[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 24 (Tuesday, February 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8230-8272]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-01879]



[[Page 8229]]

Vol. 78

Tuesday,

No. 24

February 5, 2013

Part II





Federal Communications Commission





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25, Et al.





Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 
2180-2200 MHz Bands, etc.; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 24 / Tuesday, February 5, 2013 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 8230]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101

[WT Docket Nos. 12-70 and 04-356; ET Docket No. 10-142; FCC 12-151]


Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz 
and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, etc.

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; order of proposed modification.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(``Commission'') increases the Nation's supply of spectrum for mobile 
broadband by adopting flexible use rules for up to 40 megahertz of 
spectrum in the 2 GHz band (2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz), which we 
term the AWS-4 band. In so doing, we carry out a recommendation in the 
National Broadband Plan that the Commission enable the provision of 
stand-alone terrestrial services in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service 
(MSS) spectrum band. Specifically, we remove unnecessary regulatory 
barriers to mobile broadband use of this spectrum, and adopt service, 
technical, and licensing rules that will encourage innovation and 
investment in mobile broadband and provide a stable regulatory regime 
in which broadband deployment can develop.

DATES: Effective March 7, 2013, except amendments to 47 CFR 1.949, 
27.14, 27.17, 27.1131, 27.1134, 27.1136, 27.1166, 27.1168, 21.1170, 
101.69, and 101.73(d), which contain new or modified information 
collection requirements that require approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). The Commission will publish a document in 
the Federal Register announcing the effective date of those sections.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., 
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction 
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be 
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room 
1-B441, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet 
at Judith B. [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Holmes, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-BITS or by 
email at [email protected]. For additional information concerning 
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained 
in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via 
the Internet at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report 
and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, FCC 12-151, adopted on 
December 11, 2012, and released on December 17, 2012. The full text of 
this document is available for inspection and copying during normal 
business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text of the 
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification and related 
Commission documents may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 
Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300 or (800) 
387-3160, contact BCPI at its Web site: http://www.bcpiweb.com. When 
ordering documents from BCPI, please provide the appropriate FCC 
document number, for example, FCC 12-151. The complete text of the 
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification is also available 
on the Commision's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/FCC-12-151A1doc. This full text may also be downloaded at: 
http://wireless.fcc.gov/releases.html. Alternative formats (computer 
diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by 
contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via 
email to [email protected].

I. Introduction

    1. With this Report and Order, we increase the Nation's supply of 
spectrum for mobile broadband by adopting flexible use rules for 40 
megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band (2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 
MHz), which we term the AWS-4 band. In so doing, we carry out a 
recommendation in the National Broadband Plan that the Commission 
enable the provision of stand-alone terrestrial services in the 2 GHz 
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) spectrum band, thus dramatically 
increasing the value of this spectrum to the public. Specifically, we 
remove regulatory barriers to mobile broadband use of this spectrum, 
and adopt service, technical, and licensing rules that will encourage 
innovation and investment in mobile broadband and provide certainty and 
a stable regulatory regime in which broadband deployment can rapidly 
occur.
    2. To create a solid and lasting foundation for the provision of 
terrestrial services in this spectrum and to make this spectrum 
available efficiently and quickly for flexible, terrestrial use, such 
as mobile broadband, we will assign the spectrum to the incumbent MSS 
operators. Thus, together with this Report and Order, we issue an Order 
of Proposed Modification, proposing to replace the incumbent MSS 
operators' Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) authority with full 
flexible use terrestrial authority. Additionally, we decline to adopt 
the alternative band plan proposals presented in the AWS-4 Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry (``AWS-4 NPRM'' and ``AWS-4 
NOI''), 77 FR 22720, April 17, 2012, and 77 FR 22737, April 17, 2012, 
including shifting the AWS-4 uplink spectrum up five or ten megahertz 
or further exploring the larger and more complex 2 GHz Extension Band 
Concept.

II. Background

A. The Growing Spectrum Demands of Mobile Broadband Services

    3. Demand for wireless broadband services and the network capacity 
associated with those services is surging, resulting in a growing 
demand for spectrum to support these services.

B. The Spectrum Act

    4. In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle Class 
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 
156 (2012) (the ``Spectrum Act''). The Spectrum Act includes several 
provisions to make more spectrum available for commercial use, 
including through auctions, and to improve public safety 
communications. Among other things, the Spectrum Act requires the 
Commission, by February 23, 2015, to allocate the 1915-1920 MHz band 
and the 1995-2000 MHz band (collectively, the ``H Block'') for 
commercial use, and to auction and grant new initial licenses for the 
use of each spectrum band, subject to flexible use service rules. 
Congress provided, however, that if the Commission determined that 
either of the bands could not be used without causing harmful 
interference to commercial licensees in 1930-1995 MHz (PCS downlink), 
then the Commission was prohibited from allocating that specific band 
for commercial use or licensing it. See 47 U.S.C. 1451(b)(4). 
Additionally, sections 6401(f) and 6413 of the Spectrum Act specify 
that the proceeds from an auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band 
and in the 1915-1920

[[Page 8231]]

MHz band shall be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund and then 
used to fund the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network 
(``FirstNet''). See 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(D)(iii), 1457. The H block 
spectrum could be the first spectrum specified by the Spectrum Act to 
be licensed by auction, and thus could represent the first inflow of 
revenues toward this statutory goal.
    5. In March 2012, the Commission adopted the AWS-4 NPRM, which 
consisted of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry. In 
the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to increase the Nation's supply 
of spectrum for mobile broadband by removing barriers to flexible use 
of spectrum currently assigned to the MSS. The Commission proposed 
terrestrial service rules for the 2 GHz band that would generally 
follow the Commission's part 27 flexible use rules, modified as 
necessary to account for issues unique to the particular spectrum 
bands. The proposed rules were designed to provide for flexible use of 
this spectrum, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile 
broadband, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which 
broadband deployment could develop. The proposed rules also included 
aggressive build-out requirements and concomitant penalties for failure 
to build out designed to ensure timely deployment of wireless, 
terrestrial broadband in the band. Additionally, in the Notice of 
Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on potential ways to free up 
additional valuable spectrum to address the Nation's growing demand for 
mobile broadband spectrum, including through examination of alternative 
band plans incorporating the Federal 1695-1710 MHz band.
    6. Comments on the AWS-4 NPRM were due by May 17, 2012 and reply 
comments were due by June 1, 2012. Thirty-four comments and twenty-one 
reply comments were filed in response to the AWS-4 NPRM. In addition, 
as permitted under our rules, there have been ex parte presentations.

III. Report and Order: AWS-4

    7. In this AWS-4 Report and Order, we build on the Commission's 
recent actions to increase the availability of spectrum by enabling 
terrestrial mobile broadband service in 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands. As explained below, we 
adopt AWS-4 terrestrial service, technical, and licensing rules that 
generally follow the Commission's Part 27 flexible use rules, modified 
as necessary to account for issues unique to the AWS-4 bands. First, we 
establish 2000-2020 MHz paired with 2180-2200 MHz as the AWS-4 band 
plan.
    8. Second, we adopt appropriate technical rules for operations in 
the AWS-4 band. This includes rules governing the relationship of the 
AWS-4 band to other bands. For example, as explained below, we require 
the licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to accept some limited 
interference from operations in the adjacent upper H block at 1995-2000 
MHz, and impose more stringent out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits and 
power limits on these licensees to protect future operations in 1995-
2000 MHz. With respect to adjacent operations at 2200 MHz, we permit 
operator-to-operator agreements to address concerns regarding 
interference and also establish default rules to protect against 
harmful interference. Further, we require licensees of AWS-4 authority 
to comply with the OOBE limits contained in a private agreement entered 
into with the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) industry.
    9. Third, mindful that AWS-4 spectrum is now allocated on a co-
primary basis for Mobile Satellite and for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile 
services and that MSS licensees already have authorizations to provide 
service in the band, we determine that the AWS-4 rules must provide for 
the protection of 2 GHz MSS systems from harmful interference caused by 
AWS-4 systems. In addition, consistent with our determination below to 
grant AWS-4 terrestrial operating authority to the incumbent 2 GHz MSS 
licensees, we propose to assign terrestrial rights by modifying the MSS 
operators' licenses pursuant to section 316 of the Communications Act.
    10. Fourth, we adopt performance requirements for the AWS-4 
spectrum. Specifically, licensees of AWS-4 operating authority will be 
subject to build-out requirements that require a licensee to provide 
terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 
40 percent of its total terrestrial license areas' population within 
four years, and to at least 70 percent of the population in each of its 
license areas within seven years, and will be subject to appropriate 
penalties if these benchmarks are not met.
    11. Fifth, we adopt a variety of regulatory, licensing, operating, 
and relocation and cost sharing requirements for licensees of AWS-4 
operating authority.
    12. Sixth, we eliminate the ATC rules for the 2 GHz MSS band and 
propose to modify the 2 GHz MSS operators' licenses to eliminate their 
ATC authority.
    13. Seventh, consistent with the scope of the AWS-4 NPRM, we take 
no action on the Commission's ATC rules for other MSS bands.
    14. In reaching these conclusions below, we consider other possible 
outcomes for this spectrum, proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM or by commenters 
in response thereto, but ultimately decline to adopt them. For example, 
we decline to adopt any of the proposed alternative band plans, 
including shifting the AWS-4 uplink spectrum or pursuing the 2 GHz 
Extension Band Concept that was set forth in the AWS-4 NOI. Similarly, 
we reject calls to reduce or take back spectrum allocated to the 2 GHz 
MSS licensees and decline to assign AWS-4 terrestrial rights through an 
auction. We also decline to adopt the interim build-out benchmarks and 
their associated penalties as proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM. Further, we 
decline to impose restrictions on transferring or assigning AWS-4 
spectrum beyond the general requirements applicable to Wireless Radio 
Service spectrum generally. Nor do we impose any roaming or wholesale 
obligations beyond those contained in the Commission's rules, or ``use 
it or share it'' obligations. Rather, the rules we adopt today 
represent the Commission's efforts to make more spectrum available for 
terrestrial flexible use, including for mobile broadband, in the public 
interest, without imposing undue restrictions on the use of the 
spectrum.
    15. We emphasize that we find the rules we adopt and the actions we 
take and propose to take today to be in the public interest based on 
the totality of the facts and circumstances before us considered as a 
whole.

A. AWS-4 Band Plan

    16. Band plans establish parameters and provide licensees with 
certainty as to the spectrum they are authorized to use. As explained 
below, based on the record before us, we adopt as the AWS-4 band plan 
2000-2020 MHz paired with 2180-2200 MHz, configured in two 
consistently-spaced 10 megahertz blocks. Further, we will license the 
blocks on an EA basis.
1. AWS-4 Frequencies and Paired Spectrum (uplink/downlink)
    17. We adopt the band plan and spectrum pairing proposed in the 
AWS-4 NPRM, and establish the AWS-4 spectrum band as 2000-2020 MHz 
uplink band paired with 2180-2200 MHz downlink band.

[[Page 8232]]

a. AWS-4 Frequencies
    18. We establish the AWS-4 band as 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz. 
After considerable analysis of the facts and the record before us, we 
conclude that this band plan will result in the most efficient use of 
spectrum for mobile broadband and, when paired with appropriate 
technical rules, will not impair the future use of the 1995-2000 MHz 
band, thereby enabling us to best fulfill our obligations under the 
Spectrum Act and our general obligation to maximize the benefits of the 
spectrum for the public interest.
    19. Establishing these frequencies for AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum 
is the culmination of several years of Commission effort exploring this 
path. In July 2010, the Commission adopted the MSS NPRM and NOI in 
which it proposed to add co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations for 
this spectrum, 75 FR 49871, Aug. 16, 2010. In April 2011, the 
Commission added these terrestrial allocations, thereby ``lay[ing] the 
foundation for more flexible use of the band * * * [and] promoting 
investment in the development of new services and additional innovative 
technologies,'' 76 FR 31252, 31254, May 31, 2011. In that order, the 
Commission also stated its intent to initiate a rulemaking--this 
proceeding--to explore ``service rule changes that could increase 
investment and utilization of the band in a manner that serves the 
public interest * * * [including examining] potential synergies with 
neighboring bands,'' 76 FR 31254, May 31, 2011. The record before us 
demonstrates nearly unanimous support to add terrestrial rights to the 
2 GHz MSS band generally.
    20. We adopt this band plan because, of the options available to 
us, it should enable the use of the spectrum for mobile broadband in 
the most expeditious and efficient manner. Setting the AWS-4 band as 
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz mirrors the existing 2 GHz MSS band. 
Because the existing 2 GHz MSS licensees will have AWS-4 operating 
authority, under this band plan they will be able to offer both 
terrestrial and satellite service using the same spectrum. In contrast, 
because the 2020-2025 MHz band is not allocated for MSS, shifting the 
AWS-4 band up to include this spectrum would necessarily create a 
mismatch between the spectrum available to provide terrestrial service 
and the spectrum available to provide satellite service.
    21. We decline to adopt our alternative proposals to shift the 
spectrum in the lower portion of the AWS-4 band plan. We acknowledge 
that setting the lower AWS-4 band at 2000-2020 MHz gives rise to 
potential interference issues between the AWS-4 band and the 1995-2000 
MHz band (AWS-2 upper H block). This raises particular concerns 
because, as discussed below, Congress has directed the Commission to 
assign licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band through a system of 
competitive bidding--a system that, among other things, promotes 
efficient and intensive use of that spectrum and recovers a portion of 
the value of the spectrum resource. Regulatory actions that might 
compromise the utility of the 1995-2000 MHz band cannot easily be 
reconciled with the purposes of the Spectrum Act's mandate that this 
band be licensed through a system of competitive bidding. We find, 
however, that the tension between this mandate and the public interest 
benefits of the band plan we are adopting can be resolved by 
promulgating appropriate technical rules for the AWS-4 band, as 
described below.
    22. Because we resolve these interference issues through technical 
rules, we decline to adopt any of the three alternative band plans 
proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM: (1) 2005-2025 MHz paired with 2180-2200 
MHz; (2) 2010-2025 MHz paired with 2180-2200 MHz; and (3) the 
alternative NOI proposal, as well as any of the alternative band plan 
proposals presented by commenters. We decline to shift the band because 
we find that the technical rules we adopt below offer a better solution 
than shifting the band. Further, nothing in the record has convinced us 
that the 2020-2025 MHz band cannot be put to productive use in the 
future. We decline to pursue the alternative NOI proposal for the 
reasons discussed in section VI. below. Finally, we decline at this 
time to adopt more aggressive proposals that would reduce the amount of 
MSS spectrum or return licenses to the Commission, because we believe 
the approach adopted herein will lead to faster and more efficient 
terrestrial deployment in the AWS-4 band.
b. Paired Spectrum
    23. For the AWS-4 band plan, we adopt the same uplink and downlink 
pairing designations as those currently used in the 2 GHz MSS band. 
Specifically, for AWS-4 spectrum, the lower band (2000-2020 MHz) will 
be the uplink band and the upper band (2180-2200 MHz) will be the 
downlink band. As we noted in the AWS-4 NPRM, ``[a]dopting the same 
uplink/downlink pairing approach for AWS-4 as for 2 GHz MSS may 
facilitate the continued use of existing satellites for MSS,'' 77 FR 
22722, April 17, 2012. Thus, it is consistent with our determination, 
infra, to require AWS-4 operators to protect 2 GHz MSS operations from 
harmful interference. Stated otherwise, having the AWS-4 band parallel 
the spectrum pairing of the 2 GHz MSS band, in terms of their uplink 
and downlink designations, will minimize the possibility that AWS-4 
operations could interfere with 2 GHz MSS operations and will offer the 
greatest opportunity for synergies between the two mobile services. Our 
finding is supported by the record and no commenter objected to this 
pairing of uplink and downlink spectrum.
2. Spectrum Block Size and Duplex Spacing
    24. We determine to license the AWS-4 spectrum in two paired 10 + 
10 megahertz blocks, but, in doing so, we adopt a consistent (i.e., 
non-variable) duplex spacing. The AWS-4 band will therefore consist of 
two paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks as follows: Block A pairs 2000-2010 
MHz with 2180-2190 MHz and Block B pairs 2010-2020 MHz with 2190-2200 
MHz.
    25. Block Size. We adopt 10 megahertz blocks as the block size for 
the AWS-4 band. This block size has several advantages. First, it 
mirrors the current MSS/ATC block size. Second, spectrum bands of this 
size will encourage technologies that utilize wider bandwidth, and will 
encourage the adoption of and use of next generation technologies. This 
is particularly the case in a band, such as this one, where large 
contiguous blocks are readily configurable. We expect that use of wide, 
contiguous blocks of spectrum will support continued innovation and 
deployment of mobile broadband technologies, such as Long Term 
Evolution (``LTE''), to meet higher data rates and wider bandwidths. 
Additionally, 10 + 10 megahertz blocks allow for the possibility that 
multiple providers may make use of the spectrum (including through the 
operation of secondary markets), but can also be used as a single 20 + 
20 megahertz block if a single operator controls both blocks in a 
market. The record supports both the 10 + 10 MHz blocks and the ability 
for a single operator to combine both blocks into a 20 + 20 MHz block. 
Further, no one submitted comments in opposition to the 10 + 10 block 
size for AWS-4 terrestrial licenses. However, AT&T argued that the MSS 
allocation be reduced to one single 10 + 10 MHz block. We decline to 
pursue AT&T's request that we reallocated part of the 2 GHz band. As 
the Commission stated in 2011 in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report 
and Order when adding the co-primary fixed and mobile allocations to

[[Page 8233]]

the band, ``MSS remains co-primary in the 2 GHz MSS band * * * Both of 
the MSS licensees in the band will continue to operate under the terms 
of their existing licenses,'' 76 FR 31252, 31254, May 31, 2011. Thus, 
to support the continued innovation of mobile broadband technologies by 
providing wide, contiguous channels, we adopt our proposal to license 
the AWS-4 spectrum in paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks.
    26. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed that, in the event 
that a single licensee holds both the A and the B Blocks, that licensee 
should be permitted to combine the blocks into one paired 20 + 20 
megahertz block. We adopt this proposal. We find it consistent with the 
record, with our decision to permit flexible use of AWS-4 spectrum, and 
with our technical findings below. The rules adopted herein will allow 
a licensee holding all paired 20 + 20 megahertz of AWS-4 spectrum to 
make use of that spectrum as it sees fit, so long as such use otherwise 
complies with the Commission's rules, including the technical and 
interference rules established herein. Thus, we will provide a licensee 
holding AWS-4 terrestrial authority with the opportunity to design its 
network in a manner that enables it to best respond to its business and 
technical needs. For example, combining these blocks may enable a 
licensee to benefit from establishing larger channel bandwidths, such 
as paired 15 + 15 megahertz or 20 + 20 megahertz blocks, which can 
result in greater spectral efficiency and network capacity and, 
consequently, improved customer experiences.
    27. Duplex Spacing. We find that the paired 10 megahertz blocks 
should operate with a consistent duplex spacing. Thus, block A will 
pair 2000-2010 MHz with 2180-2190 MHz and Block B will pair 2010-2020 
MHz with 2190-2200 MHz. We license the AWS-4 spectrum such that duplex 
spacing of the spectrum blocks will be uniform. Although some 
commenters support using the existing 2 GHz MSS duplex spacing for AWS-
4, we concur with other parties, such as AT&T, that to ``facilitate the 
deployment of terrestrial AWS-4 service, the Commission should adopt an 
A-B/A-B configuration, similar to the consistent duplex spacing used in 
other AWS and 3GPP standards.'' AT&T Comments to WT Docket No. 12-70, 
ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket No. 04-356, at page 5. Further, this is 
consistent with the recent change by 3rd Generation Partnership Project 
(``3GPP'') in band class 23 to shift from an A-B/B-A pairing to an A-B/
A-B pairing. Thus, to promote uniformity among mobile wireless bands 
and to maintain consistency with standards setting bodies, we find it 
appropriate to license AWS-4 spectrum bands in A-B/A-B paired blocks.
    28. Changes to MSS Duplex Spacing. Currently, the two MSS licenses 
in the band are arranged with one license authorized to use of 2000-
2010 MHz as uplink paired with 2190-2200 MHz as downlink, and the other 
authorized to use 2010-2020 MHz uplink paired with 2180-2190 MHz 
downlink. That is, there are effectively two blocks, each 10 + 10 
megahertz, paired A-B/B-A. As discussed above, we are establishing the 
AWS-4 blocks in an A-B/A-B pairing, rather than an A-B/B-A pairing. 
There remains, however, a need to coordinate between MSS and AWS-4 
operations. In fact, as discussed below, we have found that the 
assignment of AWS-4 terrestrial use rights must be made to the existing 
MSS authorization holders to allow coordination and prevention of 
harmful interference. Therefore, we determine to also align the MSS 
blocks with the AWS-4 blocks. Because, as AT&T states, the MSS 
satellites should be ``capable of providing service under a modified A-
B/A-B configuration,'' this rearrangement should be feasible and not 
present a significant burden on the MSS licensees. Consequently, we 
adopt a rearrangement of the 2 GHz MSS blocks as follows: the first 
block shall be 2000-2010 MHz uplink paired with 2180-2190 MHz downlink, 
and the second block shall be 2010-2020 MHz paired with 2190-2200 MHz. 
This rearrangement results in the first MSS block aligning with the 
AWS-4 A block, and the second MSS block aligning with the AWS-4 B 
block.
    29. Interoperability. The AWS-4 NPRM also sought comment on whether 
the Commission should take action to ensure that equipment for the AWS-
4 band is interoperable across both paired blocks. No commenters 
discussed this issue. As the AWS-4 spectrum will be licensed to the 
existing 2 GHz MSS licensees, and the commenter controlling both 
licensees has stated its desire to operate across the entire band, we 
anticipate that its operations would result in devices that operate 
across the entire AWS-4 band. We therefore take no action at this time 
on this issue. We observe, however, that the Commission is 
investigating interoperability issues in other contexts. We continue to 
believe that interoperability is an important aspect of future 
deployment of mobile broadband services. We will closely examine any 
actions taken that have the potential to undermine the development of 
interoperability in the AWS-4 band and may take action on this issue if 
it is warranted in the future.
3. Geographic Area Licensing
    30. We will assign terrestrial spectrum use rights in the AWS-4 
band on a geographic-area basis. A geographic-area licensing approach 
is well suited for the types of fixed and mobile services we expect to 
be deployed in this band. Further, geographic-area licensing will 
maintain consistency between the AWS-4 band and the AWS-1 band.
    31. Having examined the record, which is mixed on this issue, we 
will award terrestrial rights for the AWS-4 spectrum on an Economic 
Area (``EA'') basis. We adopt an EA licensing area scheme. We do so for 
four reasons. First, addressing the concerns of those seeking larger 
license areas, EA license areas are a useful and appropriate geographic 
unit that Commission has used for similar bands. Notably, AWS-1 Blocks 
B and C spectrum is licensed on an EA basis. EA licenses can be 
aggregated up to larger license areas, including into MEAs or larger 
units, including nationwide. Any such aggregation, however, would not 
relieve a licensee from obligations that are based on the original EA 
license area, such as, importantly, build-out requirements. Second, EA-
based licensing is consistent with the other requirements adopted 
herein, most notably the performance requirements discussed below, 
which establish EA-based build-out requirements. Third, licensing AWS-4 
on an EA basis best balances the Commission's goals of encouraging the 
offering of broadband service both to broad geographic areas and to 
sizeable populations. For example, as one commenter notes, licensing in 
smaller geographic blocks averts the phenomenon of huge tracts of 
licensed territory being left unserved. Finally, contrary to one 
commenter's unsubstantiated claim, we do not believe that licensing on 
an EA basis impairs nationwide operations. Indeed, other than the PCS G 
block, all other major terrestrial spectrum bands are licensed in 
discrete geographic areas, including AWS-1, several blocks of which are 
licensed on an EA-basis. These bands have not proven unduly difficult 
for licensees to administer. Consequently, because EAs allow licensees 
to build their geographic coverage as needed, are consistent with the 
other requirements established for this band, and promote the 
Commission's goal of widespread broadband service, we adopt the 
proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM to assign AWS-4 spectrum rights on an EA 
basis.

[[Page 8234]]

    32. Gulf of Mexico. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought 
comment on how to include the Gulf of Mexico in its licensing scheme. 
The Commission questioned if the Gulf should be licensed in a similar 
fashion as the Upper 700 MHz band, where the Gulf was included as part 
of larger service areas, or whether the Gulf should be licensed 
separately. The Commission has addressed the issue of licensing the 
Gulf of Mexico in other proceedings and we will follow the established 
policy on this issue. Therefore, because we are adopting an EA-based 
licensing scheme, and the Commission received no comments directly 
addressing this issue, we will license the Gulf of Mexico as EA 
licensing area 176. As we did in licensing other Part 27 services, the 
Gulf of Mexico service area is comprised of the water area of the Gulf 
of Mexico starting 12 nautical miles from the U.S. Gulf coast and 
extending outward.

B. Technical Issues

    33. Pursuant to its statutory direction in the Communications Act, 
the Commission adopts rules for commercial spectrum in a manner that 
furthers and maximizes the public interest. For example, allowing 
spectrum to be repurposed for its highest and best use serves this end 
as more efficient spectrum use, among other things, spurs investment 
and benefits consumers through better performance and lower prices. 
Deciding how best to further and maximize the public interest, 
moreover, is not an assessment that is made in a vacuum. Notably, when 
developing policies for a particular band, the Commission looks at 
other bands that might be affected, particularly the adjacent bands. In 
revising its rules, therefore, the Commission often must strike a 
balance among competing interests of adjacent bands, and between 
sometimes competing public interest considerations.
    34. The rules for one band, particularly the interference 
protection rules, affect the use and value of other bands and thus the 
public interest benefits that can be realized through the use of those 
adjacent bands. Moreover, the public interest analysis, and the 
balancing of interests across bands, does not necessarily reduce to an 
inquiry about the amount of spectrum that is or could be made available 
in the relevant bands. Not all spectrum use has equal value or leads to 
the same public interest benefits. For example, as explained below, 
wireless providers tend to use more downlink than uplink spectrum. 
Therefore, it is not clear that the loss of some uplink spectrum would 
diminish the value of, or the public's interest in, a large paired band 
when compared to the value that would be created in enabling a smaller 
full power downlink band. Indeed, the public interest benefits of a 
fully usable new downlink spectrum band likely are substantially 
greater than a fully usable equal sized addition of uplink spectrum 
that is a part of a larger band. The balancing between adjacent bands 
may be weighted further if one band will enable the combination of 
spectrum bands, including the aggregation of smaller bands, while the 
other band does not.
    35. In this section, we adopt the technical operating rules (e.g., 
interference rules) that will govern AWS-4 operations and licensees. In 
general, our aim in establishing technical rules is to maximize the 
flexible use of spectrum while appropriately protecting operations in 
neighboring bands. We also specifically consider here our statutory 
obligations set forth in the Spectrum Act with respect to the 1995-2000 
MHz band. We base the technical rules we adopt below on the rules for 
AWS-1 spectrum, with specific additions or modifications designed to 
protect operations in adjacent bands from harmful interference. These 
bands include (1) the existing 1930-1995 MHz broadband PCS service; (2) 
future services operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band; and (3) Federal 
operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
1. OOBE Limits
    36. In this section we adopt interference rules for operations 
between AWS-4 blocks within the AWS-4 band and between AWS-4 blocks and 
adjacent and nearby bands. In the event that, once individual systems 
are deployed and operational, it is determined that these limitations 
do not prevent an AWS-4 fixed or mobile transmitter from causing 
harmful interference, we shall, at our discretion, require the licensee 
of that transmitter to provide greater emission attenuation consistent 
with the typical treatment of Part 27 services.
a. Interference Between Services in Adjacent AWS-4 Blocks
    37. We require fixed and mobile transmitters operating in 2000-2020 
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands to attenuate emissions outside the licensed 
channels in these bands by 43 + 10 log10(P) dB, unless all 
affected parties agree otherwise. This limit of 43 + 10 
log10(P) dB is consistent with other CMRS bands, including 
the AWS-1 band that forms the basis for many of the technical rules we 
adopt herein. This specific emission limit, as well as the principle of 
adopting the same limits across multiple CMRS bands, is supported by 
the record. Further, we disagree with the assertion that permitting 
unified operations in the band makes it unnecessary for us to establish 
emissions levels between adjacent block AWS-4 operations. We observe, 
however, that to the extent a service provider establishes unified 
operations across the AWS-4 blocks, that operator may choose not to 
observe this emission level strictly between its adjacent block AWS-4 
licenses in a geographic area, so long as it complies with other 
Commission rules and is not adversely affecting the operations of other 
parties by virtue of exceeding the emission limit.
    38. Additionally, we adopt the measurement procedures found in 
Sec.  27.53(h) to AWS-4 mobile and base stations. Specifically, we 
require a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater, with an exception 
allowing a smaller measurement bandwidth within the first megahertz 
outside the channel. In sum, after reviewing the record and finding it 
supports the Commission's proposals, we conclude that the potential 
benefits of our proposals would outweigh any potential costs and adopt 
the proposed OOBE limit and measurement procedures.
b. Interference with Services in Adjacent and Other Bands
    39. Having established interference rules for operations between 
adjacent AWS-4 blocks, we next set rules for AWS-4 operations relative 
to operations in adjacent and nearby spectrum bands. In so doing, 
wherever possible, we establish rules that permit flexible use of the 
AWS-4 band, while effectively protecting adjacent and nearby bands from 
harmful interference resulting from AWS-4 emissions. As a preliminary 
matter, we observe that the Commission frequently applies a minimum 
attenuation level of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB to protect 
operations in adjacent frequency bands.
(i) Interference with operations below 1995 MHz
    40. We conclude that fixed and mobile transmitters operating in the 
2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 uplink band must attenuate emissions below 1995 MHz 
by 70 + 10 log10(P) dB. We also apply the existing 
measurement procedure contained in Sec.  27.53(h) of our rules, whereby 
a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater is required, with an 
exception allowing a

