[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 8 (Wednesday, January 13, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1802-1849]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31852]
[[Page 1801]]
Vol. 81
Wednesday,
No. 8
January 13, 2016
Part IV
Federal Communication Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, et al.
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Proposed
Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 8 / Wednesday, January 13, 2016 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 1802]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30, and 101
[GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT
Docket No. 10-112; FCC 15-138]
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) have identified specific spectrum bands above 24
GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek comment
on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other
operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile
use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands occurs in the context of our
efforts to develop a regulatory framework that will help facilitate so-
called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services.
DATES: Comments are due on or before January 26, 2016; reply comments
are due on or before February 23, 2016. Written comments on the
proposed information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, should be submitted on or
before March 14, 2016.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FCC 15-138, by any of
the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment
Filing System (ECFS) http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal
eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow
the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments and
transmit one electronic copy of the filing to FCC 15-138. For ECFS
filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number.
Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet
email. To get filing instructions, filers should send an email to
[email protected], and include the following words in the body of the
message, ``get form ''. A sample form and
instructions will be sent in response.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and four copies of each filing. 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.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand
deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.
Envelopes must be disposed of before entering the
building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 E. Hampton Dr.,
Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW., Washington DC 20554.
In addition, document FCC 15-138 contains proposed information
collection requirement subject to the PRA. OMB, the general public, and
other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed
information collection requirements contained in this document. PRA
comments should be submitted to Cathy Williams via email at [email protected]
and/or [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or
[email protected], Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and
Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or
[email protected], or Howard Griboff of the International Bureau,
Policy Division, at 202-418-0657 or [email protected]. For
information regarding the PRA information collection requirements
contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing
Director, at (202) 418-2918, or via email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos 15-
256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 15-138, adopted and
released on October 22, 2015. The complete text of this document is
available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30
a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th
Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 200554. The complete text is
available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or
by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. To request materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio
format), send an email to [email protected] or telephone the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 18-0432
(TTY). To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR)
submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; (2) find the section of the Web page called ``Currently
Under Review''; (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the
``Select Agency'' box below the ``Currently Under Review'' heading; (4)
select ``Federal Communications Commission'' from the list of agencies
presented in the ``Select Agency'' box; (5) click the ``Submit'' button
to the right of the ``Select Agency'' box; and (6) when the list of FCC
ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Use of Spectrum Bands
Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services and then click on the ICR
Reference Number.
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this NPRM
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte 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
[[Page 1803]]
during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte
presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In
proceedings governed by rule 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.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA)
Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The Commission has
prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of
the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified
in the NPRM for comments.
Report to Small Business Administration
The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration
(SBA), 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries
thereof) will be published in the Federal Register, 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the
proposed information collection requirements contained in this
document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency comments are due
March 14, 2016. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the Commission, including whether the information
shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's
burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the
collection of information on the respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection
burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In
addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it may ``further reduce the information
collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.''
OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX.
Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio
Services.
Form No.: N/A.
Type of Review: New collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for-
profit Institutions; State, local or tribal governments.
Number of Respondents and Responses: 35 respondents and 130
responses.
Estimated Time Per Response: .5-10 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Record
keeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
Statutory authority for this collection are contained in sections 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310,
316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336, Section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
Total Annual Burden: 5,015 hours.
Total Annual Costs: None.
Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection does not
affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the
Privacy Act.
Need for, and Objectives of, the NPRM: In the Use of Spectrum Bands
Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services NPRM, the Commission promotes a
flexible regulatory environment for the next generation of wireless
services. In this NPRM, the Commission identify specific spectrum bands
above 24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek
comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other
operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile
use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands will help facilitate so-called
Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services.
I. Introduction
1. Today we take further steps to promote a flexible regulatory
environment for the next generation of wireless services. In this NPRM,
we continue our examination of higher frequency bands for mobile and
other uses. In that regard, we identify specific spectrum bands above
24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek
comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other
operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile
use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands occurs in the context of our
efforts to develop a regulatory framework that will help facilitate so-
called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services. We note that we do not
intend to define what qualifies as ``5G''. Standard bodies like 3GPP
and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) plan to develop
the requirements by early 2017.
2. The framework we propose is built off of two decades of
successful policies that stimulate and promote innovation and
investment in wireless technologies and services. We propose rules that
will enable flexibility in the uses and technologies that might be
deployed in these bands in a way that also promotes coexistence between
these different uses and technologies. We recognize that several of the
bands we are examining are shared with satellite services, the Federal
government, and fixed users. We believe it is possible to adopt a
flexible and modern set of rules that can facilitate sharing among a
wide variety of users and platforms. We propose to require flexible use
commercial licensees to protect incumbent Federal operations consistent
with Federal allocations in these bands, and expect that detailed
sharing studies will be conducted as we consider development of the
service rules for these bands to ensure that our proposed rules
adequately protect Federal users.
3. In developing service rules for the mmW bands, we aim to
facilitate access to spectrum, develop a flexible spectrum policy, and
encourage wireless innovation. In order to ensure wide access to
spectrum, we propose to use a variety of licensing mechanisms,
including geographic area licenses, unlicensed operation under Part 15
of our rules, and authorizing indoor operating rights to property
owners. In developing our technical rules, our goal is to develop
flexible rules that will accommodate a wide variety of current and
future technologies. Flexibility will
[[Page 1804]]
also encourage innovation in the development of advanced wireless
services using the mmW bands.
II. Solicitation of Comments
4. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the
following proposals:
28 GHz and 39 GHz bands: We propose to authorize mobile
operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band) and the 38.6-40 GHz
band (39 GHz band) with county-sized geographic area licenses. These
bands could be suitable for deployment of high-capacity, high-
throughput small cells as part of mobile broadband deployments. At the
same time, we propose rules that would provide licensees with the
flexibility to conduct fixed and/or mobile operations.
64-71 GHz band: We propose to authorize operations in the
64-71 GHz band under Part 15 of our rules based on the rules we
recently adopted for the adjacent 57-64 GHz band. This action will
provide more spectrum for unlicensed uses such as Wi-Fi-like ``WiGig''
operations.
37 GHz band: In the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band), we
propose a hybrid licensing scheme that would grant operating rights by
rule to property owners, while establishing geographic area licenses
based on counties for outdoor use. This licensing mechanism would
facilitate the deployment of advanced enterprise and industrial
applications not suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network
services, while also providing additional spectrum for more traditional
cellular deployments.
Other Rules
We propose to grant mobile operating rights to existing
fixed Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and 39 GHz band
licensees, and seek comment on utilizing an overlay auction as an
alternative.
We propose to consider market-based rules that could
facilitate greater satellite use of the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz
bands without unduly limiting terrestrial use of those bands.
We seek comment on potential licensing approaches for the
28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. In particular, we seek comment on
revising the performance requirements applicable to those bands.
We seek comment on technical rules needed to facilitate
licensed operation and mitigation methods to ensure protection of
incumbent operations in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands.
We propose to require mobile licensees to protect
incumbent Federal operations, consistent with the Federal allocations
in these bands. We seek detailed comment and analysis on ensuring
compatibility between Federal uses and new mobile use of these bands,
including comment on any rules that would be necessary to facilitate
coexistence with Federal systems.
We seek comment on how to ensure that effective security
features are built into key design principles for communications
devices and networks that will use these bands.
III. Background
A. The Millimeter-Wave Mobile Opportunity
5. Millimeter-wave frequencies have historically been considered
unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at
such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate
around obstacles. Short transmission paths and high propagation losses
can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting
the amount of interference between adjacent cells. In addition, where
longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW
signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals
into highly focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation
losses. The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to
build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small
enough to fit into handsets.
6. While the discussion concerning a possible fifth generation of
mobile wireless technology includes a wide variety of ideas and
technological developments, the possible use of mmW bands for mobile
use is a key concept within that discussion. Many commenters point to
the increasing demand for data from consumers using an ever wider
variety of devices. The mmW bands could be particularly useful in
supporting very high capacity networks in areas that require such
capacity. Several commenters also see the mmW bands being used for
backhaul and machine-to-machine communication. Several commenters also
highlighted that the low latency of 5G technology will enable various
Internet of Things (IoT) applications including wearables, fitness and
healthcare devices, autonomous driving cars, and home and office
automation. In addition to the advanced antenna system, other enabling
technologies for 5G include distributed network architecture, adaptive
coding and modulation, multi-radio access technology, and advanced
small cell technology.
B. Notice of Inquiry
7. In October 2014, acting on advice from the Commission's
Technological Advisory Council, the Commission issued a Notice of
Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on the prospects for provision of mobile
radio services in the frequency bands above 24 GHz. The Commission
foresaw ``a potential coalescence of technologies that could lead to
the emergence of a new and radically more capable generation of
wireless mobile service that can capitalize on use of the millimeter
wave region of the spectrum around the year 2020.'' The Commission also
noted that significant momentum was starting to build among diverse
countries and regions around the idea of a fifth generation of mobile
and fixed services, that some envision as accommodating an eventual
1000-fold increase in traffic demand for mobile services; high-
bandwidth content with speeds in excess of 10 gigabits per second (GB/
s); end-to-end transmission delays (latency) of less than one-
thousandth of a second, and, in the same networks, sporadic, low-data-
rate transmissions among an ``Internet of things''--all of this to be
accomplished with substantially improved spectral and energy
efficiency. The Notice foresaw that achieving those objectives would
likely require the development of new system architectures that, unlike
current technologies, would necessarily include heterogeneous networks
capable of delivering service through multiple, widely-spaced frequency
bands and diverse types of radio access technologies, including
macrocells, microcells, device-to-device communications, new component
technologies, and unlicensed as well as licensed transceivers.
8. The Notice sought comment on the technologies underlying the
development of mmW mobile services using bands above 24 GHz, the
frequency bands that would be suitable for advanced mobile services,
and the best ways to manage interference among operators and other
licensees operating in the same or adjacent bands. Finally, the
Commission sought comment on licensing and authorization schemes for
mobile operations above 24 GHz. In its discussion of frequency bands
above 24 GHz that would be most suitable for advanced mobile services,
the Notice sought comment on the relative importance of access to large
blocks of contiguous spectrum for successful implementation of advanced
mobile technologies. After reviewing the salient
[[Page 1805]]
characteristics of several candidate bands, the Notice invited comment
on the suitability of the three Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS) bands between 27.5 and 31.3 GHz, the 38.6-40 GHz band, the 37-
38.6 and 42-42.5 GHz bands, the 57-64 and 64-71 GHz band, the 71-76 GHz
and 81-86 GHz bands, and the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz bands
for advanced mobile services. The Commission also invited comment on
any other bands above 24 GHz that might be appropriate, including any
bands above 95 GHz that could be suitable candidates for mobile
services.
9. Regarding licensing mechanisms, the Commission noted that,
except for the 24 GHz band, all of the candidate bands mentioned above
have existing mobile allocations, and that the Commission has already
established geographic service areas and conducted spectrum auctions
for three of the bands--LMDS, 39 GHz, and 24 GHz. The NOI inquired
whether the Commission should upgrade the existing fixed service
licenses for those bands to include authorization to provide mobile
service.
C. Recent Technological Developments
10. Since the release of the Commission's NOI in October 2014,
there has been increased momentum behind the development of 5G
technologies. Several manufacturers have showcased their prototype 5G
equipment operating in centimeter and millimeter wave bands. In the
United States, NYU Wireless Center has been leading the research in mmW
technology, including the propagation measurements and models,
radiation and biological health effects, mmW MAC layer design and other
component technology development. In July 2015, the National Institute
of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated the 5G Millimeter Wave
Channel Model Alliance with companies, academia, and government
organizations to support the development of more accurate, consistent,
and predictive channel models. Intel has introduced several laptop
models with the 60GHz WiGig technology and continues to develop the mmW
mobile broadband system in 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands. This is but some of
the current and ongoing work on 5G technologies across the world.
D. World Radio Conference
11. The International Telecommunication Union's World
Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) 2015 (WRC-15) is scheduled to take
place from November 2-27, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. One of the tasks
of that conference is to set the agenda for the next WRC, which is
expected to take place in 2019 (WRC-19). At WRC-15, the United States
will support the study of spectrum requirements and potential
identification of harmonized spectrum for mobile broadband below 6 GHz
and will encourage the adoption of a plan for identifying spectrum for
mobile technologies in higher frequency bands. At WRC-15, the United
States is supporting the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission
(CITEL) proposal to consider spectrum requirements and identification
of bands for the terrestrial component of International Mobile
Telecommunications (IMT) to facilitate mobile broadband applications,
with the aim of reaching decisions regarding possible spectrum for
mobile use at WRC-19. The proposals resolve to conduct sharing and
compatibility studies, including adjacent band studies as appropriate,
within the frequency ranges: 10-10.45 GHz, 23.15-23.6 GHz, 24.25-27.5
GHz, 27.5-29.5 GHz, 31.8-33 GHz, 37-40.5 GHz, 45.5-47 GHz, 47.2-50.2
GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz and 59.3-76 GHz.
12. We recognize that other countries have proposed or will propose
the identification of other bands for consideration for mobile
broadband. We are committed to working with both domestic and
international partners in examining additional spectrum and on
conducting the necessary technical sharing and compatibility studies.
To the extent it becomes appropriate to consider additional bands for
mmW mobile use in light of international developments, we will work
with relevant stakeholders to examine the suitability of those bands
for mobile and other uses.
IV. Discussion
A. Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Use
1. Criteria for Examining Bands for Mobile and Other Uses
13. Background. In the NOI, we specifically sought comment on the
suitability of the following bands for mobile use: The Local Multipoint
Distribution Service (LMDS) band (27.5-28.35 GHz, 29.1-29.25 GHz, and
31.0-31.3 GHz), the 39 GHz band, the 37 GHz band and 42-42.5 GHz, 57-64
GHz and 64-71 GHz bands, the 70/80 GHz bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz),
and the 24 GHz bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz). We also
invited comment on any other band that might be appropriate for mobile
services, including bands above 95 GHz.
14. Commenters highlight several characteristics that they believe
are important elements of defining a band as suitable for mobile use.
Several commenters discuss the need for a substantial amount of
contiguous bandwidth in order to enable 5G services.
Equipment manufacturers and others also highlight the benefits of
having internationally harmonized spectrum.
15. In the NOI, we sought ``to advance our understanding of the
means by which mobile services can avoid interfering with each other
and with incumbent services and users that may share the same frequency
bands as well as the impact on adjacent band radio services.''
Commenters agree that the Commission must consider existing incumbent
uses in determining whether a particular band is a good candidate for
mobile use.
16. There were four categories of incumbents (or organizations
representing incumbent interests) that commented in this proceeding.
Many incumbent geographic area licensees with fixed operating rights
expressed support for authorizing mobile use in their bands, especially
if the incumbent licensees were given the mobile operating rights.
Satellite interests highlighted their interest in protecting current
and future use of the Ka-Band and V-Band. Commenters that use the mmW
bands for fixed uses ask the Commission to prioritize, or, at a
minimum, allow for continued fixed use of these bands. Finally, the
Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) asked the Commission to keep
protection of adjacent-channel operations in mind when selecting mmW
bands for mobile use.
17. Discussion. We believe there are four main criteria we should
use in evaluating the suitability of mmW bands for mobile use in this
NPRM. First, for purposes of this NPRM, we will focus on bands with at
least 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum. While commenters have
offered a variety of minimum bandwidths that will be needed to
accommodate mmW mobile use, virtually all commenters agree that it will
be easier to accommodate mobile use in wider bands. Given the nascent
state of mmW mobile technology, we believe our initial efforts should
be focused on the band where the most spectrum is potentially
available. Specifically, we will consider the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28
GHz band), the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band), the 37-38.6 GHz band (37
GHz band), and the 64-71 GHz band. We note that we may consider
additional bands in the future, and the fact that a particular band or
bands are not considered in this NPRM does not foreclose future
[[Page 1806]]
Commission action on the band or bands.
18. Second, to the extent practical, we propose bands that are
being considered internationally for mmW mobile service. While uniform
international harmonization will not be possible because different
countries have different spectrum frameworks and needs, substantial
international harmonization would help promote development of mmW
mobile service by reducing development and equipment costs and
promoting a unified world market. For purposes of this NPRM, we will
focus on those bands that have existing mobile allocations. We will
also work with other countries through the International
Telecommunications Union (ITU), in particular the World Radio
Conference (WRC), and other processes to promote harmonized spectrum
assignments for mmW mobile use.
19. Third, mobile use in mmW bands should be compatible with
existing incumbent license assignments and uses. Current licensees that
choose to continue their existing, authorized services should be able
to do so. In applying that criterion, we do not mean to suggest that
incumbents are entitled to maintain the status quo indefinitely.
Specifically, many of the bands under discussion have shared
allocations with satellite. As part of this NPRM, we will examine
possible means of allowing enhanced satellite use of shared bands. We
must also take into account the use of these bands for backhaul and
other point-to-point purposes. These frequencies are well suited for
backhaul and other fixed point-to-point uses because it is possible to
have small, highly directional antennas in these bands which, together
with the shorter propagation ranges, facilitate extensive reuse
microwave frequencies in the same geographic area. The Commission has
noted that ``[i]n certain rural and remote locations, microwave is the
only practical high-capacity backhaul solution available.''
20. Finally, it is important to establish a flexible regulatory
framework that accommodates as wide a variety of services as possible.
We recognize that there is much that is unknown about all future uses
of the mmW bands. Equipment manufacturers, including Ericsson, Alcatel-
Lucent and Huawei all claim that substantial further research and
development is required, and that the mmW bands may always present
substantial challenges to the provision of mobile service. Thus, even
among telecommunications equipment manufacturers, there is not an
overwhelming consensus on the record that terrestrial mobile services
will rapidly proliferate in the mmW bands in the near future.
Similarly, particularly with respect to V-Band, satellite interests do
not point to any firm commitments or plans to use that band.
21. We believe the appropriate response to the uncertainties is to
establish a regulatory framework that maximizes flexibility and enables
the widest possible variety of services, consistent with the state of
technology and the characteristics of the mmW bands. A variety of
commenters support expeditious issuance of an NPRM to help advance
consideration of mobile technologies as part of the WRC process. We
observe that certain satellite and terrestrial interests argue that we
should not consider steps to facilitate the other type of service
because it is speculative whether the other service will develop or
premature to know how or when the other service will develop. We reject
that approach. Waiting to develop a regulatory framework would have
several disadvantages. First, given the rapid pace of technological
development in these bands, waiting to develop service rules could
result in delays in service if we are unable to finalize rules in a
timely fashion. Such delays could affect the United States' leadership
in mobile communications and hurt consumers. Second, establishing a
regulatory framework now will provide equipment manufacturers and
service providers with specific guidance as they design equipment and
service offerings. In contrast, doing nothing will make it more
difficult to plan for any type of service in the mmW bands. Third,
creating a flexible regulatory framework would be consistent with the
Commission's general policy of technological neutrality, which has wide
support among commenters. Accordingly, we are attempting to develop
rules that will accommodate the widest possible variety of services. In
choosing bands for mmW mobile use, we will prioritize bands where it is
possible to develop a flexible framework that accommodates the widest
possible variety of services. The graphic below summarizes our
consideration of various bands in this item:
2. Bands Proposed for Mobile Use
a. 27.5-28.35 GHz Band
22. Background. In 1997, the Commission developed a band plan
making 1,300 megahertz of LMDS spectrum in each basic trading area
(BTA) across the United States. Specifically, the Commission allocated
two LMDS licenses per BTA--an ``A Block'' and a ``B Block'' in each.
The A Block license is comprised of 1,150 megahertz of total bandwidth,
and the B Block license is comprised of 150 megahertz of total
bandwidth. The A Block consists of the sub bands 27.50-28.35 GHz (the
A1 Band); 29.10-29.25 GHz (the A2 Band); and 31.075-31.225 GHz (the A3
Band). The B Block consists of the sub bands 31.00-31.075 (the B1 Band)
and 31.225-31.30 GHz (the B2 Band). Of the 986 designated license areas
(493 BTAs times two licenses per BTA), 416 areas have active licenses,
which cover about 75 percent of the U.S. population.
23. LMDS occupies portions of two spectrum bands that the
Commission has allocated on a co-primary basis for Fixed and Mobile
services, as reflected in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations.
While the Commission has not, to date, authorized any specific service
(including LMDS) to provide mobile service in those bands, it
previously expressed an expectation that it would expand the LMDS
authorization for Fixed Service to include Mobile Service if proposed
and supported by the resulting record. In the Second LMDS Report &
Order, the Commission stated:
To ensure the flexibility in LMDS service offerings that commenters
seek and we proposed, we will permit any fixed terrestrial uses that
can be provided within the technical parameters for LMDS. We conclude
that, for now, our significant allocation of spectrum under such a
broad and flexible service definition should permit licensees to
satisfy a broad array of their customers' communications needs, whether
through one or multiple service offerings. Although LMDS is allocated
as a fixed service, we know of no reason why we would not allow mobile
operations if they are proposed and we obtain a record in support of
such an allocation. We believe this would be consistent with our goal
of providing LMDS licensees with maximum flexibility in designing their
systems. We have authorized other wireless services to include mobile
and fixed services, depending on whether developments in the service
and related equipment demonstrate a need for changing the rules and a
capability for mobile and fixed services to coexist in these bands.
24. There are no primary Federal allocations in the 28 GHz band.
For the 28 GHz band, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations includes a
co-primary Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Earth-to-space allocation, but
section 25.202 of the Commission's rules provides that FSS is secondary
to LMDS
[[Page 1807]]
in that band. Twenty stations are licensed for Earth-to-space
transmissions on a secondary basis in the 28 GHz band, and there are
nineteen pending applications for operation in this band.
25. Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung, Straight Path, and XO support
allowing mobile use in the LMDS bands. Most satellite interests,
including Avanti, ESOA, the FSS Operators, Inmarsat, and O3b argue that
mobile use of the 28 GHz band is incompatible with existing use of the
Ka-Band by satellite systems. They argue that satellite operators need
regulatory certainty that they will have spectrum available in order to
make the large investments needed to construct and deploy satellites.
SES, Intelsat, O3b, and Inmarsat argue that the operation of certain
types of FSS earth stations, such as gateway earth stations, in the 28
GHz band (Earth-to-space) should have primary status. EchoStar, Hughes
Network Systems and Alta Wireless also suggest that consideration be
given to granting co-primary status to the operation of gateway earth
stations in the 28 GHz band. Some parties argue that the 28 GHz band is
not a good candidate for mobile use because the U.S. LMDS band plan
does not align with international use of the band. Inmarsat states that
it lacks sufficient information to determine whether contemplated
mobile systems would be compatible with existing satellite use.
26. Not all satellite operators oppose consideration of the 28 GHz
bands for mobile use. EchoStar supports giving existing LMDS licensees
the flexibility to provide mobile services along with upgrading the
status of gateway earth stations in the band to co-primary. ViaSat
``urges the Commission to refrain from defaulting to outdated paradigms
for sharing between satellite and terrestrial systems'' and urges the
Commission to expand the ability of satellite operators to make
``opportunistic'' use of bands such as the 28 GHz band.
27. Discussion. We propose to authorize mobile operation in the 28
GHz band. The research conducted by Samsung, NYU Wireless, and others
demonstrates that mobile technologies can theoretically work in this
band. Furthermore, the availability of 850 megahertz of contiguous
spectrum makes this band particularly attractive for potential mobile
use. Mobile use would be consistent with existing fixed uses in this
band. Indeed, XO and Straight Path, which are LMDS licensees, support
authorizing mobile use in this band.
28. We have carefully considered the opposition from certain
satellite interests to allowing mobile use in this band, but
tentatively conclude that those parties have not presented a valid
basis for rejecting mobile use in this band. While those parties argue
that they need regulatory certainty in order to invest in their
systems, authorizing mobile use would not deprive FSS operators of any
reasonable expectations they had of access to spectrum. Under our
current rules, FSS use of this band is secondary to LMDS. Furthermore,
this band has a co-primary mobile allocation throughout the world. The
investments satellite operators have made in Ka-band operations were
made with knowledge of their secondary status. The primary reason there
has been little discussion of mobile use in this band is that there has
not been any technology that would allow for mobile use of the
millimeter wave bands such as this one. As that technology develops, it
is unreasonable for us to preclude mobile use of this band solely
because of pre-existing secondary use. Finally, we note that the
satellite operators that oppose use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz band do not
propose a comparable alternative band for mobile use.
29. We also reject the argument that the 28 GHz band should not be
considered for mobile use because the U.S. band plan has not been
replicated in other countries. While we recognize the benefits of
international harmonization, we also understand that not every country
will be able to designate exactly the same bands for similar uses
because they will have a different needs and incumbent uses. We note
that international equipment vendors such as Samsung, Huawei, and
Alcatel-Lucent are looking at this frequency range for mobile use.
Furthermore, the worldwide co-primary mobile allocation for this band
is also an important factor that supports mobile use of this band.
30. Most importantly, we do not view mobile use of this band as
necessarily being inconsistent with continued satellite use of the
band. Our goal in this proceeding is to establish a flexible regulatory
framework that accommodates as wide a variety of uses as possible. The
Commission has recognized that satellite technology ``is particularly
important for communication in remote areas that are unserved or
underserved by terrestrial communication facilities'' and can provide
vital connectivity for first responders in emergencies and natural
disasters. Satellites are being used to provide communications services
such as satellite television to homes and two-way voice and data
networks (including broadband services). In light of these important
services, we agree with ViaSat that it is time to reexamine ``outdated
paradigms'' and closely examine potential opportunities for sharing.
Satellite operators agree that they have been able to coordinate use
with existing fixed LMDS licensees. While mobile use presents
additional challenges in terms of coexistence, we offer proposals and
ask questions about our ability to expand non-federal, secondary
satellite use of this band by granting them, through a market-based
mechanism, the right to greater flexibility in their use of the band.
As discussed below, this proposed market-based mechanism would enable
non-Federal satellite users to obtain the terrestrial licenses in the
band, by either participating in a Commission auction or through the
secondary market, in order to achieve co-primary status and thereby
obtaining greater flexibility in their use of the band.
31. At a minimum, we anticipate that satellite operators will
continue to be able to place gateway earth stations in the band. Under
those circumstances, we believe the existence of FSS earth stations
should not preclude our consideration of this band for mobile use.
b. 38.6-40 GHz Band
32. Background. The band is licensed by Economic Area (EAs). There
are 176 EAs. There are fourteen paired blocks of 50 by 50 megahertz
channels. The populations in areas covered by active licenses (both EA
and Rectangular Service Area (RSA) licenses) vary by channel, but in
aggregate they cover about 49 percent of the U.S. population. Out of
2,464 possible EA licenses (14 channel pairs for each of 176 EAs), 859
are currently licensed. Other licenses previously issued were
voluntarily cancelled or terminated for failure to meet substantial
service requirements. In addition, there are currently 229 active RSA
licenses that predate the creation of the EA licenses and where the
licensees self-defined their service area. Those RSA licensees retain
the exclusive right to operate within their RSAs.
33. This band has a co-primary allocation for Fixed and Mobile
services. The Commission provided licensees the flexibility to provide
mobile services and stated the belief that ``the issue of technical
compatibility of fixed and mobile operations within a service area is
one that can and should be resolved by the licensee.'' The Commission
declined to permit mobile operations, however, until it conducted a
separate proceeding
[[Page 1808]]
to resolve inter-licensee and inter-service interference issues.
34. There are no Federal allocations in the 38.6-39.5 GHz band.
There is an adjacent Federal allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) and
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) (space-to-Earth) in the 39.5-40 GHz
band. Federal government earth stations in the MSS in the 39.5-40 GHz
band are prohibited from claiming protection from non-Federal stations
in the fixed and mobile services in this band, but are not required to
protect non-Federal fixed and mobile services in the band (i.e., 5.43A
of the ITU Radio regulations does not apply). This prohibition does not
apply to Federal government earth stations in the FSS. When the 39 GHz
Order was adopted, Federal government use of the band was limited to
military systems in the 39.5-40 GHz band segment, but the Department of
Defense stated that it had plans to implement satellite downlinks at
39.5-40 GHz in the future, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) identified 39.5-40 GHz as a possible space
research band to accommodate future Earth-to-space wideband data
requirements. The 39 GHz Report and Order expressed optimism that such
plans would not affect the continued development of the 39 GHz band for
non-government use, but the Commission said that it intended to address
those interference issues in a future, separate proceeding that would
focus on developing inter-licensee and inter-service standards and
criteria. At present, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides
that Federal satellite services in the 39.5-40 GHz band are limited to
military systems.
35. Non-Federal government FSS (space-to-Earth) is co-primary
throughout the entire 39 GHz band, but under a ``soft segmentation''
band plan adopted by the Commission in 2003, FSS is subject to lower
power flux density limits in the 37.5-40 GHz band to accommodate high-
density fixed terrestrial systems. Those power limits act to favor
implementation of fixed systems over FSS systems. There are currently
no non-Federal FSS authorizations or pending applications in this band.
36. Akbar Sayeed, FiberTower, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, NYU
Wireless, Qualcomm, Samsung, Straight Path, and XO support allowing
mobile use in the 39 GHz band. EchoStar, Inmarsat, SIA, and ViaSat
argue that the Commission should take into account their interest in
using both the 39 GHz band and the 37.5-38.6 GHz band for satellite
broadband services as demand for those services increases. O3b asks the
Commission to consider the open V-Band Third FNPRM in parallel with
this proceeding. In contrast, Straight Path argues that the Commission
should delete the FSS allocation from this band and terminate action on
the V-Band Third FNPRM because it believes FSS use of the band would be
inconsistent with terrestrial use. Straight Path also requested a
freeze on V-Band satellite licensing pending resolution of this
proceeding.
37. Bluwan S.A. believes that the 39 GHz band is best suited for
non-mobile uses, such as backhaul or fixed wireless access. Vivint
Wireless, a fixed wireless broadband provider that relies on the 39 GHz
band for backhaul, argues that mobile operating rights should be
secondary to existing fixed operations in order to protect existing
fixed operations. It asks the Commission to avoid awarding mobile
operating rights separately from the existing fixed rights.
38. Discussion. We propose to authorize mobile operation in the 39
GHz band. The availability of up to 1.4 gigahertz of spectrum could
support ultra-high data rates. Equipment manufacturers and licensees
agree that the band is suitable for mobile use, and no commenter
identified any reason why this band would be technically unsuitable for
mobile use. Furthermore, this band has a worldwide mobile allocation.
We seek detailed comment and analysis on the compatibility of mobile
use with current and future Federal operations, including any technical
rules necessary to ensure coexistence between Federal and non-Federal
operations in this band.
