Source: http://www.fcc.gov/print/node/43984
Timestamp: 2014-10-21 16:12:44
Document Index: 477353702

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 1', 'art 1', '§ 6401', '§ 1451', '§ 309', 'art 27', '§ 6001', '§ 6401', '§ 6401', 'art 27', 'art 27', '§ 1451', '§ 6401', '§ 2', 'art 2', 'art 2', 'art 27', 'art 27', '§ 337', '§ 6401', '§ 2', 'art 27', '§ 27', '§ 303', '§ 6401', '§ 309', '§ 6401', '§ 2', '§ 6401', '§ 24', '§309', '§ 27', '§ 24', '§ 22', '§ 24', 'art 27', '§ 27', '§ 2', '§ 27', '§ 24', '§ 27']

Word Document [1]PDF Document [2]Text Document [3]	Released: December 17, 2012
Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) ) Service Rules for the Advanced Wireless Services ) WT Docket No. 12-357 H Block—Implementing Section 6401 of the ) Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of ) 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and ) 1995-2000 MHz Bands ) NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING Adopted: December 11, 2012 Released: December 17, 2012 Comment Date: February 6, 2013 Reply Comment Date: March 6, 2013 By the Commission: TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 4 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 10 A. Spectrum Act Provisions for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz ............................................ 13 1. Allocation for Commercial Use .............................................................................................. 14 2. Flexible Use ............................................................................................................................. 16 3. Assignment of Licenses ........................................................................................................... 17 4. Determination of No Harmful Interference to the 1930-1995 MHz Band .............................. 18 B. Band Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 22 1. Block Configuration ................................................................................................................ 23 2. Service Area ............................................................................................................................ 26 3. Licensing the Gulf of Mexico ................................................................................................. 32 C. Technical Issues ............................................................................................................................. 33 1. Upper H Block: 1995-2000 MHz ........................................................................................... 34 2. Lower H Block: 1915-1920 MHz........................................................................................... 40 3. Canadian and Mexican Coordination ...................................................................................... 52 4. Other Technical Issues ............................................................................................................ 53 D. Cost-Sharing .................................................................................................................................. 55 1. 1915-1920 MHz Band ............................................................................................................. 55 2. 1995-2000 MHz Band ............................................................................................................. 62 E. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules ....................................................................... 69 1. Regulatory Status .................................................................................................................... 70 2. Ownership Restrictions ........................................................................................................... 73 3. License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Criteria, Permanent Discontinuance of Operations ................................................................................................. 78 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 4. Secondary Markets .................................................................................................................. 94 5. Other Operating Requirements ................................................................................................ 99 6. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands .................... 101 F. Procedures for Any H Block Licenses Subject to Assignment by Competitive Bidding ............ 102 1. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules ................................................................. 103 2. Revision to Part 1 Certification Procedures .......................................................................... 104 3. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses .................................................... 105 IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS .............................................................................................................. 112 A. Ex Parte Presentations ................................................................................................................. 112 B. Comment Period and Filing Procedures ...................................................................................... 113 C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ......................................................................................... 116 D. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................. 117 E. Further Information ...................................................................................................................... 118 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ..................................................................................................................... 119 APPENDIX A – Proposed Rule Changes APPENDIX B – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis I. INTRODUCTION 1. Today we propose rules for the Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) H Block that would make available ten megahertz of spectrum for flexible use. The proposal would extend the widely-deployed Personal Communications Services (PCS) band, which is used by the four national providers as well as regional and rural providers to offer mobile service across the nation. The additional spectrum for mobile use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation’s wireless networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. 