[[Page 8235]]

smaller measurement bandwidth in the first megahertz outside the 
channel. This emission level is supported by the record. AT&T, CTIA, 
Sprint, and T-Mobile all support the need to protect PCS operations 
below 1995 MHz. DISH, Greenwood, Motorola, Nokia, and Sprint all 
support our proposed OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB below 
1995 MHz for AWS-4 emissions. No commenters opposed this OOBE limit. We 
observe that DISH and Sprint have disagreed as to the technical 
standards that the 3GPP had established to protect operations in 1990-
1995 MHz from interference from 2 GHz MSS/ATC operators. This 
disagreement was resolved on November 13, 2012 in 3GPP as -40 dBm/MHz, 
equivalent to 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, although DISH has 
expressed concern that Sprint might reopen this issue. We decline to 
insert ourselves into this dispute before an external standards 
organization. Given the record before us, we therefore conclude that 
the potential benefits of our proposals would outweigh any potential 
costs and adopt this out-of-band emission limit below 1995 MHz for all 
fixed and mobile transmitters operating in the AWS-4 uplink band.
(ii) Interference with operations in 1995-2000 MHz
    41. General Considerations. In considering the rules that should 
govern potential interference between the spectrum being repurposed--
here, AWS-4 spectrum--and the adjacent bands, to maximize the public 
interest, the Commission must consider the value of potential uses in 
both bands. We are thus generally disinclined to treat an adjacent band 
as a permanent guard band, which, by definition, would preclude most 
use of that spectrum for the provision of full flexible use service to 
the public, or as a limited use band, which would have considerably 
less economic value than would a full flexible use band.
    42. Here, one of the adjacent bands--the 1995-2000 MHz portion of 
the H block--is not in use today, but Congress has directed that it be 
licensed via a system of competitive bidding by February 2015. As 
explained below, this adjacent band raises particularly difficult 
technical issues because it may result in an uplink band (2000-2020 
MHz) adjacent to a downlink band (1995-2000 MHz). In 2004, the 
Commission determined to pair the 1915-1920 MHz band with the 1995-2000 
MHz band, and contemplated that the lower band would be used for mobile 
transmissions. In particular, the Commission determined that these 
bands were comparable to the 1910-1915 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz PCS bands, 
which are used as uplink and downlink bands, respectively. The 
technical rules we adopt today, therefore, are designed to protect 
future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band from harmful interference 
by future operations in the repurposed AWS-4 band. Moreover, enabling 
full flexible use of the 1995-2000 MHz band may lead to the pairing of 
this band with the 1915-1920 MHz band, which would thereby maximize the 
public interest benefit of both of these five megahertz bands. 
Furthermore, we recognize that in establishing rules that allow the 
1995-2000 MHz spectrum band to be put to its highest and best use, we 
also further Congress's objectives related to the use of public safety 
broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The Spectrum Act directs that 
the proceeds from the auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band be 
deposited into the Public Safety Trust Fund, which will be used to fund 
FirstNet.
    43. In considering the rules that should govern potential 
interference between the 1995-2000 MHz band, which the Commission 
envisions as a downlink band, and the adjacent AWS-4 uplink band, the 
Commission must consider the public interest benefits associated with 
potential uses in both bands, including, but not limited to, the net 
effect on the economic values of these bands, and adopt technical rules 
accordingly. The public interest in the 1995-2000 MHz band is almost 
certainly maximized if the band is used as an additional PCS band. 
DISH, conversely, argued first that the Commission should effectively 
treat the 1995-2000 MHz band as a guard band, which would eliminate 
most of its value. DISH then argued that the H block should not be made 
available for full power use, and instead could be auctioned for air-
to-ground or small cell use, although both of these uses would, in our 
assessment, have considerably less economic value and other public 
interest benefits than an additional PCS downlink band. Limiting the 
use of the band to air-to-ground operations would be inconsistent with 
the Spectrum Act's direction to license the 1995-2000 MHz band for 
flexible use. Additionally, both the air-to-ground and small cell 
proposals, by precluding the possibility of full power cellular 
operations, would restrict the value of the band in a way that we 
believe does not promote the public interest in this particular 
instance given specific characteristics of the band and the available 
alternative of higher power use. All four nationwide wireless providers 
have broadband PCS spectrum, as do regional and rural providers, and 
any of these providers could use additional PCS spectrum to expand 
capacity. One analyst projected that the value of the paired H block 
would be $2-3 billion, which implies a price of at least $0.67-$1.00 
per MHz POP, or $1-$1.5 billion for the downlink band. We note that 
economists frequently consider it a rule of thumb that the public 
benefit of a licensed spectrum band typically equates to about ten 
times its value at auction. Although as a matter of practice the 
Commission does not predict auction prices, we reference these figures 
as an indicator of the economic value or public benefit that could be 
derived from the spectrum, if it is usable for high power commercial 
services.
    44. The public interest benefits of the AWS-4 spectrum, including 
its economic value, will also increase significantly once it is 
available for terrestrial use. The largest increase in value would 
occur if AWS-4 operations did not need to protect any adjacent bands. 
But that is not the case here. For example, AWS-4 operations need to 
comply with technical rules designed to prevent harmful interference 
below 2180 MHz and above 2200 MHz. However, DISH argues that, while 
licensees of AWS-4 authority should also be subject to technical rules 
for operations below 2000 MHz, these rules should not restrict AWS-4 
operations even if they limit the efficient use of the spectrum below 
2000 MHz. DISH identifies certain costs associated with such technical 
rules, including the claimed loss of the ability to use 5 MHz of uplink 
spectrum. Sprint suggests that this impact can be mitigated through 
base station receive filters, co-location of base stations, and LTE 
interference mitigations. DISH counters that filters would require 5 
megahertz of transition band, co-location is not possible in all cases, 
and the LTE features mentioned by Sprint are more effective for UE-to-
UE interference than base-to-base interference. DISH has not attempted 
to quantify the economic value of its possible loss of some of the use 
of this 5 MHz to society, but simply argues that there is no net gain 
in spectrum because the Commission would be trading 5 MHz of AWS-4 
uplink spectrum for 5 MHz of H block downlink spectrum. This argument 
ignores the possibility of the Commission pairing 1995-2000 MHz with 
1915-1920 MHz, as previously proposed and proposed again in the H Block 
NPRM, in which case making the 1995-2000 MHz band available may enable 
a total of 10 megahertz of spectrum by completing

[[Page 8236]]

the pairing. Moreover, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands could 
be used by PCS operators to expand, for example, from 5 + 5 megahertz 
blocks to 10 + 10 megahertz blocks, or to otherwise aggregate PCS 
blocks. Also, as explained below, the technical rules we adopt do not 
prevent the use of 5 megahertz of spectrum; rather, they merely limit 
its use, and make provisions for improving its usability.
    45. More importantly, as explained above, the amount of spectrum is 
not the only question that the Commission must consider as we evaluate 
the rules that will govern the AWS-4 band. Rather, we must evaluate how 
best to serve and maximize the public interest with respect to all 
relevant bands. Because, as explained below, companies tend to use more 
downlink than uplink spectrum today, it is not clear that the loss of 
some uplink spectrum would significantly diminish the utility (and 
economic value) of the paired AWS-4 spectrum. At a minimum, it appears 
that the public interest benefit (including economic value) of a fully 
usable 1995-2000 MHz band, which the Commission envisions as a downlink 
PCS band, is substantially greater than that of a fully usable 
additional 5 MHz of AWS-4 uplink--perhaps an order of magnitude 
greater. This may be particularly so if the 1995-2000 MHz band is 
ultimately paired with the 1915-1920 MHz band and the paired band is 
combined with other PCS spectrum to create, for example, 10+10 
megahertz of PCS spectrum.
    46. Further, the Spectrum Act does not preclude auctioning the 
1995-2000 MHz band. We do not reach any conclusions on the specific 
future use of the 1995-2000 MHz band in this proceeding; such 
determinations are outside its scope. However, in our role as spectrum 
managers we do establish rules for AWS-4 that do not preclude uses of 
the 1995-2000 MHz band, or prejudge it to be unusable. And, although we 
do not make a final determination on the use of 1995-2000 MHz, we note 
that arguments that it may not be auctioned under the Spectrum Act have 
several flaws. First, many commenters on the H block proceeding have 
suggested that with appropriate technical limitations, the 1915-1920 
MHz band will not interfere with the 1930-1995 MHz band. Thus, such 
interference may not present a problem, or, if it does, the problem may 
be partially overcome. Second, although the Commission has proposed 
pairing 1915-1920 MHz with 1995-2000 MHz, the Spectrum Act does not 
require this, and a finding that 1915-1920 MHz cannot be auctioned due 
to interference with 1930-1995 MHz does not, in and of itself, release 
us from our obligation to auction the 1995-2000 MHz band.
    47. DISH has put forward a technical proposal that it feels 
balances the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band with the usability of 
the AWS-4 uplink band, while also speeding deployment in AWS-4 by 
minimizing the impact of our rulemaking on the 3GPP standards body. 
This proposal includes DISH voluntarily designating 2000-2005 MHz as a 
terrestrial guard band, proposing the Commission set an emissions limit 
of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB for AWS-4 emissions into the 1995-
2000 MHz band, and asking the Commission to limit any emissions from 
the 1995-2000 MHz band by 79 + 10 log10(P) dB above 2005 
MHz. As discussed further below, we decline to adopt this proposal 
because we find that it will not speed deployment of the AWS-4 band or 
allow for full flexible use of the 1995-2000 MHz band. Moreover, DISH's 
request that we establish OOBE limits for the 1995-2000 MHz band is not 
within the scope of this proceeding. Rather these limits will be 
addressed in our companion H Block NPRM.
    48. Consequently, while the Commission has not adopted rules for 
the 1995-2000 MHz band, we are adopting technical rules for the AWS-4 
uplink band that we predict will, in light of the record and of our 
assessment of the nature and characteristics of both bands, ensure 
efficient use of the AWS-4 band while preserving our ability to auction 
licenses for operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. Moreover, we find 
that the approach and the technical rules we adopt will best serve the 
public interest by striking an appropriate balance that will enable 
both the AWS-4 band and the 1995-2000 MHz band that is adjacent to the 
AWS-4 uplink band (2000-2020 MHz) to be used for providing flexible use 
services in the most efficient manner possible. In this way, we further 
and fully comply with our statutory mandates, including our 
responsibilities under the Communications Act to manage the spectrum in 
the public interest and Congress's specific direction regarding the 
1995-2000 MHz band in the Spectrum Act. Furthermore, we recognize that 
in establishing rules that will enable the 1995-2000 MHz spectrum to be 
put to its highest and best use, we also further Congress's objectives 
related to the use of public safety broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz 
band. The Spectrum Act directs that the proceeds from the auction of 
licenses in the H Block, including 1995-2000 MHz, be deposited into the 
Public Safety Trust Fund, which will be used to fund FirstNet.
    49. Therefore, as explained below, we establish carefully 
calibrated, limited technical restrictions on AWS-4 operations in 2000-
2005 MHz, the lowest five megahertz of the AWS-4 uplink band. In 
particular, as explained below, we are imposing (1) increased OOBE 
limits at and below 2000 MHz, (2) reduced power limits for mobile 
terrestrial operations in 2000-2005 MHz, and (3) requirements that a 
licensee of AWS-4 terrestrial rights or of 2 GHz MSS rights must accept 
harmful OOBE interference, if any occurs, from future operations in the 
1995-2000 MHz band into the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 and 2 
GHz MSS uplink bands and harmful overload interference, if any occurs, 
from operators in the 1995-2000 MHz band into the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS 
uplink bands. We do this to protect future operations in the 1995-2000 
MHz band from harmful interference; to ensure the possibility of 
flexible commercial use of that band, consistent with Congressional 
direction; and to strike a balance in ensuring the efficient use of 
both the AWS-4 and the 1995-2000 MHz bands. The Communications Act 
established ``that the Commission's powers are not limited to the 
engineering and technical aspects of radio communications.'' Rather, 
the Communications Act directs the Commission to ``encourage the larger 
and more effective use of radio in the public interest'' and to adopt 
``such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and 
conditions * * * as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of 
this Act.'' As explained below, we deem it necessary to set these 
technical limits to best maximize AWS-4 and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum for 
flexible terrestrial use by minimizing harmful interference between the 
bands. We believe that the technical rules we adopt today to protect 
against harmful interference will promote more effective and efficient 
use of the 1995-2000 MHz band and the AWS-4 band and we believe that 
the benefits of these rules will outweigh any restrictions on the use 
of a portion of the AWS-4 uplink band. Moreover, any restrictions on 
the use of a portion of the AWS-4 band would be more than offset by the 
considerable increase in flexibility that the authorization holders 
will receive in obtaining overall terrestrial use rights under the 
Commission's part 27 flexible use rules instead of under the existing 
ATC rules.
    50. Finally, we adopt rules that allow for the restrictions 
specified above to be modified by private agreement, thereby providing 
a licensee of AWS-4

[[Page 8237]]

operating authority with the ability to utilize this five megahertz of 
spectrum through deployment of higher performance technologies, 
commercial agreements with future 1995-2000 MHz band licensees, or 
other means. This will also provide greater flexibility to any 
operators that obtain licenses for both the AWS-4 A block and the 1995-
2000 MHz band, as could be the case for a licensee of AWS-4 authority 
who bids on the 1995-2000 MHz band.
    51. Discussion. For AWS-4 operations in 2000-2020 MHz, we adopt an 
OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz. 
This limit promotes the public interest for several reasons: (1) It 
promotes the best and highest use of spectrum, (2) it fulfills our 
statutory obligations, (3) it provides consistent levels of protection 
for the adjacent 1990-1995 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz downlink bands, and 
(4) it maintains consistency with past Commission actions.
    52. Best and highest use of adjacent spectrum. DISH has stated that 
a required attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB below 2000 MHz 
would have a negative impact on operations in the AWS-4 uplink band. 
While this is correct, we seek to balance this negative impact on a 
portion of the AWS-4 uplink spectrum with the positive impact on the 
usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band, to obtain the most efficient use 
of both bands, and to maximize the overall public interest. To this 
end, we observe that mobile broadband uses far more downlink than 
uplink spectrum. For example, at an FCC forum on the future of wireless 
band plans, Nokia Siemens Networks presented data showing a typical LTE 
network producing 13 times more downlink data than uplink data, while 
Alcatel Lucent showed 17 to 30 times more downlink data than uplink 
data. Accordingly, there is a more pressing need for downlink spectrum 
than for uplink spectrum. Therefore, a possible limited reduction in 
uplink capacity may not present a hardship to a licensee of AWS-4 
operating authority. In addition, as discussed further below, while 
some of the uplink spectrum may be restricted in power, our rules do 
not eliminate the use of any uplink spectrum. Furthermore, extensions 
of existing bands can typically be put to use more cost-effectively 
than new bands. Finally, to the extent some spectrum may have reduced 
utility to address interference issues, a fixed spectrum impact will 
represent a larger fraction of the 5 megahertz band from 1995 to 2000 
MHz than of the lower 10 megahertz block in the 2000-2020 MHz band. 
Therefore, because 1995-2000 MHz can be used as a small downlink 
expansion of the existing PCS band, while 2000-2020 MHz is the larger 
uplink of a new band, these factors indicate that more efficient use of 
spectrum can be realized by promoting usability of 1995-2000 MHz even 
if it decreases the usability of a limited portion of the 2000-2020 MHz 
AWS-4 band.
    53. Statutory obligations. We find this OOBE limit, combined with 
the mobile power limits and requirement to accept interference within 
the 2000-2005 MHz band from lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz 
band, which we establish below, allows us to fulfill our spectrum 
manager role under the Communications Act by balancing the public 
interest goals of enabling efficient use of both the 1995-2000 MHz band 
and the AWS-4 band. Moreover, this limit enables us to fulfill our 
obligations under the Spectrum Act with regard to the 1995-2000 MHz 
band. The Spectrum Act requires the Commission, among other things, to 
make available via a system of competitive bidding the 1995-2000 MHz 
band. We believe it is consistent with Congress's specific direction to 
auction this spectrum to preserve our ability to reach a possible 
finding that this band should support the deployment of full, robust, 
commercial service--including for mobile broadband. DISH suggests that 
we could restrict an auction of 1995-2000 MHz to small cell operations 
or as part of a paired air-to-ground/ground-to-air band. We decline to 
so limit the potential uses of the 1995-2000 MHz band at this time, 
because this would likely diminish the efficiency and usefulness of the 
spectrum given the significant value we believe exists for high power 
uses in the 1995-2000 MHz band. Further, the Spectrum Act specifically 
calls for flexible use of 1995-2000 MHz, and limiting the band to be 
suitable only for small cell or air-to-ground services may improperly 
curtail such flexible use if full terrestrial use remains a reasonable 
possibility for the band. While flexible use rules that permit higher 
power terrestrial use could also permit small cell or air-to-ground 
services, the reverse is not true--a band limited to either of those 
uses could not also be used for full power terrestrial operations. DISH 
fails to explain how we can fulfill our statutory obligation to make 
the 1995-2000 MHz band available for flexible use via a system of 
competitive bidding without a strong OOBE limit. Moreover, it is not 
clear if either small cell or air-to-ground use would result in an 
improved interference environment as compared to full power use. Should 
the Commission ultimately determine, in the forthcoming proceeding on 
this band, to limit the permissible services in this band, DISH or any 
other party is free to petition us to revisit the technical rules we 
adopt herein.
    54. Consistent Protection Levels. To promote more effective and 
efficient use of the 1995-2000 MHz band, we believe the same OOBE limit 
the Commission adopted to protect current PCS operations below 1995 
MHz--70 + 10 log10(P) dB--will be both necessary and 
sufficient to protect future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. This 
creates consistency in our rules, by affording the 1995-2000 MHz band 
the same protections as the existing PCS band.
    55. Past Commission Actions. The Commission has long sought to put 
the 1995-2000 MHz band to productive commercial use. In 2004, 2007, and 
2008, the Commission undertook efforts to make this spectrum available 
for full flexible use. We therefore reject the approach advocated by 
some that the 1995-2000 MHz band should be used as a guard band between 
the extended PCS downlink band from 1990-1995 MHz and the AWS-4 uplink 
band. Setting aside this block for no use is directly at odds with the 
Commission's past actions. Further, in 2010, the National Broadband 
Plan recommended that the Commission make this band available through 
auction. Thus, the public has long been on notice that the 1995-2000 
MHz band is not intended for use as a guard band. Such notice 
significantly predates the current MSS licensee's acquisition of DBSD 
and TerreStar in 2011.
    56. The Record. The proposed OOBE limit of 70 + 10 
log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz received some support in 
the record. For example, Sprint supports this OOBE level as necessary 
to protect the 1995-2000 MHz band. U.S. Cellular proposed a limit of 70 
+ 10 log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz to protect the 1995-
2000 MHz band. Several other commenters indirectly support an OOBE 
limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) at 2000 MHz, which will be five 
megahertz away from full power use of the AWS-4 uplink band, by stating 
that this level is necessary to protect PCS operations below 1995 MHz 
without assuming any reduction in power between 2000-2005 MHz. To 
achieve this level of protection for the 1995-2000 MHz band without 
applying this OOBE limit at 2000 MHz and lower power limits in 2000-
2005 MHz, we would need to create frequency separation between the 
1995-2000 MHz band and the AWS-4 uplink band. For the reasons explained 
above,

[[Page 8238]]

however, we decline to shift the AWS-4 uplink band up 5 megahertz (or 
more) to 2005-2025 MHz. DISH makes several arguments objecting to this 
OOBE limit as unprecedented, unnecessary, and restrictive. DISH also 
asserts that this limit would affect AWS-4 operations, including 
negative impacts for AWS-4 devices, rendering 25% of the AWS-4 uplink 
unusable, slowing DISH's deployment due to delays in the 3GPP standards 
process, requiring as many as 15-30% additional sites for licensees of 
AWS-4 authority, and not creating a net gain of spectrum for broadband. 
DISH proposed that we instead adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 
log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz and separately that we adopt an OOBE 
limit of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz. We are not 
persuaded by these arguments.
    57. We adopt the specific level of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB 
because it provides a reasonable level of protection for the 1995-2000 
MHz band, there is directly applicable precedent in the existing 
protection of the PCS G block from MSS/ATC, and it is superior to other 
attenuation levels raised in the record. As DISH correctly notes, the 
interference from the AWS-4 uplink to operations in the 1995-2000 MHz 
band is likely to be mobile-to-mobile interference, and is therefore 
probabilistic, meaning the probability of interference depends on the 
likelihood of the interfering and victim mobiles passing close enough 
to each other under the right conditions. However, determining that 
interference is probabilistic does not mean that it should be ignored; 
rather, it means that rules should be set to ensure that the 
probability of interference is reasonably low. To evaluate this 
probability, we make reasonable assumptions about interference and look 
at the separation needed between mobile devices to prevent interference 
with those assumptions. A larger resulting separation indicates a 
higher likelihood of interference. In its comments on this proceeding, 
Motorola proposes assumptions for the protection of the 1930-1995 MHz 
band that we find reasonable, with one modification, and applicable to 
the 1995-2000 MHz band. Using the proposed assumptions with this 
modification, 70 + 10 log10(P) dB yields a separation of 1.4 
meters (under 5 feet), similar to the separation of 2 meters (about 6 
feet) proposed by Motorola and the separations typically used in 3GPP 
standards. 70 + 10 log10(P) dB is also the level that Sprint 
recommends as necessary to protect the 1995-2000 MHz band. As another 
reference point, 3GPP adopts a similar but more stringent level of 80 + 
10 log10(P) dB for the protection of mobile receivers from 
mobile transmitters in most cases.
    58. DISH's initial proposal of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB does 
not provide adequate protection to the 1995-2000 MHz band. Applying the 
same calculations to the level of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB yields 
a separation of 32 meters (over 100 feet). This represents a dramatic 
increase in the probability in interference, because it is far more 
likely that two mobiles will pass within 100 feet of each other, rather 
than 5 feet of each other.
    59. Although DISH provides more technical support for its later 
proposal of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB, including references to two 
3GPP submissions, from Qualcomm and Intel respectively, and one CEPT 
(European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations) 
study that proposed levels less stringent than 60 + 10 
log10(P) dB in various situations, we observe that applying 
the above assumptions to the 60 + 10 log10(P) dB level would 
result in a separation of 14 meters (about 46 feet), an unacceptably 
high separation compared to industry norms. In addition, each of these 
studies considers a different case than we consider here, and thus is 
not directly applicable. Finally, we note that despite these studies, 
3GPP has adopted the level of 80 + 10 log10(P) dB for the 
protection of the vast majority of bands, and offering a level of only 
60 + 10 log10(P) dB may not allow full use of the 1995-2000 
MHz band. Further, DISH argues that independent of the OOBE level, 
interference can only occur 0.25% of the time. However, DISH offered no 
data to support its conclusions. In sum, contrary to DISH's assertions 
that this emission limit is not necessary to protect the 1995-2000 MHz 
band, we find attenuating OOBE in 1995-2000 MHz by a factor of 70 + 10 
log10(P) dB will provide needed protection to the 1995-2000 
MHz band.
    60. In addition to providing reasonable protection from 
interference, 70 + 10 log10(P) dB is the level the 
Commission has already determined appropriate for protection of PCS 
operations below 1995 MHz, and given the expected similarity of 
operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, this level is also applicable to 
AWS-4 emissions into the 1995-2000 MHz band. DISH suggests that this is 
not an applicable precedent because it was previously applied at 5 
megahertz separation from the MSS/ATC band, not at the band edge. DISH 
suggests that precedents such as 60 + 10 log10(P) dB, 55 + 
10 log10(P) dB, or 43 + 10 log10(P) dB are more 
relevant. We disagree with DISH because we find that the interference 
in the 1995-2000 MHz band will be driven by the AWS-4 OOBE into the 
1995-2000 MHz band itself, not by the emission levels of the 
transmissions outside these frequencies. Therefore, the frequency 
separation from the band edge is not determinative of establishing the 
OOBE limit. In addition, the 60 + 10 log10(P) dB level is 
from a study of TDD to FDD interference released by the Commission's 
Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), which did not result in the 
adoption of this limit into our rules. Although this study considers a 
similar case of mobile-to-mobile interference, the difference results 
from differing assumptions, including assumptions that the victim 
handset is using UMTS and can tolerate an interfering signal 11.8 dB 
stronger than its desired signal. LTE mobiles, however, cannot 
necessarily tolerate such high levels of interference, and we find, in 
agreement with the modified Motorola assumptions discussed above, that 
the interfering signal should be no stronger than the mobile's noise 
floor. Applying this one change to the assumptions of the OET study 
would result in level of at least 71 + 10 log10(P) dB. DISH 
also argues that the 55 + 10 log10(P) level, used in BRS, is 
a similar case of TDD to FDD interference. There are many differences 
between the BRS band and the 1995-2000 MHz band, including the 
flexibility of BRS operators to synchronize their systems to avoid 
interference and the greater ease of achieving frequency separations in 
a 194 megahertz band. In addition, we note that the BRS rules apply a 
level of 67 + 10 log10(P) to fixed stations in the event of 
interference complaints, much closer to the 70 +10 log10(P) 
level we adopt here. Further, as discussed above, the 43 + 10 
log10(P) dB level does not provide adequate protection from 
interference in this case and so is not appropriate here.
    61. Although applying this limit of 70 +10 log10(P) dB 
at the edge of the AWS-4 band may be more restrictive than applying it 
at 1995 MHz and below, we find DISH's assertions that adopting this 
limit at and below 2000 MHz would increase the cost of mobile devices, 
require significant power reductions, and require a roll-off region to 
be poorly supported and unpersuasive. DISH did not quantify these 
hardships with specific cost numbers, filter insertion losses, power 
reduction requirements, or the amount of spectrum impacted. Nor did 
DISH explain what factors would increase the cost of the mobile 
devices, so it is not clear if these impacts would be independent of or

[[Page 8239]]

additive to one another. For example, there is a trade-off between 
filter roll-off and filter cost (and therefore device cost), so it may 
not be reasonable to assert both hardships will result. Further, we 
note that to the extent there is a roll-off region or power reduction 
region, these reduce the power in the lower part of the AWS-4 uplink 
band, but do not necessarily render it unusable. For example, if there 
is reduced coverage in the first 5 megahertz, it may still be usable 
for capacity in areas of good coverage. In fact, with technological 
advancements it may be put to use dynamically. For example, a base 
station scheduler using a 10 megahertz carrier in 2000-2010 MHz could 
assign mobiles in good signal conditions (and therefore requiring less 
power to close the link) to the lower 5 megahertz, and mobiles in poor 
signal conditions (requiring higher power) to the upper 5 megahertz, 
thereby making use of all of the spectrum.
    62. Similarly, we find to be flawed DISH's arguments that the limit 
of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz would render 
25% of the AWS-4 uplink spectrum unusable and increase AWS-4 deployment 
costs by 15-30% DISH's argument for rendering 25% of the uplink 
unusable actually asserts that base station operations in the 1995-2000 
MHz band would potentially overload its AWS-4 base station receivers; 
DISH does not make an argument based on the AWS-4 uplink OOBE limit. 
Therefore, this argument is not relevant to the OOBE limits on AWS-4 
devices. However, we do discuss potential interference from the 1995-
2000 MHz band to AWS-4 base stations below. Similarly, DISH argues that 
the anticipated OOBE from 1995-2000 MHz band transmitters above 2005 
MHz will require additional site builds where colocation is not 
possible, and makes some high-level, general statements that the impact 
represents about a 15% increase in the number of sites to be built. 
This is also not relevant to the limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) 
dB at 2000 MHz for the AWS-4 uplink. The technical requirements for 
base stations in the 1995-2000 MHz band are outside the scope of this 
Report and Order and will be addressed in the H Block NPRM.
    63. We also find for the reasons stated above that, to the extent 
imposing a limit of 70 +10 log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz 
does have some negative impact on the usability of the AWS-4 uplink, 
this impact is balanced by the increased utility of the 1995-2000 MHz 
band. DISH argues that its claimed loss of 25% of its uplink spectrum 
to enable the full flexible use of the 5 megahertz of the 1995-2000 MHz 
band will result in no net increase in the amount of spectrum available 
for broadband. However, this claim overlooks the fact that if 1995-2000 
MHz is paired with 1915-1920 MHz, the calibrated restrictions we place 
on AWS-4 may enable the Commission to make available 10 megahertz of 
broadband spectrum. Moreover, the restrictions would still allow the 
full use of at least 5 megahertz (if not more) of uplink (i.e., at 
least 2005-2010 MHz of the 2000-2010 MHz uplink segment) and the full 
10 megahertz of paired downlink spectrum (i.e., 2180-2190 MHz). This 
would not be the case if the restrictions at issue were imposed on 
1995-2000 MHz in a scenario where that spectrum is only paired with 
another 5 megahertz. And, even if 1995-2000 MHz becomes an unpaired 
downlink band, DISH's argument rests on the assumption that 5 megahertz 
of uplink in the 2000-2020 MHz band is equivalent to 5 megahertz of 
downlink in the 1995-2000 MHz. As discussed above, this argument is 
flawed, because (1) there is more need for downlink spectrum than 
uplink spectrum, (2) the restricted use of 5 megahertz would have less 
of an impact to a 10 or 20 megahertz carrier in the AWS-4 band than it 
would to a 5 megahertz carrier in the 1995-2000 MHz band, including a 
carrier that would use the 1995-2000 MHz band to expand an existing use 
of the PCS band, (3) given the downlink-limited nature of broadband 
capacity, the loss of 5 megahertz of uplink spectrum in a band with two 
paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks may have no impact on actual network 
capacity, and (4) an extension of an existing band is more easily 
utilized than a new band.
    64. We are also not convinced by DISH's argument that adopting this 
limit will protect and favor an unassigned band over an assigned band. 
Because there has been no deployment of terrestrial services, devices, 
or base stations in either band, we find this argument unpersuasive. 
DISH further argues that adopting this limit places ``the entire 
burden'' on AWS-4, and that imposing this limit is premature and an 
attempt to predetermine the rules for the 1995-2000 MHz band. We 
disagree. We do not set rules for 1995-2000 MHz in this proceeding; 
rather, we set some limitations on AWS-4 which are balanced by 
promoting the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band.
    65. In addition, the likely practical impact of technical 
protections for the 1995-2000 MHz band in the AWS-4 uplink is small. We 
are not reclaiming any spectrum; rather, we are implementing an OOBE 
limit that may reduce the power levels on some uplink spectrum. As 
discussed above, with newer technologies such as LTE, power reductions 
of a portion of a carrier do not prevent it from being put to use in 
some portions of a cell and augmenting capacity. Further, current 
broadband networks use far more downlink capacity than uplink capacity. 
Based on prevailing traffic patterns, a licensee of AWS-4 authority 
with 20 MHz of downlink capacity is very likely to have excess uplink 
capacity in any case. DISH states that this line of reasoning is 
``misguided'', because DISH needs 40 megahertz to compete, and needs 
``more spectrum, not less.'' However, DISH fails to address the 
asymmetry of traffic, and only makes the blanket statement that it 
needs more spectrum. Of course, like all operators, DISH is free to 
acquire more spectrum as needed, and in fact we observe that DISH has 
spectrum in other bands, including in the 700 MHz Band. In any case, we 
are creating 40 megahertz of terrestrial rights. Although the rules we 
adopt may limit the power levels in part of the uplink spectrum, they 
do not prohibit its use, and as discussed below, they leave room for 
the licensee of AWS-4 operating authority to find technical or business 
approaches to increase the utility of the uplink spectrum if needed.
    66. Finally, we find DISH's arguments that adopting this emission 
limit would delay its deployment time frame by causing delay in 
equipment standards in 3GPP to be unpersuasive. First, the Commission 
has historically not based its decisions regarding the appropriate 
technical rules for a wireless service merely on the potential of those 
decisions to delay the development of private party technical 
standards. Second, DISH is not required to await 3GPP standards 
resolution to design, test, and deploy equipment, particularly if it is 
the only operator in the band. Rather, a decision to wait until 3GPP 
has established final standards is an internal business decision, not a 
delay imposed by the Commission's development of technical rules for 
the service. Third, the only change necessary in the 3GPP standard 
would be modifying band 23 to accommodate the emission limit at 2000 
MHz (and the power limits for operations in 2000-2005 MHz); many of the 
other parameters for this band (e.g., OOBE at 2020 MHz; duplex spacing; 
frequencies; channel numbers; and so forth) could remain the same. 
Sprint has indicated that this additional work should take less than 6 
months, and it has stated its commitment to facilitating relevant work 
in 3GPP. Fourth, DISH can also