39. We believe mobile use would be consistent with existing fixed
uses in this band. Indeed, Straight Path, FiberTower, and XO, which are
39 GHz licensees, support authorizing mobile use in this band. As we
will discuss in further detail below, we propose to grant existing 39
GHz licensees mobile rights and to issue new licenses containing both
fixed and mobile operating rights. We believe this action will
alleviate Vivint Wireless' concerns about compatibility between fixed
and mobile uses because a single licensee will be able to coordinate
fixed and mobile operations while avoiding interference.
40. The concerns raised by certain satellite operators do not
provide a valid basis for rejecting the possibility of mobile service
in the 39 GHz band. Unlike in 28 GHz, there are no current commercial
satellite operations in the 39 GHz band, but there are federal
operations. Furthermore, while several commenters express interest in
using V-band to provide satellite service, no commenter expresses any
concrete intention to provide such service. Declining to consider
mobile use in this band because of possible future satellite use would
be inconsistent with our duty to make available ``[n]ationwide, and
world-wide . . . radio communication service.'' Our intent is not to
favor mobile service over fixed or satellite service. Instead, our goal
is to develop a flexible regulatory framework that will accommodate the
widest possible variety of compatible services and will allow the
market to determine the best possible uses of the mmW bands.
41. We deny Straight Path's request that we consider deleting the
satellite allocation in this band. We can readily envision that the mmW
bands will be used for a variety of both satellite and terrestrial
services. It appears that terrestrial mobile use of the mmW bands may
initially be concentrated in large urban areas. Foreclosing use of the
39 GHz band for satellite could result in underutilization of the band.
42. We recognize that the 39.5-40 GHz portion of the band is
allocated for Federal military satellite systems. Commenters that
address this issue believe that mobile use would be compatible with
those systems. We seek comment below on whether any limitations or
special rules on mobile use would be necessary in order to protect
Federal military FSS use of the 39.5-40 GHz band. We also seek comment
on the technical characteristics for the mobile applications envisioned
for the band in order to enable federal agencies to conduct the
necessary compatibility analysis.
c. 37-38.6 GHz Band
43. Background. The Commission has not adopted terrestrial service
rules for non-Federal operations in this band. In 2004, the Commission
sought comment on establishing fixed and point-to-point multipoint
service rules in the 37 GHz and 42 GHz bands, as well as allowing
``mobile use in the future, if and when the technology develops.''
There are co-primary allocations for terrestrial mobile service in
these bands, but the Commission has not yet adopted service rules to
authorize such services.
44. In 2004, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) sent a letter to the Commission identifying the
following NASA receiving earth stations in the Space Research Service
(SRS) in the 37-38 GHz band: Goldstone, California; Guam, Pacific
Ocean; Merritt Island, Florida; Wallops Island, Virginia; and White
Sands, New Mexico. NTIA has subsequently
[[Page 1809]]
identified the NASA receiving earth station at Blossom Point, Maryland.
NTIA also identified Green Bank, Virginia; and Socorro, New Mexico
National Science Foundation (NSF), which NSF cites as supporting their
Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) earth station operations. NTIA
noted the importance of the band 37-38 GHz to support U.S. goals to
provide a permanent manned presence in earth orbit (on or near the
moon) and to initiate manned exploration of the planet Mars, and to
support VLBI by satellite. There is also a co-primary allocation for
Federal space research, fixed, and mobile service operations in the 37-
38.6 GHz band. NTIA identified 14 military sites in the 37-38.6 GHz
band that required protection. In the 2004 letter NTIA recommended that
coordination with the Federal operations be performed within the
Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) process. In 2006, NTIA
sent a follow-up letter to the FCC reaffirming the need to protect
NASA, NSF, and military operations from non-Federal terrestrial and FSS
operations in the 37-38 GHz band. NTIA requested that the protection of
Federal operations be accomplished by establishing a footnote to the
U.S. table of Frequency Allocations specifying the Federal sites and
the coordination areas. NTIA also recommended that because of the
potential for interference from airborne systems, the aeronautical
mobile service allocation should be deleted from the 37-38 GHz band. In
the NOI, we terminated action on the 2004 proceeding and stated we
would resume consideration of potential uses of the 37 GHz band in this
proceeding.
45. In addition to Fixed and Mobile allocations, there is a co-
primary non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation. As described
above, the soft segmentation plan adopted in the V-Band Second Report
and Order favors terrestrial services in the 37 GHz band. Akbar Sayeed,
Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Samsung support considering
mobile use of this band. Straight Path believes that this band may be
appropriate for examining novel sharing techniques.
46. As with the 39 GHz band, EchoStar, Inmarsat, SIA, and ViaSat
oppose mobile use of this band, or ask the Commission to take into
account their interest in using this band for satellite broadband
services as demand for those services increases.
47. Discussion. We propose to develop service rules for mobile
operation in the 37 GHz band. The band consists of 1.6 GHz of
contiguous spectrum that could potentially support high data-rate
transmissions. Furthermore, it is contiguous to the 39 GHz band, so
there could be opportunities to aggregate up to 3 gigahertz of
spectrum. The 37 GHz band also has a worldwide co-primary mobile
allocation.
48. As with the 39 GHz band, we do not believe the concerns of the
satellite operators should preclude consideration of mobile use of this
band. There are no non-Federal incumbent satellite operations in this
band and no concrete announced plans to use this band for satellite
use. Our intent is to establish a flexible rules framework that enables
as wide a range of services as possible. Our proposals and questions
concerning facilitating satellite use--through a market-based
mechanism--that is compatible with terrestrial use will include the 37
GHz band.
49. We recognize that this band is a shared Federal-non-Federal
band. We will work together with NTIA to ensure that Federal operations
are protected while maximizing the use of the 37 GHz band for
commercial operations. In particular, we recognize that we will need to
work with NTIA to develop appropriate protections for SRS facilities in
the 37-38 GHz band. Another issue we will need to address is ensuring
protection of Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) passive
observations below 37 GHz. We seek comment on these issues below.
d. 64-71 GHz Band
50. Background. There are no authorized non-Federal operations in
this band. Unlicensed operations within the adjacent 57-64 GHz band are
permitted under Part 15 of our rules. Non-Federal government operators
of outdoor radio equipment in the 57-64 GHz band segment are not
required to obtain individual licenses or seek coordination with the
NTIA if they limit average EIRP to 82 dBm minus 2 dB for every dB that
their antenna gain is less than 51 dBi. In 2013, the Commission allowed
longer communication distances for outdoor point-to-point systems in
the 57-64 GHz band by allowing higher powers, specified emission limits
as an EIRP power level to provide uniformity and consistency in the
rules, and eliminated the requirement for certain devices in the 57-64
GHz band to transmit identification information. Frequencies from 64-71
GHz are not among those listed in our rules as available for licenses
issued in the terrestrial Fixed Service or for any satellite services
except for Inter-Satellite service (ISS). Our rules list 65-71 GHz as
available for ISS licenses, but there are no current ISS licenses.
51. The 64-71 GHz band has a co-primary mobile allocation. In the
64-66 GHz band, aeronautical mobile operation is prohibited. The 65-71
GHz band is authorized for ISS links. There are currently no active
satellite licenses in that band. There are also a series of co-primary
allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, Radiolocation,
Radionavigation-Satellite, EESS, and ISS operations throughout these
bands. International and domestic rules also indicate that any use of
the 66-71 GHz band by the land mobile service is subject to not causing
interference to, and accepting interference from, the space
radiocommunication services in this band.
52. Ericsson, IEEE 802, InterDigital, Qualcomm, SiBeam, and Wi-Fi
Alliance support authorizing operations in the 64-71 GHz band under
Part 15 of the Commission's rules. Samsung believes that this band
could be used in connection with the adjacent 57-64 GHz band to
increase flexibility for users, lower the potential for interference,
and support higher data rates for a number of applications, including
wireless backhaul. Samsung supports licensing the 64-71 GHz band and
provides a recommended band plan. SiBeam believes authorizing use of
the 64-71 GHz band could facilitate ``multigigabit, large scale,
dynamically switches wireless network equivalent to current fiber metro
networks.'' Interdigital believes there will be no interference to any
future ISS licensees because the primary network architecture will be a
low height above ground terrestrial network for both small cells and
backhaul.
53. SIA noted the allocation for ISS links and ``urge the
Commission to preserve flexibility for future satellite access.'' Nokia
supports authorizing operations in the 64-71 GHz band on a licensed,
geographic area basis because there are no current licensed operations
in that band.
54. Discussion. We note Nokia's preference for geographic area
licensing and Samsung's interest in licensing the 64-71 GHz band, but
tentatively conclude that authorizing operation under Part 15 of the
Commission's rules is the better approach in this band. As discussed
elsewhere, we propose geographic area licensing in other bands. We
believe that a balanced approach utilizing licensed, unlicensed, and
hybrid mechanisms for authorizing service in the mmW bands will best
accommodate a wide variety of services, providing multiple
opportunities to put the spectrum to use, and encourage the
[[Page 1810]]
development of different technologies and business models in these
bands. We agree with commenters that authorizing Part 15 operations in
the 64-71 GHz band will allow this band to be used in conjunction with
the existing 57-64 GHz band to double the spectrum available for the
next generation of unlicensed wireless broadband technologies such as
ultra-high-speed audiovisual content streaming and WiGig connectivity
that will offer low latency and security-protected connectivity between
devices. This will help meet the demand for access for unlicensed
spectrum for lower-power end-user applications that continues to grow
along with the demand for licensed radio spectrum for greater-distance,
higher-power operations.
55. We believe authorizing Part 15 operation would be compatible
with the allocation for ISS. Because of the high atmospheric absorption
in this frequency range, it is highly unlikely that signals at the
power levels contemplated would be able to reach satellites using ISS
links. Are the technical considerations in the 57-64 GHz band fully
applicable to deployment of unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band
recognizing that unlicensed devices must protect allocated services
including future systems? What additional technical and operational
characteristics as well as interference mitigation techniques of the
anticipated unlicensed use for this band need to be considered in
assessing sharing with in-band and adjacent band incumbent services?
3. Other Bands
56. In this section, we discuss bands raised by commenters where we
are not proposing service rules at this time. As noted below, with
respect to certain of these bands, we seek comment on our analysis of
these bands and ask interested parties to provide additional
information concerning possible mobile uses of these bands. As we
develop a further record in this proceeding, as technology develops,
and as we develop a further record on compatibility issues with other
allocated Federal and non-Federal services, we reserve the right to
give further consideration to some of these bands. Given the early
stage of the development of technologies for mobile mmW band, and the
complex sharing issues raised in these bands, we believe the best
approach is to initially focus our efforts on the strongest candidate
bands, discussed above, which we believe are better positioned for more
immediate use in the marketplace.
a. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz)
57. Background. There are two types of fixed licenses in this band.
The 24 GHz Service has a total of 176 EA or EA-like service areas. In
2004, the Commission held Auction 56, in which it made 890 24 GHz
licenses available. Only seven of the 890 licenses were sold. In
addition, FiberTower and Puerto Rico Telephone Company hold a total of
49 pre-auction Digital Electronic Messaging Service licenses in this
band.
58. The 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for
non-Federal government Fixed Service and FSS (Earth-to-space) services,
and a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides that
the use of the 25.05-25.25 GHz band by the FSS (Earth-to-space) is
limited to feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS).
Section 25.203(l) of the Commission's rules provides that applicants
for feeder link earth station facilities operating in the 25.05-25.25
GHz band may be licensed only in EAs where no existing Fixed Service
licensee has been authorized, and shall coordinate their operations
with 24 GHz Fixed Service operations if the power flux density of their
transmitted signal at the boundary of the Fixed Service license area is
equal to or greater than -114 dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz. The 17/24 GHz
Broadcasting-Satellite Service Report and Order determined that future
Fixed Service systems locating near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS feeder
link earth station may not claim protection from interference from the
feeder link earth station's transmissions, provided that those
transmissions are compliant with the Commission's rules, and that
future 24 GHz Fixed Service applicants would be required to take into
account the transmissions from the previously authorized earth station
when considering system designs, including their choices of locations
for their license areas. There are three active licenses for feeder
link earth stations in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment, all of them
held by DIRECTV.
59. There is no mobile allocation in either of the 24 GHz band
segments. In the 24 GHz Report & Order, the Commission found that it
would be premature to allow mobile operations in the 24 GHz bands but
reserved the discretion to revisit that issue if it is presented with
technical information demonstrating that such operations would be
technically feasible without generating interference to fixed
operations and BSS feeder links in 24 GHz band segments.
60. FiberTower and Nokia support authorizing mobile use in the 24
GHz bands. Ericsson states that the 24 GHz bands may be suitable for
backhaul use if sufficient spectrum can be aggregated. The FSS
Operators ask for FSS access to 25.05-25.25 GHz.
61. Discussion. Commenters expressed a lower level of interest in
the 24 GHz band than in other bands. We note that this band presents
several challenges with respect to possible mobile use. Significantly,
the amount of contiguous spectrum (two 200 megahertz blocks) available
in these bands is less than many commenters currently recommend as the
minimum amount of spectrum available for mobile use. This band also
lacks an international mobile allocation; although we recognize that
this could change in the future. We note that BSS feeder links in the
upper part of the band are entitled to interference protection, and
while not necessarily an insurmountable problem this would likely
require complex analyses of the potential for aggregate interference
from terrestrial wireless systems.
62. We do not wish, however, to preclude consideration of this
band. We invite parties who are interested in mobile use of the 24 GHz
band to comment on our analysis. Are there circumstances under which
this band could be successfully used for the type of mobile systems, or
other systems, contemplated for the mmW bands? Are there ways of
allowing widespread deployments while protecting BSS feeder links? We
ask commenters who support further consideration of this band to
provide specific suggestions for addressing the issues we have
identified above. Interested parties should also comment on the
services that would likely be deployed in this band given the issues
implicated and the possible viable business models. In those areas
where there are incumbent fixed licenses, should we grant mobile rights
to the incumbent fixed licensees? Would licensed or unlicensed rights
be best for making this spectrum available and for facilitating
coexistence? Are there rule changes that can be made to promote
backhaul or other fixed uses?
b. 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz
63. Background. These bands are part of the LMDS. For the 29.1-
29.25 GHz band segment, section 25.202 of the Commission's rules
provides that 29.1-29.25 GHz is co-primary for MSS feeder links and
LMDS, and section 101.1001 of the Commission's rules limits LMDS to
hub-to-subscriber transmissions in this band segment. Section 25.257 of
the Commission's rules allows as many as
[[Page 1811]]
ten MSS feeder link earth station complexes to be deployed in the 29.1-
29.25 GHz band segment, but there are currently only five active
licenses for feeder link and telemetry, tracking, and command earth
stations in those frequencies. The 31-31.3 GHz band segment has co-
primary allocations for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile services, with a
secondary Federal and non-Federal allocation for space-to-Earth
standard frequency and time signal operations.
64. Iridium, which operates feeder links in the 29.1-29.25 GHz
band, notes that its feeder links are co-primary and asks the
Commission to ``keep the Iridium system and the critical services it
provides in mind even in the early stages of research into emerging
terrestrial broadband technologies.'' While Straight Path generally
favors making the LMDS band available for mobile use, it states that
the presence of co-primary feeder links ``may make mobile wireless use
of the band more complicated and require further analysis.'' NCTA
identifies the 29.1-29.25 GHz band as a band that may be suitable for
unlicensed use and argues that unlicensed operation could facilitate
sharing with incumbent users.
65. We received little comment specifically directed to the 31-31.3
GHz band. Straight Path notes that Federal satellite uses in this band
are secondary and do not require protection. CORF notes that the 31-
31.3 GHz band is immediately adjacent to a passive EESS sensing band in
which all transmissions are prohibited, and it urges that the
Commission protect EESS through guard bands.
66. Discussion. We decline to propose authorizing mobile operation
at this time, primarily because the bands offer considerably less than
500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum as commenters have suggested is
necessary for mobile operations. Unlike in 27.5-28.35 GHz, the
satellite facilities in 29.1-29.25 GHz have co-primary status. While it
could be possible to develop a sharing regime between the feeder links
and mobile operations, given the relatively small amount of spectrum at
issue, we believe our efforts are better directed towards bands that
offer more contiguous spectrum, such as 27.5-28.35 GHz. We also note
that 31-31.3 GHz is shared between the A and B block licensees, so
there may be instances where it may be difficult to aggregate even 300
megahertz of spectrum.
c. 31.8-33 GHz
67. Background. There are international allocations for Fixed and
Radionavigation services throughout this entire band, although
administrations should take practical measures to minimize potential
interference between those services, taking into account the
operational needs of airborne radar systems. The Radionavigation
allocation is Federal throughout the entire band and non-Federal in the
32.3-33.4 GHz band. In the United States, ground-based radionavigation
aids are not permitted except when they operate in cooperation with
airborne or shipborne radionavigation devices. There is also a co-
primary Space Research (deep space) (space-to-earth) allocation in the
31.8-32.3 GHz band, and an ISS allocation in the 32.3-33 GHz band. In
addition, this band is adjacent to the 31.3-31.8 GHz bands, where no
transmissions are authorized in order to protect radio astronomy
observations.
68. Samsung supports adding this band to the Commission's
consideration of mmW bands for mobile service in light of European and
Asian regional support for consideration of this band. ESOA generally
supports examination of bands above 31 GHz.
69. Discussion. This band presents particularly difficult
challenges for mobile use. The need to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz
passive band, existing Federal systems, and deep-space research appears
to severely limit the availability of useable spectrum in this band.
Furthermore, there currently is no mobile allocation in this band,
whereas there are existing mobile allocations for other bands under
consideration.
70. In the interests of developing a complete record, we invite
commenters who support further consideration of this band to comment on
our analysis. In particular, we seek a detailed technical analysis of
the out-of-band emission limits required to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz
band to help determine how much of this band could potentially be
available for mobile use. We also seek comment on the compatibility of
mobile use with the existing aeronautical and shipborne radar use of
this band, future radionavigation and other federal services, as well
as the deep space research in the 31.8-32.3 GHz band. Given the
important incumbent uses of this band and the adjacent band, interested
parties should comment on how sharing would work between mobile and
existing incumbent uses.
d. 42-42.5 GHz
71. Background. There are currently no terrestrial service rules in
place for this band. On May 9, 2012, FWCC filed a petition for
rulemaking seeking the establishment of service rules for fixed point-
to-point use of the 42-43.5 GHz band under Part 101 of the Commission's
rules. There are Federal and non-Federal co-primary allocations for
terrestrial mobile service in different segments of these bands, but
the Commission has not yet adopted service rules to authorize such
services. A footnote in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations urges
all operations in the 42-42.5 GHz band to take all practicable steps to
protect radio astronomy observations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from
interference.
72. In addition to Fixed and Mobile allocations, there are
Broadcasting and BSS allocations in this band. The Commission has
proposed eliminating those BSS allocations and adding an FSS (space-to-
Earth) allocation in order to protect adjacent channel radio astronomy
in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band.
73. Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Samsung include this
band in the list of bands that should be examined for possible mobile
use. On the other hand, Ericsson describes this band as being of ``no
current interest'' because it is only a single 500 megahertz block.
74. CORF describes the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band as being one of
the most important bands for radio astronomy because it is used to
observe silicon monoxide, which yields important information on stellar
temperatures, density, and wind velocities. Under our current rules,
all practicable steps must be taken to protect the radio astronomy
service from interference in the 42.5-43.5 GHz service. FWCC contends
that the 42-43.5 GHz band is more suitable for fixed point-to-point
service.
75. Discussion. While this band could possibly be used for mobile,
it is not as desirable as the bands for which we are proposing service
rules at this time. The band has 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum,
but the need to protect the adjacent radio astronomy band at 42.5-43.5
GHz may require limits on the use of the band. Interest in this band
among commenters was somewhat lower than in bands where we are
proposing rules authorizing mobile service. The band also is not part
of the United States or CITEL proposals for bands to be considered for
further study for mobile use. Finally, we note that there are competing
proposals to make this band available for FSS or fixed use. While it
may be possible to work through those issues, authorizing mobile
service in this band would be more complicated than in bands such as 28
GHz and 39 GHz.
76. In light of the competing proposals for use of this band, we
seek comment on the relative merits of using
[[Page 1812]]
this band for FSS, fixed, or mobile use, or the ability to share among
these different uses. What sort of services would be offered using this
band? We also ask commenters to analyze how the need to protect radio
astronomy in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band affects the viability of this band
for the services they support. We also seek comment on the extent to
which different services could share in this band, and what sharing
mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate.
e. 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz
77. Background. In 2003, the Commission established service rules
to promote non-Federal fixed development and use of spectrum in the 71-
76 GHz, 81 86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands. Based on its determination that
systems in these bands can readily be engineered to produce highly
directional, ``pencil-beam'' signals that can co-exist in the same
vicinity without causing interference to one another, the Commission
adopted a flexible and innovative regulatory framework for the bands.
Specifically, the framework permits the issuance of an unlimited number
of non-exclusive, nationwide licenses to non-Federal government
entities for all of these bands. Under this licensing scheme, a license
serves as a prerequisite for registering individual point-to-point
links; licensees may operate a link only after the link is registered
with a third-party database.
78. As of September 22, 2015, there were 408 active non-exclusive
nationwide licenses covering the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands.
Based upon information available from the third-party database managers
that are responsible for registering links in those bands, as of
September 22, 2015 there were approximately 12,687 registered fixed
links in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands.
79. Non-Federal operations may not cause harmful interference to,
nor claim protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations
located at 28 military bases. In addition, in the 80 GHz band,
licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy
observatories must coordinate their proposed links with those
observatories. Third-party database managers are responsible for
recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database
link system and coordinating with NTIA's automated ``green light/yellow
light'' mechanism to determine the potential for harmful interference
to Federal operations and radio observatories.
80. The 71-74 GHz band segment also has co-primary allocations for
Federal and non-Federal Fixed, FSS, Mobile, and MSS (space-to-Earth)
operations. The 74-76 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for
Federal and non-Federal government Fixed, FSS (space-to-Earth), Mobile,
and SRS operations. In addition, there are non-Federal allocations in
that band segment for Broadcasting and BSS operations. The 81-86 GHz
band has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal government
Fixed, FSS (Earth-to-space), and Mobile, and within that band the 81-84
GHz band segment also has a Federal and non-Federal government
allocation for MSS (Earth-to-space). The 76-77 GHz band is currently
used for unlicensed vehicular radars under Part 15 of the rules. The
Commission has proposed to authorize non-Federal radar applications in
the 76-81 GHz band on a licensed basis under Part 95. This proposal
would shift vehicular radars away from the existing Part 15 unlicensed
model.
81. Akbar Sayeed and Nokia identify these bands as appropriate
candidates for mobile use. Nokia believes these bands would be
particularly appropriate because the wide amount of bandwidth available
would support 10 Gbps peak rate with relatively simple equipment.
Ericsson argues that these bands might support mobile service ``but
would not be the industry's primary choice.'' IEEE802, NCTA, and Wi-Fi
Alliance ask that a Part 15 authorizations be added to these bands.
FWCC and McKay Brothers highlight the existing uses of these bands for
fixed backhaul and specialized telecommunications services, and urge
that these existing services be protected. FWCC, McKay Brothers, and
SiBeam also note or propose changes to the existing fixed rules for 70
GHz and 80 GHz.
82. Discussion. The interest among commenters in using this band
for mobile operations is rather limited. Furthermore, the coordination
process between fixed and mobile operations would be considerably more
complicated in these bands because there are multiple fixed licensees
in a given area (as opposed to 28 GHz or 39 GHz, where there is one
licensee in a given area and band). The need to protect Federal earth
stations and radio astronomy locations would also require limits on
mobile operations in these bands.
83. We do not offer a specific proposal at this time to amend our
rules relating to the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. Based on the current
record, it is not clear how mobile units would be controlled to avoid
interference to fixed links. None of the proponents of unlicensed use
in these bands has made a detailed showing that unlicensed devices
would be compatible with the fixed equipment being deployed in these
bands. Furthermore, we are proposing to make seven gigahertz of
additional spectrum available for unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band.
We seek comment, however, on whether the Commission should revisit its
2003 decision not to allow Part 15 operations in these bands, and if
so, what specific bands we should consider for Part 15 operations (or
for licensed use) and how such operations in those bands would be
compatible with existing fixed operations, as well as Federal earth
stations and radio astronomy operations. If we authorized sharing
between fixed and mobile systems, what would the sharing mechanism look
like and how should it be administered? What type of mechanisms would
we need to establish to ensure there is no harmful interference?
84. With respect to the proposals to change the current Part 101
rules governing fixed operations in these bands, we believe these
proposals are better addressed in our Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT
Docket No. 10-153. In that proceeding, we have under consideration a
variety of proposed rule changes to our Part 101 Fixed Service rules.
We note that FWCC originally filed its proposal for changes to the
antenna standards in that proceeding.
f. Above 86 GHz
85. Background. IEEE802, Marcus Spectrum, NYU Wireless, Wi-Fi
Alliance, and Wireless Innovation Forum expressed support for
consideration of some combination of bands above 86 GHz for use. Marcus
Spectrum pointed to a petition for rulemaking filed by Battelle
Memorial Corporation seeking service rules for licensed use of the 102-
109.5 GHz band. NYU Wireless described the frequencies above 100 GHz as
a ``technical playground'' that could lead to new technical
innovations. Marcus Spectrum urges that the presence of co-primary
passive allocations should not preclude use of the frequencies above 95
GHz.
86. In the 92-95 GHz band, unlicensed operation is allowed only for
devices that are capable of operating only indoors. In 2003, there was
considerable interest in using the band more generally for unlicensed
use, but the Commission declined to authorize outdoor or airborne use
because of possible harmful interference to radio astronomy from
unlicensed outdoor devices.
87. Discussion. We are encouraged by commenters' expressions of
interest in
[[Page 1813]]
frequencies above 86 GHz. At the same time, as Marcus Spectrum points
out, there are a wide variety of combinations of allocations in the
frequencies above 86 GHz. We believe the most appropriate means of
proceeding is to consider proposals for use of specific frequency
bands. The specific proposal we have before us is Battelle's proposal
to establish licensed service rules for the 102-109.5 GHz band. We will
consider that proposal in the Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT Docket
No. 10-153. We invite other interested parties to submit other
proposals, including proposals for authorizing use under our Part 15
rules. We also note that, unlike in 2003, there has been no advocacy
for further unlicensed use in the 92-95 GHz band.
B. Rules for Licensed Operations in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz
Bands--Creation of the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
88. In this section, we set forth our proposal for licensing rules
for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands. These proposals are built off
of the Commission's significant experience crafting licensing rules
that promote the widespread deployment of spectrum. These proposals
strike a balance between more traditional geographic-area licensing and
innovative licensing schemes aimed at meeting needs of different users
for different uses. In the 28 GHz and 39 GHz band, we propose a
traditional geographic area licensing scheme that is flexible to
provide access and protection for fixed, mobile, and FSS uses. In the
37 GHz band, we propose a licensing model that attempts to maximize the
use of spectrum by creating rights for both local area networks and
wide area networks. We seek comment on these proposed licensing
mechanisms, and alternatives.
1. 28 GHz and 39 GHz Bands--Geographic Area Licensing
89. We propose to create a new service for the 28 GHz and 39 GHz
bands--the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service--and propose to
establish rules to allow an Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
licensee to provide any form of fixed or mobile service (including
aeronautical mobile, where consistent with the allocation). For current
28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees, we propose to grant new licenses that
provide new flexible rights to operate in the licensed geographic area
and include the same spectrum, with authorization for both fixed and
mobile operations. For geographic license areas with no existing LMDS
or 39 GHz licensees, we would assign these new Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service licenses via competitive bidding. Finally, as described in
further detail below, we propose to allow FSS providers to acquire
these licenses through auction or the secondary market, thereby
allowing them to continue to operate or expand in these bands.
90. We believe there are several advantages to using a geographic
area licensing approach in these bands. Issuing a single license
including both fixed and mobile service rights would allow the licensee
to coordinate fixed and mobile uses within its geographic area. Such an
approach would be consistent with the Commission's prior decision to
use geographic area licensing for fixed and point-to-multipoint service
in these bands. In addition, geographic licensing is consistent with
the Commission's licensing approach for flexible use bands, such as
bands licensed under Part 27 of the Commission's rules. We also note
that a wide variety of commenters supported geographic area licensing
in these bands. We seek comment on this proposal.
91. We propose to permit existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees to
exercise the full extent of these rights--including mobile rights--for
geographic areas and bands in which they currently hold licenses. There
are several likely advantages to this proposal. First, this approach
will minimize transaction costs and provide the fastest transition to
expanded use of the band, which would be to the benefit of consumers.
Second, traditional fixed operation in these bands consists of tightly
focused beams between two points. Third, and related to the difficulty
in distinguishing between fixed and mobile services in this band, the
existence of separate licenses for fixed and mobile operation might
create unusually large challenges related to interference.
92. Further, the Commission previously contemplated that LMDS and
39 GHz licensees would have the opportunity to engage in mobile
operations if the associated technical issues could be resolved. Such a
policy also would be consistent with the Commission's decision to grant
existing MDS and ITFS licensees blanket authority to engage in mobile
operations when the Commission instituted geographic area licensing for
those services in the 2.5 GHz band. A variety of commenters support
this approach. We accordingly seek comment on the proposal to award
mobile operating rights to existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees, and the
costs and benefits of so doing.
93. We recognize, however, that alternative approaches exist to
assign flexible use rights in geographic areas and bands with existing
LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. In particular, we seek comment on the costs
and benefits of establishing an overlay right that would allow new
licensees flexibility in use, subject to noninterference with the
incumbent licensees. While our principal proposal is to directly assign
flexible use rights to existing licensees in lieu of establishing an
overlay right, we acknowledge certain benefits to assigning such rights
using competitive bidding and seek comment on whether to award overlay
rights for these bands through auction. First, an auction would assign
these rights to the user that values the set of rights most highly,
whether it be an incumbent licensee or a new potential user. Second,
the use of an auction, rather than a direct grant of additional rights
to existing licensees, ensures that a portion of the value associated
with these additional rights will accrue to the United States Treasury.
Third, the Commission has relevant experience in the application of
overlay rights in other bands.
94. We invite commenters to address these and related other issues
that will help us identify the most efficient means for assigning these
new, flexible use rights consistent with our obligations under Section
309(j) of the Communications Act, especially in geographic areas and in
spectrum that currently has incumbent licensees. We ask commenters to
provide data on the costs and benefits associated with each approach.
2. 37 GHz--Hybrid Authorizations
95. As we noted in the NOI, ``we aim to develop a framework that
will accommodate as wide a variety of services and uses as possible.''