2. Today’s action is a first step in implementing the Congressional directive in the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (Spectrum Act) that we grant new initial licenses for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands (the Lower H Block and Upper H Block, respectively) through a system of competitive bidding—unless doing so would cause harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz (PCS downlink) band.1 [4] The potential for harmful interference to the PCS downlink band relates only to the Lower H Block, due to the susceptibility of some legacy PCS devices to Lower H Block transmissions, and may be addressed by appropriate technical rules, including reduced power limits on H Block devices. We therefore propose to pair and license the Lower H Block and the Upper H Block for flexible use, including mobile broadband, with an aim to assign the licenses through competitive bidding in 2013. In the event that we conclude that the Lower H Block cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS, we propose to license the Upper H Block for full power, and seek comment on appropriate uses for the Lower H Block, including Unlicensed PCS. 3. In addition, we propose licensing, operating, and technical rules for the H Block that would:  License the H Block for exclusive geographic areas by Economic Areas (EAs).  Require an H Block licensee to provide signal coverage and offer service to: (1) at least 40 percent of the population in each licensed area within four years and (2) at least 70 percent of the population in each licensed area at the end of its 10-year license term.  Allow licensees to disaggregate, partition, and lease the spectrum. 1 See Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, § 6401, 125 Stat. 156, 222-223 (2012), 47 U.S.C. § 1451 (Spectrum Act). See also, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152  Require H Block licensees to pay a pro rata share of expenses previously incurred by Sprint and UTAM, Inc. in clearing incumbents from the spectrum.  Authorize mobile and low power fixed transmissions in the 1915-1920 MHz band.  Authorize base and fixed transmissions in the 1995-2000 MHz band. II. BACKGROUND 4. AWS-2 NPRM and 2008 FNPRM. In 2004 the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a proceeding known as “AWS-2” (AWS-2 NPRM) to seek comments on service rules for the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum blocks, referred to collectively as the “H Block.”2 [4] In the AWS-2 NPRM, the Commission proposed to license the H Block by exclusive, geographic areas under the flexible use Part 27 rules.3 [5] PCS Uplink
5. The Commission also sought comment on technical rules for the H Block that were more stringent in certain respects, because of concerns about potential intermodulation interference from Lower H Block mobile transmitters into PCS B Block mobiles.4 [5] The concerns about interference derived from the use of CDMA technologies in the B Block, and the expected use of CDMA in the H block. In particular, the Commission sought comment on power and out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits for the Lower H Block that were stricter than those typically imposed on similar mobile units.5 [5] In response to the AWS-2 NPRM, most commenters argued that lower power and stricter OOBE limits were appropriate to address interference. In addition, a few commenters were concerned about potential interference between the Upper H Block base stations and Mobile Satellite Service Ancillary Terrestrial Component (MSS/ATC) base stations receiving in the 2000-2020 MHz band.6 [5] 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, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263 (2004) (AWS-2 NPRM). “Advanced Wireless Services” is the collective term we use for 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. Although AWS has been commonly associated with so-called third generation (3G) applications and has been predicted to build on the successes of such commercial wireless services as cellular and Broadband Personal Communications Services (PCS), the services ultimately provided by AWS licensees are limited only by the Fixed and Mobile designation of the spectrum we allocate for AWS and the service rules we ultimately adopt for the bands. 3 AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 19264-65 ¶ 1. Designation of the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands as the AWS “H Block” is actually a misnomer, as it refers to a continuation of the PCS-block letter designations in referring to AWS spectrum blocks. The H Block is adjacent to PCS and therefore viewed by some as a PCS extension band. Commenters in WT Docket No. 04-356, as well as the Commission, have long referred to the spectrum as H Block and we have adopted this designation to avoid confusion. 4 AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 19296-19307 ¶¶ 84-116. 5 Id., at 19297-99, 19303-04 ¶¶ 87-92, 106-108. 6 See, e.g., Comments of TerreStar Networks, Inc., WT Docket No. 04-356 at 1 (Dec. 8, 2004) (stated concerns about both out-of-band and overload interference to MSS/ATC base stations). 