[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 121 (Friday, June 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-15263]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: June 24, 1994]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part VI
Federal Communications Commission
_______________________________________________________________________
47 CFR Part 2, et al.
New Personal Communication Services; Rule
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15, and 24
[GEN Docket No. 90-314; FCC 94-144]
New Personal Communications Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: By this Memorandum Opinion and Order (MO&O) the Commission
amends certain aspects of its rules governing broadband personal
communications services (PCS). The MO&O modifies these rules to
consolidate broadband PCS into the 1850-1990 MHz band from the 1850-
1970, 2130-2150, and 2180-2200 MHz bands originally allocated. This
action will result in lower costs for the broadband PCS industry and
lower prices for consumers. This action facilitates implementation of a
broad range of new wireless services and participation in the broadband
PCS industry by small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
businesses owned by women and minorities.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 25, 1994, except that Secs. 15.311 and
24.204(f)(1), (2), (3)(i), and (3)(ii) are effective September 22,
1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Pepper or Donald Gips, Office of Plans and Policy, (202) 418-
2030.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Memorandum Opinion and Order, adopted June 9, 1994, and released June
13, 1994. The full text of this Commission decision is available for
inspection and copying during regular business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street NW., Washington, DC. The
complete text of this decision also may be purchased from the
Commission's duplication contractor, International Transcription
Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 140,
Washington, DC 20037. The following collection of information is being
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review under
Section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3504(h)).
Persons wishing to comment on this collection of information should
direct their comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for
Federal Communications Commission. A copy of any comments filed with
the Office of Management and Budget should also be sent to the
following address at the Commission: Federal Communications Commission,
Office of Managing Director, Paperwork Reduction Project, Washington,
DC 20554. For further information contact Judy Boley, 632-7513.
OMB Number: None.
Title: Part 24, Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish
New Personal Communications Services (GEN Docket No. 90-314).
Respondents: Businesses or other for profit.
Estimated annual burden and frequency of response: Five hundred and
ninety-five 30 Mhz broadband PCS licensees will need to spend
approximately 7,000 hours total at the two construction benchmarks, and
1,972 10 MHz broadband PCS licensees will need to spend approximately
2,000 hours at a single construction benchmark to verify to the
Commission that the construction requirements have been met. Total
burden-hours on all licensees will therefore be approximately 9,000.
Needs and Uses: Information received by the Commission will be used
to verify that each broadband PCS licensee has met its construction
requirements. Without this information, such verification would be
impossible.
Summary of Memorandum Opinion and Order
Introduction and Executive Summary
1. By this action, the Commission amends certain aspects of its
rules governing broadband personal communications services (PCS). It
takes this action in response to 67 petitions for reconsideration or
clarification of the rules and policies adopted in the Second Report
and Order\1\ in this proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\See Second Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314, 58 FR
59174 (November 8, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. PCS encompasses a broad range of new radio communications
services that will free individuals from the limitations of the
wireline public switched telephone network and will enable individuals
to communicate when they are away from their home or office telephones.
Broadband PCS devices are likely to be portable and have their own
unique telephone numbers. A basic feature of PCS is expected to be the
ability to communicate person-to-person, rather than station-to-
station.
3. The Commission takes this action to foster rapid creation of a
competitive market to deliver these new mobile digital voice and data
services to the American public. Personal communications needs are
changing rapidly as our society becomes more mobile and people demand
rapid communications no matter where they are or what time it is. A
competitive market is the best way to introduce broadband PCS to help
meet these demands. The Commission expects that PCS will provide a
variety of mobile services competitive with existing cellular, paging
and other land mobile services as well as new services offering
communications capabilities not currently available. These services
will be provided on an entire family of new communications devices that
will include small, lightweight multi-function portable phones,
portable facsimile and other imaging devices, new types of multi-
channel cordless phones, and advanced paging devices with two-way data
capabilities. The Commission expects that these new services and
devices will affect the future development and configuration of all
telecommunications networks by significantly improving their
flexibility and increasing the number of functions they can perform.
4. The Commission is amending the broadband PCS spectrum allocation
and regulatory structure to better achieve what have been and continue
to be its four primary goals in this proceeding: competitive delivery,
a diverse array of services, rapid deployment, and wide-area coverage.
Furthermore, the PCS rules as modified will partner with the
Commission's competitive bidding procedures to meet Congressional
objectives that include promoting economic growth and competition,
enhancing widespread access to telecommunications service offerings,
and ensuring that PCS licenses are disseminated to a wide variety of
applicants.
5. The actions the Commission is taking are designed to enable PCS
providers to compete effectively with each other and with other
wireless providers so that the American public can enjoy the greatest
benefit from the delivery of these new services. To promote competitive
delivery, the Commission has modified its band plan to ensure there is
an opportunity for a sufficient number of competitors to offer PCS
services. Further, providers will have the flexibility to determine the
amount of spectrum needed for their particular service or services.
However, the Commission has also set limits on the total amount of
spectrum that can be acquired by new entrants and by incumbent cellular
providers. This ensures that there will be a significant number of
competitors in each area.
6. The Commission purposely adopted a broad definition of PCS to
encourage a variety of firms with their own visions of PCS to bid for
various combinations of licenses and to provide a diverse array of new
services. Firms will compete not only on price, but also on quality and
the types of new products and services they offer. The Commission has
allocated spectrum both in different sized blocks and in different
sized service areas because it wants to encourage businesses to be able
to acquire the spectrum and service areas that best suit their business
plans. This additional flexibility will result in a greater diversity
of products and services for consumers.
7. Rapid deployment is important so that consumers do not have to
wait for the benefits of the new services. To ensure rapid deployment,
the Commission has allocated two different sized spectrum blocks, which
can be aggregated to form other block sizes. It has also altered the
allocation of some of the PCS spectrum to reduce the cost of moving
microwave incumbents that must be relocated. Both of these decisions
will allow more rapid introduction of service because of the reduced
costs of microwave relocation.
8. The revised bank plan also will reduce the cost of service and
equipment to consumers. In addition, the Commission has increased the
power level available for PCS service. Together with the decisions to
license some Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) and 10 MHz blocks, these
changes will make PCS service more viable in rural areas, help ensure
wide-area coverage and increase access for all Americans.
9. Many of the actions taken are directed toward ensuring that a
wide variety of applicants have an opportunity to acquire PCS licenses.
In addition to providing for different and spectrum blocks and
geographic areas, the Commission is modifying its ownership rules to
encourage participation in PCS by rural telephone companies, small
businesses and businesses owned by minorities and women.
10. The most significant of the changes involves modification of
the band plan that was adopted in the Second Report and Order. In that
Order, the Commission allocated 120 MHz of spectrum to PCS, some of
which was in the lower portion of the 2 GHz band allocated for emerging
technologies and some of which was in the upper portion of that band.
Under the revised plan, all of the 120 MHz of spectrum allocated to PCS
is located in the lower band. The previous band plan would have
required those who wished to operate in both the upper and lower bands
to utilize more expensive dual mode handsets capable of operating on
both bands. Providing PCS licenses in only the 1850-1990 MHz band will
lower costs to consumers by permitting use of a single-band handset.
Reducing the costs of equipment to customers should also increase
consumer demand and strengthen the economic viability of the PCS
providers. Placing all the licensed and unlicensed spectrum in a single
contiguous band also will decrease the cost of handsets that can
operate in both licensed and unlicensed blocks. In addition, these
changes will preserve spectrum in the upper band that is allocated
internationally for the emerging Mobile Satellite Services (MSS)
industry to provide worldwide service. Taken together, these changes
will increase the competitiveness of PCS service providers in urban,
suburban, and rural areas which should lower prices and stimulate
demand, thereby increasing investment and economic growth. Lower prices
will also enhance consumer access to PCS services.
11. Having all blocks in a single contiguous band also will
increase the value of the 10 MHz blocks. These blocks would have been
less desirable in the upper band because upper band equipment is
expected to be available from manufacturers twelve or more months after
lower bank equipment. In addition, the upper band contains a higher
concentration of microwave facilities that would have had to share
spectrum with broadband PCS licensees or be relocated from the
broadband PCS spectrum to avoid interference. This action avoids the
expense and potential delay associated with relocating the numerous
microwave links currently operating in the upper band. The change made
to the band plan also makes it more feasible to aggregate a 10 MHz
block with a 30 MHz block for a total of 40 MHz. Taken together, these
factors will reduce the time and the cost of PCS providers offering
their services to the American public. The overall allocation of 120
MHz for broadband PCS remains unchanged.
12. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission divided 120 MHz
of spectrum into seven blocks: two 30 MHz blocks, one 20 MHz block, and
four 10 MHz blocks. In this Order, the Commission is amending its band
plan to provide six blocks: three 30 MHz blocks and three 10 MHz
blocks. The Commission changed the 20 MHz block to a 30 MHz block and
eliminated one 10 MHz block primarily because it was persuaded that a
single 20 MHz block would not provide enough spectrum to support a
viable competitor to the 30 MHz PCS MTA licensees, or to the two
existing cellular licensees currently serving most areas. As a primary
goal of the proceeding was to promote competitive delivery of PCS
services, the Commission believes that it is essential to make
available an additional 30 MHz block. The Commission anticipates that
the three 10 MHz blocks will be used in a variety of ways that may
include ``niche services'' and other functions, or as an enhancement
for PCS or cellular providers that choose to purchase a 10 MHz block to
complement a 30 MHz or 25 MHz block, respectively. Thus, the revised
band plan provides for an additional competitor to cellular service and
to the other PCS providers, while also providing three 10 MHz blocks
for multiple uses.
13. In addition to modifying the band plan, the Commission also
makes significant amendments to the rules relating to participation in
PCS by holders of cellular interests. In the Second Report and Order,
the Commission recognized that unfettered participation in PCS by
cellular operators could lessen the potential competition that could
develop between PCS and cellular systems. At the same time, it
recognized that cellular licensees could foster rapid development of
PCS for a variety of reasons, including their expertise with commercial
mobile radio services. Promoting competition and providing for rapid
deployment of PCS are both among the objectives that Congress
instructed the Commission to promote in Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act, as amended by the Reconciliation Act. The
Commission has balanced those competing interests by allowing entities
with a 20 or more percent investment interest in a cellular license to
acquire a 10 MHz PCS license in the same area. The Commission adheres
to that decision. However, it has decided that as of January 1, 2000,
it will afford cellular operators the same overall 40 MHz spectrum cap
as other PCS operators, and allow them to acquire an additional 5 MHz
for a total of 15 MHz of PCS spectrum in the same service areas as
their cellular interests. Each cellular operator currently holds 25 MHz
of spectrum.
14. In Section 309(j), Congress also directed the Commission to
promote economic opportunity by disseminating licenses to a wide
variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone
companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women
(``designated entities''). The Commission is modifying its PCS cellular
eligibility rules to promote that goal as well. Specifically, it is
relaxing its cellular ownership attribution rules to allow designated
entities with up to a 40 percent non-controlling interest in a cellular
license to obtain a PCS license in the same area. One effect of this
change will be to allow some rural telephone companies with non-
controlling cellular interests, to provide PCS service in areas that
might otherwise not be served in a timely manner.
15. The Commission also is relaxing its cellular attribution rules
to allow any entity with up to a 40 percent non-controlling ownership
interest in a cellular license covering 10 percent or more of the
population in a PCS service area to also attain a non-controlling
investment interest in a PCS license held by a business owned by
minorities or women. While there is some risk that relaxing the
cellular eligibility rule will limit the vigor of competition in some
markets, the Commission thinks that risk is sufficiently limited where
the party holding interests in two licenses holds a minority interest
in the cellular license and the PCS license is controlled by another
entity. The Commission has concluded that it should take that risk in
order to advance the goal of promoting economic opportunity for these
groups.
16. The Commission's cellular eligibility rules balance the goals
that Congress has established--promoting competition, ensuring rapid
deployment of PCS, and providing economic opportunity for designated
entities. It has decided that limited participation by cellular
providers will serve the public interest by promoting rapid deployment
of PCS, participation by designated entities, and overall competition.
17. The Commission has made a number of minor modifications to its
rules. With these changes, it intends to proceed expeditiously toward
licensing providers of broadband personal communications services. The
following is a summary of all of the specific actions taken to promote
the goals outlined above:
a. Adopting a band plan that provides for three 30 MHz licenses
(Blocks A, B, and C) and three 10 MHz licenses (Blocks D, E, and F),
all of which are within the 1850-1990 MHz band;
b. Providing that the A and B Blocks be licensed within 51 service
areas based on the Major Trading Areas (MTAs) and that the C, D, E, and
F Blocks be licensed within 493 smaller service areas based on the
Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) set forth in the Rand McNally Commercial
Atlas & Marketing Guide (123rd ed. 1992);\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The current rules provide 492 service areas based upon BTAs.
In response to a request the Commission is dividing the Puerto Rico
service area into two areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. Maintaining the allocation of spectrum at 1910-1930 MHz for
unlicensed PCS devices, and committing to initiate a proceeding in the
near future to examine allocation of additional spectrum for unlicensed
PCS operations. Within this band, the Commission has adopted a 1.25 MHz
channelization scheme for isochronous (voice) devices and eliminated
channelization requirements for asynchronous (data) devices;
d. Continuing to permit all eligible entities to acquire broadband
PCS spectrum up to a cap of 40 MHz;
e. Retaining the five percent equity attribution threshold for PCS
licenses so that the same entity may not own more than five percent of
PCS licenses constituting more than 40 MHz within the same area;
f. Retaining the cellular attribution threshold of 20 percent
equity ownership of a cellular licensee and the service area overlap
test of 10 percent of the population of the relevant PCS market, so
that the same entity generally may not own more than 20 percent of the
cellular license and more than 5 percent of PCS license(s) that would
place the entity above the spectrum limit in an overlapping service
area;
g. Relaxing the eligibility rules to permit entities with
attributable interests in cellular companies whose combined cellular
geographic service areas overlap between 10 and 20 percent of the PCS
service area population to submit bids for more than 10 MHz of PCS
spectrum provided that, prior to the auction, they commit to divest
themselves of sufficient cellular interests to come into compliance
with the eligibility rules within 90 days of license grant;
h. Providing that voting stock, general partnership interests,
interlocking directorates and certain other controlling interests and
relationships will be considered in determining attributable interests
under the spectrum caps;
i. Raising from a 20 percent to a 40 percent non-controlling
interest the threshold for determining attributable cellular equity
ownership for rural telephone companies, small businesses and
businesses owned by minorities and women that are collectively termed
``designated entities'' under 47 U.S.C. 309(j);
j. Increasing from a 20 percent to a 40 percent non-controlling
interest the threshold for determining attributable cellular equity
ownership to allow non-designated entities to make non-controlling
investments in PCS licenses owned and controlled by minority- and
women-owned businesses;
k. Permitting entities with attributable cellular interests
covering 10 or more percent of the population in a PCS service area to
acquire 10 MHz of PCS spectrum within the PCS service area and, after
January 1, 2000, to acquire an additional 5 MHz for a total of 15 MHz
of PCS spectrum in their cellular service areas;
l. Relaxing construction requirements to provide that (a) 30 MHz
broadband PCS licensees must provide coverage to one-third of their
service area population within five years of initial licensing and two-
thirds within ten years and (b) 10 MHz licensees must provide coverage
to twenty five percent of their service area population within five
years of initial licensing or, submit a showing of equivalent or
substantial service;
m. Increasing the maximum power level permitted for broadband PCS
base stations to 1640 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power
(e.i.r.p.), which is equivalent to 1000 watts effective radiated power
(e.r.p.);
n. Retaining with minor amendment rules ensuring compliance with
minimum standards for exposure to radio frequency (RF) energy emitted
by PCS devices;
o. Committing to initiate a proceeding in the near future to
allocate additional spectrum for mobile satellite services (MSS) and to
work toward having additional spectrum allocated to MSS at the World
Radio Conference to be held in 1995 (WRC-95); and
p. Pledging to examine management contracts and spectrum leases in
the CMRS docket for the purpose of determining whether other interests
in PCS licenses should be limited in order to foster vigorous
competition.
18. The Commission began its investigation of broadband PCS in
1989.\3\ Since then the Commission has addressed broadband PCS in this
docket by issuing a Notice of Inquiry, holding an En Banc meeting, and
adopting a Policy Statement and Order, a Notice of Proposed Rule Making
and Tentative Decision, and a Second Report and Order;\4\ and held a
Public Forum on broadband PCS.\5\ It has also allocated 220 MHz of
spectrum between 1850 and 2200 MHz for emerging technologies that
include PCS;\6\ provided for band sharing or negotiated relocation of
microwave facilities occupying 2 GHz PCS spectrum;\7\ provided spectrum
to accommodate the existing 2 GHz facilities that relocated;\8\ and
adopted technical, licensing and auction rules for narrowband PCS.\9\
It also considered 50 pioneer's preference requests related to
broadband PCS.\10\ Finally, the Commission made recommendations and
participated in an international allocation conference at which
decisions were made that recognize and permit use of 2 GHz spectrum for
PCS.\11\ Numerous telecommunications companies and associations have
actively participated in the PCS proceedings, and over 100 companies
have applied for and received more than 220 experimental licenses to
develop and test PCS services and technologies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Petitions for Rule Making requesting establishment of PCS
were filed by Cellular 21, Inc., in September 1989, RM-7140; and PCN
America, Inc. (PCN America), in November 1989, RM-7175.
Subsequently, in February 1991, Apple, RM-7618, proposed that 40 MHz
from the 1850-1990 MHz band be allocated for unlicensed high-speed
local-area data communications services connecting personal
computers.
\4\See GEN Docket No. 90-314; Notice of Inquiry, 5 FCC Rcd 3995
(1990); Policy Statement and Order, 56 FR 56937 (November 7, 1991);
Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Tentative Decision, 57 FR 11458
(April 3, 1992); and Second Report and Order, 58 FR 59174 (November
8, 1993).
\5\See FCC, Transcripts of PCS Public Forum, April 11-12, 1994
(Transcripts of the PCS Public Forum). The transcripts are available
for public viewing at both the FCC Reference Center and the Library,
1919 M Street, NW., Washington, DC. The transcripts also may be
purchased from the Commission's duplication contractor.
\6\See First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, ET Docket No. 92-9, 57 FR 49020 (October 29, 1992).
\7\See ET Docket No. 92-9; First Report and Order and Third
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 57 FR 49020 (October 29, 1992);
Second Report and Order, 58 FR 49220 (September 22, 1993); Third
Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 58 FR 46547
(September 2, 1993); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 59 FR 19642
(April 25, 1994), petition for further recon. pending.
\8\See Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 92-9, 58 FR 49220
(September 22, 1993).
\9\See First Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET
Docket No. 92-100, 58 FR 42681 (August 11, 1993) (initial narrowband
rules); Memorandum Opinion and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314 and ET
Docket No. 92-100, 59 FR 14115 (March 25, 1994) (adopting certain
narrowband PCS rule amendments on reconsideration); Third Report and
Order, PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 93-98, released May 10, 1994
(design of narrowband auctions).
\10\See Third Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314, 59 FR
9419 (February 28, 1994), recon. pending, appeal pending sub nom.
Pacific Bell v. FCC, No. 94-1148 (D.C. Cir., filed March 1, 1994).
The Commission intends to address shortly the petitions for
reconsideration of its pioneer's preference decisions.
\11\A worldwide allocation for PCS was discussed at the 1992
International Telecommunication Union (ITU) World Administrative
Radio Conference (WARC-92) in Torremolinos, Spain. The conference
decided to maintain primary fixed and mobile allocations at 2 GHz in
Region II (which includes the United States), and to make additional
primary mobile-satellite service allocations in the 1930-2010 and
2120-2200 MHz bands. It added a footnote stating that future public
land mobile telecommunications systems, similar in concept to PCS,
are expected to use the 1885-2025 MHz and 2110-2200 MHz bands on a
worldwide basis. See Report, GEN Docket No. 89-554, 56 FR 31095
(July 9, 1991); ITU, Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio
Conference for Dealing with Frequency Allocations in Certain Parts
of the Spectrum (Malaga-Torremolinos, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. On August 10, 1993, the President signed the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993 (Reconciliation Act),\12\ which amended
Sections 3(n), 309(j) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (Communications Act). Section 309(j) for the first time
authorized the Commission to select licensees by competitive bidding
and establishes objectives for the bidding process, including rapid
deployment of new technologies, promotion of economic opportunity,
competition and public access, wide dissemination of licenses, and
efficient use of the spectrum. The Reconciliation Act also amended
Sections 3(n) and 332 to provide that PCS is a mobile service and to
establish a new framework for regulatory treatment of mobile services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-
66, Title VI, Secs. 6002(b)(2) (A), (B), 107 Stat. 312, 392 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
20. On September 23, 1993, shortly after the Reconciliation Act was
enacted, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order
establishing regulations and policies for broadband PCS that are under
review here. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission enumerated
goals of competitive delivery, diversity of services, speed of
deployment, and wide-area service. The Commission took a number of
actions to help meet these goals.