We also noted two primary models of wireless network deployments--
service provider models, and decentralized Wi-Fi--like deployment
deployed by end users. Our proposed licensing model for the 28 GHz and
39 GHz bands will ensure that extensive spectrum is available for
service provider deployments of 5G small cells or other fixed or mobile
technologies that service providers may deem appropriate. Similarly,
our proposal for 64-71 GHz would extend the existing 57-64 MHz band,
making 14 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum available for short-range
unlicensed uses.
96. We propose to establish service rules for the 37 GHz band that
would enable flexibility to facilitate a third type of network
deployment: privately deployed networks that can provide 5G
[[Page 1814]]
communications for advanced enterprise and industrial applications not
suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network services. These
applications might require licensed spectrum rights tailored to
physical facility boundaries. The inherent short-range characteristics
of millimeter wave spectrum make it well-suited to serve this need, and
might also facilitate natural coexistence between a private, local area
network, and a more traditional commercial wide area network. Unlike in
the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, there are no incumbent non-Federal
terrestrial authorizations in the 37 GHz band. This lack of incumbents
gives us additional flexibility in designing a licensing mechanism for
this band. We therefore seek comment on a hybrid licensing scheme that
would convey licensed ``local area'' operating rights to premises
occupants by rule, and separately, geographic area licenses for wide
area use. We also seek comment on variations on this proposal as
discussed below. Because this mode of licensing would not exhaustively
license all geography, we seek comment on ways to establish geographic
area licenses for wide area use. We also seek comment on the proper
regulatory relationship between the two categories of licenses.
97. We believe several facts support making 37 GHz band spectrum
available for licensed local area networks. First, radio signals in
this band propagate over short distances (due to atmospheric
absorption) and signals are heavily attenuated by exterior walls and
windows. With those characteristics, it could be possible to separate
local-area deployments from each other and also from wide-area
deployments by simply leveraging the physical properties of the
spectrum. Second, as a practical matter, local-area millimeter wave
deployments will require permission of the property owner for siting,
installation, backhaul, etc. Or alternatively, a property owner will
need the permission of the licensee to use the spectrum within their
own property, and the licensee may not have an incentive to bargain
with the property owner even if the property owner has a strong need
for the spectrum. Therefore, it may be highly efficient to convey the
initial spectrum assignment for these environments directly to the
owner or user of the local area rather than a third-party entity.
98. We propose that local area operating rights in the 37 GHz band
be awarded by rule, pursuant to Section 307(e) of the Communications
Act. We seek comment on how to define ``local area'' for these
purposes. If we limit operations to indoor only, what applications
would be precluded by limiting devices to indoor use only? What
consideration should be given to the tradeoffs between these factors?
Should the rule convey rights to property owners? If so, should the
rights apply equally to private and public property? Should we
explicitly exclude outdoor ``public spaces'' (e.g., streets, parks)?
Should we allow those rights to be conveyed through standard
instrumentalities of state law (e.g., as part of a standard property
lease) or should we establish special rules governing conveyance of
these operating rights? Alternatively, should the usage rights
automatically attach to the current lawful occupant of a property
(i.e., tenants)? Should the rights be conveyed only for indoor uses or
should outdoor uses (e.g., courtyards, campus environments) also be
authorized? Should the rule relate to the deployment of network
facilities (e.g., a right to deploy base stations or access points in
the local area) or more broadly to RF protections (e.g., a right to
quietude in the local area)? Should the local area operating rights
only apply to facilities exceeding some minimum size? How do we ensure
that equipment is used in a manner consistent with any restrictions we
place on local area operations?
99. We further propose that wide area rights in the 37 GHz band be
defined as area licenses assigned through auction. Holders of these
licenses would be entitled to deploy service in any and all areas not
awarded through the rule-based licensing approach described above. For
example, if we were to determine that the local area rights attach to
indoor deployment of the 37 GHz band, the wide area rights would
authorize outdoor deployment. We presume that those licenses would
otherwise be similar in character to traditional geographic licenses.
We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment below on the
appropriate license area size.
100. We seek comment on the RF coexistence of local area and wide
area deployments, and how the coexistence should affect the definition
of and relationship between the two classes of rights. Specifically, we
seek technical comment on the propagation of this spectrum through
typical building materials, and to what extent modern building
materials used in energy-efficient construction affect attenuation
outside of the building. We seek comment on whether, to distinguish the
rights between the use cases and facilitate coexistence through
licensing rights, one of the two categories of licensees should have
the right to assert claims of harmful interference against the other?
Or should it be presumed that any licensee operating within the rules
will be on equal footing with any other and every user would have a
duty to coordinate with its neighbors? Could relatively lower
authorized power limits for local area users minimize the interference
risks to wide area users? Conversely, could ``self-help'' remedies
(e.g., RF shielding) protect local area users from higher power wide
area network transmissions?
101. Alternative Proposal. As an alternative to the foregoing
proposal, we could divide the 37 GHz Band into several blocks and
assign some of these blocks by rule for local area uses (as described
above). For example, the 1600 MHz bandwidth could be divided into three
533 megahertz or four 400 megahertz blocks. One or two of these blocks
could be assigned by rule to local area uses and the others could be
licensed on a geographical area basis and assigned through an auction
process. A band-wide interoperability rule would ensure that equipment
would be available for all users in the band. Dividing the band
spectrally in this way may not be as efficient, from a local network
standpoint, as dividing it geographically, as proposed above, because
it may result in local area networks not being to access the full
frequency range in the band. On the other hand, it may be easier to
implement procedurally and would eliminate any concerns about co-
channel interference between local area and wide area networks sharing
the same frequencies. We seek comment on this alternative proposal.
102. A second alternative would be to use geographic area licensing
of all rights, but use geographic areas small enough to accommodate
local area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses. This
alternative will be discussed in further detail in the License Area
Size section, supra.
3. License Area Size for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz Bands
103. In the NOI, after noting that 28 GHz had already been licensed
by BTA and 39 GHz had already been licensed by EA, we sought comment on
ways in which geographic area licensing could be tailored to ensure
greater utilization of spectrum for mobile services in the millimeter
wave bands, including by selecting the optimal geographic area size. We
also observed that, in determining the appropriate service area size,
larger license sizes can make it difficult to generalize across
different licenses in different areas, while smaller license sizes can
raise the burden of
[[Page 1815]]
administering the licensing scheme, including verifying build out.
104. Many commenters addressed the issue of license area size. Six
commenters supported license areas that are consistent with the current
fixed terrestrial regime at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, including four incumbent
fixed licensees. Several commenters pointed out that the
characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum suggest that large service
areas would not be advisable. Finally, two commenters stated that
development of millimeter wave technology is too nascent to make
informed determinations about license area, and one criticized large
license area sizes as being inappropriate for millimeter wave
technology.
105. Discussion. If we adopt a geographic area approach for
licensing these bands as we proposed above, then we must determine the
appropriate size(s) of service areas on which licenses should be based.
We seek to adopt service areas for all bands that meets several
statutory goals. These include facilitating access to spectrum by both
small and large providers, providing for the efficient use of the
spectrum, encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to
consumers, including those in rural areas and tribal lands, and
promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and
services consistent with our obligations under Section 309(j) of the
Communications Act. In order to accomplish these goals, we must take
into account the unique characteristics and circumstances in each
specific band. We agree with CEA that the characteristics of millimeter
wave spectrum must be taken into account in determining ``both the
geographic scope of licenses and performance requirements,'' including
the fact that licensees may not initially want or need to serve an
entire BTA to meet its or its customers' needs.
106. We propose to use counties as the base geographic area unit
for licenses in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands. Counties are
significantly smaller than traditional license areas, such as BTAs and
EAs, but are generally larger than the other non-traditional license
area the Commission has elsewhere adopted, including census tracts.
There are currently 3,143 counties, in comparison to 176 EAs, 493 BTAs,
and more than 74,000 census tracts.
107. We believe there may be several advantages to county-based
licenses. First, we believe county licenses best fit the localized
types of services we expect to be offered in the mmW bands. Second,
establishing smaller licenses could provide licensees with additional
flexibility to target their deployments to those areas where they need
the capacity. Third, smaller license areas reduce the potential for
warehousing spectrum; again, licensees will be more likely to acquire
and hold only the licenses they need to meet their customers' demand.
Fourth, county based licenses could equally facilitate access by both
small carriers and large carriers.
108. We believe that, in accomplishing our statutory objectives, it
is advantageous that counties greatly vary in size, population, and
demographics. We expect that there will be prospective providers who
wish to serve areas in more than one county, as well as prospective
providers with more limited business plans seeking to serve a single,
small county or a partitioned county. And finally, as discussed below,
we propose to allow FSS operators to acquire licenses in these bands,
which will confer on the FSS operator the right to exclude other users.
We believe counties are an appropriate size to allow FSS operators to
seek the protection they might desire through the license without over
or under excluding other uses or users.
109. We seek comment on alternative geographic area sizes that
could be used as the basis for licensing spectrum in these bands. For
28 GHz and 39 GHz, should we maintain the existing larger license areas
of BTAs or EAs, respectively? Would maintaining the existing license
areas provide any advantages in facilitating deployment of those bands?
We also seek comment on license areas historically used by the
Commission such as PEAs, census blocks, or block groups. If we do not
license local area rights in the 37 GHz band by rule, using a
geographic area approach might allow for a greater mix of local area
and wide area licensed uses in the same band. In that case, we may wish
to adopt geographic license areas small enough to accommodate local
area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses. For
example, we could define license areas based on census blocks or block
groups. This might allow for a greater mix of local area and wide area
licensed uses in the same band compared to traditional license areas,
which typically encompass an entire metropolitan region and its
surrounding area. We also seek input from FSS operators on the
appropriate license area size that would accommodate their
participation in the market-based mechanism described below to
accommodate potential further FSS use of these bands. Balancing the
need for sufficient geographic separation and license areas that are
not unnecessarily large, are counties an appropriate license size for
potential FSS use, or would smaller or larger license areas be more
appropriate? We ask commenters to discuss and quantify the economic,
technical, and other public interest considerations of licensing these
bands using the particular geographic area they advocate.
110. Treatment of Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz Licenses. We recognize
that there are existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses that are licensed on a
BTA or EA basis, respectively. In 1997, the Commission initially
determined that the 39 GHz band would be licensed on a BTA basis. This
decision was based on our expectation at the time that the Commission
would execute licensing agreements similar to those it had in other
services. By 1999, subsequent developments led the Commission to
conclude that adopting BTAs for 39 GHz could unnecessarily delay the
licensing process. Thus, on its own motion, the Commission reconsidered
its license area determination and, based on the record in the
proceeding, decided to license all channel blocks in the 39 GHz band
using Economic Areas.
111. We propose to subdivide existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses on a
county basis, consistent with our proposal to offer licenses on a
county basis for spectrum currently held in inventory. This ensures
that both the existing and future licenses are uniform in their size
and rights, and will facilitate a multiplicity of uses and users. In
addition, because counties nest into both BTAs and EAs, incumbent
licensees retain the exact same coverage, and increase their
flexibility to tailor the license holdings to meet their business
needs. Under our proposal, if a licensee holds a BTA or EA license
consisting of eight counties, it would receive a separate license for
each county in the BTA or EA, for a total of eight licenses. Existing
licensees will otherwise keep the full package of license rights they
currently hold (with the addition of new mobile rights). While we could
keep the existing BTA or EA licenses as is, subdividing the licenses
would create a uniform nationwide license structure. We seek comment on
this proposal. We do not believe that subdividing the existing LMDS and
39 GHz licenses would constitute a modification of license within the
meaning of Section 316 of the Communications Act because the change
would not affect the substantive operating rights of the existing
licensee. Moreover, to the extent the change modifies existing
licenses, the Commission may effectuate
[[Page 1816]]
such a change on a licensee-wide basis pursuant its rulemaking
authority, without triggering the procedural requirements of Section
316.
4. Band Plan for the 28 GHz, 27 GHz, and 39 GHz Bands
112. We seek comment on our proposed band plans for the 28 GHz, 37
GHz, and 39 GHz bands. For the 28 GHz band, we propose to use the
existing band plans in place for LMDS. Specifically, the 27.5-28.35 GHz
band is currently licensed as a single block (LMDS Channel A1). We
believe that continuing to license this band as a single block would be
in the public interest because it would provide a wide band (850
megahertz) of contiguous spectrum that could be used to provide high-
speed service. Samsung supports this proposal. In contrast, Straight
Path supports subdividing the band into a 500 megahertz block and a 350
megahertz block, although its proposal is dependent on the availability
of the 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz bands. Should we consider
subdividing this band into multiple channels, and if so, how?
Proponents of subdividing the band should provide analyses showing that
multiple operators could provide service in the band.
113. We also propose to continue using the existing 39 GHz band
plan. The 39 GHz band is subdivided into 14 channel pairs. Each channel
pair has 50 megahertz by 50 megahertz of spectrum (totaling 1.4
gigahertz). We recognize that Samsung and Straight Path recommend that
the band be reconfigured for wider channels. On balance, we believe
that keeping the existing band plan would promote expeditious
deployment, consistent with our proposal to grant rights to current
licensees, and provide a uniform nationwide band plan. We seek comment
on this proposal, as well as proposals for larger channels. What is the
cost of adopting a channel scheme that might vary between the current
licenses and new initial licenses issued by competitive bidding (i.e.,
if the current licenses continue to follow the current band plan, but
the newly created licenses subject to auction have a different band
plan)? We also seek comment on Straight Path's proposal to allow
incumbent licensees to exchange licenses within a market so that
incumbents can obtain contiguous spectrum.
114. We also seek comment on a band plan for the 37 GHz band. One
possibility would be to subdivide the band into three equal blocks of
approximately 533 megahertz each. Another possibility would be to have
four blocks of 400 megahertz each. Those plans would potentially
provide multiple channels, each capable of supporting high-rate
communications. If we chose to have separate bands for local area uses
and outdoor deployments, we could have separate band segments for each
use. We seek comment on alternative band plans. Commenters should
address how their preferred plans would support a wide variety of
services while maximizing access to spectrum.
5. License Term
115. Background. License terms generally vary based upon the type
of service authorized and the purpose for which a service was created.
Under existing rules, fixed licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands
licensed under Part 101 will have a license term not to exceed 10
years. When the Commission adopted its Part 101 Report and Order, it
determined that both private and common carrier licenses granted on or
after August 1, 1996, would have a license term not to exceed ten
years. Finally, terrestrial service rules currently do not exist for
the 37 GHz band, so no license term has been specified for that band.
116. We did not seek comment specifically on the issue of license
terms in the NOI. Only one commenter, Qualcomm, directly addressed this
issue by stating that the FCC should adopt a 10-year license term in
conjunction with reasonable performance requirements.
117. Discussion. We propose to establish a 10-year term for all
licenses in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. We believe this
length of license term will help to maintain consistency within these
bands. Many of the fixed licenses in these bands are already subject to
10-year license terms, including fixed licensees in the LMDS band and
fixed licensees in the 39 GHz band that were licensed after August 1,
1996. As discussed above, we propose to grant mobile operating rights
to existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. If we adopt that proposal, we
believe the most seamless, consistent, and expedient path for license
terms would be to also adopt 10-year terms for all licensees in these
bands.
118. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt a 10-year license
term, including any costs and benefits of the proposal. We also seek
comment on whether licensees should receive a renewal expectancy for
subsequent license terms if they continue to provide at least the level
of service required at the end of their initial license terms through
the end of any subsequent license terms. In addition, we invite
commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate license
term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs and
benefits. For instance, we note that in the 3.5 GHz R&O the Commission
adopted three year license terms on the theory that the band will be
used in a flexible manner that supports myriad uses, providing spectrum
to users where and when they need it. Would a five year term for these
bands be appropriate under a similar rationale?
119. Under our 10-year license term proposal, if a license in these
bands is partitioned or disaggregated (as discussed in further detail
below), we propose that any partitionee or disaggregatee would be
authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's
or disaggregator's original license term. This approach is similar to
the partitioning provisions the Commission adopted for other services.
We emphasize that nothing in our proposal is intended to enable a
licensee, by partitioning or disaggregating the license, to confer
greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license
grant. Similarly, nothing in our proposal is intended to enable any
partitionee or disaggregatee to obtain rights in excess of those
previously possessed by the underlying licensee.
C. Facilitating Satellite Use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz
Bands
1. Background (Current Framework)
120. Nineteen years ago, in the 28 GHz First Report and Order, the
Commission found that co-frequency sharing between LMDS and
ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations was not yet feasible,
but said that it would consider revisiting that conclusion if future
technology became available to facilitate that type of sharing. Among
other band segments, the Commission designated 850 megahertz at 27.5-
28.35 GHz for LMDS on a primary basis, and permitted geostationary
Fixed-Satellite Service (GSO/FSS) or non-geostationary Fixed-Satellite
Service (NGSO/FSS) systems to provide links in that band segment on a
non-interference basis to LMDS systems, but only for the purpose of
providing limited Earth-to-space gateway-type services. The Commission
rejected a proposal to offer limited protection to FSS gateways
operating in the 27.5-28.35 band segment, concluding that, if
proponents of FSS systems were to implement gateways in that part of
the LMDS band, these gateway links would operate on a non-
[[Page 1817]]
interference-non-protected basis with respect to LMDS operators.
121. With regard to the 37.5-40 GHz band, in 2003 the Commission
preserved the co-primary status of FSS for space-to-Earth
transmissions, but implemented a ``soft segmentation'' plan that
favored terrestrial Fixed Service and terrestrial Mobile Service, which
also have co-primary allocations in that band. The soft segmentation
plan limited FSS to gateway-type earth station operations in the 37.5-
40 GHz band, and it prohibited the ubiquitous deployment of satellite
earth stations designed to serve individual consumers. The plan also
established clear-sky power flux density (PFD) limits for satellite
transmissions in the 37.5-40 GHz band that are 12 dB lower than the
level allowed for satellite transmissions in the 40-42.5 GHz band.
However, in the subsequent V-Band Third FNPRM in 2010, the Commission
proposed to allow satellite operators to increase their PFDs during
heavy rain storms to overcome signal attenuation under those
conditions.
122. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that it is
appropriate to review both sets of decisions in light of evolutions in
technology, the introduction of mobile, and the possibility of
leveraging market-based mechanisms to coordinate coexistence issues and
future FSS expansion in these bands.
2. Ka-Band Gateway Earth Stations
a. Request for Upgraded Status in 28 GHz Band
123. EchoStar and the FSS Operators ask the Commission to upgrade
gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band from secondary status to co-
primary status. They argue that the secondary status has hindered
satellite investment and that satellite operators ``must have
regulatory certainty about their continued access to this spectrum for
existing, as well as new, gateway earth stations.'' They also argue
that experience has shown that gateway earth stations have been able to
successfully co-exist with fixed LMDS licensees. XO, which holds 91
LMDS licenses, argues that granting satellite operators' co-primary
status in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band ``could encumber existing LMDS
licensees' spectrum and potentially frustrate their efforts to build
out fixed wireless and 5G systems.''
124. ViaSat recommends a different approach: That the Commission
review past decisions that constrained opportunities for spectrum
sharing and evaluate them in the light of contemporary technologies and
techniques. ViaSat acknowledges that the industry committee that was
formed in 1996 to develop negotiated proposed rules for the LMDS in the
Ka-band identified a number of techniques that could enable sharing of
widely deployed FSS transmitters and LMDS receivers, including
cognitive radio technologies and mitigation techniques, such as FSS
monitoring of LMDS transmissions before transmitting and requiring that
a database of LMDS subscribers be maintained, but did not come to an
agreement about those techniques, in part because of concerns about the
commercial viability of those approaches in 1996. Regardless of whether
those types of sharing techniques were mature when plans for the Ka-
band and the V-band were adopted, says ViaSat, the fact remains that
those techniques are readily available today, and in fact have been
endorsed by the Commission in other proceedings as essential means of
making more intensive use of spectrum.
125. Discussion. We believe there should be a mechanism under which
satellite earth stations could acquire co-primary status where their
owners believe that such a level of protection is necessary.
Accordingly, we seek comment on establishing a market-based mechanism
for allowing proposed gateway earth stations to acquire co-primary
status by acquiring flexible use terrestrial licenses. Specifically, we
propose that a Part 25 FSS earth station would have co-primary status
if its licensee also holds the corresponding terrestrial license for
the location of that earth station.
126. We believe it is not in the public interest to automatically
grant co-primary status for FSS operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band
at this time. The main disadvantage of designating FSS gateway earth
stations as co-primary at this time is that it could be inconsistent
with the development of terrestrial Mobile Service in the band. While
there should be a mechanism for accommodating gateway earth stations in
the 28 GHz band, that mechanism should also be consistent with
terrestrial use of the band.
127. At the same time, we agree with EchoStar, the FSS Operators,
and ViaSat that there should be additional mechanisms for accommodating
gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band. In particular, we agree with
ViaSat that it might be feasible to allow satellite operators to make
greater opportunistic use of the LMDS band for gateway earth stations.
We note that FSS Operators, O3B, and ViaSat agree that they have been
able to coexist with LMDS operations through planning and coordination.
Recognizing the balance we are proposing to strike between incumbent
operations and new flexibility in this band, we seek comment on the
ability of mobile and FSS operations to coexist, and ways to facilitate
coexistence that are mutually effective for both FSS and future mobile
operators.
128. One way to protect gateways from being superseded by
subsequent terrestrial deployments would be for FSS operators to obtain
the terrestrial licensees, either by participating in Commission
auctions or by purchasing them from existing Upper Microwave Flexible
Use licensees. Since there are no proposed eligibility restrictions on
Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses that would specifically limit the
ability of FSS providers to acquire these licenses, there is no legal
impediment to FSS operators acquiring a terrestrial license. In this
case, the license right that an FSS provider may benefit from and value
the most is the right to exclude other users from the geographic area
of the license. That right in effect allows them to achieve co-primary
status and would provide the protection the FSS providers' seek.
129. Allowing non-Federal FSS operators to acquire flexible use
licenses to obtain co-primary status would have several advantages.
First, it would establish a market-based mechanism for determining the
highest and best use of the spectrum in a given area. On the other
hand, this mechanism need not unduly burden the development of
terrestrial mobile or fixed service, especially where FSS operators opt
only to obtain partitioned portions of licenses, because FSS operators
will have little incentive to buy territorial rights any larger than
they will need to ensure the continued operation of their gateways.
Since these are transmitting earth stations, the area needs only be
large enough to ensure that no constraints are imposed on terrestrial
operations outside that area. Second, this approach would allow
licensees to use the 28 GHz band to provide a wide variety of services
to consumers and businesses. Third, both satellite and terrestrial
operators would obtain additional flexibility to adjust their
operations to meet consumer demand. That flexibility would help ensure
that spectrum ends up in the hands of someone who is willing and able
to use the spectrum to provide service.
130. By obtaining Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses--or
portions thereof--FSS operators would be able to prevent incursions by
terrestrial operators that might otherwise require them to shut down
their FSS gateways. We emphasize, however, that an Upper
[[Page 1818]]
Microwave Flexible Use license would not authorize operations of the
FSS earth stations. The licensing of earth stations would continue to
be governed by our Part 25 licensing rules. We further emphasize that,
by auctioning Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses or allowing the
transfer of partitioned portions of those licenses to companies that
operate FSS systems, we would not be auctioning orbital slots or the
right to operate a satellite system. Any such authorization would
require a separate license issued pursuant to Part 25 of the
Commission's Rules. Accordingly, the fact that the Upper Microwave
Flexible Use licenses would be subject to auction would not be contrary
to Section 647 of the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of
International Telecommunications Act.
131. In proposing the alternative discussed above, we do not intend
to limit the ability of FSS operators to continue availing themselves
of other, existing alternatives. We also emphasize that we would not
require FSS operators to acquire an Upper Microwave Flexible Use
authorization to operate in this band. In particular, FSS operators
would continue to have the option of applying for earth station
authorizations on a secondary basis under our existing rules. They
would also remain free to negotiate private interference agreements
with Upper Microwave Flexible Use licensees.
132. Treatment of Existing 28 GHz FSS Earth Stations. There are
currently 21 FSS earth stations licensed in the 28 GHz band on a
secondary basis, and 17 pending applications. About half of those earth
stations (or proposed earth stations) are located within the service
area of an active LMDS license authorized to operate in the 28 GHz
band. The other half are located in areas where there is no active LMDS
license in the 28 GHz band. We seek comment on the proposals described
below for future treatment of those earth stations, as well as
alternatives.
133. We propose that earth stations located within the service area
of an active LMDS license maintain their secondary status. Those FSS
operators constructed their facilities knowing that their operations
would be on a secondary basis. LMDS licensees purchased their licenses
at auction with the understanding that their fixed and point-to-
multipoint operations would have priority over FSS operations. These
LMDS licensees have also successfully demonstrated substantial service.
Under those circumstances, we propose not to upgrade FSS operations at
the expense of LMDS licensees. To the extent that FSS operators and
LMDS licensees have private agreements concerning protection of their
facilities, those agreements would continue in force and effect. We
also note that depending on the terms of those agreements, the FSS
operator may obtain protection which is based on the terms of the
agreement and the primary nature of the LMDS license.
134. We have attempted to balance the introduction of mobile on a
primary basis, with the investment and expectation of continued
operation by FSS providers. Recognizing the services' status in the
U.S. Table of Allocations, what is the extent to which mobile and FSS
can coexist in a shared environment? Technically, to what extent do FSS
providers anticipate that their operations may cause interference to
mobile services? In the event that parties believe there are issues of
coexistence that cannot be resolved through direct discussions between
the mobile and FSS operations, are there regulatory approaches that
could facilitate coexistence between the two services without having a
negative impact on future mobile deployment?
135. With respect to FSS earth stations located outside the license
area of an LMDS licensee, we believe it could be in the public interest
to provide a mechanism for those earth stations to upgrade to co-
primary status. In those areas, the most common reason for cancellation
of the LMDS license was failure to demonstrate substantial service.
Demand for fixed LMDS service in those areas was therefore apparently
limited. To the extent an FSS earth station is operating and providing
service, it could be appropriate to upgrade the earth station to co-
primary status in those areas where the former LMDS licensee did not
construct. Upgrading the status of those earth stations could give the
FSS operator an incentive to make additional investment in those
facilities because it would have certainty that the earth station would
not have to shut down in order to protect primary users of the
spectrum. In addition, there is no LMDS licensee who can claim
prejudice from that action. As with the proposal in the previous
paragraph, this proposal attempts to balance the introduction of mobile
on a primary basis, with the investment and expectation of continued
operation by FSS providers. We therefore seek comment on the same
issues of interference and facilitating co-existence for this proposal
as we did for that other proposal.
136. We seek comment on the following mechanism for upgrading
existing FSS earth stations located outside the service area of an
active LMDS license. Prior to holding an auction, the Commission would
open a closed filing window for Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses.
The filing window would be restricted to FSS licensees with an earth
station within the census tract (or other area we may adopt) of the
proposed license. The FSS earth station licensee would have the
opportunity to apply for a license including the license area where the
earth station was located. Because the filing window would be
restricted to the FSS operator, there would be no mutual exclusivity.
Once the FSS operator was issued the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
license, it would have co-primary status. Adopting this approach would
give FSS operators certainty that they could obtain co-primary status
covering a significant number of the existing sites. This mechanism
would also integrate existing earth stations into the flexible, market-
based framework we are adopting for the 28 GHz band. In the subsequent
Upper Microwave Flexible Use license auction, initial licenses for any
geographic area awarded pursuant to the closed filing window would not
be offered.
137. In commenting on this mechanism, we ask parties to address the
following issues. First, what criteria should we use for determining
that an earth station is in operation and providing service? Second,
what license area should we use for licenses offered to the FSS
licensees in a potential closed filing window? Third, would it serve
the public interest to set up a process to allow, through a market-
based approach or otherwise, future earth stations in the same license
area?
138. We also seek comment on alternative mechanisms of upgrading
FSS earth stations that are not within the service area of an LMDS
licensee to co-primary status. Commenters should keep in mind that
there appear to be advantages to adopting a flexible licensing
framework that results in FSS operators holding Upper Microwave
Flexible Use licenses.
139. Future 28 GHz Earth Stations. We propose that future FSS
operators can obtain Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses at auction
to eliminate potential interference concerns with terrestrial
operations in their areas. We recognize that FSS operators may wish to
apply for earth stations in the 28 GHz band during the period of time
that precedes the auction for Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses.
Until we issue new rules, such licenses will continue to be issued on a
secondary basis. If the earth station is within the service area of an
existing LMDS licensee, the FSS operator may enter
[[Page 1819]]
into an agreement with the primary licensee or acquire the LMDS or
Upper Microwave Flexible Use license in the secondary market in order
to upgrade its status.
140. If the proposed earth station is sought before the auction for
licenses outside the service area of an LMDS licensee, we must balance
several competing interests. The FSS operator has an interest in
obtaining protection for its earth station. On the other hand,
depending on the location of the earth station, granting co-primary
status could hinder future terrestrial deployment in the 28 GHz band.
141. We propose to use a waiver process to address this situation.
Under our proposal, 28 GHz earth station applicants may seek a waiver
of their secondary status and request co-primary status if they can
demonstrate that their presence would be unlikely to have a negative
impact on future terrestrial service. A primary factor we propose to
consider in evaluating the waiver request would be the location of the
proposed earth station. For instance, we would be more likely to
favorably act on a request if an earth station applicant proposes to
locate in a remote area where terrestrial service is unlikely to be
deployed shortly after the auction. On the other hand, earth stations
located in populated areas where there is likely to be demand for
terrestrial service would bear a heavy burden of justifying a waiver.
We could also consider steps the earth station applicant proposes to
minimize its impact on terrestrial operations, such as natural or
artificial shielding of the earth station site, or limiting its
emissions towards low elevation angles. If the earth station applicant
receives a waiver, and the earth station is operating and providing
service at the time of the closed filing window, we propose that it
would be eligible to apply for an Upper Microwave Flexible Use license
during the closed filing window as discussed above.
142. We seek comment on using a waiver process to evaluate requests
for co-primary status, as well as alternative ways of addressing this
issue. Are there additional criteria we should consider in evaluating
waiver requests? Are there other ways of evaluating such requests?
3. Repealing Restriction on FSS Fixed User Equipment in 28 GHz Band
143. As noted above, FSS use of the 28 GHz band is limited to
gateway earth stations. While we anticipate that terrestrial service
will remain primary in this band, we seek comment on whether it is
possible to allow deployment of fixed FSS user equipment on a secondary
basis, subject to the condition that the user equipment not cause
interference to fixed or mobile operations. In that regard, we propose
that Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees be required to
provide information on their fixed and mobile deployments in order to
facilitate sharing. We also seek comment on several possible technical
mechanisms by which sharing could be implemented.
144. While some commenters take the position that sharing between
terrestrial and widespread satellite operations in the mmW bands will
be difficult or impossible, the overwhelming majority of commenters who
address the issue say that the propagation characteristics of mmW
signals will make it much easier to manage spectrum sharing, compared
with lower bands of spectrum where signals propagate around obstacles
or beyond horizons.