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 6. In 2008, the Commission issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2008 FNPRM) in which it proposed and sought comment on rules for H Block including the same stricter-than-typical mobile power and OOBE limits for the Lower H Block that it originally proposed in the AWS-2 NPRM.7 [5] Similar to the record developed in response to the AWS-2 NPRM in 2004, commenters stated that strict power limits for the Lower H Block were necessary to avoid interference to PCS mobile receivers.8 [6] 7. Spectrum Act. In February 2012, Congress passed and the President signed the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.9 [6]The Spectrum Act requires the Commission to auction and license the H Block, with one exception,10 [6] and another 55 megahertz of spectrum, by February 23, 2015.11 [6] The Spectrum Act directs that the proceeds from these auctions shall be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund for certain public safety purposes including the buildout of the Public Safety Broadband Network by the First Responder Network Authority (FirstNet).12 [6] We anticipate that a 2013 H Block auction will be the first in a series of auctions required under the Spectrum Act. 8. AWS-4 Proceeding. The Commission strives to allow spectrum to be utilized for its highest and best use. As a result, the Commission must examine how its rules will affect the spectrum directly at issue as well as the spectrum in other bands, particularly the adjacent ones.13 [6] In the AWS-4 Report and Order, the Commission examined whether the use of the 2000-2020 MHz band for AWS-4 uplink would affect the use of the 1995-2000 MHz band. After reviewing the issue, the Commission established carefully calibrated, limited technical restrictions on AWS-4 operations in the 2000-2005 MHz uplink band to ensure the full flexible use of the 1995-2000 MHz band.14 [6] The Commission adopted these limited restrictions for the AWS-4 uplink band to ensure the efficient use of the AWS-4 band while preserving the ability to auction licenses for operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. This will enable both the AWS-4 band and the 1995-2000 MHz band to be used for providing flexible use services in the most efficient manner possible.15 [6] 9. Demand for Mobile Spectrum. Wireless broadband is a key component of economic growth, job creation and global competitiveness because consumers are increasingly using wireless broadband services to assist them in their everyday lives. The rise of wireless broadband reflects a rapid increase in user adoption, the increasing number of devices per user, and the proliferation of uses per device. The explosive growth of wireless broadband services has created increased demand for wireless 7 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155-2175 MHz Band; Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT Docket Nos. 07-195, 04-356, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9859, 9861 (2008) (2008 FNPRM). 8 See, e.g., Comments of AT&T Inc., WT Docket Nos. 07-195, 04-356 at 4-12 (July 25, 2008). 9 Title VI of this Act addresses public safety communications and electromagnetic spectrum auctions and is commonly known as the Spectrum Act. Spectrum Act §§ 6001-6703. 10 See infra section III.A.4 (Determination of No Harmful Interference to the 1930-1995 MHz Band). 11 Spectrum Act, § 6401(b). 12 See id., § 6401(c) (Auction Proceeds). 13 Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 12-70, Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, ET Docket No. 10-142, 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, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification (AWS-4 Report and Order), FCC 12-151 at ¶¶ 52-55 (rel. Dec. 17, 2012). 14 Id. at ¶ 72. 15 AWS-4 Report and Order at ¶¶ 55, 71-72. 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 spectrum, which is expected to continue increasing, despite technological developments that allow for more efficient spectrum use.16 [6]As a result, licensed mobile networks need to be able to increase their capacity, and unleashing more spectrum for broadband is essential to meeting this challenge. III. DISCUSSION 10. To implement the Spectrum Act provisions pertaining to the H Block, and in keeping with our goal of expanding the amount of spectrum available for wireless broadband services, we propose terrestrial service rules for the H Block that would generally follow the Commission’s Part 27 rules. In some instances, we propose rules that are modified from Part 27 to account for issues unique to the H Block, particularly to protect PCS licensees from harmful interference.17 [7] With this NPRM, we seek comment on a number of proposals regarding the licensing, use, and assignment of the spectrum, including the costs and benefits of the proposals. 11. Although the Commission previously sought comment on many of these issues in the AWS-2 NPRM and the 2008 FNPRM, wireless broadband technologies and the wireless industry have evolved since the Commission last sought comment on these issues such that, in our assessment, the development of a fresh record is warranted. As a result, we will adopt H Block rules based on the record developed in response to this Notice (WT Docket No. 12-357). Parties may re-file in this docket earlier comments with any necessary updates. 12. For each of the issues identified below, we seek comment on the most efficient manner to address the issue. Commenters should also identify the various costs and benefits associated with a particular proposal. We ask that commenters take into account only those costs and benefits that directly result from the implementation of the particular rules that could be adopted, including any proposed requirement or potential alternative requirement. Further, to the extent possible, commenters should provide specific data and information, such as actual or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit addressed, along with a description of how the data or information was calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other evidentiary support. A. Spectrum Act Provisions for 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz 13. Section 6401(b) of the Spectrum Act reads, in parts pertinent, as follows: SEC. 6401. DEADLINES FOR AUCTION OF CERTAIN SPECTRUM (b) REALLOCATION AND AUCTION.— (1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding paragraph (15)(A) of section309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)), not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Commission shall, except as provided in paragraph (4)— (A) allocate the spectrum described in paragraph (2) for commercial use; and (B) through a system of competitive bidding under such section, grant new initial licenses for the use of such spectrum, subject to flexible-use service rules. 