Specifically, the Commission:
a. Defined PCS as ``radio communications that encompass mobile and
ancillary fixed communication that provide services to individuals and
businesses and can be integrated with a variety of competing
networks'';
b. Allocated spectrum at 2 GHz for PCS, including 120 MHz of
spectrum for licensed broadband PCS and 40 MHz for unlicensed PCS
devices;
c. Provided for two 30 MHz licenses and one 20 MHz license in the
``lower'' band of the emerging technologies spectrum, and four 10 MHz
licenses in the ``upper'' band, in each geographic area;
d. Provided that the two 30 MHz licenses would be authorized within
51 service areas based on the Rand McNally Major Trading Areas (MTAs)
and that the 20 MHz and 10 MHz licenses would be authorized within 492
service areas based on the Rand McNally Basic Trading Areas (BTAs);
e. Established eligibility requirements that limit entities with
certain cellular interests to 10 MHz of PCS spectrum where there is
significant overlap between a PCS service area and the cellular service
area (i.e., 10 percent or more of the PCS service area population);
f. Limited broadband PCS licensees to 40 MHz of spectrum, and
established certain licensing and renewal mechanisms;
g. Established a maximum power level of 100 watts e.i.r.p. for PCS
base stations, and adopted technical specifications to avoid harmful
interference to other operations while leaving maximum technical
flexibility to permit development of new technologies;
h. Adopted rules to minimize radio frequency (RF) exposure risk;
and
i. Noted an intent to continue participating in international
efforts to provide standards and consistent spectrum allocations for
international deployment of worldwide terrestrial mobile and global
satellite services.
21. In related proceedings, the Commission provided a transition
plan to govern PCS licensees sharing their authorized spectrum with
existing 2 GHz fixed microwave facilities or relocating those
facilities to other spectrum;\13\ determined that broadband PCS
presumptively will be classified as a commercial mobile radio service
(CMRS) under Section 332 of the Communications Act as amended by the
Reconciliation Act;\14\ and found that broadband PCS is within the
Commission's competitive bidding authority, when it adopted generic
competitive bidding rules and procedures.\15\ With regard to
competitive bidding for broadband PCS licenses, the Commission proposed
to set aside two blocks of spectrum--the 20 MHz block (Block C) and a
10 MHz block (Block D)--that would be reserved for bidding purposes to
``designated entities'', (small businesses, rural telephone companies
and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women), and
proposed other measures to ensure economic opportunity for designated
entities.\16\ These proposals remain pending. The proposed set-aside
and other outstanding issues concerning broadband PCS auctions will be
decided in a forthcoming Order (in PP Docket No. 93-253) addressing
competitive bidding rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\See First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, ET Docket No. 92-9, 57 FR 49020 (October 29, 1992).
\14\See Second Report and Order, GN Docket No. 93-252, 59 FR
18493 (April 19, 1994) (CMRS Second Report and Order), recon.
pending.
\15\See Second Report and Order, PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 94-
61, released April 20, 1994.
\16\See PP Docket No. 93-253; Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 58
FR 53489 (October 15, 1993); Second Report and Order, FCC 94-61,
released April 20, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
22. In response to the Second Report and Order, 67 parties filed
petitions requesting reconsideration or clarification. Of the 67
petitions, 58 primarily addressed issues relating to licensed PCS
services and 9 primarily addressed issues relating to unlicensed PCS
operations. The petitioners collectively request reconsideration of the
spectrum allocation and frequency block plan, eligibility and
attribution matters, construction requirements, technical standards,
microwave interference criteria, power limits, radio frequency (RF)
hazard requirements, and matters related to unlicensed PCS devices. The
Commission received comments addressing the petitions for
reconsideration from 44 parties and replies from 54 parties.
23. On March 17, 1994, the Commission established an intra-agency
task force to coordinate the reconsideration of PCS policies and rules.
On April 11 and 12, 1994, the task force conducted a series of public
panel discussions on PCS issues. The panelists included potential PCS
service providers, technical experts, members of the financial
community, economists and representatives of designated entities. The
presentations of the panelists and transcripts of the panel discussions
were placed in the record of this proceeding, and 30 interested parties
filed statements in the record responding to the panel discussions.
Spectrum Issues and Service Areas
24. Allocation, Block Plan, and Service Areas. In the Second Report
and Order, the Commission allocated 120 MHz for licensed PCS and 40 MHz
for unlicensed PCS from the 220 MHz of emerging technologies spectrum.
Specifically, (lower band) 1850-1890 MHz and 1930-1970 MHz, and the
(upper band 2130-2150 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, were allocated for
licensed PCS; and the 1890-1930 MHz band was allocated for unlicensed
PCS devices. In addition, 60 MHz remained in reserve for future
allocations to emerging technologies such as MSS or other applications.
The frequency plan for licensed PCS included two 30 MHz frequency
blocks, one 20 MHz block, and four 10 MHz blocks. Service areas were
defined based on Rand McNally's ``Major Trading Areas'' (MTAs) and
``Basic Trading Areas'' (BTAs). The two 30 MHz blocks were in the lower
band and licensed on an MTA basis; the 20 MHz block also was in the
lower band, but licensed on a BTA basis; and the four 10 MHz blocks
were in the upper band and licensed on a BTA basis.
25. Twenty-eight parties argued for reconsideration of various
aspects of the allocation and frequency block plan adopted in the
Second Report and Order. In general, the petitioners address: (1)
alternatives for the PCS frequency block plan, including the number of
PCS providers, PCS service areas, and issues relating to the
aggregation or subdivision of PCS spectrum; (2) whether spectrum should
be designated for private PCS use; and (3) the impact of the PCS
allocation on the international allocations for mobile satellite
service (MSS).
26. In response to these filings, the Commission is revising the
band plan to move the 10 MHz blocks from the upper band to the lower
band, increase the size of 20 MHz block to 30 MHz, and reduce the
number of 10 MHz blocks from four to three. The revised band plan is
depicted in Appendix D, ``Broadband PCS Band Plan,'' and detailed in
the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency block Amount of spectrum Geographic scope Frequency range
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................... 30 MHz................. MTA.................... 1850-1865/1930-1945 MHz
B....................... 30 MHz................. MTA.................... 1870-1885/1950-1965 MHz
C....................... 30 MHz................. BTA.................... 1895-1910/1975-1990 MHz
D....................... 10 MHz................. BTA.................... 1865-1870/1945-1950 MHz
E....................... 10 MHz................. BTA.................... 1885-1890/1965-1970 MHz
F....................... 10 MHz................. BTA.................... 1890-1895/1970-1975 MHz
Unlicensed.............. 20 MHz................. Nationwide............. 1910-1930 MHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. This plan provides for three large blocks and three small ones.
This will allow potential licensees to aggregate varying amounts of
spectrum in different geographic areas depending on their individual
business plans. The three large 30 MHz blocks ensure that these
licensees have sufficient spectrum to begin service rapidly. The three
small 10 MHz licenses will allow the provision of services that might
not require a full 30 MHz, or for aggregation with a 30 MHz PCS license
or an existing cellular license. As noted above, moving the 10 MHz
blocks from the upper band to the lower band provides a number of
important procompetitive benefits: consumer equipment costs will be
significantly lower, costs of relocating incumbent fixed microwave
links will be significantly reduced for new PCS entrants, the ability
to aggregate spectrum will be increased, and valuable spectrum will be
preserved that can be used to provide mobile satellite service on a
worldwide basis. This revised plan reduces the amount of spectrum for
unlicensed devices, but will increase the ability of new consumer
equipment to work on both a licensed and unlicensed basis, increasing
the utility of the devices for consumers. The improvement in this band
plan will increase competition, lower equipment costs and provide other
benefits. As a result, consumers will receive lower-cost and higher-
quality service.
28. The Commission initially authorized 10 MHz blocks in the upper
PCS band. Many parties, however, argue that the upper band blocks would
be of little value in the near term because equipment would not be
developed for this spectrum for a year or more. In addition, handsets
that can bridge the upper and lower bands are predicted to cost about
25 percent more and to be bulkier than handsets operating only on the
lower frequencies. In addition, dual mode handsets would be heavier and
have shorter battery life. Several parties argued that dual band
handsets were essential to the success of upper band service because
PCS operators would be likely to aggregate upper and lower band
spectrum and consumers would want to be able to receive service on both
bands, both to permit roaming across geographic areas and to facilitate
changing service providers. These parties contended that the higher
costs, delay, and other limitations associated with the upper band
presented serious impediments to achieving the goals of fostering a
competitive market, rapid deployment, opportunities for designated
entities, and fostering a wide diversity of services. Upon
reconsideration, the Commission concludes that MSS and PCS services can
both be accommodated by using only lower band spectrum for licensed and
unlicensed PCS services.
29. Moving licensed PCS from the upper band to the lower band
provides a number of procompetitive benefits. First, the cost of
interoperability between licensed and unlicensed PCS will be reduced.
As noted above, equipment costs to consumers are predicted to be
reduced by 25 percent. Moreover, under the revised plan, manufacturers
will concentrate on a single band with uniform frequency spacing, which
should result in greater economies of scale in manufacturing that
reduce consumer equipment prices. This additional cost for
interoperability between bands was not evident to the Commission when
it made its earlier decision. Increased interoperability has the
additional benefit of reducing lock-in costs for consumers, giving them
greater ability to switch providers, and thereby resulting in a more
competitive market. Because of the less expensive handsets and the
ability to combine adjacent blocks, aggregation is much more desirable.
This will benefit all new providers, including designated entities,
because they will be able to reduce costs and compete more effectively.
Furthermore, there appear to be a number of different potential uses
for the 10 MHz blocks: innovative niche services that are unlikely to
be provided initially on the 30 MHz blocks, aggregation with the 30 MHz
blocks, aggregation with other 10 MHz blocks, service extensions for
incumbent cellular providers, and opportunities for designated entities
to provide service with lower capital cost. Moving the 10 MHz blocks
from the upper band to the lower band will enhance the value of some,
if not all, of these uses and allow licensees to decide the most
valuable use for the spectrum.
30. Second, the cost and time required to relocate incumbent fixed
microwave links should be significantly less in the lower band because
the number of microwave links in the upper band is higher than the
number in the lower band. While the bandwidth used by the upper band
microwave incumbents is much less, making it easier to find some clear
spectrum immediately, the ultimate requirement to clear the spectrum
would result in significantly higher costs for PCS licensees.
31. Third, equipment should be available for the lower band at an
earlier date. Manufacturers have spent significant time and resources
developing lower band equipment but the record indicates that they have
not done much work on developing equipment for the upper band. As a
result, some parties assert that the availability of upper band
equipment trails the availability of lower band equipment by about one
year. Time to market is a critical factor in the rollout of PCS
services that will compete against existing cellular and enhanced
specialized mobile radio (ESMR) entities. Thus, earlier equipment
availability is a significant factor in developing a competitive PCS
service.
32. Fourth, many cellular companies have expressed a desire to
operate PCS systems both outside and inside their current cellular
service areas. By moving the PCS spectrum to the lower band, PCS and
cellular providers will have the ability to provide service over a
large geographic area even though they desire (or are required) to have
different amounts of PCS spectrum in different areas. This capability
could lower costs to the benefit of consumers because cellular
companies will be able to compete using PCS spectrum inside and outside
of their service areas.
33. Finally, moving all the PCS spectrum to the lower band will
better meet the needs of the emerging MSS industry. The Commission
believes that this action will increase the value of the unlicensed
spectrum because interoperability with licensed PCS will increase.
34. Accordingly, the Commission finds that moving all of the PCS
spectrum to the lower band will increase competition, reduce both
consumer equipment and system costs, and increase equipment
functionality. This new band plan has significant industry support, as
evidenced by numerous recent filings submitted in the record by a
variety of interests supporting the proposal to move all of the PCS
spectrum to the lower band.
35. In developing the original plan, the Commission concluded that
10 MHz blocks could support viable and competitive PCS services through
the use of advanced digital techniques, such as Code Division Multiple
Access (CDMA) and Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA), and
microcellular technology. It also stated that some types of PCS
operations would require more than 10 MHz of spectrum. In addition, the
Commission recognized that initially PCS is required to share spectrum
with fixed microwave operations and therefore the full amount of
spectrum will not be available initially in many locations. The
Commission also stated that some types of PCS operations would require
more than 10 MHz of spectrum. In addition, the Commission recognized
that initially PCS is required to share spectrum with fixed microwave
operations and therefore the full amount of spectrum will not be
available initially in many locations. The Commission concluded that 20
and 30 MHz frequency blocks were needed to support the rapid
development and implementation of the fullest range of PCS services and
also permitted most licensees to aggregate up to 40 MHz of broadband
PCS spectrum in each service area, except that cellular licensees were
limited to 10 MHz where their cellular geographic service area (CGSA)
overlapped with the PCS service area. For these reasons, the Commission
concluded that the combination of 10, 20, and 30 MHz licenses would
allow users to acquire the amount of spectrum appropriate for their
applications.
36. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission allocated two 30
MHz blocks, one 20 MHz block and four 10 MHz blocks. Its intent was to
encourage participation of as many viable new PCS entrants as possible
while maintaining sufficient spectrum to ensure the viability of both
MSS and unlicensed devices. Based on the reasoning presented below, and
on information provided by the petitioners and other responding
parties, including presentations made by industry experts as its panel
discussions, the Commission finds that its goals will be better served
by two modifications to the band plan: (a) An increase in the size of
the 20 MHz block to 30 MHz; and (b) a reduction in the number of 10 MHz
blocks from four to three. Overall, the total amount of spectrum
allocated for licensed PCS remains unchanged.
37. One of the goals in this proceeding is to stimulate competition
in the wireless and wireline industries, thus reducing costs and
improving quality for consumers. In so doing, the Commission must
balance two objectives. First, the Commission wants to maximize the
number of opportunities for new viable competitors to emerge. It also
wants to allow market forces to guide how many competitors survive. The
Commission has endeavored to provide as many opportunities as possible
to aggregate blocks into viable service offerings to ensure that
several strong competitors emerge to provide service. Its desire to
maximize competition must be tempered, however, because (1) spectrum is
limited and (2) for new entrants to be viable sufficient spectrum must
be provided to begin service quickly with reasonable upfront capital
costs. The Commission believes that the combination of microwave
incumbents occupying part of this spectrum and economies of scale lead
to the conclusion that the set of three 30 MHz blocks will support the
rapid introduction of competitive PCS services whereas 20 MHz blocks
could lead to PCS service start-up delays or a reduction in the number
of viable competitors.
38. The Commission believes that its new band plan is superior to
uniform 20 MHz blocks, as advocated by several petitioners. The
combination of three 30 MHz blocks and three 10 MHz blocks allows the
aggregation of a variety of license sizes that could not occur with
uniform 20 MHz blocks.\17\ As a result, the Commission finds that the
allocation of six 20 MHz blocks would not provide as many benefits as
either the allocation adopted in the Second Report and Order on the
modified plan it adopts in this order and it might lead to fewer new
service providers with sufficient spectrum to provide service quickly.
It also rejects the plan of twelve 10 MHz blocks, because such an
arrangement might seriously delay the implementation of PCS, since the
process of aggregating so many spectrum blocks could be time consuming
and costly. It also could dramatically increase complexity and
transaction costs at and after the auction. Finally, the Commission
believes that dividing the spectrum into 40 MHz blocks would be
inefficient for many applications and would foreclose innovative niche
services.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\It also believes that fewer new viable PCS competitors might
emerge under the six blocks of 20 MHz plan, given a spectrum
aggregation limit of 40 MHz and the head start of cellular
incumbents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
39. The record indicates significant concern that a 20 MHz block
may not provide sufficient spectrum to enable a PCS provider to compete
effectively with other PCS licensees operating on 30 MHz spectrum
blocks or with other commercial mobile radio service providers. Some
parties argue that 20 MHz will provide sufficient capacity in the long
run, while others feel that with only 20 MHz, there could be a
significantly larger portion of each service area where the licensee
has no usable spectrum due to the presence of microwave incumbents. The
presence of fixed microwave links requires that, on the average, a
licensee with 20 MHz initially will have to relocate more microwave
links than a 30 MHz license before PCS service can begin, which could
significantly delay the commencement of service and increase the
upfront cost of initiating service. In addition, certain parties state
that the ability of a microwave incumbent to delay or extract a premium
for relocating its link because its microwave path fully blocks service
diminishes significantly with a 30 MHz spectrum block. While incumbent
microwave links are 20 MHz wide, the Commission feels that the
advantages of being able to work around specific links with a 30 MHz
block outweigh the additional transaction costs which result from not
matching the incumbent fixed microwave assignments identically.
40. Other parties support the notion that a 30 MHz block will help
new PCS entrants compete more effectively with existing wireless and
wireline providers. The Commission also believes that limiting one
licensee to 20 MHz could be a disadvantage for future competition. The
ability to provide a complete package of mobile voice and data services
could become a significant competitive advantage in the future. Such a
package of wireless services, however, may require more than 20 MHz of
spectrum. Other services may require less spectrum and are better
suited to the 10 MHz blocks.
41. Due in large part to these concerns, the investment community
has stated that financing would be much more difficult to obtain for
the licensees on the 20 MHz block than on the other blocks. These
handicaps are of particular concern to us because the 20 MHz block was
proposed to be reserved for designated entities.\18\ The competitive
handicaps of a 20 MHz block relative to 30 MHz blocks would not have
served the goal of providing a viable competitive opportunity for
designated entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the competitive
bidding proceeding, PP Docket No. 93-253, the Commission indicated
that it would consider setting aside Blocks C and D for small
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by
minorities or women. Reconciliation Act Sec. 6002(a), 107 Stat. at
389. See H.R. Rep. No. 103-213, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. at 482-484
(1993) (Conference Report); H.R. Rep. No. 103-111, 103d Cong., 1st
Sess. at 255 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
42. Increasing the third license from a 20 MHz block to a 30 MHz
block appears to eliminate any competitive disadvantages stemming from
the band plan. The A, B and C blocks each will have a roughly
equivalent portion of its service area completely blocked by incumbent
microwave users in any geographic area. As a result, the costs and
delay due to incumbent relocation should be similar on each of the
blocks. This change should also reduce the difficulty faced by the C
block licensee in obtaining financing. The Commission concludes,
therefore, that three equal sized 30 MHz blocks will facilitate
competition and the rapid development and implementation of the fullest
range of PCS services and ensure that PCS is more fully competitive
with other mobile radio services. Accordingly, the Commission is
changing the single 20 MHz license to a 30 MHz license. Providing a
combination of 30 MHz and 10 licenses MHz provides the benefits of 40
MHz licenses, without restricting the options of firms nor affecting
competition.
43. Consistent with its decision to formulate a flexible definition
of PCS, the Commission allocated four 10 MHz blocks in the Second
Report and Order that could serve a variety of needs. The Commission
continues to believe that 10 MHz blocks, both on their own and in
combination with the 30 MHz blocks or with each other, are useful to
support a variety of PCS services. Throughout this proceeding, several
parties have indicated that 10 MHz blocks would be suitable for
providing services ranging from specialized or ``niche'' applications
to services comparable to those now provided by cellular systems. In
addition, the 10 MHz blocks will be beneficial both for cellular
licensees, who have limited eligibility for PCS participation in
region, and possibly also for augmenting SMR. Finally, commenters
discussed the desire to aggregate the 10 MHz blocks with the larger
blocks in order to increase capacity for PCS services in heavy demand
areas.
44. For these reasons, the Commission believes that public interest
is best served by continuing the allocation of licenses on 10 MHz
channel blocks in addition to the 30 MHz licenses. The number of 10 MHz
blocks must be limited to three for any given area, however, because of
the need to reserve spectrum for other uses such as MSS. Allowing the
flexibility to aggregate spectrum blocks of different sizes will help
ensure that efficient providers succeed. The Commission believes that
120 MHz will provide sufficient spectrum to promote competition rapidly
and that flexibility in the provision of service will provide
incentives for efficient use of the spectrum.
45. In sum, the Commission believes that a band plan that provides
for three 30 MHz licenses and three 10 MHz licenses, all in the lower
band, compared to the earlier plan, will better ensure that PCS
services are available promptly and competitively to the American
public.
46. A number of petitioners request clarification of, or changes
to, the policies regarding the aggregation or subdivision of PCS
spectrum and PCS service areas. In the Second Report and Order, the
Commission limited any party's ability to aggregate PCs spectrum to an
attributable interest in 40 MHz. Companies that were deemed to hold
attributable interests in cellular license(s) covering 10 percent or
more of the population in a PCS service area were limited to holding a
single 10 MHz PCS license in that area. The Commission did not address
the issue of whether it would allow disaggregation of spectrum.
47. The Commission believes that the 40 MHz limit for PCS spectrum
is appropriate. No new information has been presented to indicate that
each licensee in a market would require more than 40 MHz to provide
broadband PCS service. Although at least one party argued that this
limit should be amended to allow greater aggregation in rural areas,
the Commission does not believe that greater aggregation is needed. In
particular, the demand in rural areas is expected to be sufficiently
low that there should be no need for more than 40 MHz by any one
provider. If demand in rural areas is not sufficient to meet than 40
MHz of spectrum to one entity, it would be preferable to have
additional competitors serve these customers rather than to license
more than 40 MHz of spectrum to one entity.
