FCC 94-12 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 6
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
CC Docket No. 92-297
In the Matter of
RM-7872: RM-7722Rulemaking to Amend
Part 1 and Part 21
of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate
the 27.5 - 29.5 GHz Frequency Band and
to Establish Rules and Policies for
Local Multipoint Distribution Service
SECOND NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING 
Adopted: January 19, 1994; Released: February 11, 1994
Comment Date: To be established; see paragraph 58. 
Reply Comment Date: To be established; see paragraph
58.
By the Commission: Commissioner Barrett issuing a 
statement.
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking addresses 
comments filed in response to the Commission's proposal 
to redesignate the 28 GHz band (27.5 - 29.5 GHz) from 
terrestrial point-to-point services, to terrestrial point-to- 
multipoint services. 1
2. In this action, we modify our prior proposal. In order 
to develop regulations for the use of the 28 GHz band that 
optimize the public interest benefits to the Nation, we issue 
concurrently with this action a public notice requesting 
comments regarding the establishment of a Negotiated 
Rulemaking Committee (NRMC). In particular, we seek to 
have the NRMC develop technical regulations reflecting a 
consensus determination whether proposed terrestrial and 
satellite uses can share, on a co-frequency and co-coverage 
area basis, the 28 GHz band. In the event that sharing is 
not possible for some of the proposed uses of the 28 GHz 
band, we request that parties provide detailed analyses of 
the costs and benefits of the various choices we can make 
for the use of this band.
3. All other issues pertaining to establishment of LMDS 
will await development of frequency coordination and shar 
ing criteria for space and terrestrial services and technical 
parameters for the service.
' See Rulemaking to Amend Part 1 and Part 21 of the Com 
mission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5 - 29.5 GHz Frequency 
Band and to Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint 
Distribution Service, CC Docket No. 92-297. Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, Order, Tentative Decision and Order on Reconsi 
deration, 8 FCC Red 557 (1993)(hereinafter NPRM). 
2 Suite 12's analog technology requires 20 MHz of bandwidth
II. BACKGROUND
4. In the NPRM, the Commission considered three peti 
tions for rulemaking proposing a redesignation of the 28 
GHz band. That band currently is designated for fixed 
point-to-point and fixed satellite service use. We found that 
redesignation of the point-to-point use of the band to 
point-to-multipoint use could stimulate greater use of a 
band that largely has lain fallow. However, we asked for 
comment from satellite entities regarding the effect of 
redesignation on any proposed fixed satellite use of the 
band.
5. As requested by the petitions for rulemaking from 
Suite 12 and Video/Phone, we proposed that the 28 GHz 
band initially be licensed in two 1000 MHz blocks to two 
different carriers. Since it appeared that video service ini 
tially would be the primary service offered in LMDS, we 
proposed to divide each of the 1000 MHz bands into 50 
channels of 20 MHz each.2 We also proposed allowing 
licensees to provide a wide variety of other services.
6. We sought comment on whether other assignment 
schemes might better meet our objectives. We gave one 
example of a different assignment scheme, i.e. four blocks, 
two of which would have the capacity to carry 34 video 
channels, and two of which could be used for smaller 
video systems or telecommunications systems.
7. Finally, we requested comment on whether a separate 
assignment would be specifically required to accommodate 
the proposed satellite service applications in the Ka-band, 
or whether adequate coordination and sharing criteria 
could be developed to permit both terrestrial and fixed 
satellite services to operate compatibly in the band. We 
noted that the multicell multipoint configurations in the 
Suite 12 proposal envisioned a wide area distribution of 
services that might make frequency sharing with other 
services impossible.
III. DISCUSSION 
A. Redesignation of the 28 GHz Band
1. Terrestrial technologies
8. Technological advances are making use of higher fre 
quency bands possible. In the NPRM. we found that one of 
the petitioners for rulemaking in the 28 GHz band. Suite 
12, appeared to have developed a technology that could 
lead to widespread use of that band. Suite 12's affiliate Hye 
Crest Management, Inc. (now CellularVision of New York 
or CVNY) had made use of experimental licenses and was 
given a standard license pursuant to waiver of the existing 
point-to-point rules in January, 1991 to provide a point- 
to-multipoint broadband video distribution service in the 
Brighton Beach area of New York City. We noted that 
CVNY had not yet shown market demand for its system in 
the New York City Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area 
(PMSA) for which it is licensed. Nevertheless, the more 
than 900 waiver applications we received from entities
for each video distribution channel; an allocation of 1000 MHz 
per licensee gives a 50 channel capability in one polarization 
and 1000 MHz in the other direction to each licensee. Polariza 
tion is an electromagnetic radiation phenomenon which enables 
re-use of the same frequency if the transmission isolation be 
tween opposite polarization senses (e.g., horizontal and vertical) 
is sufficiently high.
1394
9 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-12
interested in providing the same type of service indicated 
that a significant market demand exists. Based on these 
applications, we found that there appears to be consider 
able commercial interest in using the spectrum for video 
distribution services, and we stated that a new source of 
competition to franchised cable companies, wireless cable 
companies, and other video service providers would further 
the public interest by promoting lower prices and new and 
innovative service offerings. We also noted that other uses 
of the 28 GHz technology were likely.
9. The majority of commenters and reply commenters 
support our finding of widespread interest in point-to- 
multipoint uses for the 28 GHz band. While some simply 
endorsed the proposal, others described in detail their 
plans for use of the band. Suite 12 states that the technol 
ogy it proposes is capable of immediately providing inter 
active high quality video, voice, and data services. Suite 12 
believes that LMDS will help meet the public demand for 
additional multichannel video programming and for two- 
way voice and data service. Suite 12 states that its system 
will compete with fiber cable services capable of delivering 
two-way interactive voice, video and data communications 
to the home; Suite 12 believes its system will benefit con 
sumers with innovative service offerings at competitive 
prices. Suite 12 states that its system is capable of incor 
porating future technological advances such as high defini 
tion television and digital communications.
10. Video/Phone states that its Broadband NarrowBEAM 
Cellular Transmission Technology (BNCTT) will allow de 
velopment of new, two-way broadband applications such as 
distance learning, telecommuting, telemedicine, 
videoconferencing at high speed data rates, business and 
professional television, halfduplex database services, and 
metropolitan area LAN interconnection. Video/Phone 
states that the lack of economical transmission capability at 
the local loop has hindered the growth of these services to 
date, which it believes would otherwise have been substan 
tial. We interpret Video/Phone as promising that its system 
will benefit consumers with competitively priced, high- 
quality services with innovative applications for education, 
job training, health care and commercial telecommunica 
tions. Video/Phone plans to construct its system with a 
cellular frequency reuse pattern and make bandwidth avail 
able on demand based on customer needs. Another system 
developer is Gigahertz Equipment Company (GEC). which 
indicates that it is developing a digital system to provide 
video distribution in a cellular frequency reuse pattern. 