145. In this section, we seek comment on several possible ideas for
facilitating the deployment of FSS user equipment on a secondary basis.
We seek comment on these ideas, as well as alternative ideas commenters
wish to present. To the extent commenters believe a proposal will
impose undue burdens, we encourage those commenters to describe the
burden in detail and to provide detailed information on the costs
involved. We also encourage commenters to discuss how these proposals
would affect a variety of use cases for the mmW bands, including fixed,
mobile, and satellite uses. We also seek comment on the extent to which
private agreements between FSS operators and terrestrial licensees
could facilitate sharing. Should we allow private agreements to
supplement or replace any regulatory mechanisms we might establish to
facilitate sharing? Could private agreements render rules unnecessary
in this area? We seek comment on these issues.
a. Spectrum Access System
146. One possible sharing mechanism would be to develop a spectrum
access system (SAS) similar to the system required for the 3.5 GHz
band. In that band, the Commission established a roadmap for providing
tiered access to shared spectrum on a user-priority basis, and made
clear its intention to apply the same kinds of techniques to other
bands.
147. ViaSat, T-Mobile, Wireless Innovation Forum and Google support
the SAS concept in various scenarios. In particular, ViaSat says it is
no longer necessary to impose limitations on satellite user terminals
in light of the sharing technologies and techniques that have been
proven to facilitate successful non-interfering operations in other
bands.
148. Under the SAS option, we propose to require terrestrial
licensees to provide satellite operators with essential information
that the satellite operators will need in order to avoid causing
interference to terrestrial operations. We propose to require licensees
to provide a SAS provider with the geographic coordinates and other
pertinent technical information for their links. We seek comment on
what information, under this scenario, should be provided to the SAS
operator. For stationary operations, we anticipate that the technical
parameters that will be useful to FSS operators seeking to avoid
causing interference will resemble, or perhaps be a subset of, the
technical parameters that we require Fixed Service point-to-point
license applicants to submit on Form 601, Exhibits D, H, and I, or
their electronic equivalents. It is not yet possible to delineate a
similarly specific set of parameters for mmW mobile base stations and
user equipment because the design features of such equipment are still
under development. Since Form 601 has been designed in part to
accommodate applications for point-to-multipoint licenses, however,
many of the parameters required by that form could also be pertinent to
mmW mobile base stations, most of which will likely provide
omnidirectional service over limited areas.
149. We recognize that, under most circumstances, the Commission's
existing rules do not require the licensees of geographic service areas
to file or otherwise publish the locations and technical
characteristics of their individual transmitters and receivers. In this
case, the benefits of enhanced sharing of the spectrum may outweigh any
burden on the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee. We also
note that existing licensees would obtain substantial benefits as a
result of our proposed actions, including mobile operating rights. To
avoid burdening terrestrial licensees prematurely or unnecessarily with
this reporting requirement, we propose to defer implementing it until
an FSS operator notifies the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
licensee that it will soon begin deploying user equipment in the
licensee's geographic service area or other area of operation. We also
propose to require satellite operators to bear the cost of operating
the SAS, for two reasons. First, the user equipment transmissions of
satellite operators would be secondary to terrestrial operations in the
27.5-28.35 GHz band,
[[Page 1820]]
and it is their responsibility to avoid causing interference to primary
users. Second, we assume that the SAS operators have the ability to
pass along their costs of operation to their subscribers, with a
reasonable profit margin, and that the SASs' internal costs will depend
upon the complexity of coordination requested by the satellite
operators. We seek comment on these proposals.
b. Beacon Signaling
150. Another option for facilitating FSS deployment of fixed user
equipment on a secondary basis is to require Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service base stations to transmit beacon signals to assist
satellite earth stations in determining the presence of nearby Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service links or base stations and the likely
presence of user terminals communicating with those base stations. The
beacon signals could either be separate signals or components of the
forward-link signals that fixed links or base stations transmit to the
user terminals with which they are communicating, similar to the pilot
signals transmitted by CDMA and LTE base stations. Such beacon signals
could be particularly helpful if they were modulated with messages
containing some parameters describing the base stations'
characteristics, e.g., geographic location, coverage radius, height
above average terrain, and antenna characteristics. Satellite earth
stations would be required to monitor those beacon signals and have
geolocation capability to determine keep-quiet areas, based on
knowledge of their own signal characteristics and information about
nearby Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service stations provided by their
beacon signals.
151. We seek comment on the feasibility and desirability of this
alternative approach. Would it be technically and economically feasible
for 28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees to provide,
and for FSS operators to use, the information provided by a beacon
signal? Would this approach be more or less burdensome for Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees than establishing an SAS? Is
there a risk that transmitting a beacon signal could cause interference
in its own right? Finally, how burdensome to require 28 GHz terrestrial
licensees to provide technical information on their stations'
characteristics concurrently via an SAS and by signal beacons, and
would such requirements provide any added assurance that FSS stations
would not interfere with terrestrial operations?
c. Limiting Satellite or Terrestrial Operations
152. Another possible means of facilitating sharing would be to
modify existing limits on FSS transmissions toward the horizon below a
specified elevation angle, but require Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service licensees to be capable of screening out incoming signals above
the same elevation angle or another complementary angle. Last year, the
Commission was able to facilitate spectrum sharing between satellite
and Wi-Fi operations in the 5.15-5.25 GHz band by limiting the output
power of Wi-Fi transmissions at elevations above 30 degrees, even
though, in the same order, it authorized increased power for Wi-Fi
transmitters at lower elevation angles and allowed them to be operated
outdoors in a band where they had previously been restricted to indoor-
only operation. In the 28 GHz band, the predominant source of
interference would be Earth-to-space transmissions by FSS earth
stations, but a similar kind of angular separation could potentially be
applied by limiting the power of their transmissions below a specified
angle. By one account, most industry evaluations of potential mmW
mobile station deployments assume that such stations' antennas will be
tilted downward by 6 to 15 degrees, a configuration that would
presumably limit base stations' vulnerability to incoming interference.
To what extent could angular separation protect the mobile user
equipment that communicates with those base stations? To what extent
could angular separation protect fixed backhaul, since point-to-point
links may require a variety of elevation angles?
d. Active Signal Cancelling
153. Satellite operators already make use of signal cancelling
technology to transmit and receive simultaneously on the same channels,
and intensive research and development is underway to apply similar
techniques to terrestrial communications. We seek comment on the
possibility that active signal cancellation could be used to limit the
extent of interference between satellite and terrestrial operations.
154. Is such a concept feasible and workable? Since FSS user
equipment transmissions would be secondary in the band, would it be
reasonable to require Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees to
generate countervailing suppression signals? How would those burdens
compare to the other benefits they would be receiving if the Commission
upgrades their licenses to allow mobile operations?
e. Movable FSS User Equipment
155. The initial phase of this docket will focus on opportunities
for secondary use of FSS user equipment at fixed locations. We also
note, however, that the Commission has previously adopted regulations
authorizing the provision of FSS to moving platforms in other bands,
with respect to vehicle-mounted earth stations (VMESs), earth stations
on vessels (ESVs), and earth stations aboard aircraft (ESAAs). We do
not presume that satellite operators will choose to deploy user
equipment on moving platforms in the 28 GHz band, but we also believe
that evolving technology and market conditions should be the gating
mechanisms for any such initiatives, not regulatory proceedings. We
propose to adapt our existing rules for FSS to moving platforms and
apply them to the 28 GHz band. All of those rules require satellite
user equipment to mute their signals instantaneously whenever they lose
location awareness or signal lock with their serving satellites, in
part to avoid causing interference to other satellites. Because those
satellites are typically spaced at two degree intervals along the
geostationary arc or, in the case of NGSO satellites, are moving
rapidly overhead from one horizon to another, the rules for FSS on
moving platforms require extreme precision and reliability. We expect
to initiate further proceedings to address satellite operations on
movable platforms, either in another phase of this proceeding or in a
separate docket that addresses movable FSS satellite equipment in
multiple bands. We invite comments to guide our deliberations in
developing those provisions.
4. 37.5-40 GHz Band Sharing Issues
156. We seek comment on three issues relating to FSS use of the
37.5-40 GHz band. First, we seek comment on whether we should make any
changes to our treatment of gateway earth station applications in this
band. Second, we seek comment on whether it would be reasonable to
eliminate the prohibition against ubiquitous deployment of space-to-
Earth user equipment in that band. Third, we seek further comment on
allowing satellite operators in this band to increase the intensity of
their PFDs above existing limits during heavy rain storms, subject to
the provisions discussed below.
157. Unlike in the 28 GHz band, FSS earth stations in the 37.5-40
GHz band are primary in the Table of Allocations. Under our rules,
however, gateway earth
[[Page 1821]]
stations may only be deployed if the FSS licensee obtains a 39 GHz
license in the area where the earth station will be located, or if it
enters into an agreement with the corresponding 39 GHz licensee. We
seek comment on whether we need to update this rule to reflect the
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service we are proposing today. Are there
any other changes we should consider to this rule?
158. In the 28 GHz band, we are seeking comment on establishing a
waiver process by which non-Federal FSS earth stations could acquire
co-primary status in those areas where there is no LMDS licensee if
they can demonstrate that they would not have a negative impact on
future terrestrial service. We seek comment on establishing a similar
waiver process for non-Federal FSS earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz
band. Does the fact that this band is space-to-Earth require any
changes to the proposed waiver process?
159. With regard to reception of space-to-Earth signals by user
equipment in this band, ViaSat argues that opportunistic access to this
spectrum would be useful and appropriate for satellite operators,
provided that they also have reliable access to a base of spectrum in
other bands that are dedicated to satellite operations on a primary
basis, where satellites will always be able to operate on an unimpeded
basis. Do other parties see potential value in this possible
opportunistic use? We seek comment on whether the concepts that we have
discussed with respect to fixed satellite user equipment in the 28 GHz
band could be applied to the 37.5-40 GHz band with respect to non-
Federal FSS users.
160. As in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, we seek comment on authorizing
the provision of stationary non-Federal FSS user equipment in the 37.5-
40 GHz band, as we propose to adopt service rules authorizing
terrestrial mmW mobile operations in this band. While satellite user
equipment will not be transmitting Earth-to-space signals in this band
and, thus, will not cause interference to terrestrial operations, we
believe providing their operators with information about terrestrial
stations is required in order for those operators to adapt their user
equipment deployment plans to take into consideration the presence of
interference generated by terrestrial stations. We invite comments on
our proposal and alternatives with respect to this band.
161. Finally, we invite comments on the terms and conditions under
which satellite operators should be allowed to increase their PFDs in
the 37.5-40 GHz band to overcome rain-fade conditions, as the
Commission proposed earlier in the V-Band Third FNPRM. Specifically, we
seek to refresh the record to reflect advances in signal processing and
information processing systems that have occurred during the five years
since the V-Band Third FNPRM was issued.
D. Federal Sharing Issues
162. Portions of the 39 GHz and 37 GHz bands are shared with the
Federal government. In addition, there are passive Federal and non-
Federal allocations below 37 GHz that need to be considered when
developing service rules for the 37 GHz band. Through the inter-agency
process, we will continue work with NTIA and the Federal agencies to
update the information on current and future Federal use of the 37 GHz
band, provide the appropriate technical parameters for envisioned fixed
and mobile applications, assess sharing compatibility, and establish
sharing arrangements to enable the development of service rules for
innovative commercial wireless services. Below, we describe the
relevant Federal allocations, provide the available information we
have, and raise pertinent questions concerning sharing between Federal
and non-Federal operations where appropriate.
163. In addition, we seek comment on whether the future mmW
technologies might be able to support a platform that could enable
expanded sharing, including two-way shared use between Federal and non-
Federal users in these bands and sharing among different types of
service platforms. For instance, could the future mmW technology be
used to support convergence of historically different network
topologies beyond just mobile, fixed, and satellite, to include air-to-
ground or ground-to-air, high altitude uses, or others uses? Could the
same benefits of mmW technology that help facilitate different users
and use cases also support increased sharing between Federal and non-
Federal uses in the non-Federal portions of these bands?
1. 39.5-40 GHz
164. There is a Federal allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) and MSS
(space-to-Earth) in the 39.5-40 GHz band. Federal government earth
stations in the MSS in the 39.5-40 GHz band are prohibited from
claiming protection from non-Federal stations in the Fixed and Mobile
Services in this band, but are not required to protect non-federal
Fixed and Mobile Services in the band (i.e., 5.43A of the ITU Radio
regulations does not apply). This prohibition does not apply to Federal
government earth stations in the FSS. When the 39 GHz Report and Order
was adopted, Federal government use of the band was limited to military
systems in the 39.5-40 GHz band segment, but the Department of Defense
stated that it had plans to implement satellite downlinks at 39.5-40
GHz in the future, and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) identified 39.5-40 GHz as a possible space
research band to accommodate future Earth-to-space wideband data
requirements. The 39 GHz Report and Order expressed optimism that such
plans would not affect the continued development of the 39 GHz band for
non-Government use, but the Commission said that it intended to address
those interference issues in a future, separate proceeding that would
focus on developing inter-licensee and inter-service standards and
criteria. At present, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides
that Federal satellite services in the 39.5-40 GHz band are limited to
military systems.
165. We seek comment on whether the existing allocation provisions
are sufficient to ensure coexistence between Federal and non-Federal
operations. We seek comment on appropriate protections for Federal
operations in the 39.5-40 GHz band. What considerations should we keep
in mind as we develop service rules for the 37.5-40 GHz band? What are
the appropriate principles and mechanisms we should use to ensure
protection of Federal operations and coexistence with commercial
operations? Are any limitations or special rules on mobile use
necessary in order to protect Federal military FSS use of the 39.5-40
GHz band? Are there any additional measures needed in terms of Out-of-
Band (OOBE) limits that are needed to protect federal MSS and FSS
downlink operations in the adjacent 40-40.5 GHz band?
2. 37-38.6 GHz
166. There is also an allocation for federal space research, fixed,
and mobile service operations in the 37-38 GHz band. There are also
federal fixed and mobile allocations in the 38-38.6 GHz band. In 2004,
NTIA sent a letter to the Commission identifying the following NASA
receiving earth stations in the SRS in the 37-38 GHz band: Goldstone,
California; Guam, Pacific Ocean; Merritt Island, Florida; Wallops
Island, Virginia; and White Sands, New Mexico. NTIA has subsequently
identified the NASA receiving earth station at Blossom Point, Maryland.
NTIA also identified Green Bank, Virginia; and Socorro, New Mexico NSF
[[Page 1822]]
sites to support their Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) earth
station operations. NTIA noted the importance of the 37-38 GHz band to
support U. S. goals to provide a permanent manned presence in Earth
orbit (on or near the moon), to initiate manned exploration of the
planet Mars, and to support VLBI by satellite.
167. In their 2004 letter, NTIA also identified 14 military sites
in the 37-38.6 GHz band that required protection. NTIA recommended that
coordination with the federal operations be performed within the IRAC
process. In 2006, NTIA sent a follow-up letter to the FCC reaffirming
the need to protect NASA, NSF, and military operations from non-federal
terrestrial and FSS operations in the 37-38 GHz band. NTIA requested
that the protection of federal operations be accomplished by
establishing a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency allocations
specifying the federal sites and the coordination areas. NTIA also
recommended that because of the potential interference from airborne
systems, the aeronautical Mobile Service allocation should be deleted
from the band 37-38 GHz.
168. We seek comment on appropriate protections for Federal
operations in the 37 GHz band. What considerations should we keep in
mind as we develop service rules for the 37 GHz band? What are the
appropriate principles and mechanisms we should use to ensure
protection of Federal operations and coexistence with commercial
operations?
3. Passive Services Below 37 GHz
169. There are Federal and non-Federal allocations for the EESS
(passive) and SRS (passive) in the 36-37 GHz band. Those services shall
not receive protection from fixed and mobile allocations operating in
accordance with the U.S. Table of Allocations. The 36.43-36.5 GHz band
is used for radio astronomy spectral line emissions, and as specified
in footnote US342 all practicable steps must be taken to protect radio
astronomy in that band from interference. There are several allocations
around 40 GHz to the radio astronomy service for both continuum and
spectral line observations, some through footnote protections. Some of
these allocations are shared with different types of active services.
Pertinent to the bands under consideration and bands near 40 GHz
covered under US342, there are Very Large Array receivers in current
operation that observe the cosmos over the nominal frequency ranges of
26.5-40 GHz (Ka-band), and 40-50 GHz (Q-band). VLBA receivers cover
21.7-24.1 GHz and 41.0-45.0 GHz. Similarly, the Green Bank Telescope
has a sensitive receiver and specialized wideband (continuum as well as
spectrometric) back-ends for observations over the 26-40 GHz range.
170. CORF reports that the 36-37 GHz band is used by a series of
instruments that provide data on ocean winds, cloud liquid water,
precipitation, terrestrial snow, sea ice cover, and sea surface
temperature. Those instruments include the NASA Global Precipitation
Measurement Mission's Microwave lmager, NASA Tropical Rainfall
Measuring Mission's Microwave lmager, DoD Special Sensor Microwave/
lmager and WindSat instruments, and the JAXA Global Change Observation
Mission-Water 1's Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer 2. CORF
explains that most of these instruments operate in a direct detection
mode, which means that their ability to reject out-of-band emissions is
limited. CORF states that these instruments are particularly
susceptible to interference because they operate in lower orbits and
have larger receiver antennas. CORF asks for unspecified guard bands to
protect EESS operations.
171. Whenever possible, the radio astronomy community takes a
number of measures to mitigate the impacts of interference, including
locating radio observatories in remote areas and by using bands
allocated or footnote-protected for radio astronomy services. Spectrum
management and regulatory processes are, therefore, critical for
interference-free radio astronomical operations. The provisions of
US342 and ITU-R No. 5.149, for instance, have provided local protection
for radio observatories. The FCC will continue to work closely with
NTIA and NSF to help facilitate mobile applications in the mmW bands,
while mitigating the impacts on existing radio astronomy facilities.
172. We seek comment whether any special protections are necessary
or appropriate for passive services below 37 GHz. As noted, EESS and
space research operations are not entitled to interference protection
from duly authorized Fixed and Mobile Services. Nonetheless, we seek
comment on whether there are steps we could take to protect those
operations without unduly limiting fixed and mobile operations in the
37 GHz band.
E. Licensing, Operating, and Regulatory Issues
1. Creation of New Rule Service and Part
173. LMDS and the 39 GHz service are currently regulated under Part
101 of the Commission's rules, which governs fixed microwave services.
In light of the additional flexibility we are providing to LMDS and 39
GHz licensees, including mobile operating rights, we propose to create
a new radio service, the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, and
regulate that new service under a new Part 30 of the Commission's
rules. We also propose to include the contemplated new 37 GHz band as
part of the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. We seek comment on
these proposals.
174. We believe establishing a new rule part for these services
would allow us to have one unified set of rules governing the various
types of operations we contemplate licensees will offer. While there
may be administrative advantages to keeping LMDS and the 39 GHz service
in Part 101, we believe establishing a new rule part would provide more
clarity and more accurately reflect the nature of these licenses. We
ask commenters to offer their views.
2. Regulatory Status
175. Background. For LMDS, the Commission has previously determined
that applicants could provide common-carrier service, non-common
carrier service, or both, and also enabled licensees to later amend
their applications or modify that status. Similarly, in the 39 GHz
band, the Commission concluded that licensees should be permitted to
serve as a common carrier or as a private licensee. It determined that,
for those licensees who select common-carrier regulatory status, they
would be able to provide private service, and those licensees who
select private service provider regulatory status could share the use
of their facilities on a non-profit basis or could offer service on a
for-profit, private carrier basis, subject to section 101.135 of the
Commission's rules. Under this approach, licensees would elect the
status of the services they wish to offer and be governed by the rules
applicable to their status.
176. The open and flexible approach the Commission took to
regulatory status in Part 101 is also consistent with the Commission's
approach to other wireless services, such as the Part 27 rules for
terrestrial wireless service.
177. Discussion. We propose to maintain the open and flexible
[[Page 1823]]
regulatory framework for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.
Specifically, we propose to permit the full array of Fixed and Mobile
Service offerings without undue regulatory restraint. In doing so, our
goal is to maintain an open and flexible approach that will allow the
business judgments of individual applicants and licensees in these
bands to shape the nature of the services offered pursuant to their
licenses.
178. We propose to permit applicants and licensees to request
common carrier status, non-common carrier status, private internal
communications status, or a combination of these options, for
authorization in a single license (or to switch between them).
Applicants in these bands therefore would be able to, but would not be
required to, choose between providing common carrier and non-common
carrier services. If an applicant requested both common carrier and
non-common carrier status in the same application, it would result in
the issuance of both authorizations in a single license. Alternatively,
the applicant may wish to limit its operations to common carrier or
non-common services, in which case it would apply only for
authorization on a common carrier or a non-common carrier basis, and
the license would be issued for the status specified. The licensee
would be able to provide all Fixed and Mobile Services anywhere within
its licensed area at any time (except for indoor operating rights in
the 37 GHz service), consistent with the statutory and regulatory
requirements that are imposed on its respective operations. We note
that it would be the licensee's obligation to maintain the various
operations in compliance with all those requirements.
179. We observe that an applicant is to rely on the realities of
the services to be provided in electing the appropriate regulatory
status. An election to provide service on a common carrier basis
requires that the elements of common carriage be present; otherwise,
the service is non-common carriage. Consistent with this approach, we
propose to rely on the designation by an applicant of its status as a
common carrier or non-common carrier, consistent with the Commission's
decisions regarding the regulatory classification of mobile services,
to enable us to fulfill our obligations to enforce the common carrier
requirements contained in statutes and our regulations. We seek comment
on this proposal.
3. Foreign Ownership Reporting
180. Background. Certain foreign ownership and citizenship
requirements are imposed by paragraphs (a) and (b) of Section 310 of
the Act, as modified by the 1996 Act. These provisions prohibit the
issuance of licenses to certain applicants. For current LMDS, 37 GHz,
and 39 GHz licensees, these statutory provisions are adopted in Part
101 of the Commission's rules at section 101.7 of the Commission's
rules. Specifically, section 101.7(a) prohibits the granting of any
license to be held by a foreign government or its representative.
Section 101.7(b) prohibits the granting of any common carrier license
to be held by individuals that fail any of the four citizenship
requirements listed.
181. Discussion. We tentatively conclude that these Section 310
requirements would apply to any applicants in the Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service. An applicant requesting authorization only for
broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en-route, or aeronautical Fixed
Services would be prohibited from holding a license if it met any of
the criteria in paragraph (b). If the applicant requested authorization
for services other than for broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en
route, or aeronautical Fixed Services, it could hold a license if it
met the single alien ownership requirement in Section 310(a),
regardless of whether it would otherwise be disqualified for a common
carrier authorization. And if the applicant requested authorization for
both non-common carrier and common carrier services, it would be
disqualified from a license if it met any of the criteria in Section
310(b). Whether the applicant is seeking only common carrier
authorization in a license or in combination with a non-common carrier
authorization, the provisions of Section 310(b) would apply in either
situation and would prevent any common carrier authorization from being
issued to an ineligible applicant.
182. We propose that applicants for this band should not be subject
to different obligations in reporting their foreign ownership based on
the type of service authorization requested in the application.
Consequently, we propose to require all applicants to provide the same
foreign ownership information, which covers both paragraphs (a) and (b)
of Section 310, regardless of which service they propose to provide in
the band. We also note that, if any such licensee later desires to
provide any services that are subject to the restrictions in Section
310(b), we would require the licensee to apply to the Commission for an
amended license, and we would consider issues related to foreign
ownership at that time.
183. Based on the foregoing interpretation of the requirements in
Section 310, we propose to apply a new provision in Part 30 that
mirrors current section 101.7 of our rules. This approach is also
consistent with our treatment of flexible use services regulated under
Part 27 of the Commission's rules. We believe that such a provision
would properly implement the restrictions contained in Section 310(a)
and (b). We request comment on this proposal, including any costs and
benefits.
4. Eligibility
184. For the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service, we propose to
adopt an open eligibility standard and seek comment on this approach,
including its costs and benefits. In particular, we seek comment on
whether adopting an open eligibility standard for the licensing of
these bands would encourage efforts to develop new technologies,
products, and services, while helping to ensure efficient use of this
spectrum. We note that an open eligibility approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications
that may apply under our rules.
5. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
185. Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile
wireless services, and ensuring access to and the availability of
sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting the competition that drives
innovation and investment. The Commission has held that the
Communications Act requires a close examination of the impact of
spectrum aggregation on competition, innovation, and the efficient use
of spectrum to ensure that spectrum is allocated and assigned in a
manner that serves the public interest, convenience and necessity, and
avoids the excessive concentration of licenses. In May 2014, the
Commission adopted the Mobile Spectrum Holdings R&O, which revised its
mobile spectrum holding policies. The Commission determined, among
other things, to replace its post-auction case-by-case analysis of the
licensing of spectrum bands through competitive bidding with a
determination of whether a band-specific mobile spectrum holding limit
is necessary and, if so, to establish that limit ex ante. The
Commission further determined to continue to use its initial spectrum
screen and case-by-case review for proposed secondary market
transactions.
[[Page 1824]]
186. We seek comment generally on how to address any mobile
spectrum holdings issues involving the bands proposed for the new radio
service in order to meet our statutory requirements and our goals for
these bands. As discussed below, we are proposing to resolve all
applications and license assignments in areas where there is currently
no fixed licensee through competitive bidding. In considering whether
to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for the licensing of a
particular band through competitive bidding, as well as what type of
limit to apply, the Commission concluded in the Mobile Spectrum
Holdings R&O that it will assess whether the acquisition at auction of
licenses to use a significant portion of spectrum by one or more
providers could potentially harm the public interest by reducing the
likelihood that multiple service providers would have access to
sufficient spectrum to compete robustly. The Commission indicated that
this determination will be based on several factors, including total
amount of spectrum to be assigned, characteristics of the spectrum to
be assigned, timing of when the spectrum could be used, and the
specific rights being granted to licensees of the spectrum. The
Commission indicated that the determination also will be based on the
extent to which competitors have opportunities to gain access to
alternative bands that would serve the same purpose as the spectrum
licenses at issue. We seek comment on whether to adopt a band-specific
spectrum holding limit in the licensing of these spectrum bands through
competitive bidding, either for individual bands or a combination of
these bands, and ask commenters to consider the costs and benefits of
any such limits.
187. In addition to considering whether to adopt a band-specific
limit on the aggregation of these spectrum bands, we also will consider
whether these bands are suitable and available for the provision of
mobile telephony/broadband services in the same manner as other
spectrum bands that currently are included in the Commission's spectrum
screen as applied to secondary market transactions. Spectrum bands
currently included in the spectrum screen are: 700 MHz; cellular; SMR;
broadband PCS; H Block at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz; Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS) in the 1710-1755 and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-
1, on a market-by-market basis), the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and
2155-2180 MHz bands (AWS-3, on a market-by-market basis), and the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands (AWS-4); Wireless
Communications Service (WCS); Broadband Radio Service (BRS, on a
market-by-market basis), and Educational Broadband Service (EBS, on a
market-by-market basis), as well as 600 MHz at the conclusion of the
Incentive Auction). We seek comment on our proposed approach not to
include these bands in the spectrum screen. Similar to the
determination of whether to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for
the licensing of a particular band through competitive bidding, the
determination of ``suitability'' and ``availability'' in the context of
secondary market transactions review involves the evaluation of a
number of factors related to the spectrum bands to be held by the
acquiring entity. In that regard, we recognize that mmW bands could be
particularly useful in supporting very high capacity networks in areas
that require such capacity but are likely, given these bands' current
technical characteristics, to be used to complement existing lower-band
spectrum up through the BRS/EBS band that is currently considered
suitable and available for the provision of mobile wireless services.
We also recognize the nascent state of mmW technology, as well the
early stage of the development of the accompanying standards. In light
of these circumstances, it is not clear that, for purposes of including
these bands in the spectrum screen applied to secondary market
transactions, the bands we propose to license will be ``suitable'' and
``available'' spectrum for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband
services in the near term. We therefore are disinclined to include
these spectrum bands in the spectrum screen and seek comment on this
proposed approach.
6. Performance Requirements
a. Introduction
188. The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote
the productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide
service to customers in a timely manner, and to promote the provision
of innovative services in unserved areas, particularly rural ones. Our
overriding purpose in establishing performance requirements is to
provide ``a clear and expeditious accounting of spectrum use by
licensees to ensure that service is indeed being provided to the
public.''
189. In the case of Part 101 services, such as 24 GHz, LMDS, and 39
GHz, licensees are required to demonstrate that they are providing
``substantial service'' at the end of their first license period in
order to obtain renewal. The Commission has generally defined
substantial service as ``service which is sound, favorable, and
substantially above a level of mediocre service which might minimally
warrant renewal.''
190. For Part 101 Fixed Services, including the LMDS and 39 GHz
services, the Commission has generally specified safe harbors that will
satisfy the substantial service requirement. It has also emphasized
that safe harbors are merely one means of demonstrating substantial
service, and that given an appropriate showing, a level of service that
does not meet a safe harbor may still constitute substantial service.
It has also determined that all substantial service showings that do
not meet an established safe harbor would be evaluated on a case-by-
case basis.
In connection with its Wireless Backhaul proceeding, the Commission
rejected an argument from the National Spectrum Managers Association
(NSMA) that the Commission should credit antecedent activities such as
developing equipment, offering spectrum leases, and submitting
proposals to potential customers towards a finding of substantial
service.
191. In the NOI, we discussed performance requirements in the
context of the four mechanisms for licensing vacant spectrum on which
we sought comment: (1) Licensing exclusive rights to geographic areas,
(2) nonexclusive licensing rules using automated frequency
coordination, (3) an unlicensed regime under Part 15 of our rules, and
(4) a hybrid, spectrum-sharing model. With respect to the first
licensing mechanism, we noted that one potential concern with it is
that ``portions of license areas outside of high-traffic areas could
end up lying fallow.'' We proposed three different ways we might deal
with that concern: (1) Relying on secondary market leasing, (2)
establishing smaller licensing areas, and (3) adjusting performance
requirements to ensure the spectrum is maximally utilized. We noted
that there were several ways to pursue this last option, including more
objective buildout requirements and an alternative remedy for failure
to build out (e.g., keep-what-you-use, which we noted could take
several different forms).