48. One of the goals in this proceeding is to promote competitive
delivery of wireless services. As a result, the Commission feels that
not only is an overall cap on PCS spectrum important to prohibit
excessive spectrum aggregation, but that a comparable separate limit
should be placed on cellular providers since they already hold 25 MHz
of clear spectrum and already have a large number of existing wireless
customers. To ensure competitive parity, cellular carriers will be
subject to an overall spectrum cap of 35 MHz for their combined PCS and
cellular spectrum. The Commission is persuaded by the argument, raised
by a number of parties, that because of cellular's ``headstart'' in the
wireless telephone market, existing infrastructure and large base of
customers, cellular carriers might be able to dominate the wireless
market if they receive more than 10 MHz of PCS spectrum. It also
recognizes that new entrants face a possibly lengthy process to
relocate existing microwave users so they can use all of their
spectrum. Cellular carriers already have 25 MHz of clear spectrum in
operation whereas new entrants may have to relocate microwave users to
gain access to that much spectrum, even if they acquire 40 MHz at the
auction. In addition, the Commission is concerned that additional
spectrum acquired by cellular entities may reduce the amount of
spectrum available to new entrants and increase the costs to new
entrants. To promote the ability of new entrants to acquire spectrum
and rapidly begin service as strong competitors to in-region cellular
carriers, the Commission has decided to continue to permit cellular
carriers to acquire and hold only a single 10 MHz license in any PCS
service area where they are considered in-region. However, because the
market advantages enjoyed by cellular carriers should decrease as
competitive PCS offerings are implemented, cellular carriers will be
allowed to acquire an additional 5 MHz after January 1, 2000. This will
allow cellular carriers to acquire the same total amount of spectrum
(40 MHz) as other entities. Limiting in-region cellular carriers to 10
MHz of PCS spectrum for five years will not disadvantage them relative
to the new entrants who must contend with microwave relocation over
their entire spectrum block(s) and do not necessarily have an
established customer base or comparable infrastructure advantages.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Because the Commission is prohibiting spectrum
disaggregation until the year 2000, cellular entities will have an
opportunity to acquire 5 MHz of additional spectrum at that time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
49. The Commission rejects the contention that the aggregation
limit be raised to 45 MHz to permit cellular entities to acquire an
additional 20 MHz. If such aggregation to 45 MHz through the
disaggregation of 30 MHz blocks were allowed, the number of full
service competitors could be reduced to the detriment of realizing the
goals defined for PCS. If the Commission were to allow aggregation to
45 MHz through the aggregation of 10 MHz blocks, there would not be
enough blocks to assure both full cellular participation and the
participation of other parties who desire 10 MHz licenses. The
Commission concludes that 40 MHz remains an appropriate limit on PCS
spectrum because it protects the competitive structure, provides
sufficient spectrum for efficient provision of wireless services, and
encourages a wide diversity of firms to participate in the industry.
Furthermore, the Commission is seeking comment in another proceeding as
to whether and how the aggregation limit may be applied uniformly to
all mobile communications providers. Extending the PCS spectrum
aggregation limit to include other mobile services, such as SMR and
wide-area SMR services, is beyond the scope of this proceeding. The
Commission therefore intends to address issues relating to spectrum
aggregation across other commercial mobile radio services in a separate
proceeding.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\See Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, GN Docket No.
93-252, FCC 94-100, released May 20, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
50. Although, as stated above, the Commission believes that
spectrum disaggregation should be permitted, there is concern that
there may initially be anticompetitive incentives to disaggregate
spectrum. Two or three entities might purchase a viable 30 MHz license
and disaggregate it to reduce the number of new entrants. Thus,
disaggregation of spectrum by any licensee will be permitted only after
that licensee meets the five year construction requirement. The five
year point will allow the PCS market to take shape. Entities desiring
to use small amounts of spectrum before the prohibition on
disaggregation ends can either purchase the 10 MHz blocks of spectrum
if they wish to provide service using less than 30 MHz or enter into
joint ventures or resale arrangements to facilitate their access to
spectrum. The Commission expects to conduct a further proceeding to
specify the rules for spectrum disaggregation, which will also explore
the possibility of permitting disaggregation for other commercial
mobile radio services.
51. The Commission agrees with the suggestions of the petitioners
and responding parties that PCS entities should eventually be permitted
to disaggregate spectrum. It feels that, in the future, disaggregation
will complement the three 30 MHz and three 10 MHz channel plan by
allowing subdivision of spectrum blocks where service providers find
that economic or other conditions warrant it. Allowing spectrum
disaggregation, even if it is prohibited until the first construction
benchmark, will provide appropriate incentives for service providers to
conserve their use of spectrum and to invest in spectrum conserving
technologies. Because PCS licensees have paid for the use of the
spectrum and have the ability to sell it in the future, they should be
especially sensitive to the value of the resource they are using and
will be motivated to ensure that it is used in the most valuable way.
52. In determining the appropriate placement of the 10 MHz blocks
within the lower band, the Commission seeks to promote the development
of an efficient market structure and to ensure that no subset of
license has any inherent competitive disadvantage due to placement of
licenses in the band plan. In particular, the benefits of aggregating
the 30 MHz blocks with the 10 MHz blocks must be compared to the
benefits of aggregating the 10 MHz blocks themselves. Interspersing the
10 MHz blocks between each 30 MHz block facilitates aggregation to 40
MHz by allowing combination of each contiguous 30 MHz and 10 MHz
license pair. This also facilitates relocations of the existing fixed
microwave operations by matching fixed microwave channels with PCS
channels. This will keep to a minimum the number of parties responsible
for each relocation which will reduce relocation negotiation, timing
and costs. On the other hand, keeping all 10 MHz licenses contiguous
would allow more efficient aggregation of these licenses as a
substitute strategy for obtaining one of the three 30 MHz blocks. The
Commission concludes that interspersing the 10 MHz licenses between the
30 MHz licenses to permit efficient aggregation up to 40 MHz should the
market favor that outcome is the best approach. Recognizing that
aggregation of the 10 MHz licenses may be attractive to some parties,
however, the Commission is also making two of the 10 MHz licenses
contiguous so as to permit this aggregation to 20 MHz, should some
parties favor 20 MHz over 30 MHz.
53. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission specified that
the two 30 MHz blocks would be licensed on an MTA basis and that the 20
MHz block and four 10 MHz blocks would be licensed on a BTA basis. It
adopted this plan to promote the rapid deployment and ubiquitous
coverage of PCS and felt that these areas would follow the natural flow
of commerce.
54. The Commission has decided to retain the geographic license
areas definitions for PCS licenses adopted in the Second Report and
Order. It rejects the arguments that all licenses should have the same
geographic scope and rejects any attempt at re-drawing the boundaries
along cellular MSA/RSA lines.
55. The Commission rejects the use of cellular MSA/RSA boundaries
for a number of reasons. The ten-year history of the cellular industry
provides evidence generally that these service areas have been too
small for the efficient provision of regional or nationwide mobile
service. The large transaction costs to aggregate MSAs and RSAs that
have been incurred over the past ten years in the cellular industry
have frequently been directed towards geographic aggregation to provide
wider service areas for consumers and to lower costs of providing
service. Rather than forcing replication of this costly and time-
consuming process, the Commission is beginning with larger service
areas, which it expects to minimize the need for costly post-auction
transactions. The Commission also hopes to spur market competition from
new PCS providers by starting with larger initial geographic service
areas to alleviate the cellular headstart advantage. It realizes that
the MTA and BTA license boundaries do not coincide with existing
cellular license boundaries, but feels that the costs imposed by these
different license boundaries will be outweighed by the benefits of
larger initial service areas. The Commission is cognizant of problems
created by overlaps between the PCS and cellular service areas, and
intends to provide some relief from these problems.
56. The Commission also rejects the suggestion that all licenses
should have the same geographic scope whether MTAs, BTAs, or Department
of Commerce Economic Areas. While identical geographic areas may impose
more initial competitive parity, the Commission does not believe that
this will maximize competitiveness and participation in the provision
of PCS services. Licensing all blocks on an MTA basis might increase
competitiveness with cellular, but it would limit the ability of
cellular companies and designated entities to participate in the
provision of PCS. Cellular companies could be restricted because of
overlaps with MTAs that might not occur with BTAs. Designated entities
are likely to be better able to finance the construction of PCS across
a BTA than an MTA. Thus, by licensing some blocks on a BTA basis, the
Commission complies with Congress' directive that it prescribe area
designations that promote economic opportunity for a wide variety of
applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and
businesses owned by members of minority groups and women.
57. The Commission therefore continues to feel that a combination
of MTA and BTA licenses will give licensees the opportunity to select
and combine service areas and promote broad participation in the
provision of PCS services by firms of various sizes. Licensing two of
the 30 MHz blocks on an MTA basis will permit these licensees to
operate in large service areas which will facilitate interoperability
and roaming across wide geographic areas. Licensing the third 30 MHz
block on a BTA basis will not preclude such efficiencies because of the
ability to aggregate licenses geographically. In addition, in much the
same way as the variety of spectrum block sizes allows various
strategies, the variety of geographic sizes will allow firms to
determine the optimal geographic strategy they wish to pursue. This
will also help to meet the statutory objectives of disseminating
licenses to a wide variety of licensees. In addition, allocating four
of the six licenses on a BTA basis addresses the concern the rural
buildout would not occur with MTA licenses.
58. Finally, with regard to the Puerto Rico service area, the
Commission will provide two separate BTA service areas in Puerto Rico,
one for Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce and the other for San Juan. This
action recognizes the difficulties created by the mountain range
separating these two areas. No parties opposed this request, and the
Commission finds this adjustment to be in the public interest.
59. The Commission agrees with the parties which oppose permitting
geographic partitioning at this time, since there is a significant risk
that partitioning can be used to circumvent construction requirements.
While there may be efficiency enhancing geographic partitions, much of
the benefit can be obtained through other arrangements that do not
raise the same concerns about circumvention of the construction rules.
On balance, the Commission concludes that it should not adopt a policy
allowing general geographic partitioning, but should rather recognize
that the balance may be different for particular groups of service
providers, such as rural telephone companies or to create PCS ownership
opportunities for companies owned by minorities or women. Therefore,
the Commission will consider the issue of geographic partitioning for
rural telephone companies and other designated entities in its
forthcoming Order, to adopt specific competitive bidding rules for
broadband PCS in PP Docket No. 93-253. There the Commission will
address other designated entity preferences and will rely on the record
in both proceedings in making final determinations on this matter.
Also, the Commission will address whether it should recover the
unserved PCS areas at the end of the ten-year construction period, in a
later proceeding after it has had an opportunity to assess the scope of
system build-outs.
60. In developing a band plan for PCS, the Commission has had to
weigh the spectrum requirements of licensed PCS with the amount of
spectrum allocated for unlicensed PCS. For reasons described above, the
new band plan moves all of licensed PCS to the lower band. As a result
of this change, the amount of spectrum available for the operation of
unlicensed PCS devices has been reduced from 40 to 20 MHz. This is the
amount of spectrum originally proposed for unlicensed devices. Despite
having less spectrum available for unlicensed PCS devices in the near
term, the Commission believes that the new band plan will have an
overall positive effect for consumers in terms of the diversity and
utility of unlicensed devices available on the market, as well as the
rapid deployment of competitive licensed PCS Services.
61. One reason the Commission reaches this conclusion is that even
without this change it is unlikely that the 20 MHz reallocated to
licensed from unlicensed would have been used in the near term for
unlicensed. The spectrum at 1890 to 1910 MHz was regarded as less
desirable than the 20 MHz retained for unlicensed PCS at 1910-1930 MHz
because it contains significantly more microwave incumbents. The
Commission's expectation was that unlicensed devices first would
operate on the 1910-1930 MHz spectrum because the cost of clearing this
spectrum is significantly less. Licensed PCS providers, by contrast,
provide ample evidence in the record that they are ready to begin the
relocation of microwave incumbents in the lower band and provide
service in the near term and can use the spectrum from 1890-1910 MHz
rapidly. Thus, consumers are more likely to obtain immediate benefits
if the Commission allocates this spectrum to licensed PCS rather than
for unlicensed PCS devices.
62. Another benefit of the new band plan is that the licensed and
unlicensed PCS spectrum will be located in close proximity on the lower
band. Consumers will have more choices for equipment that operates on
both unlicensed and licensed PCS bands, and will not have to buy
higher-priced equipment that operates on both the lower and upper PCS
bands to have available the full array of service options with a single
piece of equipment. Finally, the Commission intends that the initial 20
MHz allocation for unlicensed PCS devices meet the near term spectrum
requirements for unlicensed devices. To consider the long-term spectrum
requirements of unlicensed PCS devices, the Commission intends to issue
a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in the near future to identify
additional spectrum for unlicensed PCS devices.
63. For the reasons set forth above, therefore, the Commission
concludes that consumers and manufacturers of equipment intended for
use on the unlicensed band will benefit from the new band plan. This
does not diminish the concern that there be sufficient spectrum
allocated for unlicensed PCS devices to accommodate expected demand,
and therefore as noted above, the Commission is committed to
instituting a further rule making for this purpose to meet the long
term requirements for unlicensed PCS devices, including those potential
unlicensed uses that may not be accommodated readily in the initial 20
MHz allocation.
64. Private Use. The Commission agrees with the parties who argue
that both commercial PCS service and unlicensed PCS devices will be
able to meet many of the communications requirements of private
entities. The PCS licensees will be permitted to tailor specific
service applications to the particular needs of individual
organizational customers. Any such service applications, of course,
must be consistent with policies established for the regulation of
commercial mobile radio services under Title II of the Communications
Act.\21\ Such applications could include the use of dedicated capacity.
Where such arrangements might not be satisfactory, entities desiring
spectrum solely for internal private use could, of course, bid for
licensed PCS spectrum individually or as a group intending to share the
licensed facilities. Companies that value private use of the spectrum
highly could win a license at auction; otherwise they could contract
with a licensee to provide the services they need, or procure such
services from resellers. Moreover, as many commenters argue, the
Commission believes that setting aside spectrum for private interests
would not help to achieve the goals set forth for PCS, and at the same
time, could detrimentally affect competitive service provision and the
efficient allocation of scarce spectrum resources. Also, the extent to
which additional spectrum is required for private and public safety use
is being considered in a separate proceeding that addresses allocation
of spectrum below 5 GHz transferred from Federal government use.\22\
Accordingly, the Commission will not set aside a portion of the
spectrum allocated to PCS exclusively for private PCS operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\See CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd at 1439 n.130:
The terms and conditions for different classes of customers may,
of course, vary. Whether such differences are lawful would be a
question of whether there is unreasonable discrimination under
Section 202(a) of the [Communications] Act. In the case of
individualized or customized service offerings made by CMRS
providers to individual customers, the Commission intends to
classify and regulate such offerings as CMRS, regardless of whether
such offerings would be treated as common carriage under existing
case law, if the service falls within the definition of CMRS.
\22\See Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 94-32, 59 FR 25589 (May
17, 1994). This proceeding addresses, inter alia, a Petition for
Rule Making filed by the Coalition of Private Users of Emerging
Multimedia Technologies (COPE) for the development of an ``Advanced
Private Communications Service,'' using 75 of the 200 MHz to be
transferred to the Commission's jurisdiction from Federal government
spectrum in compliance with the terms of the Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1993.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
65. Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) Issues. The Commission
recognizes the potential value of MSS as a service provider to rural
areas that may not be economically served by PCS. It has thus given the
petitions of MSS interests, including the various alternatives they
suggest, careful consideration. Having been instrumental in obtaining
the international MSS allocations at WARC-92, the Commission would not
wish unnecessarily to reduce its flexibility to implement those
allocations in the U.S. On the other hand, the large potential value of
PCS, which is a matter of record in this proceeding, must be
recognized. It should be noted that these MSS bands are also allocated
internationally to fixed and mobile services. PCS, as it has been
broadly defined, within the international definition of fixed and
mobile services and is thus consistent with international agreements on
the use of this spectrum. Because spectrum is a limited resource, the
Commission finds that to satisfy the goal of allocating sufficient
spectrum for a competitive PCS service, it must allocate to PCS a
portion of the spectrum internationally designated for MSS. The
Commission believes that the new plan it is adopting today strikes an
appropriate balance between these two services and will provide maximum
benefits to U.S. consumers.
66. The Commission disagrees with the assertion of several parties
that they were provided insufficient notice and opportunity for comment
on the possibility that the Commission might allocate a portion of the
internationally designated MSS spectrum to PCS. The PCS Notice sought
comment on a wide range of allocation options for licensed PCS ranging
from three to five spectrum blocks of from 20 to 40 MHz each. Several
of the possible combinations of block size and number of blocks would
require the use of spectrum in the bands designated internationally for
MSS, and at least one option (i.e., five blocks of 40 MHz each) would
require virtually all of that spectrum. The Commission specifically
called attention to the fact that some of these options would
necessarily require the use of spectrum in other emerging technologies
bands, and it did not exclude emerging technologies bands that had been
designated internationally for worldwide or Region II MSS. Thus,
contrary to petitioners' contentions, the Commission believes that
parties were given adequate notice of the possibility that the final
PCS allocation could include some or even all of the internationally
allocated MSS spectrum in these bands.
67. Under the new band plan, the entire allocation to broadband PCS
is located in the 1850-1990 MHz band. The 2180-2200 MHz band, which was
allocated to PCS in the Second Report and Order has been returned to
reserve status for future allocation potentially to MSS, as requested
by the MSS interests. The new band plan, however, removes an equal
amount of spectrum from potential consideration for MSS in the band
1970-1990 MHz band, 10 MHz of which can be used for Region II MSS
service. The Commission believes that its new band plan accommodates
the future potential of MSS more fully than its original plan and
therefore addresses the concerns of a majority of the MSS industry.
68. By shifting the PCS allocation out of the 2180-2200 MHz band
the Commission has preserved the option of allocating some or all of
that spectrum to MSS in the future. This preserves 50 MHZ of the 60 MHz
allocated worldwide and thus fits more closely with the international
agreements. Twenty MHz of this worldwide MSS spectrum is paired with
spectrum inside the current broadcast auxiliary band. In the future,
this spectrum could potentially be reallocated for MSS use on a shared
basis, if feasible, or exclusively, if suitable replacement spectrum
could be found for broadcast auxiliary service. The commission intends
to initiate a proceeding to investigate these additional allocation
possibilities in the near future, with the purpose of accommodating MSS
operations within the remaining internationally designated bands, while
at the same time maintaining sufficient spectrum for broadcast
auxiliary use. It also intends to pursue additional international
allocations for MSS at WRC-95.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\See Preparation for International Telecommunication Union
World Radio Communication Conferences, IC Docket No. 94-31, FCC 94-
96, released May 5, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ownership Rules and Cellular Eligibility
69. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission recognized that
permitting cellular licenses to participate in PCS could foster rapid
development of PCS by taking advantage of cellular providers'
expertise, economies of scope between PCS and cellular service, and
existing infrastructures. The Commission also recognized that new
entrants would foster competition and expressed concern about potential
anticompetitive conduct by parties with cellular and PCS interests in
the same geographic area. To balance these competing interests,
cellular licensees were permitted to obtain PCS licenses outside of
their cellular service areas, but restricted them each to one 10 MHz
PCS license within their respective cellular service areas.
70. For the purposes of its PCS rules, the Commission defined an
attributable cellular interest as ownership of 20 or more percent of a
cellular license. If an entity has attributable cellular interests in a
license or licenses individually or jointly covering 10 or more percent
of the population in a PCS service area, then that entity would be
restricted to one 10 MHz PCS license in that area. If an entity holds
interest of less than 20 percent in a cellular license, these interests
are not considered attributable and the population covered by that
cellular license area is not counted towards the 10 percent population
threshold. If an entity holds attributable cellular interests, i.e.,
interests of 20 percent or more, in licenses that individually or
jointly cover less than 10 percent of the population in a PCS service
area, that entity may hold licenses for up to 40 MHz of PCS spectrum in
that PCS service area. Entities that have attributable interests that
put them over the 10 percent population overlap threshold in a PCS
service area are deemed ``in market'' cellular entities and as such may
only hold 10 MHz of PCS spectrum in that PCS service area.
71. The 20 percent attribution rule applies on a cumulative basis
to all parties with ownership interests in cellular operations. Thus,
for example, if four participants in a PCS venture each have an
ownership interest of 5 percent in the same cellular licensee serving
more than 10 percent of the population of a BTA, the PCS venture in
which they all have an interest is deemed to have a 20 percent cellular
ownership interest and is restricted to one 10 MHz frequency block in
that BTA. However, if the four parties to a PCS application each own 5
percent interests in four different cellular licensees, each of which
serves 10 or more percent of the BTA, together they are not restricted
to one MHz block because they do not exceed the 20 percent attribution
threshold as to any single cellular license. Therefore, in the latter
instance, the parties are permitted to purchase a full 40 MHz PCS
spectrum block.
72. Twenty-four parties petitioned for reconsideration of various
aspects of the cellular eligibility rules and general attribution
standard used for invoking the PCS ownership limits. The petitioners
addressed: (1) eligibility of cellular licensees; (2) the 20 percent
attribution standard; (3) the 10 percent population standard; (4) post-
auction compliance by cellular licensees with the ownership
restrictions; (5) exemptions from the eligibility restrictions for
certain cellular providers; and (6) the interests that should be deemed
attributable for purposes of calculating ownership and control of a PCS
or cellular license.
73. Eligibility of Cellular Licensees for PCS Licenses. Six parties
advocate eliminating all eligibility restrictions on cellular
providers. Fourteen parties agree with the concept that there should be
some restrictions on cellular participation in PCS. These latter
parties' positions range from agreeing with the standards of the Second
Report and Order to arguing for different measures of both coverage and
ownership to favoring different standards entirely, but these parties
all accept the idea that there should be limitations on cellular
entities holding PCS licenses.
74. The Commission has decided to retain restrictions on cellular
participation in PCS. In making this decision, the Commission is aware
of the benefits that the cellular industry has to offer PCS, including
capital, economies of scope, and experience and expertise in the
provision of mobile communications services. For this reason, the
Commission will continue to allow cellular participation in PCS. In
addition, the Commission will make some changes in the specific
standards of the Second Report and Order, but it remains convinced that
restrictions on in-market cellular providers are necessary to achieve
its goal of maximizing the number of new viable and vigorous
competitors. In reaching this conclusion the Commission does not assume
that in-market cellular providers will engage in illegal
anticompetitive behavior; the goal in crafting these rules should not
be to prevent anticompetitive behavior which may or may not
materialize, but rather, to promote competition. The Commission
concludes that the public interest would be best served by maximizing
the number of viable new entrants in a given market.