[[Page 8240]]

mitigate a delay in obtaining final standards in several ways. For 
example, in its comments, DISH identifies several groups of tasks that 
would need to be completed prior to the launch of service, but states 
that the task groups must be performed serially, taking four years in 
sum. We do not believe that either engineering or business practices 
require these tasks be completed in a serial process; rather, we 
believe that they can be accomplished in part in parallel. Indeed, in 
the WCS proceeding, AT&T indicated that about half of the time needed 
to develop standards would overlap with equipment design and equipment 
testing. If DISH were to apply a similar level of overlap to the tasks 
it outlines, it would still be able to meet its proposed 4 year 
timeline for launching service. In sum, while DISH makes unsupported, 
speculative, and vague statements as to the possible impact of 3GPP 
timing on its market entry, the impact of not adopting these rules is 
clear and detrimental to the public interest.
    67. As discussed above, DISH also proposed a combination of rules 
and commitments that it says will allow full use of the 1995-2000 MHz 
band while preventing any 3GPP delay. In addition to finding above that 
this proposal does not facilitate full flexible use of the 1995-2000 
MHz band, we also find that it does not reduce the likelihood of 3GPP 
delays. DISH bases its argument on its assertion that integration of an 
external duplexer will allow it to meet a level of 60 + 10 
log10(P) dB without changing the design of its chipset. 
However, as DISH has pointed out, the 3GPP standards contain the 
current ATC rule for OOBE in 1995-2000 MHz in the device co-existence 
table, and regardless as to whether the limit is 60 + 10 
log10(P) dB or 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, 3GPP may 
choose to update this table and evaluate the impact of the new level on 
device design. Further, since the level of 60 + 10 log10(P) 
dB affords less protection than 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, it may 
create more contention and delay in 3GPP than our proposal. In summary, 
we do not find support in the record that adopting a level of 60 + 10 
log10(P) dB will bring operations in the AWS-4 band to 
market sooner than the attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB 
that we do adopt.
    68. Private Agreements. We recognize that technological 
improvements in devices in the 1995-2000 MHz band, as well as 
willingness on the part of licensees of the 1995-2000 MHz band to 
accept a higher probability of interference, could reduce the need for 
OOBE restrictions in 1995-2000 MHz. Therefore, we allow for licensees 
of AWS-4 authority to enter into private operator-to-operator 
agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 1995-2000 MHz 
at OOBE levels above 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
    69. Summary. We find that while DISH argues that the imposition of 
an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB on AWS-4 uplink 
operations will render 5 megahertz of the AWS-4 uplink unusable and 
create delays in 3GPP, these arguments are unsupported, speculative, 
and vague, and in some cases not relevant to the uplink OOBE limit. 
Similarly, we do not find DISH's recent proposal of 60 + 10 
log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz to be an appropriate limit. While we 
acknowledge that imposition of the limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) 
dB may have a negative impact on the usability of a portion of the AWS-
4 uplink band, this is more than offset by the public interest benefits 
of increasing the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band. Moreover, some 
of DISH's objections are not relevant to the OOBE limit on the AWS-4 
uplink, but instead have to do with power and OOBE for operations in 
the 1995-2000 MHz band. As discussed below, DISH in fact does also 
suggest OOBE and power limitations for the 1995-2000 MHz band. As 
discussed elsewhere, we have had an open proceeding since 2004 that 
proposed full power use in 1995-2000 MHz, and an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 
log10(P) dB for H block transmitters. Therefore, DISH has 
been aware of these issues for some time. These issues, moreover, can 
be addressed in the H Block NPRM. Further, even if our actions do in 
fact create only 15 megahertz of usable uplink for terrestrial use, 
this Report and Order still creates a large increase in the overall 
utility of this spectrum. That is, 15 megahertz of full usable 
terrestrial uplink can be put to more productive use than 20 megahertz 
of MSS/ATC uplink spectrum. For example, one commenter suggested that 
this conversion creates billions of dollars in value. For all these 
reasons, we find that requiring an attenuation of 70 + 10 
log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz is appropriate for the 
AWS-4 uplink.
    70. Finally, we decline to address the request by DISH that we 
clarify that the existing linear interpolation of the OOBE between 2000 
MHz and 1995 MHz should be calculated in watts, rather than in dB. 
Because we adopt a flat OOBE limit across 1995-2000 MHz, this issue is 
moot, and we do not make a determination on it.
    71. Measurement Procedure. We adopt the measurement procedure set 
forth in Section 27.53(h) of our rules to determine compliance with 
this limit. This section requires a measurement bandwidth of 1 
megahertz or greater with an exception allowing a smaller measurement 
bandwidth in the first megahertz adjacent to the channel.
    72. In sum, in order to maximize the public interest, comply with 
Congressional direction, and best balance the most efficient use of all 
relevant spectrum bands, including enabling future operations in the 
1995-2000 MHz band and creating a useful AWS-4 band, we set the OOBE 
limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at all frequencies at or below 
2000 MHz.
(iii) Interference with operations in 2020-2025 MHz
    73. We conclude that the 43 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit 
and the measurement procedure set forth in Sec.  27.53(h) are 
appropriate for protecting the 2020-2025 MHz band. No commenters 
opposed this proposal. Thus, for the reasons articulated in the AWS-4 
NPRM, 77 FR 22720, Apr. 17, 2012, and in the ICO Waiver Order, 74 FR 
29607 (Jun. 23, 2009), we find that this OOBE limit remains 
appropriate.
(iv) Interference with operations above 2025 MHz
    74. We conclude the 43 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit and 
the associated measurement procedure defined in Sec.  27.53(h) are 
appropriate for protecting federal operations and BAS and CARS 
operations at 2025-2110 MHz. This limit is consistent with the record 
and no commenters disagreed with a 43 + 10 log10(P) OOBE 
limit above 2025 MHz, thus we conclude the record indicates that the 
benefits of the proposal outweigh any potential costs. Thus, we find it 
appropriate to continue to apply the 43 + 10 log10(P) OOBE 
limit and its associated measurement procedure that has effectively 
been in place since 2009.
(v) Interference with operations below 2180 MHz
    75. We adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB to 
protect wireless systems that will operate below 2180 MHz. This 
conclusion is supported by the record. Furthermore, we anticipate 
future operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band will be similar in design 
and use to cellular and PCS systems, in which the 43 + 10 
log10(P) dB limit has been used effectively in limiting 
adjacent channel interference between systems operating in the same 
direction (e.g., downlink next to downlink). We therefore adopt the 43 
+ 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit below 2180 MHz for all 
transmitters operating in the 2180-2200 bands. With no commenters 
opposing this emission limit, we further conclude

[[Page 8241]]

that its benefits outweigh any potential costs.
(vi) Interference with operations above 2200 MHz
    76. Background. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on 
the appropriate OOBE limit for licensees of AWS-4 downlink spectrum at 
2180-2200 MHz in order to protect adjacent block operations, including 
federal operations at 2200-2290 MHz. The Commission observed that the 
part 25 rules set forth strict emission limitations (-100.6 dBW/4 kHz 
EIRP) in the 2180-2200 MHz band, including at the 2200 MHz band edge. 
The rules also prohibit the location of 2180-2200 MHz base stations 
within 820 meters of a Federal earth station operating in the 2200-2290 
MHz band. In 2009, however, the Commission waived the part 25 emission 
limit (-100.6 dBW/4kHz EIRP) rule for one of the 2 GHz MSS/ATC 
licensees with regard to operations at or above 2200 MHz; instead of 
the rule, that licensee was required to satisfy the terms of an 
operator-to-operator agreement between the MSS/ATC licensee and certain 
federal operators in the 2200-2290 MHz band. That agreement specified 
that, in certain circumstances, the MSS/ATC licensee was required to 
satisfy the part 25 emission limit, but in other circumstances, only 
had to satisfy the standard Commission emission limit of 43 + 10 
log10(P) dB. In December 2012, DISH and federal users of the 
2200-2290 MHz band entered into an operator-to-operator agreement, 
which the National Telecommunications and Information Administration 
(NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce transmitted to the 
Commission. The agreement specifies that DISH (through its 
subsidiaries, as appropriate) will operate each base station in the 
2180-2200 MHz band such that the power spectral density (PSD) of the 
signal received at existing Federal earth stations and aeronautical 
mobile telemetry (AMT) stations shall not exceed agreed upon levels. 
The agreement also contains provisions for addressing the operation of 
2180-2200 MHz base station relative to new federal stations to be 
deployed in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
    77. Discussion. We adopt the following approach for protecting 
Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band from harmful interference 
from AWS-4 operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band. First, as discussed 
further below, we permit AWS-4 operators and Federal operators to enter 
into an operator-to-operator agreement that will specify terms of the 
permissible AWS-4 OOBE limits and/or maximum actual AWS-4 emissions to 
be received at the sites of Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz 
band. Second, we establish default OOBE limits for AWS-4 operations 
into the 2200-2290 MHz band in the event such private agreement were 
not in effect (e.g., the agreement was terminated pursuant to its 
terms); AWS-4 licenses return to the Commission (e.g., for a licensee's 
failure to meet the construction requirements).
    78. We adopt this approach after careful analysis of the options 
before us. As explained above, the current ATC regime for protecting 
Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band is a mix of Commission 
rules, waiver orders, and operator-to-operator agreements. As a result, 
the two MSS/ATC licensees have different interference protection 
requirements with respect to Federal operators in the 2200-2290 MHz 
band. Further, as noted above, during the course of this proceeding, 
the current 2 GHz MSS/ATC licensees (and prospective AWS-4 licensees) 
entered into an operator-to-operator agreement with Federal operators 
in the 2200-2290 MHz band. It is against this backdrop that we 
promulgate OOBE rules for AWS-4 base station emissions into the 2200-
2290 MHz band, which, like the ATC regime, will both set clear rules 
and allow licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to deviate from those 
rules by entering into operator-to-operator agreements, which will be 
transmitted to the Commission by NTIA.
    79. First, we permit, but do not require, licensees of AWS-4 
authority to enter into operator-to-operator agreements with Federal 
operators at 2200-2290 MHz to address the attenuation of emissions from 
AWS-4 base stations operating at 2180-2200 MHz into the adjacent 
Federal band, so long as such agreements do not otherwise run afoul of 
other Commission rules. We observe that the existing MSS/ATC licensees 
and federal users of the 2200-2290 MHz band have already effectuated 
such an agreement on what they, as actual operators, find to be the 
best environment to avoid actual harmful interference. We applaud the 
adjacent Federal and non-Federal operators for reaching this agreement 
and, with this Report and Order, provide a foundation for this 
agreement and other similar agreements that might be reached in the 
future without the need for a waiver or other special permission from 
the Commission. Therefore, we permit the DISH-Federal Agreement to 
govern AWS-4 base station emissions from 2180-2200 MHz into the 2200-
2290 MHz band. Specifically, when, as discussed below, the licenses 
held by the current 2 GHz MSS licensees are modified to include AWS-4 
service, we will include as conditions to such license modifications 
the requirement that the licensees of AWS-4 operating authority must 
comply with the DISH-Federal Agreement with regard to the permissible 
AWS-4 emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band and/or the maximum actual 
AWS-4 emissions to be received at the specified sites of Federal 
operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band. To ensure that this agreement, 
and any subsequent agreements are consistent with other Commission 
rules and do not impede the operation of secondary markets, we require 
that the licensee of AWS-4 authority who is a party to an operator-to-
operator agreement maintain a copy of the agreement(s) in its station 
files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS-4 assignees, 
transferees, or spectrum lessees, to Federal operators in the 2200-2290 
MHz band, and to the Commission.
    80. Second, to ensure that OOBE limits are established in the event 
such private agreements are not entered into or do not address all 
situations between AWS-4 operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band and 
Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band, we establish default OOBE 
limits for AWS-4 emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band. Because the 
record does not contain any technical justification to support any 
specific OOBE limit, and because the Commission did not propose a 
specific limit in the AWS-4 NPRM, we adopt the protection levels 
contained in the ATC rules relative to protection of Federal operations 
in the 2200-2290 MHz band. Accordingly, AWS-4 base stations operating 
in 2180-2200 MHz shall not exceed an EIRP of -100.6 dBW/4 kHz for 
emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band. Further AWS-4 base stations 
operating in 2180-2200 MHz may not be located less than 820 meters from 
a U.S. Earth Station facility operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
    81. Finally, to avoid possible confusion between the operation of 
an operator-to-operator agreement and the default OOBE limit, we 
clarify the application of our rules in the event that (1) an operator-
to-operator agreement ceases to operate (for whatever reason) or (2) is 
operative for less than the entire universe of AWS-4 licenses or 
Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band. In either case where the 
agreement is not in effect, the licensee of AWS-4 operating authority 
must comply with the default rule. For example, should the DISH-Federal 
Agreement terminate

[[Page 8242]]

for any reason, DISH (assuming it is the licensee of AWS-4 authority) 
would be required to operate pursuant to the default rule.
    82. To ensure that AWS-4 base stations would be able to operate 
pursuant both to an operator-to-operator agreement and to the default 
rule, equipment manufacturers may seek equipment authorization for 
equipment designed against either the OOBE limit in the default rule, 
the OOBE limit in an executed operator-to-operator agreement between a 
licensee of AWS-4 authority and Federal operators in the 2200-2290 MHz 
band (which must provide at least 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB of 
attenuation), or both, except as specified below. We shall approve or 
deny the equipment authorization, based on testing against whichever 
(or both) OOBE the manufacturer requests.
    83. We recognize, however, that equipment designed to operate to 
the stricter default OOBE limits will also comply with any more relaxed 
OOBE limit contained in an operator-to-operator agreement. In the case 
where equipment is intended to be operated at either the default or the 
relaxed limits, we believe the equipment will be either modified or 
adjusted by the manufacturer or in the field. That is, we expect the 
equipment to have more than one mode of operation in this case. We 
require the application for equipment authorization for such equipment 
to clearly demonstrate compliance with both limits. If at the time of 
authorization the equipment is only approved for compliance with one 
limit, but is expected to be modified subsequently by the manufacturer 
to operate in another mode either in the factory or in the field, the 
original equipment must be approved to permit such changes or meet such 
changes as allowed in the permissive change rules for equipment 
authorization.
    84. In addition, a licensee in the AWS-4 band may operate its base 
stations consistent with its operator-to-operator agreement only if 
such an agreement is in effect. In any other situation, including where 
such an agreement existed, but has been terminated (for whatever 
reason), the licensee must operate AWS-4 base stations that have 
obtained equipment authorization based on the default rule. To the 
extent that a licensee of AWS-4 authority that is a party to an 
operator-to-operator agreement installs and operates bases stations 
that are authorized against an OOBE limit that is less stringent than 
the default rule, that licensee is solely responsible for ensuring that 
its equipment would be authorized to operate in the event that the 
agreement terminates (for whatever reason).
(vii) Interference with Global Positioning Systems (GPS) operations
    85. Background. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission observed that the 
current Part 25 MSS/ATC rules require certain protection limits over 
the GPS band at 1559-1610 MHz. Specifically, the current rules require 
2 GHz MSS/ATC base stations and mobile terminals to provide an EIRP 
limit of -70 dBW/MHz or -80 dBW/700Hz, measured over any two 
millisecond active transmission interval, in the 1559-1610 MHz band. 
The Commission also observed that different MSS/ATC bands have 
different frequency separations from the GPS band and sought comment on 
whether any special interference rules should apply to AWS-4 operations 
to protect GPS service.
    86. Some parties submitted comments asking for tighter emissions 
limits over the GPS band. USGIC argued that the current part 25 OOBE 
limits for the protection of GPS operations at 1559-1610 MHz from 
terrestrial operations in the 2 GHz band are obsolete and proposed that 
the Commission adopt the EIRP emission limits agreed to by TerreStar 
and DBSD in their ATC authorization proceedings--EIRP emission limits 
for mobile transmitters of -95dBW/MHz for wideband signals and of -
105dBW/kHz for narrowband signals, and EIRP emission limits for fixed 
or base station of -100dBW/MHz for wideband signals and of -110dBW/kHz 
for narrowband signals. Deere similarly asserted that the OOBE limits 
in the Part 25 rules are not sufficient to protect GPS operations at 
1559-1610 MHz, observed that TerreStar and DBSD had agreed to more 
stringent limits, and recommended that the Commission ``further study 
this issue and consider an update to the OOBE limit'' that should be 
applied to AWS-4 operations. On September 27, 2012, DISH and USGIC 
submitted a letter agreement in which DISH agreed to limit its OOBE 
EIRP densities over the 1559-1610 MHz band to the limits contained in 
USGIC's comments.
    87. Other parties opposed the addition of GPS specific protection 
limits for AWS-4 operations. CTIA stated that GPS protection limits are 
not necessary for AWS-4 operations because the AWS-4 band is located 
several hundred megahertz away from the GPS band. CTIA further observed 
that operations in bands much closer to the GPS frequencies, such as 
the AWS-1 band (1710-1755 MHz; 2110-2155 MHz), operate with an OOBE 
limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB into the GPS band and these 
operations have not given rise to any complaints of interference to 
GPS. Instead of adopting OOBE limits, either by rule or by license 
condition, CTIA recommended that the Commission continue its recent 
efforts to examine receiver performance and noted that the Commission 
had recently held a workshop on receiver performance issues. 
LightSquared also stated that the Commission should focus its efforts 
to protect GPS by examining GPS receiver reliability standards. 
Greenwood claimed that the -105dBW/MHz EIRP limit would be reasonable 
if implemented over time, provided that receiver protection 
requirements for GPS/GNSS receivers increase to mitigate interference 
susceptibility. Greenwood, like CTIA, also observed that there are many 
millions of devices transmitting between the GPS and AWS-4 bands that 
operate in bands that do not have specific OOBE protection levels for 
GPS and that are not causing OOBE interference to GPS.
    88. Discussion. The Commission has long recognized the importance 
of GPS and our responsibility to ensure that it receives appropriate 
interference protections from other radiocommunication services. The 
Commission generally supports the actions of licensees to resolve 
interference issues raised by other spectrum holders or users through 
private agreements, where, as is the case here, they are not otherwise 
inconsistent with Commission rules or policies. Because the prospective 
licensees of AWS-4 operating authority have reached a private agreement 
with the industry council representing GPS interests, the USGIC, we 
believe the most appropriate approach is to require that, as a license 
condition, the licensees comply with this agreement and the specific 
GPS protection limits contained therein. This is consistent with the 
USGIC's request that we ``condition AWS-4 licenses with the OOBE limits 
jointly agreed by DISH and the USGIC.'' The licenses, moreover, shall 
remain subject to this license condition in the event that the 
licensees assign or otherwise transfer the licenses to successors-in-
interest or assignees. To the extent that AWS-4 licenses return to the 
Commission (e.g., for a licensee's failure to meet the construction 
requirements), the Commission will, prior to reassigning such licenses, 
consult with NTIA about the need for specific OOBE requirements on the 
new licenses to protect GPS operations in the 1559-1610 MHz band.
    89. In requiring the licensees comply with their voluntary 
agreement, we need not--and do not--reach the issue of

[[Page 8243]]

determining whether the record contains sufficient information on 
whether and, if so, at what level, to establish an OOBE limit rule for 
protection of GPS from AWS-4 operations. We observe that the USGIC 
stated that both it and its member Deere believe that the emissions 
limits for the GPS band for services operating in other frequency bands 
should be considered on a ``case-by-case basis.'' We make no 
determination as to whether the limits in the private agreement are 
appropriate or viable for services operating in other spectrum.
(viii) Interference with Other Bands
    90. DISH suggested that we should impose emission limits on the 
1995-2000 MHz block and on the 1930-1995 MHz PCS blocks, as well as 
power limitations for 1995-2000 MHz operations. Establishing such 
limits are outside the scope of this Report and Order, which sets 
service rules for AWS-4 spectrum, not the 1995-2000 MHz or 1930-1995 
MHz bands. OOBE and power limits for the 1995-2000 MHz band will be 
addressed in the H Block NPRM. To the extent that any party seeks a 
change in the existing PCS rules, that party is free to petition the 
Commission for a rule change.
    91. Nevertheless, we observe that DISH proposed that the Commission 
limit 1995-2000 MHz block base station operations by an attenuation of 
70 + 10 log10(P) dB at and above 2000 MHz, and later 
proposed instead that such operations should be attenuated by a factor 
of 79 + 10 log10(P) dB at and above 2005 MHz. Similarly, 
DISH suggested that the in-band transmit power of operations in the 
1995-2000 MHz band should be significantly reduced, i.e., that this 
should be a low power band. These proposals could reduce the usability 
of the 1995-2000 MHz band. Such limits appear to be inconsistent with 
our general finding that the public interest, consistent with the 
Spectrum Act, is best served by preserving the usability of 1995-2000 
MHz even if there is a possibility of reduced usability of the lower 
portion of the AWS-4 uplink band. Thus, we caution any licensee of AWS-
4 operating authority against designing or deploying its network 
(except at its own risk) assuming either of these levels of OOBE 
protection for the 2000-2005 MHz band from the 1995-2000 MHz band or 
low power limits in the 1995-2000 MHz band. As noted below, the 
Commission will not take action to protect licensees of AWS-4 operating 
authority from interference that arises in such a scenario. We expect 
that licensees and their equipment suppliers will take this warning 
into account when establishing technical specifications, including 
industry standards, and procuring equipment for the band. To the extent 
that satellite receivers have already been deployed, which could suffer 
reductions in performance if full power services are deployed in 1995-
2000 MHz, we note that our proceeding proposing full power flexible use 
for 1995-2000 MHz has been open since 2004, before satellites operating 
in the 2000-2020 MHz band were launched, or even likely designed. 
Therefore, we expect that the satellites were designed with this 
overload scenario in mind and there should, therefore, be no impact to 
MSS. To the extent this is not the case, we do not expect to limit use 
of 1995-2000 MHz due to any limitations of receivers deployed after our 
proceeding on use of 1995-2000 MHz was opened.
2. Co-Channel Interference Among AWS-4 Systems
    92. Co-channel interference rules prevent harmful interference 
between geographically adjacent licenses operating in the same 
spectrum. Specifically, to avoid this interference, the Commission 
adopts field strength limits that apply at the geographic edge of the 
license area. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed that the 
current AWS-1 signal strength limit be applied to AWS-4 operations. we 
must adopt signal strength limits here. With no commenters opposing 
this proposal, we conclude that the benefits of our proposal outweigh 
any potential costs. As we are basing our technical rules generally on 
AWS-1 rules where applicable, we continue to believe it appropriate to 
adopt the AWS-1 co-channel interference requirements for AWS-4. Thus we 
adopt the proposed co-channel interference levels and expand Sec.  
27.55(a)(1) of the Commission's rules to include the 2180-2200 MHz 
band. We observe, however, that the assignment approach we adopt below 
likely will result in an individual licensee obtaining assignments for 
geographically adjacent AWS-4 EA licenses. In such a scenario, that 
licensee may choose not to observe this signal strength limit between 
its geographically adjacent AWS-4 licenses, so long as it complies with 
other Commission rules and the adjacent affected service area 
licensee(s) agree(s) to a different field strength.
3. Receiver Performance
    93. We decline to address receiver performance issues at this time 
due to lack of details and discussions in the record. We will continue 
our efforts to collaborate with multiple stakeholders on receiver 
performance and establish a path forward based on the various inputs 
from interested parties, including the final recommendations of the 
Commission's Technological Advisory Council, Receiver and Spectrum 
Working Group.
4. Power Limits
    94. The Commission sought comment on appropriate power limits for 
terrestrial operations in the AWS-4 band. Specifically, the Commission 
proposed to apply existing AWS-1 power limits for both base and mobile 
stations in the AWS-4 bands. As discussed below, we adopt the 
Commission's proposed power limit for base stations. For mobile 
operations we adopt a power limit of 2 watts total equivalent 
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) with the additional constraint that 
total power between 2000-2005 MHz be limited to 5 milliwatts EIRP.
a. Base Stations
    95. We adopt the three base station power limits. As we explain 
throughout this order, we base our technical rules on those in place 
for AWS-1 spectrum. The proposed rules are based on those for AWS-1, 
and we received no comments opposing the rules. Thus, we adopt the 
proposal to limit AWS-4 base stations to 1640 watts EIRP for emissions 
less than 1 MHz and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 MHz for 
non-rural areas; the proposal to set AWS-4 power limits for base 
stations operating in rural areas at the limits specified in 
27.50(d)(1-2) of the Commission's rules; and the proposal that AWS-4 
base stations with transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/
MHz EIRP be required to coordinate with users in adjacent AWS blocks 
located within 120 kilometers. These power limits will help ensure 
robust service in the AWS-4 bands, while also helping to minimize 
harmful interference into other bands. No commenters opposed these 
proposals.
b. Mobile Stations
    96. We adopt the following power limits for AWS-4 mobile 
operations. First, we adopt a limit of 2 watts equivalent isotropically 
radiated power (EIRP) for the total power of a device operating in the 
AWS-4 uplink. Then, to protect future operations in the adjacent 1995-
2000 MHz band, we also limit the power of the portion of a device's 
transmission that falls into 2000-2005 MHz to 5 milliwatts. Our 
adoption of these requirements is based on the following technical 
analysis.

