[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 187 (Tuesday, September 27, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59559-59574]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23001]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 74 and 101
[WT Docket No. 10-153; FCC 11-120]
Facilitating the Use of Microwave for Wireless Backhaul and Other
Uses and Providing Additional Flexibility To Broadcast Auxiliary
Service and Operational Fixed Microwave Licensees
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission continues its efforts to
increase flexibility in the use of microwave services licensed under
our rules. This additional flexibility will enable FS licensees to
reduce operational costs, increase reliability, and facilitate the use
of wireless backhaul in rural areas. The steps we take will remove
regulatory barriers that limit the use of spectrum for wireless
backhaul and other point-to-point and point-to-multipoint
communications. We also make additional spectrum available for wireless
backhaul--as much as 650 megahertz--especially in rural areas, where
wireless backhaul is the only practical middle mile solution. By
enabling more flexible and cost-effective microwave services, the
Commission can help accelerate deployment of fourth-generation (4G)
mobile broadband infrastructure across America.
DATES: Effective October 27, 2011, except for 47 CFR 74.605, which
contains new or modified information collection requirements that have
not been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). The
Commission will publish a document in the Federal Register announcing
the effective date of that section.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction
Act information collection requirements contained herein should be
submitted to Judith B. Herman, Federal Communications Commission, Room
1-B441, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet
at JudithB.Herman@fcc.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or by e-
mail to John.Schauble@fcc.gov. For additional information concerning
Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained
in this document, contact Judith B. Herman at (202) 418-0214, or via
the Internet at PRA@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Backhaul Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order (Backhaul
R&O, Backhaul MO&O), FCC 11-120, adopted and released on August 9,
2011. The full text of this document is available for inspection and
copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information
Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text of the Backhaul Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion
and Order and related Commission documents may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.
(BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC
20554, (202) 488-5300 or (800) 387-3160, contact BCPI at its Web site:
http://www.bcpiweb.com. When ordering documents from BCPI, please
provide the appropriate FCC document number, for example, FCC 11-120.
The complete text of the Backhaul Report and Order and Memorandum
Opinion and Order is also available on the Commission's Web site at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-11-120A1.doc.
Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette,
and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-
7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via e-mail to bmillin@fcc.gov.
I. Introduction
1. Broadband is indispensable to our digital economy, and wireless
technology is an increasingly important source of broadband
connectivity. A leading example of the role of wireless technology in
connecting the nation to broadband is the impact and potential of
point-to-point microwave systems. An essential component of many
broadband networks--particularly in mobile wireless networks--microwave
backhaul facilities are often used to transmit data between cell sites,
or between cell sites and network backbones. Service providers' use of
microwave links as a cost-effective alternative to traditional copper
circuits and fiber optic links has been increasing. In certain rural
and remote locations, microwave is the only practical high-capacity
backhaul solution available.
2. A robust broadband ecosystem therefore relies, at least in part,
on access to adequate and cost-efficient
[[Page 59560]]
backhaul. In this Report and Order, we continue our efforts to increase
flexibility in the use of microwave services licensed under our part
101 rules. The steps we take will remove regulatory barriers that today
limit the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul and other point-to-
point and point-to-multipoint communications. We also make additional
spectrum available for wireless backhaul--as much as 650 megahertz--
especially in rural areas, where wireless backhaul is the only
practical middle mile solution. By enabling more flexible and cost-
effective microwave services, the Commission can help accelerate
deployment of fourth-generation (4G) mobile broadband infrastructure
across America.
Background
3. The Commission has licensed spectrum for microwave uses for most
of its history. In 1996, the Commission consolidated its rules for most
microwave point-to-point and point-to-multipoint services into a new
part 101 of the Commission's rules. Two specialized microwave services
in particular--the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) and the Cable TV
Relay Service (CARS)--have not been consolidated into part 101. Part
101 includes the point-to-point Private Operational Fixed Service
(POFS) and the Common Carrier Operational Fixed Service. The
Commission's licensing regime for these two services requires frequency
coordination and the filing of an application for each microwave link
or path containing detailed information concerning the proposed
operation.
