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 48 Stat., as
    amended, 1064, 1065, 1066, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1085; 47 U.S.C.
    152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309.

10. Section 78.40 is revised to amend sections (a) to read as follows:

    **§ 78.40 Transition of the 1990-2025 MHz band from the Cable
    Television Relay Service to emerging technologies.**

\(a\) New Entrants are collectively defined as those licensees proposing
to use emerging technologies to implement Mobile Satellite Services in
the 2000-2020 MHz band (MSS licensees), those licensees authorized after
July 1, 2004 to implement new Fixed and Mobile services in the 1990-1995
MHz band, and those licensees authorized after September 9, 2004 in the
1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands. New entrants may negotiate with
Cable Television Relay Service licensees operating on a primary basis
and fixed service licensees operating on a primary basis in the
1990-2025 MHz band (Existing Licensees) for the purpose of agreeing to
terms under which the Existing Licensees would relocate their operations
to the 2025-2110 MHz band, to other authorized bands, or to other media;
or, alternatively, would accept a sharing arrangement with the New
Entrants that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of
interference to the Existing Licensee's operations. New licensees in the
1995-2000 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands are subject to the specific
relocation procedures adopted in WT Docket 04-356.

\* \* \* \* \*

**PART 101 -- FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES**

11. The authority citation for Part 101 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.

12. Section 101.69 is amended by revising text, paragraphs (b) and (d)
    and adding a new paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

**§ 101.69 Transition of the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200
MHz bands from the fixed microwave services to personal communications
services, emerging technologies, and other related services.**

Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) in the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and
2160-2200 MHz bands have been allocated for use by emerging technology
(ET) services, including Personal Communications Services (PCS),
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), and Mobile Satellite Services (MSS).
The rules in this section provide for a transition period during which
ET licensees may relocate existing FMS licensees using these frequencies
to other media or other fixed channels, including those in other
microwave bands.

\* \* \* \* \*

\(b\) Except as provided in paragraph (c) and (f) of this section, FMS
operations in the 1850-1990 MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands,
with the exception of public safety facilities defined in § 101.77, will
continue to be co-primary with other users of this spectrum until two
years after the FCC commences acceptance of applications for ET service
(voluntary negotiation period), and until one year after an ET licensee
initiates negotiations for relocation of the fixed microwave licensee's
operations (mandatory negotiation period). In the 1920-1930 MHz band
allocated for unlicensed PCS, FMS operations will continue to be
co-primary until one year after UTAM, Inc. initiates negotiations for
relocation of the fixed microwave licensee's operations. \* \* \*

\* \* \* \* \*

\(d\) Relocation of FMS licensees in the 2110-2150 and 2160-2200 MHz
band will be subject to mandatory negotiations only. Except as provided
in paragraph (e) of this section, mandatory negotiation periods are
defined as follows:

\(1\) Non-public safety incumbents will have a two-year mandatory
negotiation period; and

\(2\) Public safety incumbents will have a three-year mandatory
negotiation period.

\(e\) Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS)
licensees, including MSS licensees providing Ancillary Terrestrial
Component (ATC) service, will be subject to mandatory negotiations only.
Mandatory negotiation periods that are triggered in the first instance
by MSS/ATC licensees are defined as follows:

\(1\) The mandatory negotiation period for non-public safety incumbents
will end December 8, 2004.

\(2\) The mandatory negotiation period for public safety incumbents will
end December 8, 2005.

\(f\) AWS licensees operating in the 1910-1920 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz
bands will follow the requirements and procedures set forth in ET Docket
No. 00-258 and WT Docket No. 04-356.

13. Section 101.73 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read
    as follows:

**§ 101.73 Mandatory Negotiations.**

\(a\) If a relocation agreement is not reached during the voluntary
period, the ET licensee may initiate a mandatory negotiation period.
This mandatory period is triggered at the option of the ET licensee, but
ET licensees may not invoke their right to mandatory negotiation until
the voluntary negotiation period has expired. Relocation of FMS
licensees by Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) licensees, including MSS
licensees providing Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) service, will
be subject to mandatory negotiations only.

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

\(d\) Provisions for Relocation of Fixed Microwave Licensees in the
2110-2150 and 2160-2200 MHz bands. Except as otherwise provided in
§101.69 (e) pertaining to FMS relocations by MSS/ATC licensees,
mandatory negotiations will commence when the ET licensee informs the
fixed microwave licensee in writing of its desire to negotiate.
Mandatory negotiations will be conducted with the goal of providing the
fixed microwave licensee with comparable facilities, defined as
facilities possessing the following characteristics:

\* \* \* \* \*

14. Section 101.79 is amended by revising the title to read as follows:

    **§ 101.79 Sunset provision for licensees in the 1850-1990 MHz,
    2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands.**

    \* \* \* \* \*

    **APPENDIX B: FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS**

    As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)[^217] an Initial
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
    *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking* (*Third NPRM*).[^218] The
    Commission sought written public comments on the proposals in the
    *Third NPRM*, including comment on the IRFA. This present Final
    Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.[^219]

## Need for, and Objectives of, the Sixth Report and Order {#need-for-and-objectives-of-the-sixth-report-and-order .unnumbered}

The *Sixth Report and Order* (*Sixth R&O*) continues our efforts to
allocate spectrum that can be used for the provision of advanced
wireless services (AWS) to the public, which in turn supports our
obligations under Section 706 of the 1996 Telecommunications Act[^220]
and, more generally, serves the public interest by promoting rapid and
efficient radio communications facilities.

The *Sixth R&O* discusses the need for spectrum allocations to allow for
the provision of AWS. Specifically, it:

-   Refutes argument that Broadband PCS mobile and base transmit bands
    must have separation of fifteen megahertz, and found that a ten
    megahertz separation is suitable without causing interference
    between services in these bands.

-   Redesignated the 1915-1920 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz bands for AWS use.

-   Redesignated the 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands for AWS use.

-   Paired the 1915-1920 and 1995-2000 MHz bands and 2020-2025 and
    2175-2180 MHz bands for the provision of AWS use.

-   Adopts the UTAM reimbursement plan for the 1915-1920 MHz band,
    allowing relocation efforts of microwave links to continue in the
    1910-1930 MHz band without disruption, while making the band
    available for other spectrum efficient services.

-   Denies all petitions for rulemaking and petitions for waivers filed
    in this proceeding regarding the 1910-1920 MHz band.

-   Provided additional flexibility for UPCS operations in the 1920-1930
    MHz band.

## Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA {#summary-of-significant-issues-raised-by-public-comments-in-response-to-the-irfa .unnumbered}

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

## Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules Will Apply {#description-and-estimate-of-the-number-of-small-entities-to-which-the-rules-will-apply .unnumbered}

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.[^221] The RFA generally defines
the term "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small
business," "small organization," and "small governmental
jurisdiction."[^222] In addition, the term "small business" has the same
meaning as the term "small business concern" under the Small Business
Act.[^223] Nationwide, there are a total of 22.4 million small
businesses, according to SBA data.[^224] 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).[^225]A small
organization is generally "any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field."[^226] Nationwide, there are approximately 1.6 million small
organizations.[^227] The term \"small governmental jurisdiction\" is
defined as "governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, school
districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty
thousand."[^228] As of 1997, there were approximately 87,453
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.[^229] This number
includes 39,044 county governments, municipalities, and townships, of
which 37,546 (approximately 96.2%) have populations of fewer than
50,000, and of which 1,498 have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we
estimate the number of small governmental jurisdictions overall to be
84,098 or fewer.

*Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS).* BAS involves a variety of
transmitters, generally used to relay broadcast programming to the
public (through translator and booster stations) or within the program
distribution chain (from a remote news gathering unit back to the
stations). The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities specific to broadcast auxiliary licensees. The U.S. Small
Business Administration (SBA) has developed small business size
standards, as follows: 1) For TV BAS, we will use the size standard for
Television Broadcasting, which consists of all such companies having
annual receipts of no more than \$12.0 million;[^230] 2) For Aural BAS,
we will use the size standard for Radio Stations, which consists of all
such companies having annual receipts of no more than \$6 million;[^231]
3) For Remote Pickup BAS we will use the small business size standard
for Television Broadcasting when used by a TV station and that for Radio
Stations when used by such a station.

According to Commission staff review of BIA Publications, Inc. Master
Access Television Analyzer Database as of May 16, 2003, about 814 of the
1,220 commercial television stations in the United States had revenues
of \$12 million or less. We note, however, that, in assessing whether a
business concern qualifies as small under the above definition, business
(control) affiliations[^232] must be included.[^233] Our estimate,
therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities that might be
affected by our action, because the revenue figure on which it is based
does not include or aggregate revenues from affiliated companies. There
are also 2,127 low power television stations (LPTV).[^234] Given the
nature of this service, we will presume that all LPTV licensees qualify
as small entities under the SBA size standard. According to Commission
staff review of BIA Publications, Inc., Master Access Radio Analyzer
Database, as of May 16, 2003, about 10,427 of the 10,945 commercial
radio stations in the United States had revenue of \$6 million or less.
We note, however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much
larger corporations with much higher revenue, and, that in assessing
whether a business concern qualifies as small under the above
definition, such business (control) affiliations[^235] are
included.[^236] Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of
small businesses that might be affected by our action.