192. Several commenters addressed the issue of applying performance
requirements in licensing the millimeter wave bands. Qualcomm and
Straight Path expressed support for imposing reasonable performance
requirements. Other commenters suggested that adjusted performance
requirements
[[Page 1825]]
were potential or promising solutions, but stopped short of endorsing
them. Other commenters were more skeptical of performance requirements
as a tool for ensuring spectrum utilization in these bands, arguing
either that traditional performance requirements are: (1) Unnecessary
if the Commission adopts proper secondary-market policies; or (2)
insufficient to ensure spectrum utilization in an exclusive licensing
regime based on geographic area. Finally, we note that some of the
fixed incumbent licensees argued that buildout requirements for Mobile
Services and Fixed Services should be separate so that a failure to
meet the mobile requirement would not result in cancellation of the
fixed license.
b. Geographic Performance Requirements at the County Level
193. As discussed elsewhere in this NPRM, for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz,
and 37 GHz bands, we propose to license each band using county-based
licenses. In the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, we also propose to assign
exclusive rights to geographic areas to existing licensees. In order to
make this approach work, we would subdivide existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz
licenses on a county basis, where an LMDS or 39 GHz fixed incumbent
licensee would give up its existing license and receive new
license(s)--containing both fixed and mobile rights--for every county
that lay within one of its existing license areas.
194. We propose to apply performance requirements for the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service at the county level. By proposing to
license service areas by county and to measure performance requirements
on a county basis, we are providing licensees with flexibility to offer
service in counties where the licensee determines it is technologically
and economically feasible to do so. A licensee that decides to offer
service in such a county would be able to meet the performance
requirement and keep its license at the end of its first license term,
without needing to provide service in any adjacent counties. Thus, if a
licensee held licenses for nearby counties--either because it had
obtained them at auction or because it was an existing fixed licensee
whose service area had included other counties--and it determined it
could not meet the performance requirement in those other counties,
those licenses would terminate and go back to the Commission without
jeopardizing the licenses in the county where the licensee had built
out. Moreover, for licenses in counties where the performance
requirement was not met, the Commission would be able to make those
licenses available for use by others through re-auction, ensuring that
other operators could use the spectrum in those areas.
195. We propose this approach in an effort to foster expeditious
deployment by licensees in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands for the
provision of wireless, terrestrial broadband service, and to enable
others to have a chance to use the spectrum in areas where such
deployment has failed to occur during that time. Because licensees
could keep any counties in which they satisfy the performance
requirement, and because we are proposing a relatively low population-
based benchmark (in comparison to buildout benchmarks we have imposed
recently), licensees in these bands would be more likely to build out
to actually provide services in areas where it is feasible and less
likely to build for the sake of keeping their licensees. At the same
time, we believe this scheme still fulfills the basic function of
performance requirements in ensuring that spectrum is utilized and
spectrum gatekeeping and warehousing is avoided.
196. We observe that several commenters supported the adoption of
reasonable performance requirements in these bands, though they did not
propose or endorse any specific benchmarks. Other commenters, though
they did not explicitly endorse performance requirements, suggested
that adjusted performance requirements were options that should be
considered. We encourage comment on whether our proposal strikes the
appropriate balance between requirements that are too low as to not
result in meaningful buildout and those that would be so high as to be
unattainable. We also seek comment on whether other benchmarks
represent more appropriate requirements. Commenters should discuss and
quantify how any supported buildout requirements will affect investment
and innovation, as well as discuss and quantify other costs and
benefits associated with their proposals. We continue to believe that
performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring that licensed
spectrum does not lie fallow. At the same time, however, we recognize
that the unique characteristics of frequencies above 24 GHz may require
us to adopt a thoughtfully calibrated approach to performance
requirements. We recognize that these unique characteristics are likely
to cause prospective licensees in these bands to be interested in
serving relatively small geographic areas (e.g., urban areas), at least
in the short-to-medium term. Accordingly, we are proposing a smaller
coverage requirement than we have recently applied in other lower
frequency bands. We seek comment on applying performance requirements
at the county level. Is there another more appropriate geographic unit
we should use for evaluating compliance with performance requirements?
c. Performance Metrics
197. Under the Communication's Act, we have an obligation to adopt
rules that prevent the warehousing of spectrum, and we have an interest
in doing so--it is our goal to create a regulatory scheme that promotes
the rapid and widespread deployment of wireless broadband, to
consumers' benefit. The Commission commonly measures performance on the
basis of population covered by a licensee in a license area. This
approach can be readily adopted to wide-area coverage based fixed
systems (point-to-multipoint systems). For licensees providing fixed,
point-to-point links, the Commission has generally evaluated buildout
using a different metric--it compares the number of links in operation
to the population of the license area. The Commission has also
evaluated buildout, including in rural areas, by the percentage of land
area served by a licensee.
198. We believe, given that technologies under development for
these bands could be used for ``fixed'' or ``mobile'' uses, as
described below, that it would be highly desirable to have a universal
performance metric that could work across various types of services.
Otherwise, we open the possibility of gaming the performance
requirements, which would be counter to our statutory obligation and
our policy prerogative. For example, if we adopted different buildout
requirements for different services under the same license, a licensee
might choose the lowest-common-denominator metric in order to provide a
safe harbor for performance, even if this metric does not match the
licensee's actual plans to build out a network. We believe, in general,
it would be better to have a single metric covering different varieties
of network deployment in these bands.
199. With this in mind, we seek comment on the appropriate type of
metric to be used in evaluating buildout in the mmW bands. Is it
feasible and appropriate to develop a unified metric combining fixed,
mobile, and satellite service? If so, what is the best way to define
that metric?
200. Of the three traditional performance metrics, it appears that
population coverage is the one most
[[Page 1826]]
naturally suited to encompass both mobile and fixed network topologies.
For each of these uses, it should be possible to develop a service
contour and calculate its coverage in terms of the population within
the coverage area. For a short-range mobile networks, we might expect
this coverage area to be a ring concentrated around each base station.
For longer-range fixed links, a narrow ``keyhole'' contour may be
applicable. Regardless, both could be determined in terms of a common
unit of measurement, i.e., a measure of population that is served by
the station. We seek comment on whether such a population-based
approach would be appropriate for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
service. We also seek comment on the alternative of using an area-based
metric.
201. If we use a population-based metric, we proposed to require
that the applicant demonstrate that it is providing reliable signal
coverage and that the applicant demonstrate that it is using the
facilities to provide service, either to customers or for internal use.
In terms of providing reliable signal coverage, we propose to measure
coverage at the census block level, and that a census block will be
considered ``covered'' if a reliable signal level is placed over the
centroid of the census block. Under this methodology if a licensee
provides coverage to a census block or multiple census blocks that have
a total population equal to 40% of the population of the county the
licensee would be deemed to meet the performance requirement and would
retain the license for the entire county. We seek comment on this
methodology or whether, alternatively, we should use some other
methodology for determining coverage. In terms of defining service, we
propose to require that a licensee demonstrate that all of the
requisite infrastructure elements are in place and operational
(including certified radio equipment, power, backhaul, etc.) and that
the radio facilities are part of a network that provides ongoing
service to unaffiliated paying subscribers or for bona fide private
uses. We also seek comment on what engineering methodology would be
appropriate to ensure consistent measurement of service area across
different network topologies and technologies.
202. We also seek comment on alternative ways to measure population
if we use a population-based metric. To the extent systems are used
primarily at businesses, is there any way to reliably measure the
daytime population within an area? If a system is used to serve an area
with a heavy tourist or transient population, is it possible and
appropriate to measure those types of populations?
203. Alternatively, is there some other method to normalize
performance measurement so that it applies consistently to both fixed
and mobile network deployments? For example, is it possible to assign
some sort of population-based metric or area-based metric to a fixed-
point-to-point link? What factors would be appropriate to consider in
assigning a population or area to a fixed link (e.g., population in or
near the location of the link, interference contour around the link)?
Are there other non-population based technical metrics that should be
considered in measuring performance (e.g., use of services associated
with the link, capacity of the link)? Is there some metric other than
population, land area, or number of links that we should consider?
204. We also seek comment on the possible alternative of having a
separate performance requirement for fixed services. In LMDS, the
Commission required licensees to provide substantial service. The
Commission elaborated on what may constitute substantial service by
offering some specific examples, which are sometimes referred to as
safe harbors, to provide LMDS licensees with a degree of certainty as
to how to comply with the substantial service requirement by the end of
the initial license term. The Commission explained that an LMDS
licensee that chooses to offer fixed, point-to-point services may fall
within a safe harbor by constructing four permanent links per one
million people in its licensed service area. We seek comment on the
advantages and disadvantages of adopting a performance benchmark for
fixed services based on the number of links compared to the population
in a licensee's service area. We also seek comment on how we would
reconcile performance requirements that vary depending on the type of
service provided to ensure the spectrum is being put to use.
205. As noted above, we are seeking comment on means of
facilitating sharing between terrestrial licensees in the 28 GHz, 37
GHz, and 39 GHz bands and FSS operators. We seek comment on whether it
would be possible to incorporate satellite operations into a unified
engineering metric. If we do not develop a unified metric, we propose
that a FSS operator holding an Upper Microwave Flexible Use license
used in association with an earth station be required to demonstrate
that the earth station is in operation and providing service. We seek
comment on what factors we should consider in determining whether the
earth station is providing service. Should we use the same criteria we
listed above?
d. Performance Milestones
206. The mmW bands have propagation characteristics that are well-
suited for high bandwidth applications and intensive spectral reuse.
However, because of the relatively small coverage area of a site
operating on mmW spectrum, deploying a wide-area network may not be
ideal, or it may not be necessary given the potential that these bands
will provide primarily capacity, at least in cellular-type
applications. In addition, given the nascent state of technology in
these bands, we anticipate that it will take substantially longer to
deploy these systems than in lower frequency bands. We also anticipate
that initial deployments in these bands will take place in highly
localized areas where there is demand for the speed and other
characteristics these systems will provide.
207. Therefore, we propose that an Upper Microwave Flexible Use
licensee providing mobile or point-to-multipoint service provide
reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least 40 percent of
the population in each of its county-based license areas at the end of
the initial license term. We also propose to incorporate point-to-point
operations into a population-based metric using the ``keyhole'' contour
and include the population in that area within the keyhole contour in
determining the population served by a station. We seek comment on this
proposal. If, instead, we adopt the area-based metric described above,
we would require an area coverage milestone that would be calibrated to
be equivalent to 40 percent of the population. We seek comment on
whether this calibration should represent the land area encompassing
approximately 40 percent of population for the average U.S. county or
whether it should be calibrated separately for each county in the
United States. If we adopt separate benchmarks for fixed operations, we
seek comment on what those benchmarks should be. We also seek comment
on adopting a special rule that FSS licensees using Upper Microwave
Flexible Use licenses in connection with FSS earth stations would be
required to show that the associated earth station was in operation and
providing service. We seek comment on these proposals, as well as
alternatives.
[[Page 1827]]
e. Penalty
208. We propose that if a licensee fails to meet the buildout
requirement in any county, its authorization for each county in which
it fails to meet the requirement would terminate automatically without
Commission action. This penalty is widely applied in many wireless
services. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there any alternative
penalties that may be appropriate?
f. Use-or-Share Obligation
209. One of the most important characteristics of bands above 24
GHz is that the propagation and atmospheric absorption characteristics
result in shorter range communications. While those characteristics
provide challenges, they also provide greater opportunity for frequency
reuse without interference. Accordingly, we believe these bands are
particularly good candidates for sharing. At the same time, a sharing
mechanism can discourage warehousing and other improper behavior that
result in spectrum not being used. We believe a ``use-or-share'' rule
would provide another mechanism for ensuring that spectrum is put to
productive use.
210. We propose that portions of a license area that remain unused
after 5 years after the initial license is issued, or, for incumbent
licensees, five years after the effective date of the new rules, be
made available for shared use by other users. This shared use would be
on a non-interfering basis to the licensees' use. We propose that after
the first five years, the extent of unused spectrum could continue to
change. In other words, a licensee would be free to expand its
operations (with the requirement that other users retract service from
the expanded area) or a licensee could reduce its operations (making
more portions of the license area available for shared access). We seek
comment on this proposal, including the costs and benefits.
211. We also seek comment on establishing a specific framework for
sharing. How should we define ``unused spectrum'' for these purposes
(or conversely, how would we define ``use'' for these purposes)? We
have previously proposed that licensees be required to make available
information on their proposed facilities. Would that information be
sufficient to provide information on what constituted ``unused
spectrum?'' What would be the best way to define and determine what
areas were unused? Should we adopt technical criteria for determining
when spectrum is used? If so, what are the appropriate criteria? Should
shared use be authorized on a licensed basis or under Part 15 of the
Commission's rules? What mechanism should be used to maintain sharing
boundaries and prevent harmful interference? Would an SAS be the best
means of administering a sharing mechanism, or should the Commission
adopt some other coordination mechanism? We seek comment on these and
all other issues associated with establishing a sharing framework.
g. Service After the Initial License Term
212. We seek comment on what requirements we should apply in the
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service after a licensee makes a
performance showing after its initial license term. We intend to create
a mechanism to require that this spectrum is continually used,
including ensuring that licensees that have met their performance
requirements continue to provide service and expand their networks. As
technology develops for these bands, should we require licensees to
make more stringent construction showings after the initial license
term? If so, what should those additional requirements be, and when
should they apply? If a licensee substantially reduces service after
making its initial buildout showing, should it be subject to penalties
over and above the obligation to share spectrum? Are there other
requirements we should impose in order to ensure that spectrum
continues to be put in use? For instance, should we require a
performance showing, even using the exact same metric, at some regular
interval after the initial performance deadline?
h. Treatment of Incumbent Licenses
213. We recognize that current LMDS and 39 GHz licensees may be
planning to meet current requirements concerning substantial service
and renewal expectancy. In order to provide a smooth transition, we
propose to apply the existing performance requirement to incumbent LMDS
and 39 GHz licensees at the end of their current license terms, so long
as the license term expires prior to March 1, 2021. We recognize that
current licensees will have a difficult choice--to try to acquire new
equipment and deploy right at the potential launch of mobile mmW
services (expected around 2020), or provide innovative fixed services.
We seek comment on this proposal. Alternatively, we seek comment on
allowing current licensee to meet their performance requirements under
the current rules at some earlier date, for example 2018.
i. Alternatives to Construction-Based Performance Requirements
214. We acknowledge that some commenters question whether
traditional performance requirements are necessary or appropriate in
these bands, based on observations about market incentives to use
spectrum and the unique characteristics of millimeter frequencies. We
believe, for the reasons described above, that performance requirements
are an important tool to ensure that spectrum is utilized. However, we
also recognize that traditional performance requirements in these bands
would create certain challenges. These challenges include taking into
account the unique difficulties for licensees that try to deploy
networks using these bands, as well as the difficulties the Commission
would have in enforcing performance requirements in 3,143 counties
nationwide. Therefore, we also seek comment on alternative approaches
we might take to ensuring deployment and spectrum utilization, as well
as the costs and benefits of adopting any of those approaches.
215. First, we seek comment on whether the consecutive license
concept discussed below would provide strong incentives to productive
use that might obviate the need for construction-based performance
milestones. Under that proposal, prospective millimeter wave licensees
could bid for a license in a given county in a single, one-time
auction, and the winning bidder in that auction would be required to
pay the auction price, adjusted for inflation, before the start of each
five-year license term; once the winning bidding made this payment
before a five-year license term, a new license would be issued to the
licensee for that five-year term. Such an approach would be one way to
incentivize construction of network facilities and spectrum use, given
that a licensee would be unlikely to pay the auction price in
successive license terms unless it could come up with a viable long-
term plan for using the spectrum. That approach could also make
traditional performance requirements unnecessary because a licensee
would be unlikely to make future payments for spectrum it does not
intend to use. We seek comment on these approaches, and other
alternative approaches we might take, as well as the costs and benefits
of adopting any of these approaches.
216. Second, we also seek comment on separating interference and
exclusion rights using an ``option'' concept to accomplish the goals of
performance requirements. In the 3.5 GHz
[[Page 1828]]
proceeding, we recently sought comment on a proposal to define ``use''
of priority access licenses in such a way as to separate the right to
operate without interference from the right to exclude other users.
Under that proposal, the priority access licensee would have the right,
but not the obligation, to exclude other users by making an additional
``option'' payment. If this concept has merit, how should the idea be
adapted to comport with the other proposals contained in this
proceeding?
217. We also seek comment on any other alternatives to
construction-based performance requirements that may be appropriate in
the context of the other rules we propose herein.
j. Performance Requirements and Part 25 Operations
218. As noted above, we are seeking comment on means of
facilitating sharing between terrestrial licensees in the 28 GHz, 37
GHz, and 39 GHz bands and FSS operators. We seek comment on whether it
would be appropriate to make any adjustments to our performance
requirements to facilitate such sharing. As noted above, we seek
comment on what FSS licensees using Upper Microwave Flexible Use
licenses in connection with FSS earth stations would be required to
show to demonstrate that the associated earth station was in operation
and providing service. We seek comment on these issues, as well as
other issues relating to the intersection between performance
requirements and sharing with satellite operators.
7. Permanent Discontinuance of Operations
219. For Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees, for
providers that identify their regulatory status as common carrier or
non-common carrier, we propose to define ``permanently discontinued''
as a period of 180 consecutive days during which the licensee does not
provide service to at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to, the provider in the service area of its
license (or smaller service area in the case of a partitioned license).
Under section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission's rules, an authorization
will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if
service is ``permanently discontinued.'' The permanent discontinuance
rule is intended to provide operational flexibility while ensuring that
spectrum does not lie idle for extended periods.
219. We propose a different approach, however, for licensees that
use their licenses for private, internal communications, because such
licensees generally do not provide service to unaffiliated subscribers.
For such private, internal communications, we propose to define
``permanent discontinuance'' as a period of 180 consecutive days during
which the licensee does not operate. Licensees would not be subject to
this requirement until 1 year after their initial license period ends,
so they will have adequate time to construct their network. Allowing
such licensees one year before they are subject to permanent
discontinuance is also consistent with the current Part 101 permanent
discontinuance rules.
220. In addition, consistent with section 1.955(a)(3) of the
Commission's rules, we propose that, if a 28 GHz, 37 GHz, or 39 GHz
licensee permanently discontinues service, the licensee must notify the
Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601
and requesting license cancellation. An authorization will
automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service
is permanently discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the
required form. We seek comment on these proposals, including the
associated costs and benefits.
221. The approach to permanent discontinuance described above is
consistent with the definition that the Commission has adopted for
other spectrum bands that are licensed for mobile use, including the H
Block, AWS-3, and AWS-4 bands. We note that the discontinuance periods
in the Part 101 rules are different, but we tentatively conclude that
those requirements are more applicable to site-licensed microwave
licenses. We seek comment on our proposal.
8. Secondary Markets
a. Partitioning and Disaggregation
222. Background. The Commission's Part 101 rules generally allow
for geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation in the LMDS and
39 GHz service. 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 discrete amounts 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.
223. In 1997, the Commission determined that all LMDS licensees
would generally be permitted to disaggregate and partition their
licensees. The Commission later adopted specific procedural,
administrative, and operational rules to govern the disaggregation and
partitioning of LMDS licenses. Similarly, in the same year, the
Commission concluded that partitioning and disaggregation would be
permitted in the 39 GHz band; and it adopted rules to govern
partitioning and disaggregation in that band as well.
224. We did not address the issue of secondary market transactions,
including partitioning and disaggregation, in the NOI. Nonetheless,
several commenters addressed this area, and those that did were
universally supportive of allowing secondary market transactions in
general and of allowing partitioning and disaggregation in particular.
225. Discussion. We propose to continue permitting partitioning and
disaggregation by 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees and to allow 37 GHz
licensees to partition or disaggregate their licenses. As the
Commission noted when first establishing partitioning and
disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could facilitate the
efficient use of spectrum by enabling licensees to make offerings
directly responsive to market demands for particular types of services,
increasing competition by allowing new entrants to enter markets, and
expediting provision of services that might not otherwise be provided
in the near term. This policy would leave the decision of determining
the correct size of licenses to the licensees and the marketplace,
which is consistent with the flexible approach to licensing these bands
that we have proposed in this NPRM.
226. To ensure that the public interest would be served if
partitioning or disaggregation is allowed, we propose requiring each
licensee in these bands that is a party to a partitioning,
disaggregation, or combination of both, to independently meet the
applicable performance and renewal requirements. We believe this
approach would facilitate efficient spectrum use, while enabling
service providers to configure geographic area licenses and spectrum
blocks to meet their operational needs. We seek comment on these
proposals. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of these proposals with respect to competition, innovation,
and investment.
227. We also seek comment on whether the Commission should adopt
additional or different mechanisms to encourage partitioning and/or
disaggregation of 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and
[[Page 1829]]
39 GHz spectrum, and the extent to which such policies ultimately may
promote more service. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs
and benefits of promoting more service using mechanisms to encourage
partitioning and disaggregation of spectrum in these bands, including
the effects of any proposals.
b. Spectrum Leasing
228. Background. In 2003, in order to promote more efficient use of
terrestrial wireless spectrum through secondary market transactions and
in order to eliminate regulatory uncertainty, the Commission adopted
the Secondary Markets First Report and Order, which contained a
comprehensive set of policies and rules to govern spectrum leasing
arrangements between terrestrial licensees and spectrum lessees. These
policies and rules enabled terrestrially based Wireless Radio Service
licensees holding ``exclusive use'' spectrum rights to lease some or
all of the spectrum usage rights associated with their licenses to
third party spectrum lessees. Those third party lessees were then are
permitted to provide wireless services consistent with the underlying
license authorization.
229. In the 2003 Secondary Markets First Report and Order, the
Commission excluded a number of wireless radio services from the rules
and policies, including Part 101 services. In 2004, however, the
Commission extended the 2003 spectrum leasing policies to a number of
additional wireless services, including Part 101 services. At that
time, the Commission also built upon the 2003 spectrum leasing
framework by establishing immediate approval procedures for certain
categories of terrestrial spectrum leasing arrangements.
230. As mentioned, we did not address secondary market transactions
at all in the NOI. Regardless, in addition to voicing support for
allowing secondary market transactions, several commenters also
specifically supported allowing spectrum leasing arrangements.
231. Discussion. We propose that the spectrum leasing policies and
rules established in those proceedings be applied to the new Part 30
radio service governing Upper Microwave Flexible Use Services,
including all 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz terrestrial licensees. We
propose to apply these rules and policies in the same manner that those
policies apply to Part 101 services. Our secondary markets policies are
designed to promote more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the
spectrum, expand the scope of available wireless services and devices,
enhance economic opportunities for accessing spectrum, and promote
competition among providers. Likewise, allowing spectrum leasing in
these bands will serve these same purposes. We also observe that
``[f]or a particular spectrum band, spectrum leasing policies generally
follow the same approach as the partitioning and disaggregation
policies for the band.'' Thus, our proposal to permit spectrum leasing
in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz services is consistent with our
determination above to permit partitioning and disaggregation in these
spectrum bands.
232. We seek comment on this proposal. Commenters should discuss
the effects on competition, innovation and investment, and on extending
our secondary spectrum leasing policies and rules to these bands.
9. Other Operating Requirements
233. Regardless of which radio service or rule part the licenses in
the these bands are issued pursuant to, licensees may be required to
comply with rules contained in other parts of the Commission's rules
depending on the particular services they provide. 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.
To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile
Radio Service (CMRS), such service would be subject to the provisions
of Part 20 of the Commission's rules, 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.
The application of general provisions of Parts 22, 24, 27,
or 101 would include rules related to equal employment opportunity, 911
service, etc.
234. We seek comment generally on any provisions in existing,
service-specific rules that may require specific recognition or
adjustment to comport with the supervening application of another rule
part, as well as any provisions that may be necessary in this other
rule part to fully describe the scope of covered services and
technologies. We seek comment on applying these rules to the spectrum
that is the subject of this NPRM, and specifically on any rules that
would be affected by our proposal to apply elements of the framework of
these parts, whether separately or in conjunction with other
requirements.
235. We propose, therefore, to also require Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service licensees to comply with certain other rule parts
that pertain generally to wireless communications services. This
approach will maintain general consistency among various wireless
communications services. Further, we seek comment on whether we need to
add any rules in order to ensure that we cover licensees in these bands
under the necessary Commission rules. Finally, we seek comment on any
rules that would be affected by the proposal to apply elements of the
framework of these rule parts, whether separately or in conjunction
with other requirements.
10. Competitive Bidding Procedures
236. As discussed above, we propose to re-designate the existing
LMDS and 39 GHz licenses as a new radio service combining mobile and
fixed rights, in which case the existing fixed licensees would be
assigned new licenses. We note that, of the 986 designated LMDS license
areas, 416 have active licenses at this time, and of the 2,464
designated 39 GHz license areas, 859 have active licenses at this time.
Further, because we have never licensed 37 GHz for fixed or mobile use,
there are currently no active terrestrial licenses in that spectrum.
237. We have a statutory obligation to use competitive bidding to
resolve mutually exclusive applications for licenses. Section 309(j) of
the Communications Act requires that the Commission assign initial
licenses through the use of competitive bidding when mutually exclusive
applications for such licenses are accepted for filing, except in the
case of certain specific statutory exemptions. This statutory mandate
applies to the mmW bands. Consistent with the Commission's policy that
competitive bidding places licenses in the hands of those that value
the spectrum most highly, we believe that it would be in the public
interest to adopt a licensing scheme for the Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service which allows the filing of mutually exclusive applications
that, if accepted, would be resolved through competitive bidding.
238. Under the proposed licensing scheme, we propose to resolve all
applications and license assignments in areas where there is currently
no active licensee through competitive bidding, consistent with our
statutory mandate under Section 309(j). We seek comment on this
proposal. Additionally, we seek comment on a number of proposals
relating to competitive bidding procedures discussed below, including
the costs and benefits of those proposals.
[[Page 1830]]
a. Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules
239. We propose that the Commission would conduct any auction for
licenses of spectrum in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in
conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part
1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's rules, and generally consistent with
the competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in previous
auctions. In July 2015, the Competitive Bidding Update Report & Order
amended the Commission's Part 1 competitive bidding rules by, among
other things, updating the standardized schedule of small business size
standards, instituting a rural service provider bidding credit, and
adopting a process by which we may establish a reasonable monetary
limit or cap on the total amount of bidding credits that an eligible
small business or rural service provider may be awarded in any
particular auction. Specifically, we propose to employ the Part 1 rules
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences,
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 further modifications that the Commission may adopt for its Part 1
general competitive bidding rules in the future. We seek comment on
whether any of our Part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be
modified for an auction of licenses in these frequency bands.
b. Small Business Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
240. Background. 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 Act provides that, in establishing eligibility
criteria and bidding methodologies, the Commission shall seek to
promote a number of objectives, including ``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.
241. 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. As noted
above, we recently updated our standardized schedule of small business
size standards and associated bidding credits. Under the new
standardized schedule, businesses with average annual gross revenues
for the preceding three years not exceeding $4 million would be
eligible for a 35 percent bidding credit, businesses with average
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20
million would be eligible for a 25 percent bidding credit, and
businesses with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three
years not exceeding $55 million would be eligible for a 15 percent
bidding credit.
242. Discussion. We propose to use for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39
GHz bands the standardized schedule of small business size standards we
adopted in the Competitive Bidding Update Report & Order. We also
propose to provide qualifying ``small businesses'' with a bidding
credit of 15 percent and qualifying ``very small businesses'' with a
bidding credit of 25 percent in future auctions of licenses in these
services. We have used these bidding credits in a range of other
services and in instances where ``[w]e do not know the precise type of
service that new licensees may attempt to provide in this band.'' In
the absence of any information in the record at this point about the
capital requirements to allow us to tentatively conclude otherwise, we
propose to use the two small business definitions with higher gross
revenues thresholds. Thus, we propose to define a small business as an
entity with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not
exceeding $55 million, and a very small business as an entity with
average gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $20
million. Consistent with the decision in the Competitive Bidding Update
Report & Order, we also seek comment on whether the unique
characteristics of these frequencies and our proposed licensing model
suggest that we should adopt different small business size standards
and associated bidding credits than we have in the past. We seek
comment on these issues, including the costs and benefits associated
with different approaches we might take.
243. Commenters should focus on the appropriate definitions of
small businesses and very small businesses as they may relate to the
size of the geographic area to be served and the spectrum allocated to
each license. Further, commenters should discuss and quantify any costs
or benefits associated with these standards and associated bidding
credits as they relate to the proposed geographic areas. In discussing
these issues, commenters are requested to address and quantify the
expected capital requirements for services in these bands and other
characteristics of the service. Commenters are also invited to use
comparisons with other frequency bands for which the Commission has
already established service rules as a basis for their comments and any
quantification of costs and benefits regarding the appropriate small
business size standards.
244. In establishing the criteria for small business bidding
credits, we acknowledge the difficulty in accurately predicting the
technology and market conditions that will exist at the time these
frequencies are licensed. Thus, our forecasts of types of services that
will be offered over these bands may require adjustment depending upon
ongoing technological developments and changes in market conditions.
c. Rural Service Provider Provisions for Geographic Area Licenses
245. Background. In the Competitive Bidding Update Report & Order,
the Commission adopted a 15 percent bidding credit for eligible rural
service providers. The new rural service bidding credit allows an
eligible rural service provider that provides commercial communications
services to a customer base of fewer than 250,000 combined wireless,
wireline, broadband, and cable subscribers and serves primarily rural
areas a 15 percent bidding credit. An applicant is permitted to claim a
rural service provider bidding credit or a small business bidding
credit, but not both. The rural service provider bidding credit is
designed to better enable rural service providers to compete for
spectrum licenses, thereby speeding the availability of wireless voice
and broadband services in rural areas, in furtherance of statutory
objectives.
246. Discussion. We seek comment on whether it is appropriate to
apply the rural service provider bidding credit to auction of the 28
GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz. While the rural service provider bidding
credit is new, we have used
[[Page 1831]]
other types of bidding credits in the past to facilitate competition
for spectrum at auction. Given the nature of the services being
contemplated for the mmW bands, is use of the rural service provider
bidding credit appropriate? Commenters are requested to address and
quantify the expected capital requirements for service in rural areas
and other characteristics of the service when provided in rural areas.
247. We note that under our Part 1 rules, a winning bidder for a
market will be eligible to receive a bidding credit for serving a
qualifying Tribal land within that market, provided that it complies
with the applicable competitive bidding rules.
d. Bidding Process Options
248. We seek comment on whether we should revise any of our bidding
process and payment rules to take into consideration the administrative
difficulties for the Commission in enforcing construction requirements
in the 3,143 counties nationwide. One alternative means of encouraging
deployment of network facilities and spectrum utilization (in place of
traditional construction requirements), as discussed above, would be to
allow potential licensees to bid, in a single auction, on licenses that
have consecutive terms of license rights in a given geographic area.