[[Page 8244]]

    97. First, we consider the total mobile power for the AWS-4 uplink 
band. Although we generally are applying AWS-1 technical rules to AWS-
4, here we adopt the 2 watt EIRP power limit proposed by DISH. No party 
opposed this proposal. We find that DISH is correct in its 
understanding of the ATC rule, and a 2 watt power limit is more 
restrictive than the existing ATC rules in the case of large 
bandwidths, which may be deployed in this band. Conversely, we note 
that keeping the PSD-based ATC rule would unnecessarily limit 
flexibility, and it could restrict the use of narrow transmission 
bandwidths, such as an LTE mobile transmitting on only a few resource 
blocks. We agree with DISH that a 2 watt EIRP for AWS-4 mobiles will 
provide adequate protection to PCS mobiles operating at 1990-1995 MHz.
    98. Second, as discussed above, to promote the best and highest use 
of spectrum, to fulfill our statutory obligations, and to maintain 
consistency with past Commission actions, we determine that it is in 
the public interest to ensure the efficient and robust use of both the 
1995-2000 MHz band and the AWS-4 band, even if that results in adopting 
targeted rules that partially limit the usability of a portion of the 
AWS-4 uplink band. For these reasons, above we establish specific 
attenuation requirements to address interference from AWS-4 OOBE into 
the 1995-2000 MHz band. OOBE limits do not, however, address overload 
issues. Overload interference can occur in a receiver when it receives 
signals outside of the frequencies of the desired signal, especially if 
they are of a much higher power than the desired signal. Overload 
interference can be managed by improving receiver performance through 
filtering or other techniques, or by placing transmit power limitations 
on the authorized frequencies of the potential interferer. We find 
below that a balance of expected improved performance for receivers in 
1995-2000 MHz (relative to typical specifications) and establishing 
power limitations on AWS-4 operations in the 2000-2005 MHz band best 
mitigates the possibility of mobile-to-mobile interference from the 
AWS-4 uplink band to the 1995-2000 MHz band.
    99. As detailed below, to establish the appropriate power 
limitations for AWS-4 operations in 2000-2005 MHz we make several 
calculations. First, we determine the signal level that future mobiles 
operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band can tolerate in an adjacent band, 
considering both the desired signal and the undesired signal levels, 
that is, the blocking performance. Next, we describe the user 
environment under which interference can reasonably be prevented. The 
environment defines the path losses between the interfering AWS-4 
mobile and the 1995-2000 MHz receiver. Then, we establish power limits 
on the AWS-4 mobiles by applying the path losses to the maximum 
interfering signal level to work back to the allowable transmitter 
power.
    100. Blocking Performance. As the Commission has not yet adopted 
rules for the 1995-2000 MHz band, and does not have receiver standards 
for comparable bands, to calculate the level of overload interference 
that we anticipate future mobile receivers operating in the 1995-2000 
MHz band will tolerate we must turn to other sources. With the rapid 
adoption of 4G mobile broadband technologies, LTE is a technology 
commonly being deployed today. We use the 3GPP specifications for LTE 
user equipment (UE) operating in the nearby PCS band, band 25 (1930-
1995 MHz). Although these 3GPP LTE specifications are applicable to 
user equipment operating in 1930-1995 MHz, not 1995-2000 MHz, and are 
specific to LTE devices, we feel they are a reasonable indication of 
the likely performance of future 1995-2000 MHz band devices.
    101. In the 3GPP specifications for LTE, blocking performance is 
specified with a desired signal 6 dB above the reference sensitivity. 
For a device operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band (band 25) on a 5 
megahertz channel, the reference sensitivity is -96.5 dBm. Thus, the 
desired signal is -90.5 dBm. Next we determine the level of the 
undesired signal. For interferers on the adjacent channel, the 3GPP 
standard specifies the ratio of the undesired to desired signal level, 
termed the adjacent channel selectivity (ACS), rather than an absolute 
blocking level. For band 25, assuming 5 MHz carriers, the ACS is 33 dB, 
resulting in -57.5 dBm as the level of undesired signal that the 
receiver must tolerate.
    102. User Environment. The interference scenario that has been 
discussed in the record is where a handheld AWS-4 mobile transmitter 
and a handheld PCS mobile receiver are in close proximity. Based on the 
parameters provided in the comments of Motorola Mobility, which we find 
reasonable with the modification that the body loss applies to both 
devices as discussed above, the characteristics of this environment 
are:
     Mobiles are separated by 2 meters
     The mobiles are in line of sight conditions, experiencing 
free space path loss (FSPL)

FSPL (dB) = 20 log (d) + 20 log (f) - 27.55, where d = distance in 
meters and f = frequency in MHz.
For a 2 meter separation and 2000 MHz transmit frequency, this 
translates to FSPL = 20 log(2) + 20 log (2000) - 27.55 = 44.5 dB,

     Each mobile (TxAntGain, RxAntGain) has a combined antenna 
gain and head/body loss of -10 dB
     Total path losses = TxAntGain + FSPL + RxAntGain = 10 + 
44.5 + 10 = 64.5 dB
    103. Power Limitation. The allowable transmitter power for AWS-4 is 
thus calculated by adding the path losses of 64.5 dB to the maximum 
level of the undesired signal level of -57.5 dBm. Hence, we arrive at a 
transmitter power level of 7 dBm, which is equivalent to 5 milliwatts. 
Accordingly, we find that the limit on the total EIRP of AWS-4 mobiles 
in 2000-2005 MHz must be at most 5 milliwatts. We recognize that 
carriers larger than 5 MHz may be deployed in the AWS-4 spectrum, and 
therefore, this power limit may in some cases apply to only a portion 
of the total power transmitted by the mobile. Therefore, we allow a 
device to transmit a total of 2 watts EIRP, as long as the portion of 
the device's transmission in 2000-2005 MHz is limited to an EIRP of 5 
milliwatts.
    104. Comparison to OOBE limit. To confirm the appropriateness of 
this limit, we compare the effect of overload interference to the 1995-
2000 MHz band to OOBE interference to the 1995-2000 MHz band. As 
discussed above, we establish an OOBE attenuation of 70 + 10 
log10(P) below 2000 MHz for AWS-4 uplink transmissions. This 
corresponds to a level of -40 dBm/MHz. Applying the same isolation of 
64.5 dB for 2 meters of separation, this means the level present at the 
1995-2000 MHz receiver is -104.5 dBm/MHz. This is 3 dB below Motorola's 
suggested typical noise floor of -101.5 dBm/MHz, consisting of thermal 
noise of -114 dBm/MHz plus a 12.5 dB noise figure. This is an 
approximately 2 dB noise rise or desensitization, close to the 3 dB 
desensitization Motorola recommends as a threshold of interference. So 
the OOBE attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) and power 
limitation of 5 milliwatts are well balanced, with neither one allowing 
significantly higher probability of interference than the other.
    105. Receiver Improvements. We note that using standard 3GPP 
blocking specifications, similar analysis would also imply the need for 
power reductions in 2005-2020 MHz. However, we believe that future

[[Page 8245]]

equipment for the 1995-2000 MHz band should be able to exceed these 
specifications, if licensees find it necessary to do so. We impose 
power restrictions only in the first 5 megahertz because of the 
difficulty of improving filter performance in the first 5 megahertz 
adjacent to a band.
    106. Private Agreements. We recognize that further improvement of 
the performance of receivers in 1995-2000 MHz band, as well as 
willingness on the part of licensees of the 1995-2000 MHz band to 
accept a higher probability of interference, could reduce or eliminate 
the need for power restrictions in 2000-2005 MHz. Therefore, we allow 
for licensees of AWS-4 authority to enter into private operator-to-
operator agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 
2000-2005 MHz at power levels above 5 milliwatts EIRP. In no case, 
however, may the total power of the AWS-4 mobile emissions exceed 2 
watts EIRP.
    107. Alternate proposal. As discussed above, DISH also proposed a 
combination of rules and commitments that it says will allow full use 
of the 1995-2000 MHz band while preventing any 3GPP delay. In 
particular, part of this proposal is that DISH will designate 2000-2005 
MHz as a terrestrial guard band, and DISH's devices will not transmit 
on those frequencies. DISH suggests that this will create more 
certainty for potential bidders on the1995-2000 MHz band than a power 
limitation such as we adopt here, and that its proposal will therefore 
increase the usability of that band. However, we do not adopt any rules 
prohibiting transmission in 2000-2005 MHz, as establishing calibrated 
technical limits with the flexibility to be modified via private 
agreements allows technical and business solutions that increase the 
usability of this spectrum if needed, whereas a rule such as proposed 
by DISH would foreclose any productive use of the spectrum. We also do 
not believe that DISH's proposal will increase the usability of the 
1995-2000 MHz band over the rules we adopt here, which adequately 
protect the 1995-2000 MHz band through a combination of OOBE limits and 
power limitations.
    108. In sum, we decline to adopt the proposed power limit of 1 watt 
EIRP for mobiles. Rather, we set power limits for mobile operations in 
the 2000-2020 MHz band as follows: the total power of the mobile is 
limited to 2 watts EIRP for emissions in 2000-2020 MHz, and is limited 
to 5 milliwatts EIRP for the portion of any emission that falls into 
2000-2005 MHz, except as provided for by private agreement between a 
licensee of AWS-4 operating authority and all 1995-2000 MHz licensees. 
No party presented data on the costs associated with different mobile 
power limits. Thus, given the record before us, we conclude that the 
potential benefits of our adopted mobile station power limit would 
outweigh any potential costs.
5. Acceptance of Interference into the AWS-4 Uplink Band
    109. As discussed earlier, the Commission looks to maximize the 
flexible use of both the AWS-4 and the 1995-2000 MHz bands to enable 
deployment of full, robust, commercial service for mobile broadband. 
And, as discussed above, to promote the best and highest use of 
spectrum, fulfill our statutory obligations, and to maintain 
consistency with past Commission actions, we determine that it is in 
the public interest to ensure the efficient and robust use of both the 
1995-2000 MHz band and the AWS-4 band, even if that results in adopting 
targeted rules that partially limit the usability of a portion of the 
AWS-4 uplink band. To this end, we have prescribed both power and 
emission limits on the AWS-4 mobile transmitters to prevent 
interference to the mobile receivers in the 1995-2000 MHz band. The 
Commission anticipates that the new technical rules to be provided in a 
forthcoming rulemaking for operation in the 1995-2000 MHz band will 
address interference to AWS-4 operations. Even with appropriate 
technical rules and good engineering practice, where uplink and 
downlink operations are so closely located, there will remain a 
potential for base stations in the 1995-2000 MHz band to interfere with 
the AWS-4 base station receivers. Further, although we are not adopting 
rules limiting the operations of MSS mobile transmitters, the proximity 
of uplink and downlink operations also raises the potential for 1995-
2000 MHz band base stations to interfere with MSS satellite receivers. 
Therefore, to the extent that future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz 
band, operating within the rules established for use of the 1995-2000 
MHz band, cause harmful interference to AWS-4 operations or MSS 
operations due to either OOBE in the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 
and 2 GHz MSS uplink band or in-band power in 1995-2000 MHz, AWS-4 and 
2 GHz MSS licensees must accept this interference.
    110. We emphasize that we limit the acceptance of OOBE interference 
to the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS bands. However, 
should in band interference occur due to the power in 1995-2000 MHz 
overloading receivers above 2000 MHz, this overload can potentially 
affect the entire receive band. Overload interference can be prevented 
by improved receive filters. Therefore, if a licensee of AWS-4 
operating authority determines such filters are necessary, the impact 
to the uplink band is limited to the transition band of the filter, not 
the entire band. Such a transition band would be less than 5 megahertz, 
thus the impact would be limited to (at most) the 2000-2005 MHz portion 
of the AWS-4 bands, and there is no legacy equipment impact, as ATC 
service has not been deployed. Finally, we note that unlike the 
terrestrial service, MSS has been deployed in this band, with two 
satellites launched. Because both satellites were launched well after 
the Commission initiated the H block proceeding, we expect that they 
were designed with this overload scenario in mind. Therefore, there 
should be no impact to MSS. To the extent this is not the case, we do 
not expect to limit use of 1995-2000 MHz due to any limitations of 
receivers deployed after our proceeding on use of 1995-2000 MHz was 
opened.
    111. Thus, for the public interest reasons discussed above and 
because Congress requires us to make available via a system of 
competitive bidding the 1995-2000 MHz band, we find that the costs of 
the tailored limitations on the use of the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the 
AWS-4 band as well as possibly some portion of the 2 GHz MSS band are 
outweighed by the benefits of enabling full use of the 1995-2000 MHz 
band and of the 2005-2020 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band.
6. Antenna Height Restrictions
    112. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed that the flexible 
antenna height rules applicable to AWS-1 should be also applied to AWS-
4 stations. In response, only DISH commented on this issue. As 
explained below, we adopt the Commission's proposals with minor 
modifications.
    113. Base Stations. We find that, consistent with the Commission's 
proposal, specific antenna height restriction for AWS-4 base stations 
are not necessary. As discussed above, the general requirement to not 
endanger air navigation and the effective height limitations implicitly 
resulting from our co-channel interference rules obviate the need for 
specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-4 base stations. 
Additionally, the sole commenter on this issue supports the 
Commission's position. Thus, we find specific antenna height 
restrictions for AWS-4 base stations are not required.
    114. Fixed Stations. DISH suggests that a height restriction is not 
necessary

[[Page 8246]]

for AWS-4 fixed stations, because the uplink operations of AWS-4 will 
be more similar to BRS/EBS than AWS-1. The 10 meter height limit was 
adopted in AWS-1 specifically to protect the Federal operations in the 
1710-1755 MHz band and the adjacent Federal bands above and below. 
Outside of this specific case, the Commission has not found a 10 meter 
height restriction necessary for other terrestrial mobile bands, such 
as BRS/EBS or PCS. No other comments were received on this issue. 
Because the AWS-4 uplink band at 2000-2020 MHz is not adjacent to 
Federal operations, and to promote flexibility in the use of AWS-4 
spectrum, we decline to adopt a height limitation for fixed stations in 
the AWS-4 uplink band.
7. Canadian and Mexican Coordination
    115. Because of our shared border with Canada and Mexico, the 
Commission routinely works in conjunction with the United States 
Department of State and Canadian and Mexican government officials to 
ensure efficient use of the spectrum as well as interference-free 
operations in the border areas. Until such time as any adjusted 
agreements, as needed, between the United States, Mexico and/or Canada 
can be agreed to, operations must not cause harmful interference across 
the border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in 
force. The list of agreements includes the ``Protocol Concerning the 
Transmission and Reception of Signals from Satellites for the 
Provisions of Mobile-Satellite Services and Associated Feeder links in 
the United States of America and the United Mexican States.'' We note 
that further modifications of the rules might be necessary in order to 
comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the 
use of these bands.
8. Other Technical Issues
    116. In addition to the specific technical issues addressed above, 
the Commission also proposed applying additional part 27 rules to the 
AWS-4 band. Specifically, the Commission proposed applying the 
following rule sections: Sec. Sec.  27.51 Equipment authorization, 
27.52 RF safety, 27.54 Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; 
air navigation safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station 
antenna patterns. The Commission reasoned that because AWS-4 will be a 
part 27 service, these rules should apply to all licensees of AWS-4 
terrestrial authority, including those who acquire licenses through 
partitioning or disaggregation. No commenters opposed this proposal. 
Accordingly, because these rules generally apply to all part 27 
services, and because, as we explain below, we find it appropriate to 
license the AWS-4 spectrum under our part 27 regulatory framework, we 
conclude that the potential benefits of our proposal would outweigh any 
potential costs and adopt the proposal to apply these additional part 
27 rules to licensees of AWS-4 authority.

C. Protection of MSS Operations

    117. We adopt a rule concerning protection of MSS operations in the 
2 GHz band. The rule requires that AWS-4 operations not cause harmful 
interference to 2 GHz MSS operations and accept any interference 
received from duly authorized 2 GHz MSS operations. Further, with no 
commenters opposing the proposed MSS protection rules, we conclude that 
the benefits of these rules would outweigh any potential costs. As 
detailed more fully below, the approach adopted also involves reliance 
upon rapid terrestrial build-out by the licensees, with potential loss 
of MSS interference protection in the event terrestrial services are 
not built out. This approach is incompatible with deployment of 
additional MSS systems in the band, and therefore we do not anticipate 
accepting applications for new or modified MS operations, except from 
an incumbent operator or its assignee or transferee. Accordingly, we 
delegate authority to the International Bureau to dismiss, upon 
acceptance by the incumbent MSS licensees of modified license 
authorizing AWS-4 operations, the ``Consolidated Petition for 
Reconsideration of Inmarsat Ventures Limited and Inmarsat Global 
Limited,'' filed January 9, 2006, in IB Docket Nos. -50220 and 05-221. 
That petition sought reconsideration premised on the deployment of an 
additional MSS system in the 2 GHz MSS bands. Finally, we observe that, 
should a licensee of AWS-4 operating authority who also possesses 2 GHz 
MSS operating authority fail to satisfy its AWS-4 Final Build-out 
Requirement in an EA, among other things, the MSS protection rule 
(discussed in this paragraph) shall not apply to that EA.

D. Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority

    118. License assignment refers to the process by which the 
Commission grants an entity the right to use specified channels or 
frequencies of radio transmission for a specified period of time; no 
ownership right is conveyed to the licensee. See 47 CFR 2.1. Sections 
307-309 of the Communications Act generally govern the initial 
assignment of licenses. See 47 U.S.C. 307-309. Section 316 governs the 
modification of Commission licenses. See 47 U.S.C. 316. As discussed 
below, we propose to modify, pursuant to our Section 316 authority, the 
incumbent 2 GHz MSS authorization holders' licenses to include AWS-4 
terrestrial spectrum rights.
    119. Specifically, we propose to modify the existing MSS licenses 
to add part 27 rights and obligations for AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum 
use with all of the attendant rights, limitations, and obligations 
associated with the AWS-4 service rules we adopt herein. We find that a 
section 316 license modification approach is the best course of action 
because it is the most efficient and quickest path to enabling flexible 
terrestrial use of this band while ensuring compliance with the MSS 
protection rule described above.
    120. As explained below, we believe that technological difficulties 
continue to make it impractical today for same band, separate mobile 
satellite and terrestrial operator sharing of this spectrum, and 
therefore propose to modify the existing MSS licenses so that satellite 
and terrestrial services are managed by the same operator. We observe, 
however, that it may become possible for such same band, separate 
operator sharing to become technically feasible in the future. For this 
reason, and for other reasons discussed below, we find it appropriate 
to permit licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to utilize the 
Commission's wireless secondary market mechanisms with respect to their 
terrestrial operating authority.
1. Background
    121. In 2003, the Commission established the ATC rules, concluding 
that any grant of ATC authority would only be to MSS incumbents. The 
Commission limited ATC authority to the existing MSS licensees because, 
in part, it determined that separately controlled MSS and terrestrial 
mobile operations (i.e., two ubiquitous mobile services) in the same 
band would be ``impractical and ill-advised'' as the two distinct 
parties would be unable to overcome technical hurdles to reach a 
workable sharing arrangement. Technical analyses at the time, moreover, 
demonstrated that granting a third party the right to use licensed MSS 
spectrum for terrestrial use could not occur without impacting the 
rights of the existing satellite licensees.

[[Page 8247]]

2. Discussion
    122. Section 316 License Modification. As discussed below, we 
reaffirm the Commission's earlier technical findings regarding same-
band, separate operator sharing between mobile satellite and 
terrestrial operations in this band. We believe that such a sharing 
scenario generally remains impractical at this time and would 
inappropriately affect the rights of the existing MSS authorization 
holders. Evidenced by the broad support among commenters for the 
proposed license modification approach, we conclude that the 
Commission's initial proposal to grant terrestrial authority to operate 
in the AWS-4 band to the current 2 GHz MSS licensees, through section 
316 license modifications, is appropriate and will serve the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity.
    123. Of the numerous parties who commented on this issue, only NTCH 
opposes the license modification procedure outright. We disagree with 
NTCH, and explain our reasoning below.
    124. Legal Authority. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed 
modifying the 2 GHz MSS licensees' authority to operate in the AWS-4 
bands by adding the authority to operate part 27 terrestrial services. 
This approach is consistent with the Commission's broad license 
modification authority, existing precedent, and the record. We 
therefore adopt the Commission's proposal to issue an Order of Proposed 
Modification, which accompanies this Report and Order, to modify the 
existing 2 GHz MSS licenses to include terrestrial operating authority 
in the AWS-4 spectrum upon the effective date of the service rules 
adopted herein.
    125. Section 316 grants the Commission authority to modify a 
license if the modification promotes ``the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity.'' See 47 U.S.C. 316(a)(1). The D.C. Circuit 
has explained the authority granted by section 316 to be a ``broad 
power to modify licenses; the Commission need only find that the 
proposed modification serve the public interest, convenience and 
necessity.'' California Metro Mobile Communications v. FCC, 365 F.3d 
38, 45-46 (D.C. Cir. 2004). This broad nature includes eliminating 
harmful interference, or the potential for such interference, as an 
accepted basis for ordering wholesale license modifications.
    126. Numerous commenters support the Commission's proposal to 
exercise this authority here. For example, PIO states that the 
Commission ``has ample legal authority under Title III * * * to modify 
spectrum licenses at any time.'' DISH comments that the license 
modification is consistent with both FCC precedent and the 
Communications Act, and that it is within the Commission's purview to 
modify the authorizations under section 316. Globalstar states that 
courts have confirmed the broad nature of Congress's grant of authority 
under section 316 to modify licenses when doing so serves the public 
interest. Moreover, even MetroPCS, who opposes, in part, the proposed 
approach, comments that the Commission is within its authority to 
modify licenses in order to improve spectrum utilization.
    127. Grant of AWS-4 terrestrial operating authority to the 2 GHz 
MSS licensees will expand the amount of spectrum available for stand-
alone terrestrial mobile broadband by 40 megahertz, while also reducing 
the potential for interference between existing satellite and new 
terrestrial operations in the band. Both reducing potential 
interference and increasing spectrum available for mobile broadband 
serve the public interest. To further ensure that modifying these 
licenses serves the public interest, we impose performance requirements 
and other license conditions, which will help to ensure the AWS-4 
spectrum is used to provide consumers with mobile broadband service. 
Therefore, as explained in greater detailed below, we conclude both 
that the Commission has the authority under section 316 to modify the 2 
GHz MSS licenses to add terrestrial rights and that so modifying these 
licenses will serve the public interest.
    128. As discussed herein, the Commission is proposing to modify the 
2 GHz MSS licenses to establish more uniform configuration and duplex 
spacing, one that will be consistent with the configuration of the 
spectrum for terrestrial use. We undertake this modification pursuant 
to section 316, which provides the Commission with the authority to 
modify licenses, including by rearranging licensees within a spectrum 
band. As evidenced by the 800 MHz proceeding, for example, the 
Commission previously has exercised this authority to modify a license 
to include authority to operate on new frequencies--there the 
Commission modified Nextel's authorization to add the 1990-1995 MHz 
band, 70 FR 76704, December 28, 2005. Additionally, the Commission 
modified licenses to relocate operations of certain Digital Electronic 
Message Service licensees from the 18 GHz band to the 24 GHz band, in 
order to accommodate Department of Defense military systems, 62 FR 
24576, May 6, 1997. In modifying licenses to rearrange the MSS duplex 
spacing, the Commission must meet the public interest, convenience, and 
necessity requirements of section 316, which we do here for the reasons 
detailed below. Here, our action to reconfigure an existing band among 
existing licensees is of a much more limited nature than in previous 
exercises of Section 316 authority, such as the 800 MHz re-banding for 
Nextel. Indeed, although the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are 
currently assigned to two different licensees, Gamma Acquisitions 
L.L.C. (Gamma) and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (New DBSD), both of 
these licensees are wholly owned subsidiaries of DISH. As the 
satellites are under common control, the modification and resulting 
recalibration of the satellites should present a minimal burden to the 
existing licensees. We direct these licensees to determine how to 
effectuate the reconfiguration of the 2 GHz MSS band into an A-B/A-B 
arrangement. Providing the licensees with the ability to determine how 
to best effectuate the MSS band reconfiguration should further limit 
any burden the reconfiguration places on them. Thus, we will modify the 
respective licenses of Gamma and New DBSD to reflect the assignment of 
the paired spectrum as 2000-2010 MHz paired with 2180-2190 MHz and 
2010-2020 MHz paired with 2190-2200 MHz, based on the licensees' 
responses to the Order of Proposed Modification herein.
    129. Public Interest Considerations. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the 
Commission expected modification of the 2 GHz MSS licenses would yield 
certain public interest benefits, including the removal of regulatory 
barriers that impede the Commission's goal of terrestrial mobile 
broadband services in the 2 GHz band. The Commission proposed that if 
current technology did not permit separate MSS and terrestrial mobile 
licensees, then license modifications pursuant to section 316 would 
make more spectrum available for broadband use and avoid harmful 
electromagnetic interference. As discussed below, to benefit the public 
interest, we adopt our proposal to modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses 
pursuant to section 316.
    130. Making More Spectrum Available for Flexible Mobile Use. As the 
Commission has observed, the availability and quality of wireless 
broadband services is likely to become constrained if additional 
spectrum is not made available to enable network

[[Page 8248]]

expansion and technology upgrades. The National Broadband Plan notes 
that, should additional mobile terrestrial spectrum not become 
available, the result could be higher prices, poor service quality, an 
inability for the U.S. to compete effectively on an international 
basis, depressed demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation. Although 
the Commission previously envisioned the 2 GHz MSS band being available 
to respond to the demand for spectrum, including through the 
development of the ATC regime, to date commercial use of this spectrum 
remains virtually non-existent. Therefore, to improve the public 
interest benefits of the 2 GHz spectrum, the Commission proposed 
authorizing terrestrial operations in this spectrum. Granting the 2 GHz 
MSS operators the ability to provide more and better services to both 
existing and potentially new subscribers with the same amount of 
spectrum improves the efficiency with which they can use the spectrum. 
For example, DISH has commented that use of this spectrum for satellite 
service is most likely to be in conjunction with terrestrial service.
    131. We emphasize that, although our determination to grant AWS-4 
authority to the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensees will undoubtedly result 
in an increase in value of those licensees, such increase in value is 
not a basis for our decision today; rather, it is a consequence of our 
decision, which is intended to enable AWS-4 spectrum to be meaningfully 
and timely put to use in a manner that promotes the public interest. We 
believe that various aspects of the rules we are adopting will create 
additional public benefits in consideration of the increase in the 
spectrum value. We deem the Section 316 license modification approach 
the best and fastest method for bringing this spectrum to market, a 
position underscored by commenters. Thus, we conclude Section 316 
license modifications are in the public interest.
    132. Additionally, the technical requirements that we are adopting 
today for 2000-2005 MHz operations will help make the adjacent band, 
1995-2000 MHz, available for terrestrial, flexible use, including for 
mobile broadband use. The Commission allocated 1995-2000 MHz for fixed 
and mobile use in 2003 and designated it for AWS use in 2004 as a 
downlink band paired with 1915-1920 MHz. The existence of uplink 
operations adjacent to downlink operations, however, raises 
interference concerns; we resolve those through the establishment of 
technical and interference rules above. Further, the Spectrum Act 
requires the Commission to license the 1995-2000 MHz band under 
flexible use service rules, unless doing so would cause interference to 
PCS licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz band. Enabling this band to be used 
efficiently for flexible, commercial use is consistent with this 
statutory requirement. Moreover, as explained above, wireless broadband 
traffic is asymmetrical with more downlink than uplink; thus the public 
interest is best served by limiting uplink operations at 2000-2005 MHz 
to facilitate potential downlink operations at 1995-2000 MHz, 
particularly where such a downlink band could become part of the 
workhorse PCS band. Accordingly, we conclude Section 316 license 
modifications are in the public interest.
    133. Finally, we disagree with NTCH's assertion that the license 
modification approach we take is not in the public interest. NTCH 
argues the Commission's proposed actions are inappropriate and that we 
should accept competing applications for AWS-4 spectrum. NTCH, however, 
ignores the critical detail that same-band, separate operator sharing 
of the spectrum is not technically feasible at this time. Moreover, 
nothing we do today eliminates the existing mobile satellite allocation 
for the 2 GHz MSS band or limits the licensees' continued satellite use 
rights for this spectrum (other than certain targeted technical 
restrictions applicable to 2000-2005 MHz). The Commission recognized 
these technical hurdles when it established co-primary fixed and mobile 
allocations in the 2 GHz band. Therefore, to make more spectrum in this 
band available for flexible terrestrial use, including for mobile 
broadband, and thereby serve the public interest, we will authorize 
AWS-4 operations by the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensees through license 
modifications. To the extent NTCH suggests the Commission remove the 
MSS allocation in the 2 GHz band, we consider that request to be an 
untimely Petition for Reconsideration of the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation 
Report and Order.
    134. Eliminating Harmful Interference. The Commission previously 
determined that separately controlled MSS and terrestrial operations 
(i.e., two ubiquitous mobile services) in the same band would be 
impractical because the parties would not be able to overcome the 
technical hurdles to reach a workable sharing arrangement. This 
determination suggested that the public interest would be best served 
by modifying the 2 GHz MSS license to allow the satellite licensee to 
operate terrestrial services, rather than make the band available for 
terrestrial licenses under a sharing regime with MSS. As discussed 
below, the record demonstrates that the earlier Commission conclusion 
regarding the impracticality of allowing same spectrum, different 
operator use of the AWS-4 spectrum remains valid. The majority of 
commenters discussing this issue concur with the Commission's 
assessment that harmful interference would occur if the 2 GHz MSS and 
AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights were controlled by different 
entities. Thus, we conclude that the public interest is best served by 
modifying the 2 GHz MSS license rather than allowing shared use of the 
band. Accordingly, based on the record before us at this time, we 
decline to assign AWS-4 terrestrial rights through a system of 
competitive bidding.
    135. One party opposes the Commission's proposal that shared use of 
the AWS-4 spectrum remains infeasible. MetroPCS argues that the current 
technology environment actually allows for sharing the AWS-4 spectrum 
between different operators. MetroPCS suggests that use of known 
technologies, such as advance coding and interference cancellation and 
mitigation techniques, would allow for greater interference protection 
for satellite handsets from terrestrial broadcasts. Additionally, 
MetroPCS asserts that because MSS satellites ``are essentially `bent 
pipes,' satellite and terrestrial operators will be able to coordinate 
their systems in a way that was not originally contemplated when the 
Commission decided that sharing was not feasible.'' Although MetroPCS 
is correct that DISH's satellites use a ``bent pipe'' architecture 
where the satellite is essentially repeating a signal generated on the 
ground, MetroPCS does not clarify how this would facilitate 
coordination. Contrary to MetroPCS's assertions, we find the record 
demonstrates continued technical hurdles exist. As DISH notes, although 
such technologies do allow for greater interference protection, they 
are ``only feasible when operations are integrated * * * [and] the 
reverse link interference cancellation technique * * * is not a viable 
solution in the absence of integration, as it requires real-time 
knowledge of signals for this interference to be prevented.'' 
Similarly, as NRTC notes, the technology necessary to share spectrum 
between two separate licensees, such as dynamic spectrum access and 
cognitive radios, is not market-proven for sharing mobile satellite and 
terrestrial operators or addressed in relevant technical standards. 
Other parties, such as US

[[Page 8249]]

GIC, comment that the Commission correctly concluded that multiple 
parties would not be able to overcome technical hurdles.
    136. Also, the record contains no evidence that dynamic frequency 
coordination can be achieved today between separately-controlled MSS 
and terrestrial networks. Indeed, as DISH notes, no commenter--
including MetroPCS--provides technical support that disputes the 
continued validity of the Commission's 2003 finding. Rather, as Sprint 
states, the record engineering analysis presented by DISH ``credibly 
indicates that frequency sharing between separate operations could 
cause interference between AWS-4 and MSS equipment and transmissions.'' 
Thus, we find that spectrum sharing between separately-licensed MSS and 
terrestrial operators, while perhaps possible in the future, is not 
viable today in this spectrum band. Consequently, we conclude that 
substantial technical hurdles remain, justifying authorizing AWS-4 
operations by the incumbent MSS licensees.
    137. We emphasize that this public interest determination is based 
in part on rules that will limit or potentially limit the licensees' 
terrestrial use of a five megahertz portion of AWS-4 spectrum to 
facilitate the use of 1995-2000 MHz. In particular, as explained above, 
we are imposing increased OOBE limits at and below 2000 MHz, reduced 
power limits for mobile terrestrial operations in 2000-2005 MHz, and 
requiring an AWS-4 A block licensee to accept interference from duly 
authorized lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. We do this to 
protect future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band from harmful 
interference, to ensure the possibility of flexible commercial use of 
that band, consistent with Congressional direction, and to strike a 
balance in ensuring the efficient use of all relevant spectrum bands. 
The Communications Act established ``that the Commission's powers are 
not limited to the engineering and technical aspects of radio 
communications.'' National Broadcast Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 
190, 215 (1943). Rather, the Communications Act directs the Commission 
to ```encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the 
public interest''' and to adopt ```such rules and regulations and 
prescribe such restrictions and conditions * * * as may be necessary to 
carry out the provisions of this Act.''' See 47 U.S.C. 303(g), (r). As 
explained above, we deem it necessary to set these technical limits to 
best maximize AWS-4 and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum for flexible terrestrial 
use by minimizing harmful interference between the bands. We believe 
the technical rules we adopt today to protect against harmful 
interference will promote more effective and efficient use of the 1995-
2000 MHz band and the AWS-4 band and we believe that the benefits of 
these rules will outweigh any restrictions on the use of a portion of 
the AWS-4 uplink band. Moreover, any restrictions on the use of a 
portion of the AWS-4 band would be more than offset by the considerable 
increase in flexibility that the authorization holders will receive in 
obtaining overall terrestrial use rights under the Commission's part 27 
flexible use rules instead of under the existing ATC rules.
    138. Commenters did not offer specific data on the amount of 
benefits or costs associated with our proposed authorization of AWS-4 
operations by the incumbent MSS licensees. However, because of the 
technical difficulties associated with coordinating between different 
AWS-4 licensees and the MSS licensee using the shared spectrum in the 
same service area, and the requirement discussed above for licensees of 
AWS-4 operating authority to protect 2 GHz MSS operations from harmful 
interference, and given the record before us and the benefits discussed 
above, we conclude that the potential benefits of assigning the AWS-4 
spectrum rights to the existing 2 GHz MSS licensees would outweigh any 
potential costs.
    139. Proposed Modification. For the reasons discussed throughout 
this Report and Order, we conclude that it is in the public interest, 
convenience, and necessity to propose modifying the existing 2 GHz MSS 
licenses as described in section V below. These modifications include 
adding part 27 terrestrial spectrum rights to the 2 GHz MSS licenses, 
creating more uniform duplex spacing for the MSS rights, and 
eliminating ATC authority from the licenses. In the unexpected event 
that the license modification fails to become effectuated, we will take 
appropriate action at that time, potentially including full 
reconsideration of the assignment methods contemplated in this item and 
based on the revised factual scenario such an occurrence would 
represent.