*Cable Antenna Relay Service (CARS)*. CARS includes transmitters
generally used to relay cable programming within cable television system
distribution systems. The SBA has developed a small business size
standard for Cable and other Program Distribution, which consists of all
such companies having annual receipts of no more than \$12.5 million.
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 1,311 firms within
the industry category Cable and Other Program Distribution, total, that
operated for the entire year.[^237] Of this total, 1,180 firms had
annual receipts of under \$10 million, and an additional fifty-two firms
had receipts of \$10 million to \$24,999,999.00.[^238] Thus, under this
standard, the majority of firms can be considered small.

*Fixed Microwave Services*. Microwave services include common
carrier,[^239] private-operational fixed,[^240] and broadcast auxiliary
radio services.[^241] At present, there are approximately 36,708 common
carrier fixed licensees and 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees
and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services. The
Commission has not yet defined a small business with respect to
microwave services. For purposes of the FRFA, we will use the SBA's
definition applicable to wireless and other telecommunications
companies---*i.e.*, an entity with no more than 1,500 persons.[^242]
According to Census Bureau data for 1997, there were 977 firms in this
category, total, that operated for the entire year.[^243] Of this total,
965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer employees, and an additional
twelve firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more.[^244] Thus,
under this size standard, majority of firms can be considered small.

We note that the number of firms does not necessarily track the number
of licensees. We estimate that all of the Fixed Microwave licensees
(excluding broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small
entities under the SBA definition. Of these licenses, approximately
fourteen are issued for frequencies in the Emerging Technology bands
affected by this proceeding. This, assuming that these entities also
qualify as small businesses, as many as fourteen small business
licensees could be affected by the rules we adopt. We note that these
entities have been subject to relocation by UTAM under rules originally
adopted in the Commission's *Emerging Technologies* proceeding. UTAM is
the Commission's frequency coordinator for UPCS devices in the 1910-1930
MHz band. The *Sixth Report and Order* anticipates that these general
relocation rules will continue to apply to FS microwave licensees and
does not propose to modify the class of licensees that are subject to
these relocation provisions.

*Mobile Satellite Service*. Neither the Commission nor the U.S. Small
Business Administration has developed a small business size standard
specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The appropriate
size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they
have \$12.5 million or less in annual revenues.[^245] Currently, nearly
a dozen entities are authorized to provide voice MSS in the United
States. We have ascertained from published data that four of those
companies are not small entities according to the SBA\'s
definition,[^246] but we do not have sufficient information to determine
which, if any, of the others are small entities. We anticipate issuing
several licenses for 2 GHz mobile earth stations that would be subject
to the requirements we are adopting here. We do not know how many of
those licenses will be held by small entities, however, as we do not yet
know exactly how many 2 GHz mobile-earth-station licenses will be issued
or who will receive them.[^247] The Commission notes that small
businesses are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS
system operators because of high implementation costs, including
construction of satellite space stations and rocket launch, associated
with satellite systems and services.

*Unlicensed Personal Communications Services*. As its name indicates,
UPCS is not a licensed service. UPCS consists of intentional radiators
operating in the frequency bands 1920-1930 MHz and 2390-2400 MHz, that
provide a wide array of mobile and ancillary fixed communication
services to individuals and businesses. The *Sixth Report and Order*
affects UPCS operations in the 1920-1930 MHz band; operations in those
frequencies are given flexibility to deploy both voice and data-based
services. There is no accurate source for the number of operators in the
UPCS. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to UPCS equipment manufacturers. However, the SBA has
developed a small business size standard, Cellular and Other Wireless
Carriers, which consists of all such companies having 1500 or fewer
employees.[^248] According to the Census Bureau data for 1997, there
were 977 firms in this category, total, that operated for the entire
year.[^249] Of this total, 965 firms had employment of 999 or fewer
employees, and an additional 12 firms had employment of 1,000 employees
or more.[^250] Thus, under this size standard, the great majority of
firms can be considered small.

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

The *Sixth R&O* addresses the possible use of the bands 1915-1920 MHz
and 1995-2000 MHz to support the introduction of new AWS, but does not
propose service rules. Thus, the item contains no new reporting
requirements. The *Sixth R&O* modifies the procedures by which incumbent
licensees in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band are to be
relocated by new entrants. The relocation procedures set forth in the
*Sixth R&O* are based on relocation procedures that had been previously
adopted for larger blocks of spectrum that include the bands 1915-1920
MHz and 1995-2000 MHz, but that did not account for new AWS entrants in
these bands. For example, the *Sixth R&O* determines that the principle
that new licensees must reimburse UTAM, Inc., for a proportional share
of the band-clearing costs UTAM has incurred in relocating the 1910-1930
MHz band should apply to new AWS entrants in the 1915-1920 MHz band. The
*Sixth R&O* modifies previously established recordkeeping and other
compliance requirements but does not substantively add to those
requirements. Licensees that were previously subject to relocation
requirements will still be subject to relocation requirements, but now
may be involved in relocation discussions with additional entities --
*i.e.* AWS licensees. Similarly, new entrants that were required to
share relocation costs now may share those costs with new AWS licensees.

**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."[^251]

The Commission considered and rejected proposals to not redesignate the
1915-1920 MHz band for AWS. One alternative proposed by Ascom, Siemens,
Verizon and others would have had us retain this band for unlicensed PCS
use and modify the pre-existing UPCS rules to allow for a greater
variety of applications in the band. To the extent that small entities
are UPCS users, and users of unlicensed bands are typically exempt from
the reporting requirements that are necessary to secure, maintain, and
renew a license that is a necessary requirement for operation under our
licensed service rules, the retention of the 1915-1920 MHz band for UPCS
might have minimized the economic impact on small entities. We rejected
this approach because we concluded that it is feasible to introduce high
powered licensed services into the band, there is a need for additional
spectrum for AWS applications, and there are no current users of the
1915-1920 MHz band. Even if we were to modify the rules to allow greater
UPCS use of the band, the types of applications that could be deployed
under the UPCS rules would not provide the public benefits associated
with AWS applications.

**Report to Congress**

The Commission will send a copy of the Sixth Report and Order including
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act.[^252] In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the
Fourth Report and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Fifth Report and Order and FRFA (or
summaries thereof) will also be published in the Federal Register.[^253]

**APPENDIX C: LIST OF COMMENTING PARTIES**

**Commenters to the *Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking***

Comments (due April 14, 2003)

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Ad Hoc MDS Alliance (Ad Hoc)      | Nucentrix Broadband Networks      |
|                                   | (Nucentrix)                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ArrayComm                         | PCIA, The Wireless Infrastructure |
|                                   | Association                       |
|                                   |                                   |
|                                   | (PCIA)                            |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Ascom Tateco AB, Sweden (Ascom)   | PHS MoU Group (PHS)               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Cingular Wireless (Cingular)      | Siemens                           |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Cellular Telecommunications and   | Society of Broadcast engineers    |
| Internet                          | (SBE)                             |
|                                   |                                   |
| Association (CTIA)                | Stellar Holdings (Stellar)        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| DCT Los Angeles (DCT)             | UTAM                              |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Ericsson                          | UTStarcom                         |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| ICO Global Communications (ICO)   | Verizon Wireless (Verizon)        |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| JSM Electronics (JSM)             | Wireless Communications           |
|                                   | Association                       |
| Motorola                          |                                   |
|                                   | International (WCA)               |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Nextel Communications (Nextel)    |                                   |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**[Reply Comments (due April 28, 2003)]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  Ad Hoc                              Nextel

  AT&T Wireless Services (AT&T)       Peñasco Valley Telephone
                                      Cooperative (Peñasco)

  Ericsson                            Philips Business Communications
                                      (PBC)

  ICO                                 SBE

  Inventel                            Sprint Corporation (Sprint)

  Lucent Technologies (Lucent)        UTStarcom

  Midstate Communications (Midstate)  Verizon

  Motorola                            WCA
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**[Petition for Reconsiderations to the *Second Report and
Order*]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  PCIA                                WCA

  Sprint                              
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**[Opposition and Reply to Petition for Reconsideration to the *Second
Report and Order*]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  AT&T and Verizon                    WCA

  Sprint                              
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**[Petition for Reconsiderations to the *Third Report and
Order*]{.underline}**

+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| Celsat America, Inc. (Celsat)     | Satellite Industry Association    |
|                                   | (SIA)                             |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+
| CTIA                              | TMI Communications (TMI) and      |
|                                   | TerreStar Networks Inc.           |
| ICO                               | (TerreStar)                       |
+-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+

**[Opposition, Comments, and Reply to Petition for Reconsideration to
the *Third Report and Order*]{.underline}**

  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------
  AT&T, Cingular, Verizon             ICO

  Boeing                              SIA

  CTIA                                WCA

  Globalstar                          
  ----------------------------------- -----------------------------------

**STATEMENT OF**

**CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL**

*Re: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the1915-1920 MHz,
1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking; (WT Docket No. 04-356); and Sixth Report and Order,
Third Memorandum Opinion and Order (ET Docket No. 00-258), and Fifth
Memorandum Opinion and Order (ET Docket No. 95-18)*

One of our core mandates is to promote the efficient use of spectrum.
Today we further that mandate by making available 20 MHz of spectrum
suitable for the provision of new advanced wireless services and
technology.