16 The Council of Economic Advisors similarly found that “the spectrum currently allocated to wireless is not sufficient to handle the projected growth in demand, even with technological improvements allowing for more efficient use of existing spectrum and significant investment in new facilities.” Council of Economic Advisors, The Economic Benefits of New Spectrum for Wireless Broadband at 5 (Feb. 21, 2012), available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports [8]">http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/cea/factsheets-reports [8] (last visited Dec. 11, 2012). 17 See infra ¶¶ 43- [9]50. [10] 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 (2) SPECTRUM DESCRIBED.—The spectrum described in this paragraph is the following: (A) The frequencies between 1915 megahertz and 1920 megahertz. (B) The frequencies between 1995 megahertz and 2000 megahertz. * * * * * * (4) DETERMINATION BY COMMISSION.—If the Commission determines that the band of frequencies described in paragraph (2)(A) or the band of frequencies described in paragraph (2)(B) cannot be used without causing harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees in the frequencies between 1930 megahertz and 1995 megahertz, the Commission may not— (A) allocate such band for commercial use under paragraph (1)(A); or (B) grant licenses under paragraph (1)(B) for the use of such band. Spectrum Act, Section 6401(b), 47 USC § 1451(b). We discuss the Spectrum Act’s four main statutory elements related to the H Block—allocation for commercial use, flexible use, assignment of licenses, and a determination regarding interference—in greater detail below. 1. Allocation for Commercial Use 14. Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to allocate the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands for commercial use.18 [7] The Spectrum Act does not define the phrase “allocate [the H Block] for commercial use.” When this phrase is read in the context of the Spectrum Act as a whole, we conclude it requires the Commission to make any changes necessary to, or otherwise ensure that, the Non-Federal Table of Allocations reflects that the spectrum identified in section 6401 can be used commercially and licensed to non-federal entities under flexible use service rules through a system of competitive bidding. All of the H Block spectrum is within the 1850-2000 MHz band, which is allocated exclusively for non-federal, fixed and mobile use on a primary basis and designated for use in the commercial PCS/AWS bands.19 [11]We believe the Commission’s prior allocation of the H Block is fully consistent with section 6401’s allocation language because the existing allocation is the broadest allocation possible consistent with international allocations.20 [11] We further read section 6401 as directing the Commission to maintain this existing allocation. Given the requirement to license under flexible use 18 Spectrum Act, § 6401(b)(1)(A). 19 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. In 2003, the Commission allocated the 1995-2000 MHz band for Fixed and Mobile use. See 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, Third Report and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2223, 2225 ¶ 3 (2003) (AWS Third Report and Order). In 2004, the Commission designated the 1915-1920 MHz band for AWS and paired it with the 1995-2000 MHz band. See 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, Sixth Report and Order, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20720, 20723 ¶ 3 (2004) (AWS Sixth Report and Order). 20 The International Table of Allocations allocates 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz for Fixed and Mobile, and 1995-2000 MHz is part of the 1980-2010 MHz band allocated internationally for Mobile Satellite (earth-to-space) (MSS). Although MSS licenses can be used commercially, the Commission is not authorized to assign licenses for international satellite service through a system of competitive bidding. See Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, Pub. L. No. 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000) (“ORBIT Act”). 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 service rules, we do not read the requirement to allocate the H Block for commercial use to specifically limit eligible uses to commercial uses.21 [11] 15. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that the existing allocation of the H Block for non-
federal fixed and mobile use on a primary basis meets the allocation requirement of section 6401(b)(1)(A) for the H Block, and seek comment on this tentative conclusion. We seek comment on whether there are any additional actions the Commission should take to comply with the requirement to allocate the H Block for commercial use. We ask commenters that believe further action is needed to comply with Congress’s mandate to detail what other action is necessary, including the costs and benefits of such action. 2. Flexible Use 16. Consistent with the Spectrum Act’s mandate that we license the H Block under flexible use service rules,22 [12] we propose service rules for the H Block that permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-federal use permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations,23 [12] subject to the Commission’s Part 27 flexible use and other applicable rules (including service rules to avoid harmful interference).24 [12] Congress recognized the potential benefits of flexible spectrum allocations and amended the Communications Act in 1997 to add section 303(y), which grants the Commission the authority to adopt flexible allocations if certain factors are met.25 [12] Thus, we propose that the H Block may be used for any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for the band. If commenters think any restrictions are warranted, they should describe why such restrictions are needed, quantify the costs and benefits of any such restrictions, and describe how such restrictions would comport with the statutory mandates of section 303(y) of the Communications Act and section 6401 of the Spectrum Act. 3. Assignment of Licenses 17. Section 6401(b) of the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to assign initial licenses for the 1915-1920 and 1995-2000 MHz bands through a system of competitive bidding pursuant to 21 Congress also may have intended the reference in section 6401(b)(1)(A) to spectrum for “commercial use” to characterize the nature of the spectrum use as a means of distinguishing it from the reference in section 6401(a) to spectrum allocated for Federal use to be identified by the Secretary of Commerce for reallocation to nonfederal use. Accord, Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299, 5317 ¶ 37 (2000) (Commission determined that Congress, which in 47 U.S.C. § 337(a) directed the Commission to allocate certain spectrum for “commercial use” and to allocate other spectrum for “public safety services,” intended the term “commercial use” to characterize the nature of the spectrum use as a means of distinguishing it from the public safety use of the other spectrum referenced in the same section of the statute). 