Under this concept, at an auction the licensee would be bidding for the
right to obtain the license not only for the first license term, but at
each consecutive license term, for a fixed price (which could be
adjusted for inflation in successive license terms). We note that, if
we were to adopt such a proposal, we would likely adopt a shorter
license term than ten years, such as five years because a shorter
license term would enable us to ensure that the licensee evaluates its
need for the spectrum on a regular basis. For example, prospective
millimeter wave licensees could bid for a license in a given county in
a single, one-time auction, and the winning bidder in that auction
would be required to pay the auction price, adjusted for inflation,
before the start of each five-year license term; once the winning
bidding made this payment before a five-year license term, a new
license would be issued to the licensee for that five-year term.
Additionally, licensees could be permitted to trade future license
rights via secondary market transactions.
249. This concept could be one way to incentivize deployment for a
diverse range of uses in the public interest and discourage spectrum
warehousing, without imposing traditional performance requirements. We
do not believe the consecutive payments would not be installment
payments because the license for a term would not issue until after
each payment--which had been determined in the auction--had been made
for that term. Thus, the license would terminate automatically if the
payment was not made. We seek comment on this concept, including its
costs and benefits. In the alternative, we seek comment on whether we
should accomplish the same goal by levying license fees in consecutive
intervals in lieu of performance requirements, which may not be well
suited for the types of deployments contemplated in this band.
250. We seek comment, with respect to this proposal, on whether we
should revise any of our payment rules to take into consideration the
potential for applicants to become winning bidders for licenses that do
not become effective until five years or more after the auction has
closed. For instance, under this proposal, should we revise our upfront
payment requirement to better safeguard the Commission against defaults
by a winning bidder on consecutive license terms? Should we require a
winning bidder for consecutive license terms to make a larger down
payment to better safeguard the Commission from defaults in subsequent
terms? Currently, unless otherwise noted by public notice, the
Commission's rules require that within 10 business days after being
notified that it is a high bidder on a particular license the winning
bidder must submit its down payment necessary to bring its total
deposits up to twenty (20) percent of its winning bid(s) or it will be
deemed to have defaulted. Should we increase the down payment
percentage here to be forty percent of the winning bid(s)? Similarly,
unless otherwise specified by public notice, auction winners are
required to pay the balance of their winning bids in a lump sum within
ten business days following the release of a public notice establishing
the payment deadline. Here, we could collect the down payment required
for each Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license at the close of
the auction, including consecutive term licenses, but final payment(s)
would not be due until we are ready to grant the particular Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service license at the beginning of the
subsequent license term. Will retaining down payments on deposit for
consecutive Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license terms,
particularly if the down payment obligation for such a license is
increased, help the Commission safeguard against the potential of
default in subsequent years?
251. We also seek comment on whether we should revise our default
rule to ensure that if a winning bidder wins a Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service license in a licensing area for consecutive terms and
defaults on a payment obligation for a license in that area, it loses
the right it acquired at the auction to be granted a Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service license in that area for any consecutive term?
What incentives would be created by such a default provision, and would
those incentives help to ensure that the spectrum was used
productively? If we hold an auction that offers Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service licenses for consecutive terms, should we also
change the default rule by holding a winning bidder for such licenses
who defaults on its winning bids responsible for a larger default
payment?
252. Would such a default rule adequately safeguard the Commission
should a winning bidder file bankruptcy between the close of an auction
and the date of a future payment obligation? Commenters should address
in particular the application of the Bankruptcy Code's requirement that
an agency ``may not deny, revoke, suspend, or refuse to renew a license
. . . or other similar grant to,'' or ``discriminate with respect to
such a grant against,'' a debtor or a bankrupt ``solely because'' it
``has not paid a debt that is dischargeable'' in bankruptcy.
11. Examining Security To Maximize Effectiveness
253. We seek comment on the best methods to ensure maximum
effectiveness of the use of the mmW bands, cognizant of potential
security vulnerabilities in light of the technology and systems that
are anticipated to comprise new networks. There are high expectations
that these networks will provide capabilities for a tremendous variety
of new devices and applications, including traditional cellular
services, M2M and Internet of Things (IoT) applications, and mission
critical and public safety services, among many others. However, one of
the key challenges facing the developers of new services is to support
numerous distinctly different possible uses in a secure manner. The
security aspect of services using the mmW bands is important to examine
at this time for several reasons including: (1) Services using these
bands can be used to facilitate very dense deployments of wireless
communication links to connect a multitude of wireless devices, many of
which might not be secured or sufficiently secured, (2) the core
[[Page 1832]]
network may be based on software-centric, highly programmable core
network architectures that continue to face serious security questions
that remain unanswered; (3) the ongoing transformation of advanced
mobile communication devices into far more powerful devices of
connectivity, thereby making them more alluring to hackers and more
menacing not only to the devices' owners but also to the global
Internet. The implications of these issues require us to better
understand the security of future mmW band networks in order to promote
public safety through communications networks.
254. Generally, we seek comment on how to ensure that effective
security features are built into key design principles for all mmW band
communications devices and networks. The common network security triad
of confidentiality, integrity, and availability (CIA triad) provides a
convenient frame of reference for the Commission to gain insight into
the security events targeting communications providers and the network
infrastructure in general in order to guide our approach to the
security of communications critical infrastructure. With security built
into the design of mmW band devices and systems, the opportunity will
exist for the creation of a new generation of networks and services
that meet these three critical components of a secure system. To that
end, our questions below are organized around these three critical
security components.
255. Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from
unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in transit.
What existing or planned methods of authentication in mobile or fixed
networks provide sufficient confidentiality under the conditions
planned for mmW band networks? Are there any specific uses or
characteristics of the spectrum discussed in this proceeding, alone or
in conjunction with other bands, that would make it difficult to ensure
the confidentiality of users, either in terms of the content or the
circumstances (time, place, and manner) of their use? What implications
do the proposed uses of these bands have for authentication of users?
What, if any, action should the Commission take to ensure that an
appropriate level of confidentiality is provided to the content of
users communications (e.g., voice, video and data) and to the data
generated as part of the communication (usage history, etc.)?
256. Integrity refers to the protection against the unauthorized
modification or destruction of information. Does the shorter range of
communications in these bands and concomitant expected reliance on more
access points increase, or decrease the ease of interception and
potential compromise of integrity of the communication? What security
or architectural methods might mitigate such issues, and are they under
consideration by the appropriate standards bodies? What actions could
the Commission take to assist industry in developing minimum security
standards in order to ensure the integrity of devices that connect to
or through other devices using these bands or any other network
connection?
257. Availability refers to the accessibility and usability of a
network upon demand. What conditions should be considered in order to
ensure the availability and security of networks utilizing the mmW
bands? To what extent will planned capabilities be robust and secure
enough to support communication all the time?
258. We seek comment on the extent to which existing and previous
wireless protocols do not inherently derive useful security services
from the underlying transport layer and how such vulnerabilities could
be prevented from propagation into mmW band networks. For example,
would spectrum used in these bands to supply common carrier services
have similar security requirements to similar services using lower
bands, and if not, how do security requirements differ? Would security
requirements vary based on the use of the service (i.e., voice or
data), and if so, how? We seek comment on whether the protocols
established for these bands might include elements specifically
designed to provide security value for higher layers of the OSI Model.
The OSI Model is a theoretical model of networks that organizes the
network functions into various layers (physical, datalink, network,
transport, session, presentation, and application layers) and specifies
the communications interfaces between these layers and between network
endpoints utilizing an OSI Model-based protocol suite. The
International Standards Organization (ISO) developed this model of how
networks should behave and how they are put together. The ISO OSI Model
is used throughout the network, Internet and telecommunications
industries today to describe various networking issues, and can be
useful in explaining how various technologies interact, where they
reside, what functions they perform, and how each protocol communicates
with other protocols. Would some of these attributes be more meaningful
for enterprise use, or for personal use?
F. Technical Rules
1. Introduction
259. Our goal in establishing technical rules is to develop a
flexible set of rules that will authorize as wide a variety of services
as possible and avoid mandating specific technologies or deployment
models. We recognize that the technology is still in early stages of
development, and intend to create a set of technical rules that
encourage, rather than inhibit that development. We also recognize that
we may need to be nimble and flexible as the technology develops, and
update our rules as appropriate.
260. A common theme among the comments and replies that we received
in response to the NOI was that the Commission should consider a
``light'' regulatory approach in the development of technical rules so
that new wireless technologies might flourish. In commenting on our
proposed technical rules, we encourage commenters to keep that
principle in mind. If commenters believe our proposed rules are
inconsistent with the goal of technical flexibility, we ask them to
explain their belief and suggest alternatives.
2. Flexible Duplexing Rules
261. Many commenters responding to the NOI emphasize that mmW
technology is in an early stage of development and request that the
Commission consider a flexible regulatory regime in order to provide
maximum flexibility. We agree with commenters that there is no need to
mandate a duplexing option at this stage of mmW technology research and
development. In addition, we would prefer to avoid adopting any rules
that would preclude the development of new forms of duplexing that
further technological advances might introduce. For those reasons, we
propose to adopt flexible use in 27.5-28.35 GHz band, 37-38.6 GHz band,
and 38.6-40 GHz band by allowing TDD and FDD deployment subject to
other relevant technical rules to manage the interference.
262. In the 39 GHz band, we previously proposed above to continue
using the existing 39 GHz channel plan. The 39 GHz band is subdivided
into 14 channel pairs. Each channel pair has 50 megahertz by 50
megahertz of spectrum and is licensed on an Economic Area geographical
service area basis. The existing band plan was created to support
traditional fixed point- to-point and point-to-multi-point wireless
services. Our current rules do not prescribe or preclude either FDD or
TDD based wireless operations, however,
[[Page 1833]]
paired 50 MHz channels in the band plan naturally imply FDD operations.
Most commenters agree that the technologies proposed for mobile mmW, at
a minimum, will need at least 100 MHz of contiguous spectrum. Some
commenters even suggested the need for up to 2GHz of contiguous
bandwidth. We seek comment on the impact of the current channel plan,
which may favor FDD operations, on the ability to deploy future mmW
wireless networks that might deploy either FDD or TDD based
technologies. Should we consider alternate band plans in order to
accommodate TDD operations, and if so, how should we modify our
proposals to accommodate such band plans?
3. Transmission Power Limits and Antenna Height
a. Base Stations
263. Currently, the Part 101 rules allow a maximum EIRP of +55dBW
(or +85dBm) for the 28 GHz band and the 39 GHz band order to provide
flexible fixed services for various applications. Existing service
providers in the 28 and 39 GHz bands generally use those bands for
establishing fixed point-to-point or point-to-multipoint high capacity
communication links. A fixed transmitter typically includes a high-gain
antenna mounted at a high tower elevation in order to provide a line-
of-sight path to the receiving antenna. The range of these
communication links often extends to several miles when the maximum
allowed transmission power is used. We propose that we maintain the
existing EIRP limit of +55dBW (or +85dBm) solely for fixed point-to-
point or point-to-multipoint systems. This limit would allow continued
operation of current or future fixed point-to-point or point-to-
multipoint systems that are operating consistent with the current Part
101 rules, and we are not aware of any problems with the existing limit
for fixed operations.
264. In response to the Notice of Inquiry, most commenters envision
mmW band Mobile Services as supplementing existing 3G/4G services by
overlaying their comparatively large cells with deployment of small
cell-like equipment, with service radii of a few hundred meters.
Commenters suggest a maximum transmission power limit of 58-65 dBm EIRP
for base stations. Intel states that ``58 dBm (631 watts) EIRP for base
station transmitters . . . could achieve the performance and range for
the applications targeted for these bands.'' Samsung states that, in
its field trials, ``Based on a 58 dBm EIRP limit, satisfactory
communications links were attained even in non-line-of-sight scenarios
more than 200 meters away.'' Straight Path states that ``the FCC
[should] adopt an EIRP limit of 65 dBm (3160 watts) for base stations
operating in the 39 GHz and LMDS bands. This is consistent with the
maximum power limit for other spectrum in which mobile services
operate--e.g., the Cellular, Broadband PCS, WCS, AWS, and 700 MHz
bands.'' Furthermore, most commenters are proposing to build systems
with emission bandwidth greater than 100 megahertz. Samsung and
Motorola suggest 100 megahertz of channel bandwidth, while Nokia and
NYU propose a minimum bandwidth of 300 megahertz and 500 megahertz. TIA
and Huawei state that 1-2 gigahertz of spectrum may be aggregated to
provide gigabit throughput.
265. Based on the proposed deployment and service scenarios of mmW
mobile broadband service, we conclude that the transmission power
limits of Mobile Services in PCS and AWS bands are more applicable than
the Part 101 FS rules as potential models for the mmW mobile broadband
service. Therefore, we propose to adopt 1640 watts (or 62dBm) EIRP as
the maximum transmission power limit for base stations operating in the
28, 39, and 37 GHz bands.
266. In a number of recent proceedings, the Commission has applied
the power spectral density concept when adopting transmission power
limits. For example, base stations operating in the PCS, AWS-1, AWS-3,
AWS-4 and 700 MHz bands are allowed to operate at maximum power when
transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 1 megahertz or less and may
scale the transmission power linearly per 1 megahertz with an emission
bandwidth greater than 1 megahertz. For base stations operating in the
28, 39, and 37 GHz bands, we propose to adopt 100 megahertz as the
scaling factor such that the base station transmission power is limit
to 1640 watts EIRP, when transmitting with less than 100 megahertz of
emission bandwidth and 1640 watts EIRP per 100 megahertz when
transmitting with more than 100 megahertz of emission bandwidth. This
proposed rule would allow additional transmission power for systems
employing more than 100 megahertz emission bandwidth, and it would
support the maximum transmission power limits suggested by commenters.
We also propose to adopt the practice of doubling transmission power
limits in rural counties where the population density is 100 or fewer
persons per square mile, based on the most recently available
population statistics from the Bureau of the Census. We seek comment on
these proposed transmission power limit rules.
267. Some commenters suggest that in-band backhaul might be
feasible in the mmW bands by dedicating certain portion of array
antennas of 5G system for backhaul use or allocating certain portion of
timeslots of TDD 5G system for backhaul use. Recently, the Commission
modified 60GHz rules to allow a peak EIRP limit of 85 dBm with very
high gain antennas to support outdoor point-to-point backhaul service.
We seek comment on whether a higher transmission power limit should be
considered for the in-band application where the same equipment is used
to for mobile service and backhaul service.
268. Our PCS and AWS rules require reduction of the transmission
power limit when the antenna height is more than 305 meters (or 1000
feet). The purpose of those rules is to mitigate the risk of harmful
interference from high-elevation transmitters to neighboring services
in adjacent markets. We seek comment on whether a similar antenna
height limit should be applied to the base stations operating in the
proposed bands. Should we allow increased antenna heights in rural
areas? We request that commenters provide technical analyses to justify
their proposals.
b. Mobile Stations
269. Commenters propose a wide range of mobile station transmission
power limits in response to the NOI. Nokia states that ``at this time
we are assuming approximately +30dBm EIRP for mobile units which can
serve as an initial guidance to the Commission.'' Intel states that
34dBm, including 9dBi of array gain with 8 elements, for mobile devices
could achieve the performance and range for the applications targeted
for these bands. Straight Path recommends that ``for mobile station,
the FCC should adopt a 30dBm maximum output power and 43 dBm maximum
peak EIRP. Samsung recommends 85dBm for 5G mobile stations operating in
the 28 GHz band, which is the current transmission limit for base
stations operating in the LMDS band.
270. We are tentatively inclined to accept Straight Path's
recommendation that, for mobile transmitters in the 28, 39, and 37 GHz
bands, we should adopt the same maximum peak EIRP limit of 43 dBm (20
watts) that is already allowed in the 57-64 GHz band under the current
Part 15 rules. As discussed in further detail below, all radiofrequency
devices are subject to the radiofrequency radiation exposure
specifications in sections 1.1307(b),
[[Page 1834]]
2.1091 and 2.1093 of the Commission's rules. When the 57-64 GHz rules
were adopted in 1995, most of the products envisioned for that band
were not handheld devices, and the higher transmission power was
granted to support future technologies that were expected at that time.
In practice, most of the part 15 devices presently reaching consumers
for operation in 57-64 GHz band are generally expected to be used at
least 20 centimeters away from the user's body and are therefore
subject to the requirements in section 2.1091 of the rules. Handheld
and other portable user equipment operating in close proximity to users
will likely have to operate at lower power in order to comply with the
limits specified in section 2.1093 for devices which are likely to be
used within 20 centimeters of the user's body under. A device operating
at a lower power level to satisfy exposure limits will likely comply
with the proposed maximum peak EIRP limit. Thus, we propose that the
same maximum peak EIRP limits would apply in any case so long as the
exposure limits are met, and a reduction or separate categorization of
maximum peak EIRP for different types of devices depending on normal
use is unnecessary and redundant with the requirements in sections
2.1091 and 2.1093 of the Commission's rules. We maintain that the
requirements applicable to equipment operating in the 28, 39, and 37
GHz bands to demonstrate compliance with the Commission's exposure
limits will depend on the normally maintained separation distance from
a user's body. The combined effect of those rules and a maximum peak
EIRP limit of 43 dBm would be to ensure compliance with the exposure
limits while allowing industry flexibility to develop higher-powered
transmitters for situations where an appropriate separation distance is
maintained. We seek comment on this tentative conclusion and invite
alternative proposals.
4. Emission Limits
271. Background. Rule 101.111(a)(2)(iv) establishes an emission
limit for fixed stations operating in the 28 GHz band expressed as A=11
+ .4*(P-50) + 10log10B, where A is attenuation below the mean output
power of the transmitter, B is the authorized bandwidth in megahertz
(40 megahertz for the LMDS band), and P is the percentage by which the
transmitter bandwidth is removed from the carrier frequency. This
emission limit is defined in conducted fashion. For fixed stations
operating in the 39 GHz band, there are several rule sections that
apply to emission limitations according to the type of digital
modulation techniques deployed. These rules are created to support
various fixed microwave technologies with conventional antenna systems,
and the emission limits are defined as conducted.
272. For most mobile systems, the Commission has generally required
licensees to attenuate their unwanted emission power below the
transmission power (P) by a factor of at least 43 + 10log10(P), or -13
dBm for any emissions on frequencies outside the licensee's authorized
spectrum. These requirements take effect at the edges of the assigned
frequencies (e.g., channel, block or band), and may be used as a basis
for developing further requirements that relate to transmitter
performance by industry standard organizations. This limit is applied
equally both to base stations and to mobile stations, and compliance
with this limit in existing systems, where access to the RF port of the
antennas is conveniently available, is based on conducted measurement
of transmission power at the output of the individual RF port. In the
NOI, the Commission sought comment on whether a limit of 43 +
10log10(P) might be appropriate for mobile broadband systems in the
proposed mmW bands.
273. In response to the NOI, some commenters express reservations
about specifying an out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limit at this early
stage of technology development. Several commenters agree that an OOBE
limit of 43 + 10Log10 (P) for base stations would be appropriate.
274. Measurement Challenges. Some commenters indicate that
conducted measurement of OOBE can be challenging. We acknowledge the
measurement challenges identified by commenters and discussed in the
Equipment Authorization section, and in response we propose to define
emission limits in radiated fashion. Commenters suggest that the 5G
base stations in mmW bands are expected to employ more than 100
radiating elements to effectively create multiple beams to serve
multiple simultaneous users in a given cell. 5G mobile stations in mmW
bands are also expected to have tens of radiating elements with
multiple power amplifiers. With lack of RF ports, the emission
measurement needs to be made in radiated fashion, and the antenna gain
must be characterized and subtracted from the radiated measurement if
the emission limit is to be defined in conducted fashion. Most mobile
services in licensed bands define the emission limit in conducted
fashion, where the measurement for determining compliance is done
directly at the antenna port. Measuring the emission on a radiated
fashion requires that the measurement be made at some point away from
the antenna, where the measurement is made on the signal created by the
radiated elements and transmitted over the air. We tentatively conclude
that defining the emission limit in radiated fashion is more practical
than alternative methods and seek comment on this proposal.
275. Accordingly, we seek further comment on radiated emission
limits for 5G transmitters in mmW bands. We define out-of-band emission
and spurious emission as characterizing the overall emission
performance of a transmitter and the measurement procedures for
spurious emissions at antennal terminals and field strength of spurious
radiation are described in the Commission's rules. For bands higher
than 1 GHz, for example PCS and AWS-1, compliance with the emission
rule is based on a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater,
except within the first 1 megahertz. In the first 1 megahertz band
immediately outside and adjacent to the channel block, a resolution
bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the
fundamental emission of the transmitter may be employed, provided that
the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement
bandwidth.
276. Some commenters suggest that an emission attenuation of 43+10
logP per MHz (or -13dBm/MHz) in radiated fashion is still achievable at
certain frequency offsets from the edge of the transmission signal,
while others indicate that the conducted emission limit of 43+10logP is
achievable but do not specify the resolution bandwidth or the
measurement offset. Intel states that a ``step-like mask cannot meet
requirements for 100/200 MHz channels; [m]ask must be gradual up to
offset of 50 MHz.''. Straight Path states, ``The spurious emission
limit (emission limit for P > 250) . . . will mostly be governed by the
``43 + 10 Log10 (the mean output power in watts) decibels'' limit,
which is equivalent to -13 dBm/MHz with typical configurations of 5G
systems.'' We seek comment on whether a radiated emission limit of
43+10log(P) can be supported by 5G transmitters operating in the 27.5-
28.35 GHz, 37-38.6 GHz, and 38.6-40 GHz bands, and if so, what
resolution bandwidth and frequency offset should be considered to
define out-of-band emissions and spurious emissions. We request that
commenters provide technical showings on how the proposed radiated
emission
[[Page 1835]]
limits can mitigate the risk of harmful interference to operations by
adjacent users. While our proposed rules contain an emission
attenuation of 43+10logP per MHz with the measurement techniques of PCS
and AWS bands, we recognize, however, that we need additional
information before we can reach any conclusions on the appropriate
emission limit.
277. Protection of Passive Bands. As discussed in the ``Passive
Services Below 37 GHz'' section above, the 36.43-36.5 GHz band is used
for radio astronomy spectral line emissions and all practical steps
must be taken to protect radio astronomy in that band from
interference. In the same section, we note that the EESS and space
research operations are not entitled to interference protection from
duly authorized fixed and mobile services in the 36-37 GHz band.
Nonetheless, we seek comment on steps we could take to protect those
operations without unduly limiting fixed and mobile operations in the
37 GHz band.
278. As commenters propose emission limits for mobile stations and
base stations operating in 37-40 GHz band, we ask commenters to provide
interference analysis into passive service receivers operating in 36-37
GHz band, including the assumptions on the distance separation,
propagation model, system loading, aggregate number of transmitters,
antenna characteristics, and others as appropriate.
5. Interference Protection and Coordination
a. Coordination and Field Strength Limits at Market Borders
279. Background. The Commission's rules for mobile services
typically define field strength limits at the market boundaries in
order to prevent interference between licensees in adjacent markets.
For example, Part 27 for AWS specify that the predicted or measured
median field strength at any location on the geographical border of a
licensee's service area shall not exceed 47 dB[micro]V/m unless the
adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different
field strength. Our current rules contain coordination distances for
both the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands under which a fixed terrestrial
licensee, within a certain prescribed distance of a mutual GSA border,
is required to coordinate with the potentially affected fixed licensee
of an adjacent GSA. Straight Path recommends ``a PFD limit of -86 dBm/
m2/MHz or, equivalently, an electric field strength limit of 30 dBuV/m/
MHz as the co-channel interference limit at the economic area boundary
for 39 GHz mobile services.'' Qualcomm believes that it may be
premature given the state of technology to establish field strength or
power flux density limits at geographic service area borders at this
time. Nokia believes that mmW mobile operations will involve advanced
networks that will be capable of managing and avoiding interference not
only among themselves but also with other licensees and technologies.
Their belief in this proposition is coupled with the concept that the
advanced narrow beams formed in highly attenuating frequencies will, in
and of themselves, provide sufficient interference protection to
protect adjacent licensees and differing wireless technologies
operating in the spectrum.
280. Discussion. We seek comment on the appropriate interference
protection criteria. Specifically, is the existing field strength limit
of 47 dBuV/m specified in Part 27 appropriate for mmW mobile and fixed
services? Is Straight Path's proposed PFD limit of -86 dBm/m2/MHz,
which incorporates a spectral density more appropriate? Are there
alternative more appropriate interference protection limits than these
mentioned? Or, are coordination distances, such as those currently
specified for the fixed services more appropriate? Additionally we seek
comment on alternative, interference limits at the geographical service
area border that would protect future mmW operations from unwanted
interference. Any such proposed alternative limits should be described
in detail and supported by engineering analysis. Commenters who believe
that field strength limits at the license boundaries are not necessary
should provide specific technical details and analysis substantiating
their position that such protections will not be necessary in the
future. Additionally we also seek comments as to the applicability of
any such interference limit to current or potential future fixed point-
to-point terrestrial facilities. Are the Part 27 interference
protection technical limits, or alternatively those proposed by
Straight Path at the geographic service area border adequate protection
criteria for current and potential future fixed point-to-point
terrestrial deployments? Are there other proposed interference
protection limits that would be more appropriate for protecting fixed
services?
281. A worst-case scenario to consider would be a fixed point-to-
point terrestrial bi-directional link in one GSA near its border,
oriented directly toward an urban area in an adjacent GSA that also
lies near the border. Would the Part 27 and Straight Path limits for
which we seek comment have more of a limiting effect on fixed point-to-
point transmitter deployments than existing rules? Considering the
reception antenna in the same scenario, would the Part 27 and Straight
Path interference protection limits at the GSA border adequately
protect a point-to-point fixed link close to the GSA border that uses
narrow-beam, high-gain antennas? Would the protection afforded by the
proposed limit be less effective in the protection of fixed point-to-
point receivers oriented toward adjacent GSAs near their borders?
Considering this worst-case scenario, should the existing rules based
on specified distances from adjacent borders be retained, along with
the existing coordination requirements? Is there another more
appropriate rule that could be applied specifically to current and
potential future deployments of fixed point-to-point facilities? Is
there a threshold protection level that could be established that
benefits the fixed point-to-point facilities as well as future mmW
mobile facilities?
282. In a similar fashion, we have considered proposed concepts
involving applications where mmW mobile base stations would deploy
backhaul and fronthaul ``in-band'' solutions. These mmW conceptual
backhaul/fronthaul uses further support our inquiry as related to the
questions posed above because they appear to align closely with the
operation of fixed point-to-point facilities. If it is determined that
the current rules for fixed point-to-point facilities should be
retained, should they be applied to mmW base station backhaul
technologies? If so, should we consider retaining the existing distance
and coordination requirements with respect to cases where an mmW base
station would require ``in-band'' wireless backhaul? Should these
distance requirements be modified and/or made uniform and applied
consistently across all the bands? In the converse would the Part 27
and Straight Path interference protection limits allow for these
distance requirements that trigger required coordination to become
irrelevant in the transition to new rules for these bands?
b. Canadian and Mexican Borders
283. Sections 101.147(r)(13), 101.509(d), and 27.57 of our rules
provide that fixed and mobile operations are subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. We propose to apply the same
limitation to the newly established rule parts for the mmW bands. Until
such time as any adjusted agreements between the United
[[Page 1836]]
States, Mexico, and/or Canada can be agreed to, mmW mobile operations
must not cause harmful interference across any of our international
borders, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in
force. Currently there are existing Arrangements for the 27.5--28.35
GHz LMDS band and 38.6C-40.0 GHz band between the United States and
Canada. We note that further modification of the proposed rules might
be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada
and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. We seek comment on this
issue, including the costs and benefits of alternatives.
6. 37 GHz Technical Rules
284. We seek comment on any changes to our technical rules that may
be required if we adopt our proposal to authorize local area operations
in the 37 GHz band by rule while issuing geographic area licenses for
outdoor use. Are there circumstances under which local area deployments
could cause interference to outdoor systems, notwithstanding the heavy
signal attenuation in this band? In order to avoid interference, should
we propose lower authorized power for local area deployments? What
special technical rules, if any, would be needed for indoor systems to
promote indoor/outdoor coexistence? For example, do we need to
establish a requirement that local area users and geographic area
licensees coordinate their proposed operations? If a coordination
mechanism is necessary, how should we design that mechanism? If we
decide that geographic area licensees should have priority over local
area operations, how should we define the responsibilities of the local
area licensee to avoid interference? If, on the other hand, we decide
that local are operations have priority, are there any special
technical rules that would be needed for outdoor operations in this
environment? We seek comment on these and other issues relating to the
technical rules for our proposed hybrid licensing approach in 37 GHz.
7. Interoperability
285. The Commission historically has sought to promote the
development of interoperable equipment, allowing smaller providers to
benefit from the scale generated by equipment capable of operating
across an entire band or adjacent bands. Beginning with the licensing
of cellular spectrum, the Commission maintained that consumer equipment
should be capable of operating over the entire range of cellular
spectrum as a means to ``insure full coverage in all markets and
compatibility on a nationwide basis.'' Since that time, the Commission
has addressed the issue of interoperability in several bands, including
in the Lower 700 MHz band (where it implemented an industry solution to
LTE interoperability), the AWS-3 band (where it mandated
interoperability for some operators), and the H Block band (where it
stressed the importance of interoperability). We continue believe that
interoperability delivers important benefits to consumers.
286. We propose to require that mobile equipment operating within
each mmW band be interoperable using all air interfaces that the
equipment utilizes on the frequencies. Interoperability helps ensure a
robust market for equipment, and helps ensure that such equipment is
available equally to all licensees. We note that interoperability could
be a particularly important issue in the 37 GHz band if we license
local area operations and outdoor operations separately. If we take
that approach, we believe it would be necessary to ensure
interoperability in order to ensure that equipment is available for
both types of deployments. We seek comment on this proposal. Are there
unique issues implicated in creating interoperable equipment at the
frequencies and bandwidths proposed herein? We also seek comment on
Straight Path's contention that it should be possible to achieve
interoperability between different technologies, e.g., switching
between LTE and Wi-Fi.
8. Limits on Terrestrial Emissions
287. We seek comment on whether we should adopt emission limits
above a certain elevation angle to terrestrial facilities in order to
prevent interference between terrestrial facilities and satellites.
288. In the 28 GHz band, there appear to be three situations where
terrestrial operators might generate transmissions toward reception
antennas on satellites. The first case would involve transmissions from
mmW base stations, but comments and research indicate that the most
common scenario for such stations would likely include a downward beam-
tilt from an antenna situated on a street lamp pole or on a building at
a similar height. The second case would involve transmissions from
mobile user equipment toward their serving base stations. Those
transmissions could be directed upward, but we recognize that any
interference to satellites from such user equipment, if it were to
occur, would only result from the aggregate power from a very large
number of mmW user devices transmitting simultaneously toward the
satellite receiver. Noting that comments suggest that mmW user devices
are likely to use steerable beamforming antenna arrays the likelihood
that a large number of user devices would be pointed at a satellite
(while oriented to communicate with a base station) is unlikely.