75. Finally, while some petitioners point out that SMR and MSS
providers are not subject to the same eligibility restrictions as
cellular providers, only one affirmatively requests that the
eligibility restrictions of the Second Report and Order be extended to
wide-area SMR services. The Commission feels that imposing eligibility
restrictions is beyond the scope of this proceeding. It is, therefore,
addressing in another proceeding the eligibility of wide-area SMRs and
other commercial radio services to participate in PCS.
76. Attribution Rules. In the Notice of Proposed Rule Making in
this proceeding, the Commission noted its expectation that PCS and
cellular licensees serving the same area will compete on price and
quality of service. If therefore stated that competitive benefits might
be reduced if cellular licensees are permitted to acquire PCS licenses
within their service areas and proposed an outright prohibition on
cross-ownership of PCS licenses by entities with cellular interests,
except that ownership interests of less than one percent (or less than
five percent for publicly traded companies) would not be considered. In
the Second Report and Order, the Commission found this approach too
restrictive. Although the Commission still sought to avoid the
potential for undue market power by entities with significant existing
market share, it balanced that goal against recognition of the
expertise that cellular licensees would bring the PCS markets. It also
noted that many entities possess non-controlling interests in cellular
licensees exceeding 5 percent but, due to the non-controlling nature of
their equity interests, create little potential four anti-competitive
behavior.
77. The Commission therefore adopted a simple, bright-line 20
percent cross-ownership attribution standard, pursuant to which
entities with 20 percent or greater ownership of a cellular operator
were limited to one 10 MHz BTA license for broadband PCS in the same
region as their attributable cellular interests. It did not distinguish
between different types of ownership such as voting and non-voting
stock and general and limited partnership interests. The Commission
noted, however, that while a clear 20 percent ownership threshold may
be more administratively efficient, a concern remained that some
parties with cellular ownership interests will use the rules as an
opportunity to control local cellular licensees while retaining less
than 20 percent ownership. Since such occurrences would undermine the
intent to limit cellular ownership in PCS, the Commission said that it
would review carefully this decision, and it explicitly put parties on
notice that it would reconsider this limit if its intent to ensure
competition between cellular and PCS would be undermined under the
ownership rules adopted in the Second Report and Order.
78. With respect to ownership interests in multiple PCS licensees
in a single market, the Commission adopted a 5 percent attribution
threshold for purposes of the 40 MHz PCS spectrum limit and for
purposes of determining cellular ownership in a PCS licensee. It stated
that PCS ownership interests of 5 percent or more will be attributed to
the holder of the interest. In adopting this standard, the Commission
cited similar market-based concerns, noting its desire to ``ensure that
[no entity] is able to exert undue market power through partial
ownership in multiple PCS licensees in a single service area.'' The 5
percent threshold is consistent with the ownership thresholds applied
to cellular and broadcast licensees. The Commission did not find any
potential advantages possessed by any existing PCS licensees inasmuch
as there are no such licensees. Similarly, it did not discuss the need
to accommodate settlements among PCS licensees resulting in non-
controlling interests of between 5 and 20 percent because there are no
such settlements in the PCS context. The Commission therefore adopted
this 5 percent limit for application to PCS multiple ownership, whereas
it appeared too restrictive in the cellular-PCS cross-ownership context
given the realities of existing historical cellular settlements.
79. Twelve parties petitioned for reconsideration of the cellular
ownership attribution standard. The petitioners recommend the following
alternatives: (1) raising the 20 percent level of permissible ownership
in cellular licensees; (2) attribution based on control rather than
ownership; (3) applying an affiliation standard like that in the
Commission's telco-cable cross-ownership rules; (4) applying an
attribution standard based on the rules used to enforce the alien
ownership restrictions under Section 310 of the Communications Act; and
(5) applying the same attribution rules to PCS as those applied to
broadcast interests.
80. The Commission continues to believe that the PCS and cellular
ownership attribution decisions adopted in the Second Report and Order,
with certain modifications, are appropriate and strike a reasonable
balance between promoting vigorous competition and the advantages of
allowing experienced mobile communications operators such as cellular
licensees to participate as PCS licensees. The Commission disagrees
with those parties which suggest the same 20 percent attribution limits
should apply to cellular/PCS cross-ownership and to PCS multiple
ownership. Generally, the 5 percent standard for all cross-ownership
situations would be preferable, to maximize competition. The Commission
is adopting an attribution threshold of 5 percent for multiple PCS
ownership purposes to prevent any party from exerting market power
through substantial partial ownership in multiple PCS licensees in the
same service area. There is no countervailing reason to risk reducing
competition by raising this 5 percent limit for PCS multiple ownership
limits. Moreover, the 5 percent threshold is consistent with ownership
thresholds applied to cellular and broadcasting.
81. Such a strict rule for PCS/cellular cross-ownership, however,
would not recognize the history of cellular licensing. The 20 percent
ownership attribution standard for cellular operators was adopted, in
part, because settlements during the initial phase of cellular
licensing resulted in partial and often non-controlling interests in
those licensees. In light of this history, it would be unfair and
unduly restrictive to place the same 5 percent limit on cellular/PCS
cross-ownership. For this reason, the Commission decided to allow a 20
percent cellular ownership interest. Further, the Commission believes
that given the nature of these settlement agreements, permitting this
level of ownership will not decrease the incentives for competition.
Therefore, divestiture to a lower level of ownership will not be
required. The 20 percent standard permits many entities with partial,
non-controlling cellular interests to participate in PCS. In adopting
the 20 percent standard, the Commission recognized that participation
by cellular operators in PCS would offer benefits that include
promoting early development of PCS by taking advantage of cellular
providers' expertise and permitting attainment of economies of scope
between PCS and cellular service and existing infrastructure. The
Commission is therefore making an exception to its usual treatment of
cross-ownership for purposes of cellular-PCS cross-ownership.
82. The Commission disagrees with those entities that argue for a
higher cellular ownership attribution threshold such as 35 percent and
believes that 20 percent is the proper standard. A higher attribution
threshold (i.e., above 20 percent) for all incumbent cellular entities
would tend to suppress competition, because the licensee would have
economic incentives not to compete vigorously against competitors in
which it holds a substantial equity interest. These standards, with
exceptions discussed below related to certain designated entities,
remain appropriate, and accordingly the Commission affirms them.
83. The Commission's goals here include ensuring that the holder of
the PCS license has strong incentives to compete against the cellular
licensees in the same geographic market. A PCS licensee that has a
large equity stake (i.e., more than 20 percent) in a cellular license
in the same area has less incentive to compete vigorously against its
own equity interest in a cellular provider, even though it may not
exercise legal control over the cellular licensee. The attribution
rules provide the right balance between maximizing competition and
allowing cellular entities to bring their expertise to PCS. The
Commission therefore will not adopt a rule that would require finding
that a party had a ``controlling interest'' in a cellular licensee
before it would be prohibited from investing in a PCS licensee in the
same area. Such a rule could substantially delay the licensing of PCS
and would not serve the goal of promoting vigorous competition between
PCS and cellular licensees in the same area. The Commission believes
that the bright-line rules being adopted will result in a faster, less
burdensome licensing process.
84. The Commission also rejects the suggestion that it prohibit all
``affiliations'' between cellular and PCS licensees in the same market,
along the lines of its telco-cable cross-ownership rules. These rules,
which are even more restrictive than the broadcast attribution rules,
would not provide the flexibility to recognize the history of
settlement agreements in cellular licensing and would not allow us to
draw on the experience and expertise provided by cellular providers who
have low equity stakes. They also might have the effect of restricting
contracts between PCS licensees and companies financing their equipment
and the build-out of their PCS systems, which could seriously impair
rapid investment in and deployment of PCS systems.
85. The Commission also disagrees that the alien ownership rules
provide a clearer guide than the present attribution standards. Because
the alien ownership restrictions set forth in section 310(b) of the
Communications Act were created specifically to avoid an undue
concentration of foreign influence in the direction of entities
involved in communications, the attribution thresholds defined in that
section are more complicated than the 5 percent/20 percent bright-line
thresholds adopted here. Further, unlike the rules in the broadcast
context, the Commission will not allow use of a ``multiplier'' in the
case of multi-tiered entities; the interest of the subsidiary is
attributed in full to the parent. The Commission agrees, however, that
both voting and non-voting stock should be included in determining
percentage of ownership of PCS and cellular entities.
86. In determining attributable interests for the purposes of both
the 20 percent cellular/PCS cross-ownership rule and the 5 percent PCS/
PCS multiple ownership rule, the Commission agrees with some of the
commenting parties that some clarifications and modifications to the
attribution rules are warranted. The attribution rules must be simple
for applicants to understand because they are essential to enforcement
of the PCS spectrum cap and the PCS/cellular cross-ownership rules. In
the Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that it would
consider all equity ownership, including voting and non-voting stock
and limited partnership interests, in calculating the percentages of
attributable ownership interest in a PCS or cellular licensee. It
explained that it would count these interests even if they did not
confer on the holder meaningful participation, because the public
interest would best be served by a ``bright-line'' test. The Commission
continues to believe that the ownership rules should be clear and easy
to administer, and, to that end, it will provide further clarification
about which of the ownership rules from the broadcast regime will be
applied to PCS. The Commission declines to adopt the full panoply of
attribution rules that it applies in the broadcast and in the telco/
cable contexts because it believes that the restrictions being adopted
will be sufficient to prevent undue influence and preserve competition.
87. The Commission clarifies that, for purposes of these ownership
rules, controlling interests per se are attributable. As in other
contexts, ``control'' means not only majority equity ownership, but
includes any general partnership interest, or any means of actual
working control over the operation of the licensee, in whatever manner
exercised. The Commission will rely on existing case law for making
control determinations where such issues arise.
88. The Commission also clarifies that PCS equity investments of 5
percent or more, and cellular equity investments of 20 percent or more,
also are attributable. These equity interests are attributable because
they support the goals of developing a competitive PCS service and
reducing the incentive for any entity to retard the capability of the
new PCS licensee to compete with the cellular or any other PCS licensee
in which the entity has an attributable interest. Specifically, the
following equity investments will be counted: voting stock, non-voting
stock, and limited partnership interests.\24\ The percentage of
ownership interest in a limited partnership will be based on the
partner's economic interest in the partnership. Therefore, the
Commission will assess the percentage of the partner's capital
contribution as well as the percentage of profits and losses allocated
to the partner. As noted above, general partnership interests are
deemed attributable regardless of equity percentage because of the
control conferred on general partners by the nature of their interest.
The following investments are not attributable for multiple or cross-
ownership purposes: debt interests, including loans secured by the
equipment used in the licensed system, and equity interests below the
20 percent and 5 percent thresholds. These interests are of less
consequence to or independent of the entity's performance and therefore
provide little incentive to delay or dilute the participation of the
new PCS license in the market. In addition, consistent with other
multiple- and cross-ownership attribution standard, convertible debt
instruments or options with rights of conversion to equity interests
shall not be attributed unless and until conversion is effected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Thus, in a stock company, PCS and cellular interests of 5 or
20 percent, respectively, of the total outstanding stock as well as
interests of 5 or 20 percent, respectively, of the outstanding
voting stock will be attributable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
89. The Commission also clarifies that the interests of a cellular
or PCS licensee, or entity in control of a licensee, are attributed to
the officers and directors of that entity. The Commission remains
concerned about the ability of such individuals to exert influence over
companies in which they have significant managerial responsibility.
Therefore, if an officer of a company wishes to invest in a PCS market,
he or she may only do so if this company itself could make the same
investment in compliance with its rules.
90. The Commission also will not allow an exemption for minority
investors in companies controlled by a single majority shareholder.
Although these rules are used in the broadcast area to exempt from
attribution entities not believed to be able to exercise control over a
licensee, in the context of PCS not allowing use of a ``multiplier''
serves the goal of maximizing competition. These rules will help ensure
against undue influence, short of control, by minority stockholders and
distant stockholders in parent or intermediate corporations.
91. Through an ongoing proceeding concerning multiple ownership of
CMRS licensees, the Commission will address whether it should change
its rules to restrict or attributable resale, management agreements or
other ownership arrangements that could confer possible anticompetitive
incentives on parties with multiple CMRS interests. This proceeding
will examine whether and to what extent such arrangements could be used
to exert control over more spectrum than is permitted under the PCS
spectrum cap (40 MHz) or the proposed CMRS spectrum cap.
92. Attribution Rules for Certain Designated Entities. The
Commission agrees that relaxing the cellular eligibility restrictions
is appropriate for designated entities. It recognizes that many
designated entities are merely passive investors in cellular operators
and, because of their size, are unlikely to influence pricing
decisions. In addition, the Commission seeks to address Congress' goal
of encouraging the participation of designated entities in the auction
process and in the provision of spectrum-based services. The Commission
believes that designated entities which have some interests in cellular
operations may be especially effective PCS competitors because of their
cellular experience. This will help ensure that service is brought
quickly to underserved areas and that designated entities become viable
competitors. In particular, it believes that rural telephone companies
and some small cellular companies, due to their existing
infrastructure, are uniquely positioned rapidly to introduce PCS
services into their service areas or adjacent areas. However,
designated entities are not entirely exempted from the cellular
eligibility rules, because such an exemption could foreclose
competition from a new PCS entrant. To the extent that designated
entities are involved in the control of cellular services, there is
potential for some of these parties to compete less vigorously in the
nascent PCS industry. In balancing these interests, the Commission
concludes that increasing the cellular attribution threshold for
designated entities from 20 percent to 40 percent, if non-controlling,
would be appropriate and would further the Congressional mandate noted
above. Accordingly, the Commission will permit a designated entity to
hold a non-controlling equity interest of up to 40 percent in a
cellular licensee without being subject to the cellular PCS eligibility
restrictions.
93. The Commission has decided to increase the cellular attribution
threshold from 20 percent to 40 percent for any entity proposing to
invest in businesses controlled by members of minority groups and/or
women. An entity may hold up to a 40 percent interest in cellular
licensees before its cellular interest will be deemed attributable, but
must limit its participation in a PCS licensee controlled by women or
minority group members to a non-controlling interest. This action will
encourage entities with attributable cellular interests to make non-
controlling investments in businesses owned by minorities and/or women,
furthering Congress' objective of ensuring the participation of these
entities in the competitive bidding process by encouraging an
alternative source of financing. The record indicates that the main
challenge that minorities and women face when seeking to participate in
telecommunications licensing is ready access to capital. Investments by
cellular providers in these designated entities should increase the
entities changes for success in the actions and later in service
competition by providing access to capital and valuable industry
experience.
94. The Commission is not granting a blanket exemption to in-region
cellular parties with 40 percent or greater equity or control to
participate in consortia that include designated entities. Such an
exemption would allow a cellular entity to control a cellular license
and create the potential for the entity to influence the PCS licensee
to compete less vigorously. The potential for a cellular entity to
exercise undue influence over the PCS licensee, especially absent
limits on the control exercised by the cellular carrier over the
designated entity and its own cellular license, is too great, given the
superior knowledge and experience of cellular providers. Therefore, the
Commission has relaxed the cellular attribution standard to permit
entities that hold up to 40 percent non-controlling equity in cellular
licensees in the same service area to make non-controlling investments
in PCS licensees controlled by woman- or minority-owned businesses.
Because their investment will be non-controlling in both the PCS and
cellular license, the threat to competition is diminished. This relaxed
standard encourages availability of capital to PCS businesses owned by
women and minorities, yet guards against the dominance of these
designated entities by entities which also control a cellular license
in the same service area.
95. The Commission will not exempt non-wireline cellular carriers
from the PCS attribution rules, since this action, which was considered
in the Second Report and Order, could impair successful achievement of
the goal of creating the maximum number of new competitors.
96. These important modifications will increase the efficacy of our
cellular eligibility rules by guarding against the improper exercise of
market power by cellular providers through controlling interest in PCS
systems overlapping their cellular coverage areas. These changes will
better address concerns regarding reduced competition without
unnecessarily restricting the ability of cellular providers to
participate in PCS, and will provide further incentives for investment
in and participation by designated entities in PCS.
97. Population Standard. When the Commission adopted regulations
restricting the eligibility of certain cellular licensees to hold PCS
licenses within their cellular service areas, it noted assertions that
cellular operators might have unfair competitive advantages over PCS
licensees. On the other hand, it also noted the valuable contributions
that the expertise of cellular providers could provide to the PCS
industry. Finally, the Commission noted that, because of different
geographic licensing boundaries for cellular and PCS, there was a
potential for excluding cellular providers from PCS markets even though
the degree of overlap was minimal. The Commission decided that such an
exclusion was neither fair nor desirable for maximizing competition. In
resolving these conflicting interests, the Commission adopted the 20
percent ownership attribution rule to define cellular ownership for
purposes of the PCS rules. For entities at or exceeding 20 percent
ownership, it applied a 10 percent population coverage overlap test to
determine whether the cellular licensee would be restricted to a single
10 MHz PCS license.
98. The Commission has decided to retain the 10 percent population
overlap threshold adopted in the Second Report and Order. The goal is
to provide for entry into the PCS market for the maximum number of
viable competitors. The Commission remains concerned about the
potential for cellular operators to exercise market power and to reduce
the number of viable competitors in the PCS market. The Commission
believes that the 10 percent population overlap figure is justified and
should foster robust competition and prevent competitive abuse.
Balancing the potential benefits of the participation in PCS of
cellular providers and the potential harms of reduced competition, the
Commission is convinced that the 10 percent coverage threshold is
appropriate. This limit ensures the opportunity for the emergence of
the maximum number of competitors that the market will support for 90
percent of the population. Increasing this limit beyond 10 percent
would create greater risk that consumers would be denied the benefit of
vigorously competing service providers. This threshold is also an
important means of encouraging new entrants in each area, thereby
enhancing competition. On balance, the Commission concludes that the 10
percent population coverage threshold promotes competition among
licensees serving a significant percentage of the population, while
providing some recognition of the overlaps that will result from the
different licensing areas for PCS and cellular. In addition, as
discussed below, divestiture will be allowed for those entities with
CGSA/PCS service area population overlaps between 10 and 20 percent. In
reaffirming the 10 percent threshold, the Commission rejects proposals
to adopt a national population measure or to use a multiplier formula.
99. The Commission does not believe that a national population test
would achieve the goal of providing the maximum number of new
competitors in each market. PCS is being licensed on a local and
regional, not national basis. A cellular entity which operates in one
city but has no presence in another city would be a new competitor in
the latter city. The Commission seeks to encourage that entity's PCS
participation in the second city, because of the likelihood that the
experience and economics it brings from its cellular business will
stimulate PCS development in the market and promote vigorous
competition to other PCS licensees.
100. The Commission does not believe that this ``effective POP''
attribution rule, based on a figure reached by multiplying the
percentage overlap of the population in the PCS and cellular service
areas by the percentage ownership in the cellular provider, would
achieve the goal of maximizing the number of new competitors. Under
this rule, an entity could have a majority equity interest in cellular
licenses covering 40 percent of the population in that service area and
remain eligible for 40 MHz of PCS spectrum. This would result in fewer
competitive choices for 40 percent of the consumers in that market.
This would not achieve the goal of maximizing competitive choices for
as many consumers as possible.
101. Post-Auction Divestiture. The Commission concludes that it
would be reasonable to permit incumbent cellular operators, in certain
defined circumstances, to divest their cellular interests in order to
become PCS licensees. These operators could become eligible for 40 MHz
of PCS spectrum by either reducing population overlap or ownership
levels to below the standards discussed above. Either could be
accomplished before the auction, but that would involve selling the
cellular interests on an assumption that the operator would be the
successful bidder for a 30 MHz license.
102. Further, the Commission believes that allowing unlimited
divestiture of the cellular interest after the auction raises concerns
that abuses could occur during or after the bidding process. If
afforded an unlimited opportunity to divest, cellular operators with
significant areas of overlap could have incentives to use the bidding
process to forestall licensing of new competitors in the market,
because the cellular operator would be in control of both a cellular
system and one of the three or four possible 30 MHz broadband PCS
licenses. There are instances, however, in which such abuses are
unlikely to occur. A cellular operator with less than 20 percent
population coverage in the PCS service areas would have little
incentive to risk incurring penalties for abusing the bidding process
when PCS offers greater potential to serve the entire MTA or BTA. These
cellular operators have more to gain by broadening their customer base
by offering competitive PCS services in place of their overlapping
cellular interests in excess of 10 percent than they do by abusing the
bidding process to forestall competition. Operators with population
overlaps in excess of 20 percent have increasingly greater incentives
not to start competitive PCS businesses.
103. It is appropriate to allow cellular operators to divest
themselves of attributable cellular interests that do not comply with
the cellular/PCS cross ownership restriction after winning more than 10
MHz of PCS spectrum in the PCS auctions, provided that the divestiture
occurs within the short time frame set forth below. However, because a
cellular operator with significant overlaps may have incentives to
delay the rapid introduction of PCS service, the Commission will permit
cellular divestiture only for cellular operators that serve less than
20 percent of the PCS service area. If the overlap consists of several
cellular licenses, the incumbent may sell some of the licenses and keep
others if the result is in compliance with the attribution and
population overlap thresholds. This will help achieve the goals of
rapid introduction of PCS service and competitive delivery because
those entities with cellular operations near a PCS service area may be
able to combine the operation into a single efficient operation that
would benefit consumers.
104. The Commission has decided to allow the post-auction partial
sale of attributable cellular interests so that entities may come into
compliance with the cellular eligibility rules. Procedurally, it will
require that a PCS applicant that meets the criteria for post-auction
divestiture submit with the PCS license application (short-form) a
statement that, if successful in obtaining more than 10 MHz of
spectrum, it will come into complete compliance with the cellular/PCS
cross-ownership restriction within 90 days of the PCS license grant. If
more than 10 MHz is obtained, the long-form application for PCS
licensing must be accompanied by a signed statement from the applicant
that the cellular property causing the applicant to be in excess of the
10 percent population overlap, or enough equity to bring the entity
into compliance with the attribution threshold, will be divested within
90 days of the PCS license grant to bring ownership interest below the
permitted attributable ownership limits. If the PCS applicant is
otherwise qualified, the PCS application will be granted subject to a
condition that the PCS licensee come into compliance with the PCS/
cellular cross-ownership rule within 90 days of grant.