22 Spectrum Act, § 6401(b)(1)(b). 23 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. 24 Part 27 licensees must also comply with other Commission rules of general applicability. See 47 C.F.R. § 27.3. In addition, flexible use in international border areas is subject to any existing or future international agreements. See infra section III.C.3 (Canadian and Mexican Coordination). [10] 25 Section 303(y) provides the Commission with authority to provide for flexibility of use if: “(1) such use is consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a party; and (2) the Commission finds, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, that (A) such an allocation would be in the public interest; (B) such use would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and (C) such use would not result in harmful interference among users.” Balanced Budget Act of 1997, 47 U.S.C. § 303(y), Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 268-69. 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 section 309(j) of the Communications Act.26 [12] Accordingly, in section III.F [13]we seek comment on proposals regarding competitive bidding rules that would apply to resolve any mutually exclusive applications accepted for H Block licenses. 4. Determination of No Harmful Interference to the 1930-1995 MHz Band 18. The Commission is prohibited from granting initial licenses under the Spectrum Act for the H Block if the Commission determines that the H Block “cannot be used without causing harmful interference” to commercial mobile licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band (PCS downlink band).27 [14] We note that the Spectrum Act does not define the term “harmful interference,” and we propose to use the existing definition of “harmful interference” in the Commission’s rules. Under the Commission’s rules harmful interference is “[i]nterference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with [the International Telecommunications Union] Radio Regulations.”28 [14] 19. Upper H Block. As detailed in the Band Plan section below, the Commission allocated this spectrum for fixed and mobile use in 2003, and it designated it for PCS/AWS base station operations and proposed service rules to that effect in 2004.29 [14] During the eight years that WT Docket No. 04-356 has been pending, no party has filed technical data and/or analysis indicating that base station operations in the Upper H Block would cause harmful interference to licensees in the PCS downlink band.30 [14] Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that licensing the Upper H Block under flexible use service rules will not cause harmful interference to commercial mobile licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. 20. Lower H Block. In 2004 the Commission designated this spectrum for PCS/AWS mobile operations, paired with Upper H Block, after concluding that harmful interference from Lower H Block to the PCS downlink band could be addressed through appropriate service rules.31 [14] In WT Docket No. 04-356, commenters vigorously debated the power and out-of-band emission limits necessary to avoid interference to mobiles receiving in the PCS downlink band.32 [14] Four PCS licensees proposed technical rules for Lower H Block to avoid interference to PCS and at least one PCS licensee continues to advocate for one of the earlier proposals.33 [14]As discussed in detail below, we propose a band plan and are seeking 26 Spectrum Act, § 6401(b). The Commission is required to establish by regulation a competitive bidding methodology in accordance with section 309(j)’s statutory requirements when assigning licenses through auction. See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3), (4). 27 Spectrum Act, § 6401(b)(4). 28 47 C.F.R. § 2.1. 29 See infra section III.B (Band Plan). 30 In response to the AWS-4 NPRM and NOI, AT&T states that “the Commission should find that, under the requirements of the Spectrum Act, the H Block cannot be made available for commercial mobile use because of the substantial risk of interference to PCS operations.” Comments of AT&T Services, Inc., WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 10-142, 04-356, at 8 (May 17, 2012) (AT&T AWS-4 Comments at 8). AT&T states that “opening the upper H Block to terrestrial services would eliminate the existing guard band between PCS and 2 GHz MSS allocations” but nowhere does AT&T explain how licensing the Upper H Block would cause harmful interference to PCS, contrary to the Spectrum Act. AT&T AWS-4 Comments at 8. 31 See AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20732-36 ¶¶ 22-29. 32 See infra ¶¶ 43, 48. 33 Id. 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 comment on technical rules to avoid interference, including the earlier proposals by PCS licensees.34 [14] Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that it will be possible to auction and license the Lower H Block under flexible use service rules without causing harmful interference to commercial mobile licensees in the PCS downlink (1930-1995 MHz) band. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion. Regarding the proposed band plan and technical issues discussed in the sections below, we ask that commenters proposing alternative band plans and/or technical rules—including any alternative proposals that have been previously submitted to the Commission—provide detailed analyses of how their proposal will avoid harmful interference to licensees in the PCS downlink band. 21. Alternatives, if Harmful Interference to PCS. If, contrary to our expectation, the record results in a determination that licensing the Upper H Block, the Lower H Block, or both, would cause harmful interference to licensees in the PCS downlink band, section 6401(b)(4) of the Spectrum Act nullifies the initial requirement in section 6401(b)(1)(a) that the Commission allocate the interfering spectrum for commercial use. We do not, however, believe that Congress intended section 6401(b)(4)(a) to disturb allocations adopted prior to the Spectrum Act.35 [15] Rather, Congress intended section 6401(b)(4) to avoid harmful interference to the millions of existing customers of PCS licensees that might otherwise result from Commission actions implementing the requirements in section 6401(b)(1) related to H Block.36 [15] Therefore, if we determine that the Lower H Block, the Upper H Block, or both, cannot be used without causing harmful interference to PCS licensees, we tentatively conclude that we may not under the Spectrum Act auction and grant initial licenses, subject to flexible use service rules, for the interfering spectrum. If we determine that half of the H Block cannot be auctioned and licensed, we tentatively conclude that the statute requires us to auction and license the half of the H Block that would not cause harmful interference to PCS downlinks (i.e. either the Upper or Lower H Block). Accordingly, we ask commenters to address what should be done in the alternative with the H Block or any portion of the H Block that we determine cannot be licensed under the Spectrum Act due to harmful interference to licensees in the PCS downlink band. In particular, should any such spectrum be designated for Unlicensed PCS (UPCS)? B. Band Plan 22. In the following sections, we propose to license the H Block as paired 5 megahertz blocks, with the Upper H Block used for high power base stations and the Lower H Block used for mobile and low power fixed operations. We further propose to license the H Block by Economic Areas. We invite commenters to propose other licensing areas including for the Gulf of Mexico. 1. Block Configuration 23. In 2004, the Commission adopted the AWS Sixth Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-
258, designating the H Block for licensed fixed and mobile services, including advanced wireless services, and pairing the 1915-1920 MHz band with the 1995-2000 MHz band.37 [15] The Commission decided to pair the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands because it found that pairing this spectrum would promote efficient use of the spectrum, would allow for the introduction of high-value services, and was otherwise preferable to the other options that had been put forth.38 [15] 34 See infra sections III.B (Band Plan) [15] and III.C (Technical Issues). [16] 35 Commercial use of the H Block is consistent with but not required under the existing allocation and we believe the existing allocation, adopted in 2004, satisfies the initial requirement in section 6401(b)(1)(a) to allocate the H Block for commercial use. See supra section III.A.1 (Allocation for Commercial Use). 36 See Spectrum Act, § 6401(b)(4). 37 AWS Sixth Report and Order. 38 Id., at 20740 ¶ 41. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 24. In addition, the Commission contemplated that mobile operations would be conducted in the Lower H Block. The Commission reasoned that using the Lower H Block for low power operations would be advantageous because the adjacent 1910-1915 MHz PCS band is used for mobile operations and using the Lower H Block for high power base station operations could result in harmful interference to the PCS band.39 [15] 25. We see no reason to diverge from the reasoning in the AWS Sixth Report and Order. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands should be paired as a single band. In addition, we propose that high power base station operations will be prohibited in the Lower H Block. We seek comments on the costs and benefits of licensing the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands in this manner. We also seek comment on alternate configurations of the H Block. Commenters should address any technical issues implicated in an alternate band plan, and should discuss the costs and benefits of any alternative proposal. 2. Service Area 26. Geographic Area Licensing. We propose to adopt a geographic area licensing scheme for the H Block because it is well-suited for the types of fixed and mobile services that would likely be deployed in these bands. Additionally, geographic area licensing is consistent with the Commission’s licensing approach for the AWS-1, Broadband PCS, Commercial 700 MHz bands, and AWS-4 bands.40 [17] Based on the Commission’s experience administering these services, geographic area licensing: (1) provides licensees with substantial flexibility to respond to market demand, which results in significant improvements in spectrum utilization; (2) permits economies of scale because licensees can coordinate usage across an entire geographic area to maximize spectrum use; and (3) reduces the regulatory burdens and transaction costs because wide-area licensing does not require site-by-site approval so a licensee can aggregate its service territories without incurring the administrative costs and delays associated with site-by-site licensing.41 [17] We seek comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting a geographic area licensing scheme. 27. In the event that commenters do not support geographic area licensing for the H Block, commenters should explain their position and identify any alternative licensing proposals that they support, including the costs and benefits associated with such alternative proposals. Commenters should also address how an alternative licensing approach would be consistent with the statutory requirement to assign licenses in the H Block through competitive bidding and the statutory objectives that the Commission is required to promote in establishing methodologies for competitive bidding. 