E. Performance Requirements

    140. The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote 
the productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide 
service to customers expeditiously, and to promote the provision of 
innovative services throughout the license area(s), including in rural 
areas. Historically, the Commission tailors performance and 
construction requirements to the unique characteristics of the spectrum 
band at issue. For the AWS-4 band, we adopt performance requirements 
that will ensure that the spectrum is put to use expeditiously, while 
providing licensees with the flexibility needed to deploy services 
according to their business plans. Specifically, we require:
     AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement: Within four (4) 
years, a licensee shall provide reliable terrestrial signal coverage 
and offer terrestrial service to at least forty (40) percent of its 
total AWS-4 population. A licensee's total AWS-4 population shall be 
calculated by summing the population of each of its license areas in 
the AWS-4 band.
     AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement: Within seven (7) years, 
a licensee shall provide reliable terrestrial signal coverage and offer 
terrestrial service to at least seventy (70) percent of the population 
in each of its license areas.
    141. Additionally, we adopt the following penalties for failing to 
meet the build-out benchmarks:
     Failure to Meet AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement: Where 
a licensee fails to meet the aggregate AWS-4 Interim Build-out 
Requirement, the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement shall be accelerated 
by one year (from seven to six years).
     Failure to Meet AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement: Where a 
licensee fails to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in any EA, 
its authorization for each EA in which it fails to meet the requirement 
shall terminate automatically without Commission action. To the extent 
that the licensee also holds the 2 GHz MSS rights for the affected 
license area, failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in 
an EA shall also result in the MSS protection rule in Sec.  27.1136 of 
the Commission's rules no longer applying to that EA.
    142. We adopt specific performance requirements for the AWS-4 band 
in an effort to foster timely deployment of flexible terrestrial mobile 
service in the band, and to enable the Commission to take appropriate 
corrective action should the required deployment fail to occur. 
Although the record in response to the Commission's specific 
performance benchmark and penalty proposals is mixed, parties generally 
agree that performance requirements promote the timely, productive use 
of spectrum. Timely deployment of wireless networks in this band is 
vital given the failure of any terrestrial ATC

[[Page 8250]]

service and failure of significant MSS to develop despite years of 
Commission effort to enable deployment of emerging and innovative 
technologies in the band.
    143. We disagree with commenters who argue that our build-out 
requirements would be of limited value, because they either do not 
believe the licensee (post license modification) intends to build out 
using the spectrum or believe that additional conditions are needed to 
ensure the spectrum is utilized. As an initial matter, we observe that 
the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensees generally support our seven year end-
of-term build-out benchmark and have committed to ``aggressively build-
out a broadband network'' if they receive terrestrial authority to 
operate in the AWS-4 band. (DISH Comments, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-
356, ET Docket No. 10-142, page 18.) We expect this commitment to be 
met and, to ensure that it is, adopt performance requirements and 
associated penalties for failure to build-out, specifically designed to 
result in the spectrum being put to use for the benefit of the public 
interest. We address requests for conditions in addition to performance 
requirements below.
    144. Benchmarks. To ensure that a licensee provides service to 
consumers expeditiously, we adopt specific quantifiable performance 
requirements. Consistent with our approach to performance benchmarks in 
other bands--including the Upper 700 MHz C-block and the 2.3 GHz WCS 
band--we adopt objective interim and final build-out benchmarks. As 
explained below, after taking into account the full range of comments, 
we adopt an interim requirement that differs somewhat from that 
proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM and adopt the final benchmark proposal in 
the AWS-4 NPRM.
    145. Interim Benchmark. We modify the proposed interim build-out 
requirement in response to the record. Recognizing concerns raised by 
commenters that the proposal may not afford a new entrant in a new 
flexible use terrestrial band sufficient time to deploy its network and 
offer service, we extend the interim build-out requirement timeframe 
from three to four years. Extending the interim benchmark to four years 
will enable service providers and equipment vendors to deploy network 
infrastructure and devices based on the most advanced technologies, 
including the LTE-Advanced standard. This is analogous to the 
Commission's decision in the 2012 WCS Order in which the Commission 
extended the proposed build-out requirements by six months to 
accommodate new technological developments. 27 FCC Rcd 13641 (2012). 
Extending the interim benchmark from three to four years also 
accommodates possible timing effects that may result from our technical 
findings, above, to enable use of the adjacent 1995-2000 MHz band. We 
also increase the population benchmark from 30% to 40%, to more closely 
align the benchmark with interim benchmarks in other bands. Finally, we 
determine that a licensee's total AWS-4 population shall be calculated 
by summing the population, based on the most recent decennial U.S. 
Census Data at the time of measurement, of each of its license areas in 
the AWS-4 band.
    146. Final Benchmark. We find, consistent with the record, that a 
final seven-year construction milestone provides a reasonable timeframe 
for a licensee to deploy its network and offer widespread service. No 
party suggested that a longer time frame would be necessary and, 
indeed, DISH stated that seven years is a reasonable period for a final 
build-out milestone. We are not persuaded by T-Mobile's proposal that 
we require an expedited build-out schedule. Although we expect it is 
possible for a licensee to meet a faster schedule, we believe such a 
benchmark could unnecessarily restrict the business plans of licensees, 
particularly new entrants. Therefore, after assessing the record and 
Commission precedent, we find that requiring 70% build-out at the 
seven-year milestone would serve the public interest.
    147. As discussed above, we are adopting an EA-based AWS-4 band 
plan requirement and not a nationwide band plan. Setting build-out 
benchmarks on an EA basis is consistent with our general approach of 
assigning AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights under the Commission's part 
27 rules, including permitting any licensee to avail itself of the 
Commission's secondary market mechanisms. Consistent with our practice 
in other bands, we will measure interim and final build-out benchmarks 
using percentages of license area population. We reject DISH's proposal 
to measure these benchmarks using static measures of population. This 
allows for more flexibility and certainty in licensing. For example, 
should a licensee partition some of its AWS-4 spectrum, a percentage-
based approach would apply to each partition, while a single population 
count would not.
    148. Rural Specific Benchmarks. We conclude that no additional 
rural-specific construction benchmarks are warranted beyond the 
performance requirements described above. We recognize that some 
commenters seek stricter performance requirements to promote service to 
rural areas. However, the performance requirements we adopt today will 
provide licensees with an ability to scale networks in a cost efficient 
manner while also ensuring that the vast majority of the population 
will have access to these wireless broadband services by the final 
benchmark. Because of the substantial capital investment and logistical 
challenges associated with a licensee building-out its terrestrial 
network to a significant percentage of the Nation's population within 
four and seven years, we conclude that the performance requirements we 
adopt are an appropriate balance.
    149. Penalties for Failure to Meet Construction Requirements. We 
adopt meaningful and enforceable consequences, or penalties, for 
failing to meet both the interim and the final benchmarks. The 
penalties we adopt represent modification of the Commission's main 
proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM for the penalty for failure to meet in the 
interim build-out requirement; they reflect the record generated in 
this proceeding.
    150. Penalties for Failure to Meet the Interim Benchmark. We modify 
the Commission's proposal and find that failure to meet the aggregate 
AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement will result in the AWS-4 Final 
Build-out Requirement being accelerated (shortened) by one year. If a 
licensee of AWS-4 authority fails to meet the interim benchmark, its 
final build-out benchmark would be reduced to 6 years instead of 7 
years. We agree with commenters who suggest that penalties of this 
nature are appropriate for failure to meet the AWS-4 interim benchmark. 
In modifying the Commission's proposal from the AWS-4 NPRM, we note the 
concerns raised by commenters who argued that the proposal to terminate 
all of a licensee's terrestrial authority for not meeting the Interim 
Build-out Requirement could impact investment and impact customers.
    151. Penalties for Failure to Meet the Final Benchmark. In the 
event a licensee fails to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in 
any EA, we adopt the proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM that the licensee's 
terrestrial authority for each such area shall terminate automatically 
without Commission action. Automatic termination is a common remedy for 
failure to build part 27 flexible use licenses. We also adopt the 
Commission proposal that any licensee who forfeits its AWS-4 operating 
authority for failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out

[[Page 8251]]

Requirement in an EA shall be precluded from regaining that 
authorization. To the extent that a licensee is also the 2 GHz MSS 
licensee, failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in a 
license area shall also result in the MSS protection rule in Sec.  
27.1136 of the Commission's rules no longer applying to that AWS-4 
license area. We believe that our approach strikes an appropriate 
balance between promoting prompt build-out and penalizing a licensee 
for not meeting its terrestrial performance obligations in a particular 
EA. In addition, by only terminating specific licenses where a licensee 
fails to meet the final benchmark in a particular license area, a 
licensee's customers in other license areas would not be impacted.
    152. Moreover, we reject suggestions that MSS interference 
protections should not be affected by a failure to construct 
terrestrial services. If we do not remove the protection rule for 
satellite operations for those geographic areas where the terrestrial 
operating authority terminates, it will be challenging to relicense the 
spectrum in a way that will encourage productive terrestrial use. This 
could create incentives for the current licensees not to comply with 
the construction benchmarks and could potentially cause the spectrum to 
continue to lay fallow of terrestrial use contrary to the public 
interest.
    153. We believe these penalties are necessary to ensure that 
licensees utilize the spectrum in the public interest. As explained 
above, the Nation needs additional spectrum supply. Failure by 
licensees to meet the build-out requirements would not address this 
need. Commenters did not offer specific data on the amount of benefits 
or costs associated with our proposed penalties or any alternative 
penalties for failure to meet performance requirements. We disagree 
that the penalties could potentially discourage network investment for 
the licensee or lower the service quality for terrestrial wireless 
service customers. While a customer might lose service if a licensee 
loses its terrestrial spectrum rights for failure to build-out, we 
expect that a future licensee of AWS-4 authority for that EA would 
ultimately serve more customers. We expect the probability of not 
meeting the performance requirements due to the costs of meeting the 
rules to be small and that the performance penalties are unlikely to 
deter network investment. Moreover, the Commission has consistently 
dismissed the contention that an automatic termination policy is 
unfair; rather, it is the same approach that the Commission applies to 
nearly all geographically-licensed wireless services. The Commission 
has specifically rejected the argument that the automatic termination 
penalty would deter capital investment, noting that the wireless 
industry has invested billions of dollars and has flourished under this 
paradigm.
    154. ``Use it or Share it.'' We decline to impose any ``use it or 
share it'' requirements for the AWS-4 spectrum band. PIO argues that 
the Commission's build-out requirements should be ``augmented by a `use 
it or share it' license condition that would permit other parties to 
make use of unused'' AWS-4 spectrum on a localized basis until the 
licensee actually begins providing service. While we reserve the right 
to implement ``use it or share it'' obligations in the future, ``use it 
or share it'' is a complex concept that is not sufficiently developed 
in this record. Even though we do not adopt a requirement, we encourage 
providers to enter into leasing agreements for unused spectrum. While 
we discuss spectrum leasing in greater detail below, we note that 
engaging in spectrum leasing may assist a licensee in meeting its 
performance milestones. We also note that we asked a number of 
questions about ``use or lease'' in the Incentive Auctions NPRM and 
hope to build a more robust record in that proceeding about how such a 
process could work effectively, 77 FR 69934, Nov. 21, 2012.
    155. Compliance Procedures. After assessing the record, we find 
that licensees must demonstrate compliance with the new performance 
requirements by filing a construction notification within 15 days of 
the relevant milestone certifying that they have met the applicable 
performance benchmark, consistent with Sec.  1.946(d) of the 
Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 1.946(d). Further, we find that each 
construction notification must include electronic coverage maps and 
supporting documentation, which must be truthful and accurate and must 
not omit material information that is necessary for the Commission to 
determine compliance with its performance requirements. Finally, we 
decline to require, as suggested by T-Mobile, that any licensee file 
certifications every six months regarding its construction progress; 
such frequent reporting is unnecessary to ensure intensive spectrum use 
given the performance measures we adopt today.
    156. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries 
of each license area in the licensee's service territory. See 47 CFR 
27.14(p)(7). If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to 
an entire EA, its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area 
or areas within each EA not being served. Each licensee also must file 
supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing 
for each EA within its service territory and the type of technology 
used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the 
assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation 
model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service 
with the licensee's technology.
    157. Further, the licensee must use the most recently available 
decennial U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement to meet the 
population based build-out requirements. See 47 CFR 27.14(h). 
Specifically, the licensee must base its claims of population served on 
areas no larger than the Census Tract level. This requirement tracks 
the Commission's action requiring broadband service providers to report 
``snapshots'' of broadband service at the Census Tract level twice each 
year by completing FCC Form 477.

E. Applications for Any AWS-4 Spectrum Returned to the Commission

    158. Certain requirements adopted in this Report and Order create 
the potential for AWS-4 spectrum rights to be terminated automatically 
or otherwise returned to the Commission's spectrum inventory for 
reassignment. For example, this Report and Order adopts consequences, 
including the loss of terrestrial use of, and satellite protection for, 
the spectrum, if a licensee fails to meet certain build-out 
requirements. Such returned AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights would be 
reassigned using a geographic-area approach with licenses to be made 
available on an EA basis. In such a situation, consistent with the 
proposal set forth in the AWS-4 NPRM, we adopt a licensing process that 
provides for the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications, which 
would be resolved by means of competitive bidding pursuant to the 
statutory directive. The Commission has long recognized that where 
mutually exclusive applications are submitted this type of framework 
best serves the public interest because the competitive bidding 
mechanism is most likely to select licensees that value the spectrum 
the most and will put it to its highest and most efficient use. In the 
event that AWS-4 spectrum rights are returned to the Commission, we 
conclude that any such rights will be made available for reassignment 
for terrestrial use only. As noted above, while we conclude that 
technological difficulties make it impractical today for same-band 
sharing of this spectrum

[[Page 8252]]

between separate mobile satellite and terrestrial operators, we 
observed that it may become possible for such sharing to become 
technically feasible in the future. For this reason, and for other 
reasons discussed herein, including our determination that returned 
spectrum will not be subject to any MSS protection rule, we find it 
appropriate to put a framework in place now that would govern the 
reassignment of AWS-4 spectrum rights. To the extent that the MSS 
licensee relinquishes its terrestrial spectrum rights either 
voluntarily or involuntary the MSS licensee bears the consequences of 
any interference that occurs as an attendant result of its opening the 
door to satellite/terrestrial use in the same band by two different 
licensees. That is, the MSS licensee would be responsible for its own 
considered choices or for its failure to fulfill the responsibilities 
that attends the expansion of its licensed rights into the terrestrial 
realm. Accordingly, the returned spectrum rights will be subject to the 
competitive bidding procedures we adopt below and will not be subject 
to any MSS protection rule.
    159. Procedures for Any AWS-4 Licenses Subject to Assignment by 
Competitive Bidding. We will conduct any auction for AWS-4 licenses 
resulting from terrestrial spectrum rights being returned to the 
Commission pursuant to our standard competitive bidding rules found in 
part 1, subpart Q of the Commission's rules and will provide bidding 
credits for qualifying small businesses, as proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM. 
Below we discuss our reasons for adopting the relevant proposals.
    160. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules. The 
Commission proposed to conduct any auction for AWS-4 licenses in 
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 
1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and substantially consistent 
with the competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in 
previous auctions. Additionally, the Commission proposed to employ the 
Part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated entity 
preference, unjust enrichment, application and payment procedures, 
reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications 
between auction applicants. Under this proposal, such rules would be 
subject to any modifications that the Commission may adopt for its part 
1 general competitive bidding rules in the future. The AWS-4 NPRM also 
sought comment on whether any part 1 rules would be inappropriate or 
should be modified for an auction of licenses in the AWS-4 bands.
    161. We received no comments on the proposed use of our standard 
competitive bidding rules for any auction of terrestrial AWS-4 
licenses.
    162. One commenter, TIA, makes several proposals addressing auction 
design, such as the use of two-sided auctions and auction vouchers, the 
use of combinatorial, or package, bidding, and avoiding the use of 
minimum bids. Consistent with our long-standing approach, auction-
specific matters such as the competitive bidding design and specific 
mechanisms relating to day-to-day auction conduct, including minimum 
opening bids and/or reserve prices, would be determined by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau prior to the start of the auction pursuant to 
its delegated authority, after providing interested parties an 
opportunity to comment. Such delegated authority has proven effective 
over the years in providing flexibility to develop auction procedures 
in response to auction-specific issues and to respond rapidly to 
potential bidder concerns that are sometimes of a time-sensitive 
nature. Consequently, we determine that the Commission's part 1 bidding 
rules should govern the conduct of any such auction. Given the record 
before us and the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the 
potential benefits of our proposal would likely outweigh any potential 
costs.
    163. Small Business Provisions for Terrestrial Geographic Area 
Licenses. As the AWS-4 NPRM discussed, in authorizing the Commission to 
use competitive bidding, Congress mandated that the Commission ``ensure 
that small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned 
by members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity to 
participate in the provision of spectrum-based services.'' In addition, 
section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act provides that, in 
establishing eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies, the 
Commission shall promote ``economic opportunity and competition * * * 
by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses and by disseminating 
licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including small 
businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members 
of minority groups and women.'' One of the principal means by which the 
Commission fulfills this mandate is through the award of bidding 
credits to small businesses.
    164. In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, the Commission stated that it would define eligibility 
requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking 
into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each 
particular service in establishing the appropriate threshold. Further, 
in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission, while 
standardizing many auction rules, determined that it would continue a 
service-by-service approach to defining the eligibility requirements 
for small businesses.
    165. The Commission proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM to define a small 
business as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding 
three years not exceeding $40 million, and a very small business as an 
entity with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not 
exceeding $15 million. Under this proposal, small businesses would be 
provided with a bidding credit of 15 percent and very small businesses 
with a bidding credit of 25 percent, consistent with the standardized 
schedule in part 1 of our rules.
    166. This proposal was modeled on the small business size standards 
and associated bidding credits as the Commission adopted for the AWS-1 
band. The Commission premised this proposal on the belief that the AWS-
4 spectrum, assigned in geographic area licenses, would be employed for 
purposes similar to those for which the AWS-1 band is used. In response 
to the AWS-4 NPRM's request for comment on these proposals, including 
the costs or benefits of these standards and associated bidding 
credits, especially as they relate to the proposed geographic areas, 
the Commission received no comment. Based on our prior experience with 
the use of bidding credits in spectrum auctions, we believe that the 
use of bidding credits is an effective tool in achieving the statutory 
objective of promoting participation by designated entities in the 
provision of spectrum-based services. In the absence of small business 
size standards and bidding credits, designated entities might have less 
opportunity to obtain spectrum in this band. The Commission believes 
that continuing to extend such benefits to AWS-4 would be consistent 
with our statutory mandate. In light of the similarities with the AWS-1 
service, we adopt these size standards and associated bidding credits 
for small businesses in the event that AWS-4 licenses are awarded 
through competitive bidding. On December 5, 2012, we requested the U.S. 
Small Business Administration's approval of our final rule adopting 
these small business size standards.
    167. We received two comments in response to the AWS-4 NPRM's 
request

[[Page 8253]]

for comment on whether to use a different approach to bidding credits. 
Commenters addressed eligibility in differing ways. NTCH proposes 
adopting eligibility rules that would preserve a 20 megahertz license 
for entities with less than $100 million in assets, with the remaining 
20 megahertz block available for all bidders. Council Tree proposes 
that in the absence of ``set aside blocks'' of AWS-4 spectrum for 
bidding only by designated entities, that the Commission adopt 
significantly higher bidding credits, with discounts up to 45 percent. 
Council Tree proposed bidding credits of 25% to businesses with average 
annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million; 35% for businesses 
with revenues not exceeding $15 million; and 45% to businesses with 
revenues not exceeding $3 million. This proposal is premised on Council 
Tree's own assessment of the Commission's designated entity program. 
The Commission has made clear that it is unpersuaded by Council Tree's 
claims with respect to the performance of designated entities in recent 
auctions. Therefore, although we address Council Tree's proposals for 
the AWS-4 band, we decline to address again such claims, which are not 
the subject of this proceeding. The Commission has previously rejected 
suggestions for spectrum ``set-asides'' in rulemaking proceedings, 
concluding that it was unnecessary to supplement the incentives 
provided for small business participation by foreclosing licenses to 
other bidders. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission acknowledged the 
difficulty in accurately predicting the market forces that might exist 
at the time that these frequencies are licensed, but the Commission is 
not persuaded that it is necessary to either set aside a portion of the 
spectrum at issue now, or adopt significantly larger bidding credits, 
in order to encourage the full participation of designated entities. We 
therefore adopt our proposals relating to small businesses. Given the 
record before us and the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the 
potential benefits of our proposals would likely outweigh any potential 
costs.

F. Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules

    168. The regulatory framework we adopt below establishes the 
license term, criteria for renewal, and other licensing and operating 
rules pertaining to the AWS-4 bands. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission 
proposed to grant licensees of AWS-4 operating authority the 
flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service consistent with the 
allocations for this spectrum. The Commission also proposed to license 
this spectrum under the Commission's market-oriented part 27 rules, and 
generally to apply the provisions of the Commission's part 27 rules 
applicable to AWS and the Commission's wireless rules generally 
applicable across multiple commercial bands to AWS-4 spectrum.
1. Flexible Use, Regulatory Framework, and Regulatory Status
    169. Below, we adopt regulations to provide licensees of AWS-4 
operating authority with the flexibility to provide any terrestrial 
fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocation and 
service rules for AWS-4 spectrum. We also determine to license the AWS-
4 spectrum under the Commission's market-oriented part 27 rules and 
apply the regulatory status provisions of Sec.  27.10.
    170. Flexible Use. In order to promote innovative broadband 
services and encourage the flexible and efficient use of the AWS-4 
band, we will allow a licensee of AWS-4 authority to utilize the 
spectrum for any terrestrial use permitted by the United States Table 
of Frequency Allocations contained in part 2 of the Commission's rules, 
provided that the licensee complies with the applicable service rules. 
We find that this determination fully meets the criteria of Section 
303(y) and that the record unanimously supports our permitting flexible 
use of the AWS-4 spectrum. See 47 U.S.C. 303(y).
    171. First, as required by section 303(y)(1), flexible use of this 
band is consistent with applicable international agreements. See 47 
U.S.C. 303(y)(1). Such use would remain subject to bilateral 
discussions commonly undertaken whenever spectrum is put to use in 
border areas.
    172. Second, as required by section 303(y)(2), flexible use is in 
the public interest because it would not deter--and, indeed, we expect 
it will stimulate--investment in broadband, and it would not result in 
harmful interference. See 47 U.S.C. 303(y)(2). We agree with commenters 
who state, for example, that flexibility will promote broadband 
deployment, ensure the spectrum is put to its most beneficial use, and 
maximize the probability of success for new services to be provided in 
the AWS-4 band. Similarly, we expect that flexibility will allow any 
licensee of AWS-4 authority to respond to consumer demand in a manner 
that maximizes the spectrum's value to both the public and the 
licensee.
    173. Similarly, we believe flexibility will spur investment in 
communications services and systems and technology development. We find 
that permitting licensees to use this spectrum for any use permitted by 
the spectrum's allocation will not deter investment in communications 
services and systems, or technology development. The record in this 
proceeding unambiguously supports this determination.
    174. We also find that permitting licensees' flexible use of the 
AWS-4 spectrum will not result in harmful interference among spectrum 
users. The technical rules we adopt today reflect careful consideration 
of potential interference scenarios and the overall public interest. 
Further, the flexibility we are permitting will itself provide 
licensees with the ability to adjust their operations to minimize any 
interference that might occur. Our technical rules for the AWS-4 band 
will permit licensees to provide a wide variety of services in these 
bands with a minimum of interference, and will permit both in-band (if 
any) and adjacent-band licensees to operate with sufficient certainty 
and clarity regarding their rights and responsibilities. Because we are 
adopting technical restrictions to protect other spectrum users, this 
proposal will not result in harmful interference. Accordingly, the 
standards of section 303(y)(2) are satisfied here. See 47 U.S.C. 
303(y)(2). Commenters did not offer specific data on the amount of 
benefits or costs associated with our proposal for flexible use of the 
AWS-4 band. Given unanimous supports in the record and the potential 
benefits discussed above, we conclude that the potential benefits of 
our proposal would outweigh any potential costs.
    175. Regulatory Framework. We determine to license the AWS-4 
spectrum under part 27 because these rules provide a broad and flexible 
regulatory framework for licensing spectrum, thereby enabling the 
spectrum to be used to provide a wide variety of broadband services. 
This light-handed regulatory approach permits licensees to use the 
spectrum for a multitude of purposes across the country and provides 
licensees with the ability to change technologies in response to 
changes in market conditions.
    176. The record unanimously supports this approach. The flexibility 
provided under part 27 should allow licensees to design their systems 
to respond readily to consumer demand, thus allowing the marketplace to 
dictate the best uses of the licensed spectrum. Commenters did not 
offer specific data on the amount of benefits or costs associated with 
our proposal to apply