Many parties noted the potential for meaningful competi 
tion with franchised cable companies.
11. Other uses were discussed as well. Leaco noted that 
the long local loops required in its rural service area make 
fiber optics economically infeasible. It indicates that LMDS 
may be an economically practical broadband alternative for 
rural areas. Parties involved in public television are very 
interested in using the LMDS technology as last mile ser 
vice in connection with the Clinton Administration's pub 
lic policy goal of creating an information and education 
highway.3
2. Satellite technologies
12. The parties opposing redesignation of the 28 GHz 
band are primarily satellite entities, who argue that LMDS 
operations would cause unacceptable interference into 
fixed satellite services, including feeder links supporting 
mobile satellite service systems. Hughes and EMI state that 
LMDS should be assigned less spectrum than the two 
gigahertz proposed in the NPRM. NASA, Ameritech, 
Comsearch and Motorola Satellite argue that sharing may 
be difficult or impossible between satellite earth stations 
and LMDS omnidirectional formats, particularly if the ser 
vice becomes ubiquitous in areas in which mobile satellite 
feeder links are located.
13. Most satellite entities indicate generally that although 
they currently do not use the Ka-band. they have been 
developing plans to use this band once the Ku and C bands 
are filled. NASA points out that its Advanced Communica 
tions Technology Satellite (ACTS) is intended to explore 
commercial satellite uses for the Ka-band. and that it is 
premature to reassign a portion of the band for terrestrial 
use just as commercial satellite uses are being developed. 
NASA requests that the entire Ka-band be reserved for 
satellite commercial applications. Motorola Satellite states it 
requires 100 MHz of spectrum in the Ka-band for its 
proposed Iridium Low Earth Orbit (LEO) satellite system 
feeder link uplinks.4 Norris, Loral. and Calling also in 
dicate that they may require some spectrum from this band 
for their fixed-satellite operations.5 A number of 
commenters representing satellite interests noted that the 
28 GHz band is allocated internationally to satellite as well 
as fixed services. Parties argue, inter alia, that the United 
States should, in keeping with international agreement, 
maintain the satellite assignment of this frequency band. 
The specific proposals of the satellite interests are discussed 
below.
a. FSS proposals
14. NASA's ACTS Experiment. NASA has requested that 
its experimental ACTS system be allowed to continue with 
out interference from LMDS. NASA is operating ACTS 
under a frequency usage support agreement from National 
Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA), which is accorded experimental status with this 
Commission. Normally, our practice is not to 8 allow 
experimental licensees protection from interference. How 
ever, NASA requests that we protect its ACTS experimental 
services on the grounds that commercial uses for the spec 
trum are expected to grow directly from its experiments. 
NASA further supports its request noting that one billion 
dollars of taxpayer funds have been expended to bring this
3 See, for example, comments of America's Public Television 
Stations, el al., (Public TV).
4 Motorola Satellite's comments requested 200 MHz of spec 
trum for its proposed system's feeder links. In the MSS Above 1 
GHz Negotiated Rulemaking conducted earlier this year to assist 
the Commission developing technical rules and policies for the 
1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service, Motorola Satellite indicated 
that 100 MHz of spectrum would be sufficient. See NPRM. 8 
FCC Red at 558, note 2.
5 After receiving authorization to use 24.5 - 30.0 GHz for its 
satellite uplinks, Norris petitioned us for authority to use 24.3 - 
29.5 GHz as well. In our order denying this petition, we noted 
that Norris's operations in the 24.3 - 24.5 GHz band may 
conflict with LMDS, and we suggested that the issues pertaining 
to spectrum sharing between terrestrial LMDS and satellite uses 
should be resolved in the instant proceeding. Norris Satellite 
Communications, Inc., - FCC Red - (1443) (FCC 43-341), para 
graph 4.
1395
FCC 94-12 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 6
experiment about. NASA has requested that we not 
redesignate the 28 GHz band for 5 years to allow sufficient 
time for satellite communications services to develop.
15. Key experimental ACTS technologies include fast 
hopping spot beam antennas, onboard processing, and dy 
namic rain fade compensation. The fast hopping spot beam 
technology will enable spectral reuse, allow higher commu 
nications rates, including the T-l rate, with Very Small 
Aperture Terminals (VSATs), permit use of smaller earth 
stations (Ultra Small Aperture Terminals, USATs). and 
enable efficient capacity assignment to geographically vari 
able traffic loads. Onboard processing will introduce the 
ability to switch and route (on the satellite) at the individ 
ual voice circuit level, enable single hop mesh voice net 
works, and provide improved signal-to-noise ratios. The 
ACTS program is also investigating aeronautical mobile 
and mobile earth terminal uses, High Data Rate terminal 
applications and propagation phenomena and compensa 
tion. NASA and others supporting fixed satellite use of the 
band argue the ACTS system has the potential of produc 
ing significant long-term public benefits. These include 
preserving U.S. leadership in satellite technology and creat 
ing export opportunities, developing commercial applica 
tions that will permit innovative use that will stimulate 
demand and economic growth, and providing important 
services to underserved geographic areas. Specific applica 
tions include ISDN networks, supercomputer access, and 
rural electric power monitoring and operations.
16. Hughes application. Hughes Communications Galaxy, 
Inc. (Hughes) has requested authority to construct, launch 
and operate a two-satellite domestic fixed-communications 
satellite system, which it calls "Spaceway", to provide ser 
vices in the Ka-band. Spaceway would use 1000 MHz (29.0 
- 30.0 GHz). This spectrum presently is being used by 
ACTS. Hughes anticipates its system would follow the 
ACTS program, and would be located at approximately the 
same orbital position. Hughes indicates that the service 
would provide "new. innovative and affordable satellite 
services across the United States to a wide range of com 
mercial and residential users. . . . The Spaceway system 
will be, in essence, a telecommunications superhighway in 
the sky. It will provide a wide range of video, audio and 
data services .... [I|t will complement, and provide an 
alternative to. many existing terrestrial services. The terres 
trial telecommunications network is evolving to meet end 
user requirements for 'bandwidth-on-demand.' The 
Spaceway system will continue this evolution as it will be 
the first domestic communications satellite system to pro 
vide 'bandwidth-on-demand' capabilities."'' Specific applica 
tions Hughes envisions include video telephony, high speed 
access to computer on-line services, interactive access to 
multimedia services, telecommuting and medical imaging 
services.7
b. MSS proposals
17. Feeder links. In 1991, the Commission initiated a 
proceeding to accommodate the establishment of a new 
non-geostationary satellite (low earth orbit or LEO) and/or
geostationary satellite mobile-satellite service (MSS) in the 
bands 1610 - 1626.5 and 2483.5 - 2500 MHz (1.6/2.4 GHz 
bands).8 A total of six applications were filed, five propos 
ing LEO satellite systems and one, filed by AMSC Subsid 
iary Corporation (AMSC), proposing to add additional fre 
quencies to two authorized geostationary satellite orbit 
(GSO) MSS satellites.