4. On August 5, 2010, the Commission commenced this proceeding ``to
remove regulatory barriers to the use of spectrum for wireless backhaul
and other point-to-point and point-to-multipoint communications.'' In
the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on allowing FS to share the
6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz bands currently used by BAS and CARS.
The Commission also proposed to eliminate the ``final link'' rule that
prohibits broadcasters from using FS stations as the final
radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of distribution of program
material to broadcast stations. The Commission further proposed to
modify the part 101 minimum payload capacity rule to allow temporary
operations below the minimum capacity under certain circumstances,
which would enable FS links--particularly long links in rural areas--to
maintain critical communications during periods of fading. In the final
portion of the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on permitting FS
licensees to coordinate and deploy multiple links--a primary link and
``auxiliary'' links. In the NOI, the Commission asked about relaxing
efficiency standards in rural areas, permitting FS licensees to use
smaller antennas, and other possible modifications to the part 101
rules, or other policies or regulations, to promote flexible, efficient
and cost-effective provisions of wireless backhaul service.
5. Comments on the Wireless Backhaul NPRM/NOI were due October 25,
2010, and reply comments were due November 22, 2010. In addition, on
June 7, 2011, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau issued a public
notice that provided additional analysis of the existing BAS and CARS
operations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands and requested supplemental comment
on issues relating to FS sharing in the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200
MHz bands. Supplemental comments were due on June 27, 2011.
II. Report and Order
A. Making 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13150 MHz Available for Part 101 FS
Operations
6. After a careful review of the comments, we conclude that it is
feasible to authorize part 101 fixed stations in 650 megahertz in the 7
and 13 GHz bands, so long as we ensure that these operations do not
conflict with TV pickup stations that support important electronic
newsgathering functions. As we explain in further detail below, we will
therefore permit FS facilities only in areas where TV pickup operations
are not licensed. As discussed below, our actions will permit
additional FS stations in areas covering more than half of the nation's
land mass, where they may be used to provide additional service to
about 10 percent of the population.
7. BAS and CARS stations fall into one of two categories: those
that remain in one place (fixed) and those that move among different
locations (mobile or temporary fixed). Mobile BAS and CARS include
television pickup stations, which are authorized to transmit program
material, orders concerning such program material and related
communications from the scenes of events that occur in places other
than a television studio to associated television stations. Under
current rules, which were adopted in 2002, all FS and fixed BAS and
CARS stations above 2110 MHz use the prior coordination notice
procedure described in Sec. 101.103(d) of the Commission's rules, but
mobile and temporary fixed BAS and CARS may use faster informal
coordination procedures. TV pickup stations in these bands are usually
licensed either for a specified radius around a set of coordinates or
for a television market.
8. The record indicates that it is not feasible to allow FS to
share spectrum with mobile and temporary fixed TV pickup operations in
areas where mobile and temporary fixed TV pickup operations are
licensed. While BAS fixed and mobile operations share spectrum in the
same geographic areas, the sharing that exists today would not be
practicable if it were not guided by informal agreements among local
market participants. Part 101 FS operators do not have the same
incentive to accommodate the needs of TV pick-up operations, however,
as few of them are involved in video newsgathering or video coverage of
other live events. For that reason, if they were granted the same
formal priority over TV pick-up operations that broadcasters' STL and
ICR stations are entitled to claim under existing rules, FS operators
could apply for spectrum that is presently used by TV pick-up
operations--potentially precluding new TV pick-up operations and
forcing existing operations to shut down. The National Spectrum
Management Association (NSMA) points out that in bands that are already
shared by BAS, CARS, and part 101 licensees, the bands are generally
used for either fixed or mobile operations, but not both.
9. We also conclude that it is not feasible at this time to adopt a
formal band segmentation plan to separate fixed and mobile operations
into designated sub-bands of the 7 and 13 GHz bands, as requested by
the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) and Vislink, Inc.
The several bands allocated for BAS and CARS today support a mix of
fixed, temporary fixed, and mobile services, including airborne mobile,
and comments submitted in this proceeding confirm that BAS and CARS
users coordinate these services on an individual market basis, without
benefit of a formal nationwide plan, to assign the different types of
service (fixed, mobile, airborne) to specific band segments. A portion
of the band used in one market for fixed operation may commonly be used
for mobile operation in another. Thus, to avoid disrupting those
arrangements, we would need to tailor any band segmentation approach
that we adopted to the needs and conditions of individual markets.