[[Page 8254]]

the part 27 rules to the AWS-4 band. Given unanimous support in the 
record and the potential benefits discussed above, we conclude that the 
potential benefits of our proposal would outweigh any potential costs.
    177. Regulatory Status. No commenters directly addressed the 
application of Sec.  27.10 of the Commission's rules to the AWS-4 band. 
See 47 CFR 27.10. Commenters, however, overwhelmingly support increased 
regulatory flexibility and applying the part 27 rules to the AWS-4 
band. We believe that by applying Sec.  27.10 of the Commission's rules 
to the AWS-4 band we will achieve efficiencies in the licensing and 
administrative process, and provide licensees with additional 
flexibility. Therefore, we adopt the proposal from the AWS-4 NPRM to 
apply Sec.  27.10 of our rules to the AWS-4 band.
    178. Under this flexible regulatory approach, licensees in the AWS-
4 band may provide common carrier, non-common carrier, private internal 
communications or any combination of these services, so long as the 
provision of service otherwise complies with applicable service rules. 
This broad licensing framework will encourage licensees to develop new 
and innovative services with minimal regulatory restraint.
    179. To fulfill our enforcement obligations and to ensure 
compliance with Titles II and III of the Communications Act, we require 
the licensee to identify the regulatory status of the service(s) it 
intends to provide. Consistent with Sec.  27.10 of the Commission's 
rules, the licensee will not be required to describe its particular 
services, but only to designate the regulatory status of the 
service(s). We remind potential licensees that an election to provide 
service on a common carrier basis requires that the elements of common 
carriage be present; otherwise the applicant must choose non-common 
carrier status. If a potential licensee is unsure of the nature of its 
services and whether classification as common carrier is appropriate, 
it may submit a petition with its applications, or at any time, 
requesting clarification and including service descriptions for that 
purpose.
    180. We also determine that if the licensee elects to change the 
service or services it offers such that its regulatory status would 
change, it must notify the Commission and must do so within 30 days of 
making the change. A change in the licensee's regulatory status will 
not require prior Commission authorization, provided the licensee is in 
compliance with the foreign ownership requirements of section 310(b) of 
the Communications Act that apply as a result of the change. See 47 
U.S.C. 310(b). We note, however, that a different time period (other 
than 30 days) may apply, as determined by the Commission, where the 
change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the 
existing service.
2. Ownership Restrictions
    181. Foreign Ownership. Based on our statutory responsibilities, we 
determine that all licensees of AWS-4 authority shall be subject to the 
provisions of Sec.  27.12 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 27.12. 
All such entities are subject to section 310(a) of the Communications 
Act, which prohibits licenses from being ``granted to or held by any 
foreign government or the representative therefore.'' See 47 U.S.C. 
310(a). In addition, as applicable here, a licensee that would provide 
a common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical fixed service 
in this band would also be subject to the foreign ownership and 
citizenship requirements in section 310(b) of the Communications Act. 
See 47 U.S.C. 310(b).
    182. We did not receive any comments opposing our proposal that 
applicants for this band be required to provide the same foreign 
ownership information in their filings, regardless of the type of 
service the licensee would provide using its authorization. Since we 
are adopting a flexible approach to licensing the AWS-4 band, we 
determine that all licensees will be subject to the same requirements 
for filing foreign ownership information in their applications. 
Therefore, we will require all licensees to provide the same foreign 
ownership information, which covers both sections 310(a) and 310(b) of 
the Communications Act, regardless of whether the licensee will provide 
common carrier or non-common carrier service. We note, however, that we 
would be unlikely to deny a license to an applicant requesting to 
provide exclusively services that are not subject to section 310(b), 
solely because its foreign ownership would disqualify it from receiving 
a license if the applicant had applied for authority to provide such 
services.
    183. Eligibility and Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies. The 
Commission has previously determined in a number of services that 
eligibility restrictions on licenses may be imposed only when open 
eligibility would pose a significant likelihood of substantial harm to 
competition in specific markets and when an eligibility restriction 
would be effective in eliminating that harm. This approach relies on 
market forces absent a compelling showing that regulatory intervention 
to exclude potential participants is necessary.
    184. There is nothing in the record indicating that open 
eligibility in the AWS-4 band would pose a significant likelihood of 
substantial competitive harm in the broadband services market. 
Therefore, consistent with our findings on this issue for other 
spectrum bands, we find that open eligibility in this band is 
consistent with our statutory mandate to promote the development and 
rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services; economic 
opportunity and competition; and the efficient and intensive use of the 
electromagnetic spectrum. The open eligibility is also consistent with 
section 6404 of the Spectrum Act. Given the record before us, we 
conclude that the potential benefits of open eligibility would outweigh 
any potential costs.
    185. The Commission recently opened a general rulemaking proceeding 
to broadly examine its policies and rules regarding mobile spectrum 
holdings, 77 FR 61330, October 9, 2012. Given that recently-initiated 
proceeding, we decline to address here the narrower issue of how to 
assess AWS-4 spectrum holdings for purposes of spectrum concentration 
analysis. During the pendency of the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies 
proceeding, we will continue to apply our case-by-case approach to 
secondary market transactions and initial license applications as 
necessary.
3. Secondary Markets
    186. Partitioning and Disaggregation. The Commission's part 27 
rules generally allow for geographic partitioning and spectrum 
disaggregation. Geographic partitioning refers to the assignment of 
geographic portions of a license to another licensee along geopolitical 
or other boundaries. Spectrum disaggregation refers to the assignment 
of a discrete amount of spectrum under the license to another entity. 
Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in the same geographic 
area operated by different companies on adjacent frequencies in the 
same band. As the Commission noted when first establishing partitioning 
and disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could facilitate 
the efficient use of spectrum by providing licensees with the 
flexibility to make offerings directly responsive to market demands for 
particular types of services, increase competition by allowing market 
entry by new entrants, and expedite provision of services that might 
not otherwise receive service in the near term. We conclude that a

[[Page 8255]]

licensee of AWS-4 authority should have the same ability to partition 
its service territories and disaggregate its spectrum as other wireless 
licensees and, therefore will allow any such licensee to partition its 
service areas or to disaggregate its spectrum to the extent permitted 
by Sec.  27.15 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 27.15. We 
acknowledge that, as the record indicates, there may be technical and 
coordination complexities associated with partitioning and 
disaggregation specific to the satellite overlay that exists in the 
band. Although these coordination and technical issues are real--
indeed, they are central to our assignment determinations, above--the 
fact that we will assign AWS-4 operating authority to the 2 GHz MSS 
licensees mitigates against the need to prohibit partitioning or 
disaggregation. Additionally, the MSS interference protection rule we 
adopt above will ``run with the license,'' obligating any partitionee 
or disaggregatee to avoid interference with MSS operations.
    187. To the extent that a licensee of AWS-4 authority develops the 
ability (through technical advances or coordination measures) to ensure 
that an AWS-4 partitionee or disagregatee would not cause harmful 
interference to MSS operations, we find no basis to restrict it from 
entering into partitioning or disaggregation arrangements in the same 
manner as other part 27 licensees.
    188. As explained above and in the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission 
determined that, based on the facts in this band, a grant of AWS-4 
operating authority to a third party would potentially compromise the 
existing rights of existing satellite licensees. A private party 
licensee, however, is free to choose voluntarily to enter into a 
business relationship that includes its agreeing to not pursue all of 
its rights or even to encumber some of its rights. This is particularly 
so, if the licensee's forgoing of its rights furthers larger Commission 
goals. Stated otherwise, while we decline to grant AWS-4 authority to 
parties in a manner that would undermine the existing MSS licensees, we 
find it would be consistent with the Commission's goal of widespread 
mobile broadband availability to permit an MSS licensee to limit 
voluntarily its ability to offer satellite service as part of a 
secondary market arrangement enabling another party to better provide 
flexible use terrestrial service, including mobile broadband using AWS-
4 spectrum. For example, a licensee may determine that it would be best 
for it to give up its rights to interference protection for its 
satellite operations for a certain geographic area or a specific 
portion of its spectrum and permit another licensee to have a license 
for terrestrial use for the corresponding geographic area or spectrum.
    189. Thus, we believe that any licensee of AWS-4 authority should 
have the same freedom as other wireless licensees to use its licensed 
spectrum in the way that the licensee determines would make the best 
business sense through the use of partitioning or disaggregation. A 
licensee of AWS-4 authority should be permitted the discretion to 
determine the amount of spectrum it will occupy and the area it will 
serve consistent with its business plan. Accordingly, we find it in the 
public interest to permit any licensee of AWS-4 authority to partition 
any geographic portion of its license area, at any time following the 
grant of its license, and to also permit any such licensee to 
disaggregate spectrum in any amount, at any time following the grant of 
its license.
    190. We further conclude that the public interest would be served 
by requiring each party to a partitioning, disaggregation, or 
combination of both in the AWS-4 band to individually meet the 
applicable AWS-4 performance requirements. As the Commission observed 
in the WRS NPRM, this approach should lead to more efficient spectrum 
usage and prevent the avoidance of timely construction through 
secondary market fiat, while still providing operators with the 
flexibility to design their networks according to their operational and 
business needs. In addition, commenters did not offer specific costs 
associated with the geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation 
rules for the AWS-4 band. Given the benefits discussed above, we 
conclude that the potential benefits of the partitioning and 
disaggregation rules would likely outweigh any potential costs.
    191. Spectrum Leasing. We find it in the public interest to apply 
the same comprehensive set of rules, policies, and procedures governing 
spectrum leasing arrangements between terrestrial licensees and 
spectrum lessees that we have adopted for other wireless spectrum bands 
to the AWS-4 band. This decision will encourage innovative arrangements 
and investment in the AWS-4 band.
    192. We extend our secondary leasing policies to both spectrum 
manager lease arrangements and de facto transfer lease arrangements. 
For a particular spectrum band, spectrum leasing policies generally 
follow the same approach as the partitioning and disaggregation 
policies for the band. In the AWS-4 NPRM, we observed this relationship 
between partitioning/disaggregation and spectrum leasing, but did not 
make a specific proposal with respect to whether to permit partitioning 
and disaggregation of AWS-4 spectrum. Consistent with our 
determination, above, to permit partitioning and disaggregation of AWS-
4 spectrum, we permit spectrum leasing of AWS-4 spectrum, including 
both categories of spectrum lease arrangements.
    193. We acknowledge that in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order the 
Commission did not extend the secondary market regime to permit MSS/ATC 
de facto transfer lease arrangements, 76 FR 31252, May 31, 2012. The 
facts underlying that decision, however, differ from those here. In the 
case of MSS/ATC spectrum, terrestrial operations were explicitly 
ancillary to satellite operations and terrestrial operations were 
premised on the operator satisfying the ATC gating criteria, some of 
which require at least a certain amount of control over satellite 
operations, control an ATC lessee would not be able to exercise. That 
is not the situation here. The AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum use will not 
be ancillary to satellite 2 GHz MSS use. Rather, subject to the 
technical rules established herein, terrestrial and satellite uses will 
exist under co-primary allocations and will have equal status. Further, 
an AWS-4 terrestrial lessee will not be responsible for meeting 
satellite obligations, including the ATC gating criteria, which we are 
eliminating (along with the entire ATC regime) for the 2 GHz MSS band. 
Accordingly, we decline to adopt the Commission's proposal to not 
permit de facto lease arrangements of AWS-4 spectrum and reject the 
similar position of a handful of commenters. Instead, for the 
aforementioned reasons, we permit these lease arrangements, as well as 
spectrum manager lease arrangements for AWS-4 spectrum. Additionally, 
the MSS interference protection rule we adopt above will ``run'' with 
either type of leasing arrangement, obligating any lessee to avoid 
interference with MSS operations. Given the record before us, we 
conclude that the potential benefits of extending these rules, 
policies, and procedures are likely to outweigh the potential costs.
4. License Term, Renewal Criteria, and Permanent Discontinuance of 
Operations
    194. License Term. We adopt a license term for AWS-4 spectrum 
rights of ten years and subsequent renewal terms of ten years and we 
modify Sec.  27.13 of the Commission's rules to reflect these

[[Page 8256]]

determinations. See 47 CFR 27.13. We find our decision consistent with 
the Commission's adoption of ten-year license terms in most other part 
27 services and in services using similar spectrum, such as that used 
for PCS. Thus, in adopting a 10-year license term, we treat holders of 
AWS-4 spectrum rights similarly to licensees providing like services. 
Further, no party opposed (or commented on) the Commission's license 
term proposal.
    195. In addition, we require that, in the event that the 
terrestrial portion of a license is partitioned or disaggregated, any 
partitionee or disaggregatee will be authorized to hold its license for 
the remainder of the partitioner's or disaggregator's license term. 
Although the parties to such an arrangement may agree that the 
arrangement will terminate prior to the end of the license term, the 
arrangement may not remain in effect longer than the license term (or 
any subsequent renewal term). Thus, we ensure that a licensee, by 
partitioning or disaggregation, will not be able to confer greater 
rights on another party than it was awarded by the Commission under the 
terms of its license grant. This approach is similar to the 
partitioning and disaggregation provisions the Commission adopted for 
licensees in other spectrum bands, including for the BRS (formerly 
MDS), broadband PCS, 700 MHz band, and AWS-1 bands. Accordingly, we 
conclude that the potential benefits of the proposed license terms 
would outweigh any potential costs.
    196. Renewal Criteria. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the 
Communications Act, the Commission may require renewal applicants to 
``set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as 
to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other 
qualifications of the applicant to operate the station'' as well as 
``such other information as it may require.'' See 47 U.S.C. 308(b). We 
find that all licensees of spectrum in the AWS-4 band seeking renewal 
of their authorizations at the end of their license term must file a 
renewal application, independent of their performance requirements, 
pursuant to Sec.  1.949 of the Commission's rules. See 47 CFR 1.949. 
Commenters did not comment on or address any potential costs associated 
with the proposed license renewal criteria in the AWS-4 band. 
Accordingly, we conclude that the potential benefits of the proposed 
license renewal requirements would outweigh any potential costs.
    197. A licensee's renewal showing is distinct from its performance 
showing. In the renewal context, the Commission will consider the level 
and types of a licensee's service provided over the entire license 
term, as opposed to measuring services offered at a specific point in 
time for performance requirements. Thus, a licensee that meets the 
applicable performance requirements might nevertheless fail to meet the 
renewal requirements.
    198. We require the renewal showing to include a detailed 
description of the renewal applicant's provision of service during the 
entire license period and discuss: (1) The level and quality of service 
provided by the applicant (e.g., the population served, the area 
served, the number of subscribers, the services offered); (2) the date 
service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the 
duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service 
is provided to rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided 
to qualifying tribal land as defined in Sec.  1.2110(e)(3)(i) of this 
chapter; and (5) any other factors associated with the level of service 
to the public. A licensee must also demonstrate at renewal that it has 
substantially complied with all applicable Commission rules and 
policies, and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including any 
applicable performance requirements. The licensee must also maintain 
the level of service provided at its final performance benchmark to the 
end of the license term.
    199. As we did in the 700 MHz First Report and Order, we will 
prohibit the filing of mutually exclusive renewal applications, 72 FR 
27688, May 16, 2007. If a license is not renewed, the associated 
spectrum will be returned to the Commission for reassignment.
    200. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations. We adopt the 
Commission's proposal to apply Sec.  1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's 
rules to any licensee, such that an AWS-4 operator's terrestrial 
spectrum rights, will automatically terminate, without specific 
Commission action, if service is ``permanently discontinued.'' See 47 
CFR 1.955(a)(3). For AWS-4 spectrum, we define ``permanently 
discontinued'' as a period of 180 consecutive days during which a 
licensee does not operate and does not serve at least one subscriber 
that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to, the provider 
in an EA. We believe this approach strikes the appropriate balance 
between a licensee's need for operational flexibility and the need to 
ensure efficient utilization of licensed spectrum. In addition, our 
determination will ensure that AWS-4 spectrum does not remain idle for 
extended periods. Rather, it will facilitate business and network 
planning by providing certainty to licensees and their investors. The 
discontinuance rule will apply commencing on the date a licensee must 
meet its final performance requirement benchmark, thereby providing a 
licensee with adequate time to construct its terrestrial network.
    201. Furthermore, in accordance with Sec.  1.955(a)(3) of the 
Commission's rules, if a licensee permanently discontinues service, the 
licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 
days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation. 
We emphasize, however, that an authorization will automatically 
terminate without specific Commission action if service is permanently 
discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the required form 
requesting license cancellation.
    202. Finally, in applying Sec.  1.955(a)(3) to licensees of AWS-4 
authority, we clarify that operation of so-called channel keepers, 
e.g., devices that transmit test signals, tones and/or color bars, do 
not constitute operation for purposes of the permanent discontinuance 
rules.
    203. Other Operating Requirements. Although we are generally 
adopting part 27 rules for the AWS-4 band, in order to maintain general 
consistency among various wireless communication services, we also 
require any licensee of AWS-4 operating authority to comply with other 
rule parts that pertain generally to wireless communication services. 
For example, Sec.  27.3 of the Commission's rules lists some of the 
other rule parts applicable to wireless communications service 
licensees generally; we thus find it appropriate to apply this and 
similar rules to the AWS-4 band. Some of these other rule parts will be 
applicable by virtue of the fact that they apply to all licensees, and 
others will apply depending on the type of service a licensee provides. 
For example: applicants and licensees will be subject to the 
application filing procedures for the Universal Licensing System, set 
forth in part 1 of our rules; licensees will be required to comply with 
the practices and procedures listed in part 1 of our rules for license 
applications, adjudicatory proceedings, etc; licensees will be required 
to comply with the Commission's environmental provisions, including 
Sec.  1.1307; licensees will be required to comply with the antenna 
structure provisions of part 17 of our rules; to the extent a licensee 
provides a Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such service is subject to 
the provisions of part 20 of the Commission's rules, including 911/E911

[[Page 8257]]

and hearing-aid compatibility requirements, along with the provisions 
in the rule part under which the license was issued. Part 20 applies to 
all CMRS providers, even though the stations may be licensed under 
other parts of our rules; and the application of general provisions of 
parts 22, 24, or 27 will include rules related to equal employment 
opportunity, etc. No commenter opposes this approach.
    204. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service 
to Tribal Lands. We defer the application of any rules and policies for 
facilitating access to spectrum and the provision of service to Tribal 
Lands to the Tribal Lands proceeding, 67 FR 18476, Apr. 4, 2011. The 
Tribal Lands proceeding, being specifically focused on that issue, is 
better suited than the instant proceeding to reach conclusions on that 
issue.
5. Other Matters--Proposed Party Conditions
    205. Mandatory Wholesale and Roaming Requirements. Several 
commenters requested that the Commission impose mandatory wholesale and 
roaming requirements on licensees of AWS-4 operating authority. We 
decline to impose any mandatory wholesale and roaming requirements in 
this Report and Order. We find these requests beyond the scope of the 
service rules proceeding before us and would be better addressed in 
other, non-band specific, proceedings on those topics. For example, 
roaming requirements for wireless spectrum licensees are the subject of 
other Commission proceedings. We also note that we have recently 
initiated a proceeding to broadly examine our policies and rules 
regarding mobile spectrum holdings, including possible remedies to 
address potential harms or to help ensure the realization of potential 
benefits.
    206. Wholesale Restrictions. A number of commenters proposed that, 
in order to promote competition and prevent the entrenchment of duopoly 
power, the Commission should impose restrictions on the amount of AWS-4 
spectrum that a licensee may make available for access to a particular 
wireless service provider. We decline to impose restrictions on the 
ability of a licensee of AWS-4 authority to provide access to its AWS-4 
traffic capacity to other wireless carriers in this proceeding. We 
believe that this issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. We also 
note that we have recently initiated a proceeding to broadly examine 
our policies and rules regarding mobile spectrum holdings.
    207. Penalties for Early License Transfers. Some commenters seek 
the imposition of unjust enrichment penalties if a licensee of AWS-4 
authority sells or otherwise transfers control of its license to one of 
the two largest mobile data carriers within a specified time period. We 
will not, in this proceeding, adopt a system for imposing unjust 
enrichment penalties in the event that a licensee of AWS-4 operating 
authority seeks to transfer its license to one of the two largest 
mobile data providers. Nor will we impose additional restrictions on 
the licensee's ability to transfer or otherwise assign its terrestrial 
spectrum rights. Rather, the Commission will continue to review any 
proposed transfers of control or assignments of AWS-4 authority under 
its requirements then in place. Finally, we note that we have recently 
initiated a proceeding to examine spectrum concentration issues and 
that, during the pendency of this proceeding, we will continue to apply 
our case-by-case approach to secondary markets transactions and initial 
license applications as necessary.

G. Relocation and Cost Sharing

1. Emerging Technologies Policies
    208. The Emerging Technologies (ET) procedures represent a broad 
set of tools that the Commission uses to aid the process of making 
spectrum available for new uses. Generally, the Commission applies the 
ET procedures when it is necessary to relocate incumbent licensees to 
introduce new services into a frequency band. The Commission sets a 
``sunset date''--a date by which incumbent licensees may not cause 
interference to new band entrants. Prior to the sunset date, the new 
entrants may negotiate with incumbents to gain early entry into the 
band and, if necessary, may relocate the incumbents to comparable 
facilities. Because new entrants may have to relocate incumbents from a 
larger frequency range or greater geographic area than where the new 
entrants will operate, the Commission also typically establishes a 
companion set of cost-sharing procedures. These procedures allow the 
operators that have relocated incumbents to be reimbursed a portion of 
their relocation expenses from new entrants that benefit from the 
spectrum clearance. The application of specific relocation and cost 
sharing processes under the ET framework generally varies for each 
frequency band, and is based on the types of incumbent licensees and 
particular band characteristics. We discuss, below, the particular 
relocation and cost sharing procedures that we adopt for the 2000-2020 
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2000-2020 
MHz
    209. Background. The lower portion of the AWS-4 band (2000-2020 
MHz) is part of the 1990-2025 MHz band that the Commission reallocated 
from the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) to emerging technologies 
such as PCS, AWS, and MSS. Consistent with the relocation principles 
first established in the Commission's Emerging Technologies proceeding, 
each new entrant had an independent responsibility to relocate 
incumbent BAS licensees. Sprint Nextel (Sprint), which is the PCS 
licensee at 1990-1995 MHz, completed the BAS transition for the entire 
35 megahertz in 2010. In 2011, Sprint notified the Commission that it 
entered in a private settlement with DISH to resolve its dispute with 
MSS licensees with respect to MSS licensees' obligation to reimburse 
Sprint for their share of the BAS relocation costs.
    210. Discussion. We find that no additional relocation or cost-
sharing procedures are necessary for the 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 band. In 
addition, although we do not adopt cost-sharing rules in this Report 
and Order, we clarify that AWS-2 licensees will continue to be 
responsible for reimbursing Sprint for 2/7th of the BAS relocation 
costs (i.e., the proportional share of the costs associated with Sprint 
relocating 10 megahertz of BAS spectrum that may be used by AWS-2 
entrants) and that such cost-sharing issues will be addressed in a 
separate proceeding.
    211. Relocation. As explained in the AWS-4 NPRM, Sprint undertook 
the relocation of BAS from the entire 35 megahertz at 1990-2025 MHz and 
notified the Commission that this transition was completed in 2010. No 
party raised outstanding relocation issues, unrelated to cost-sharing 
(which is discussed below), for the 1990-2025 MHz band in response to 
the AWS-4 NPRM. Therefore, we find no need to adopt additional 
relocation procedures for the 1990-2025 MHz band.
    212. Cost Sharing. Even though Sprint only benefits from the use of 
five megahertz of spectrum (1990-1995 MHz), Sprint incurred significant 
costs in clearing the remaining thirty megahertz of spectrum (1995-2025 
MHz) to the benefit of other entrants. The Commission has consistently 
affirmed its general cost-sharing policy that an entrant who has 
relocated incumbents from reallocated spectrum is entitled to 
reimbursement for a portion of the band clearing costs from other 
entrants benefitting from that relocation. The Commission has

[[Page 8258]]

emphasized that all entrants to the 1990-2025 MHz band may be required 
to bear a proportional share of the costs incurred in the BAS 
clearance, on a pro rata basis according to the amount of spectrum each 
entrant is assigned. Of the total 35 megahertz of spectrum, five 
megahertz was authorized for PCS and held by Sprint; 10 megahertz is 
authorized for (but yet to be auctioned and licensed as) AWS-2; and 20 
megahertz was authorized for MSS. Sprint clarified in the record that 
DISH satisfied the cost-sharing obligations associated with 20 
megahertz of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band and that the only 
remaining cost-sharing obligations in this band are attributable to the 
10 megahertz of spectrum authorized for AWS-2.
    213. We conclude that, consistent with the Commission's policy that 
all entrants to the 1990-2025 MHz band bear a proportional share of the 
costs incurred in the BAS clearance on a pro rata basis according to 
the amount of spectrum each entrant is assigned, future AWS-2 licensees 
who enter the band prior to the sunset date will be responsible for 
reimbursing Sprint for 2/7\ths\ of the BAS relocation costs (i.e., the 
proportional share of the costs associate with Sprint relocating 10 
megahertz of BAS spectrum that will be used by AWS-2 entrants). Each 
five megahertz block of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band represents 
one-seventh of the relocated BAS spectrum. Sprint has stated that the 
pro rata share of the overall BAS relocation costs attributable to each 
five megahertz of relocated BAS spectrum amounts to $94,875,516. We 
believe that this determination represents the most fair and balanced 
approach for all parties. The Commission will address the application 
on these cost-sharing obligations on AWS-2 licensees, including 
Sprint's proposal to set the sunset date for reimbursement at ten years 
after the issuance of the first AWS licenses in these bands separately 
in the H Block NPRM.
2. Relocation and Cost Sharing for 1915-1920 MHz
    214. We defer cost-sharing issues for the 1915-1920 MHz band until 
we establish service rules for that band, which we expect to do in the 
near future.
3. Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2180-2200 MHz
    215. Background. The upper portion of AWS-4 (2180-2200 MHz) is part 
of the 2160-2200 MHz band that the Commission previously reallocated 
from the Fixed Microwave Services (FS) to emerging technologies. The 
Commission's licensing records show approximately 700 active FS 
licenses in the 2180-2200 MHz band and that most of these incumbents 
appear to be state or local governmental entities, utilities, 
railroads, and other businesses with FS links licensed in the Microwave 
Public Safety Pool (MW) or the Microwave Industrial/Business Pool (MG) 
for private, internal communication. FS links in the 2180-2200 MHz band 
typically are paired, for two-way operation, with FS links in the 2130-
2150 MHz band. The Commission previously adopted relocation and cost-
sharing rules for AWS-1 licensees in the 2110-2155 MHz band, and we 
proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM to adopt similar rules for licensees of AWS-
4 operating authority to govern relocation and cost-sharing in the 
2180-2200 MHz band.
    216. Relocation. We adopt rules for the relocation of FS incumbents 
from the 2180-2200 MHz band by an AWS-4 entrant based on similar rules 
that apply to the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-2155 MHz 
band by AWS-1 licensees. We also establish a 10-year sunset date from 
the grant of the first license or issuance of a modification of a 
license to authorize the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band for AWS-4 under 
part 27. We received minimal comment on this issue.
    217. Under the AWS-4 service rules that we are adopting, the MSS/
AWS-4 licensee will be required to build a terrestrial network to serve 
a large portion of the country. Thus, the deployment of a ubiquitous 
AWS-4 network creates a much greater certainty that incumbents would 
need to relocate from the band than might have been anticipated under 
the existing MSS/ATC regime. Because of the large number of FS 
incumbents still present in the band, we find that it serves the public 
interest to impose an obligation on an AWS-4 entrant to relocate FS 
incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band, and that this obligation should 
be independent and distinct from the existing MSS/ATC relocation 
obligation. Consequently, this relocation obligation shall not sunset 
at the December 2013 date applicable under the MSS/ATC rules but 
instead shall be determined by the AWS-4 relocation rules which we are 
now adopting.
    218. Although FS incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band were subject 
to relocation by MSS licensees, we find it appropriate to impose 
relocation obligations on licensees of AWS-4 authority at this time 
because we now adopt service rules for a new wireless terrestrial 
service under Part 27. The Commission generally adopts relocation 
procedures at the time that it adopts rules for the provision of new 
services in bands that are used by incumbent licensees. The MSS/ATC 
relocation rules are based on unique circumstances that were only 
applicable to MSS. The Commission departed from its traditional 
relocation rules in adopting a mandatory negotiation period for 
relocation of FS incumbents by MSS licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band 
as well as providing a specific date for the start of the ten-year 
sunset period instead of the issuance of the first license or start of 
the first relocation negotiations. The Commission believed that the 
modifications to the traditional relocation/negotiation procedures was 
warranted due to the presence of special circumstances specific to MSS 
and hoped that it would expedite the relocation of FS incumbents from 
the 2180-2200 MHz band. The Commission also has stated that those 
special circumstances are not applicable to relocations by AWS 
licensees and declined to depart from the traditional trigger for 
determining the mandatory negotiation period and the sunset dates for 
the relocation of FS incumbents by AWS licensees.
    219. Although FS incumbents had considerable notice that they would 
likely need to relocate their services, we are not persuaded that this 
should be the predominant factor in our decision. We note that, under 
the ET procedures, the date at which the incumbents first received 
notice that they would be relocated has not determined the starting 
date for the relocation sunset period. For example, when the Commission 
allocated spectrum for AWS, including at 2130-2150 MHz in 2002, and 
thereafter adopted service rules, modified relocation rules, and 
adopted cost-sharing rules, it continued to impose an obligation on 
AWS-1 licensees to relocate FS incumbents at 2130-2150 MHz for ten 
years from the date on which the first AWS-1 license was granted, even 
though those FS incumbents were already on notice that they would be 
subject to relocation. Similarly, the Commission decided to relocate 
BAS incumbents in the 1990-2025 MHz band to make way for MSS in 1997, 
but did not begin the ten-year relocation period until 2000 and later 
extended the sunset date to 2013.
    220. For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is 
in the public interest to adopt relocation rules for licensees of AWS-4 
authority, including the trigger for determining the mandatory 
negotiation period and the sunset date for relocation obligations, that 
are based on our traditional Emerging Technologies proceedings and