The 20 MHz of licensed spectrum we make available, in addition to the 90
MHz of spectrum previously made available, will help expedite the
delivery of licensed broadband Internet wireless service to all
consumers across the nation. As is evident from today's Ninth
Competition Report, wireless providers are increasingly utilizing their
licensed spectrum holdings to build infrastructure to support Internet
applications. This additional spectrum will enable providers to employ
more bandwidth-intensive applications and services and expedite the
delivery of true broadband access.

Overall, our allocation and proposed service rules seek to maximize the
flexibility of licensees to choose the types and characteristics of the
services that they will offer in their licensed spectrum and define
spectrum users' rights and responsibilities clearly. We also address an
appropriate relocation and reimbursement policy to compensate entities
for expenses incurred in relocating incumbents.

There have been interference concerns raised in the record about
proceeding with the designation of the 1915-1920 MHz band for advanced
wireless services. I particularly note and appreciate the efforts of
Sprint and Nokia to produce, under very short time frames, real world
test results for our analysis. I believe that today\'s designation
decision combined with the initiation of a service rules proceeding will
afford the Commission latitude to address comprehensively the existing
and future test results about the most viable and valuable uses of this
band. In the end, my colleagues and I unanimously felt that we could
proceed responsibly now and produce services rules responsive to a full
record on these issues.

In sum, we strike the right balance by promoting the efficient use and
availability of spectrum while at the same time seeking comments on a
number of licensing, technical, and operational rules to govern the use
of the 20 megahertz of spectrum designated for AWS. I know that these
rules are of great interest and I welcome industry input and independent
testing on these issues.

Lastly, I applaud the collaborative efforts of the Wireless
Telecommunication Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology in
helping to bring these important items before the Commission.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS**

*Re: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of
New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless
Systems (ET Docket No. 00-258); Petition for Rulemaking of the Wireless
Information Networks Forum Concerning the Unlicensed Personal
Communications Service (RM-9498); Petition for Rulemaking of UTStarcom,
Inc., Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service
(RM-10024); and Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile-Satellite Service (ET
Docket No. 95-18).*

> *Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz,
> 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz, and 2175-2180 MHz (WT Docket No.
> 04-356).*

I support both the allocation order and the service rules NPRM with the
hope that this band will bring new service to American consumers in the
near future. This can be a real boon for advanced telecommunications. At
the same time, we have our work cut out to make it a reality.
Importantly, the Commission must ensure that the use of this band does
not cause unacceptable interference to consumers who currently use
proximate bands. Because of the importance of the surrounding bands, and
because of the allegations made by terrestrial mobile and satellite
license holders, I support deferring interference findings until more
information can be collected as part of the NPRM process. Once we have
this information, I hope that we will integrate it into our final
decision as quickly as possible. We also have some standards matters to
resolve with our friends in Canada and Mexico. I look forward to
accomplishing all this work and to bringing an advanced generation of
new services to America's consumers.

**STATEMENT OF**

**COMMISSIONER JONATHAN S. ADELSTEIN**

*Re: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of
New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless
Systems; (ET Docket No. 00-258); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and
2175-2180 MHz Bands; (WT Docket No. 04-356)*

It's always exciting to consider new spectrum opportunities. I very much
appreciate the efforts of the Office of Engineering and Technology and
the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to explore new ways to improve
the use of spectrum. I have talked before about one of my goals to
maximize the services and information that flow over our nation's
airwaves. And the items before us can really help to further that goal.

At the same time, there clearly are some challenges in looking at new
services for the so-called "H" block. I am pleased that we are moving
forward a little cautiously on some of the technical issues presented by
possible use of this band. In promoting new services, we always need to
make sure that we are adequately protecting any existing service. In
this case, we must ensure that our rules shield the significant base of
existing PCS customers from harmful interference. Consistent with a
framework for innovation, the Commission has a responsibility to
establish ground rules for ensuring that harmful interference does not
occur -- while still striving to promote new technologies and services.

I think we are on the right track here. We have teed up a lot of good
discussion in the NPRM on the interference issue. I look forward to
hearing the result of industry tests over the next several months and to
following the healthy debate that is sure to follow. I am pleased with
the outcome today, and think we have struck just the right balance in
addressing these valuable pieces of spectrum.

[^1]: Advanced Wireless Services is the collective term we use for new
    and innovative fixed and mobile terrestrial wireless applications
    using bandwidth that is sufficient for the provision of a variety of
    applications, including those using voice and data (such as internet
    browsing, message services, and full-motion video) content. In an
    ongoing service rules proceeding for ninety megahertz of spectrum
    for AWS, we have adopted rules that provide licensees of this
    spectrum with the flexibility to quickly adapt to changes in
    technological capabilities and marketplace conditions into the
    future, and have stated that our goal for the AWS-designated
    spectrum is "to put this spectrum to its highest value use with
    minimal transaction cost." Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
    Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353,
    *Report and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 25162 (2003) ("*AWS 1.7 and 2.1 GHz
    Service Rules Order*"). Although AWS is commonly associated with
    so-called third generation (3G) applications and has been predicted
    to build on the successes of such current-generation commercial
    wireless services as cellular and Broadband PCS, the services
    ultimately provided by AWS licensees are only limited by the Fixed
    and Mobile designation of the spectrum we allocate for AWS and the
    service rules we ultimately adopt for the bands.

[^2]: Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz,
    1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket No.
    04-356 (*"AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM"*).

[^3]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Second Report
    and Order*, 17 FCC Rcd 23193 (2002) (*"AWS* *Second R&O"*).

[^4]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No.
    99-81, *Third Report and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003)
    (*"AWS* *Third R&O, Third NPRM, and Second MO&O"*).

[^5]: *See* Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile Satellite Service,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, *Third Report and Order and Third Memorandum
    Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 23638 (2003) (*"MSS Third R&O and
    Third MO&O"*).

[^6]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 596 (2001) (*"AWS*
    *Notice"*).

[^7]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, ET Docket No.
    95-18, and IB Docket No. 99-81, *Memorandum Opinion and Order and
    Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making*, 16 FCC Rcd 16043 (2001)
    (*"AWS Further Notice"*).

[^8]: *AWS Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 16043, ¶ 9.

[^9]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum
    Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, *First Report and
    Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 16 FCC Rcd 17222 (2001)
    (*"AWS First R&O and MO&O"*).

[^10]: Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band,
    Consolidating the 800 and 900 MHz Industrial/Land Transportation and
    Business Pool Channels, WT Docket 02-55, Amendment of Part 2 of the
    Commission's Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and
    Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless
    Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No.
    00-258, Petition for Rule Making of the Wireless Information
    Networks Forum Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications
    Service, RM-9498, Petition for Rule Making of UTStarcom, Inc.,
    Concerning the Unlicensed Personal Communications Service, RM-10024,
    Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile Satellite Service, ET Docket
    No. 95-18, *Report and Order, Fourth Report and Order, Fourth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order*, FCC No. 04-168 (released
    August 6, 2004) ("*800 MHz R&O"*).

[^11]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.

[^12]: *See* 47 C.F.R. Part 15 -- Radio Frequency Devices. Subpart D of
    Part 15 is titled "Unlicensed Personal Communications Service
    Devices."

[^13]: Asynchronous devices are defined as those "that transmit RF
    energy at irregular time intervals, as typified by local area
    network data systems," and isochronous devices are defined as those
    "that transmit at a regular interval, typified by time-division
    voice systems." *See* 47 C.F.R. § 15.303(a)-(d). To minimize the
    potential of systems in each band interfering with other systems
    operating in the same band, the Commission adopted rules requiring
    UPCS devices to monitor the spectrum prior to transmitting. Specific
    requirements for the operation of asynchronous devices in the
    1910-1920 MHz band are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 15.321 and specific
    requirements for the operation of isochronous devices in the
    1920-1930 MHz band are codified at 47 C.F.R. § 15.323.

[^14]: *See generally*, 47 C.F.R. § 24.232 *et seq*. Rules were created
    to ensure that Nextel operates its mobile/portable stations in the
    1910-1915 MHz block and that these operations conform to
    lower-adjacent broadband PCS operations. See 47 C.F.R. § 24.229(c).

[^15]: *See* Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile-Satellite Service,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, *Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and* Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12315 (2000) ("*MSS Second R&O*").

[^16]: Specifically, the fifteen megahertz of spectrum was reallocated
    from MSS in the 1990-2025 MHz band to support new Fixed and Mobile
    services -- ten megahertz occupy the lower end (1990-2000 MHz) of
    the band and five megahertz are situated at the upper end (2020-2025
    MHz). *See AWS Third R&O, Third NPRM, and Second MO&O*, 18 FCC Rcd
    at 2231, ¶ 15.