18. An MSS system is comprised of three principal ele 
ments: the mobile subscriber transceivers which are used 
by end users, the satellite(s) with which those units inter 
connect, and the gateway earth stations which manage the 
network and interconnect with other networks. The system 
provides mobile terminal-to-satellite communications using 
mobile satellite service bands and satellite-to-gateway earth 
station (feeder link) communications using the fixed sat 
ellite service (FSS) bands. The satellite serves as a space- 
borne repeater relaying communications between 
subscriber terminals and the gateway earth stations. The 
gateway earth station, in turn, processes the information 
being relayed by the satellite and interconnects the pro 
cessed communications with other terrestrial networks 
(e.g., the public switched telephone network) or with other 
subscriber units. Without the feeder links, an MSS system 
would be useless.
19. The six 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS applicants requested a 
variety of feeder link frequencies and bandwidths. Con 
stellation, Ellipsat, and Loral each requested 66 MHz of 
feeder link spectrum in each transmission direction in the 
5150 - 5216 / 6425 - 6725 MHz (5/6 GHz) bands. Motorola 
Satellite and TRW each requested 100 MHz in each trans 
mission direction in the 19.4 - 20.2 / 29.1 - 30.0 GHz 
(20/30 GHz) bands, and AMSC requested an as yet 
undetermined amount of spectrum in the Ku-band (12/14 
GHz).
20. In 1992 we established the "MSS Above 1 GHz 
Negotiated Rulemaking Committee" (NRMC) to obtain ex 
pert advice and recommendations on technical and oper 
ational matters related to MSS in the 1.6/2.4 GHz bands. 10 
The NRMC analyzed the feeder link requirements and the 
Committee Report noted that the Federal Aviation Admin 
istration (FAA), a member of the committee, opposed the 
use of the 5 GHz frequencies for MSS feeder link use. The 
FAA is in the process of developing and implementing new 
navigation aids within the National Air Space System in 
this band. These include Differential Global Positioning 
System (DGPS), Terminal Doppler Weather Radar 
(TDWR) and Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) of 
aircraft.)" Accordingly, although we are continuing to pur 
sue 5 GHz for MSS feeder link operations in inter-agency 
forums, the 5/6 GHz band is not now readily available for 
the feeder link requirements for MSS Above 1 GHz sys 
tems. Further, the prospect of finding suitable LEO feeder 
link frequencies below 15 GHz is not encouraging because 
most of the available FSS allocations are encumbered by 
existing domestic and international services or by other
6 Hughes Application, filed December 3, 1993, at 1-2.
7 Id. p. 6.
8 Public Notice, Report No. DS-1068, 6 FCC Red 2083 (1991).
9 The five applicants are Ellipsat Corporation (Ellipsat), 
Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc. (Motorola Satellite),
Constellation Communications, Inc. (Constellation).
Loral/Oualcomm Satellite Service, Inc. (Loral), and TRW, Inc.
(TRW).
!o Public Notice, Report No. DS-1265, 7 FCC Red 8614 (1992).
11 NRMC Report at 30.)
1396
9 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-12
service limitations. 12 We tentatively conclude that if we are 
to proceed with licensing 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS systems, ade 
quate feeder link spectrum must be identified and avail 
able.
21. The NRMC report evaluated the Motorola and TRW 
requests for uplink feeder links in the 20/30 GHz band. 
The NRMC Report noted that the requested uplink fre 
quencies overlap frequencies being used or proposed for 
use by other services. The NRMC Report concluded, based 
on information in the Suite 12 Petition for Rulemaking, 
that the LMDS transmissions would cause unacceptable 
interference into LEO/MSS satellite receivers and that if 
feeder link earth stations were to be protected, LMDS 
would be unable to be implemented in major metropolitan 
areas. The NRMC Report concluded that LMDS should be 
excluded from the 28 GHz band. 13
22. Since the 5 GHz band and other frequency bands 
below 15 GHz are not now available for LEO feeder link 
use, it appears that the most likely alternative at the 
present time is the 20/30 GHz band. In a Notice of Pro 
posed Rulemaking adopted today, CC Docket x 92-166, 
FCC 94-11, we state that we expect to be able to identify 
sufficient spectrum within the 27.5 - 30.0 GHz band to 
satisfy uplink feeder link requirements of all MSS Above 1 
GHz licensees. 14 Accordingly, by this action we are propos 
ing that applicants' feeder link operations be included in 
the negotiated rulemaking process proposed herein. 15
B. Shared Use of the 28 GHz Band
23. As an initial matter, it must be noted that the pro 
posals before us are largely that. There is little evidence in 
the record regarding the likely public interest benefits of 
the various proposals, including increased access to high- 
quality, affordable and innovative services, and stimulation 
of economic growth through increased competition for 
existing services and introduction of new services that may 
be expected to stimulate demand and create jobs. Among 
the satellite proposals, NASA's ACTS program is in opera 
tion, but there is no recent information regarding its per 
formance. Thus, the record does not indicate which of 
NASA's experiments have demonstrated commercial fea 
sibility, or when an evidentiary base from which to predict 
the benefits of its experiments is likely to be realized.
24. Among terrestrial proposals, we have granted one 
permanent and 12 experimental licenses to entities inter 
ested in developing service in the 28 GHz band. 16 Only 
CVNY is operating in the band pursuant to regular license. 
We gave CVNY a license pursuant to waiver of our current 
rules governing the 28 GHz band so that it would be able 
to offer its point-to-multipoint video distribution service in 
the New York PMSA. At last report, however, CVNY is 
serving only about 200 subscribers. We have no data on 
whether LMDS is capable of providing viable competition 
to franchised cable television systems, nor whether it can 
provide service over a large geographic territory. No party 
is offering commercial two-way telecommunications ser 
vice. The claims of LMDS developers for terrestrial service 
provision in the 28 GHz band remain unproven.
25. Only three experimental licensees have filed progress 
reports to date. None of the reports provides us with any 
information upon which to evaluate the success of their 
experiments. RioVision had not yet received equipment to 
begin experiments when it filed a status report in Decem 
ber, 1992. CVNY's and Video/Phone's progress reports 
briefly describe the areas in which they are conducting 
experiments.
26. Although there is little data from which to predict 
what would be the best licensing choice, our preference is 
to accommodate all potential users of the 28 GHz band, 
both terrestrial and satellite. This outcome would be in 
keeping with our responsibilities under Sections 1 and 7 of 
the Communications Act and would provide consumers 
with the maximum number of service choices to meet their 
needs.
27. Section 1 mandates that we "make available, so far as 
possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, 
efficient. Nation-wide, and world-wide wire and radio com 
munications service with adequate facilities at reasonable 
charges. . .". 47 U.S.C. 151. Congress also requires us, 
through Section 7, 47 U.S.C. 157(a), to "encourage the 
provision of new technologies and services to the public." 
