[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 101 (Friday, May 24, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31472-31475]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12484]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[GN Docket No. 12-268; DA 13-1157]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks To Supplement the Record
on the 600 MHz Band Plan
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission's Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau seeks further comment on how certain band plan approaches can
best accommodate market variation, particularly in markets where
available spectrum is constrained. Although the Commission continues to
consider all band plan proposals in the record, this document seeks
additional comment on certain variations of the ``Down from 51'' band
plan framework in order to develop a more robust record on these
concepts.
DATES: Submit comments on or before June 14, 2013. Submit reply
comments on or before June 28, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket
No. 12-268, DA 13-1157, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable
[[Page 31473]]
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: (202) 418-
0530 or TTY: (202) 418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Malmud at 202-418-0006, or via
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
supplemental public notice on the 600 MHz Band Plan, GN Docket No. 12-
268, DA 13-1157, released on May 17, 2013. The full text of this
document is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text 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, facsimile (202) 488-5563,
TTY (202) 488-5562, or via email at [email protected]. The complete text
is also available on the Commission's Web site at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachment/DA 13-1157A1doc. 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].
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.
For ECFS filers, generally, only one copy of an electronic
submission must be filed. If multiple docket or rulemaking numbers
appear in the caption of the proceeding, commenters must transmit one
electronic copy of the comments to each docket or rulemaking number
referenced in the caption. In completing the transmittal screen,
commenters should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing
address, and the applicable docket or rulemaking numbers. Parties may
also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing
instructions for email comments, commenters should send an email to
[email protected], and should include the following words in the body of the
message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions will be sent in
reply.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding,
commenters must submit two additional copies for each additional docket
or rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th Street SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing
hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held
together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must
be disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Parties shall also serve one copy with the Commission's
copy contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, or
via email to [email protected].
People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Availability of Documents. Comments, reply comments, and
ex parte submissions will be available for public inspection during
regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center, Federal
Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC
20554. These documents will also be available via ECFS. Documents will
be available electronically in ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe
Acrobat.
Summary
I. Introduction
1. In Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions 77 FR 69934 November 21, 2012
(NPRM), the Commission sought public comment on creating a 600 MHz
wireless band plan from the spectrum made available for flexible use
through the broadcast television incentive auction. The Commission
identified five key policy goals that would provide the framework for
adopting a wireless band plan: Utility, certainty, interchangeability,
quantity and interoperability. The majority of commenters support many
features of the proposed band plan framework that aim to achieve these
goals, but express a broader range of views on how and where to
configure the uplink and downlink blocks in the band plan. To evaluate
and quantify the technical tradeoffs associated with configuring the
uplink and downlink bands, the Commission hosted a public workshop. At
the workshop, stakeholders discussed a variety of technical aspects to
consider in creating a 600 MHz wireless band plan, including mobile
antenna issues, harmonics interference, intermodulation, and high power
services in the duplex gap.
2. As discussed in the workshop, many stakeholders support the
``Down from 51'' band plan proposal--or a variation of it--in which the
Commission would clear broadcast television channels starting at
channel 51 and expand downward: The uplink band would begin at channel
51 (698 MHz), followed by a duplex gap, and then the downlink band. The
workshop made clear that support for a Down from 51 band plan framework
is primarily based on concerns over high power services in the duplex
gap and antenna design issues.
3. The Down from 51 proposals in the record generally limit the
amount of market variation that can be achieved, however. Specifically,
most of these proposals are targeted at repurposing a specific amount
of paired spectrum nationwide, and provide limited options for how to
offer less spectrum in constrained markets, or additional spectrum in
individual markets, and only under certain scenarios. In the NPRM, the
Commission expressed a strong interest in establishing a band
[[Page 31474]]
plan framework that is flexible enough to accommodate market variation,
i.e., offering varying amounts of spectrum in different geographic
locations, depending on the spectrum available. Further, although the
majority of commenters argue that the Commission should prioritize
offering paired spectrum blocks over unpaired blocks, some variations
of the Down from 51 band plan limit the amount of paired spectrum that
can be offered. Under the policy framework set forth by the Commission,
the Down from 51 approaches in the record appear to favor certainty of
the operating environment over the utility of providing the maximum
amount of spectrum through flexibility to offer a greater quantity of
spectrum in geographic areas where more spectrum is available.
4. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a number of band
plan proposals. Emphasizing its goals of balancing flexibility with
certainty while maximizing the amount of spectrum we can make available
for wireless broadband services in each geographic area, the Commission
recognized that other band plans are possible that may achieve the
Commission's goals. Consequently, the Commission sought comment on the
band plan approaches described in the NPRM, any variations on those
approaches, and also invited commenters to propose their own band
plans. To advance the Commission's goal of maintaining flexibility to
offer different amounts of spectrum in different geographic markets, we
seek further comment on how certain Down from 51 band plan approaches
can best address the potential for market variation, particularly in
markets where available spectrum is constrained. Although the
Commission continues to consider all band plan proposals in the record,
we seek additional comment on certain variations of the Down from 51
band plan, as described below, to develop a more robust record on these
concepts. We invite commenters to discuss the relative merits of all of
the band plan proposals and their variations in the record. Further, we
also seek comment on which band plan other countries would be most
likely to adopt to allow for global harmonization of the 600 MHz
spectrum.
II. ``Down From 51 Reversed'' Band Plan Variation
5. We seek comment on a variation of the Down from 51 band plan in
which we reverse the configuration of the uplink and downlink blocks
(``Down from 51 Reversed''). Under a Down from 51 Reversed band plan,
the Commission would clear broadcast television channels starting at
channel 51 and expand downward: the downlink band would begin after a
guard band at channel 51 (698 MHz), followed by a duplex gap, and then
the uplink band. The uplink band could extend past channel 37, either
nationwide or in certain markets, depending on the amount of repurposed
spectrum.
6. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission proposed a structure to
keep the downlink spectrum band consistent nationwide while allowing
variations in the amount of uplink spectrum available in any geographic
area to promote interoperability and accommodate market variation. By
reversing the uplink and downlink bands, the Down from 51 Reversed band
plan framework can maintain a uniform downlink band nationwide and
allow for market variation in the amount of uplink spectrum offered
without placing high power services in the duplex gap.
7. We seek comment on the Down from 51 Reversed band plan
variation. Are there any special considerations or rules that would be
necessary in implementing this approach? We also seek comment on
technical issues associated with the Down from 51 Reversed band plan.
Specifically, we request comment on how this band plan approach would
affect the ability of wireless broadband providers to utilize the 600
MHz band effectively, particularly in terms of network and device
design. Further, we seek comment on whether the Down from 51 Reversed
approach would provide greater flexibility with respect to market
variation than other Down from 51 band plan proposals. We ask
commenters to discuss the tradeoffs associated with accommodating
market variation under the Down from 51 Reversed band plan and the
other band plan proposals in the record.
8. Guard Bands. Like other band plan proposals, in a Down from 51
Reversed band plan, we must implement guard bands to ensure all
spectrum blocks are as technically and functionally interchangeable as
possible. Specifically, we would need to implement a guard band at the
top of the 600 MHz wireless band between the 600 MHz downlink band and
the lower 700 MHz uplink band to protect these services from
interfering with one another. Similarly, we would need to implement a
guard band at the lower end of the 600 MHz wireless band between the
600 MHz uplink band and broadcast television stations. We seek comment
on the appropriate size of the guard bands under this proposal.
9. Channel 37. Under a Down from 51 Reversed band plan, it is
possible that 600 MHz wireless operations could be adjacent to radio
astronomy (RA) and wireless medical telemetry services (WMTS)
operations in channel 37, conceivably on both sides, if the 600 MHz
uplink band extends below channel 37. Would the Down from 51 Reversed
band plan require additional measures to protect existing channel 37
operations? If so, how would these measures affect the ability of
wireless providers to utilize the adjacent spectrum? We also seek
comment on a proposal to apply the spectral mask for TV white space
devices (47 CFR 15.709(c)(4)) to prevent interference and protect
existing channel 37 WMTS operations from interference if mobile uplink
operations (rather than wireless downlink operations) are on both sides
of channel 37. Further, in the event that the Commission can repurpose
more than 84 megahertz of spectrum, yielding an uplink band that would
extend below channel 37, wireless uplink operations will be both above
and below channel 37. If this occurs, the duplex spacing for paired
blocks with uplink blocks below channel 37 would be greater than for
paired blocks with uplink blocks above channel 37 because wireless
operations cannot operate on channel 37. We seek comment on the effects
of this variable duplex spacing, and how this affects network and/or
device design. We seek comment on other issues relating to existing
channel 37 operations under the Down from 51 Reversed band plan
approach.
III. Down From 51 With TV In the Duplex Gap In Constrained Markets
10. We also seek comment on how the Commission should address
constrained markets where less spectrum is available if it adopts a
version of the Down from 51 band plan that has been more generally
discussed in the record and the workshop, with the 600 MHz uplink band
beginning at channel 51, adjacent to the 700 MHz band uplink band.
Specifically, should the Commission place television stations in the
duplex gap in more constrained markets? Although we recognize that some
commenters have concerns about allowing high power services to operate
in the duplex gap, is this less problematic if it occurs only in
certain markets? As compared to a Down from 51 Reversed band plan,
which alternative would allow the Commission to offer as many paired
spectrum blocks as possible? Which band plan approach is preferable if
the Commission decides to accommodate market variation?
[[Page 31475]]
IV. Down From 51 TDD Approach
11. In addition, we seek further comment on using a Down from 51
band plan framework with unpaired TDD blocks (``Down from 51 TDD'').
Under a Down from 51 TDD band plan, the band would begin after a guard
band at channel 51 (698 MHz) and expand downward, followed by a guard
band between wireless operations and broadcast television operations at
the lower edge of the 600 MHz wireless band. As in the other Down from
51 band plan proposals, the band could extend past channel 37, either
nationwide or in certain markets, depending on the amount of repurposed
spectrum, which may also require the Commission to protect existing
channel 37 operations.
12. Although the Down from 51 TDD band plan would require guard
bands at both ends of the 600 MHz wireless band, no duplex gap is
necessary. Further, the Down from 51 TDD band plan would allow for
market variation without placing television stations in the duplex gap.
Although a TDD band plan could not support market variation through
variable uplink, it could support market variation through an
alternative approach that aligns the amount of repurposed spectrum in
constrained markets with the expected filter configurations.
13. We seek additional comment on this Down from 51 TDD band plan.
Specifically, we seek comment on the tradeoffs associated with
implementing the Down from 51 TDD band plan as compared to the other
Down from 51 band plan variations that also accommodate market
variation. Which band plan provides the most flexibility while
maintaining the best certainty about the operating environment?
V. Procedural Matters
14. Ex Parte Presentations--Permit-But-Disclose Proceeding: This
matter shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the ex parte rules. Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentations
must contain summaries of the substance of the presentations and not
merely a listing of the subjects discussed. More than a one- or two-
sentence description of the views and arguments presented generally is
required. Other requirements pertaining to oral and written
presentations are set forth in Sec. 1.1206(b) of the rules.
15. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis: The NPRM in this
proceeding included an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, exploring the potential impact of the
Commission's proposal on small entities. The matters discussed in this
notice do not modify in any way the IRFA we previously issued.
Federal Communications Commission.
Ruth Milkman,
Chief. Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2013-12484 Filed 5-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P