[[Page 8259]]

similar to rules that have governed the relocation of incumbent 
licensees by AWS-1 licensees and other terrestrial wireless licensees. 
We believe that our action will promote a harmonized approach under 
part 27 to the relocation of FS incumbents by terrestrial wireless 
licensees across the AWS bands and will provide FS incumbents in the 
2180-2200 MHz band with a meaningful opportunity to negotiate 
relocation agreements with a licensee of AWS-4 authority.
    221. The specific rules that we adopt, as explained above, are 
based on similar rules that apply to the relocation of FS incumbents 
from the 2110-2155 MHz band by AWS-1 licensees. No parties commented on 
modifying the proposed rules themselves. In general, licensees of AWS-4 
authority will be required to coordinate their frequency usage with all 
potentially affected co-channel and adjacent channel FS incumbents 
operating in the 2180-2200 MHz band prior to initiating operations from 
any base or fixed station. If interference would occur, the licensee of 
AWS-4 authority can initiate a mandatory negotiation period (two-years 
for non-public safety, three-years for public safety) during which each 
party must negotiate in good faith for the purpose of agreeing to terms 
under which the FS licensees would: (1) Relocate their operations to 
other fixed microwave bands or other media; or alternatively (2) accept 
a sharing arrangement with the licensee of AWS-4 authority that may 
result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the FS 
operations. If no agreement is reached during the mandatory negotiation 
period, the licensee of AWS-4 authority can initiate involuntary 
relocation procedures.
    222. We also establish a 10-year sunset date from the grant of the 
first license or issuance of a modification of a license to authorize 
the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band for AWS-4 under part 27. We addressed 
arguments raised by DISH with respect to the sunset above. In addition, 
we adopt our proposal to delete the reference in footnote NG168 in the 
U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations to all Fixed and Mobile facilities 
operating on a secondary basis not later than December 9, 2013. No 
parties commented on our proposal to modify this footnote. As we 
explained in the AWS-4 NPRM, grandfathered fixed microwave systems will 
be governed by the procedures in Sec.  101.79 after the applicable 
sunset date.
    223. Cost-Sharing. We extend the cost-sharing rules adopted for 
AWS-1 licensees to the AWS-4 band. This will result in the cost-sharing 
requirements sunsetting on the same date as the relocation obligations. 
The Commission has emphasized that it is desirable to harmonize the FS 
relocation procedures among the various AWS designated bands to the 
greatest extent feasible. The Commission specifically noted that 
relocation procedures that are consistent throughout the band can be 
expected to foster a more efficient rollout of AWS and minimize 
confusion among the parties, and thereby serve the public interest. We 
believe that adopting rules based on the part 27 cost-sharing rules 
that apply to AWS-1 licensees will accelerate the relocation process 
and promote rapid deployment of new advanced wireless services in the 
band. The part 27 cost-sharing rules were designed to accommodate the 
deployment of new wireless terrestrial services and have a proven 
record of success. We also observe that the Commission refined the part 
27 cost-sharing plan based on the experience and record of the cost-
sharing plan that applied to PCS under part 24. We therefore believe 
that our adoption of similar rules in this instance will expedite the 
relocation of FS incumbents and the introduction of new services. We 
further find that this approach will serve the public interest because 
it will distribute relocation costs more equitably among the 
beneficiaries of the relocation, encourage the simultaneous relocation 
of multi-link communications systems, and accelerate the relocation 
process, thereby promoting more rapid deployment of new services. 
Accordingly, we adopt rules in based on the formal cost-sharing 
procedures codified in part 27 of our rules to apportion relocation 
costs among those entrants that benefit from the relocation of FS 
incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band.
    224. Consistent with our proposal to extend the cost-sharing rules 
adopted for AWS-1 licensees to the AWS-4 band, we also adopt rules to 
permit for voluntary self-relocating FS incumbents to obtain 
reimbursement from those licensees of AWS-4 authority benefiting from 
the self-relocation. Incumbent participation will provide FS incumbents 
with the flexibility to relocate themselves and the right to obtain 
reimbursement of their relocation costs, adjusted by depreciation, up 
to the reimbursement cap, from new AWS-4 entrants in the band. 
Incumbent participation also will accelerate the relocation process by 
promoting system wide relocations and result in faster clearing of the 
band, thereby expediting the deployment of new advanced wireless 
services to the public. Therefore, we require licensees of AWS-4 
authority to reimburse FS incumbents that voluntarily self-relocate 
from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands and AWS licensees will 
be entitled to pro rata cost sharing from other AWS licensees that also 
benefited from the self-relocation.
    225. With respect to cost-sharing obligations on MSS operators for 
FS incumbent self-relocation in the 2180-2200 MHz band, we recognize 
that the Commission previously declined to impose cost sharing on MSS 
operators for voluntary self-relocation by FS incumbents in that band. 
Accordingly, for FS incumbents that elect to self-relocate their paired 
channels in the 2130-2150 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, we will impose 
cost-sharing obligations on AWS licensees but not on MSS operators. 
Where a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent relocates a paired 
microwave link with paths in the 2130-2150 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, it 
may not seek reimbursement from MSS operators but is entitled to 
reimbursement from the first AWS beneficiary for its actual costs for 
relocating the paired link, subject to the reimbursement cap in Sec.  
27.1164(b). This amount is subject to depreciation as specified in 
Sec.  27.1164(b). An AWS licensee who is obligated to reimburse 
relocation costs under this rule is entitled to obtain reimbursement 
from other AWS beneficiaries in accordance with Sec. Sec.  27.1164 and 
27.1168. For purposes of applying the cost-sharing formula relative to 
other AWS licensees that benefit from the self-relocation, depreciation 
shall run from the date on which the clearinghouse issues the notice of 
an obligation to reimburse the voluntarily relocating microwave 
incumbent.
    226. We require AWS-4 relocators to file their reimbursement 
requests with the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of the date the 
relocator signs a relocation agreement with an incumbent. Terrestrial 
operations trigger incumbent microwave relocations on a link-by-link 
basis, and the Commission imposed a mandatory requirement that all 
terrestrial operators--AWS and MSS ATC--that relocate FS incumbents 
from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands use a clearinghouse. No 
party proposed that we modify the rules requiring the use of a 
clearinghouse by terrestrial wireless licenses for cost-sharing. The 
clearinghouses have considerable experience in determining the cost-
sharing obligation of AWS and other ET entities for the relocation of 
FS incumbents from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands, and the

[[Page 8260]]

Commission selected clearinghouses to serve as neutral third-parties in 
the cost-sharing process. We continue to believe that a mandatory 
requirement will allow the clearinghouses to accurately track cost-
sharing obligations as they relate to all terrestrial operations and 
expedite the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band by 
minimizing disputes over the reimbursement of those costs. For similar 
reasons and consistent with precedent, we will also require self-
relocating microwave incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band to file their 
reimbursement requests with the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days 
of the date that they submit their notice of service discontinuance 
with the Commission.
    227. We further require all licensees of AWS-4 authority that are 
constructing a new site or modifying an existing site to file site-
specific data with the clearinghouse prior to initiating operations for 
a new or modified site. The site data must provide a detailed 
description of the proposed site's spectral frequency use and 
geographic location. We will also impose a continuing duty on those 
entities to maintain the accuracy of the data on file with the 
clearinghouse. We find that such an approach will ensure fairness in 
the process and preclude new AWS-4 entrants from conducting independent 
interference studies for the purpose or effect of evading the 
requirement to file site-specific data with the clearinghouse prior to 
initiating operations.
    228. Utilizing the site-specific data submitted by licensees of 
AWS-4 authority, the clearinghouse determines the cost-sharing 
obligations of each entrant by applying the Proximity Threshold Test. 
We find that the presence of an entrant's site within the Proximity 
Threshold Box, regardless of whether it predates or postdates 
relocation of the incumbent, and regardless of the potential for actual 
interference, will trigger a cost-sharing obligation. Accordingly, any 
entrant that engineers around the FS incumbent will trigger a cost-
sharing obligation once relocation of the FS incumbent occurs.
    229. Consistent with precedent, we establish a specific date on 
which the cost-sharing plans that we adopt here will sunset. We find 
that the sunset date for cost sharing purposes is the date on which the 
relocation obligation for the subject band terminates. Although we 
realize that we are adopting a sunset date that differs from the sunset 
date for cost-sharing obligations of AWS-1 licensees, we find that 
establishing sunset dates for cost sharing purposes that are 
commensurate with the sunset date for AWS relocation obligations in 
each band appropriately balances the interests of all affected parties 
and ensures the equitable distribution of costs among those entrants 
benefiting from the relocations. We reiterate, however, that AWS 
entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation prior to the sunset 
date must satisfy their payment obligation in full.
    230. We continue to require participants in the cost-sharing plan 
to submit their disputes to the clearinghouse for resolution in the 
first instance. Where parties are unable to resolve their issues before 
the clearinghouse, parties are encouraged to use expedited ADR 
procedures, such as binding arbitration, mediation, or other ADR 
techniques. Except for the independent third party appraisal of the 
compensable relocation costs for a voluntarily relocating microwave 
incumbent and documentation of the relocation agreement or 
discontinuance of service required for a relocator or self-relocator's 
reimbursement claim, both of which must be submitted in their entirety, 
we require participants in the cost-sharing plan to provide only the 
uniform cost data requested by the clearinghouse subject to the 
continuing requirements that relocators and self-relocators maintain 
documentation of cost-related issues until the sunset date and provide 
such documentation, upon request, to the clearinghouse, the Commission, 
or entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation. In addition, we 
also require that parties of interest contesting the clearinghouse's 
determination of specific cost-sharing obligations must provide 
evidentiary support to demonstrate that their calculation is reasonable 
and made in good faith. Specifically, these parties are expected to 
exercise due diligence to obtain the information necessary to prepare 
an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question and to file 
the independent estimate and supporting documentation with the 
clearinghouse.
    231. We expect new entrants and incumbent licensees to act in good 
faith in all matters relating to the cost-sharing process herein 
established. Although the Commission has generally required ``good 
faith'' in the context of parties' participation in negotiations, self-
relocating incumbents benefit through their participation in the cost-
sharing regime and therefore we expect them to act in good faith in 
seeking reimbursement for recoverable costs in accordance with the 
Commission's rules. We find that the question of whether a particular 
party was acting in good faith is best addressed on a case-by-case 
basis. By retaining sufficient flexibility to craft an appropriate 
remedy for a given violation in light of the particular circumstances 
at hand, we can ensure that any party who violates our good faith 
requirements, either by acting in bad faith or by filing frivolous or 
harassing claims of violations, will suffer sufficient penalties to 
outweigh any advantage it hoped to gain by its violation.

IV. Ancillary Terrestrial Component in the 2 GHZ MSS Band

    232. We eliminate the ATC rules for the 2 GHz band and delete the 
former footnote NG168 (now numbered NG43) from the U.S. Table of 
Allocations. We conclude that authorizing two, distinct terrestrial 
mobile operations in the band would result in confusion and redundancy. 
Furthermore, the changing circumstances in the 2 GHz MSS band 
demonstrate that ATC regulations are no longer the best framework for 
developing and deploying terrestrial broadband operations in the band. 
Finally, the record reflects no opposition to our adopting the 
proposals. We therefore conclude that the potential benefits of our 
proposals would outweigh any potential costs. In eliminating the ATC 
rules for the 2 GHz MSS band, we emphasize that our action does not 
result in changes to the ATC rules for either the L-band or the Big LEO 
band; rather, we intend to address issues pertaining to the ATC rules 
for those bands in one or more separate proceedings at a later date.

V. Order of Proposed Modification

    233. As noted above, although the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz 
bands are currently assigned to two different licensees, Gamma 
Acquisitions L.L.C. (Gamma) and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (New 
DBSD), both licenses are wholly owned subsidiaries of DISH. In 
paragraph 175 above, we direct these 2 GHz MSS licensees to determine 
how to effectuate the reconfiguration of the 2 GHz MSS band into an A-
B/A-B arrangement by each licensee selecting a duplex pair in response 
to this Order of Proposed Modification. For the reasons discussed 
throughout this Report and Order, we conclude that it is in the public 
interest, convenience, and necessity to propose modifying the existing 
2 GHz MSS licenses as follows:
     To modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses of Gamma Acquisition 
L.L.C. (call sign E060430) and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (call 
sign E070272) to reflect the duplex pairing that each licensee selects 
in its response to this

[[Page 8261]]

Order of Proposed Modification, consistent with paragraph 175, above;
     To add AWS-4 terrestrial operating authority, as detailed 
in this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, to the 2 
GHz MSS licenses of both Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. (call sign E060430) 
and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (call sign E070272) consistent 
with the 2 GHz MSS licensees' duplex pairing selections;
     To require Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite 
Services G.P. to accept any OOBE interference to MSS or terrestrial 
operations in 2000-2005 MHz from lawful operations from future 1995-
2000 MHz licensees;
     To require Gamma Acquisitions L.L.C. and New DBSD 
Satellite Services G.P. to accept any in band interference in some or 
all of 2000-2020 MHz from lawful operations from 1995-2000 MHz 
licensees; and
     To eliminate the ATC authority in the 2000-2020 MHz and 
2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands of both Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New 
DBSD Satellite Services G.P.
    234. In this connection, we believe that the proposed license 
modifications would serve the public interest by allowing for 
additional terrestrial broadband spectrum, while minimizing harmful 
interference. In accordance with section 316(a) of the Communications 
Act, as amended, and Sec.  1.87(a) of the Commission's rules, we will 
not issue a modification order(s) until Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and 
New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. have received notice of our proposed 
action and have had an opportunity to protest. We direct the staff to 
send this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification by 
certified mail, return receipt requested to Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., 
and to New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. Pursuant to section 316(a)(1) 
of the Act and Sec.  1.87(a) of the Commission's rules, receipt of this 
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification by certified mail, 
return receipt requested, shall constitute notification in writing of 
our Order of Proposed Modification proposing to modify the 2 GHz MSS 
licenses of Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite Services 
G.P. and of the grounds and reasons therefore. Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. 
and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. shall have thirty days from the 
date of such receipt to protest such Order of Proposed Modification. To 
protest the proposed modifications, Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. or New 
DBSD Satellite Services G.P. must, within thirty days of receiving 
notice of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 
submit a written statement with sufficient evidence to show that the 
modification would not be in the public interest. The protest must be 
filed in the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) under WT Docket 
No. 12-70 or with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications 
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street SW., Room TW-A235, Washington, DC 20554; 
the protesting party must, within 30 days of receiving notice of this 
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, send a copy of the 
protest via electronic mail to Kevin Holmes of the Broadband Division 
of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau at [email protected]. 
(This address is proper only for protests submitted by U.S. mail. For 
hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings, the proper address 
is 236 Massachusetts Ave. NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 2002. For 
documents sent by overnight delivery service other than United States 
Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail, the proper address is 
9300 East Hampton Dr., Capitol Heights, MD 20743. For further 
information, contact the Office of the Secretary at (202) 418-0300 or 
[email protected]) Once the 30 day protest period has lapsed, Gamma 
Acquisition L.L.C.'s and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P.'s right to 
file a protest expires, and the Commission may modify the licenses as 
noticed. Finally, in the event that Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. or New 
DBSD Satellite Services G.P. rejects any aspect of the proposed license 
modification, it will be deemed to have rejected the entire license 
modification.
    235. We delegate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the 
International Bureau the authority to issue a license modification 
order for Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. (call sign E060430) and for New DBSD 
Satellite Services G.P. (call sign E070272), but only to the extent 
consistent with paragraphs 319-320 above.
    236. Ex Parte Status. Unless otherwise provided by the Commission 
or its staff pursuant to Sec.  1.1200(a), a license modification 
proceeding under Title III of the Communications Act is treated as a 
restricted proceeding for ex parte purposes under Sec.  1.1208 of the 
Commission's rules. In this case, the license modification proceedings 
are related to the above-captioned rulemaking proceeding, WT Docket No. 
12-70, which is designated as a permit but disclose proceeding under 
the ex parte rules. Due to the interrelated nature of these 
proceedings, we find that it is in the public interest to treat the 
license modification proceedings as permit but disclose proceedings 
under Sec.  1.1206 of the Commission's rules. Therefore, any ex parte 
presentations that are made with respect to the issues involved in the 
subject license modification proceedings subsequent to the release of 
the this Order of Proposed Modification will be permissible but must be 
disclosed in accordance with the requirements of Sec.  1.1206(b) of the 
Commission's rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a 
copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral 
presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a 
different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons 
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda 
summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or 
otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte 
presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and 
arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted 
in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already 
reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other 
filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such 
data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other 
filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where 
such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the 
memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex 
parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must 
be filed consistent with rule Sec.  1.1206(b). For administrative 
convenience only, any filings related to this Order of Proposed 
Modification must be filed in WT Docket No. 12-70 and may be filed 
using the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS), http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/2d. In proceedings governed by rule Sec.  1.49(f) or for which the 
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex 
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte 
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the 
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and 
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, 
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize 
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.

VI. Notice of Inquiry: 2 GHZ Extension Band Concept

    237. In the AWS-4 Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment 
on a

[[Page 8262]]

variation on the AWS-4 band plan proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM. That band 
plan, termed the ``2 GHz Extension Band Concept,'' would have 
incorporated the NTIA proposal to reallocate the 1695-1710 MHz band 
from Federal to non-Federal use and would have resulted in a 35 
megahertz band that paired 2180-2200 MHz (downlink) with 1695-1710 MHz 
(uplink) and a 30 megahertz downlink expansion band of 1995-2025 MHz, 
77 FR 22737, April 17, 2012. Because we adopt a specific AWS-4 band 
plan above that includes much of this spectrum, we decline at this time 
to pursue the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept.

VII. Procedural Matters

A. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

    238. This document contains modified information collection 
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), 
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the 
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on 
the new or modified information collection requirements contained in 
this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small 
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific comment on how the 
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for 
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
    239. In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the 
policies adopted in this Report and Order and Order of Proposed 
Modification with regard to information collection burdens on small 
business concerns, and find that these policies will benefit many 
companies with fewer than 25 employees because the revisions we adopt 
should provide small entities with more information, more flexibility, 
and more options for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum. In 
addition, we have described impacts that might affect small businesses, 
which includes most businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA).

B. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

    240. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that an agency 
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice and comment 
rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if 
promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities.'' Accordingly, we have prepared a FRFA concerning 
the possible impact of the rule changes contained in the Report and 
Order on small entities.

C. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

    241. Demand for wireless broadband services and the network 
capacity associated with those services is surging, resulting in a 
growing demand for spectrum to support these services. Adoption of 
smartphones increased at a 50 percent annual growth rate in 2011, from 
27 percent of U.S. mobile subscribers in December 2010 to nearly 42 
percent in December 2011. Further, consumers have rapidly adopted the 
use of tablets, which were first introduced in January of 2010. By the 
end of 2012, it is estimated that one in five Americans--almost 70 
million people--will use a tablet. Between 2011 and 2017, mobile data 
traffic generated by tablets is expected to grow at a compound annual 
growth rate of 100 percent. New mobile applications and services, such 
as high resolution video communications, are also using more bandwidth. 
For example, a single smartphone can generate as much traffic as 
thirty-five basic-feature mobile phones, while tablets connected to 3G 
and 4G networks use three times more data than smartphones over the 
cellular network. All of these trends, in combination, are creating an 
urgent need for more network capacity and, in turn, for suitable 
spectrum.
    242. The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended the Commission 
undertake to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for broadband use 
within ten years, including 300 megahertz within five years. The 
Commission has taken numerous steps to achieve these goals, including 
recently adopting a notice of proposed rulemaking on conducting the 
world's first incentive auction to repurpose broadcast spectrum for 
wireless broadband use, and updating the Commission's rules for the 2.3 
GHz Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band to permit the use of the 
most advanced wireless technologies in that band.
    243. In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle 
Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the ``Spectrum Act''). 
The Spectrum Act includes several provisions to make more spectrum 
available for commercial use, including through auctions, and to 
improve public safety communications. Among other things, the Spectrum 
Act requires the Commission, by February 23, 2015, to allocate the 
1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz band (collectively, the H 
Block) for commercial use, and to auction and grant new initial 
licenses for the use of each spectrum band, subject to flexible-use 
service rules. Congress provided, however, that if the Commission 
determined that either of the bands could not be used without causing 
harmful interference to commercial licensees in 1930-1995 MHz (PCS 
downlink), then the Commission was prohibited from allocating that 
specific band for commercial use or licensing it. Additionally, 
sections 6401(f) and 6413 of the Spectrum Act specify that the proceeds 
from an auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band and in the 1915-
1920 MHz band shall be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund and 
then used to fund the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network 
(``FirstNet''). The H block spectrum could be the first spectrum 
specified by the Spectrum Act to be licensed by auction, and thus could 
represent the first inflow of revenues toward this statutory goal.
    244. In this Report and Order, we increase the Nation's supply of 
spectrum for mobile broadband by adopting flexible use rules for 40 
megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band (2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 
MHz), which we term the AWS-4 band. In so doing, we carry out a 
recommendation in the National Broadband Plan that the Commission 
enable the provision of stand-alone terrestrial services in the 2 GHz 
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) spectrum band, thus dramatically 
increasing the value of this spectrum to the public. Specifically, we 
remove regulatory barriers to mobile broadband use of this spectrum, 
and adopt service, technical, and licensing rules that will encourage 
innovation and investment in mobile broadband and provide certainty and 
a stable regulatory regime in which broadband deployment can rapidly 
occur.

D. Legal Basis

    245. The actions are authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333, 
and Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 1302.

[[Page 8263]]

E. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which 
the Rules Will Apply

    246. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, 
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be 
affected by the rules adopted, herein. The RFA generally defines the 
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small 
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental 
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same 
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business 
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently 
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and 
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA. Below, we 
describe and estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be 
affected by the adopted rules.
    247. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental 
Jurisdictions. Our action may, over time, affect small entities that 
are not easily categorized at present. We therefore describe here, at 
the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards 
that encompass entities that could be directly affected by the 
proposals under consideration. As of 2009, small businesses represented 
99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to 
the SBA. Additionally, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-
for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is 
not dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were 
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small 
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of 
cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or 
special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' 
Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527 
governmental jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of 
this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as ``small 
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental 
jurisdictions are small.
    248. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. 
The rules adopted in this Order would affect some providers of 
satellite telecommunications services. Satellite telecommunications 
service providers include satellite and earth station operators. Since 
2007, the SBA has recognized two census categories for satellite 
telecommunications firms: ``Satellite Telecommunications'' and ``Other 
Telecommunications.'' Under the ``Satellite Telecommunications'' 
category, a business is considered small if it had $15 million or less 
in average annual receipts. Under the ``Other Telecommunications'' 
category, a business is considered small if it had $25 million or less 
in average annual receipts.
    249. The first category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing point-to-point 
telecommunications services to other establishments in the 
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and 
receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or 
reselling satellite telecommunications.'' For this category, Census 
Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite 
communications firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 
464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had 
receipts of $10 million to $24,999,999.
    250. The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised 
of entities ``primarily engaged in providing specialized 
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications 
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes 
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal 
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more 
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, 
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. 
Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet 
protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications 
connections are also included in this industry.'' For this category, 
Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms 
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,346 firms had 
annual receipts of under $25 million. Consequently, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are 
small entities that might be affected by our actions.
    251. Satellite Telecommunications/Mobile Satellite Service 
Licensees. Neither the Commission nor the U.S. Small Business 
Administration has developed a small business size standard 
specifically for mobile satellite service licensees. The appropriate 
size standard is therefore the SBA standard for Satellite 
Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they 
have $15 million or less in annual revenues. This industry comprises 
establishments primarily engaged in providing telecommunications 
services to other establishments in the telecommunications and 
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications 
signals via a system of satellites or reselling satellite 
telecommunications. Currently, the Commission's records show that there 
are 31 entities authorized to provide voice and data MSS in the United 
States. The Commission does not have sufficient information to 
determine which, if any, of these parties are small entities. The 
Commission notes that small businesses are not likely to have the 
financial ability to become MSS system operators because of high 
implementation costs, including construction of satellite space 
stations and rocket launch, associated with satellite systems and 
services.
    252. However, the U.S. Census publishes data about Satellite 
Telecommunications generally, and this data may well be relevant to the 
estimate of the number of voice and data MSS. Census data for 2007 
indicate that 512 satellite telecommunications firms operated during 
that year. Of that 512, 290 received annual receipts of $10.0 million 
or less. 18 firms received annual receipts of between $10.0 million and 
$24, 999.999 and 30 received annual receipts of $25.0 million or more. 
Since the Census data does not distinguish between MSS and other types 
of satellite communications companies, it cannot be known precisely, 
based on Census data, how many of the 31 authorized MSS firms are 
small. However, since the majority of all satellite telecommunications 
companies were small under the applicable standard, a limited inference 
is possible that some of the 31 MSS firms are small. Since it is 
possible that some MSS companies are small entities affected by this 
Order, we therefore include them in this section of the FRFA.
    253. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The 
Report and Order applies various Commission policies and rules to 
terrestrial service in the MSS bands. We cannot predict who may in the 
future become a licensee or lease spectrum for terrestrial use in these 
bands. In general, any wireless telecommunications provider would be 
eligible to become an Advanced Wireless Service licensee or lease 
spectrum from the MSS or AWS licensees. This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and 
transmission facilities to provide communications via the airwaves. 
Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and

[[Page 8264]]

provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular phone services, 
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
    254. The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the 
category Wired Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, 
such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census 
Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, 
show that there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the 
entire year. Of this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 
44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this 
category and the associated small business size standard, the 
Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by 
our actions.

F. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other 
Compliance Requirements

    255. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance 
requirements resulting from the Report and Order will apply to all 
entities in the same manner. The Commission believes that applying the 
same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness. 
The Commission does not believe that the costs and/or administrative 
burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small entities. 
The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by 
giving them more information, more flexibility, and more options for 
gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.
    256. Any applicants for licenses of AWS-4 operating authority will 
be required to file license applications using the Commission's 
automated Universal Licensing System (ULS). ULS is an online electronic 
filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool that 
enables potential licensees to research applications, licenses, and 
antennae structures. It also keeps the public informed with weekly 
public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a 
telecommunications glossary. Licensees of AWS-4 operating authority 
that must submit long-form license applications must do so through ULS 
using Form 601, FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless 
Telecommunications Services using FCC Form 602, and other appropriate 
forms.

G. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small 
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered

    257. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant 
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may 
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small 
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of 
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; 
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an 
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small 
entities.
    258. As we provide in this Report and Order, licensing the AWS-4 
bands under Economic Areas (EA) geographic size licenses will provide 
regulatory parity with other AWS bands that are licensed on an EA 
basis, such as AWS-1 B and C block licenses. Additionally, assigning 
AWS-4 in EA geographic areas will allow AWS-4 licensees to make 
adjustments to suit their individual needs. EA license areas are small 
enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers. 
EA license areas also nest within and may be aggregated up to larger 
license areas that have been used by the Commission for other services, 
such as Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area 
Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to create larger service areas. 
Licensees may also adjust their geographic coverage through secondary 
markets. These rules should enable licensees of AWS-4 operating 
authority, or any entities, whether large or small, providing service 
in other AWS bands to more easily adjust their spectrum to build their 
networks pursuant to individual business plans.
    259. This Report and Order adopts rules to protect entities 
operating in nearby spectrum bands from harmful interference, which may 
include small entities. The technical rules adopted in the Report and 
Order are designed, among other things, to protect broadband PCS 
services operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band, future services operating 
in the 1995-2000 MHz band, and Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz 
band from harmful interference from AWS-4 operations.
    260. The Report and Order provides licensees of AWS-4 authority 
with the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is 
consistent with the allocations for this spectrum, which is consistent 
with other spectrum allocated or designated for licensed fixed and 
mobile services, e.g., AWS-1. The Report and Order further provides for 
licensing of this spectrum under the Commission's market-oriented part 
27 rules. This includes applying the Commission's secondary market 
policies and rules to all transactions involving the use of AWS-4 bands 
for terrestrial services, which will provide greater predictability and 
regulatory parity with bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband 
service. These rules should make it easier for AWS-4 providers to enter 
secondary market arrangements involving terrestrial use of their 
spectrum. The secondary market rules apply equally to all entities, 
whether small or large. As a result, we believe that this will provide 
an economic benefit to small entities by making it easier for entities, 
whether large or small, to enter into secondary market arrangements for 
AWS-4 spectrum.

H. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the 
Rules

    261. None.

VIII. Ordering Clauses

    262. Accordingly, It is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332 and 333 of 
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 
that this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification is hereby 
adopted.
    263. It is further ordered that parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101 of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101, are amended,, 
effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register except as 
otherwise provided herein.
    264. It is further ordered that the amendments, adopted above, to 
Sec. Sec.  1.949, 27.14, 27.17, 27.1131, 27.1134, 27.1136, 27.1166, 
27.1168, 21.1170, 101.69, and 101.73(d) of the Commission's rules, 47 
CFR 1.949, 27.14, 27.17, 27.1131, 27.1134, 27.1136, 27.1166, 27.1168, 
21.1170, 101.69, and 101.73(d), which contain new or modified 
information collection requirements that require approval by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 
will become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in the 
Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective 
date.
    265. It is further proposed, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 316(a) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 316, 
and Sec.  1.87 of the Commission's rules, 47

[[Page 8265]]

CFR 1.87, that the license for Call Sign E060430 held by Gamma 
Acquisition L.L.C. be modified consistent with section IV (Order of 
Proposed Modification) of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed 
Modification. Pursuant to section 316(a)(1) of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 316(a)(1), and Sec.  1.87(a) of the 
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.87(a), receipt of this Report and Order 
and Order of Proposed Modification by certified mail, return receipt 
requested, shall constitute notification in writing of our Order of 
Proposed Modification that proposes to modify Call Sign E060430 held by 
Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., and of the grounds and reasons therefore, and 
Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. shall have thirty (30) days from the date of 
receipt to protest such Order of Proposed Modification. The Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau and the International Bureau are delegated 
authority to issue an order of modification if no protests are filed.
    266. It is further proposed, pursuant to sections 4(i) and 316(a) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 316, 
and Sec.  1.87 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.87, that the license 
for Call Sign E070272 held by New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. be 
modified consistent with section IV (Order of Proposed Modification) of 
this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification. Pursuant to 
section 316(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 316(a)(1), and Sec.  1.87(a) of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.87(a), receipt of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed 
Modification by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall 
constitute notification in writing of our Order of Proposed 
Modification that proposes to modify Call Sign E070272 held by New DBSD 
Satellite Services G.P., and of the grounds and reasons therefore, and 
New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. shall have thirty (30) days from the 
date of receipt to protest such Order of Proposed Modification. The 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the International Bureau are 
delegated authority to issue an order of modification if no protests 
are filed.
    267. It is further ordered that this Report and Order and Order of 
Proposed Modification shall be sent by certified mail, return receipt 
request, to Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., 9601 South Meridian Blvd., 
Englewood, CO 80112 and Pantelis Michalopoulos, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 
1330 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036-1795, and to New DBSD 
Satellite Services G.P., 11700 Plaza America Drive, Suite 1010, Reston, 
VA 20190 and Pantelis Michalopoulos, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 
Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20036-1795.
    268. It is further ordered that the license modification 
proceedings commenced by the Order of Proposed Modification shall be 
treated as permit-but-disclose proceedings under the Commission's ex 
parte rules, see 47 CFR 1.1200 et seq.
    269. It is further ordered that the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau is delegated authority to make all necessary changes to its 
electronic database systems and forms to implement the policies and 
rules adopted in this Report and Order.
    270. It is further ordered that the International Bureau is 
delegated authority to act on the petition for reconsideration filed by 
Inmarsat in IB Docket Nos. 05-220 and 05-221, consistent with this 
Order as set forth above.
    271. It is further ordered that the Final Regulatory Flexibility 
Analysis hereto is adopted.
    272. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of 
this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A).
    273. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and 
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a 
copy of this Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 
Business Administration.

List of Subjects

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 101

    Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

47 CFR Parts 25 and 27

    Communications common carriers, Radio.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal 
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101 as 
follows:

PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 
155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), and 309.


0
2. Amend Sec.  1.949 by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  1.949  Application for renewal of license.

* * * * *
    (c) Renewal showing. An applicant for renewal of a geographic-area 
authorization in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz service bands must 
make a renewal showing, independent of its performance requirements, as 
a condition of renewal. The showing must include a detailed description 
of the applicant's provision of service during the entire license 
period and address:
    (1) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant 
(e.g., the population served, the area served, the number of 
subscribers, the services offered);
    (2) The date service commenced, whether service was ever 
interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage;
    (3) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
    (4) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal 
land as defined in Sec.  1.2110(f)(3)(i); and
    (5) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the 
public.

PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS

0
3. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise 
noted.


0
4. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is revised as 
follows:
0
a. Page 36 is revised
0
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG43 
is removed.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.

* * * * *


[[Page 8266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR05FE13.000


[[Page 8267]]


* * * * *

PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

0
5. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies sections 4, 
301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332 of the Communications Act, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332, unless 
otherwise noted.


0
6. Amend Sec.  25.143 by revising paragraphs (i) and (k) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.143  Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite 
service and 2 GHz mobile-satellite service.

* * * * *
    (i) Incorporation of ancillary terrestrial component base stations 
into a 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service network. Any licensee 
authorized to construct and launch a 1.6/2.4 GHz system may construct 
ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) base stations as defined in Sec.  
25.201 at its own risk and subject to the conditions specified in this 
subpart any time after commencing construction of the mobile-satellite 
service system.
* * * * *
    (k) Aircraft. ATC mobile terminals must be operated in accordance 
with 25.136(a). All portable or hand-held transceiver units (including 
transceiver units installed in other devices that are themselves 
portable or hand-held) having operating capabilities in the 1610-1626.5 
MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands shall bear the following statement in a 
conspicuous location on the device: ``This device may not be operated 
while on board aircraft. It must be turned off at all times while on 
board aircraft.''

0
7. Amend Sec.  25.149 by revising the section heading and paragraph 
(a)(1) introductory text, removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(i), 
(b)(1)(i), and (b)(5)(i), and revising paragraphs (d) and (e) to read 
as follows:


Sec.  25.149  Application requirements for ancillary terrestrial 
components in the mobile-satellites service networks operating in the 
1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service.

    (a) * * *
    (1) ATC shall be deployed in the forward-band mode of operation 
whereby the ATC mobile terminals transmit in the MSS uplink bands and 
the ATC base stations transmit in the MSS downlink bands in portions of 
the 1626.5-1660.5 MHz/1525-1559 MHz bands (L-band) and the 1610-1626.5 
MHz/2483.5-2500 MHz bands (Big LEO band).
* * * * *
    (d) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component authority 
shall demonstrate that the applicant does or will comply with the 
provisions of Sec.  1.924 of this chapter and Sec. Sec.  25.203(e) 
through 25.203(g) and with Sec.  25.253 or Sec.  25.254, as 
appropriate, through certification or explanatory technical exhibit. 
(e) Except as provided for in paragraph (f) of this section, no 
application for an ancillary terrestrial component shall be granted 
until the applicant has demonstrated actual compliance with the 
provisions of paragraph (b) of this section. Upon receipt of ATC 
authority, all ATC licensees must ensure continued compliance with this 
section and Sec. Sec.  25.253 or 25.254, as appropriate.
* * * * *


Sec.  25.252  [Removed and Reserved].

0
8. Remove and reserve Sec.  25.252.

0
9. Amend Sec.  25.255 by revising the section heading to read as 
follows:


Sec.  25.255  Procedures for resolving harmful interference related to 
operation of ancillary terrestrial components operating in the 1.5/1.6 
GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz bands.

* * * * *

0
10. Add Sec.  25.265 to read as follows:


Sec.  25.265  Acceptance of interference in 2000-2020 MHz.

    (a) MSS receivers operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band must accept 
interference from lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, where 
such interference is due to:
    (1) The in-band power of any operations in 1995-2000 MHz (i.e., the 
portion of transmit power contained in the 1995-2000 MHz band); or
    (2) The portion of out-of-band emissions contained in 2000-2005 
MHz.
    (b) [Reserved].

PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

0
11. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 
337 unless otherwise noted.


0
12. Amend Sec.  27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1  Basis and purpose.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (10) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz.
* * * * *

0
13. Amend Sec.  27.2 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) 
to read as follows:


Sec.  27.2  Permissible communications.

    (a) Miscellaneous wireless communications services. Except as 
provided in paragraph (b) or (d) of this section and subject to 
technical and other rules contained in this part, a licensee in the 
frequency bands specified in Sec.  27.5 may provide any services for 
which its frequency bands are allocated, as set forth in the non-
Federal Government column of the Table of Allocations in Sec.  2.106 of 
this chapter (column 5).
* * * * *
    (d) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Operators in the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands may not provide the mobile-satellite 
service under the provisions of this part; rather, mobile-satellite 
service shall be provided in a manner consistent with part 25 of this 
chapter.

0
14. Amend Sec.  27.4 by revising the definition in ``Advanced wireless 
service (AWS)'' to read as follows:


Sec.  27.4  Terms and definitions.

    Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). A radiocommunication service 
licensed pursuant to this part for the frequency bands specified in 
Sec.  27.5(h) or Sec.  27.5(j).
* * * * *

0
15. Amend Sec.  27.5 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.5  Frequencies.

* * * * *
    (j) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. The following 
frequencies are available for licensing pursuant to this part in the 
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4) bands:
    (1) Two paired channel blocks of 10 megahertz each are available 
for assignment as follows: Block A: 2000-2010 MHz and 2180-2190 MHz; 
and Block B: 2010-2020 MHz and 2190-2200 MHz.
    (2) [Reserved].

0
16. Amend Sec.  27.6 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.6  Service areas.

* * * * *
    (i) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. AWS service areas for 
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are based on Economic Areas 
(EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.

0
17. Amend Sec.  27.13 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.13  License period.

* * * * *
    (i) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Authorizations for the 
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz

[[Page 8268]]

bands will have a term not to exceed ten years from the date of 
issuance or renewal.

0
18. Amend Sec.  27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a), 
(f), and (k), and adding paragraph (q) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.14  Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.

    (a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees 
holding authorizations for Block A in the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz 
bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 
722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz 
bands, Block D in the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands, Block A in the 
2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 
2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, and Block D in 
the 2345-2350 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS 
authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, must, as a 
performance requirement, make a showing of ``substantial service'' in 
their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in 
Sec.  27.13. * * *
* * * * *
    (f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees 
holding authorizations for the 698-746 MHz, 747-762 MHz, and 777-792 
MHz bands and licensees holding AWS authorizations for the 2000-2020 
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. * * *
* * * * *
    (k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum 
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), or (q) of this section, 
including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall 
demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a 
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the 
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in Sec.  1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
    (q) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an AWS 
authorization in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands (an ``AWS-4 
licensee''):
    (1) An AWS-4 licensee shall provide terrestrial signal coverage and 
offer terrestrial service within four (4) years from the date of the 
license to at least forty (40) percent of the total population in the 
aggregate service areas that it has licensed in the 2000-2020 MHz and 
2180-2200 MHz bands (``AWS-4 Interim Buildout Requirement''). For 
purposes of this subpart, a licensee's total population shall be 
calculated by summing the population of each license area that a 
licensee holds in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; and
    (2) An AWS-4 licensee shall provide terrestrial signal coverage and 
offer terrestrial service within seven (7) years from the date of the 
license to at least seventy (70) percent of the population in each of 
its license areas in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands (``AWS-4 
Final Buildout Requirement'').
    (3) If any AWS-4 licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS-
4 Interim Buildout Requirement, the AWS-4 Final Buildout requirement 
shall be accelerated by one year from (seven to six years).
    (4) If any AWS-4 licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS-
4 Final Buildout Requirement in any of its license areas in the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, its authorization for each license 
area in which it fails to meet the requirement shall terminate 
automatically without Commission action. To the extent that the AWS-4 
licensee also holds the 2 GHz MSS rights for the affected license area, 
failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement in an EA shall 
also result in the MSS protection rule in Sec.  27.1136 no longer 
applying in that license area.
    (5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, 
licensees shall use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the 
time of measurement and shall base their measurements of population 
served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population 
within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will 
only be deemed served by the licensee if it provides signal coverage to 
and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other 
acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census Tract (or other 
acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area, 
a licensee with authorizations for such areas may only include the 
population within the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) 
towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual 
license.
    (6) Failure by any AWS-4 licensee to meet the AWS-4 Final Buildout 
Requirement in paragraph (q)(4) of this section will result in 
forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain 
it.

0
19. Amend Sec.  27.15 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(i); adding paragraph 
(d)(1)(iii); revising paragraph (d)(2)(i); and adding paragraph 
(d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.15  Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in 
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 
734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 
in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz 
and 788-793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in 
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to 
WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for purposes of 
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. 
Parties to partitioning agreements have two options for satisfying the 
construction requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. Under the first 
option, the partitioner and partitionee each certifies that it will 
independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its 
respective partitioned area. If a licensee subsequently fails to meet 
its substantial service requirement, its license will be subject to 
automatic cancellation without further Commission action. Under the 
second option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will meet 
the substantial service requirement for the entire, pre-partitioned 
geographic service area. If the partitioner subsequently fails to meet 
its substantial service requirement, only its license will be subject 
to automatic cancellation without further Commission action.
* * * * *
    (iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz 
and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of 
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. 
Each party to a geographic partitioning must individually meet any 
service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and 
operation requirements). If a partitioner or partitionee fails to meet 
any service-specific performance requirements on or before the required 
date, then the consequences for this failure shall be those enumerated 
in Sec.  27.14(q)
    (2) * * *
    (i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in 
the 698-704 MHz and 728-734 MHz bands,

[[Page 8269]]

Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722-
728 MHz band, Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the 746-757 MHz and 776-787 MHz 
bands, or Block D in the 758-763 MHz and 788-793 MHz bands; and for 
licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 
MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees holding 
authorizations for purposes of implementing the construction 
requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. Parties to disaggregation 
agreements have two options for satisfying the construction 
requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. Under the first option, the 
disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifies that it will share 
responsibility for meeting the substantial service requirement for the 
geographic service area. If the parties choose this option and either 
party subsequently fails to satisfy its substantial service 
responsibility, both parties' licenses will be subject to forfeiture 
without further Commission action. Under the second option, both 
parties certify either that the disaggregator or the disaggregatee will 
meet the substantial service requirement for the geographic service 
area. If the parties choose this option, and the party responsible 
subsequently fails to meet the substantial service requirement, only 
that party's license will be subject to forfeiture without further 
Commission action.
* * * * *
    (iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz 
and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the following rules apply for purposes of 
implementing the construction requirements set forth in Sec.  27.14. 
Each party to a spectrum disaggregation must individually meet any 
service-specific performance requirements (i.e., construction and 
operation requirements). If a disaggregator or a disagregatee fails to 
meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the 
required date, then the consequences for this failure shall be those 
enumerated in Sec.  27.14(q).

0
20. Add Sec.  27.17 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.17  Discontinuance of service in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands.

    (a) Termination of authorization. A licensee's AWS authorization in 
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands will automatically terminate, 
without specific Commission action, if it permanently discontinues 
service after meeting the AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement as specified 
in Sec.  27.14.
    (b) Permanent discontinuance. Permanent discontinuance of service 
is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee holding AWS 
authority in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands does not operate 
or, in the case of a commercial mobile radio service provider, does not 
provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, 
controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.
    (c) Filing requirements. A licensee of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands that permanently discontinues service as defined in this 
section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days 
by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An 
authorization will automatically terminate, without specific Commission 
action, if service is permanently discontinued as defined in this 
section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting 
license cancellation.

0
21. Amend Sec.  27.50 by revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, 
(d)(1) introductory text, and (d)(2) introductory text, and adding 
paragraphs (d)(7) and (8) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.50  Power limits and duty cycle.

* * * * *
    (d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to 
stations transmitting in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 
MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands:
    (1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 
2110-2155 MHz or 2180-2200 MHz bands and located in any county with 
population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon 
the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of 
the Census, is limited to:
* * * * *
    (2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 
2110-2155 MHz or 2180-2200 MHz bands and situated in any geographic 
location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section 
is limited to:
* * * * *
    (7) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in 
the 2000-2020 MHz band are limited to 2 watts EIRP, except that the 
total power of any portion of an emission that falls within the 2000-
2005 MHz band may not exceed 5 milliwatts. A licensee of AWS-4 
authority may enter into private operator-to-operator agreements with 
all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 2000-2005 MHz at power levels 
above 5 milliwatts EIRP; except the total power of the AWS-4 mobile 
emissions may not exceed 2 watts EIRP.
    (8) A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2180-2200 
MHz band utilizing a power greater than 1640 watts EIRP and greater 
than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in advance with all AWS 
licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the 
2180-2200 MHz band.
* * * * *

0
22. Amend Sec.  27.53 by revising paragraph (h) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.53  Emission limits.

* * * * *
    (h) AWS emission limits. (1) General protection levels. Except as 
otherwise specified below, for operations in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-
2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-2200 bands, the power of any emission 
outside a licensee's frequency block shall be attenuated below the 
transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 43 + 10 log10(P) 
dB.
    (2) Additional protection levels. Notwithstanding the foregoing 
paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
    (i) Operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band are subject to the out-of-
band emission requirements set forth in Sec.  27.1134 for the 
protection of federal government operations operating in the 2200-2290 
MHz band.
    (ii) For operations in the 2000-2020 MHz band, the power of any 
emissions below 2000 MHz shall be attenuated below the transmitter 
power (P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
    (3) Measurement procedure. (i) Compliance with this provision is 
based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a resolution 
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1 megahertz bands 
immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block, a 
resolution bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth 
of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed. The 
emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two 
points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the 
carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated 
at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
    (ii) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier 
frequency shall be adjusted as close to the licensee's frequency block 
edges, both upper and lower, as the design permits.
    (iii) 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.
    (4) Private agreements. (i) For AWS operations in the 2000-2020 MHz 
and 2180-2200 MHz bands, to the extent a

[[Page 8270]]

licensee establishes unified operations across the AWS blocks, that 
licensee may choose not to observe the emission limit specified in 
paragraph (h)(1), above, strictly between its adjacent block licenses 
in a geographic area, so long as it complies with other Commission 
rules and is not adversely affecting the operations of other parties by 
virtue of exceeding the emission limit.
    (ii) For AWS operations in the 2000-2020 MHz band, a licensee may 
enter into private agreements with all licensees operating between 1995 
and 2000 MHz to allow the 70 + 10 log10(P) dB limit to be 
exceeded within the 1995-2000 MHz band.
    (iii) An AWS licensee who is a party to a private agreement 
described in this section (4) must maintain a copy of the agreement in 
its station files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS 
assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees and to the Commission.
* * * * *

0
23. Amend Sec.  27.55 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.55  Power strength limits.

    (a) * * *
    (1) 2110-2155, 2180-2200, 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47 
dB[micro]V/m.
* * * * *

0
24. Amend Sec.  27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.57  International coordination.

* * * * *
    (c) Operation in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 
and 2180-2200 MHz bands is subject to international agreements with 
Mexico and Canada.

0
25. Add Sec.  27.65 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.65  Acceptance of interference in 2000-2020 MHz.

    (a) Receivers operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band must accept 
interference from lawful operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, where 
such interference is due to:
    (1) The in-band power of any operations in 1995-2000 MHz (i.e., the 
portion transmit power contained in the 1995-2000 MHz band); or
    (2) The portion of out-of-band emissions contained in 2000-2005 
MHz.
    (b) [Reserved].

Subpart L--1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-
2200 MHz bands

0
26. Amend part 27 by revising the heading of subpart L to read as set 
forth above.

0
27. Add Sec.  27.1103 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1103  2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands subject to 
competitive bidding.

    Mutually exclusive initial applications for 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz band licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general 
competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q 
will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.

0
28. Add Sec.  27.1104 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1104  Designated Entities in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 
MHz bands.

    Eligibility for small business provisions:
    (a) Small business. (1) A small business is an entity that, 
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates 
of its controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an 
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
    (2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its 
affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates of its 
controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an 
attributable material relationship, has average gross revenues not 
exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
    (b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small 
business as defined in this section or a consortium of small businesses 
may use the bidding credit specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this 
chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as 
defined in this section or a consortium of very small businesses may 
use the bidding credit specified in Sec.  1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this 
chapter.

0
29. Revise Sec.  27.1131 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1131  Protection of Part 101 operations.

    All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or 
fixed station, must coordinate their frequency usage with co-channel 
and adjacent channel incumbent, Part 101 fixed-point-to-point microwave 
licensees operating in the 2110-2155 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. 
Coordination shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of 
Sec.  24.237 of this chapter.

0
30. Amend Sec.  27.1134 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1134  Protection of Federal Government operations.

* * * * *
    (e) Protection of Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band--(1) 
Default emission limits. Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this 
section, the following default out-of-band emissions limits shall apply 
for AWS-4 operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band.
    (i) For these AWS-4 operations, the power of any emissions on all 
frequencies between 2200 and 2290 MHz shall not exceed an EIRP of -
100.6 dBW/4 kHz.
    (ii) No AWS-4 base station operating in the 2180-2200 MHz band 
shall be located less than 820 meters from a U.S. Earth Station 
facility operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
    (2) Agreements between AWS-4 operators and Federal government 
entities. The out-of-band emissions limits in paragraph (e)(1) of this 
section may be modified by the private contractual agreement of 
licensees of AWS-4 operating authority and Federal government entities 
operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band. Such agreement shall be 
transmitted to the Commission by the National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. A 
licensee of AWS-4 operating authority who is a party to such an 
agreement must maintain a copy of the agreement in its station files 
and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS-4 assignees, 
transferees, or spectrum lessees, to Federal operators, and to the 
Commission.

0
31. Add Sec.  27.1136 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1136  Protection of mobile satellite services in the 2000-2020 
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.

    An AWS licensee of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands must 
accept any interference received from duly authorized mobile satellite 
service operations in these bands. Any such AWS licensees must protect 
mobile satellite service operations in these bands from harmful 
interference.

0
32. Amend Sec.  27.1160 by revising the first sentence to read as 
follows:


Sec.  27.1160  Cost-sharing requirements for AWS.

    Frequencies in the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands listed in 
Sec.  101.147 of this chapter have been reallocated from Fixed 
Microwave Services (FMS) to use by AWS (as reflected in Sec.  2.106 of 
this chapter). * * *

0
33. Amend Sec.  27.1166 by revising paragraph (a)(1), paragraph (b) 
introductory text, and paragraphs (b)(2) and (f) to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1166  Reimbursement under the Cost-Sharing Plan.

    (a) * * *

[[Page 8271]]

    (1) To obtain reimbursement, an AWS relocator must submit 
documentation of the relocation agreement to the clearinghouse within 
30 calendar days of the date a relocation agreement is signed with an 
incumbent. In the case of involuntary relocation, an AWS relocator must 
submit documentation of the relocated system within 30 calendar days 
after the end of the relocation.
* * * * *
    (b) Documentation of expenses. Once relocation occurs, the AWS 
relocator, or the voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent, must 
submit documentation itemizing the amount spent for items specifically 
listed in Sec.  27.1164(b), as well as any reimbursable items not 
specifically listed in Sec.  27.1164(b) that are directly attributable 
to actual relocation costs. Specifically, the AWS relocator, or the 
voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent must submit, in the first 
instance, only the uniform cost data requested by the clearinghouse 
along with a copy, without redaction, of either the relocation 
agreement, if any, or the third party appraisal described in (b)(1) of 
this section, if relocation was undertaken by the microwave incumbent. 
AWS relocators and voluntarily relocating microwave incumbents must 
maintain documentation of cost-related issues until the applicable 
sunset date and provide such documentation upon request, to the 
clearinghouse, the Commission, or entrants that trigger a cost-sharing 
obligation. If an AWS relocator pays a microwave incumbent a monetary 
sum to relocate its own facilities, the AWS relocator must estimate the 
costs associated with relocating the incumbent by itemizing the 
anticipated cost for items listed in Sec.  27.1164(b). If the sum paid 
to the incumbent cannot be accounted for, the remaining amount is not 
eligible for reimbursement.
* * * * *
    (2) Identification of links. The AWS relocator or the voluntarily 
relocating microwave incumbent must identify the particular link 
associated with appropriate expenses (i.e., costs may not be averaged 
over numerous links). Where the AWS relocator or voluntarily relocating 
microwave incumbent relocates both paths of a paired channel microwave 
link (e.g., 2110-2130 MHz with 2160-2180 MHz and 2130-2150 MHz with 
2180-2200 MHz), the AWS relocator or voluntarily relocating microwave 
incumbent must identify the expenses associated with each paired 
microwave link.
* * * * *
    (f) Reimbursement for Self-relocating FMS links in the 2130-2150 
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Where a voluntarily relocating microwave 
incumbent relocates a paired microwave link with paths in the 2130-2150 
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, it may not seek reimbursement from MSS 
operators, but is entitled to reimbursement from the first AWS 
beneficiary for its actual costs for relocating the paired link, 
subject to the reimbursement cap in Sec.  27.1164(b). This amount is 
subject to depreciation as specified in Sec.  27.1164(b). An AWS 
licensee who is obligated to reimburse relocation costs under this rule 
is entitled to obtain reimbursement from other AWS beneficiaries in 
accordance with Sec. Sec.  27.1164 and 27.1168. For purposes of 
applying the cost-sharing formula relative to other AWS licensees that 
benefit from the self-relocation, depreciation shall run from the date 
on which the clearinghouse issues the notice of an obligation to 
reimburse the voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent.

0
34. Amend Sec.  27.1168 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text, 
paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(3)(ii), and (b) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  27.1168  Triggering a reimbursement obligation.

    (a) The clearinghouse will apply the following test to determine 
when an AWS entity has triggered a cost-sharing obligation and 
therefore must pay an AWS relocator, MSS relocator, or a voluntarily 
relocating microwave incumbent in accordance with the formula detailed 
in Sec.  27.1164:
* * * * *
    (2) An AWS relocator, MSS relocator or a voluntarily relocating 
microwave incumbent has paid the relocation costs of the microwave 
incumbent; and
    (3) The AWS or MSS entity is operating or preparing to turn on a 
fixed base station at commercial power and the fixed base station is 
located within a rectangle (Proximity Threshold) described as follows:
* * * * *
    (ii) If the application of the Proximity Threshold Test indicates 
that a reimbursement obligation exists, the clearinghouse will 
calculate the reimbursement amount in accordance with the cost-sharing 
formula and notify the AWS entity of the total amount of its 
reimbursement obligation.
    (b) Once a reimbursement obligation is triggered, the AWS entity 
may not avoid paying its cost-sharing obligation by deconstructing or 
modifying its facilities.

0
35. Revise Sec.  27.1170 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1170  Payment issues.

    Prior to initiating operations for a newly constructed site or 
modified existing site, an AWS entity is required to file a notice 
containing site-specific data with the clearinghouse. The notice 
regarding the new or modified site must provide a detailed description 
of the proposed site's spectral frequency use and geographic location, 
including but not limited to the applicant's name and address, the name 
of the transmitting base station, the geographic coordinates 
corresponding to that base station, the frequencies and polarizations 
to be added, changed or deleted, and the emission designator. If a 
prior coordination notice (PCN) under Sec.  101.103(d) of this chapter 
is prepared, AWS entities can satisfy the site-data filing requirement 
by submitting a copy of their PCN to the clearinghouse. AWS entities 
that file either a notice or a PCN have a continuing duty to maintain 
the accuracy of the site-specific data on file with the clearinghouse. 
Utilizing the site-specific data, the clearinghouse will determine if 
any reimbursement obligation exists and notify the AWS entity in 
writing of its repayment obligation, if any. When the AWS entity 
receives a written copy of such obligation, it must pay directly to the 
relocator the amount owed within 30 calendar days.

0
36. Revise Sec.  27.1174 to read as follows:


Sec.  27.1174  Termination of cost-sharing obligations.

    The cost-sharing plan will sunset for all AWS and MSS entities on 
the same date on which the relocation obligation for the subject AWS 
band (i.e., 2110-2150 MHz, 2160-2175 MHz, 2175-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz) 
in which the relocated FMS link was located terminates. AWS or MSS 
entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation prior to the sunset 
date must satisfy their payment obligation in full.

PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

0
37. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, and 303 unless otherwise noted.


0
38. Amend Sec.  101.69 by revising paragraph (e) introductory text to 
read as follows:

[[Page 8272]]

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

* * * * *
    (e) Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) 
licensees will be subject to mandatory negotiations only.
* * * * *

0
39. Amend Sec.  101.73 by revising paragraph (a) and paragraph (d) 
introductory text to read as follows:


Sec.  101.73  Mandatory negotiations.

    (a) A mandatory negotiation period may be initiated at the option 
of the ET licensee. Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile Satellite 
Service (MSS) operators and AWS licensees in the 2110-2150 MHz and 
2160-2200 MHz bands will be subject to mandatory negotiations only.
* * * * *
    (d) Provisions for Relocation of Fixed Microwave Licensees in the 
2110-2150 and 2160-2200 MHz bands. A separate mandatory negotiation 
period will commence for each FMS licensee when an ET licensee informs 
that FMS licensee in writing of its desire to negotiate. Mandatory 
negotiations will be conducted with the goal of providing the FMS 
licensee with comparable facilities defined as facilities possessing 
the following characteristics:
* * * * *

0
40. Amend Sec.  101.79 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and 
(a)(2) to read as follows:


Sec.  101.79  Sunset provisions for licensees in the 1850-1990 MHz, 
2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands.

    (a) FMS licensees will maintain primary status in the 1850-1990 
MHz, 2110-2150 MHz, and 2160-2200 MHz bands unless and until an ET 
licensee requires use of the spectrum. ET licensees are not required to 
pay relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset. Once the 
relocation rules sunset, an ET licensee may require the incumbent to 
cease operations, provided that the ET licensee intends to turn on a 
system within interference range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA 
TSB 10-F (for terrestrial-to-terrestrial situations) or TIA TSB 86 (for 
MSS satellite-to-terrestrial situations) or any standard successor. ET 
licensee notification to the affected FMS licensee must be in writing 
and must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate 
the spectrum. After the six-month notice period has expired, the FMS 
licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the 
parties have entered into an agreement which allows the FMS licensee to 
continue to operate on a mutually agreed upon basis. The date that the 
relocation rules sunset is determined as follows:
* * * * *
    (2) For the 2180-2200 MHz band, for MSS/ATC December 8, 2013 (i.e., 
ten years after the mandatory negotiation period begins for MSS/ATC 
operators in the service), and for ET licensees authorized under part 
27 ten years after the first part 27 license is issued in the band. To 
the extent that an MSS operator is also an ET licensee authorized under 
part 27, the part 27 sunset applies to its relocation and cost sharing 
obligations should the two sets of obligations conflict.
* * * * *

0
41. Amend Sec.  101.82 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  101.82  Reimbursement and relocation expenses in the 2110-2150 
MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands.

    (a) Reimbursement and relocation expenses for the 2110-2130 MHz and 
2160-2200 MHz bands are addressed in Sec. Sec.  27.1160-27.1174.
* * * * *
    (d) Cost-sharing obligations among terrestrial stations. For 
terrestrial stations (AWS), cost-sharing obligations are governed by 
Sec. Sec.  27.1160 through 27.1174 of this chapter; provided, however, 
that MSS operators are not obligated to reimburse voluntarily 
relocating FMS incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band. (AWS reimbursement 
and cost-sharing obligations relative to voluntarily relocating FMS 
incumbents are governed by Sec.  27.1166 of this chapter).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2013-01879 Filed 2-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P