Therefore, such interference appears to be unlikely, but we request any
technical analyses that might indicate otherwise, together with any
technical limitations that might be required to prevent such
interference.
289. Perhaps the most likely increased source of interference to
satellites (particularly NGSO satellites) would be the large number of
backhaul links that will likely be necessary to connect the many small-
cell base stations that will be required to support mobile service in
the 28 GHz band. Some commenters envision that future mmW mobile base
stations could require a substantial amount of in-band backhaul in
order to move traffic from street-level base stations in urban canyons
to aggregate backhaul points at higher elevations, using the same 28
GHz spectrum that will be used for mobile access. XO a large holder of
LMDS licenses in the 28 GHz band, has stated that it currently has
approximately 750 point-to-point-to-point facilities, mainly in urban
environments, in most cases serving as an alternative to fiber to
connect buildings to telecommunications backbone facilities. It seems
reasonable to assume that in the interim and near future, until such
time as mmW mobile technologies develop to the point of being
commercially viable for deployment, more such facilities proposing
technical parameters consistent with the current Part 101 Rules will
continue to be built. Taking all three of the above sources of
potential interference into account, are the existing and proposed
power and emission limits for terrestrial operations in the 28 GHz band
sufficient to prevent interference into satellite receivers? We request
comments and technical information that would assist us in determining
whether it would be necessary or beneficial to limit skyward emissions
from terrestrial mmW facilities in the 28 GHz band, and, if so, at what
thresholds.
9. Technical Rules for Part 15 Operation Within the 64-71 GHz Band
290. We propose to allow unlicensed operations in the 64 71 GHz
frequency band pursuant to the same technical rules as in the 57 64 GHz
frequency band under section 15.255 of our rules, with slight
modifications. We believe that making available a 14-gigahertz
[[Page 1837]]
segment of contiguous spectrum in these frequencies will encourage the
development of very high-speed wireless links with higher connectivity,
bandwidth and throughput between small cell sites to support spectral
efficiency in existing communications systems as well as in future 5G
systems, consistent with the Commission's objectives to bring broadband
access to every American and to provide additional competition in the
broadband market.
291. Part 15 of the Commission's regulations permits the operation
of radio frequency (RF) devices without an individual license from the
Commission or the need for frequency coordination. The technical
standards contained in Part 15 are designed to ensure that there is a
low probability that such devices will cause harmful interference to
other users of the radio spectrum. Unlicensed operations within the 57-
64 GHz band are currently permitted under section 15.255 of our rules.
Any type of unlicensed operation within the 57-64 GHz band is permitted
under these rules, with the exception of operation on board aircrafts
or satellites, and in mobile field disturbance sensor applications.
292. As indicated above, in the Spectrum Frontiers NOI, the
Commission sought comment on the potential for the provision of mobile
radio services in bands above 24 GHz, and in particular, on the
advisability of amending its rules to allow unlicensed Part 15
operations in the 64 71 GHz band segment. Commenters unanimously
support this action and recommend that the Commission proceed with
extending the band to cover 57 to 71 GHz under the same Part 15
provisions that allow operation in the currently authorized 57-64 GHz
band.
293. Suitability of the Existing Rules in section 15.255 to the 64
71 GHz Band. We are proposing to extend the technical requirements in
section 15.255 to encompass the 57 71 GHz band. As we discuss in detail
below, we believe that the existing technical rules in the 57 64 GHz
band can successfully apply to the proposed 64 71 GHz adjacent band,
with certain minor adjustments. In addition, we seek comment on certain
aspects of the rules to further the growth and development of these
devices without increasing the potential for harmful interference to
authorized users in these bands. We examine the pertinent rules in
section 15.255 below.
294. Operation On Board Aircraft. Section 15.255(a)(1) prohibits
operation of equipment used on aircraft in the 57 64 GHz band. This
requirement was adopted in 1995 pursuant to the request of the CORF to
protect radio astronomy operations. We now observe that new tri-band
chipsets compliant with IEEE Standard 802.11ad and intended for use in
future WiGig products may operate in the 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz and 60 GHz
bands. These components can be embedded into laptops or other mobile
electronic devices used by travelers on airplanes. The present
prohibition in our rules would require mobile devices to affirmatively
disable Wi-Fi operation at 60 GHz (but not in the 2.4 GHz or 5 GHz
frequency ranges) while operating on board a plane, possibly creating
difficulty in enforcing compliance.
295. Radio astronomy has no allocations in this 57-64 GHz range;
two major radio telescopes (in Green Bank, WV and on Kitt Peak, AZ)
operate on an unprotected basis at these frequencies in the continental
United States. There are telescopes in Chile, Japan and Europe that
regularly operate at these frequencies, and US astronomers are
scientific partners with researchers in those facilities. The issue for
US radio astronomy about devices operating over the full range of the
57-64 GHz band is whether strong harmonics or out-of-band emission
could interfere with observations of the cosmos in the Q-band (40-50
GHz) or W-band (80-96 GHz at all the VLBA sites). While radio signals
around 60 GHz attenuate rapidly with distance, attenuation effects due
to oxygen become much less pronounced in the 64-71 GHz band and higher,
so interference effects propagate over much longer distances.
Furthermore, strong harmonic emissions could seriously interfere with
radio astronomy observations of the Carbon Monoxide (CO) spectral
emission in passive-only bands (protected by ITU-R 5.340 and US246)
including 109.5-111.8 GHz, 114.25-116 GHz, 164-167 GHz, 182-185 GHz,
and 226-231.5 GHz. Harmonics could also interfere with radio astronomy
operations at the 111.8-114.25 GHz, 217-226 GHz, and 241-248 GHz bands.
296. We observe an ongoing industry effort to work with the NTIA
and other federal agencies to study compatibility of operation of these
new chipsets and their operation on board in flight aircraft. As such,
we believe that the prohibition on operation on board aircraft may be
revisited at the present time. We therefore seek comment on this issue.
We request technical studies and interference analyses demonstrating
whether transmissions in the 57-71 GHz band should be permitted on
aircraft. Such operations may include applications in the 57 71 GHz
band that support enhancement of in-flight communications service
offerings by airlines to meet the increasing consumer demand for
broadband connectivity on aircraft. Is it possible to limit unlicensed
device operation on aircraft to a narrower portion of the 57-64 GHz
band to minimize impact to the radio astronomy observations? If so,
should we consider such a limitation?
297. Fixed Field Disturbance Sensor Operation. Section 15.255(a)(2)
prohibits operation of field disturbance sensors in the 57 64 GHz band;
however it makes an exception for sensors in certain fixed industrial
applications (speed control, fluid level, and motion detection
functions, etc.) These devices are required to operate at a power level
30 dB lower than communications devices in the 57 64 GHz band, in order
to avoid causing harmful interference to co channel communications
devices. Since the rules require these fixed field disturbance sensors
to operate at a much lower power than communications equipment in the
band, and they have not been the subject of any case of harmful
interference over the years, we believe that such devices should be
able to co-exist with communications equipment in the proposed 64 71
GHz band without additional harmful interference potential. We seek
comment on whether to extend the requirements for these fixed field
disturbance sensors in Section 15.255 into the proposed 64 71 GHz band.
298. Emission Limits. Except for fixed field disturbance sensors
discussed above, section 15.255(b) limits the average power of any
emission in this band to 40 dBm EIRP and the peak power to 43 dBm EIRP
for transmitters located either indoors or outdoors. In 2013, the
Commission modified these rules to provide transmitters located
outdoors with very high gain antennas (i.e., higher than 30 dBi) an
average EIRP emission limit of 82 dBm and a peak EIRP limit of 85 dBm,
in each case minus 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is below 51
dBi. At that time, the Commission observed that two primary types of
equipment serving different markets have emerged to share the 57 64 GHz
band: (1) In building wireless personal area networking (WPAN) devices
designed to share uncompressed high definition (HD) data signals
between consumer entertainment devices, such as high definition
televisions (HDTV), cameras, and laptop computers, usually within the
same room; and (2) outdoor short range point to point systems intended
to extend the reach of fiber optic networks by providing service to
adjacent structures, provide broadband backhaul links between cellular
networks base
[[Page 1838]]
stations, or interconnect buildings in campus environments.
299. At the request of the 60 GHz industry stakeholders that offer
this second type of application, the Commission adopted higher emission
levels to provide longer range coverage for outdoor point to point
links with very high gain antennas resulting in very narrow beamwidths,
while maintaining the existing lower emission levels for any
application indoors or outdoors.
300. We believe that future 5G technologies, similar to existing 4G
or LTE technologies, would take advantage of mobile data off-loading to
unlicensed operations at Wi-Fi hotspots, either indoors or outdoors, as
well as leveraging short backhaul links between pico cells. Therefore,
we believe the existing two types of emission limits that we propose to
apply to the 64 71 GHz band will continue to benefit both the low power
networking communication links, including mobile use for data and voice
communications, and the high-power high antenna gain fixed point to
point backhaul links. We further note that although oxygen attenuation
is most severe in the 57 64 GHz band which is approximately centered at
60 GHz, its effect becomes much less pronounced in the adjacent 64 71
GHz band. Thus, equipment operating in the proposed 64 71 GHz band at
the same emission levels would effectively be able to provide longer
range and higher data throughput, as these levels are not as attenuated
by the oxygen phenomenon. We seek comment on these tentative
conclusions.
301. Spurious Emissions. Section 15.255(c) restricts spurious
emissions to a power density limit of 90 pW/cm2 at a distance of 3
meters for frequencies between 40 and 200 GHz, and to the general limit
for intentional radiators in section 15.209 for frequencies below 40
GHz. We propose to apply the same spurious emissions limits to
transmitters operating in the proposed 64 71 GHz band. We seek comment
on this proposal.
302. Publicly Accessible Coordination Channel. Section 15.255(d)
sets aside a publicly-accessible coordination channel in the 57.00
57.05 GHz band, in which only spurious emissions and emissions related
to coordination techniques regarding interference management between
diverse, non-interoperable, transmitters are permitted. The rules
further stipulate that the development of standards for this channel
shall be performed pursuant to experimental authorizations issued under
Part 5 of the Commission's rules. This requirement was adopted in 1998
and modified in 2000 at the request of industry. However, since 1998,
there has been no report submitted to the FCC related to any specific
experimental research with respect to this band. We also observe that
with recent technological advances and industry standardization, co-
existence between 60 GHz devices is better resolved by voluntary
standards than by a coordination channel requirement in the rules.
Because specifications on coordination techniques could reside in
industry standards, we question the need to maintain a requirement that
adds costs to equipment design and installation. Removing this
requirement would also provide an extra 50 MHz of spectrum for data
transmission. We propose to remove this requirement from the rules and
seek comment on this proposal, including its costs and benefits.
303. Conducted Transmitter Output Power. Section 15.255(e) limits
the peak transmitter conducted output power of 57-64 GHz unlicensed
devices to 500 mW (i.e., 27 dBm) for transmitters with an emission
bandwidth of at least 100 MHz, and is reduced for systems that employ
narrower bandwidths. We propose to apply this conducted transmitter
output power requirement to transmitters operating in the proposed 64
71 GHz band. We seek comment on this proposal.
304. Frequency Stability. Section 15.255(f) requires that
fundamental emissions be contained within the 57-64 GHz frequency band
during all conditions of operation; and that equipment be able to
operate over the temperature range -20 to +50 degrees Celsius with an
input voltage variation of 85% to 115% of rated input voltage. In
adopting this requirement, the Commission noted that ``. . .
[m]illimeter wave devices generally are more susceptible to changes in
operating frequency due to fluctuations in temperature or voltage than
are transmitters operating at lower frequencies.'' We propose to apply
the same requirements to transmitters operating in the proposed 64 71
GHz band. We seek comment on this proposal.
305. Co-location of separately authorized transmitters. Section
15.255(h) allows group installation of transmitters that have been
tested separately for compliance with the rules and received separate
equipment authorizations, as long as no transmitter in the group is
equipped with external phase-locking inputs that permit beam-forming
arrays to be realized. This requirement seeks to prevent the
possibility of producing a high-power coherent beam from discrete
transmitters that have not been tested for compliance together, which
could lead to non-compliance with the emission limits. This requirement
does not preclude the use of advanced antenna technologies with beam
forming arrays in any transmitter, as long as its emissions in any
array configuration comply with the limits on emissions and on RF
exposure in the rules. We propose to apply the same requirement to
equipment operating in the proposed 64 71 GHz band. We seek comment on
this proposal.
10. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
306. The Commission recognizes that having widely accepted
propagation models for millimeter wave bands is one of the key steps
towards 5G technology development and interservice sharing in mmW
bands. While the propagation models of low frequency bands are well
understood and practiced, mainly due to their long history, the
wireless industry and academia are currently engaged in development of
propagation models for millimeter wave bands. The Satellite Industry
Association (SIA) and EchoStar have filed comments raising their own
questions on what types of propagation models might be used for sharing
analysis between satellite and terrestrial systems. NYU also filed
comments emphasizing the importance of propagation modeling for mmW
band technology development.
307. We seek comment on the various sharing analysis framework
among fixed, mobile and satellite systems, as well as between active
and passive services in the millimeter bands. Specifically, we request
technical information on transmitter and receiver characteristics
including peak and average transmit power and antenna performance,
operational assumptions including antenna orientation and practical use
case of transmitters and receivers, and appropriate propagation models
for each sharing analysis that would assist in evaluating interference
potential including aggregate effects as applicable.
11. Equipment Authorization
308. There are some unique technical challenges specific to
demonstrating compliance for the purpose of equipment authorization of
millimeter-wave devices that may need to be addressed through guidance
by the FCC Laboratory or future Commission proceedings. For example, as
discussed above, it is expected that the millimeter-wave devices being
contemplated are expected to be designed with an array of multiple
antennas employing
[[Page 1839]]
dynamic beamforming and no output port for which to measure the
conducted power of the transmitter, which may make challenging the
verification of transmitter power, equivalent isotropic radiated power
(EIRP), and antenna gain. Additionally, devices authorized for
operation above 6 GHz have so far been intended for normal use at least
20 centimeters from the body of the user, introducing new challenges
for measurement of RF exposure for such devices at close distances.
Throughout the next two sections, we seek comment on how we should
address these technical challenges in future guidance to demonstrate
compliance with the Commission's rules pertaining to equipment
authorization. Specifically, we request information on relevant
research as we address two topics: (1) Measurement techniques to verify
that devices meet limits on peak EIRP and out-of-band emissions (OOBE),
and (2) demonstration of compliance with respect to the Commission's
rules on RF exposure.
a. Measurement Techniques
309. EIRP Measurement. Above we proposed a maximum device EIRP,
without a limitation on device conducted power or antenna gain. Present
FCC Laboratory guidance addresses to a certain extent some of the
technical procedures that could inform compliance demonstration with
the proposed rules under consideration for millimeter-wave devices
herein. However, direct measurement of the fundamental EIRP of
millimeter-wave devices including those that use dynamic beamforming
antenna arrays across channel bandwidths of 100 MHz (or more) at
millimeter-wave frequencies are more challenging than the present
guidance for a number of reasons. For instance, when performing
radiated emission measurements there may be significant losses
depending on the test measurement setup, and attempts to recoup some of
the added losses could introduce additional complexity, perhaps by
requiring that measurements be performed in the radiating near-field of
the device under testing. This presents practical problems of
measurement repeatability and consistency. Additionally, the equivalent
antenna gain of the device under testing depends on the frequencies
being measured and in the case of beamforming arrangements, the
direction of the beam being formed, which is especially true across
wide channels such as those being contemplated for millimeter-wave
devices. We seek information on fundamental aspects of measurements of
radiated emissions at these frequencies. What are the ways to
demonstrate compliance with procedures which are practical, repeatable
and do not have large margins of errors. We further seek comment on
whether and how present procedures can be adapted or modified to
appropriately to address these specific technical challenges presented
by millimeter-wave devices.
310. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emissions Measurement.
Conventionally, out-of-band and spurious emissions are verified by
direct measurement of conducted power at an output port, which avoids
the additional losses and uncertainties associated with field
measurements. However, millimeter-wave devices being contemplated are
likely not to have an output port, primarily due to the manner in which
the antennas in the array will be fed. At the present time the FCC
Laboratory guidance does offer a procedure to measure the out-of-band
and spurious emissions from devices with multiple antennas. The
measurement challenges introduced in the previous paragraph regarding
significant losses that could be introduced depending on the test
measurement setup are accentuated in the case of out-of-band and
spurious measurements due to the low levels relative to the fundamental
emissions. We seek comment on what other measurement procedures may be
used and whether we would need to provide any additional guidance to
determine compliance with the out-of-band and spurious emission limits
for millimeter-wave devices considering the technical challenges.
Additionally, out-of-band emissions limits are presently measured using
a 100 kHz bandwidth at operating frequencies below 1 GHz, and are
measured using a 1 MHz bandwidth at operating frequencies above 1 GHz.
We seek comment on whether we should further consider widening the
measurement bandwidth, say to 10 MHz above 10 GHz, and what might be
the practical implications in doing so. For example, a wider
measurement bandwidth would include more thermal noise, which could
make measurement more difficult because of the increased noise to a
point higher than the emissions limits. We seek comment on this
proposal. Finally, spurious emissions for devices operating above 10
GHz are required by the Commission's rules to be measured up to the
fifth harmonic of the highest fundamental frequency, below a certain
cutoff frequency. We seek comment on whether these cutoff frequencies
should be modified.
b. RF Exposure Compliance
311. Radiofrequency (RF) devices must comply with the Commission's
RF exposure limits. The Commission has an open proceeding in which it
is examining its RF exposure rules and policies, which could
potentially influence how such devices are authorized in the future. We
propose to similarly require compliance with the radiofrequency
radiation exposure specifications in sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091 and
2.1093 of the rules to equipment operating in the Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service. We seek comment on this proposal; however, any
issues raised involving the present exposure limits themselves as they
exist today will be dealt with in the context of that separate
proceeding.
312. Presently, the Commission's rules include two types of
guidelines limiting exposure to RF energy: (1) Specific absorption rate
(SAR), and (2) maximum permissible exposure (MPE). There is no SAR
limit for operations above 6 GHz, rather the MPE limit on total power
flux density must be used to determine compliance at frequencies from 6
through 100 GHz. Compliance with these rules for devices is
demonstrated through the equipment authorization process, and will be
subject to subsequent specific guidance on RF exposure compliance
procedures. Nevertheless, determining compliance with the RF exposure
limit for portable devices (intended for use within 20 centimeters of
the body of a user) operating above 6 GHz does present some unique
technical challenges not addressed in our guidance documents and
warrant some additional discussion. Recognizing the specific guidance
on evaluation to be issued by the FCC Laboratory which will address how
to demonstrate compliance with our exposure limits, and given the
additional considerations in the Commission's pending proceeding on RF
exposure rules and policies, we seek comment on how to address these
technical challenges.
313. Conventionally, consumer portable devices operating at
frequencies below 6 GHz intended to be held against the head during
normal use are tested for SAR with the device placed directly against a
head-shaped tissue-equivalent phantom defined by SAR measurement
standards, called the specific anthropomorphic mannequin (SAM). SAR is
evaluated under specific exposure conditions within tissue-equivalent
media. However, the more tractable MPE measurements are
[[Page 1840]]
performed in free-space without a SAM present. MPE evaluations in free-
space do not account for the specific exposure conditions in the body
tissues; however, the MPE limits without spatial averaging have a
built-in conservativeness that assumes whole-body exposure and ensures
compliance with SAR limits below 6 GHz. We acknowledged in our
proposals in the RF Further Notice that the five centimeter minimum
distance for measurement and calculation of MPE in free-space specified
in our rules appears to be inappropriate at frequencies above 6 GHz,
especially in the context of portable devices that may normally be
operated closer than five centimeters from the head or body. However,
we also acknowledged in those proposals in the Commission's RF Further
Notice that there could be some minimum distance at which device
coupling with measurement probes could reduce measurement accuracy,
even with today's advanced and more compact measurement equipment.
However, with computational techniques there may be no practical
limitation on minimum distance. We seek comment on what major factors,
considering both measurement and computational techniques, we should
take into account when developing guidance to evaluate consumer
portable devices operating at frequencies above 6 GHz intended to be
held against the head or close to the body during normal use. We
encourage comments addressing whether the technical challenges
described above regarding probe-device coupling in the near-field are
surmountable when measuring MPE, and whether suitable techniques can be
established to validate the computational model used in simulations of
near-field power density.
314. As noted above, consistent with other existing advanced
wireless service rules, we are proposing a 20 watts (43 dBm) peak EIRP
for mobile devices. However, the major distinctions between millimeter-
wave devices being contemplated and existing wireless devices are the
default use of an array of multiple antennas with no output port at
which to measure the conducted power of the transmitter. Also mentioned
in our proposals in the RF Further Notice was the rationale for a
maximum averaging area of one square centimeter for MPE above 6 GHz to
be consistent with one gram averaging of SAR. We note that the antenna
array dimensions being contemplated can be significantly larger than a
single square centimeter, and every antenna in an array is being fed
equal power, effectively spreading the power across the entire aperture
of the device's antenna array. In this regard, peak EIRP in the far-
field is conceptually considered to be inversely related to the maximum
power flux density of the antenna array in the near-field, and
ultimately the maximum conducted power that could be used by the device
while still complying with the Commission's RF exposure limits might
not be related to peak EIRP, however we seek comment on this concept.
Recognizing also that portable devices are likely to operate at
conducted power levels much lower than the proposed maximum peak EIRP,
due to antenna array gain and to effectively manage device power
consumption among other reasons, we also seek comment on whether to
maintain our continued approach to allow portable devices to be
authorized up to the maximum EIRP permitted by the rules, as long as
our RF exposure limits are met, and if not, what other alternative
approaches we should consider. Related to equipment authorization
procedures, we specifically seek comment on whether an averaging area
of one square centimeter would appropriately reflect the intent of the
rationale behind our present exposure limits in the interim, until the
Commission considers the issues brought forth in its RF Inquiry.
Moreover, similar to the rationale that permits consideration of
lateral separation between antennas measured for peak SAR in the
context of reducing test requirements for some types of equipment
operating at frequencies below 6 GHz, and given the anticipated
dimensions of antenna arrays for these devices, we seek comment on
whether any one square centimeter averaging area across the dimensions
of the array can be assessed independently while still adhering to the
intent of these guidelines.
V. Ordering Clause
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
315. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to authorize
mobile operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band), the 38.6-40
GHz band (39 GHz band), and the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band). These
bands are known collectively as the mmW bands.
316. Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered
unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at
such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate
around obstacles. As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower
bands and carriers have resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in
order to re-use the available spectrum, however, industry is taking
another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least
some of its presumed disadvantages can be turned to advantage. First
and foremost, the perceived unsuitability of mmW frequencies for mobile
and other applications have not been considered as potential spectrum
for wide-bandwidth, broadband operations whenever technology becomes
available to exploit those under-used resources. As discussed further
below, short transmission paths and high propagation losses can
facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the
amount of interference between adjacent cells. Where longer paths are
desired, however, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW signals make
it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly
focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation losses. Also,
the short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to build
multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough
to fit into handsets--a feat that might never be possible at the lower,
longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz where cell phones operate
today.
317. In the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands, we propose to create
a new radio service in a new rule part that would authorize fixed and
mobile services. The additional spectrum for mobile use will help
ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless
networks keeps pace with the skyrocketing demand for mobile service. It
could also make possible new types of services for consumers and
businesses.
318. For the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, we propose to assign licenses
by competitive bidding using counties as the area for geographic area
licensing. We also propose to transition existing licensees in these
bands to county-based licenses. For the 37 GHz, we propose a hybrid
licensing scheme in which rights to local area operations tailored to
physical facility boundaries would be assigned by rule and rights to
outdoor operations would be assigned by geographic area licensing using
counties as the geographic unit. This hybrid mechanism could facilitate
the development of advanced enterprise and industrial applications not
suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network services.
319. These service rules would make available additional spectrum
for
[[Page 1841]]
flexible use. In proposing service rules for the band, which include
technical rules to protect against harmful interference, licensing
rules to establish geographic license areas and spectrum block sizes,
and performance requirements to promote robust buildout, we advance
toward enabling rapid and efficient deployment. We do so by proposing
flexible service, technical, assignment, and licensing rules for this
spectrum, except where special provisions are necessary to facilitate
shared use with other co-primary users.
320. At the same time, because the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands
are shared with satellite services, we also seek comment on ways to
facilitate satellite uses that are consistent with fixed and mobile use
of the bands. Specifically, we propose a mechanism under which 28 GHz
gateway earth stations could obtain co-primary status if their presence
would not impede terrestrial development. We also ask if there are
circumstances under which satellite user equipment could be authorized
in these bands on a secondary basis.
321. We also propose to authorize unlicensed operation pursuant to
Part 15 of our rules in the 64-71 GHz band. The proposed technical
rules would be based on our existing rules for the 57-64 GHz band.
322. Overall, these proposals are designed to provide for flexible
use of this spectrum by allowing licensees to choose their type of
service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile
broadband use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory
environment in which fixed, mobile, and satellite deployment would be
able to develop through the application of flexible rules. The market-
oriented licensing framework for these bands would ensure that this
spectrum is efficiently utilized and will foster the development of new
and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage the
growth and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately
leading to greater benefits to consumers.
B. Legal Basis
323. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310,
316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303,
304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336 and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
324. 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 proposed rules and policies, if adopted. 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.
325. 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.
First, nationwide, there are a total of approximately 28.2 million
businesses, 99.7 percent of which are small, according to the SBA. In
addition, 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, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. We estimate that, of this total, as
many as 88, 506 entities may qualify as ``small governmental
jurisdictions.'' Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions
are small.
326. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for
2011, show that there were 10,145 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 10,117 had employment of 999 or
fewer, and 28 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 proposed action.
327. Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. They also include the Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS), the Digital Electronic Message Service (DEMS), the 39 GHz
Service (39GHz), the 24 GHz Service, and the Millimeter Wave Service
where licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common
carrier status. At present, there are approximately 61,970 common
carrier fixed licensees, 62,909 private and public safety operational-
fixed licensees, 20,349 broadcast auxiliary radio licensees, 412 LMDS
licenses, 35 DEMS licenses, 870 39GHz licenses, 5 24GHz licenses, and
408 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services. The Commission
has not yet defined a small business with respect to microwave
services. For purposes of the IRFA, the Commission will use the SBA's
definition applicable to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite)--i.e., an entity with no more than 1,500 persons is
considered small. Under that size standard, such a business is small if
it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for 2011, show that
there were 10,145 firms in this category that operated for the entire
year. Of this total, 10,117 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 28
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 proposed action. The Commission notes that the number of firms does
not necessarily track the number of licensees. The Commission estimates
that virtually all of the Fixed Microwave licensees (excluding
broadcast auxiliary licensees) would qualify as small entities under
the SBA definition.
328. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.
Two economic census categories address the satellite industry. The
first category has a small business size standard of $32.5 million or
less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. The second also has a
size standard of $32.5 million or less in annual receipts.
329. The category of Satellite Telecommunications ``comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
[[Page 1842]]
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.'' Census Bureau data for 2011
show that 659 Satellite Telecommunications firms operated for that
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.
Consequently, the Commission estimates that the majority of Satellite
Telecommunications firms are small entities that might be affected by
our action.
330. The second category, i.e. ``All Other Telecommunications''
comprises ``establishments 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 2012 show that there were a total of 2,981 firms
that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 2,347 firms had
annual receipts of under $25 million and 12 firms had annual receipts
of $25 million to $49,999,999. Consequently, the Commission estimates
that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small
entities that might be affected by our action.
331. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The proposed rules relating to Part 15
operation pertain to manufacturers of unlicensed communications
devices. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows: ``This
industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing
radio and television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.
Examples of products made by these establishments are: transmitting and
receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers,
cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and
television studio and broadcasting equipment.'' The SBA has developed a
small business size standard for firms in this category, which is: All
such firms having 750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were a total of 939 establishments in this
category that operated for part or all of the entire year. Of this
total, 784 had less than 500 employees and 155 had more than 100
employees. Thus, under this size standard, the majority of firms can be
considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
332. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements proposed in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 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 proposed rules will
unduly burden small entities, as discussed below. The revisions the
Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more
information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to
wireless spectrum.
333. Any applicants for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
licenses 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, one that enables potential licensees to research
applications, licenses, and antenna structures. It also keeps the
public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing
utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service applicants 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.
334. Applicants in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service will be
required to meet buildout requirements at the end of their initial
license terms. In doing do, they will be required to provide
information to the Commission on the facilities they have constructed,
the nature of the service they are providing, and the extent to which
they are providing coverage in their license area.
335. We also propose to require Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service licensees to provide information on their proposed operations
in order to facilitate sharing with other authorized services. We seek
comment on the scope of the information to be provided and the manner
in which it should be provided.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
336. The proposal in the NPRM to license the 28 GHz, 39 GHz bands
using county-sized licenses. We also propose to assign outdoor rights
in the 37 GHz band using county size licenses. These license areas are
small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller
carriers. County license areas also nest within and may be aggregated
up to larger license areas. Therefore, the benefits and burdens
resulting from assigning spectrum in county license areas are
equivalent for small and large businesses. Depending on the licensing
mechanism we adopt, licensees may adjust their geographic coverage
through auction or, as we discuss in section IV.E.8 of the NPRM,
through secondary markets. This proposal should enable providers, or
any entities, whether large or small, providing service in the mmW
bands to more easily adjust their spectrum to build their networks
pursuant to individual business plans. As a result, we believe the
ability of licensees to adjust spectrum holdings will provide an
economic benefit by making it easier for small entities to acquire
spectrum or access spectrum.
337. The proposals to facilitate satellite service in the 28 GHz,
39 GHz, and 37 GHz would facilitate service by all Fixed Satellite
Service entities, including small entities.
338. The NPRM proposal in section IV.E.10 pertaining to how the mmW
band licenses will be assigned includes proposals to assist small
entities in competitive bidding. We propose that the Commission would
conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in the mmW bands 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. Specifically, we propose to employ the Part 1 rules
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences,
unjust enrichment, application and payment procedures, reporting
requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications between
auction applicants. Specifically, small entities will benefit from the
proposal to provide small businesses with a bidding
[[Page 1843]]
credit of 15 percent and very small businesses with a bidding credit of
25 percent. Providing small businesses and very small businesses with
bidding credits will provide an economic benefit to small entities by
making it easier for small entities to acquire spectrum or access to
spectrum in these bands.