Since we could not adopt a uniform band plan throughout the nation and
provide the same spectrum to FS throughout the nation,
[[Page 59561]]
the value of such band segmentation would be quite limited.
10. For areas where TV pickup licenses are not authorized, however,
we conclude that sharing between part 101 FS and fixed BAS operations
is feasible. WTB staff conducted additional analysis to determine
whether it would be feasible for those services to share spectrum if
they were separated geographically. The analysis appears to indicate
that, even if FS operations were totally excluded from the service
areas of TV pickup stations and CARS facilities, there would be
considerable areas where FS facilities could be licensed--54 percent of
the land area in the 7 GHz band and 64 percent of the land area in the
13 GHz band--largely located in more rural areas, especially in the
midwestern and western regions. For each band, FS facilities could
serve about 10 percent of the population. Thus, opening the 7 and 13
GHz bands to FS operations could be of particular benefit in rural
areas, where spectrum in the 7 and 13 GHz bands is largely vacant.
11. To avoid interference between FS operations and TV pickup
operations, we prohibit FS paths from crossing the service areas of TV
pickup authorizations and require FS to coordinate with all relevant
licensees, including TV pickup authorizations, pursuant to the formal
part 101 coordination procedures. EIBASS, the National Association of
Broadcasters (NAB), and the Wireless Internet Service Providers
Association (WISPA) believe that such an arrangement would be workable.
We also note the presence of co-primary fixed satellite services (FSS)
in these bands. FS applicants will be required to coordinate with and
protect FSS licensees and applicants pursuant to the part 101 rules.
12. The FWCC and SBE remain concerned about potential interference
issues, particularly given the ability of broadcasters to operate
short-term without a license. Under our rules, broadcasters can operate
certain BAS facilities on a short-term basis without prior
authorization for up to 720 hours a year subject to various
limitations, including the fact that such short-term operation is
secondary to regularly authorized facilities. We believe that such
operations can be accommodated by excluding FS from two 25-megahertz
channels each in the 7 GHz band (6975-7025 MHz) and the 13 GHz band
(13150-13200 MHz). Excluding FS from that spectrum nationwide will
accommodate TV pickup stations covering events that occur outside the
license areas of local BAS and CARS operations. For the 7 GHz Band, we
choose to exclude the 6975-7025 MHz segment because excluding the
middle of the band will allow for greater separation between FS
transmit and receive frequencies. For the 13 GHz Band, we exclude
13150-13200 MHz because that spectrum is already reserved for
television pickup operations in the top 100 markets. Furthermore, since
such short-term operation is by definition secondary to other
operations, broadcasters operating pursuant to Sec. 74.24 have no
right to claim interference protection from regularly authorized
operations.
13. EIBASS and NAB propose additional conditions that we do not
believe are necessary or appropriate. EIBASS asks that the Commission
impose a requirement that the newcomer POFS station cannot degrade the
noise threshold of any existing ENG-RO site by more than 0.5 dB.
Although EIBASS's proposal may be an appropriate standard for
evaluating a proposed FS facility, we decline to adopt it as part of
our rules. Generally, in lieu of mandating specific interference
criteria in our rules, we expect applicants and licensees to work out
interference issues in the frequency coordination process. In addition,
NAB asks that the Commission impose secondary status on FS operations
in the 7 and 13 GHz Bands with respect to both existing and future BAS
operations. We find that the rules we adopt fully protect existing BAS
operations. With respect to future BAS operations, FS, BAS, and CARS
will all be coprimary services required to protect pre-existing
operations. We agree with NAB that there is an important public
interest in broadcasters being able to report on breaking news events
and emergency situations; but we also find there to be important public
interests in the support that FS provides to vital broadband, public
safety, and critical infrastructure uses.