105. As a condition of its PCS license, within 90 days of PCS
license grant the PCS licensee must certify to the Commission that the
applicant and all parties to the application have come into compliance
with the PCS-cellular cross-ownership rules. If the PCS licensee fails
to submit this certification within 90 days, the Commission will invoke
the condition on the PCS license, cancelling it immediately and
retaining all monies tendered. In addition, the Commission may
investigate whether the certifications on divestiture are evidence of
misrepresentations that call into question the party's qualification to
hold its cellular license. The PCS licensee may divest the prohibited
interest to an interim independent trustee if a buyer has not been
secured in the required time frame as long as the applicant has no
interest in or control of the trustee, and the trustee may dispose of
the license as it sees fit.
Construction Requirements
106. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission stated its
expectations that broadband PCS would be a highly competitive industry
and that licensees would have the incentive to construct facilities to
meet the demand for service in their licensed areas. The Commission
concluded that specific channel loading requirements are unnecessary;
however, it required licensees to meet specified construction
benchmarks to ensure efficient spectrum utilization and service to the
public. Specifically, it required licensees to offer service to one-
third of the population in their service area within five years of
licensing, two-thirds of the population in their service area within
seven years, and 90 percent of the population within ten years. The
Commission stated that failure to meet these requirements would result
in forfeiture of the license and the licensee would be ineligible to
regain it.
107. The Commission believes that PCS will be a highly competitive
service and that licensees will have incentives to construct facilities
to meet the service demands in their licensed service areas. Further,
it believes that the use of competitive bidding for PCS licensing and
the restrictions on the amount of spectrum that a licensee may control
in a geographic area will limit the likelihood that spectrum will be
warehoused. Nevertheless, the Commission continues to believe that
minimum construction requirements are necessary to ensure that PCS
service is made available to as many communities as possible and that
the spectrum is used effectively. The Reconciliation Act amendments
require the Commission to impose performance requirements, but the
Commission believes that relaxation of the requirements is desirable to
ensure an economical deployment of the service to promote opportunities
for PCS ``niche'' services, and to facilitate a competitive market.
108. Accordingly, the construction requirements are amended as
follows. All 30 MHz broadband PCS licensees will be required to
construct facilities that provide coverage to one-third of the
population of their service area within five years of initial license
grant and to two-thirds of the population of their service area within
ten years. The 10 MHz licensees will be required to meet a single
construction requirement of providing coverage to one-fourth of the
population of their service area within five years; or alternatively,
they may submit an acceptable showing to the Commission demonstrating
that they are providing substantial service. The Commission recognizes
that these requirements are less than the requirement for narrowband
PCS licensees, but it believes that this difference is appropriate
given the higher expected construction costs involved for broadband
PCS. Moreover, since licensees must purchase their licenses, they will
have added economic incentives to construct their systems as rapidly as
possible and introduce service to a significant percentage of the
population. In this regard, the Commission also believes that these
relaxed construction requirements may increase the viability and value
of some broadband licenses, especially those in less densely populated
service areas. Finally, since most areas are already served by cellular
and SMR providers, it is unnecessary to require PCS licensees to
provide identical or similar services to areas where it is uneconomic
to do so. With regard to the 10 MHz licensees, the reduced construction
requirement will make these licenses more attractive to applicants
intending to provide residential, cutting-edge niche services or
services to business and educational campuses where the population may
be small except during business or school hours.
109. At the five-year benchmark the Commission will require all
licensees, and again at the 10-year benchmark for 30 MHz licensees, to
file a map and other supporting documentation showing compliance with
the construction requirements. Licensees failing to meet the population
coverage requirements described above will be subject to the license
forfeiture penalties adopted in the Second Report and Order. Even with
these requirements, factors such as incumbent microwave operation or
sparse population density in some instances could make compliance
difficult. In instances where the circumstances are unique and the
public interest would be served, the Commission will consider waiving
the requirements on a case-by-case basis. These revised construction
requirements will ensure efficient spectrum utilization and promote
significant nationwide coverage without imposing substantial cost
penalties on licensees that serve less densely populated areas. In this
regard, the Commission believes that these changes generally address
the concerns of those parties that suggested lowering the construction
requirements for designated entities or for BTA service areas.
110. The Commission also recognizes the desirability of encouraging
more than one provider to serve a diverse geographic area, and notes
that resale of a licensee's geographic area to other entities, subject
to the licensee's control, is not prohibited by its rules. Accordingly,
it recognizes that licensees may resell spectrum, and believes that
this will facilitate the deployment of PCS. Whether or not the licensee
enters into resale arrangements, it will be responsible for insuring
that the coverage requirement and all the other requirements of the
rules are met. The reseller will not be a separate licensee, but
rather, will operate subject to the control of the licensee. Resale
will encourage service provision, particularly to rural areas, and
allow smaller, predominantly rural companies to participate in PCS. The
Commission intends to examine in another proceeding whether resale
arrangements confer attributable interests on the reseller.
111. In summary, these relaxed construction requirements will
foster provision of PCS services and will promote diversity in their
provision. Permitting licensees to resell service subareas, subject to
the licensee's control, will permit smaller, rural companies to provide
PCS without participating in the competitive bidding process. Finally,
the development of PCS in rural and other under-served areas will be
closely monitored, and, if necessary, these construction requirements
will be readdressed to ensure that the Commission's goals for wide area
service are met.
Technical Standards
112. Roaming and Interoperability Standards. In the Second Report
and Order, the Commission provided maximum flexibility in technical
standards to allow PCS to develop in the most rapid, economically
feasible and diverse manner. Specific technical standards were
prescribed only to the extent necessary to avoid harmful interference.
The Commission recognized that several industry technical and standards
groups were addressing matters related to PCS technical standards. It
encouraged those groups to consider ways of ensuring that PCS users,
service providers, and equipment manufacturers could incorporate
roaming, interoperability and other important features in the most
efficient and least costly manner, noting that PCS will be more useful
to the extent that users are not limited by geography or by their
ability to use their equipment with different systems.
113. The Commission continues to believe that a flexible approach,
applying only those standards necessary to prevent interference, is
appropriate. As indicated in the Second Report and Order, this will
allow PCS to develop in the most rapid, economically feasible and
diverse manner. Interoperability for PCS is an important and beneficial
goal; however, acceptable interoperability is likely to emerge between
PCS licenses in a timely manner without the Commission's intervention.
The Commission's decisions to provide for large regional MTA licenses,
to move all PCS licenses to the lower band, and to permit further
aggregation of spectrum blocks across geographic regions all foster
wide-area roaming and interoperability. In addition, competitive
bidding for PCS licenses will facilitate the development of regional or
nationwide systems.
114. The Commission is also aware that the industry is now working
aggressively to complete several voluntary interoperability standards
for PCS in a timely manner. It strongly supports these efforts and
continues to encourage the industry's work in this area. The
availability of interoperability standards will deliver important
benefits to consumers and help achieve the objectives of universality,
competitive delivery of PCS, that includes the ability of consumers to
switch between PCS systems at low cost, and competitive markets for PCS
equipment.
115. Interoperability, not only nationwide on one block but also
between PCS spectrum blocks, should be in the business interest of all
PCS providers. Such broad interoperability will increase the economies
of scale in manufacturing PCS equipment such as handsets, will made
more likely to subscribe to PCS because they can easily move from
carrier to carrier without having to purchase new handsets, and will
make it easier for PCS licensees to aggregate blocks of PCS spectrum up
to 40 MHz and to create wide-area or national PCS systems. For these
reasons, the Commission believes that it is in the public interest for
the industry eventually to achieve compatible interoperability
standards for all PCS spectrum blocks. Nevertheless, it understands
that the industry is not yet ready to arrive at any standard. In
addition, the Commission does not want to discourage innovation in
designing PCS services. Therefore, at this time the Commission is not
mandating that the industry arrive at a single interoperability
standard across all PCS spectrum blocks.
116. The Commission intends to monitor the industry's progress in
developing and implementing PCS technical standards in the particular
hope that some of the standards proposed for PCS will be adopted or
near completion at the time of the broadband PCS auction. If the
development of PCS technology is not proceeding in a manner that will
accommodate roaming and interoperability, the Commission may revisit
this issue and consider what actions the Commission may take to
facilitate the more rapid development of appropriate standards.
Finally, to facilitate international acceptance of U.S. PCS technology,
the Commission will be receptive to requests seeking its endorsement of
completed ANSI standards, provided that such endorsement does not limit
the flexibility of PCS licensees to select standards and technologies
best suited to their needs.
117. PCS Power Limits. In the Second Report and Order, the
Commission established a maximum e.i.r.p. of 100 watts and a maximum
antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) of 300 meters for PCS base
stations. The Commission recognized that most PCS experimental systems
operated at a maximum power of 10 watts e.i.r.p., but adopted a limit
of 100 watts e.i.r.p. for base stations to permit additional
flexibility in the design of PCS systems. It also specified a maximum
power limit of 2 watts e.i.r.p. for mobile units.
118. The Commission believes that increasing the maximum base
station power limit to 1640 watts e.i.r.p. will improve PCS licensees'
ability to configure their systems to best serve the needs of their
customers and to compete with other mobile services such as cellular
and wide-area SMR. Higher power will allow individual PCS base stations
to serve larger geographic areas more effectively. The ability to serve
larger geographic areas will also promote the goal of service to less
populated areas. The flexibility to use higher power will provide PCS
system operators greater flexibility in determining system
architecture, i.e., the number of base stations deployed to serve a
given area, based on service demands rather than adequate coverage
considerations. This change will also facilitate the use of new
technologies, such as high-gain, directional antennas, as well as
potential improvements to the design of subscriber products. Further,
there is no reason to restrict licensed PCS operations to afford
additional protection to unlicensed devices. Such a limit would be
detrimental to licensed PCS services and unfairly disadvantage blocks A
and C that are adjacent to the unlicensed spectrum. In addition,
unlicensed operations will be relatively short range and therefore can
be designed to resist adjacent channel interference. Accordingly, the
Commission is amending the rules to allow PCS base stations to operate
with up to 1640 watts e.i.r.p. It is also amending PCS power/HAAT
coordination distance requirements to reflect this increased maximum
power level.
119. While the Commission believes that the power limit for base
stations should be increased to 1640 watts e.i.r.p., this increase in
power should not be used in such a manner that the resulting PCS system
becomes unbalanced so that mobile units are unable to communicate with
the base station. To ensure balanced base-to-mobile and mobile-to-base
communications, the Commission is also limiting the transmitter output
power of the base station to 100 watts. By limiting the transmitter
output power as well as e.i.r.p., it intends to promote the use of the
high gain, directional antennas to achieve the larger coverage areas
sought by the petitioners.
120. The Commission disagrees with those parties requesting higher
power for certain mobile and portable units. A lower power output limit
minimizes exposure to radio frequency energy, see infra Section VIII.
Further, increasing the power output limit for subscriber units would
necessitate unreasonably stringent and unenforceable coordination
requirements. Unless the location of such higher power mobile units
could be strictly controlled, interference could result to fixed
microwave operations and/or to other PCS systems in adjacent service
areas. For these reasons, the maximum power limit for mobile and
portable PCS transmitters will not be increased.
121. Protection of Fixed Microwave Operations. In the Second Report
and Order, the Commission stated that a principal concern in the
authorization of PCS in the 2 GHz band is that existing fixed microwave
operations be protected. It adopted the following approach for
providing such protection: 1) required PCS licensees to provide the
same level of protection to microwave operations that they currently
provide under Part 94 of the Commission's Rules and through the use of
EIA/TIA Bulletin TSB10-E criteria and methodology; 2) specified antenna
height and power limits for PCS; 3) adopted requirements for PCS
licensees to coordinate with fixed microwave operators; and, 4)
provided methods for calculating interference from PCS to incumbent
microwave operations.
122. Specifically, in the Second Report and Order, the Commission
adopted carrier-to-interference criteria for protection of short and
medium length microwave links of 25 km (about 15 miles) or less. For
path lengths longer than 25 km, where reliability is more dependent on
the relative noise threshold and faded signal level, it limited the
level of an interfering signal to that which would cause a 1 decibel
(dB) degradation in the signal-to-noise ratio for analog systems or
which would cause an increase in bit-error-rate (BER) from 10-6 to
10-5 for digital systems. Finally, the Commission endorsed
procedures for calculating interference to microwave operations.
123. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission stated that
with certain modifications, the level of protection provided under Part
94 of its rules and through application of TSB10-E criteria and
methodology is appropriate and will provide adequate protection to
microwave users from PCS operations. It also stated that it would
accept the new TSB10-F procedures, when adopted by EIA/TIA, for use in
demonstrating compliance with the technical standards for PCS to fixed
microwave interference. Although many parties request that operators be
required to use TSB10-F exclusively instead of that set out at Appendix
D of the Second Report and Order, the Commission cannot adopt this
standard as the only acceptable method for determining interference to
microwave operations from PCS operations until it has had a chance to
evaluate its merits and provide it to the public for comment.
Therefore, the Commission will maintain the procedures adopted in the
Second Report and Order with some modifications.
124. A prior coordination procedure is necessary to ensure that
potential issues of interference are resolved before deployment of PCS
systems. The Part 21 coordination requirements are appropriate for
coordination of PCS and microwave facilities. These coordination
procedures are generally familiar to the parties involved and are
sufficient to address potential interference problems. Accordingly, the
Commission will amend the PCS rules to include coordination procedures
similar to those contained in Part 21. Coordination under Part 21 does
not require written notification, and there is no reason to require
that the PCS-to-microwave coordination be treated differently.
125. Further, the Commission believes that permitting PCS entities
to pay for and upgrade incumbent microwave operation, such as providing
better antennas or filters that would prevent interference, would
facilitate the implementation of PCS. Specifically it would provide
more choices and opportunity for sharing between the two services.
However, mandating such upgrades of the incumbents' facilities would be
difficult to regulate. Therefore, the Commission will allow for such
upgrades when all parties agree but will not mandate them.
126. The Commission is concerned that excess fade margins in
incumbent systems will inhibit the ability of PCS entities and
microwave operations to share spectrum. However, it also recognizes
that microwave systems vary in size, complexity and degree of
reliability needed. Therefore, there is no way of adopting general
rules mandating an acceptable fade margin that would apply fairly in
all cases. Accordingly the Commission will not set limits on the amount
of allowable fade margin in a microwave system, but it suggests, that
incumbent licensees limit the fade margin in their systems to only that
necessary for reliable service so as to help facilitate the
implementation of PCS.
127. Further, the Commission notes that its Rules contain out-of-
band radiation limits that must be met by PCS entities and that under
the revised allocation PCS is only allocated spectrum in the 1850-1990
MHz band, so there is 120 MHz of separation between PCS and PPMRS
operations. In addition, the current PCS rules provide for strict out-
of-band emission limits, which are sufficient to protect microwave
operations in adjacent bands, and, therefore, the Commission will not
adopt any additional coordination or protection requirements for PCS
operations.
128. The Commission does not believe that PCS licensees should be
required to submit separate applications and obtain separate
authorizations for each transmitter in their system. The information
that would be submitted on their applications is unnecessary to the
Commission, and its filing would be overly burdensome for PCS
licensees.
129. Finally, the Commission believes automatic penalties on PCS
operations that interfere with fixed microwave users are unnecessary
and inappropriate. As the Commission stated in the Second Report and
Order, a principal concern in the authorization of PCS in the 2 GHz
band is that existing fixed microwave operations be protected. If
interference were to occur, the PCS licensee would be expected to take
appropriate action to resolve that interference. In cases where the PCS
licensee did not take appropriate action, the Commission's current
remedies, either forfeitures or revocation of licenses, are sufficient.
130. PCS-to PCS Interference Standards. In the Second Report and
Order, the Commission established a limit for spurious emissions
appearing outside of the spectrum allocated to PCS. No limit was
specified for spurious emissions appearing within the PCS spectrum. The
Commission also adopted minimal standards for PCS transmitter frequency
stability, stating only that the stability must be sufficient to ensure
that the fundamental emission remains within the authorized frequency
block.
131. The Commission believes that limits on spurious emissions
outside of the frequency block employed by a PCS licensee are needed to
reduce the potential for harmful interference to other PCS operations
as well as other radio services operating on spectrum outside of the
PCS bands. Accordingly, it is amending the rules to indicate that the
spurous emissions limits apply to emissions appearing on all
frequencies outside of the frequency block employed by a licensee. It
also clarifies that, when testing to show compliance with the spurious
emission limits, the fundamental emission from the transmitter must be
located as close the edge of the adjacent band as the transmitter is
designed to operate. This will ensure that the emission limits are met
under all normal operating conditions.
132. The Commission does not agree that the limits for spurious
emissions should be further restricted when those emissions fall within
the frequency bands allocated for unlicensed PCS devices but does feel
that the standards for measuring spurious emissions need to be
clarified. The measured levels of spurious emissions are dependent, to
an extent, on the bandwidth of the measuring instrument. Specifying a
minimum resolution bandwidth will eliminate confusion within the rules
and provide repeatable measurement results. However, the Commission
does not accept the proposed bandwidth of 1.0 percent of the emission
bandwidth. Limits are placed on spurious emissions in order to reduce
the potential for causing harmful interference. Ideally, the resolution
bandwidth of the measuring instrument should be adjusted as close as
possible to the bandwidth of the receiver for which interference
protection is being provided. Near the frequency bands employed for
PCS, typical receiver bandwidths can range from tens of kilohertz to
several megahertz. Since the resolution bandwidth on most measuring
instruments does not go above 1 MHz, this is typically the bandwidth
employed by the Commission when measuring spurious emissions above 1000
MHz. The Commission believes that the use of a resolution bandwidth of
1 MHz is also appropriate for PCS equipment and is amending the rules
to add this specification.
133. The Commission also clarifies that these limits apply to both
the transmitter, as tested during type acceptance, and the operating
system, as installed by the licensee. The level of the spurious
emissions can be affected by the type of antenna employed by a
licensee. It is for this reason, among others, that the Commission also
may require a licensee to provide additional attenuation to spurious
emissions, even beyond those limits stated in the regulations, when
these emissions cause harmful interference to other users of the RF
spectrum. The Commission is further clarifying the rules to note that
additional attenuation can be required under such circumstances.
134. The measurement procedures for testing frequency stability are
already specified in the regulations. As the frequency stability
standard requires only that the fundamental emission stay within the
authorized frequency block, the transmitter must be tested with the
fundamental emission located as close to the edge of the authorized
frequency block as the transmitter is designed to operate in order to
demonstrate compliance under all normal operating conditions.
135. Enhanced 911 Standards. In the Second Report and Order, the
Commission indicated that it would address matters relating to enhanced
911 (E-911) capability in PCS, cellular, and other mobile services in a
future rule making proceeding. The development of an E-911 standard
will necessitate consideration of issues affecting matters beyond PCS
and therefore is more appropriately addressed in a separate proceeding.
The Commission expects to begin this proceeding shortly and will
address the issue of a single E-911 standard at that time.
Unlicensed PCS
136. Spectrum Allocation. In the Second Report and Order, the
Commission allocated 40 MHz of spectrum for unlicensed PCS devices. The
1900-1920 MHz band was designated for asynchronous (primarily data)
devices, and the 1890-1910 MHz and 1920-1930 MHz band was designated
for isochronous (primarily voice) devices. The Commission concluded
that this 40 MHz of spectrum would be sufficient to meet the demands of
both nomadic and non-nomadic data and voice applications. Further, it
noted that this band plan provides both asynchronous and isochronous
operations an equal share of the 1910-1930 MHz band, which has fewer
incumbent fixed microwave facilities that must be relocated before full
use of the band can be made for unlicensed PCS.
137. As noted above, the Commission has amended the allocation and
frequency plan for licensed PCS. Under this reallocation the amount of
spectrum provided for unlicensed PCS devices is reduced from 40 to 20
MHz. Specifically, the 20 MHz of unlicensed PCS spectrum at 1890-1910
MHz is being reallocated to licensed PCS operations. The decision to
reallocate this spectrum preserves the 1910-1930 MHz band for
unlicensed devices. The Commission notes that this band is the most
lightly loaded portion of the PCS spectrum and is the spectrum where
most unlicensed equipment was expected to operate initially. Further,
since unlicensed operations are restricted to very low power, they
should be able to share or ``reuse'' the available spectrum very
efficiently. Accordingly, the Commission believes that this reduction
will not have a major effect in the near term on devices that will be
able to operate on the unlicensed PCS bands. As noted above, in the
near future the Commission will initiate a proceeding to consider
allocation of additional spectrum to meet long term spectrum
requirements for unlicensed PCS devices.
138. Taking into account this reduction in the total amount of
spectrum available for unlicensed operations, the Commission finds that
the interests of all concerned parties would be best served by
retaining the plan to provide 10 MHz at 1910-1920 MHz for asynchronous
or data devices, and 10 MHz at 1920-1930 MHz for isochronous or voice
devices. This approach is balanced and treats both voice and data
proponents fairly and equitably. Further, this approach will encourage
the clearing of all existing microwave users from the entire 1910-1930
MHz band, thereby permitting the rapid introduction of nomadic voice
and data devices. Accordingly, the Commission is amending its spectrum
plan for unlicensed devices, as indicated above.