[^17]: *See* Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the
    Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, ET Docket No. 92-9,
    *First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule* Making, 7
    FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 6495
    (1993); *Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 8
    FCC Rcd 6589 (1993); *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 1943
    (1994); *Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 9 FCC Rcd 7797
    (1994); *aff'd Association of Public Safety Communications
    Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC*, 76 F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996)
    (collectively, "*Emerging Technologies* proceeding").

[^18]: *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish New
    Personal Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90-314, *Fourth
    Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 10 FCC Rcd 7955 (1995). UTAM is the
    Commission's frequency coordinator for UPCS devices in the 1910-1930
    MHz band. The UPCS band relocation policies are codified at 47
    C.F.R. §§ 24.239-24.53 and 101.69-101.81.

[^19]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2243-2244, ¶ 40.

[^20]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2247, ¶ 46.

[^21]: In 1994, the Commission anticipated that the 1910-1920 MHz band
    would be used for data applications such as high-speed,
    high-capacity LANs. *See* Amendment of the Commission's Rules to
    Establish New Personal Communications Services, GEN Docket No.
    90-314, *Second Report and Order*, 8 FCC Rcd 7700 (1993).

[^22]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2249-2250, ¶ 52.

[^23]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2247, ¶ 48. The 1990-2000 MHz
    band was previously reallocated from BAS to MSS use but, in earlier
    decisions in this proceeding, was reallocated to the Fixed and
    Mobile services in order to support AWS applications. We discuss
    specific relocation matters concerning BAS licensees operating in
    this band *infra*.

[^24]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2247-2248, ¶¶ 48-49.

[^25]: For example, the redesignation of five megahertz of the twenty
    megahertz band would entitle UTAM to twenty-five percent of its
    total.

[^26]: In its petition for waiver, Lucent requests that it be allowed to
    use the 1910-1920 MHz band for its Definity PBX voice system within
    the confines of Cook County, Illinois. Also, UTStarcom & Drew
    University request permission to use the 1910-1920 MHz band to
    install the UTStarcom Personal Access System (PAS) on the campus of
    Drew University in Madison, New Jersey, in order to provide wireless
    telephone service to the students and staff, as an extension of the
    university's wired telephone system. In addition, Ascom requests
    that it be allowed to use the 1910-1920 MHz band for its Freeset DCT
    1900 PBX voice system within the confines of Cook County, Illinois;
    New York City; and San Francisco, California, because several of its
    commenters, who are boards of trade or stock exchange entities, need
    high-capacity indoor wireless communications. Finally, Alaska Power
    requests a waiver of Part 15 asynchronous spectrum etiquette to
    operate a community wireless voice system over the 1910-1920 MHz
    (data) band, in order to serve small rural areas in Alaska that are
    currently unserved or underserved by wireless service providers. In
    its waiver request, RBM requests permission to operate voice devices
    in the 1915-1920 MHz band to provide low-power fixed wireless local
    loop telephone service in Las Vegas, Nevada.

[^27]: In its petition for rulemaking, WINForum asks the Commission to
    allow isochronous UPCS devices to use the 1910-1920 MHz band and to
    phase out asynchronous use in this band, thereby providing twenty
    megahertz of spectrum (1910-1930 MHz) for isochronous devices, and
    also to modify certain technical requirements for UPCS devices in
    Part 15.

[^28]: In its petition, UTStarcom requests that the 1910-1920 MHz band
    be made available for licensing via competitive bidding to permit
    the establishment of community wireless network service, using the
    UTStarcom PAS which is based on Japan's RCR-28 Personal Handy Phone
    System (PHS) standard.

[^29]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2247-2248, ¶¶ 47-49. Since the
    Commission reallocated the 1910-1915 MHz band for licensed Fixed and
    Mobile services in an earlier rulemaking, any comments that
    reference use of the entire 1910-1920 MHz band will only apply to
    the 1915-1920 MHz band, herein.

[^30]: Information Technology Industry Council Reply Comments to *AWS
    Notice* at 2.

[^31]: Telephone and Data Systems Comments to the *AWS Further Notice*
    at 4-5. *See also* Motorola Comments to the *AWS Further Notice* at
    2 (citing a prediction that AWS will generate \$38-47 billion in
    additional service revenues per year);

[^32]: *See*, *e.g.*, CTIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3-5; *ex
    parte* Comments of CTIA filed on July 30, 2004; Motorola Comments to
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-6; *ex parte* Comments of Motorola filed on
    July 20, 2004; UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-5; Verizon
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5.

[^33]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2248-2249, ¶ 50.

[^34]: *See*, *e.g.*, CTIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3-5; *ex
    parte* Comments of CTIA filed on July 30, 2004; Motorola Comments to
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-6; *ex parte* Comments of Motorola filed on
    July 20, 2004; UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-5; Verizon
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5.

[^35]: Receiver overload occurs when a nearby transmitter is
    transmitting a strong signal which is received in the receiver front
    end. For a receiver with automatic gain control (AGC), the presence
    of the strong signal could cause the AGC to reduce to such a level
    that the desired signal cannot be received. For a receiver that does
    not have AGC, the presence of a strong signal could saturate the low
    noise amplifier (LNA) preventing signals from being processed. Both
    instances can occur even if the desired receive frequency is not
    close to the frequency of the undesired signal. A duplexer is a
    device that enables a handset to transmit and receive
    simultaneously. The duplexer provides filtering that rejects a
    handset's outgoing transmissions, while accepting incoming
    transmissions. In order for duplexers to work properly, there must
    be sufficient spectral separation between the mobile transmit and
    receive bands.

[^36]: *See, e.g., ex parte* Comments of Sprint filed on September 1,
    2004; *ex parte* Comments of CTIA filed on July 30, 2004.

[^37]: *See*, *e.g.*, CTIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3-5; *ex
    parte* Comments of CTIA filed on July 30, 2004; Motorola Comments to
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-6; *ex parte* Comments of Motorola filed on
    July 20, 2004; UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-5; Verizon
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5.

[^38]: Verizon Comments to *AWS* *Third NPRM* at 5-6. *See also*
    Motorola Reply Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 6.

[^39]: Motorola Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5; UTAM Comments to *AWS
    Third NPRM* at 4. *See also* Cingular Comments to *AWS Third NPRM*
    at 8 (stating that 14 megahertz separation needed to minimize
    interference in PCS bands).

[^40]: *See* *ex parte* Comments of CTIA filed on July 30, 2004.

[^41]: *See ex parte* Comments of Sprint filed on Sept. 1, 2004.

[^42]: *See* *ex parte* Comments of Nextel filed on August 5, 2004.

[^43]: Some of the conditions cited are: both handsets must be at the
    very edge of coverage, the interfering handset must transmit at
    maximum power and the victim receiver must operate at maximum
    sensitivity. They further state that the places where such
    interference would be expected to occur such as train stations,
    airport lounges, and stadiums, are also among the least likely of
    places to have the type of poor coverage described above. *See* *ex
    parte* Comments of Nextel filed on August 5, 2004 at 2.

[^44]: We note that because GSM is a TDMA-based technology, our analysis
    of GSM herein is applicable to other TDMA technologies such as the
    US TDMA systems that are employed by carriers such as
    Cingular, AT&T, and T-Mobile.

[^45]: *See*, *e.g.*, *ex parte* Comments of CTIA filed on August 18,
    2004; *ex parte* Comments of Sprint filed on Sept. 1, 2004.

[^46]: Often, this scenario is referred to as the near-far problem.

[^47]: We believe that assuming S/I = 0 dB results in a valid estimation
    of the magnitude of interference due to out-of-band emissions. We
    recognize that a greater S/I may be needed for operation. However,
    we also note that the industry standards for out-of-band emissions
    are much more stringent than those required by the Commission
    (*e.g*., industry standard out-of-band emission for CDMA is -76 dBm
    and the Commission only requires -13 dBm; a 63 dB difference). Our
    analysis is based on the Commission's rules rather than the industry
    standard. Using any other S/I along with the industry standard would
    produce separation distances much less than our results. Thus our
    analysis is conservative.

[^48]: We note that by setting the desired signal level to the receiver
    sensitivity, our analysis yields conservative results. For practical
    reasons, such as providing a fade margin and to allow for handoff,
    systems operate several dB above the receiver sensitivity. The
    standard for CDMA specifies a receiver sensitivity of at least -104
    dBm. *See* TIA‑98‑E, Recommended Minimum Performance standards for
    CDMA 2000 Spread Spectrum Mobile Stations at 3-101, table 3.5.1.2.1.
    The standard for GSM specifies a receiver sensitivity of at least
    -102 dBm. *See* 05.05 of the ETSI 3GPP standards, "Radio Access
    Network: Radio Transmission and Reception."

[^49]: *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.238.

[^50]: Motorola Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5. *See* *also*, *ex
    parte* Comments of Nextel filed on August 5, 2004 at Agilent Study,
    page 3.

[^51]: We note that the rules allow mobile transmitters to transmit with
    a peak eirp of up to 2W. *See* 47 C.F.R. § 24.232(b). However, due
    to safety concerns over human exposure to RF and battery
    constraints, handheld transmitters generally only transmit with 200
    mW eirp.