28. Service Area Size. We seek to adopt a service area size for the H Block that meets several statutory goals. These include facilitating access to spectrum by both small and large providers, providing for the efficient use of the spectrum, encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers, especially those in rural areas, and promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services consistent with our obligations under section 309(j) of the Communications Act.42 [17] 39 AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 19303-04 ¶¶ 106-108. 40 See 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, 25174 ¶ 30 (2003) (AWS-1 Report and Order); 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.202 (geographic service areas for Broadband PCS), 27.6(b),(h) (geographic service areas for Commercial 700 MHz and AWS-1, respectively). See also AWS-4 Report and Order at ¶ 48. 41 See AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25174 ¶ 31. We also note that adopting a geographic area licensing approach allows the Commission to assign initial licenses through a system of competitive bidding in accordance with the Spectrum Act. 42 See, e.g., id. at 25715-16 ¶ 35 (2003); see also 47 U.S.C. §309(j). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 29. To accomplish these goals, we propose to license the H Block on an Economic Area (EA) basis.43 [17] The adjacent bands, both PCS44 [18] and AWS-4,45 [18]are licensed on an EA basis. EAs are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers but also may be aggregated up to larger license areas to achieve economies of scale. We seek comment on this approach and ask commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of any particular geographic scheme for this band, as well as the impact that any such scheme would have on rural service and competition. 30. We also seek comment on whether we should license the H Block on a nationwide basis. We seek comment on the extent to which nationwide licenses maximize or limit the opportunity for licensees to provide the widest array of services, and whether nationwide licenses provide the necessary incentives to foster the growth of existing technologies and the development of new technologies. We also ask commenters to compare the advantages and disadvantages of nationwide licensing to those of licensing by EAs, including economic and financial considerations. 31. In response to the AWS-2 NPRM, some commenters argued that licensing the H Block using smaller geographic areas than EAs would accommodate its possible use as complementary spectrum to existing PCS offerings.46 [18] Other commenters agreed and also noted that small and rural wireless providers would benefit if the Commission licensed the H Block using smaller geographic areas than EAs.47 [18] Would licensing the H Block by areas smaller than EAs (e.g. Cellular Market Areas comprising Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs)48 [18]) facilitate its use by smaller and rural operators?49 [18] Would the benefits of smaller licenses outweigh any potential diseconomies of scale? Are there other geographic licensing methods that would better meet the stated goals for this band? 3. Licensing the Gulf of Mexico 32. In addition, we seek comment on how to license the Gulf of Mexico. Should the Gulf of Mexico be part of another service area(s)50 [18] or should we separately license a service area(s) to cover the Gulf of Mexico?51 [18] Are there any public interest benefits that would be served by creating a Gulf of Mexico licensing area? Further, would the interests of the land based licensees be protected if we proceeded to license the Gulf of Mexico? Commenters that advocate a separate service area(s) to cover 43 47 C.F.R. § 27.6. 44 See 47 C.F.R. § 24.229(c). 45 AWS-4 Report and Order at ¶ 49-50. 46 See Comments of CTIA—The Wireless Association, WT Docket No. 04-356 at 4-6 (Dec. 8, 2004); Comments of Rural Cellular Association, WT Docket No. 04-356 at 2-5 (Dec. 8, 2004). 47 See, e.g., UTStarcom Comments, WT Docket No. 04-356 at 2-5 (Dec. 8, 2004) (sought licensing the H Block based on a county-sized license area to allow small, entrepreneurial businesses to obtain spectrum for services to tribal lands, rural areas, and other small communities). 48 Comments of the Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc., WT Docket No. 04-356 at 2-5 (Dec. 8, 2004) (sought to license the H Block by Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and Rural Service Areas (RSAs) to ensure that the H Block is deployed in both urban and rural areas). Cellular markets are defined in 47 C.F.R. § 22.909 and a map showing the areas is available at:http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/CMA.pdf [19]"> http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/CMA.pdf [19]. (last visited Dec. 11, 2012). 49 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.202, 24.229. 50 See Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 500 ¶ 56, n.137 (2000). 51 See Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8085 ¶ 49 (2007) (700 MHz First Report and Order). 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that exist for Gulf licensees. C. Technical Issues 33. As discussed above, we are proposing that the Upper H Block be used for base station (i.e., high power) operations, and the Lower H Block for mobile and other low power operations.52 [18] In this section we consider whether technical standards generally applicable to AWS and PCS stations53 [16] are appropriate for these bands, or whether different standards are necessary to provide interference protection to services operating in adjacent spectrum bands. In light of the Spectrum Act and our assessment of the relevant public interest benefits, a key goal in this proceeding is to develop technical rules that will permit optimal use of the H Block without causing harmful interference to commercial mobile service licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band. In responding to our inquiries, we ask commenting parties to provide test data and specific technical analysis to support their positions. 