So important is this policy. Congress has enjoined that 
"[a|ny person or party (other than the Commission) who 
opposes a new technology or service ... shall have the 
burden to demonstrate that such proposal is inconsistent 
with the public interest." It has been our experience, in the
12 For example, footnote US245 to the Table of Frequency 
Allocations, 47 C.F.R. Part 2, limits the use of certain fixed 
satellite service frequency bands to international systems subject 
to a case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility analysis.
13 NRMC Report at 32.
14 Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Rules 
and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610
-1626.5 / 2483.5 - 2500 MHz Frequency Bands, Notice of Pro 
posed Rulemaking, CC Docket 92-166, - FCC Red   (1994), 
FCC 94-11, adopted January 19, 1994, paragraph 76. The precise 
amount of spectrum will depend upon the number and capacity 
of systems that ultimately are licensed.
15 Hughes's Reply Comments suggested that LMDS should be 
allocated the 37 - 38.6 GHz band, which presently is allocated to 
private mobile services and point-to-point services. In comments 
filed November 3, 1993, "Licensee's Statement of Compliance 
and Request for Extension of Milestone Dates," File Nos. 
54-DSS-P/L-90, 55-DSS-P-90, Norris argues that LMDS can suc 
cessfully use higher frequencies in the 36 GHz and higher 
range. The Coalition to Preserve the Primary Status of the 27.5
- 29.5 GHz Band for Satellite Services (Satellite Coalition) ar 
gued in an ex pane communication that LMDS should be 
assigned the 40.5 - 42.5 GHz band. These arguments are
unsupported. Unlike the 28 GHz band, no LMDS equipment 
manufacturer has suggested the use of this spectrum for LMDS, 
nor have we received any petition for rulemaking requesting 
redesignation of this frequency band by a prospective LMDS 
provider. See "LMDS Is Not Viable in the 40.5 - 42.5 GHz 
Band." ex. pane presentation by Suite 12 on December 16, 1993. 
Accordingly, unless recommended otherwise by a consensus of a 
negotiated rulemaking committee, we will not grant further 
consideration to Hughes's and Norris's suggestion since there is 
no evidence in the record that the beneficial uses we anticipate 
from point-to-multipoint use of the 28 GHz band are likely to 
materialize at the higher bands.
16 The experimental licenses allow the licensee to use the 
entire two gigahertz of spectrum in the 28 GHz band. Suite 12 
holds one experimental license in Beverly Hills, and CVNY 
holds an experimental license in addition to its permanent 
license for the 27.5 - 28.5 GHz band in New York City. M3 of 
Illinois holds three licenses in Chicago, Elgin and Waukegan. 
RioVision holds a license in Brownsville as does the University 
of Texas - Pan American. Video Phone holds four experimental 
licenses in San Jose, Sunnyvale. Washington D.C. and Miami. In 
addition, NYNEX is authorized to use 27.5 GHz in White 
Plains.
1397
FCC 94-12 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 6
nearly sixty years since the Communications Act was en 
acted, that accommodating new technology and service pro 
posals serves these objectives. In our view, making the 28 
GHz band available to all potential service providers would 
allow consumers to determine the best use of this spec 
trum. Accommodating all proposals would, we believe, 
result in the availability of maximum communications ser 
vices possible at the lowest consumer prices possible.
28. Comments are mixed on the issue of whether LMDS 
and satellite services can coexist. The LMDS manufacturers 
Suite 12, Video/Phone, and GEC are emphatic that co- 
primary sharing is possible with feasible technical adjust 
ments by both types of users. Satellite operators are equally 
emphatic that sharing is not possible. For example, NASA 
has provided a technical analysis critiquing Suite 12fs sys 
tem. NASA's analysis concludes that the system would 
cause and receive unacceptable interference to and from 
satellite links for a distance of 60 kilometers from LMDS 
hub transmitters. Suite 12 has responded ex pane with an 
analysis showing that NASA's assumptions are inaccurate 
and that the interference level generated would be below 
NASA's required sharing criteria. RioVision argues that 
NASA's analysis of the 28 GHz band shows characteristics 
virtually identical to 20 GHz propagation characteristics, 
and questions whether NASA's data came from experience 
at the higher frequency range. GEC states that the interfer 
ence into the Iridium LEO satellite from LMDS transmit 
ters would be negligible, and that sharing would be 
possible. Video/Phone proposes that sharing between 
Motorola's Iridium feeder links and 28 GHz point-to- 
multipoint applications is possible if feeder links are 60 
miles from LMDS hub transmitters.
29. Comsearch states that the key element for any shar 
ing is the realistic interference objectives and that it is 
necessary to have studies to determine the interference 
criteria, system compatibility and frequency coordination 
procedures. Comsearch proposes that the Commission 
work closely with industry experts to resolve disagreements 
in developing this information and to expedite the 
rulemaking process. Video/Phone recommends a Negoti 
ated Rulemaking process for any technical issues that need 
to be resolved, including those raised by FSS system propo 
nents.
30. The coordination issues involved in allowing all in 
terested parties to use the 28 GHz band are highly 
technical, and their solutions depend upon the specific 
system design of various proposals to use the 28 GHz band. 
Moreover, these system designs and the supporting technol 
ogies are still in the developmental stage and the course of 
their development could be influenced by our decisions in 
this proceeding. We believe that the best way to resolve the 
issues discussed here would be to establish an advisory 
committee to negotiate proposed regulations to govern this band. 17
31. The negotiated rulemaking process is appropriate 
where:
(a) there is a need for the rules to be developed:
(b) there is a limited number of identifiable interests 
that will be significantly affected by the rules;
(c) there is a reasonable likelihood that a committee 
can be convened with a balanced representation of 
persons who (1) can adequately represent the identifi 
able interests and (2) are willing to negotiate in good 
faith to reach a consensus on the proposed rules;
(d) there is a reasonable likelihood that a committee 
will reach a consensus on the proposed rules within 
a fixed period of time;
(e) the negotiated rulemaking procedure will not un 
reasonably delay the notice of proposed rulemaking 
and the issuance of final rules;
(f) the agency has adequate resources and is willing 
to commit such resources, including technical assis 
tance, to the committee, and
(g) the agency will, to the maximum extent possible 
consistent with the legal obligations of the agency, 
use the consensus of the committee with respect to 
the proposed rules as the basis for the rules proposed 
by the agency for notice and comment. Negotiated 
Rulemaking Act Sec. 3, 5 U.S.C. 583(a).
32. This proceeding meets the determination criteria 
summarized above. Technical rules are necessary to estab 
lish under what circumstances, if any, sharing between 
satellite and terrestrial uses is feasible. The parties whose 
interests are affected are identifiable from comments filed 
in this proceeding. These interests can be adequately repre 
sented on a committee, and we believe that they will act in 
good faith to reach a consensus on technical rules within a 
set time frame. We believe that the negotiated rulemaking 
process will better use public and private resources than 
would our requiring more iterations of written comments 
until an adequate record is developed. We have adequate 
resources to commit to this endeavor and would use the 
consensus or report of the committee to develop proposed 
technical rules.