[^52]: Free space loss (FSL) can be calculated using the following
    formula: FSL = 32.45 + 20\*log~10~(Freq in MHz) + 20\*log~10~(Dist
    in km). Substituting in the variables gives 51dB = 32.45 +
    20\*log~10~(1920) + 20\*log~10~(Dist in km). Solving for Dist gives
    0.00441 km or 4.41 meters for CDMA.

[^53]: *See e.g.*, Agilent Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-17; *ex
    parte* Comments of Nextel filed on August 31, 2004.

[^54]: For example, TIA/EIA-98-F requires out-of-band emissions into the
    receive mobile band to be -76 dBm/MHz for CDMA which is over 60 dB
    more stringent than the Commission's rules. We note that GSM and
    TDMA systems require less stringent out-of-band emission limits,
    i.e., the standards for GSM and TDMA specify out-of-band emissions
    into the mobile receive band of -61 dBm/MHz (*See* GSM 05.05) and
    -65 dBm/MHz (*See* ANSI 136-270), respectively.

[^55]: Agilent states that it can produce a G-H block duplexer that
    would allow a G-H block handset to comply with the industry
    out-of-band emission limit of -76 dBm/MHz into the PCS receive band.
    *See* *ex parte* Comments of CTIA filed on Aug. 13, 2004 at 2.

[^56]: For this calculation, the CDMA desired signal is set at the
    receiver sensitivity of -104 dBm, the undesired signal is also equal
    to -104 dBm. Setting the signal level into the receiver at an
    out-of-band emission level of -60 dBm requires that propagation loss
    must equal 44 dB (-104 dB -- (-60 dB) = -44 dB). Substituting this
    into the formula for free space loss and solving for distance
    yields: 44 = 32.45 + 20\*log~10~(1930 MHz) +20\*log~10~(Distance in
    km) and Distance equals 2.0x10^-3^ km or 2 meters.

[^57]: GSM uses time division multiple access techniques to achieve
    eight time slots per each 200 kilohertz.

[^58]: 47 C.F.R. § 24.232(b).

[^59]: *See* equipment authorization database at
    https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/cf/eas/reports/GenericSearch.cfm.

[^60]: *See* Sprint/Nokia Labs Test Results, H Block Overload Test
    Results, Single Tone Desensitization (Overload) and Duplexer Testing
    Over Temperature, submitted August 31, 2004.

[^61]: This is a relatively simple calculation. The maximum transmitted
    power is 23 dBm. The free space loss for 1 meter at 1900 MHz is 38
    dB. The transmitter loss due to body absorption, blockage is 3 dB.
    The receiver antenna gain is -3 dB. Therefore, the RF power at the
    antenna port equals -21 dBm (*i.e.,* 23 dBm -- 38 dB -- 3 dB -- 3 dB
    = -21 dBm).

[^62]: We note that GSM and TDMA handsets typically operate with peak
    power levels in excess of those used by CDMA handsets. CDMA handsets
    generally operate with maximum peak power levels of less than 200
    mW, and the peak and average power levels for CDMA are approximately
    the same. For GSM and TDMA handsets, maximum peak power levels tend
    to approach levels of 1 watt. However, because each handset only
    operates during one time slot, the average power level is much
    lower. For example, because GSM is based on 8 time slots, a phone
    with a peak power of 1 watt would have an average power of 125 mW
    (10000 mW/8 time slots). Whether to provide any special
    consideration for GSM or TDMA systems is discussed further in the
    *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM.*

[^63]: *See, e.g., ex parte* Comments of TerreStar filed on August 31,
    2004; *ex parte* Comments of Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
    filed on August 31, 2004; *see also ex parte* Comments of ICO Global
    Communications filed on September 2, 2004.

[^64]: Petitions for reconsideration relating to our decision to
    allocate spectrum from MSS are addressed *infra.*

[^65]: Verizon Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2.

[^66]: Verizon Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5.

[^67]: *See, e.g.,* *ex parte* Comments of Nextel filed on September 2,
    2004; *ex parte* Comments of T-Mobile USA filed on August 20, 2004.

[^68]: *See, e.g.,* Ascom Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2; Siemens
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2; Verizon Comments to *AWS Third
    NPRM* at 6; WCA Comments to *AWS Third NRPM* at 17, 20; *See also*
    Ericsson Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5 (stating that such an
    expansion is consistent with current use of spectrum); Siemens
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3 (noting that expansion improves
    spectrum efficiency and reduces levels of interference, thereby
    enhancing quality of service); Cingular Comments to *AWS Third NPRM*
    at 2-3 (supporting retention of 1916-1930 MHz for UPCS).

[^69]: Ericsson Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5; Ascom Comments to the
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 2.

[^70]: *See ex parte* Comments of Siemens Corp., *et. al*. filed in ET
    Docket 00-258 on December 12, 2003. DECT is a digital wireless
    technology, which originated in Europe and is used in a variety of
    wireless applications, including cordless telephones and wireless
    office telecommunications products.

[^71]: ICO Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5; Motorola Comments to *AWS
    Third NPRM* at 8-10.

[^72]: UTStarcom Comments to *AWS Third NPRM*; JSM Electronics, Inc.,
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 1; PHS MoU Group Comments to *AWS
    Third NPRM.*

[^73]: *See, e.g,*, Midstate Communications, Inc., Reply Comments to
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 2.

[^74]: UTStarcom Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2.

[^75]: *Id.*, at 15-16. Currently, 47 C.F.R. §15.321(e) requires the
    measurement of the carrier frequency in order to ensure its
    frequency stability. WINForum believes that for asynchronous data
    devices that transmit in short bursts, explicit measurement of the
    carrier frequency as a function of time for a short modulated burst
    is inherently problematic. WINForum's proposal would allow for a
    more realistic measurement of the frequency stability of the device.

[^76]: *See* UTStarcom Petition at 2.

[^77]: *See* UTStarcom Reply Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3.

[^78]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2247-2248, ¶¶ 47-49.

[^79]: The 1910-1915/1990-1995 MHz pairing was adopted and licensed in
    the *800 MHz R&O*.

[^80]: Because the 1995-2000 MHz portion of this band pairing is closer
    to the 2000-2020 MHz MSS band than the 1990-1995 MHz portion of the
    1910-1915 MHz/1990-1995 MHz band pairing, we recognize that there
    are differences in adjacent band interference considerations for the
    bands. These matters are best addressed in the *AWS 2 GHz Service
    Rules NPRM*.

[^81]: UTStarcom Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3.

[^82]: PHS MoU Group Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2; *see also* JSM
    Electronics Inc. Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2 (stating that "we
    could deploy systems to provide just voice service on 5 MHz but more
    spectrum is required for a combination of voice and data").

[^83]: In addition, we note that Auction #35 was completed on January
    26, 2001, making the conditions on which the waiver petition from
    UTStarcom and Drew University was predicated no longer applicable
    *Public Notice*, DA 01-211 (rel. Jan. 29, 2001). *See also* the
    Commission's auctions homepage for Auction 35 at
    <http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/35/> (listing subsequent events
    affecting licenses issued in the band). We also note that the
    unavailability of the 1910-1915 MHz band would appear to preclude
    use of the PHS system that UTStarcom and Drew University seek to use
    in their petition.

[^84]: *AWS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2238, ¶ 28.

[^85]: *Id*., 18 FCC Rcd at 2255, ¶ 69.

[^86]: CTIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5.

[^87]: Motorola Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 13. The adjacency to MSS
    uplink spectrum, Motorola claims, makes the band ill suited as an
    AWS base station transmit band. *Id.*

[^88]: AT&T Reply Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 7. *See also* Cingular
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 9; CTIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM*
    at 5-6; Motorola Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 14; Verizon
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 8-9; AT&T Reply Comments to *Third
    NPRM* at 7; Ericsson Reply Comments to Third NPRM at 3-4 (supporting
    Verizon proposal for DoD relocation); WCA Reply Comments to *AWS
    Third NPRM* at 8.

[^89]: Ad Hoc Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 5; Verizon Comments to
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 9 (considering spectrum suitable for displaced
    UPCS as alternative solution to Federal Government relocation); WCA
    Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 23; SBE Reply Comments to *AWS Third
    NPRM* at 3.

[^90]: Motorola Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 13; WCA Comments to *AWS
    Third NPRM* at 23; SBE Reply Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 1-3.

[^91]: Ericsson Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 7-8.

[^92]: Ericsson Reply Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3.

[^93]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00 258, *Fourth Notice of
    Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 13235 (2003) ("*AWS Fourth NPRM*").

[^94]: Although MSS licensees may be interested in acquiring this AWS
    spectrum in order to provide additional terrestrial services that
    would complement their MSS (and ATC) offerings, we note that such
    use would be under the terms of the AWS licensing and service rules
    we ultimately adopt, and that MSS entities would operate as a
    terrestrial licensee and would have to secure a separate license to
    operate in the 1915-1920/1995-2000 MHz band pairing.

[^95]: *See, e.g.*, SBE Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 2-3. For
    example, one factor to consider when addressing adjacent channel
    operations is the that some licensees in this band can operate
    nationwide even though they are licensed for a specific market. An
    example of this is CARS mobile licenses issued to C-SPAN.