339. In section IV.F of the NPRM, the Commission proposes service
rules that permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-Federal
fixed or mobile use, subject to the Commission's proposed Part 30
flexible use and other applicable rules (including service rules to
avoid harmful interference). The technical rules we propose or seek
comment on will allow licensees of mmW band spectrum to operate while
also protecting licensees of nearby spectrum, some of whom are small
entities, from harmful interference.
340. We propose to permit partitioning and disaggregation by
licensees in the mmW bands. These secondary market rules apply equally
to all entities, whether small or large. We believe the opportunity to
enter into secondary market agreements for mmW band spectrum will
provide an economic benefit to all entities, whether large or small.
Therefore, the benefits and burdens resulting from secondary market
agreements for spectrum are equivalent for small and large businesses.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
341. None.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30 and 101
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Federal Communications Commission.
Gloria J. Miles,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, Office of the Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 15, 25,
and 101 and add a new part 30 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, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452,
and 1455.
0
2. Section 1.907 is amended by revising the definitions for ``Wireless
Radio Services'' and ``Wireless Telecommunications Services'' to read
as follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Wireless Radio Services. All radio services authorized in parts 13,
20, 22, 24, 26, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97 and 101 of this
chapter, whether commercial or private in nature.
Wireless Telecommunications Services. Wireless Radio Services,
whether fixed or mobile, that meet the definition of
``telecommunications service'' as defined by 47 U.S.C. 153, as amended,
and are therefore subject to regulation on a common carrier basis.
Wireless Telecommunications Services include all radio services
authorized by parts 20, 22, 24, 26, 27, and 30 of this chapter. In
addition, Wireless Telecommunications Services include Public Coast
Stations authorized by part 80 of this chapter, Commercial Mobile Radio
Services authorized by part 90 of this chapter, common carrier fixed
microwave services, Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS), Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS), and Digital Electronic Message
Service (DEMS), authorized by part 101 of this chapter, and Citizens
Broadband Radio Services authorized by part 96 of this chapter.
0
3. Section 1.1307 is amended by adding an entry for ``Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service (part 30)'' above the entry for ``Radio Broadcast
Services (part 73)'' in Table 1 in paragraph (b)(1) and revising
paragraph (b)(2)(i) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.1307 Actions that may have a significant environmental effect,
for which Environmental Assessments (EAs) must be prepared.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
Table 1--Transmitters, Facilities and Operations Subject to Routine
Environmental Evaluation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Service (title 47 CFR rule part) Evaluation required if:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service Non-building-mounted antennas:
(part 30). height above ground level to
lowest point of antenna <10 m
and power >1640 W EIRP.
Building-mounted antennas:
Total power of all channels
>1000 W ERP (1640 W EIRP).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2)(i) Mobile and portable transmitting devices that operate in the
Commercial Mobile Radio Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter;
the Cellular Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this
chapter; the Personal Communications Services (PCS) pursuant to part 24
of this chapter; the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part
25 of this chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services
pursuant to part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services
(ship earth stations only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the
Specialized Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, or the 3650
MHz Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), or the Medical Device
Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio) pursuant to part 95 of this
chapter; or the Citizens Broadband Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of
this chapter are subject to routine environmental evaluation for RF
exposure prior to equipment authorization or use, as specified in
Sec. Sec. 2.1091 and 2.1093 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 1.9001 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 1.9001 Purpose and scope.
(a) The purpose of part 1, subpart X is to implement policies and
rules pertaining to spectrum leasing arrangements between licensees in
the services identified in this subpart and spectrum lessees. This
subpart also implements policies for private commons arrangements.
These policies and rules also implicate other Commission rule parts,
including parts 1, 2, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 30, 80, 90, 95, and 101 of
title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal Regulations.
* * * * *
[[Page 1844]]
0
5. Section 1.9005 is amended by revising paragraphs (hh) through (kk)
and adding paragraph (ll) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(hh) The Multipoint Video Distribution and Data Service (part 101
of this chapter);
(ii) The 700 MHz Guard Bands Service (part 27 of this chapter);
(jj) The ATC of a Mobile Satellite Service (part 25 of this
chapter);
(kk) The 600 MHz band (part 27 of this chapter); and
(ll) The Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (part 30 of this
chapter).
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
6. 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
7. Section 2.1091 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) introductory
text to read as follows:
Sec. 2.1091 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: mobile
devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Mobile devices that operate in the Commercial Mobile Radio
Services pursuant to part 20 of this chapter; the Cellular
Radiotelephone Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the
Personal Communications Services pursuant to part 24 of this chapter;
the Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this
chapter; the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to
part 27 of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
pursuant to part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth
station devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the
Specialized Mobile Radio Service, and the 3650 MHz Wireless Broadband
Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use if:
* * * * *
0
8. Section 2.1093 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 2.1093 Radiofrequency radiation exposure evaluation: portable
devices.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) Portable devices that operate in the Cellular Radiotelephone
Service pursuant to part 22 of this chapter; the Personal
Communications Service (PCS) pursuant to part 24 of this chapter; the
Satellite Communications Services pursuant to part 25 of this chapter;
the Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services pursuant to part 27
of this chapter; the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service pursuant to
part 30 of this chapter; the Maritime Services (ship earth station
devices only) pursuant to part 80 of this chapter; the Specialized
Mobile Radio Service, the 4.9 GHz Band Service, and the 3650 MHz
Wireless Broadband Service pursuant to part 90 of this chapter; the
Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS) and the Medical Device
Radiocommunication Service (MedRadio), pursuant to subparts H and I of
part 95 of this chapter, respectively, unlicensed personal
communication service, unlicensed NII devices and millimeter wave
devices authorized under Sec. Sec. 15.253(f), 15.255(g), 15.257(g),
15.319(i), and 15.407(f) of this chapter; and the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service pursuant to part 96 of this chapter are subject to
routine environmental evaluation for RF exposure prior to equipment
authorization or use.
* * * * *
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
0
9. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and
549.
0
10. Section 15.255 is proposed to be amended by revising the section
heading, paragraph (b) introductory text, paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(ii), and paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(4), and (c)(1); removing paragraph
(d); redesignating paragraphs (e) through (h) as paragraphs (d) through
(g); revising newly redesignated paragraph (d)(2); and adding new
paragraph (h) to read as follows:
Sec. 15.255 Operation within the band 57-71 GHz .
* * * * *
(b) Within the 57-71 GHz band, emission levels shall not exceed the
following equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP):
(1) * * *
(i) The average power of any emission shall not exceed 40 dBm and
the peak power of any emission shall not exceed 43 dBm; OR
(ii) For fixed point to point transmitters located outdoors, the
average power of any emission shall not exceed 82 dBm, and shall be
reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 51 dBi.
The peak power of any emission shall not exceed 85 dBm, and shall be
reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 51 dBi.
(A) The provisions in this paragraph for reducing transmit power
based on antenna gain shall not require that the power levels be
reduced below the limits specified in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this
section.
(B) The provisions of Sec. 15.204(c)(2) and (4) that permit the
use of different antennas of the same type and of equal or less
directional gain do not apply to intentional radiator systems operating
under this provision. In lieu thereof, intentional radiator systems
shall be certified using the specific antenna(s) with which the system
will be marketed and operated. Compliance testing shall be performed
using the highest gain and the lowest gain antennas for which
certification is sought and with the intentional radiator operated at
its maximum available output power level. The responsible party, as
defined in Sec. 2.909 of this chapter, shall supply a list of
acceptable antennas with the application for certification.
(2) For fixed field disturbance sensors that occupy 500 MHz or less
of bandwidth and that are contained wholly within the frequency band
61.0-61.5 GHz, the average power of any emission, measured during the
transmit interval, shall not exceed 40 dBm, and the peak power of any
emission shall not exceed 43 dBm. In addition, the average power of any
emission outside of the 61.0-61.5 GHz band, measured during the
transmit interval, but still within the 57-71 GHz band, shall not
exceed 10 dBm, and the peak power of any emission shall not exceed 13
dBm.
* * * * *
(4) The peak power shall be measured with an RF detector that has a
detection bandwidth that encompasses the 57-71 GHz band and has a video
bandwidth of at least 10 MHz. The average emission levels shall be
measured over the actual time period during which transmission occurs.
(c) * * *
(1) The power density of any emissions outside the 57-71 GHz band
shall consist solely of spurious emissions.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) Peak transmitter conducted output power shall be measured with
an RF detector that has a detection bandwidth that encompasses the 57-
71 GHz band
[[Page 1845]]
and that has a video bandwidth of at least 10 MHz.
* * * * *
(h) Measurement procedures that have been found to be acceptable to
the Commission in accordance with Sec. 2.947 of this chapter may be
used to demonstrate compliance.
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
11. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Interprets or applies sections 4, 301, 302, 303,
307, 309, 319, 332, 705, and 721 of the Communications Act, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 319, 332, 605, and
721, unless otherwise noted.
0
12. Section 25.202 is amended by revising footnote 2 to the table in
paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limits.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
\2\ FSS is co-primary if the FSS licensee also holds the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use license for the area where the earth station is
located. Otherwise, FSS is secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service.
* * * * *
0
13. Part 30 is added to read as follows:
PART 30--UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
Subpart A--General
Sec.
30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service.
30.2 Definitions.
30.3 Eligibility.
30.4 Frequencies.
30.5 Service areas.
30.6 Permissible communications.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
30.101 Initial authorizations.
30.102 Authorization of operation of local area networks in 37-38.6
GHz band.
30.103 Transition of existing local multipoint distribution service
and 39 GHz licenses.
30.104 License term.
30.105 Construction requirements.
30.106 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
30.107 Discontinuance of service.
Subpart C--Technical Standards
30.201 Equipment authorization.
30.202 Power limits.
30.203 Emission limits.
30.204 Field strength limits.
30.205 Information sharing requirements.
30.206 Federal coordination requirements.
30.207 International coordination.
30.208 RF safety.
30.209 Interoperability.
Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures
30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to competitive
bidding.
30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307,
309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
Sec. 30.1 Creation of upper microwave flexible use service.
As of [effective date of final rule], Local Multipoint Distribution
Service licenses for the 27.5-28.35 GHz band, and licenses issued in
the 38.6-40 GHz band under the rules in part 101 of this chapter shall
be reassigned to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service. Local
Multipoint Distribution Service licenses in bands other than 27.5-28.35
GHz shall remain in that service and shall be governed by the part 101
rules applicable to that service.
Sec. 30.2 Definitions.
The following definitions apply to this part:
Authorized bandwidth. The maximum width of the band of frequencies
permitted to be used by a station. This is normally considered to be
the necessary or occupied bandwidth, whichever is greater. (See Sec.
2.202 of this chapter).
Base station. A station at a fixed location used as part of a
mobile service.
Effective Radiated Power (ERP) (in a given direction). The product
of the power supplied to the antenna and its gain relative to a half-
wave dipole in a given direction.
Equivalent Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP). The product of the
power supplied to the antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction
relative to an isotropic antenna.
Fixed service. A radio communication service between specified
fixed points.
Fixed station. A station in the fixed service.
Local Area Operations. Operations confined to physical facility
boundaries, such as a factory.
Mobile service. A radio communication service between mobile and
land stations, or between mobile stations.
Mobile station. A station in the mobile service intended to be used
while in motion or during halts at unspecified points.
Point-to-point station. A station that transmits a highly
directional signal from a fixed transmitter location to a fixed receive
location.
Universal Licensing System. The Universal Licensing System (ULS) is
the consolidated database, application filing system, and processing
system for all Wireless Radio Services. ULS supports electronic filing
of all applications and related documents by applicants and licensees
in the Wireless Radio Services, and provides public access to licensing
information.
Sec. 30.3 Eligibility.
Any entity who meets the technical, financial, character, and
citizenship qualifications that the Commission may require in
accordance with such Act, other than those precluded by section 310 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 310, is eligible
to hold a license under this part.
Sec. 30.4 Frequencies.
The following frequencies are available for assignment in the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service:
(a) 27.5 GHz-28.35 GHz band;
(b) 38.6-40 GHz band:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Channel group A Channel group B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency band Frequency band
Channel No. limits (MHz) Channel No. limits (MHz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1-A......................................... 38,600-38,650 1-B........................... 39,300-39,350
2-A......................................... 38,650-38,700 2-B........................... 39,350-39,400
3-A......................................... 38,700-38,750 3-B........................... 39,400-39,450
4-A......................................... 38,750-38,800 4-B........................... 39,450-39,500
5-A......................................... 38,800-38,850 5-B........................... 39,500-39,550
6-A......................................... 38,850-38,900 6-B........................... 39,550-39,600
7-A......................................... 38,900-38,950 7-B........................... 39,600-39,650
8-A......................................... 38,950-39,000 8-B........................... 39,650-39,700
9-A......................................... 39,000-39,050 9-B........................... 39,700-39,750
10-A........................................ 39,050-39,100 10-B.......................... 39,750-39,800
11-A........................................ 39,100-39,150 11-B.......................... 39,800-39,850
[[Page 1846]]
12-A........................................ 39,150-39,200 12-B.......................... 39,850-39,900
13-A........................................ 39,200-39,250 13-B.......................... 39,900-39,950
14-A........................................ 39,250-39,300 14-B.......................... 39,950-40,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(c) 37-38.6 GHz band: 37,000-37,533 MHz; 37,534-38,066 MHz; and
38,067-38,600 MHz.
Sec. 30.5 Service areas.
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the
service areas for the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service are
counties.
(b) Common Carrier Fixed Point-to-Point Microwave Stations licensed
in the 38.6-40 GHz bands licensed with Rectangular Service Areas shall
maintain their Rectangular Service Area as defined in their
authorization. The frequencies associated with Rectangular Service Area
authorizations that have expired, cancelled, or otherwise been
recovered by the Commission will automatically revert to the applicable
county licensee.
(c) Upper Microwave Flexible Use authorizations issued pursuant to
a special filing window for Holders of Fixed Satellite Service earth
stations shall have a service area consisting of the census tract
within which the relevant earth station is located.
Sec. 30.6 Permissible communications.
(a) Except as noted in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, a
licensee in the frequency bands specified in Sec. 30.4 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).
(b) County licenses in the 37-38.6 GHz band shall not authorize
local area operations. Such local area operations shall be authorized
pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 30.102.
(c) Fixed Satellite Service shall be provided in a manner
consistent with part 25 of this chapter.
Subpart B--Applications and Licenses
Sec. 30.101 Initial authorizations.
Except with respect to local area operations in the 37-38.6 GHz
band, an applicant must file a single application for an initial
authorization for all markets won and frequency blocks desired. Initial
authorizations shall be granted in accordance with Sec. 30.4.
Applications for individual sites are not required and will not be
accepted, except where required for environmental assessments, in
accordance with Sec. Sec. 1.1301 through 1.1319 of this chapter.
Sec. 30.102 Authorization of operation of local area networks in 37-
38.6 GHz band.
Any party who meets the eligibility requirements in Sec. 30.3 may
operate local area operations in the 37-38.6 GHz band within the
boundaries of property they own.
Sec. 30.103 Transition of existing local multipoint distribution
service and 39 GHz licenses.
Local Multipoint Distribution Service licenses issued on a Basic
Trading Area basis and 39 GHz licenses issued on an Economic Area basis
shall be disaggregated into county-based licenses on [effective date of
final rule]. For each county in the Basic Trading Area or Economic Area
which is part of the original license, the licensee shall receive a
separate license. If there is a Rectangular Service Area licensee
within the service area of a 39 GHz Economic Area licensee, the
disaggregated license shall not authorize operation with the service
area of the Rectangular Service Area license.
Sec. 30.104 License term.
Initial authorizations will have a term not to exceed ten years
from the date of initial issuance or renewal.
Sec. 30.105 Construction requirements.
(a) Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees must make a
buildout showing as part of their renewal applications. Licensees
providing mobile, point-to-multipoint, or point-to-point service, must
demonstrate that they are providing reliable signal coverage and
service to at least 40 percent of the population within the service
area of the licensee, and that they are using facilities to provide
service in that area either to customers or for internal use. In
determining the percentage of population covered in each county, the
population covered by a licensee's service area will be measured at the
census block level, using the centroid of each census block from the
most recent U.S. Census. If the total population of the census blocks
covered by the licensees reliable signal is 40% or greater the licensee
will be deemed to have met the performance requirement. Failure to meet
this requirement will result in automatic cancellation of the license.
(b) Existing 39 GHz licensees shall not be required to make a
showing pursuant to this rule and shall be governed by the provisions
of Sec. 101.17 of this chapter if the expiration date of their license
is prior to March 1, 2021.
Sec. 30.106 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
(a) Parties seeking approval for partitioning and disaggregation
shall request from the Commission an authorization for partial
assignment of a license pursuant to Sec. 1.948 of this chapter. Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees may apply to partition their
licensed geographic service area or disaggregate their licensed
spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses.
(b) Technical standards--(1) Partitioning. In the case of
partitioning, applicants and licensees must file FCC Form 603 pursuant
to Sec. 1.948 of this chapter and list the partitioned service area on
a schedule to the application. The geographic coordinates must be
specified in degrees, minutes, and seconds to the nearest second of
latitude and longitude and must be based upon the 1983 North American
Datum (NAD83).
(2) Spectrum may be disaggregated in any amount.
(3) The Commission will consider requests for partial assignment of
licenses that propose combinations of partitioning and disaggregation.
(4) For purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, part 30
systems must be designed so as not to exceed the signal level specified
for the particular spectrum block in Sec. 30.204 at the licensee's
service area boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area
licensees have agreed to a different signal level.
(c) License term. The license term for a partitioned license area
and for disaggregated spectrum shall be the remainder of the original
licensee's license term as provided for in Sec. 30.104.
(d)(1) Parties to partitioning agreements have two options for
satisfying the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 30.105.
Under the first
[[Page 1847]]
option, the partitioner and partitionee each certifies that they will
collectively share responsibility for meeting the construction
requirement for the entire pre-partition geographic license area. If
the partitioner and partitionee collectively fail to meet the
construction requirement, then the licenses of both the partitioner and
partitionee will automatically cancel. Under the second option, the
partitioner and partitionee each certifies that it will independently
meet the construction requirement for its respective partitioned
license area. If the partitioner or partitionee fails to meet the
construction requirement for its respective partitioned license area,
then the relevant license will automatically cancel.
(2) Parties to disaggregation agreements have two options for
satisfying the construction requirements set forth in Sec. 30.105.
Under the first option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee each
certifies that they will collectively share responsibility for meeting
the construction requirement for the entire pre-partition geographic
license area. If the disaggregator and disaggregatee collectively fail
to meet the construction requirement, then the licenses of both the
disaggregator and disaggregatee will automatically cancel. Under the
second option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifies that
it will independently meet the construction requirement for its
respective disaggregated license area. If the disaggregator or
disaggregatee fails to meet the construction requirement for its
respective disaggregated license area, then the relevant license will
automatically cancel.
Sec. 30.107 Discontinuance of service.
(a) An Upper Microwave Flexible Use License authorization will
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if the
licensee permanently discontinues service after the initial license
term.
(b) For licensees with common carrier regulatory status, permanent
discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during
which a licensee does not provide service to at least one subscriber
that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the licensee
in the individual license area. For licensees with non-common carrier
status, permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180
consecutive days during which a licensee does not operate.
(c) A licensee that holds a 600 MHz band authorization or an AWS
authorization in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-
2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2155-2180 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.
Subpart C--Technical Standards
Sec. 30.201 Equipment authorization.
(a) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be
of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its
certification procedure.
(b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in
these services may request equipment authorization following the
procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. Equipment
authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an
applicant for a station authorization by following the procedures set
forth in part 2 of this chapter.
Sec. 30.202 Power limits.
(a) For fixed and base stations operating in connection with mobile
systems, the power is limited to:
(1) An equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) of 1640 watts
when transmitting with an emission bandwidth of 100 MHz or less, except
in rural areas, the maximum EIRP shall be 3280 watts;
(2) An EIRP of 1640 watts/100 MHz when transmitting with an
emission bandwidth greater than 100 MHz, except in rural areas, the
maximum EIRP shall be 3280 watts/100 MHz.
(b) For fixed stations operating solely in point-to-point and
point-to-multipoint modes, the power is limited to a maximum EIRP of
+55dBW.
(c) For mobile stations, the power is limited to 20 watts.
Sec. 30.203 Emission limits.
(a) The power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block
shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in EIRP by at least
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB.
(b)(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) 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.
Sec. 30.204 Field strength limits.
The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on
the geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed
47 dB[micro]V/m unless the adjacent affected service area licensee(s)
agree(s) to a different field strength. This value applies to both the
initially offered service areas and to partitioned service areas.
Sec. 30.205 Information sharing requirements.
(a) Each operator of a Fixed Service or Mobile Service system in
the 27.5-28.35 GHz or 37.5-40 GHz band will make the technical
information about its system listed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section available to FSS operators by one or more of the following
means:
(1) An online database operated by the Upper Microwave Flexible Use
licensee;
(2) An online database operated by a third-party database manager,
or
(3) A continuously transmitted pilot signal receivable throughout
the terrain within which a FSS facility could cause interference to or
receive interference from the terrestrial system.
(b) All licensees deploying fixed systems in the 27.5-28.35 GHz or
37.5-40 GHz bands will make the following information about each such
system available to FSS operators in those bands by one or more of the
means described in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee's name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, effective isotropic
radiated power, emission designator, and type of modulation (digital).
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, gain, and a radiation pattern
provided or certified by the manufacturer.
[[Page 1848]]
(7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level
and ground elevation above mean sea level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with
respect to the horizon.
(9) Receiving station name.
(10) Receiving station coordinates.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and, if required, a
radiation pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and
ground elevation above mean sea level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight(s) angle of elevation with respect
to the horizon.
(14) Path azimuth and distance.
(c) All licensees deploying mobile service base stations in the
27.5-28.35 GHz or 37.5-40 GHz bands will make the following information
about each such base station available to FSS operators by one or both
of the means described in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Licensee's name and address.
(2) Transmitting station name.
(3) Transmitting station coordinates.
(4) Frequencies and polarizations.
(5) Transmitting equipment, its stability, maximum effective
isotropic radiated power, emission designator, and types of modulation.
(6) Transmitting antenna(s), model, maximum gain, and maximum
extent of all possible radiation patterns provided or certified by the
manufacturer.
(7) Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level
and ground elevation above mean sea level.
(8) Transmitting antenna boresight(s) maximum and minimum angles of
elevation with respect to the horizon.
(9) Transmitting antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or
designation of omnidirectionality.
(10) Boundary of the area served by the base station for purposes
of communication with mobile user equipment.
(11) Receiving antenna(s), model, gain, and maximum extent of all
possible radiation patterns provided or certified by the manufacturer.
(12) Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and
ground elevation above mean sea level.
(13) Receiving antenna boresight maximum and minimum angles of
elevation with respect to the horizon.
(14) Receiving antenna boresight minimum and maximum azimuths, or
designation of omnidirectionality.
Sec. 30.206 Federal coordination requirements.
Licensees in the 37-38 GHz band must protect co-channel Space
Research Service (space-to-Earth) facilities from interference. Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Licensees licensed in the 37-38 GHz band
operating near Space Research Service facilities must coordinate any
operations that could permit mobile, fixed, and portable stations to
operate near those facilities.
Sec. 30.207 International coordination.
Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 38.6-40 GHz bands are subject
to international agreements with Canada and Mexico.
Sec. 30.208 RF safety.
Licensees and manufacturers are subject to the radio frequency
radiation exposure requirements specified in Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b),
1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of this chapter, as appropriate.
Applications for equipment authorization of mobile or portable devices
operating under this section must contain a statement confirming
compliance with these requirements for both fundamental emissions and
unwanted emissions. Technical information showing the basis for this
statement must be submitted to the Commission upon request.
Sec. 30.209 Interoperability.
(a) Mobile and portable stations that operate on any portion of
frequencies within the 27.5-28.35 GHz or the 37-40 GHz bands must be
capable of operating on all frequencies within those particular bands
using the same air interfaces that the equipment utilizes on any
frequencies in the 27.5-28.35 GHz or the 37-40 GHz bands, respectively.
(b) The basic interoperability requirement in paragraph (a) of this
section does not require a licensee to use any particular industry
standard. Devices may also contain functions that are not operational
in U.S. Territories.
Subpart D--Competitive Bidding Procedures
Sec. 30.301 Upper microwave flexible use service subject to
competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 38.6-40.0 GHz band
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will
apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 30.302 Designated entities and bidding credits.
(a) A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business and has not
claimed a rural service provider bidding credit may use the bidding
credits set forth in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2) of this chapter, except that
the 35 percent bidding credit in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(A) of this
chapter shall not be available.
(b) A rural service provider (as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4) of
this chapter who has not claimed a small business bidding credit will
be eligible to receive a 15 percent bidding credit.
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
0
14. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
15. Section 101.17 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 101.17 Performance requirements for the 38.6-40.0 GHz frequency
band.
* * * * *
(c) Existing 39 GHz licensees shall not be required to make a
showing pursuant to this rule if the expiration date of their license
is after March 1, 2021.
Sec. 101.56 [Removed and Reserved]
0
16. Remove and reserve Sec. 101.56.
0
17. Section 101.63 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 101.63 Period of construction; certification of completion of
construction.
(a) Each Station, except in Multichannel Video Distribution and
Data Service, Local Multipoint Distribution Service, and the 24 GHz
Service, authorized under this part must be in operation within 18
months from the initial date of grant.
* * * * *
Sec. 101.101 [Amended]
0
18. Section 101.101, the table, is amended by removing the entries
``27,500-28,350'' and ``38,600-40,000.''
0
19. Section 101.103 is amended by removing paragraph (i) and revising
paragraph (g)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 101.103 Frequency coordination procedures.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) When the transmitting facilities in a Basic Trading Area (BTA)
are to be operated in the bands 29,100-29,250 MHz and 31,000-31,300 MHz
and the facilities are located within 20 kilometers of the boundaries
of a BTA, each licensee must complete the frequency coordination
process of paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to neighboring
BTA licensees that may be affected by its operations prior to
initiating service. In addition, all licensed transmitting facilities
operating in the bands 31,000-31,075 MHz and 31,225-31,300 MHz and
located within 20 kilometers of
[[Page 1849]]
neighboring facilities must complete the frequency coordination process
of paragraph (d)(2) of this section with respect to such authorized
operations before initiating service.
* * * * *
Sec. 101.107 [Amended]
0
20. Section 101.107 is amended by removing the entry ``27,500 to
28,350'' from the table in paragraph (a).
0
21. Section 101.109 is amended in the table in paragraph (c) by
removing the entries ``27,500 to 28,350'' and ``38,600 to 40,000'' and
revising footnote 7 to the table.
The revision reads as follows:
Sec. 101.109 Bandwidth.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
\7\ For channel block assignments in the 24,250-25,250 MHz band,
the authorized bandwidth is equivalent to an unpaired channel block
assignment or to either half of a symmetrical paired channel block
assignment. When adjacent channels are aggregated, equipment is
permitted to operate over the full channel block aggregation without
restriction.
* * * * *
Sec. 101.113 [Amended]
0
22. Section 101.113 is amended in the table in paragraph (a) by
removing the entries ``27,500-28,350'' and ``38,600 to 40,000.''
Sec. 101.115 [Amended]
0
23. Section 101.115 is amended in the table in paragraph (b)(2) by
removing the entry ``38,600 to 40,000'' and redesignating footnote 15
as footnote 14.
0
24. Section 101.147 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (t) and
removing and reserving paragraph (v).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 101.147 Frequency assignments.
(a) Frequencies in the following bands are available for assignment
for fixed microwave services.
928.0-929.0 MHz (28)
932.0-932.5 MHz (27)
932.5-935 MHz (17)
941.0-941.5 MHz (27)
941.5-944 MHz (17) (18)
952.0-960.0 MHz (28)
1,850-1,990 MHz (20) (22)
2,110-2,130 MHz) (1) (3) (7) (20) (23)
2,130-2,150 MHz (20) (22)
2,160-2,180 MHz (1) (2) (20) (23)
2,180-2,200 MHz (20) (22)
2,450-2,500 MHz (12)
2,650-2,690 MHz
3,700-4,200 MHz (8) (14) (25)
5,925-6,425 MHz (6) (14) (25)
6,425-6,525 MHz (24)
6,525-6.875 MHz (14) (33)
6,875-7,125 MHz (10), (34)
10,550-10,680 MHz (19)
10,700-11,700 MHz (8) (9) (19) (25)
11,700-12,200 MHz (24)
12,200-12,700 MHz (31)
12,700-13,200 (22), (34)
13,200-13,250 MHz (4) (24) (25)
14,200-14,400 MHz (24)
17,700-18,820 MHz (5) (10) (15)
17,700-18,300 MHz (10) (15)
18,820-18,920 MHz (22)
18,300-18,580 MHz (5) (10) (15)
18,580-19,300 MHz (22) (30)
18,920-19,160 MHz (5 (10) (15)
19,160-19,260 MHz (22)
19,260-19,700 MHz (5) (10) (15)
19,300-19,700 MHz (5) (10) (15)
21,200-22,000 MHz (4) (11) (12) (13) (24) (25) (26)
22,000-23,600 MHz (4) (11) (12) (24) (25) (26)
24,250-25,250 MHz
29,100-29,250 MHz (5), (16)
31,000-31,300 MHz (16)
42,000-42,500 MHz
71,000-76,000 MHz (5) (17)
81,000-86,000 MHz (5) (17)
92,000-94,000 MHz (17)
94,100-95,000 MHz (17)
* * * * *
(t) 29,100-29,250; 31,000-31,300 MHz. These frequencies are
available for LMDS systems. Each assignment will be made on a BTA
service area basis, and the assigned spectrum may be subdivided as
desired by the licensee.
* * * * *
Sec. 101.149 [Removed and Reserved]
0
25. Remove and reserve Sec. 101.149.
0
26. Section 101.1005 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to
read as follows:
Sec. 101.1005 Frequencies available.
(a) The following frequencies are available for assignment to LMDS
in two license blocks:
Block A of 300 MHz
29,100-29,250 MHz
31,075-31,225 MHz
Block B of 150 MHz
31,000-31,075 MHz
31,225-31,300 MHz
(b) In Block A licenses, the frequencies are authorized as follows:
(1) 29,100-29,250 MHz is shared on a co-primary basis with feeder
links for non-geostationary orbit Mobile Satellite Service (NGSO/MSS)
systems in the band and is limited to LMDS hub-to-subscriber
transmissions, as provided in Sec. Sec. 25.257 and 101.103(h) of this
chapter.
(2) 31,075-31,225 MHz is authorized on a primary protected basis
and is shared with private microwave point-to-point systems licensed
prior to March 11, 1997, as provided in Sec. 101.103(b).
* * * * *
Subpart N--[Removed and Reserved]
0
27. Remove and reserve Subpart N.
[FR Doc. 2015-31852 Filed 1-12-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P