33. Thus, our initial determination indicates that the 
criteria for a negotiated rulemaking process are met in this 
situation. We request comment in response to the public 
notice, released concurrently with this action, which invites 
interested parties' comments on our proposal to use the 
Negotiated Rulemaking process. We believe this is the best 
way to accommodate all proposed uses of the band.
C. Choices for the 28 GHz Band
34. In spite of parties' best efforts, sharing may not be 
possible for all proposed uses. The technology required to 
permit sharing may not yet be developed, sharing efforts 
may result in unacceptable degradation of service to con 
sumers, or sharing techniques may be prohibitively expen 
sive, thus making an otherwise competitive service 
unaffordable to customers. In fact, at present it appears that 
sharing may not be possible under all circumstances pro 
posed by the various parties interested in the 28 GHz band. 
For example, Hughes's proposal would place ubiquitous 
transceivers at subscriber locations in a manner similar to
17 Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 581, a public notice is being issued 
concurrently with this action requesting comments on the es 
tablishment of an advisory committee to negotiate proposed 
regulations.
1398
9 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-12
that proposed by Suite 12; under certain circumstances, 
MSS feeder link and FSS operations may interfere with 
and receive interference from LMDS operations. In addi 
tion. Calling Communications indicates that its yet-to-be 
filed application will be for services that cannot share 
spectrum with other satellite services nor with terrestrial
ISservices.
35. The prospect that only some of the proposed services 
can be accommodated within the 28 GHz band leaves this 
Commission with the duty to choose which non-shareable 
services should be licensed. In order to make these choices, 
we require a record based on issues pertaining to the 
overall public interest in enabling only certain of the non- 
shareable services. Options for choosing among services 
include, but are not limited to, enforcing a particular 
modulation scheme for some or all users; segmenting the 
band to include as many services as possible with less 
spectrum than parties requested; assigning all spectrum to 
satellite uses; or assigning all spectrum to terrestrial uses.
1. Enforcing a prescribed modulation scheme.
36. If sharing between satellite services and present 
LMDS proposals is not feasible, our proposal for two 1000 
MHz LMDS frequency blocks is not feasible unless we 
preclude satellite use. However, even if sharing is not 
feasible, it may be possible to accommodate equivalent 
LMDS uses in less than 2000 MHz if digital, instead of the 
proposed analog, technology is used. Our spectrum man 
agement obligations require that we maximize the public 
interest benefits that can be derived from the efficient use 
of the spectrum. A number of commenters recommend 
that we require digital technology, either directly by rule, 
or effectively by reducing the bandwidth of frequency 
blocks so that service providers must use digital technol 
ogy. For example. Motorola suggests that future technologi 
cal developments include additional alternative modulation 
technologies to allow broadband services in a fixed cellular 
reuse pattern within 250 MHz of bandwidth, so that the 
services described in the NPRM could be offered on a total 
of 500 MHz of spectrum by using a 4-cell reuse pattern on 
two 250 MHz bands, each split into separate cells by al 
ternating vertical and horizontal polarization. Norris states 
that 1000 MHz of spectrum would support up to 664 high 
quality digital television channels, and argues that LMDS 
should be confined to half the proposed allocation. 19 Vid 
eo/Phone and GEC indicate that they are developing digital 
technology for services in the 28 GHz band.
37. Suite 12 and others, including individuals and small 
businesses, support the initial proposal. They argue inter 
alia that the Commission has erred in the past when it 
established new services, such as Multichannel Multipoint 
Distribution Service (MMDS) and Digital Electronic Mes 
sage Service (OEMS), but failed to provide spectrum suffi 
cient for licensees to offer a competitive service. They 
argue that the minimum competitive number of channels 
for wireless cable is fifty, and that this number of channels 
will require a full 1000 MHz of spectrum per licensee.
Even the parties developing digital LMDS, Video/Phone 
and GEC, agree that a 1000 MHz allocation per licensee is 
necessary to accommodate Suite 12's analog technology.
38. In general, our licensing rules tend to favor tech 
niques that permit licensees to use smaller increments of 
bandwidth to fulfill their service requirements because this 
enables us to accommodate more service providers and to 
facilitate competition among them. Competition tends to 
encourage efficient operation by licensees, and to produce 
lower prices, which in turn may stimulate demand for 
more services and may encourage the development of in 
novative, new services, maximizing the economic potential 
of the spectrum. With regard to LMDS, the same 
bandwidth can accommodate a greater number of video or 
telecommunications channels if a licensee uses a combina 
tion of digital modulation and compression rather than 
analog technology. If digital technology is feasible in the 28 
GHz band, it would appear that our regulatory objectives 
of maximum utilization and spectrum efficiency could be 
better served by allotting smaller frequency blocks for li 
censing. Moreover, if sharing with satellite entities is not 
feasible, smaller LMDS blocks may be a necessity.
39. We note that there is a trend in other radio commu 
nications systems toward the use of digital modulation 
techniques. Experience in other frequency bands has 
shown that where feasible, these modulation schemes are 
more spectrally efficient, less susceptible to interference, 
and offer greater system reliability. Field tests are underway 
to determine whether digital compression technologies can 
increase the efficiency of digital radio transmission systems. 
So far, tests have demonstrated that through digital com 
pression, as many as 15 video programming channels may 
be possible on a single 6 MHz channel.20 However, with 
this level of compression, some picture degradation occurs 
as an object's motion increases. Whether digital systems are 
economically feasible, or practical in LMDS field environ 
ments, is unproven. Nor is it clear when such systems 
would be available to provide service. On the other hand, 
digital systems would appear to facilitate interconnection 
with other digital networks and the overall development of 
digital products and services. This would seem to maximize 
the potential for economic growth.
40. In addition to addressing whether digital modulation 
techniques should be prescribed for LMDS. we also ask 
whether a particular modulation scheme should be pre 
scribed for other users as well. For example, should all 
users of the band employ a code division modulation sys 
tem? Would that enhance the potential for maximizing 
sharing opportunities in the band? What would be the 
costs and benefits of such an approach?
2. Segmenting the band.
41. Accommodating current and proposed satellite needs 
for the 28 GHz band may require 800 MHz (e.g., 28.7 - 
29.5 GHz) of the total 2000 MHz proposed to be 
redesignated. assuming that accommodating satellite re 
quirements precludes LMDS licensing in the same portion 
of the band, and further assuming that sharing between 
FSS and MSS feeder links is not feasible.
18 Because Calling has not filed an application to construct, 
launch and operate a satellite system, we are unable to evaluate 
whether, or how, its proposal could be accommodated.
19 Apparently, Morris's statement is based on a digital modula 
tion scheme that produces at least 4 bits/sec/Hz or 6 MB/s per 
program channel for the level of signal quality noted. 