[^96]: *See* Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile
    Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the
    1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 01-185, *Report and Order and
    Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC Rcd 1962 (2003) (*"ATC Report
    and Order")* at 1973-1999. In that proceeding, to address
    out-of-band emissions interference, we required ATC mobile terminal
    emissions above 2025 MHz to be attenuated by at least 70 + 10 log P
    dB, measured in a one megahertz or greater bandwidth. *See id*. at
    2025-26. AWS mobile terminal emissions above 2025 MHz attenuated by
    the same amount will fall well below the -50.8 dB adjacent channel
    leakage ratio (ACLR) which SBE contends is necessary to protect BAS
    receivers for harmful interference. *See* SBE Comments to *AWS Third
    NPRM* at 4.

[^97]: *AWS Third NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 2238, ¶¶ 29-30.

[^98]: UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 6-7; Nextel Comments to *AWS
    Third NPRM* at 15-16; PCIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-5.

[^99]: UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 6.

[^100]: UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 6.

[^101]: UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 7.

[^102]: UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 7. POP is an abbreviated
    term for population used by the Commission. One pop equals one
    person. The Commission currently uses the 1990 census as a measure
    of population.

    *See*
    http://wtbnt01g.fcc.gov/cgi-bin/web/internetpull/page.pl?url=http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/glossary.html.

[^103]: Cost-sharing procedures for relocation of microwave incumbents
    are found in § 24.239 through § 24.253 of the Commission's Rules.

[^104]: PCIA Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-5.

[^105]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶¶ 239-249.

[^106]: UTAM Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 6.

[^107]: Thus, new entrants' future relocation obligations will not
    necessarily represent a 25 percent share of any future microwave
    relocation costs in the 1910-1930 MHz band. If UTAM funds the
    relocation of a paired microwave link where only one half of the
    paired link operates in the 1915-1920 MHz band and the relocation
    costs are evenly divisible between both links, then the new entrant
    would be liable to reimburse UTAM for one half of the total
    relocation costs associated with that paired link. This same
    reimbursement applied to UTAM will also pertain to Nextel if it
    funds any relocation.

[^108]: Once Nextel receives credit for any relocation expenses for
    microwave links in the 1915-1920 MHz band as part of the band
    clearing offset process established in the *800 MHz R&O*, it will
    not be entitled to seek reimbursement from new AWS entrants for
    these previously credited expenses.

[^109]: See 47 C.F.R. § 24.239 and § 24.247 in Appendix A *infra*. We
    note that the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM* proposes to license the
    1915-1920 MHz band under Part 27. If necessary, we will modify our
    rules to ensure that the reimbursement right we establish for UTAM
    herein is reflected in the rule part under which we ultimately adopt
    service rules for the band.

[^110]: A TVPU station is a land mobile station used for the
    transmission of TV program material and related communications from
    scenes of events back to the TV station or studio. *See* 47 C.F.R. §
    74.601(a) (listing classes of TV broadcast auxiliary stations). The
    band is also used by fixed BAS operations such as studio-transmitter
    link (STL) stations, TV relay stations, and TV translator relay
    stations, but the majority of those operations are in higher
    frequency bands allocated to the BAS. *See* 47 C.F.R. §74.601(b).
    *See generally* 47 C.F.R. §74.600 ("Eligibility for license"). In
    addition, BAS spectrum in the 2 GHz band is authorized for use by
    the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS) and the Local Television
    Transmission Service (LTTS). *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.602, 78.18(a)(6)
    and 101.801. We will refer to these services collectively as "BAS,"
    and all decisions apply to CARS and LTTS operations in the band, as
    well as to BAS.

[^111]: The original 2 GHz BAS channel plan, which is still in use, is
    as follows: Channel 1 (1990-2008 MHz), Channel 2 (2008-2025 MHz),
    Channel 3 (2025-2042 MHz), Channel 4 (2042-2059 MHz), Channel 5
    (2059-2076 MHz), Channel 6 (2076-2093 MHz), and Channel 7 (2093-2110
    MHz).

[^112]: *See* Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission's Rules to
    Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the Mobile-Satellite Service,
    ET Docket No. 95-18, *Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum
    Opinion and* Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12315 (2000) ("*MSS Second R&O*").

[^113]: The Phase I channel plan -- an interim channel plan using 102
    megahertz of spectrum at 2008-2110 MHz during the transition --
    consisted of seven channels (six 14.5-megahertz-wide channels and
    one 15-megahertz-wide channel). The Phase II channel plan consisted
    of seven channels (six 12.1-megahertz-wide channels and one
    12.4-megahertz-wide channel) within the final 85 megahertz of
    spectrum at 2025-2110 MHz.

[^114]: *MSS Second R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 12323, ¶ 19.

[^115]: *MSS Second R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 12326-27, ¶¶ 29-32.

[^116]: *MSS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd 23638. In the *MSS Third R&O,* the
    Commission also modified the plan for relocating incumbent FS
    microwave licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band to specify appropriate
    interference standards and relocation guidelines that new Fixed and
    Mobile licensees should use when entering the band. Any 2 GHz MSS
    system that can share spectrum with BAS and/or FS incumbents is
    exempt from relocation obligations in the band it can share. *Id.*
    at 23669-80 ¶¶ 62-63, 23671 ¶ 68.

[^117]: The new BAS channel plan consists of seven 12-megahertz-wide
    channels and two 500-kilohertz data return link (DRL) channels. *MSS
    Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23666, ¶ 55.

[^118]: *See* note Error: Reference source not found *supra.*

[^119]: *MSS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23653-61, ¶¶ 29-44. The
    Commission noted that, although some time will be required to
    establish service rules and license new Fixed and Mobile entrants
    before they can secure entry into the band, the entry of these new
    AWS licensees may occur relatively quickly. Thus, the Commission
    expected the band to be used more fully and more quickly by the
    combination of the remaining MSS licensees and new AWS licensees
    than was anticipated in the *MSS Second R&O*, when the band was to
    be exclusively used by MSS licensees whose systems were expected to
    be deployed and to grow consistent with then distant milestones.

[^120]: The Commission determined that the initiation of the Phase I
    relocation and a subsequent quick transition to Phase II would
    undercut the principal rationale for a two-phase transition -- that
    the potential to leave substantial amounts of spectrum unused for a
    long period of time would result in inefficient use of valuable 2
    GHz spectrum. *See MSS Second R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 12327, ¶ 34
    (stating that a phased approach will "assur\[e\] efficient use of
    the spectrum."). In addition, the Commission reasoned that if Phase
    II of the transition was initiated during the time in which Phase I
    relocations are taking place, BAS operations could be on three
    different band plans, and some BAS licensees would face the
    disruption and down time associated with being twice relocated in a
    short period of time. *MSS Third R&O,* 18 FCC Rcd at 23655, ¶ 33.

[^121]: *MSS Second R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 12328-31, ¶¶ 38-49. *See
    generally,* 47 C.F.R. § 101.73 (good faith negotiation requirement).

[^122]: For purposes of the relocation plan, BAS markets consist of
    Nielsen Designated Market Areas (DMAs) as they existed on June 27,
    2000. *See MSS Second R&O*, 15 FCC Rcd at 12331, ¶ 42.

[^123]: *MSS Second R&O,* 15 FCC Rcd at 12331, ¶ 48. *See generally,* 47
    C.F.R. § 101.75. Under involuntary relocation, the new MSS entrant
    may, at its own expense, make necessary modifications to or replace
    the incumbent licensee's BAS equipment such that the BAS licensee
    receives comparable performance from the modifications or replaced
    equipment. The current mandatory negotiation periods adopted in the
    *MSS Third R&O* are as follows: MSS licensees and BAS incumbents in
    markets 1-30 and all BAS fixed stations, regardless of market size,
    begin a mandatory negotiation period that lasts for one year from
    December 8, 2003. *See MSS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23659-60, ¶ 42.
    The Commission also provided for a sunset date, December 8, 2013,
    after which a new licensee's obligation to relocate an incumbent BAS
    operator in the 1990-2025 MHz band will end. At that time, BAS
    operations in the band (if any remain) will operate on a secondary
    basis. *See MSS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd 23661-62, ¶¶ 45-47.

[^124]: This requirement was subsequently modified on reconsideration.
    *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 260. *See also* ¶ 64 *infra.*

[^125]: *MSS Third R&O,* 18 FCC Rcd at 23657, ¶ 38.

[^126]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶¶ 251-263.

[^127]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 252.

[^128]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 258.

[^129]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 258. We also noted that we would entertain
    requests filed by MSS licensees requesting that their voluntary
    participation in the negotiations between Nextel and BAS incumbents
    initiate their mandatory negotiation period. *Id.*

[^130]: Nextel is required to complete the 800 MHz band configuration
    process specified in the *800 MHz R&O* within thirty-six months of
    release of a Public Notice announcing the start date of
    reconfiguration in the first NPSPAC region. *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 201.