139. Coordination. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission
designated UTAM as the coordinating body to manage the transition of
spectrum from fixed microwave to unlicensed PCS. The Commission
conditioned this designation on UTAM's submission and the Commission's
acceptance of: (1) a funding plan that is equitable to all prospective
manufacturers of unlicensed devices, and (2) a plan for band clearing
that will permit the implementation of nomadic devices, in particular,
nomadic data PCS devices, as promptly as possible. It stated that UTAM
would be responsible for administering the transition, including
negotiating costs of relocation, ensuring that comparable facilities
are provided, and resolving disputes of interference to fixed microwave
from unlicensed PCS operations. Further, it required that any
unlicensed PCS device or system be coordinated through UTAM before
being initially deployed or subsequently relocated. The Commission also
required that all applicants for FCC equipment authorization of
unlicensed PCS devices be participants in UTAM.
140. The Commission continues to believe that its basic approach
for regulation of unlicensed PCS devices is appropriate. Based on the
record, UTAM is the most suitable entity to act as the coordinator for
unlicensed PCS devices. The Commission believes that UTAM is making
good faith efforts to be open and to include the participation of all
interested parties, including representatives of the data community.
Neither additional guidance nor requirements are needed for UTAM at
this time; there is no merit in eliminating UTAM's designation in the
rules at this time. There will be ample opportunity to review UTAM's
designation as the coordinator for unlicensed devices during the
Commission's review of its funding and band-clearing plans. If UTAM is
found unacceptable as a result of the review process, the Commission
can amend its rules at that time to designate another entity.
141. The Commission intends to consider conditional equipment
approvals for nomadic devices at the appropriate future time. When
spectrum is available, or soon will be available, for the operation of
nomadic devices, it will issue a Public Notice announcing that it will
begin accepting and processing applications for certification of
nomadic devices. If the Commission accepts such applications before the
spectrum is fully cleared for use by nomadic devices, the applications
will be processed, but the actual grants withheld until an announcement
is made that coordination is no longer required. At that time, the
grants, if justified, will be immediately issued. This approach
addresses any concerns that manufacturers will be able quickly to
introduce new nomadic equipment.
142. The Commission believes that the labels for coordinatable
unlicensed PCS equipment should also indicate that any relocation of
the device must also be coordinated through, and approved by, UTAM and
should include a toll-free number to assist users in contacting UTAM.
This additional information will not impose additional burden on
equipment manufacturers and will improve compliance with the
coordination requirements for unlicensed PCS devices. It does not
believe, however, that a more rigorous definition of a ``coordinatable
PCS device'' is needed. The current definition is adequate to protect
existing microwave operations from interference and also provides
equipment manufacturers flexibility in designing their equipment to
avoid such interference.
143. The Commission understands that the determination of whether
and to what degree an unlicensed PCS device is coordinatable may place
UTAM in a position of potential conflict of interest with its own
members. Nevertheless, UTAM, as the coordinator for unlicensed device
use, is responsible for ensuring that such devices do not cause
interference to existing microwave operations. Accordingly, the
Commission believes that it is entirely reasonable and prudent to
require that UTAM make a finding with regard to the degree to which an
unlicensed device can be coordinated and deployed. It intends that UTAM
make such determinations in concert with the requirements of Section
15.307(b) of the rules. In this regard, the Commission also feels that
a broad interpretation of the rules for preventing interference by
unlicensed devices, such as the requirement for verification that an
unlicensed device is being used at an authorized location, is
appropriate. This will afford UTAM latitude to develop its own policies
and interpretations for the wide range of unlicensed devices that are
expected to be developed. UTAM will therefore be allowed broad
flexibility in establishing the means it uses to fulfill its
responsibility for ensuring that unlicensed devices do not interfere
with existing microwave operations. Such means could include, where
appropriate, the use of authorized installers to ensure that unlicensed
devices do not cause interference.
144. Further, as part of its equipment authorization process, the
Commission will review closely the technical aspects of each unlicensed
device. This review will include all technical matters related to the
device's ability to be coordinated, as well as other measures that may
be imposed by UTAM on the operation of the device. This review will
provide oversight to ensure that such measures developed by UTAM are
sufficient to protect existing microwave from harmful interference.
145. The Commission believes that some modification of the rules is
appropriate to clarify the showings necessary to demonstrate compliance
with the activation and disabling requirements of Section 15.307.
Accordingly, it is amending the rules to indicate that each application
for certification must contain an explanation of all measures for
ensuring that the device cannot be activated until installation at its
authorized location as verified by UTAM and for automatically disabling
the device in the event that it is relocated outside the coordinated
geographic area. Such showings shall include all procedural safeguards,
such as the mandatory use of licensed technicians to install and
relocate the equipment, and a complete description of all technical
features controlling activation and disabling of the device. These
showings, in addition with the findings required by UTAM, will be
adequate to demonstrate that a device is coordinatable and can be used
in a manner that will not cause interference.
146. The Commission concludes that the current test and measurement
procedures are adequate and will allow authorization of equipment to
commence without delay. The ANSI C63 Committee has already begun work,
in cooperation with WINForum, to develop specific procedures for
unlicensed PCS equipment. The Commission will address specific test and
measurement procedures developed by recognized national standards
bodies, such as ANSI C63, when they are completed.
147. Spectrum Etiquette. In the Second Report and Order, the
Commission adopted technical operating requirements for unlicensed PCS
devices. These requirements were based largely on a spectrum
``etiquette'' developed on a consensus basis by an association of
manufacturers and other interested parties known as the WINForum. The
Commission made some minor modifications to the WINForum etiquette to
take into account the allocation of additional spectrum for unlicensed
PCS, to improve spectrum efficiency and to address specific comments
and concerns. In particular, it divided the 40 MHz of spectrum for
unlicensed devices into two equal 20 MHz allocations; one for
isochronous transmissions at 1890-1900 MHz and 1920-1930 MHz and one
for asychronous transmissions at 1900-1920 MHz. The Commission adopted
WINForum's 1.25 MHz channelization for the 1920-1930 MHz band, but
provided for up to 5 MHz channels in the 1890-1900 MHz band. The
asynchronous spectrum at 1900-1920 MHz was divided into two 10 MHz
channels. Separate technical requirements were specified for each
transmission method.
148. The Commission's initial decision provided spectrum for both
wideband and narrowband isochronous applications, but it is now
reducing the spectrum available for isochronous devices from 20 MHz to
10 MHz. With this reduction, it is important that the remaining
spectrum be used as efficiently as possible. In this regard, the
Commission believes that a 1.25 MHz channelization plan will foster
more efficient spectrum utilization. As indicated by those parties,
such a plan will more readily prevent a single user or system from
monopolizing the spectrum at a given location. A plan that provides
wider channels or no channelization at all could result in inefficient
use of the spectrum and preclude other parties from using the spectrum.
Further, a spectrum occupancy limit, as suggested by some parties,
would be practical or enforceable. A 1.25 MHz channel plan will
simplify equipment design and permit better management of spectrum use.
Accordingly, the Commission is adopting such a channelization plan for
the 10 MHz of isochronous spectrum. If in the future information is
presented that shows that wider channels can be accommodated without
compromising spectrum efficiency or monopolizing the spectrum (i.e.,
through use of reduced power levels for wideband systems, or
establishing a spectrum efficiency standard, etc.), this matter may be
revisited.
149. With regard to the asynchronous band, channelization is not as
critical for such transmissions, since asynchronous transmissions will
be of very short duration and not occupy the spectrum continuously.
Accordingly, the Commission is eliminating the channelization
requirements for the asynchronous spectrum.
150. The Commission does not believe that the power specification
should be based on mean rather than peak power. Given that a wide
variety of modulation methods will be permitted, measurement of mean
power could become complex and subject to differing interpretations.
This could lead to equipment design uncertainties and potential delays
and complications in equipment authorization. Measurement of peak power
is straightforward and will not unduly penalize any technology. The
Commission is therefore not altering the method specified in the rules
for measuring the output power of unlicensed PCS devices. Further, it
believes that a longer frame period could potentially reduce spectrum
efficiency and remains unconvinced that an increase in the frame period
would improve the likelihood of compatibility with future technical
standards for licensed PCS equipment. Therefore the rules in this
regard are not being modified.
151. With regard to the channel search requirements, the Commission
is amending the rules to permit a device to begin its search for an
unused channel at any point within a range of frequencies from a band
edge, as requested by the several petitioners. This will permit
manufacturers greater flexibility to use guard bands, if needed, while
retaining most of the spectrum efficiency advantages gained by orderly
selection of channels. The channel search rule does not significantly
increase the potential for two devices attempting to seize the same
channel at the same instant in time, nor does this requirement impede
the use of coordinated multi-cell systems. The existing requirement for
accuracy in monitoring signal levels should be deleted, since the
existing monitoring threshold requirements are sufficient to ensure
that unlicensed devices do not interfere with another.
152. The Commission believes that a requirement of periodic
acknowledgement of transmissions is necessary to ensure that a device
does not monopolize the spectrum. Therefore, it is modifying the
etiquette to require a transmitter to receive an acknowledgement of
transmissions from a system participant every 30 seconds and to cease
transmission if such acknowledgement is not received. It will also
permit control and signaling information to be transmitted for 30
seconds without acknowledgement, as requested by several parties.
153. With regard to duplex operation, some changes are appropriate.
While it recognizes that performing the listen-before-talk operation at
only one transmitter location may increase the potential for
interference, the Commission believes that this increase is low and is
outweighed by the benefits of simpler, most cost effective equipment
design. Therefore, provisions for paired duplex channel operation are
being incorporated into the rules. Further, the Commission feels that
an exception to the listen-before-talk provisions is appropriate for
systems that employ multicarrier shared antennas. Monitoring the
receive channel rather than the transmit channel should not
significantly increase the risk of causing interference to other
unlicensed PCS spectrum users and the rules are amended to allow this
approach.
154. The frequency stability requirements for unlicensed PCS
devices should be relaxed. The Commission believes that unlicensed PCS
devices will generally operate under the same range of temperature and
voltage conditions specified for other Part 15 devices. Accordingly,
the Commission is requiring that the operating frequency of unlicensed
PCS devices be maintained within 10 ppm over a temperature
range of -20 deg. C to +50 deg. C at normal supply voltage and for
variation in the primary voltage of 15 percent at 20 deg.
C. While the stability requirement 10 ppm is more strict
than for other Part 15 devices, this is necessary to ensure the proper
function of the etiquette. It is also relaxing from 40 dB to 30 dB the
limit for suppression of spurious emissions in the first adjacent
channels as requested by Ericsson and WINForum. This will reduce
equipment costs while still providing adequate interference protection
between unlicensed PCS systems.
Radio Frequency Exposure Limits
155. In the Second Report and Order, the Commission required PCS
licensees and equipment to comply with the standards set forth in ANSI/
IEEE C95.1-1992, ``Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to
Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz'' (ANSI/IEEE
guidelines).\25\ The Commission stated that for purposes of determining
compliance with these standards, all handheld PCS equipment will be
considered to operate in an ``uncontrolled'' environment. It also noted
that the exclusions for low power devices contained in the ANSI/IEEE
guidelines only apply to transmitters operating at 1500 MHz and below.
Therefore, the Commission indicated that, pending an interpretation
from the IEEE, PCS equipment must demonstrate compliance with the ANSI/
IEEE guidelines for maximum specific absorption rates (SAR).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\The Commission stated that these standards will apply to PCS
operations pending completion of its complete review of standards
for RF exposure. See Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No.
93-62, 58 FR 19393 (April 14, 1993). The Commission further
indicated that any RF exposure standards adopted in the instant
proceeding that do not conform with the final rules adopted later in
ET Docket No. 93-62 will be modified as appropriate.
\26\The Commission also indicated that it had requested a formal
interpretation from the IEEE as to whether the formula for
determining the power threshold for the exclusion from the standards
can be extrapolated up to 2200 MHz. See Letter from Thomas P.
Stanley to Andrew G. Salem, IEEE Standards Board (June 2, 1993).This
provision exempts a device from the SAR testing requirements, if the
device operates with power output below a certain threshold level.
Extrapolating the formula for this threshold up to 2200 MHz would
allow PCS transmitters to operate with about 330 milliwatts of
power.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
156. The Commission feels that the guidelines for RF exposure from
PCS base stations should apply according to the type of environment in
which the exposure takes place. Further, there is no need to employ the
uncontrolled exposure limits in those areas in the vicinity of a PCS
base station where there is restricted access by the general public and
exposure to the RF field is unlikely. Accordingly, the Commission is
amending the rules to include both the uncontrolled and controlled
limits for PCS base stations. The definitions of ``controlled'' and
``uncontrolled'' environments specified in ANSI/IEEE C95.1-1992 will
govern which limits will apply.
157. As noted above, the Commission requested a formal
interpretation from the IEEE as to whether the formula for determining
the threshold level for the exclusion from the RF exposure standards
can be extrapolated to the 2 GHz range. The IEEE radiated power
exclusion applies when a 2.5 cm separation distance is maintained
between the body and the radiating structure. In its response to this
request, IEEE stated that, while it cannot predict whether such an
extension of the standard would be incorporated into the next revision
of C95.1, extrapolation of the current formula to frequencies up to 2.2
GHz would be conservative.\27\ The Commission is therefore amending the
rules to apply the ANSI/IEEE radiated power exclusions for low power
devices to PCS devices. In implementing this change, however, it is
appropriate to provide an additional margin to ensure that devices
approved for operation under the exclusion will comply with any changes
to the RF exposure guidelines that may be adopted in the future.
Accordingly, PCS devices that operate with output power of 100
milliwatts or less will be excluded from the SAR testing requirements.
PCS devices operating at higher powers must be subjected to SAR testing
to determine compliance with the RF exposure guidelines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\See Letter to Thomas P. Stanley from Eleanor R. Adair, Co-
Chairman, SC-4, Standards Coordinating Committee 28, IEEE (October
11, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
158. The Commission is amending its rules as described above to
ensure that the American public benefits from new mobile digital voice
and data services. It believes that the rules, as amended, will foster
rapid development of a competitive market that will provide consumers
with access to a diverse array of high-quality, low-cost PCS services
and products on a wide-area basis. With adoption of these amendments,
the rules are finalized, and the Commission now intends to proceed
expeditiously to license broadband PCS services through the competitive
bidding process.
Procedural Information
159. The analysis required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, 5 U.S.C. Section 608, is contained in an Appendix to this
Memorandum Opinion and Order.
160. Accordingly, it is ordered, That parts 2, 15, and 24 of the
Commission's Rules are amended as specified below, effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register; except that amendments to
Secs. 15.311 and 24.204(f) (1), (2), (3)(i), (3)(ii) are effective 90
days after publication in the Federal Register. This action is taken
pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
Sections 154(i), 157(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).
Furthermore, it is ordered, That the petitions for reconsideration are
granted, to the extent described above and denied in all other
respects.
List of Subjects
47 CFR Part 2
Radio.
47 CFR Part 15
Radio frequency devices, Radio.
47 CFR Part 94
Personal communications services, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Final Rules
Parts 2, 15 and 24 of chapter I of title 47 of the Code of Federal
Regulations are amended as follows:
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303, and 307 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303 and 307,
unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as
follows:
a. In the 1850-1990 MHz band and the 2110-2200 MHz band, revise
columns 4 through 7 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of frequency allocations.
* * * * *
International table United States table FCC use designators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Region 1- Region 2- Region 3- Government Non-Government
allocation MHz allocation MHz allocation MHz allocation MHz allocation MHz Rule part(s) Special-use frequencies
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)............. (6).............................. (7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
1850-1990 1850-1990....... Personal communications services Emerging technologies.
Fixed........... (24).
Mobile.......... Private operational-fixed
microwave (94).
US331........... Radio frequency devices (15).....
* * * * * * *
2110-2200 2110-2150....... Domestic public fixed (21)....... Emerging technologies.
Fixed........... Private operational-fixed
microwave (94).
Mobile.......... Public mobile (22)
US111US252......
NG23NG153.......
2150-2160.......
Fixed........... Multipoint distribution (21).....
NG23............ Private operational-fixed
microwave (94)
2160-2200....... ................................. Emerging technologies.
Fixed........... Domestic public fixed (21).......
Mobile.......... Private operational-fixed
microwave (94).
Public mobile (22)
US111US252US33 NG23NG153.......
1
* * * * * * *
b. The text of footnote US331 in the United States footnotes and
footnote NG153 in the Non-Government footnotes is revised to read as
follows:
United States (US) Footnotes
* * * * *
US331 In the frequency band 1850-1990 MHz, the only fixed PCS
services permitted are ancillary services used in support of mobile
personal communications services.
* * * * *
Non-Government (NG) Footnotes
* * * * *
NG153 The 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands are reserved for
future emerging technologies on a co-primary basis with the fixed
and mobile services. Allocations to specific services will be made
in future proceedings.
* * * * *
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 302, 303, 304, and 307 of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, 304, and
307.
2. Section 15.301 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 15.301 Scope.
This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed personal
communications services (PCS) devices operating in the 1910-1930 MHz
frequency band.
3. Sections 15.303 (g) and (j) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 15.303 Definitions.
* * * * *
(g) Personal Communications Services (PCS) Devices [Unlicensed].
Intentional radiators operating in the frequency band 1910-1930 MHz
that provide a wide array of mobile and ancillary fixed communication
services to individuals and businesses.
* * * * *
(j) Thermal noise power. The noise power in watts defined by the
formula N=kTB where N is the noise power in watts, K is Boltzmann's
constant, T is the absolute temperature in degrees Kelvin (e.g.,
295 deg. K) and B is the emission bandwidth of the device in hertz.
* * * * *
4. Section 15.307 is amended by revising the introductory portion
of paragraph (a), paragraph (d), and paragraph(e) as follows:
Sec. 15.307 Coordination with fixed microwave service.
(a) UTAM, Inc., is designated to coordinate and manage the
transition of the 1910-1930 MHz band from Private Operational-Fixed
Microwave Service (OFS) operating under Part 94 of this Chapter to
unlicensed PCS operations, conditioned upon submittal to and acceptance
by the Commission of:
* * * * *
(d) A coordinatable PCS device is required to incorporate means
that ensure that it cannot be activated until its location has been
coordinated by UTAM, Inc. The application for certification shall
contain an explanation of all measures taken to prevent unauthorized
operation. This explanation shall include all procedural safeguards,
such as the mandatory use of licensed technicians to install the
equipment, and a complete description of all technical features
controlling activation of the device.
(e) A coordinatable PCS device shall incorporate an automatic
mechanism for disabling operation in the event it is moved outside the
geographic area where its operation has been coordinated by UTAM, Inc.
The application for certification shall contain a full description of
the safeguards against unauthorized relocation and must satisfy the
Commission that the safeguards cannot be easily defeated.
* * * * *
5. Section 15.311 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 15.311 Labelling requirements.
In addition to the labelling requirements of Sec. 15.19(a)(3), all
devices authorized under this subpart must bear a prominently located
label with the following statement:
Installation of this equipment is subject to notification and
coordination with UTAM, Inc. Any relocation of this equipment must
be coordinated through, and approved by UTAM. UTAM may be contacted
at [insert UTAM's toll-free number].
6. Paragraphs (a) and (i) of Sec. 15.319 are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 15.319 General technical requirements.
(a) The 1910-1920 MHz sub-band is limited to use by asynchronous
devices under the requirements of Section 15.323. The 1920-1930 MHz
sub-band is limited to use by isochronous devices under the
requirements of Sec. 15.321.
* * * * *
(i) The device must comply with IEEE C95.1-1991 (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
1992), ``Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Eletromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.'' Measurement
methods are specified in IEEE C95.3-1991, ``Recommended Practice for
the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields--RF and
Microwave.'' Copies of these standards are available from the IEEE
Standards Board, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-
1331, telephone 1-800-678-4333. All equipment shall be considered to
operate in an ``uncontrolled'' environment. The application for
certification must contain a statement confirming compliance with IEEE
C95.1-1991. Technical information showing the basis for this statement
must be submitted to the Commission upon request. PCS hand-held devices
whose radiated power is 100 milliwatts or less are excluded from SAR
testing requirements as long as a 2.5 cm separation is maintained
between the radiating structure and the body of the user. The ANSI/IEEE
standard uses the term ``radiated power'' as meaning the input power to
the antenna.
Secs. 15.321 and 15.323 [Redesignated as Secs. 15.323 and 15.321]
7. Sections 15.321 and 15.323 are redesignated as Secs. 15.321 and
15.323, respectively.
8. In new redesignated Sec. 15.321, paragraph (g) is removed, and
the section heading and paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(4), (c)(6),
(d), and (e) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 15.321 Specific requirements for asynchronous devices operating
in the 1910-1920 MHz sub-band.
(a) Operation shall be contained within the 1910-1920 MHz sub-band.
The emission bandwidth of any intentional radiator operating in this
sub-band shall be no less than 500 kHz.
(b) All systems of less than 2.5 MHz emission bandwidth shall start
searching for an available spectrum window within 3 MHz of the sub-band
edge at either 1910 or 1920 MHz, while systems of more than 2.5 MHz
emission bandwidth will first occupy the center half of the sub-band.
Devices with an emission bandwidth of less than 1.0 MHz may not occupy
the center half of the sub-band if other spectrum is available.
(c) * * *
(1) Immediately prior to initiating a transmission, devices must
monitor the spectrum window they intend to use for at least 50
microseconds.
* * * * *
(4) After completion of a transmission, an individual device or
cooperating group of devices must cease transmission and wait a
deference time randomly chosen from a uniform random distribution
ranging from 50 to 750 microseconds, after which time an attempt to
access the band again may be initiated. For each occasion that an
access attempt fails after the initial inter-burst interval, the range
of the deference time chosen shall double until an upper limit of 12
milliseconds is reached. The deference time remains at the upper limit
of 12 milliseconds until an access attempt is successful. The deference
time is re-initialized after each successful access attempt.