*  Decathlon Communications, ex pane presentation, Septem 
ber 20, 1993.
1399
FCC 94-12 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 6
42. At present, it appears that there must be some sepa 
ration in frequency or distance between LMDS and satellite 
service stations as currently proposed. The amount of these 
respective separations depends on interference objectives of 
both the LMDS and the FSS systems. The FSS may not be 
able to use the frequency bands effectively because LMDS 
systems are omnidirectional and because we intend that 
LMDS service be widely available.21 The FSS gateways 
proposed for LEO applications will require multiple mov 
ing antennas at an earth station site, sweeping the sky, 
following multiple LEO satellites simultaneously. Thus, co 
ordination with a ubiquitous terrestrial system such as 
LMDS could be difficult, if not impossible, in some loca tions.22
43. Finally, if band segmentation is necessary, we ask 
what an appropriate segmentation would be. For example, 
should the upper 800 MHz of the band (28.7 - 29.5 GHz) 
be reserved for satellite uses? Can MSS feeder link uses 
share with other fixed satellite uses? Can fixed satellite uses 
share with each other? What are the public interest and 
economic consequences of these choices?
3. Assigning all spectrum to satellite use.
44. This option would make the entire 28 GHz band 
available to satellite use only. The benefits of this option 
would be that satellite services would, as NASA requests, 
have additional spectrum for expansion as the Ku and C 
bands become saturated. The comments of the satellite 
parties provide a description of the new services and capa 
bilities that are possible for satellite services in this band. 
The drawbacks of this option are that the proposed satellite 
services will not be available for some years, so availability 
of new services to consumers and any economic benefits to 
the Nation remain in the future. Moreover, satellite uses do 
not reuse frequencies as effectively as do terrestrial uses, so 
there may be fewer consumer applications possible than 
there would be if terrestrial uses also could be offered. 
Another drawback is, of course, that the terrestrial uses, 
which appear to be technologically feasible in the 28 GHz 
band now. either may never become available or may be 
considerably delayed while another block of spectrum is 
found and new technologies developed.
4. Assigning all spectrum to terrestrial use.
45. This option would make the entire 28 GHz band 
available to terrestrial use. The benefit of this option is that 
terrestrial service providers appear technologically capable 
of offering video service now, and may be capable of 
providing, with little delay, a wide variety of telecommuni 
cations services, including video telecommunications, dis 
tance learning, and broadband-on-demand. The potential 
for frequency reuse, and hence the ultimate number of 
service providers and customers who could be served, ap 
pears higher than that for satellite applications due to the 
probable use of cellular configuration and relatively small 
cells. Among the drawbacks of this option are that growth 
of the satellite industry may be significantly hindered, thus 
possibly injuring U.S. competitiveness in the world and 
harming an industry in which the U.S. is a world leader. 
In addition. NASA's ACTS program may be significantly 
constrained, and implementing a MSS service will be much 
more difficult.
5. Standards for determining which options will be used.
46. In order for us to promulgate final rules on use of 
the 28 GHz band, and to determine, if necessary, which 
services can and should be accommodated, we must have 
additional information. To that end, we are proposing a 
Negotiated Rulemaking Procedure so that proposed service 
providers may participate in making this information avail 
able. Specifically, we intend to ask the Committee to ad 
dress the following issue:
What technical rules should be adopted for the Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service and/or the fixed sat 
ellite service so as to maximize the sharing of the 
spectrum among these services?
If the Negotiated Rulemaking Committee is able to accom 
modate all proposed uses of the band, we ask that it 
propose specific rules to effectuate a sharing plan. We ask 
that it provide an analysis of how benefits of its proposed 
solution outweigh other options for accommodating these 
services. Specifically, we ask that it explain:
- the proper definition of the product market and 
geographic market for the services proposed:
- the degree of competition anticipated within the 
relevant market (including the extent to which the 
proposed services are expected to compete with exist 
ing services):
- the degree to which new services and technological 
innovations will be stimulated by the proposed al 
location;
- the amount and nature of investment in the na 
tional telecommunications infrastructure expected as 
a result of the use of the band for the particular 
services(s);
- the kind and number of jobs that would be created 
as a result of the licensing of particular services:
- any other available data concerning the economic 
growth expected to result from the allocation for the 
particular service(s).
21 Some satellite entities have expressed their concern that 
their use of the downlink at 17.7 - 20.2 GHz band will be 
foreclosed if they have no corresponding uplink spectrum avail 
able in the companion 27.5 - 30 GHz band. We realize that 
without spot beam antennas or other advanced technology to 
allow better frequency reuse for downlink channels, satellite 
entities will be limited to the same amount of spectrum for 
downlinks in the 17.7 -20.2 GHz band as they have spectrum for 
uplinks in the 27.5 - 30 GHz band because uplink and downlink 
channels are paired. This is a further reason for satellite entities 
to assist in the development of sharing techniques and criteria;
if the 28 GHz band is available for uplinks, then more of the 
17.7 - 18.9 GHz band may also be used for downlinks, thus 
expanding the satellite entities' spectrum capacity. 
22 Pursuant to Hughes's December 3, 1993, proposal, user 
stations would be ubiquitous because Hughes proposes to install 
earth stations at residential and business customer premises. 
The fact that both LMDS and FSS proponents wish to provide 
transmitting equipment at subscriber premises, and that the 
LMDS receivers will also be located at subscriber locations, 
compounds the sharing difficulties and would appear to require 
site-by-site frequency coordination for both services.
1400
9 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-12
47. In the event the Negotiated Rulemaking is unsuccess 
ful in reaching a consensus regarding proposed technical 
rules that would accommodate the proposals before us, we 
require a record to enable us to select the best choices 
among services proposed. Assuming the Commission ulti 
mately must select among service proposals for the 28 GHz 
band, the factors we will employ to do this will include:
(a) Economic growth potential: Which solution holds 
the greatest potential for stimulating lower prices and 
higher demand for services, and in what product 
markets and geographic markets? Which solution of 
fers competition in existing markets, and which mar 
kets? Which solution best promotes increased 
efficiencies in spectrum usage, and permits the great 
est number of service providers to operate commer 
cially viable systems? Which solution best promotes 
the offering of new, high-quality and innovative ser 
vices? Which solution promises to create the greatest 
number of high-paying jobs, and how? Which solu 
tion offers the greatest potential for maximizing inter 
connection of U.S. telecommunications services and 
facilities?
(b) Other public interest concerns that may not be 
readily calculable in economic terms: Which pro 
posed plan appears most likely to make the most 
services, or the most valuable services, available to 
the broadest segment of the national community? 
What are the services, and to whom would they be 
available? Do any of the proposals promise needed 
services for unserved or underserved areas, and if so, 
what services, and to which communities would they 
be made available? Are particular services more like 
ly to be valuable for educational, job training and 
employment applications, health care, environmental 
or public safety uses? Do any of the proposals serve 
our goal of facilitating the development of a National 
Information Infrastructure, and if so, how?