1. Upper H Block: 1995-2000 MHz 34. Immediately below the Upper H Block is the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band, which is used for base station transmit/mobile receive (i.e., downlink). The Commission has tentatively concluded that base stations operating in the Upper H Block would be compatible with similar use of the spectrum below 1995 MHz, and there would be no need to apply technical standards more restrictive than those established for other AWS stations.54 [16] The record developed in WT Docket No. 04-356 does not demonstrate any disagreement with this approach. 35. Immediately above the Upper H Block is the 2000-2020 MHz band, which is allocated on a co-primary basis for Fixed, Mobile, and Mobile Satellite (Earth-to-space, i.e., for uplink mobile transmit/satellite receive).55 [16] In the AWS-4 Report and Order, we adopted service rules under which 2000-2020 MHz will be used terrestrially for mobile transmit/base station receive.56 [16] The Commission has previously concluded that there is potential for mutual interference between these two bands,57 [16] and in WT Docket No. 04-356 MSS commenters raised concerns.58 [16] In the AWS-4 Report and Order, we concluded that the public interest is best served by requiring AWS-4 uplinks to operate at lower power levels in 2000-2005 MHz and emit lower emissions below 2000 MHz.59 [16]We further concluded that 2 GHz MSS operators and AWS-4 licensees must accept any harmful interference from future, lawful operations in the 52 See supra III.B (Band Plan) [15]. 53 E.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.50(d), 27.53(h) (AWS technical standards). 54 See AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 19299-300 ¶ 93. 55 47 C.F.R. § 2.106. 56 AWS-4 Report and Order at ¶ 17. 57 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, 2025 ¶ 118. See also AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20736 ¶ 29; AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3575 ¶ 36. 58 TerreStar expressed concern about out-of-band and overload interference to both satellite receivers and ATC base stations. Letter from Jonathan D. Blake and Kurt Wimmer, Counsel for TerreStar Networks, Inc., to Marlene Dortch, FCC, ET Docket No. 00-258 at 2 (Aug. 17, 2004); Comments of TerreStar Networks, Inc., WT Docket No. 04-356 at 1, App. (Dec. 8, 2004). 59 AWS-4 Report and Order at ¶ 72. 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 Upper H Block due to out-of-band emissions in the 2000-2005 MHz band or receiver overload from transmitters operating within the 1995-2000 MHz band.60 [16] a. Upper H Block Power Limits 36. We propose to adopt the standard base station power limits that apply to AWS and PCS stations: 1640 watts peak equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) in non-rural areas and 3280 watts peak EIRP in rural areas. We seek comment on this proposal. b. Upper H Block Out-of-Band Emissions Limits 37. Given the considerations addressed above, we propose an out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limit for base stations of 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB, where P is the transmit power in watts, outside of the 1995-2000 MHz band. To provide some interference mitigation to AWS-4 uplink operations above 2000 MHz while ensuring that all of the Upper H Block spectrum can be used for more valuable downlink operations,61 [20] we propose a further OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10 (P) dB above 2005 MHz. We seek comment on our proposals and any alternative proposals, including comments on the associated costs and benefits of each proposal. c. Co-Channel Interference Between Licensees Operating in Adjacent Regions 38. If we ultimately decide to license this band on the basis of geographic service areas that are less than nationwide (e.g., EAs), we will have to ensure that such licensees do not cause interference to co-channel systems operating along their common geographic borders.62 [20] In other services, the Commission has offered either a “boundary limit”63 [20] or a “coordination”64 [20] approach to provide interference protection between co-channel licensees operating in these bands. Both approaches have certain advantages and disadvantages. For example, coordination would likely minimize the potential for interference to coordinated stations, but could also impose unnecessary costs in coordinating facilities that have a low potential for interference. A boundary limit approach would establish an accepted standard, which would enable licensees to deploy facilities in boundary areas without the need for coordination, but could require some additional planning between licensees to ensure that potential interference does not occur. 39. In other bands where spectrum has been allocated for fixed and mobile services, we have uniformly adopted the boundary limit method to minimize co-channel interference. For example, for the PCS and AWS-1 bands, which are closest in frequency to the H Block, there is a field strength limit of 47 dBµV/m at the boundary of licensed geographic areas.65 [20] We propose that the boundary limit approach should be adopted for the H Block as the means for protecting licensees from co-channel interference at their borders, and propose to specify a boundary field strength limit of 47 dBµV/m. We seek comment on these proposals. We also ask whether, if the boundary limit method is adopted, we should permit 60 Id. 61 Id. at ¶¶ 53, 71-72. 62 If we authorize a single licensee in this band, it will not be necessary to adopt co-channel interference protection criteria. Our co-channel protection rules would, however, apply to any partitioned portions of a nationwide license. See 47 C.F.R. § 27.55. 63 With this method, a licensee would be required to limit the field strength of its transmissions to some prescribed level at its geographic border. 64 Under this approach, licensees operating on the same spectrum in adjacent areas would be required to coordinate the location of their stations. 65 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.236, 27.55(a)(1). Cf. 47 C.F.R. § 27.55(a)(2) (40 dBµV/m field strength limit is used in the 700 MHz services). 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 12-152 licensees operating in adjoining areas to employ alternative, agreed-upon signal limits at their common borders. 2. Lower