* * * * *
(6) The monitoring system shall use the same antenna used for
transmission, or an antenna that yields equivalent reception at that
location.
* * * * *
(d) Emissions shall be attenuated below a reference power of 112
milliwatts as follows: 30 dB between the channel edges and 1.25 MHz
above or below the channel; 50 dB between 1.25 and 2.5 MHz above or
below the channel; and 60 dB at 2.5 MHz or greater above or below the
channel. Compliance with the emissions limits is based on the use of
measurement instrumentation employing a peak detector function with an
instrument resolution bandwidth approximately equal to 1.0 percent of
the emission bandwidth of the device under measurement.
(e) The frequency stability of the carrier frequency of intentional
radiators operating in this sub-band shall be 10 ppm over
10 milliseconds or the interval between channel access monitoring,
whichever is shorter. The frequency stability shall be maintained over
a temperature variation of -20 deg. to +50 deg. Celsius at normal
supply voltage, and over a variation in the primary supply voltage of
85 percent to 115 percent of the rated supply voltage at a temperature
of 20 degrees Celsius. For equipment that is capable of operating only
from a battery, the frequency stability tests shall be performed using
a new battery without any further requirement to vary supply voltage.
* * * * *
9. In the new redesignated Sec. 15.323, the section heading and
paragraphs (a), (b), (c)(1), (c)(4), (c)(6), (c)(8), (d), and (f) are
revised and new paragraphs (c)(10), (c)(11), and (c)(12) are added to
read as follows:
Sec. 15.323 Specific requirements for isochronous devices operating in
the 1920-1930 MHz sub-band.
(a) Operation shall be contained within one of eight 1.25 MHz
channels starting with 1920-1921.25 MHz and ending with 1928.75-1930
MHz. Further sub-division of a 1.25 MHz channel is permitted with a
reduced power level, as specified in Section 15.319(c), but in no event
shall the emission bandwidth be less than 50 kHz.
(b) Intentional radiators with an intended emission bandwidth less
than 625 kHz shall start searching for an available time and spectrum
window within 3 MHz of the sub-band edge at 1920 MHz and search upward
from that point. Devices with an intended emission bandwidth greater
than 625 kHz shall start searching for an available time and spectrum
window within 3 MHz of the sub-band edge at 1930 MHz and search
downward from that point.
(c) * * *
(1) Immediately prior to initiating transmission, devices must
monitor the combined time and spectrum windows in which they intend to
transmit to determine if the access criteria are met.
* * * * *
(4) Once access to specific combined time and spectrum windows is
obtained an acknowledgment from a system participant must be received
by the initiating transmitter within one second or transmission must
cease. Periodic acknowledgments must be received at least every 30
seconds or transmission must cease. Channels used exclusively for
control and signaling information may transmit continuously for 30
seconds without receiving an acknowledgment, at which time the access
criteria must be repeated.
* * * * *
(6) If the selected combined time and spectrum windows are
unavailable, the device may either monitor and select different windows
or seek to use the same windows after waiting an amount of time,
randomly chosen from a uniform random distribution between 10 and 150
milliseconds, commencing when the channel becomes available.
* * * * *
(8) The monitoring system shall use the same antenna used for
transmission, or an antenna that yields equivalent reception at that
location.
* * * * *
(10) An initiating device may attempt to establish a duplex
connection by monitoring both its intended transmit and receive time
and spectrum windows. If both the intended transmit and receive time
and spectrum windows meet the access criteria, then the initiating
device can initiate a transmission in the intended transmit time and
spectrum window. If the power detected by the responding device can be
decoded as a duplex connection signal from the initiating device, then
the responding device may immediately begin transmitting on the receive
time and spectrum window monitored by the initiating device.
(11) An initiating device that is prevented from monitoring during
its intended transmit window due to monitoring system blocking from the
transmissions of a co-located (within one meter) transmitter of the
same system, may monitor the portions of the time and spectrum windows
in which they intend to receive over a period of at least 10
milliseconds. The monitored time and spectrum window must total at
least 50 percent of the 10 millisecond frame interval and the monitored
spectrum must be within the 1.25 MHz frequency channel(s) already
occupied by that device or co-located co-operating devices. If the
access criteria is met for the intended receive time and spectrum
window under the above conditions, then transmission in the intended
transmit window by the initiating device may commence.
(12) The provisions of (c)(10) or (c)(11) of this section shall not
be used to extend the range of spectrum occupied over space or time for
the purpose of denying fair access to spectrum to other devices.
(d) Emissions shall be attenuated below a reference power of 112
milliwatts as follows: 30 dB between the channel edges and 1.25 MHz
above or below the channel; 50 dB between 1.25 and 2.5 MHz above or
below the channel; and 60 dB at 2.5 MHz or greater above or below the
channel. Systems that further sub-divide a 1.25 MHz channel into X sub-
channels must comply with the following mission mask: In the bands
between 1B and 2B measured from the center of the emission bandwidth
the total power emitted by the device shall be at least 40 dB below the
transmit power permitted for that device; in the bands between B and 3B
measured from the center of the emission bandwidth the total power
emitted by an intentional radiator shall be at least 50 dB below the
transmit power permitted for that radiator; in the bands between 3B and
the 1.25 MHz channel edge the total power emitted by an intentional
radiator in the measurement bandwidth shall be at least 60 dB below the
transmit power permitted for that radiator. ``B'' is defined as the
emission bandwidth of the device in hertz. Compliance with the emission
limits is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a
peak detector function with an instrument resolution bandwidth
approximately equal to 1.0 percent of the emission bandwidth of the
device under measurement.
* * * * *
(f) The frequency stability of the carrier frequency of the
intentional radiator shall be maintained within 10 ppm over
1 hour or the interval between channel access monitoring, whichever is
shorter. The frequency stability shall be maintained over a temperature
variation of -20 deg. to +50 deg. C at normal supply voltage, and over
a variation in the primary supply voltage of 85 percent to 115 percent
of the rated supply voltage at a temperature of 20 deg. C. For
equipment that is capable only of operating from a battery, the
frequency stability tests shall be performed using a new battery
without any further requirement to vary supply voltage.
PART 24--PERSONAL COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 24 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 301, 302, 303, and 332, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082,
as amended; 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, and 332, unless
otherwise noted.
2. In Section 24.1, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) Purpose. This part states the conditions under which portions
of the radio spectrum are made available and licensed for PCS.
* * * * *
3. Section 24.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.3 Permissible communications.
PCS licensees may provide any mobile communications service on
their assigned spectrum. Fixed services may be provided only if
ancillary to mobile operations. Broadcasting as defined in the
Communications Act is prohibited.
4. Section 24.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.10 Scope.
This subpart contains some of the procedures and requirements for
filing applications for licenses in the personal communications
services. One also should consult Subparts F and G of this part. Other
Commission rule parts of importance that may be referred to with
respect to licensing and operation of radio services governed under
this part include 47 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 5, 15, 17 and 20.
5. Section 24.11 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.11 Initial authorization.
(a) An applicant must file an application for an initial
authorization in each market and frequency block desired.
(b) Blanket licenses are granted for each market and frequency
block. Applications for individual sites are not required and will not
be accepted.
6. Section 24.52 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 24.52 RF hazards.
(a) Licensees and manufacturers are required to ensure that their
facilities and equipment comply with IEEE C95.1-1991 (ANSI/IEEE C95.1-
1992), ``Safety Levels With Respect to Human Exposure to Radio
Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz.'' Measurement
methods are specified in IEEE C95.3-1991, ``Recommended Practice for
the Measurement of Potentially Hazardous Electromagnetic Fields--RF and
Microwave.'' Copies of these standards are available from IEEE
Standards Board, 445 Hoes Lane, P.O. Box 1331, Piscataway, NJ 08855-
1331. Telephone: 1-800-678-4333. The limits for both ``controlled'' and
``uncontrolled'' environments, as defined by IEEE C95.1-1991, will
apply to all PCS base and mobile stations, as appropriate. The
application for equipment authorization must contain a statement
confirming compliance with IEEE C95.1-1991. Technical information
showing the basis for this statement must be submitted to the
Commission upon request.
(b) PCS hand-held devices whose maximum radiated power is 100
milliwatts or less are not required to be evaluated for compliance with
ANSI/IEEE SAR (specific absorption rate) requirements, as long as a 2.5
cm separation distance is maintained between the radiating structure
and the body of the user. (The ANSI/IEEE standard uses the term
``radiated power,'' meaning input power to the antenna.)
(c) For further information on the Commission's environmental rules
see Secs. 1.1301 through 1.1319 of this chapter.
7. Subpart E is revised to read as follows:
Subpart E--Broadband PCS
Sec.
24.200 Scope.
24.202 Service areas.
24.203 Construction requirements.
24.204 Cellular eligibility.
24.229 Frequencies.
24.232 Power and antenna height limits.
24.235 Frequency stability.
24.236 Field strength limits.
24.237 Interference protection.
24.238 Emission limits.
Appendix I to Subpart E--A Procedure for Calculating PCS Signal Levels
at Microwave Receivers (Appendix E of the Memorandum Opinion and Order)
Subpart E--Broadband PCS
Sec. 24.200 Scope.
This subpart sets out the regulations governing the licensing and
operations of personal communications services authorized in the 1850-
1910 and 1930-1990 MHz bands.
Sec. 24.202 Service areas.
Broadband PCS service areas are Major Trading Areas (MTAs) and
Basic Trading Areas (BTAs) as defined below. MTAs and BTAs are based on
the Rand McNally 1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd
Edition, at pages 38-39 (``BTA/MTA Map''). Rand McNally organizes the
50 states and the District of Columbia into 47 MTAs and 487 BTAs. The
BTA/MTA Map is available for public inspection as the Office of
Engineering and Technology's Technical Information Center, room 7317,
2025 M Street, NW., Washington, DC.
(a) The MTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 1992
Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at pages 38-39, with
the following exceptions and additions:
(1) Alaska is separated from the Seattle MTA and is licensed
separately.
(2) Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands are licensed as a single
MTA-like area.
(3) Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands are licensed
as a single MTA-like area.
(4) American Samoa is licensed as a single MTA-like area.
(b) The BTA service areas are based on the Rand McNally 1992
Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, 123rd Edition, at pages 38-39, with
the following additions licensed separately as BTA-like areas: American
Samoa; Guam; Northern Mariana Islands; Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce, Puerto
Rico; San Juan, Puerto Rico; and the United States Virgin Islands. The
Mayaguez/Aguadilla-Ponce BTA consists of the following municipalities:
Adjuntas, Aguada, Aguadilla, Anasco, Arroyo, Cabo Rojo, Coamo, Guanica,
Guayama, Guayanilla, Hormigueros, Isabela, Jayuya, Juana Diaz, Lajas,
Las Marias, Mayaguez, Maricao, Maunabo, Moca, Patillas, Penuelas,
Ponce, Quebradillas, Rincon, Sabana Grande, Salinas, San Germain, Santa
Isabel, Villalba, and Yauco. The San Juan BTA consists of all other
municipalities in Puerto Rico.
Sec. 24.203 Construction requirements.
(a) Licensees of 30 MHz blocks must serve with a signal level
sufficient to provide adequate service to at least one-third of the
population in their licensed area within five years of being licensed
and two-thirds of the population in their licensed area within 10 years
of being licensed. Licensees may choose to define population using the
1990 census or the 2000 census. Failure by any licensee to meet these
requirements will result in forfeiture or non-renewal of the license
and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
(b) Licensees of 10 MHz blocks must serve with a signal level
sufficient to provide adequate service to at least one-quarter of the
population in their licensed area within five years of being licensed,
or make a showing of substantial service in their licensed area within
five years of being licensed. Population is defined as the 1990
population census. Licensees may elect to use the 2000 population
census to determine the five-year construction requirement. Failure by
any licensee to meet these requirements will result in forfeiture of
the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
(c) Licensees must file maps and other supporting documents showing
compliance with the respective construction requirements within the
appropriate five- and ten-year benchmarks of the date of their initial
licenses.
Sec. 24.204 Cellular eligibility.
(a) 10 MHz Limitation. Until January 1, 2000, no license(s) for
broadband PCS in excess of 10 MHz shall be granted to any party
(including all parties under common control) if the grant of such
license(s) will result in significant overlap of the PCS licensed
service area(s) (MTAs or BTAs) and the cellular geographic service
area(s) (CGSA) of licensee(s) in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio
Telecommunications Service directly or indirectly owned, operated, or
controlled by the same party.
(b) 15 MHz Limitation. After January 1, 2000, no license(s) for
broadband PCS in excess of 15 MHz shall be granted to any party
(including all parties under common control) if the grant of such
license(s) will result in significant overlap of the PCS licensed
service area(s) (MTAs or BTAs) and the cellular geographic service
area(s) (CGSA) of licensee(s) in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio
Telecommunications Service directly or indirectly owned, operated, or
controlled by the same party.
(c) Significant Overlap. For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, significant overlap of a PCS licensed service area and
CGSA(s) occurs when ten or more percent of the population of the PCS
service area, as determined by the 1990 census figures for the counties
contained therein, is within the CGSA(s).
(d) Ownership Attribution.
(1) For purposes of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section,
``control'' means majority voting equity ownership, any general
partnership interest, or any means of actual working control (including
negative control) over the operation of the licensee, in whatever
manner exercised.
(2) For purposes of applying paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section, and for purposes of Sec. 24.229(c) (40 MHz limit in same
geographic area), ownership and other interests in broadband PCS
licensees or applicants and cellular licensees will be attributed to
their holders pursuant to the following criteria:
(i) Partnership and other ownership interests and any stock
interest amounting to 5 percent or more of the equity, or outstanding
stock, or outstanding voting stock of a broadband PCS licensee or
applicant will be attributable.
(ii) Partnership and other ownership interests and any stock
interest amounting to 20 percent or more of the equity, or outstanding
stock, or outstanding voting stock of a cellular licensee will be
attributable, except that ownership will not be attributed unless the
partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest amount
to 40 percent or more of the equity, or outstanding stock, or
outstanding voting stock of a cellular licensee if the ownership
interest is held by a small business, a rural telephone company, or a
business owned by minorities and/or women, as these terms are defined
in Sec. 1.2110 of this chapter, or if the ownership interest is held by
an entity with a non-controlling equity interest in a broadband PCS
licensee or applicant that is a business owned by minorities and/or
women.
(iii) Stock interests held in trust shall be attributed to any
person who holds or shares the power to vote such stock, to any person
who has the sole power to sell such stock, and, in the case of stock
held in trust, to any person who has the right to revoke the trust at
will or to replace the trustee at will. If the trustee has a familial,
personal or extra-trust business relationship to the grantor or the
beneficiary, the grantor or beneficiary, as appropriate, will be
attributed with the stock interests held in trust.
(iv) Non-voting stock shall be attributed as an interest in the
issuing entity if in excess of the amounts set forth above.
(v) Debt and instruments such as warrants, convertible debentures,
options or other interests (except non-voting stock) with rights of
conversion to voting interests shall not be attributed unless and until
conversion is effected, except that this provision does not apply in
determining whether an entity is a small business, a rural telephone
company, or a business owned by minorities and/or women, as these terms
are defined in Sec. 1.2110 of this chapter or other provisions of the
Commission's Rules.
(vi) Limited partnership interests shall be attributed to limited
partners and shall be calculated according to both the percentage of
equity paid in and the percentage of distribution of profits and
losses.
(vii) Officers and directors of a broadband PCS licensee or
applicant or a cellular licensee shall be considered to have an
attributable interest in the entity with which they are so associated.
The officers and directors of an entity that controls a PCS licensee or
applicant or a cellular licensee shall be considered to have an
attributable interest in the broadband PCS licensee or applicant or a
cellular licensee.
(e) [Reserved]
(f) Cellular Divestiture. Parties holding controlling or
attributable ownership interests in cellular licensees may be a party
to a broadband PCS application (i.e., have a controlling or
attributable interest in a broadband PCS applicant), and such PCS
applicant will be eligible for more than one 10 MHz broadband PCS
license and/or 30 MHz broadband PCS license(s) pursuant to the
divestiture procedures set forth in paragraph (f) (1) through (3) of
this section; Provided, however, that these divestiture procedures
shall be available only for parties with controlling or attributable
ownership interests in cellular licensees where the CGSA(s) covers 20
percent or less of the PCS service area population.
(1) The broadband PCS applicant shall certify on its short-form
auction application, filed in accordance with Sec. 24.305, that it and
all parties to the application will come into compliance with the
limitations on common ownership of cellular and broadband PCS interests
set forth in this section.
(2) If such an applicant is a successful bidder, it must submit
with its long-form application (see Sec. 24.307) a signed statement
describing its efforts to date and future plans to come into compliance
with the limitations on common ownership of cellular and broadband PCS
interests set forth in this section.
(3) If such an applicant is otherwise qualified, its application
will be granted subject to a condition that the licensee shall come
into compliance with the limitations on common ownership of cellular
and broadband PCS interests set forth in this section within ninety
(90) days of final grant.
(i) Parties holding controlling interests in cellular licensees
that conflict with the attribution threshold or service overlap
limitations set forth above will be considered to have come into
compliance if they have submitted to the Commission an application for
assignment of license or transfer of control of the cellular licensee
(see Sec. 22.39 of this chapter) by which, if grant, such parties no
longer would have an attributable interest in the cellular license. If
no such assignment or transfer application is tendered to the
Commission within ninety (90) days of final grant, the Commission may
consider the short-form certification and the long-form divestiture
statement to be material, bad faith misrepresentations and will invoke
the condition on the PCS license, cancelling it automatically, retain
all monies paid to the Commission, and, based on the facts presented,
take any other action it may deem appropriate. Divestiture may be to an
interim trustee if a buyer has not been secured in the required time
frame, as long as the applicant has no interest in or control of the
trustee, and the trustee may dispose of the license as it sees fit.
(ii) Where parties to broadband PCS applications hold less-than-
controlling (but still attributable) interests in cellular licensee(s),
they shall submit, within ninety days of final grant, a certification
that the applicant and all parties to the application have come into
compliance with the limitations on common ownership of cellular and
broadband PCS interests set forth in this section.
Note 1: For purposes of the cellular ownership attribution
limit, all ownership interests in cellular operations that serve 10
or more percent of the population of the PCS service area should be
included in determining the extent of a PCS applicant's cellular
ownership.
Note 2: When a party owns an attributable interest in more than
one cellular system that overlaps a PCS service area, the total
population in the overlap area will apply on a cumulative basis.
Example 1: Company A holds a 15 percent non-controlling
ownership interest in Cellular Licensee X and a 15 percent non-
controlling ownership interest in Cellular Licensee Y. Cellular
Licensee X covers 30 percent of the population of the PCS service
area and Cellular Licensee Y covers 10 percent of the population of
the PCS service area. A broadband PCS applicant in which Company A
holds an attributable ownership interest will be eligible for a
broadband PCS license or licenses for more than 10 MHz because
Company A does not hold attributable ownership interests in cellular
operations which together include ten or more percent of the
population of the PCS service area.
Example 2: (1) Cellular Company A owns a 45 percent non-
controlling interest in cellular license 1, and a 22 percent non-
controlling interest in both cellular licenses 2 and 3. Cellular
license 1 includes 15 percent of the pops in BTA 1. Cellular license
2 covers 7 percent of the pops in BTA 2 and 5 percent of the pops in
BTA 3. Cellular license 3 covers 7 percent of the pops in BTA 3.
Together Cellular licenses 1, 2 and 3 cover 9 percent of the pops in
MTA 1.
(2) If Cellular Company A is not a designated entity, it can
purchase 40 MHz of spectrum in BTA 2 or in MTA 1. It can acquire
only 10 MHz in BTA 1 or BTA 3 because it is considered to have
ownership interests in 15 percent of the pops in BTA 1 and 12
percent of the pops in BTA 3.
(3) If Cellular Company A wants to acquire 40 MHz of spectrum in
BTA 3 it can either agree to divest either cellular license 2 or 3,
or it can invest as a non-controlling investor in a PCS license that
is held and controlled by a business owned by minorities and/or
women.
(4) If Cellular Company A wants to acquire 40 MHz of spectrum in
BTA 1 it can agree to divest its interests in cellular license 1. It
cannot invest as a non-controlling investor in a business owned by
minorities and/or women because its 45 percent ownership of license
1 will be attributed, since it is greater than the 40 percent
threshold.
(5) If Cellular Company A is a designated entity, it can acquire
40 MHz of PCS spectrum in every area except BTA 1, where it is
considered to have an ownership interest in 25 MHz of spectrum
already because it is over 40 percent threshold.
Example 3: (1) Cellular Company A owns a 45 percent non-
controlling interest in cellular license 1 that covers 5 percent of
the pops in BTA 1. Cellular Company A also owns a 21 percent non-
controlling interest in cellular license 2 that covers 9 percent of
the pops in BTA 1. If Cellular Company A is not a designated entity,
then it can buy only 10 MHz of spectrum, because it is considered to
have an ownership interest of 14 percent of the pops in BTA 1. If it
wants to buy 30 MHz it would have to certify before the auction that
it will divest either cellular license 1 or 2.
(2) If Cellular Company A is a designated entity, then it would
be considered to have an ownership interest in only 5 percent of the
pops in BTA 1 and would thus be eligible to buy up to 40 MHz in BTA
1.