(c) Timing: When are the services likely to become 
available, and when are the benefits they promise 
likely to materialize? If different benefits are likely to 
be realized at different times, what are the relative 
advantages of the short-term and long-term benefits 
of the various services proposed? For example, 
should we license a service that is likely to become 
available in one to two years, but outlive its useful 
ness in five to eight years, if doing so would preclude 
licensing a service that is likely to produce tangible 
benefits only after five years, but which benefits may 
be expected to have long-lasting impact on economic 
growth and other public interest concerns? What are 
the likely opportunity costs of not licensing the par 
ticular service for operation in this band? Are there 
any contingencies that would affect the likely offering 
of the proposed services in a timely manner, such as 
market entry barriers23
48. The proposed standards require quantification on the 
record in order for us to make decisions based on these 
factors. To that end. we request that commenters provide
us with specific, detailed information that would permit us 
to base a decision on the public interest impact of various 
options. In particular, we require precise data on the exact 
nature of services proposed to be offered by each applicant, 
what entities would provide the services, the business plans 
of the service providers, and the expected primary and 
secondary benefits of the proposed services.
E. Summary and Conclusion
49. Pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, we here 
by propose to begin the process to decide whether we 
should implement a Negotiated Rulemaking Proceeding to 
allow interested parties to reach a consensus on methods to 
share the 28 GHz band. Accordingly, we are issuing today 
a public notice seeking comment on the establishment of a 
Negotiated Rulemaking Proceeding on this issue. If the 
comments support the establishment of such a proceeding, 
and if the General Services Administration gives its ap 
proval, a Negotiated Rulemaking Committee will be 
formed to consider the issues raised in this Notice, and 
specifically the questions raised in paragraph 46. Consistent 
with the Negotiated Rulemaking Act, in the event the 
Committee reaches a consensus on all or some of the 
matters before it, we will publish the Committee's report. 
A Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will also be issued 
requesting comment on the Committee's recommendations. 
If the Committee is not established or is established but is 
unable to reach any consensus, we will issue a public 
notice to establish a pleading cycle for comments and 
replies on the issues raised in this Notice.
IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules - Non-restricted Proceeding
50. This Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking pro 
ceeding is a non-restricted notice and comment proceeding. 
Ex pane presentations are permitted, except during the 
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as 
provided in Commission Rules. See generallv 47 C.F.R. 
1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).
B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
51. Reason for action. The purpose of this Second NPRM 
is to obtain comment on the proposed changes in fixed 
terrestrial and satellite service usage for the 28 GHz fre 
quency band.
52. Objectives. The objective of this proposal is to con 
sider methods for appropriating spectrum in the 28 GHz 
band among existing and potential service proponents.
53. Legal basis. The authority for this action is the Ad 
ministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553: and Sections 4(i). 
4(j). 301, 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934 as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 145, 301. and 303(r).
54. Reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance require 
ments. None.
55. Federal rules which overlap, duplicate or conflict with 
these rules. None.
23 The relative efficiency of spectrum use and reuse capability 
among service providers may also be a factor entering into any 
final decision.
1401
FCC 94-12 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red No. 6
56. Description, potential impact and number of small 
entities involved. Since the first NPRM was issued, we have 
been made aware of numerous small entities interested in 
manufacturing and/or providing customer services using a 
variety of new technologies being developed in the 28 GHz 
band. The proposals contemplated herein, to the extent 
they limit the previously proposed rule changes, could 
impact these small businesses. The impact on small entities 
described in the NPRM released January 8, 1993, applies to 
this action as well.
57. Significant alternatives. Since the first NPRM was 
issued, we have been made aware of other firms research 
ing the potential for new technology for video and other 
telecommunications services in the 28 GHz band. In addi 
tion, satellite entities may offer alternatives to some services 
that would be offered in this band. In part due to these 
alternatives, we are taking the instant action.
C. Comment Dates
58. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sec 
tions 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's Rules. 47 C.F.R. 
Sections 1.415 and 1.419, interested parties may file com 
ments at a time to be established by public notice if the 
Commission does not establish a Committee or if a Com 
mittee is established but does not reach any consensus.24 To 
file formally in this proceeding, you must file an original 
and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and 
supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner to 
receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file 
an original plus nine copies. You should send comments 
and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
Comments and reply comments will be available for public 
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Refer 
ence Center, Room 239, of the Federal Communications 
Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington D.C. 
20554.
59. For further information, contact Ms. Susan Magnotti, 
at (202) 634-1773, Domestic Facilities Division. Common 
Carrier Bureau.
V. ORDERING CLAUSES
60. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED That the Second No 
tice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted:
61. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That a Public Notice 
pursuant to the Negotiated Rulemaking Act. 5 U.S.C. Sec. 
581, SHALL BE ISSUED in accordance with the findings 
herein;
62. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED That the Secretary 
shall mail a copy of this document to the Chief Counsel 
for Advocacy, Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
William F. Caton 
Acting Secretary
APPENDIX
Parties filing comments:
Acor, Everett T., Jr. 
Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc. 
Alpha Industries, Inc. 
Amby, Faith C.
America's Public Television Stations, Public Broad 
casting Service, Organization of State Broadcasting 
Executives and Southern Educational Communica 
tions Association
Ameritech
Anchorage Telephone Utility
Baderwood International, Inc.
Bell Atlantic Personal Communications, Inc. on be 
half of the Bell Atlantic Companies, The New Jersey 
Bell Company, The Bell Telephone Company of 
Pennsylvania, The Diamond State Telephone Com 
pany, The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com 
panies, and Bell Atlantic Enterprises International. 
Inc.
BellSouth Corporation, BellSouth Telecommunica 
tions, Inc., and BellSouth Enterprises, Inc.
Box Springs Educators
Calling Communications Corporation
Cardiff Broadcasting Company
Caribbean Communications Corp. d/b/a St. Thomas- 
St. John Cable TV
Carney, Joseph D. & Associates
Catel Telecommunications
Cellular Television Associates, Inc.
Coalition for Wireless Cable
Cole, Raywid & Braverman
Competitive Cable Association
Cyrus Partnership
Dataflow Systems
Digital Microwave Corporation
Eagle Engineering & Communications Group, Inc.
Educational Parties (filing jointly): American Council 
on Education, Board on Distance Education and 
Telecommunications of the National Association of 
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 
Instructional Telecommunications Consortium of the 
American Association of Community Colleges, West 
ern Cooperative for Educational Telecommunica 
tions. Arizona Board of Regents for Benefit of the 
University of Arizona, California State University, 
Alliance for Higher Education, Iowa Public Broad 
casting Board, University of Maine at Augusta, Uni 
versity of Washington, University of Wisconsin
24 As noted previously, if any Committee consensus is reached, 
a Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will be issued. See para. 
49, supra.
1402
9 FCC Red No. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-12
System, Washington State University, South Carolina 
Educational Television Commission and Ana G. 
