Source: http://www.fcc.gov/document/aws-1915-19201995-2000-mhz-h-block-nprm-adopted?contrast=
Timestamp: 2014-10-01 17:18:19
Document Index: 93829075

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6401', '§ 24', '§309', '§ 27', '§ 24', '§ 22', '§ 24', 'art 27', '§ 27', '§ 2']

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 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 34 See infra sections III.B (Band Plan) and III.C (Technical Issues). 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 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 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 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 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 The adjacent bands, both PCS44 and AWS-4,45 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 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 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) facilitate its use by smaller and rural operators?49 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 or should we separately license a service area(s) to cover the Gulf of Mexico?51 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"> http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/CMA.pdf. (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 In this section we consider whether technical standards generally applicable to AWS and PCS stations53 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 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 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 The Commission has previously concluded that there is potential for mutual interference between these two bands,57 and in WT Docket No. 04-356 MSS commenters raised concerns.58 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 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). 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 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 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 In other services, the Commission has offered either a “boundary limit”63 or a “coordination”64 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.