[^131]: The Commission determined that Nextel's financial reconciliation
    ("800 MHz true-up" or "800 MHz true-up process") must occur no later
    than six months after the conclusion of the thirty-six month 800 MHz
    band reconfiguration process. *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 330.

[^132]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶¶ 261, 304.

[^133]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 261. Nextel is also required to inform the
    Commission and MSS licensees on whether it will or will not be
    seeking reimbursement from MSS licensees 12 months after the
    effective date of the *800 MHz R&O. Id*.

[^134]: Under the MSS plan, MSS licensees are required to clear the top
    30 BAS markets and all fixed BAS stations, regardless of market
    size, before beginning operations. The accounting among MSS
    licensees to settle relocation expenditures would not occur until
    after the end of the MSS relocation process. *MSS Second R&O*, 15
    FCC Rcd at 12338 ¶ 68.

[^135]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 262.

[^136]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 269.

[^137]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 257.

[^138]: The one-year mandatory negotiation period for MSS and BAS
    licensees in markets 1-30 and all BAS fixed stations, regardless of
    market size, is already in effect and lasts until December 8, 2004.
    After this date, any MSS entrant may involuntarily relocate
    incumbent BAS operations.

[^139]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 250.

[^140]: *MSS Third R&O,* 18 FCC Rcd at 23644 ¶ 10.

[^141]: As noted earlier, Nextel is required to complete its nationwide
    relocation of BAS operations within 30 months after the effective
    date of the *800 MHz R&O*. *See* ¶ 60 *supra*.

[^142]: Under the MSS plan, MSS licensees may invoke involuntary
    relocation of BAS operations in the top 30 TV markets and fixed BAS
    stations, regardless of market size, after December 8, 2004. As we
    stated earlier, MSS licensees would have an opportunity to
    coordinate with Nextel on which top 30 BAS markets and fixed BAS
    stations the MSS licensees plan to invoke involuntary relocation.
    *See* ¶ 65 *supra.*

[^143]: This deadline applies to all 2 GHz MSS licensees except TMI. TMI
    must certify that its system is fully operational by November 2008.
    *See* TMI Communications and Company, Limited Partnership and
    TerreStar Networks, Inc. Application for Review and Request for
    Stay, *Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 19 FCC Rcd 12603 (2004).

[^144]: *See* ¶¶ 69-73 *infra. See generally*, section III(C) ("Band
    Clearance and Reimbursement") in the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*,
    FCC No. 04-218.

[^145]: *See also 800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 252; *MSS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd
    23638.

[^146]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§§ 74.690, 78.40, 101.73.

[^147]: AWS licensees are now authorized to operate in the 1995-2000 MHz
    and 2020-2025 MHz bands. *See* ¶¶ 41 and 46 *supra.* Nextel is
    authorized to operate in the 1990-1995 MHz band. *See 800 MHz R&O*
    ET Docket No. 95-18, released August 6, 2004. Each authorized 2 GHz
    MSS licensee receives an equal share of the available frequencies in
    which its primary service operations will take place, to be chosen
    at the time it has launched one satellite into its intended orbit.
    Each authorized 2 GHz MSS system may also operate at other
    frequencies in the 2 GHz MSS band, provided it does not cause
    harmful interference to other assigned satellite networks or
    incumbent terrestrial services that have not been relocated. *See*
    In The Matter Of The Establishment Of Policies And Service Rules For
    The Mobile Satellite Service In The 2 GHz Band, IB Docket 99-81,
    *Report and Order,* 15 FCC Rcd 16127, 16138-140 ¶¶ 16-21 (2000).

[^148]: *MSS Third R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 23654-57 ¶¶ 32-35; *800 MHz R&O*
    at 252.

[^149]: *800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 255.

[^150]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §§ 74.690(d) and 78.40(d-e). For example, a BAS
    licensee's operations in an adjacent market may need to be relocated
    even though an AWS licensee does not initiate operations in that
    adjacent market.

[^151]: *See also 800 MHz R&O* at ¶ 256 (requiring Nextel to follow its
    agreement to relocate BAS licensees across multiple TV markets to
    avoid inter-market coordination and interference problems).

[^152]: *See* note Error: Reference source not found *supra.*

[^153]: *Id.*

[^154]: *See generally*, section III(C) ("Band Clearance and
    Reimbursement") in the *AWS 2 GHz Service Rules NPRM*, FCC No.
    04-218.

[^155]: *Id.*

[^156]: *See MSS Second R&O.* These procedures were further modified in
    the *MSS Third R&O.* *See* *also* 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69-101.82.

[^157]: *AWS Further Notice*, 16 FCC Rcd 16043 at ¶ 34.

[^158]: *AWS Second R&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23214-15, ¶¶ 42-46.

[^159]: *AWS Second R&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23215, ¶ 46.

[^160]: *Id.*

[^161]: *See ex parte* of DECT Forum filed December 12, 2003. Currently,
    Section 15.323(a) fixes channels at 1.25 megahertz and Section
    15.323(b) requires that emissions with a bandwidth less than 625 kHz
    shall start searching for an available time and spectrum window
    three megahertz away from the band edge at 1920 MHz and search
    upwards from that point, while emissions with a bandwidth greater
    than 625 kHz shall start searching for an available time and
    spectrum window three megahertz from the band edge at 1930 MHz and
    search downward from that point.

[^162]: Ericsson Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 6; Siemens Comments to
    *AWS Third NPRM* at 4-5; Inventel Reply Comments to AWS Third NPRM
    at 2-3.

[^163]: *See ex parte* of VTech Holdings filed April 13, 2004; *see
    also* UTStarcom Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3 (stating that the
    UPCS band is not suitable for community wireless systems).

[^164]: *See, e.g.,* UTStarcom Comments to *AWS Third NPRM* at 3 (noting
    that community wireless systems may interfere with existing wireless
    PBX equipment).

[^165]: *See* Appendix A.

[^166]: *See AWS Second R&O*, 17 FCC Rcd at 23203-23216.

[^167]: *See* Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. and XM Radio Inc., Petition
    for Reconsideration to *AWS Second R&O* (filed August 8, 2002)
    ("Sirius and XM Petition"); Sprint, Petition for Reconsideration to
    *AWS Second R&O* (filed February 24, 2003) ("Sprint Petition"); WCA,
    Petition for Reconsideration to *AWS Second R&O* (filed February 24,
    2003) ("WCA Petition"); PCIA, Petition for Reconsideration to *AWS
    Second R&O* (filed February 24, 2003) ("PCIA Petition").

[^168]: Joint Petition for Reconsideration of Sirius Satellite Radio,
    Inc., and XM Radio Inc. ("Sirius/XM Petition") In the their
    petition, Sirius and XM attach a copy of the comments they filed
    August 8, 2002, in response to the *2002 NTIA Viability Assessment*
    (which addressed potential relocation bands for Federal Government
    incumbent users and to which the Commission sought comment)*.*

[^169]: Sirius/XM Petition at 4.

[^170]: *AWS Fourth NPRM*, 18 FCC Rcd at 13259-60, para. 50.

[^171]: Sprint Petition; WCA Petition. *See also*, Sprint, Reply to
    Opposition by AT&T and Verizon (filed May 30, 2003) ("Sprint Reply
    to Opposition"); WCA, Reply to Opposition by AT&T and Verizon (filed
    May 29, 2003) ("WCA Reply to Opposition") (Sprint and WCA filed
    similar comments as those found in their Petition for
    Reconsiderations. In addition to previous comments, Sprint and WCA
    pointed out that MDS replacement spectrum must be able to
    accommodate TDD technology.)

[^172]: Sprint Petition at 3.

[^173]: WCA Petition at 16-17.

[^174]: *See* AT&T Wireless and Verizon Wireless, Joint Opposition to
    Sprint and WCA Petitions for Reconsideration (filed May 14, 2003)
    ("AT&T and Verizon Opposition").

[^175]: AT&T and Verizon Opposition at 6.

[^176]: AT&T and Verizon Opposition at 4-6.

[^177]: Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission's
    Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and Mobile Broadband
    access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and
    2500-2690 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 03-66, RM-10586, Part 1 of the
    Commission's Rules -- Further Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT
    Docket No. 03-67, Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint
    Distribution Service and the Instructional Television Fixed Service
    Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Engage in Fixed Two-Way
    Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Amendment of Part 21 and 74 of
    the Commission's Rules With Regard to Licensing in the Multipoint
    distribution Service in the Instructional Television Fixed Service
    for the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 02-68, RM-9718, Promoting
    Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the
    Development of Secondary Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230, *Report and
    Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, (released July 29,
    2004) (*"2.5 GHz MDS Restructuring R&O and NPRM"*).

[^178]: PCIA Petition for Partial Reconsideration at 1, n3; Comments of
    PCIA in WT Docket No. 02-353 (filed Feb. 7, 2003).

[^179]: *See* Celsat, Petition for Reconsideration (filed April 14,
    2003) ("Celsat Petition"); CTIA, Petition for Reconsideration (filed
    xxx) ("CTIA Petition"); ICO, Petition for Reconsideration (filed
    April 14, 2003) ("ICO Petition"); SIA, Petition for Reconsideration
    (filed April 14, 2003) ("SIA Petition"); TMI and TerreStar, Joint
    Petition for Reconsideration (filed April 14, 2003) ("TMI and
    TerreStar Petition").