Mendez Educational Foundation
EMI Communications Corporation
Foresight Communications
GHz Equipment Company
Gilio, Robin V.
GTE Service Corporation
Guy, Frederick R.
Haddon, Perry W.
Hornby, Harold
Hughes Space and Communications Co. and Hughes 
Network Systems, Inc.
Joplin Beepers, Inc.
King Broadcasting Associates
Kingswood Associates
Linz, Robert M., P.E.
Levin. Michael H.
Loral Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc.
M3 Illinois Telecommunications Corp.
M/A-COM, Inc.
Metrocom Telecasting
Mettler Communications, Inc.
Milani, Patricia B.
Motorola
Motorola Satellite Communications, Inc.
Multi-Micro, Inc.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association for the Advancement of Colored 
People
National Captioning Institute, Inc.
New York Department of Public Service
Norris Satellite Communications
NYNEX Mobile Communications Company
Pacific Telesis Group. Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell
RioVision of Texas, Inc.
Rochester Telephone Corporation
Rock Hill Telephone Company, Fort Mill Telephone 
Company and Lancaster Telephone Company
RSW Communications. Ltd.
Rumore, Victor
Seiter, Steven P.
Senvista General Partnership
Sprint Corporation on behalf of Sprint Communica 
tions Company L.P. and the United and Centel Tele 
phone companies: Carolina Telephone and Telegraph 
Co.. United Telephone - Southeast, Inc., United Tele 
phone Company of the Carolinas, United Telephone 
Co. Southcentral Kansas, United Telephone Com 
pany of Eastern Kansas, United Telephone Company 
of Minnesota, United Telephone Company of Mis 
souri, United Telephone Company of Texas, Inc.,
United Telephone Company of the West, United 
Telephone Company of Florida, The United Tele 
phone Company of Pennsylvania, United Telephone 
Company of New Jersey, Inc., United Telephone 
Company of the Northwest. United Telephone Com 
pany of Ohio, United Telephone Company of In 
diana. Inc., Central Telephone Company, Central 
Telephone Company of Florida. Central Telephone 
Company of Illinois. Central Telephone Company of 
Virginia, and Central Telephone Company of Texas
Stephenson, Todd
Subscriber TV Partners
Suite 12 Group
Technology Engineering Company
Telephone and Data Systems. Inc.
Total TV, Inc.
United States Interactive and Microwave Television 
Association United States Telephone Association
University of California
University of Colorado
University of Texas System
U S WEST, Inc.
Utilities Telecommunications Council
Video/Multipoint, Inc.
Video/Phone Systems, Inc.
Virginia Communications. Inc.
Western Sierra Bancorp
Wireless Cable Association International. Inc.
Wireless Cable, Ltd.
Parties filing reply comments:
Anchorage Telephone Company
Bell Atlantic Personal Communications Co.
Calling Communications Corporation
Coalition for Wireless Cable
Cole, Raywid & Braverman
Comcast Corporation, Jones Intercable. Inc., and 
Cablevision Industries Corporation
Digital Microwave Corporation
Eagle Engineering
Gigahertz Equipment Company
GTE Service Corporation
Hughes Space and Communications Company
Leaco Rural Telephone Company
M3 Illinois Telecommunications
Motorola, Inc.
Motorola Satellite Company
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commis 
sioners (NARUC)
National Council of LaRaza
New York Department of Public Service
1403
FCC 94-12 Federal Communications Commission Record 9 FCC Red NO. 6
Public Broadcasting Service 
Rio Vision of Texas. Inc. 
Rumore. Victor 
Sprint Corporation 
Suite 12 Group
Telephone & Data Systems. Inc. 
Thomas & Associates 
Video/Phone Systems, Inc. 
U.S. Telephone Association 
Wireless Cable Association
Parties making ex parte communications:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 
Bell Atlantic 
Bridgewater State College
Bridgewater Television Research & Development 
Committee
Town of Bridgewater, Massachusetts 
Honorable Lloyd M. Bentsen 
Honorable John Bryant 
Calling Communications
Coalition to Preserve the Primary Status of the 27.5 - 
29.5 GHz Band for Satellite Services
Decathlon Communications, Inc.
Department of Agriculture, Office of the Secretary
Endgate Technology Corporation
Honorable E. (Kika) de la Garza
Hughes Space and Communications Company
Motorola Satellite Communications. Inc.
MSS Above 1 GHz Negotiating Committee
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
National Telecommunications and Information Ad 
ministration
Norris Satellite Communications. Inc.
Office of Science and Technology Policy, Executive 
Office of the President
Plymouth County Selectmen's Association 
Suite 12 Group 
Video/Phone Systems, Inc.
1404
9 FCC Red NO. 6 Federal Communications Commission Record FCC 94-12
Separate Statement
of
Commissioner Andrew C. Barrett 
Re: Local Multipoint Distribution Services; Second Notice
I support this action to institute a Negotiated Rulemaking 
to determine the feasibility of resolving technical sharing and 
allocation issues raised by LMDS, Ka band satellite, and LEO 
proponents seeking feeder links in the 28 Ghz band. However, I must register my concern that this process is not used to 
unnecessarily delay the introduction of new services or 
technologies in the near term. In this regard, I am particularly sensitive to the Commission's treatment of small business 
proponents who seek to provide new technologies or services to the public. We have instituted a pioneer preference process to 
attempt to rectify some of the inequities of presenting new proposals to the Commission. Further, our statutory directive 
with respect to auctions allows the Commission to be sensitive to the participation of small business in various spectrum-based 
service allocations.
The Negotiated Rulemaking process is a mechanism for the 
Commission to resolve technical issues that it otherwise does not have sufficient expertise to resolve on its own. To date, it has 
been used to resolve technical issues between proponents of a particular service that we have authorized, such as Low Earth 
Orbit satellite services. However, until now, this process has not been used to resolve potential technical issues between 
different service allocation proposals which have not yet been 
authorized. Thus, in this context, I am concerned that the Negotiated Rulemaking process is not used as a de facto barrier 
that prevents small businesses from pursuing innovative service allocations in a timely manner. If I perceive that the 
Negotiated Rulemaking process is used as a means of unduly 
delaying the market entry of viable, innovative services, particularly those proposed by small businesses, I will not 
hesitate to withdraw my support for this process, either in this docket, or in future dockets where the process is considered. 
Thus, I believe it is in the interest of all parties to this proceeding to resolve their technical issues expeditiously.
It is my hope that other interested parties such as rural 
interests, small business groups, state PUCs, municipalities, minorities, and women would take this opportunity to comment on 
the relative public interest merits of the different services proposed for this 28 Ghz band; particularly in terms of new 
ownership opportunities, jobs, market competition and economic development. Perhaps some of these interests should register 
their concerns during this Negotiated Rulemaking process. We must monitor the evolution of this process very closely to ensure 
it does not unduly delay new services from small businesses.
1405