Example 4: Company A holds a 10 percent interest in Cellular
Licensee 1. Company B holds a 10 percent interest in Cellular
Licensee 1. Cellular Licensee 1 covers more than 10 percent of the
population of the PCS service area. Neither Company A nor Company B
is a designated entity. A PCS entity with interests held by Company
A and Company B is ineligible for a 30 MHz PCS license because the
attributable ownership in cellular license 1 is 20 percent.
Example 5: Same as Example 4 except that Company A and Company B
are designated entities. The PCS entity is eligible for a 30 MHz PCS
license because the attributable cellular ownership is less than 40
percent.
Sec. 24.229 Frequencies.
The frequencies available in the Broadband PCS service are listed
in this section in accordance with the frequency allocations table of
Section 2.106 of this chapter.
(a) The following frequency blocks are available for assignment on
an MTA basis:
Block A: 1850-1865 MHz paired with 1930-1945 MHz; and
Block B: 1870-1885 MHz paired with 1950-1965 MHz.
(b) The following frequency blocks are available for assignment on
a BTA basis:
Block C: 1895-1910 MHz paired with 1975-1990 MHz;
Block D: 1865-1870 MHz paired with 1945-1950 MHz;
Block E: 1885-1890 MHz paired with 1965-1970 MHz; and
Block F: 1890-1895 MHz paired with 1970-1975 MHz.
(c) PCS licensees shall not have an ownership interest in frequency
blocks that total more than 40 MHz and serve the same geographic area.
For the purpose of this section, PCS licensees are entities having an
ownership interest of 5 or more percent or other attributable ownership
interest, as defined in Section 24.204(d), in a PCS license.
Example 1: Company A, which is a rural telephone company with no
cellular interests, buys a 7 percent stake in a 30 MHz BTA that
constitutes 8 percent of the population in MTA 1, which encompasses
BTA 1. It is then offered an opportunity to buy 8 percent of the
equity in a 30 MHz license in MTA 1. It cannot accept this offer
because it would be over the 5 percent threshold on two overlapping
PCS licenses. Its status as a rural telephone company has no impact
on the 5 percent threshold for PCS licensees.
Example 2: (1) Company A has two investors, Company B and
Company C. Company B owns 15 percent of Company A. Company C, a
rural telephone company, owns 25 percent of Company A. Company B and
Company C do not have any interests in each other.
(2) Company B has 100 percent ownership of cellular license 1
that covers 20 percent of the pops in BTA 1 and 6 percent of the
pops in MTA 1. Company C owns 25 percent of cellular license 2 that
covers 20 percent of the pops in BTA 2 and 6 percent of the pops in
MTA 1. Company A has no separate cellular interests. MTA 1
encompasses both BTA 1 and BTA 2.
(3) Company A cannot purchase 30 MHz of spectrum in BTA 1. Such
a purchase would put Company B over the aggregation limit of 40 MHz
in BTA 1 because it would have over 5 percent ownership of the PCS
license in addition to its cellular license.
(4) Company A can, however, purchase 30 MHz in BTA 2 or MTA 1
because Company C is a rural telephone company, and thus Company C's
interest in cellular license 2 falls below the 40 percent threshold
and is not counted against the spectrum cap. If Company C were not a
rural telephone company, then Company A could not acquire 30 MHz in
BTA 2 or MTA 1 because its partners in those licenses would be over
the spectrum cap.
(5) Company B can also buy 30 MHz in BTA 2 or MTA 1 as long as
Company A does not also buy 30 MHz in BTA 2 or MTA 1 because Company
B and Company C have no joint ownership.
(6) Company C can also buy 30 MHz in BTA 1 or 2 or MTA 1 as long
as Company A does not also buy in the region where Company C buys.
If Company A were to buy a 30 MHz MTA 1 license, then Company B and
C would be prohibited from acquiring either of the BTAs because they
would be over the 5 percent threshold for PCS spectrum in the same
region.
(d) After January 1, 2000, licensees that have met the 5-year
construction requirement may assign portions of licensed PCS spectrum.
In no case may an assignee aggregate more than 40 MHz of PCS/cellular
spectrum.
Sec. 24.232 Power and antenna height limits.
(a) Base stations are limited to 1640 watts peak equivalent
isotropically radiated power (e.i.r.p.) with an antenna height up to
300 meters HAAT. See Sec. 24.53 for HAAT calculation method. Base
station antenna heights may exceed 300 meters with a corresponding
reduction in power; see Table 1 of this section. In no case may the
peak output power of a base station transmitter exceed 100 watts. The
service area boundary limit and microwave protection criteria specified
in Section 24.236 and Section 24.237 apply.
Table 1.--Reduced Power for Base Station Antenna Heights Over 300 Meters
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum
HAAT in meters e.i.r.p.
(watts)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
300............................................... 1,640
500............................................... 1,070
1,000............................................. 490
1,500............................................. 270
2,000............................................. 160
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Mobile/portable stations are limited to 2 watts e.i.r.p. peak
power and the equipment must employ means to limit the power to the
minimum necessary for successful communications.
(c) Peak transmit power must be measured over any interval of
continuous transmission using instrumentation calibrated in terms of an
rms-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be properly
adjusted for any instrument limitations, such as detector response
times, limited resolution bandwidth capability when compared to the
emission bandwidth, sensitivity, etc., so as to obtain a true peak
measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the
channel.
Sec. 24.235 Frequency stability.
The frequency stability shall be sufficient to ensure that the
fundamental emission stays within the authorized frequency block.
Sec. 24.236 Field strength limits.
The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on
the border of the PCS service area shall not exceed 47 dBuV/m unless
the parties agree to a higher field strength.
Sec. 24.237 Interference protection.
(a) All licensees are required to coordinate their frequency usage
with the co-channel or adjacent channel incumbent fixed microwave
licensees in the 1850-1990 MHz band. Coordination must occur before
initiating operations from any base station. Problems that arise during
the coordination process are to be resolved by the parties to the
coordination. Licensees are required to coordinate with all users
possibly affected, as determined by Appendix I to this subpart E
(Appendix E of the Memorandum Opinion and Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314,
FCC 94-144; TIA Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10-F,
``Interference Criteria for Microwave Systems,'' May 1994, (TSB10-F));
or an alternative method agreed to by the parties.
(b) The results of the coordination process need to be reported to
the Commission only if the parties fail to agree. Because broadband PCS
licensees are required to protect fixed microwave licensees in the
1850-1990 MHz band, the Commission will be involved in the coordination
process only upon complaint of interference from a fixed microwave
licensee. In such a case, the Commission will resolve the issues.
(c) In all other respects, coordination procedures are to follow
the requirements of Sec. 21.100(d) of this chapter to the extent that
these requirements are not inconsistent with those specified in this
part.
(d) The licensee must perform an engineering analysis to assure
that the proposed facilities will not cause interference to existing
OFS stations within the coordination distance specified in Table 2 of a
magnitude greater than that specified in the criteria set forth in
paragraph (e) and (f) of this section, unless there is prior agreement
with the affected OFS licensee. Interference calculations shall be
based on the sum of the power received at the terminals of each
microwave receiver from all of the applicant's current and proposed PCS
operations.
Table 2.--Coordination Distances In Kilometers
[PCS Base Station Antenna HAAT in Meters]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e.i.r.p. (W) 5 10 20 50 100 150 200 250 300 500 1000 1500 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.1............................................. 90 93 99 110 122 131 139 146 152 173 210 239 263
0.5............................................. 96 100 105 116 128 137 145 152 158 179 216 245 269
1............................................... 99 103 108 119 131 140 148 155 161 182 219 248 272
2............................................... 120 122 126 133 142 148 154 159 164 184 222 250 274
5............................................... 154 157 161 168 177 183 189 194 198 213 241 263 282
10.............................................. 180 183 187 194 203 210 215 220 225 240 268 291 310
20.............................................. 206 209 213 221 229 236 242 247 251 267 296 318 337
50.............................................. 241 244 248 255 264 271 277 282 287 302 331 354 374
100............................................. 267 270 274 282 291 297 303 308 313 329 358 382 401
200............................................. 293 296 300 308 317 324 330 335 340 356 386 409 ......
500............................................. 328 331 335 343 352 359 365 370 375 391 421 ...... ......
1000............................................ 354 357 361 369 378 385 391 397 402 418 ...... ...... ......
1200............................................ 361 364 368 376 385 392 398 404 409 ...... ...... ...... ......
1640............................................ 372 375 379 338 397 404 410 416 421 ...... ...... ...... ......
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: If actual value does not match table values, round to the closest higher value on this table. See Section 24.53 for HAAT calculation method.
(e) For microwave paths of 25 kilometers or less, interference
determinations shall be based on the C/I criteria set forth in TIA
Telecommunications Systems Bulletin 10-F, ``Interference Criteria for
Microwave Systems,'' May 1994 (TSB10-F).
(f) For microwave paths longer than 25 kilometers, the interference
protection criterion shall be such that the interfering signal will not
produce more than 1.0 dB degradation of the practical threshold of the
microwave receiver for analog system, or such that the interfering
signal will not cause an increase in the bit error rate (BER) from 10E-
6 to 10E-5 for digital systems.
(g) The development of the C/I ratios and interference criteria
specified in paragraphs (e) and (f) of this section and the methods
employed to compute the interfering power at the microwave receivers
shall follow generally acceptable good engineering practices. The
procedures described for computing interfering signal levels in
(Appendix I to this subpart E Appendix E of the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, GEN Docket No. 90-314, FCC 94-144) shall be applied.
Alternatively, procedures for determining interfering signal levels and
other criteria as may be developed by the Electronics Industries
Association (EIA), the Institute of Electrical and Electronics
Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), the American National Standards Institute
(ANSI) or any other recognized authority will be acceptable to the
Commission.
Sec. 24.238 Emission limits.
(a) On any frequency outside a licensee's frequency block, the
power of any emission shall be attenuated below the transmitter power
(P) by at least 43 plus 10 log10 (P) decibels or 80 decibels,
whichever is the lesserattenuation.
Note: The measurements of emission power can be expressed in
peak or average values, provided they are expressed in the same
parameters as the transmitter power.
(b) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes
harmful interference, the Commission may, at its discretion, require
greater attenuation than specified in this section.
Appendix I to Subpart E--A Procedure for Calculating PCS Signal
Levels at Microwave Receivers (Appendix E of the Memorandum Opinion
and Order)
The new Rules adopted in Part 24 stipulate that estimates of
interference to fixed microwave operations from a PCS operation will
be based on the sum of signals received at a microwave receiver from
the PCS operation. This appendix describes a procedure for computing
this PCS level.
In general, the procedure involves four steps:
1. Determine the geographical coordinates of all microwave
receivers operating on co-channel and adjacent frequencies within
the coordination distance of each base station and the
characteristics of each receiver, i.e., adjacent channel
susceptibility, antenna gain, pattern and height, and line and other
losses.
2. Determine an equivalent isotropically radiated power
(e.i.r.p.) for each base station and equivalent e.i.r.p. values for
the mobiles and portables associated with each base station.
Determine the values of pertinent correction and weighting factors
based on building heights and density and distribution of portables.
Close-in situations, prominent hills, and extra tall buildings
require special treatment.
3. Based on PCS e.i.r.p. values, correction and weighting
factors, and microwave receiving system characteristics determined
above, calculate the total interference power at the input of each
microwave receiver, using the Longley-Rice propagation model.
4. Based on the interference power level computed in step 3,
determine interference to each microwave receiver using criteria
described in Part 24 and EIA/TIA Bulletin 10-F.
The interference from each base station and the mobiles and
portables associated with it is calculated as follows:
Prbi=10Log
(ptbi)-Lbi-UCi+Gmwi-Ci-BPi
Prmi=10Log
(nmi x ptmi)-Lmi-UCi+Gmwi-Ci
Prpsi=10Log
(npsi x ptpsi)-Lpsi-UCi+Gmwi-Ci
Prpbi=10Log
(npbi x ptpbi)-Lpbi-UCi-(BPi-BHi)
+Gmwi-Ci
Prpri=10Log
(npri x ptpri)-Lpri-(UCi-BHi)+Gmwi-Ci
where:
P refers to Power in dBm
p refers to power in milliwatts
Prbi=Power at MW receiver from ith base station in dBm
ptbi=e.i.r.p. transmitted from ith base station in milliwatts,
which equals average power per channel x number of channels x
antenna gain with respect to an isotropic antenna--line loss
Lbi=Path loss between MW and base station site in dB
UCi=Urban correction factor in dB
Gmwi=Gain of MW antenna in pertinent direction (dBi)
Ci=Channel discrimination of MW system in dB
Prmi=Power at MW receiver from mobiles associated with ith base
station
ptmi=e.i.r.p. transmitted from mobiles associated with ith base
station
nmi=Number of mobiles associated with ith base station
Lmi=Path loss between MW and mobile transmitters in dB
Prpsi=Power at MW receiver from outdoor portables (s for
sidewalk)
ptpsi=e.i.r.p. transmitted from outdoor portables associated
with ith base station
npsi=Number of outdoor portables associated with ith base
station
Lpsi=Path loss between MW and outdoor portables in dB
Prpbi=Power at MW receiver from indoor portables (b for
building)
ptpbi=e.i.r.p. transmitted from indoor portables associated
with ith base station
npbi=number of indoor portables associated with ith base
station
Lpbi=Path loss in dB between MW and base station site (using
average building height divided by 2 as effective antenna height)
Prpri=Power at MW receiver from rooftop portables (r for
rooftop)
ptpri=e.i.r.p. transmitted from rooftop portables associated
with ith base station
npri=Number of rooftop portables associated with ith base
station
Lpri=Path loss in dB between MW and base station site (using
average building height as effective antenna height)
BPi=Building penetration loss at street level in dB
BHi=Height gain for portables in buildings dB=2.5 x (nf-1),
where nf is number of floors
Note: where Ci varies from channel-to-channel, which often
is the case, the summation process is more complex, requiring
summation at a channel level first.
Finally, the total PCS interference power at a given microwave
receiver from all the base stations in a given frequency band is
found by summing the contributions from the individual stations.
Likewise, the total interference power at a given microwave receiver
from all mobiles and portables operating in a given frequency band
is found by summing the contributions from the mobiles and portables
associated with each cell.
TR24JN94.017
Base Stations. Interference from each base station to each
microwave should normally be considered independently. A group of
base stations having more or less (within 50 percent)
the same height above average terrain, the same e.i.r.p., basically
the same path to a microwave receiving site, and subtending an angle
to that receiving site of less than 5 degrees, may be treated as a
group, using the total power of the group and the average antenna
height of the group to calculate path loss, L.
Mobile Stations. The e.i.r.p. from mobile transmitters is
weighted according to the number of base station channels expected
to be devoted to mobile operation at any given time. The antenna
height of mobiles used in calculating path loss, L, is assumed to be
2 meters.
Portable Stations. The e.i.r.p. from the portable units
associated with each base station is weighted according to the
estimated portion of portables associated with that cell expected to
be operated inside buildings at any given time and the portion which
could be expected to be operating from elevated locations, such as
balconies or building rooftops. For example, in the case of service
intended for business use in an urban area, one might expect that
perhaps 85 percent of the portables in use at any given time would
be operating from within buildings and perhaps 5 percent might be
operating from rooftops or balconies. The remaining 10 percent would
be outside at street level.
Calculation of an equivalent e.i.r.p. for cells in suburban
areas will involve different weighting criteria.
Urban Correction Factor. The urban correction factor (UC)
depends on the height and density of buildings surrounding a base
station. For the core area of large cities, it is assumed to be 35
dB. For medium size cities and fringe areas of large cities (4- to
6-story buildings with scattered taller buildings and lower
buildings and open spaces) it is assumed to be 25 dB; for small
cities and towns, 15 dB, and for suburban residential areas (one-
and two-story, single family houses with scattered multiple-story
apartment buildings, shopping centers and open areas), 10 dB.
The unadjusted urban correction factor, UC, should not be
applied to base station antenna heights that are greater than 50
percent of the average building height for a cell.
Building Height and Building Penetration Factors. The building
height correction, BH, is a function of the average building height
within the nominal coverage area of the base station. It is used in
conjunction with the building penetration loss, BP, to adjust the
expected interference contribution from that portion of the
portables transmitting from within buildings. The adjustment is
given by:
BP=20 dB in urban areas
BP=10 dB in suburban areas
BH=2.5 x (nf-1) dB
where nf is the average height (number of floors) of the buildings
in the area.
(Note that this formula implies a net gain when the average
building height is greater than 8 floors). All buildings more than
twice the average height should be considered individually. The
contribution to BH from that portion of portables in the building
above the average building height should be increased by a factor of
20Log(h) dB, where h is the height of the portables above the
average building height in meters.
Channel Discrimination Factor. A factor based on the
interference selectivity of the microwave receiver.
Propagation Model. The PCS to microwave path loss, L, is
calculated using the Longley-Rice propagation model, Version 1.2.2.,
in the point-to-point mode. The Longley-Rice [1] model was derived
from NBS Technical Note 101 [2], and updated in 1982 by Hufford [3].
Version 1.2.2 incorporated modifications described in a letter by
Hufford [4] in 1985. Terrain elevations used as input to the model
should be from the U.S. Geological Survey 3-second digitized terrain
database.
Special Situations. If a cell size is large compared to the
distance between the cell and a microwave receiving site so that it
subtends an angle greater than 5 degrees, the cell should be
subdivided and calculations should be based on the expected
distribution of mobiles and portables within each subdivision.
If terrain elevations within a cell differ by more than a factor
of two-to-one, the cell should be subdivided and microwave
interference calculations should be based on the average terrain
elevation for each subdivision.
If a co-channel PCS base station lies within the main beam of a
microwave antenna (5 degrees), there is no intervening
terrain obstructions, and the power at the microwave receiver from
that base station, assuming free space propagation, would be 3 dB or
less below the interference threshold, interference will be assumed
to exist unless the PCS licensee can demonstrate otherwise by
specific path loss calculations based on terrain and building
losses.
If any part of a cell or cell subdivision lies within the main
beam of a co-channel microwave antenna, there is no intervening
terrain obstructions, and the accumulative power of 5 percent or
less of the mobiles, assuming free space propagation would be 3 dB
or less below the interference threshold, interference will be
assumed to exist unless the PCS licensee can demonstrate otherwise
by specific path loss calculations based on terrain and building
losses.
If a building within a cell or cell subdivision lies within the
main beam of a co-channel microwave antenna, there is no intervening
terrain obstructions, and the cumulative power of 5 percent or fewer
of the portables, assuming free space propagation, would be 3 dB or
less below the interference threshold, interference will be assumed
to exist unless the PCS licensee can demonstrate otherwise by
specific path loss calculations based on terrain and building
losses.
References:
1. Longley, A.G. and Rice, P.L., ``Prediction of Tropospheric
Radio Transmission Loss Over Irregular Terrain, A Computer Method-
1968'', ESSA Technical Report ERL 79-ITS 67, Institute for
Telecommunications Sciences, July 1968.
2. Rice, P.L. Longley, A.G., Norton, K.A., Barsis, A.P.,
``Transmission Loss Predictions for Tropospheric Communications
Circuits,'' NBS Technical Note 101 (Revised), Volumes I and II, U.S.
Department of Commerce, 1967.
3. Hufford, G.A., Longley, A.G. and Kissick, W.A., ``A Guide to
the use of the ITS Irregular Terrain Model in the Area Prediction
Mode'', NTIA Report 82-100, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1982.
Also, Circular letter, dated January 30, 1985, from G.A. Hufford,
identifying modifications to the computer program.
4. Hufford, G.A., Memorandum to Users of the ITS Irregular
Terrain Model, Institute for Telecommunications Sciences, U.S.
Department of Commerce, January 30, 1985.
Appendix: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Note: This appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Section 603, an initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rule
Making and Tentative Decision in combined ET Docket No. 92-100 and
GEN Docket No. 90-314. Written comments on the proposals in the
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, were requested. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
was incorporated in the Second Report and Order in GEN Docket No.
90-314.
A. Need for and Objective of Rules: Our objective is to provide
spectrum allocations, licensing and authorization rules, and
technical standards for broadband PCS at 2 GHz. Authorizing this new
service will make available a broad range of new services and
technologies to both business users and consumers. The revised PCS
rules will provide licensees and developers of unlicensed equipment
the flexibility to introduce a wide variety of new and innovative
telecommunications services and equipment.
B. Issues Raised by the Public in Response to the Initial and
Final Analyses: A number of parties supported regulations that would
facilitate participation in PCS by small businesses. Specifically,
these parties argue that small frequency blocks, small service
areas, and special consideration for small businesses in the
licensing of PCS would facilitate small businesses participation in
providing PCS services. The FCC empaneled a Small Business Advisory
Committee (SBAC) that also assessed the policy implications of this
proceeding for small businesses and filed a report with the
Commission on September 15, 1993. The SBAC concluded that small
frequency blocks with multiple licensees in each service area and a
frequency block designated for qualified small, female, and minority
businesses would assist entrepreneurial entry in PCS. The SBAC also
suggested that the Commission consider other mechanisms to foster
entry opportunities and capital formation for such groups. These
issues and associated filings have been considered and addressed in
the Second Report and Order and this Memorandum Opinion and Order,
except issues related to licensee selection procedures. Licensing
issues are the subject of a separate proceeding (PP Docket No. 93-
253) that will establish rules to implement competitive bidding in
broadband PCS. A Report and Order in that proceeding will be issued
in the near future.
C. Any Significant Alternative Minimizing Impact on Small
Entities and Consistent with Stated Objectives: We have reduced
burdens wherever possible. The regulatory burdens we have retained
are necessary to ensure that the public receives the benefits of
broadband PCS in a prompt and efficient manner. We will continue to
examine alternatives in the future with the objectives of
eliminating unnecessary regulations and minimizing any significant
impact on small entities.
[FR Doc. 94-15263 Filed 6-23-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M