[^180]: ICO Petition at 3-4.

[^181]: ICO Petition at 5-8.

[^182]: SIA Petition at 2.

[^183]: SIA Petition at 3-5.

[^184]: SIA Petition at 5-6.

[^185]: SIA Petition at 8-10.

[^186]: TMI and TerreStar Petition at 4-6.

[^187]: TMI and TerreStar Petition at 2.

[^188]: TMI and TerreStar Petition at 3-4.

[^189]: *See* Boeing, Comments to SIA Petition for Reconsideration
    (filed May 14, 2003) ("Boeing Comment"); Globalstar, Reply to
    Oppositions to Petition for Reconsideration filed by SIA (filed May
    29, 2003) ("Globalstar Reply"); AT&T, Verizon, and Cingular, Comment
    to SIA Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 14, 2003) ("Carriers
    Comment"); CTIA Opposition to ICO, SIA, and TMI and TerreStar
    Petitions for Reconsideration (filed May 14, 2003) ("CTIA
    Opposition"); WCA Opposition to ICO, SIA, and TMI and TerreStar
    Petitions for Reconsideration (filed May 14, 2003). *See also*, ICO,
    Reply to Opposition and Comment to Petition for Reconsideration
    (filed May 27, 2003); SIA Reply to Opposition and Comment to
    Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 29, 2003).

[^190]: Boeing Comment at 7-8; Globalstar Reply at 2.

[^191]: Globalstar Reply at 3-6.

[^192]: Carriers Comment at 9-11; CTIA Opposition at 2-5.

[^193]: Carriers Comment at 12-14; CTIA Opposition at 5-8.

[^194]: CTIA Petition at 2. See also, CTIA Reply to Oppositions to CTIA
    Petition (filed May 27, 2003) (provides similar comments as in its
    Petition for Reconsideration).

[^195]: CTIA Petition at 3-4.

[^196]: CTIA Petition at 4.

[^197]: *See* AT&T, Verizon, and Cingular, Joint Reply to CTIA Petition
    (filed May 14, 2003) ("Carriers Joint Reply").

[^198]: Carriers Joint Reply at 2-3. *See also*, Establishment of
    Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2
    GHz Band, *Report and Order*, 15 FCC Rcd 16127 (2000) (*"MSS Service
    Rules Order"*).

[^199]: Carriers Joint Reply at 3-4.

[^200]: *See* Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile
    Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the
    1.6-2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 01-185, Review of the Spectrum
    Sharing Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile
    Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6-2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No.
    02-364, *Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, 18 FCC
    Rcd 1962 (2003) (*"MSS ATC R&O and NPRM"*).

[^201]: *MSS ATC R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 1973-1974, ¶ 20.

[^202]: Boeing, Opposition to CTIA Petition for Reconsideration (filed
    May 14, 2003) ("Boeing Opposition"); ICO, Opposition to CTIA
    Petition for Reconsideration (filed May 14, 2003) ("ICO
    Opposition").

[^203]: Boeing Opposition at 2-3; ICO Opposition at 2-4. *See also*,
    *MSS ATC R&O*, 18 FCC Rcd at 1978; *MSS Service Rules Order*, 15 FCC
    Rcd at 31-39.

[^204]: Boeing Opposition at 4.

[^205]: Boeing Opposition at 4-5; *see also*, ICO Opposition at 4-6.

[^206]: *AWS Third R&O* at para. 29.

[^207]: *See Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking*, IB
    Docket No. 01-185, FCC No. 04-134.

[^208]: Celsat Petition at 3.

[^209]: ICO Opposition to Celsat Petition at 2 (filed May 14, 2003). ICO
    also recognizes that the method of choosing frequency spectrum was
    decided in the *MSS Service Rules Order*, not the *AWS Third R&O*.
    *See* *also MSS Service Rules Order*.

[^210]: *See MSS Third R&O and Third MO&O* at ¶ 2.

[^211]: *See* Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration (filed
    January 7, 2004).

[^212]: *Id*. at 7.

[^213]: *See* 47 C.F.R. §101.73(d)

[^214]: *See* Petition for Clarification and Reconsideration (filed
    January 7, 2004) at 11.

[^215]: *Id*. at 9.

[^216]: *Id.*

[^217]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA (codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 601-612)
    has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
    Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110
    Stat. 857 (1996).

[^218]: Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules to Allocate
    Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the
    Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third
    Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No.
    99-81, *Third Report and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
    and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order*, 18 FCC Rcd 2223 (2003).

[^219]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 604.

[^220]: Section 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
    codified at 47 U.S.C. § 157.

[^221]: 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).

[^222]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

[^223]: 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."

[^224]: *See* SBA, Programs and Services, SBA Pamphlet No. CO-0028, at
    page 40 (July 2002).

[^225]: 15 U.S.C. § 632.

[^226]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).

[^227]: Independent Sector, The New Nonprofit Almanac & Desk Reference
    (2002).

[^228]: 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).

[^229]: U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States:
    2000, Section 9, pages 299-300, Tables 490 and 492.

[^230]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 515120.

[^231]: *Id*. NAICS code 515112.

[^232]: "Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls
    or has the power to control the other or a third party or parties
    controls or has to power to control both." 13 C.F.R. §
    121.103(a)(1).

[^233]: "SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern whose size
    is at issue and those of all its domestic concern's size." 13 C.F.R.
    § 121.103(a)(4).

[^234]: FCC News Release, "Broadcast Station Totals as of September 30,
    2002" (Nov. 6, 2002).

[^235]: "Concerns are affiliates of each other when one concern controls
    or has the power to control the other, or a third party or parties
    controls or has the power to control both." 13 C.F.R. §
    121.103(a)(1).

[^236]: "SBA counts the receipts or employees of the concern whose size
    is at issue and those of all its domestic and foreign affiliates,
    regardless of whether the affiliates are organized for profit, in
    determining the concern's size." 13 C.F.R. § 121.103(a)(4).

[^237]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517510 (changed from 513220 in
    October 2002).

[^238]: *Id.*

[^239]: 47 CFR Part 101 *et seq*. (formerly, part 21 of the Commission's
    Rules).

[^240]: Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission's rules
    can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave services. *See* 47 CFR
    parts 80 and 90. Stations in this service are called
    operational-fixed to distinguish them from common carrier and public
    fixed stations. Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed
    station, and only for communications related to the licensee's
    commercial, industrial, or safety operations.

[^241]: Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 of Title 47
    of the Commission's Rules. *See* 47 CFR Part 74 *et seq*. Available
    to licensees of broadcast stations and to broadcast and cable
    network entities, broadcast auxiliary microwave stations are used
    for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the
    transmitter, or between two points such as a main studio and an
    auxiliary studio. The service also includes mobile TV pickups, which
    relay signals from a remote location back to the studio.

[^242]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517212 (formerly 213322).

[^243]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 217212 (issues Oct. 2000).

[^244]: *Id*. The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^245]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (\"NAICS\") code 51740, formerly NAICS code 513340.

[^246]: Comsat Corporation, Globalstar USA, Honeywell International,
    Inc., and Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (\"MSVS\") each
    holds one of the current licenses for 1.6 GHz mobile satellite
    stations. Comsat Corporation reported annual revenue of \$618
    million in its most recent annual report to the U.S. Securities and
    Exchange Commission (\"SEC\"). Globalstar USA (formerly AirTouch
    Satellite Services) is a indirectly majority-owned by Thermo
    Satellite LP, a Colorado limited partnership. (See International
    Authorizations Granted, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 4079 (2004)). In
    another annual report filed with the SEC, Honeywell International
    Inc. reported receiving sales revenue of \$23.7 billion in 2001.
    MSVS is wholly owned by a limited partnership that is 48.1% owned by
    Motient Corporation and 39.9% owned by a limited partnership
    controlled by a wholly-owned subsidiary of BCE, Inc. In an annual
    report filed with the SEC, Motient reported revenue of \$93.3
    billion for calendar year 2001. BCE, Inc. reports in its corporate
    website,
    http://www.bce.ca/en/investors/reports/annual/bce/2002annual/bce_ar02_04_e.html,
    that it received \$19.8 billion of revenue in 2002.

[^247]: There are currently four space-station authorizations for Mobile
    Satellite Service systems that would operate with 2 GHz mobile earth
    stations. Although we know the number and identity of the
    space-station operators, neither the number nor the identity of
    future 2 GHz mobile-earth-station licensees can be determined from
    that data.

[^248]: 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, North American Industry Classification
    System (NAICS) code 517212.

[^249]: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Subject Series:
    Information, "Employment Size of Firms Subject to Federal Income
    Tax: 1997," Table 5, NAICS code 517212 (issued Oct. 2000).

[^250]: *Id.* The census data do not provide a more precise estimate of
    the number of firms that have employment of 1,500 or fewer
    employees; the largest category provided is "Firms with 1,000
    employees or more."

[^251]: 5 U.S.C. § 603(c)(1)-(c)(4).

[^252]: *See* 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).

[^253]: See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).