14. We also find that FS operations would be compatible with fixed
BAS operations. In 2002, the Commission amended Parts 74 and 78 of its
rules to harmonize many of the rules governing BAS and CARS with rules
that already applied to FS licensees under part 101, allowing the use
of digital transmissions, and requiring all fixed station applicants,
except for those proposing operations in the 1990-2110 MHz band, to
provide affected licensees and contemporaneous applicants with 30-day
prior notifications and an opportunity to participate in frequency
coordination before filing their applications with the Commission. It
applied part 101 frequency coordination procedures to fixed BAS and
CARS, and it did so with wide support from the affected industries. It
rejected the request of one participant, SBE, that fixed BAS and CARS
be allowed to continue relying upon informal coordination procedures.
The subsequent ongoing shift from analog to digital transmission has
accelerated the erosion of technical distinctions between BAS, CARS,
and part 101 FS, and the use of consistent procedures for fixed
stations in all of those services has played a vital role in the
Commission's efforts to accommodate the increasing demand for closely-
packed microwave links in urban areas.
15. We will allow mobile TV pickup licensees to continue to use
informal coordination procedures within their service areas. Given the
urgency of electronic newsgathering operations and the long history of
successful real-time frequency coordination provided by local
coordinators, the Commission previously found that there was little
potential that interference would result from its continued function
without imposing the formality of Sec. 101.103(d) procedures. In light
of our decision not to allow FS within the service areas of mobile BAS/
CARS stations, there is no reason to require those stations to use
formal coordination procedures.
16. The rules we adopt today will open most of the 7 and 13 GHz
bands to FS over more than half of the nation's land mass where 10
percent of the population lives, while applying geographic restrictions
on FS in those bands to minimize the potential for interference between
FS facilities and TV pickup stations. Specifically, as reflected in the
rules in Appendix A, we will allow part 101 FS stations to share the 7
and 13 GHz bands subject to the following conditions:
(1) We will not allow FS stations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands to
locate their paths within the service areas of any previously licensed
co-channel TV pickup stations.
(2) We will require FS operators to coordinate any new fixed links
with TV pickup stations within the appropriate coordination zones of
any new fixed links.
(3) As we require in other bands that fixed BAS and CARS share with
part 101 fixed services, we will require all fixed BAS, fixed CARS and
part 101 FS stations in the 7 and 13 GHz bands to engage in the same
frequency coordination process that we require of all part 101
services.
(4) We will also reserve two 25-megahertz channels for BAS and CARS
in the 7 GHz band (6975-7125 MHz) and two 25-megahertz channels in the
[[Page 59562]]
13 GHz band (13150-13200 MHz) nationwide to accommodate TV pickup
stations covering events that occur outside the license areas of local
BAS and CARS operations.
17. Regarding the various alternative channelization plans proposed
in the NPRM and the 7 and 13 GHz Public Notice, we have decided to
retain the 25 megahertz bandwidth that presently applies to the 7 and
13 GHz bands, as this channel-width best conforms to existing
operations in the band. We recognize that FWCC recommends a mix of 10,
20, and 30 megahertz channels similar to those available in other FS
bands and asserts that such alignment will result in more readily
available equipment. As FWCC and others have recognized, however,
allowing 10 and 30 megahertz channels in a band with many pre-existing
25 megahertz channels would preclude operation on multiple 25 megahertz
channels, resulting in wasted spectrum. Many commenters recommend
retaining a band plan based on the 25 megahertz channel bandwidth in
order to prevent such wasted spectrum. To provide for a mix of larger
and smaller channel-widths, we adopt an alternative proposal suggested
by FWCC and permit FS to utilize 5, 8.33, and 12.5 megahertz channels.
18. We also adopt WISPA's proposal to allow 50 megahertz channels
in the 13 GHz Band. Since the 50 megahertz channels will be created
from two 25 megahertz channels, we do not see any inefficiency that
would result from 50 megahertz channels. We do not authorize 50
megahertz channels in the 7 GHz Band because of the limited amount of
spectrum available in that band.
19. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM, we apply the existing FS
minimum capacity and loading requirements to FS operators in the 6875-
7125 and 12700-13200 bands. We do not propose to apply those
requirements to operations that are authorized under Parts 74 and 78,
and we maintain the existing exemption from the capacity and loading
requirements of part 101 for transmitters carrying digital video motion
material. With respect to the remaining proposed technical rules for FS
operation, we shall apply the same technical parameters that currently
apply in the Upper 6 GHz band to the adjacent 6875-7125 MHz band, as
proposed in the NPRM, because those bands are contiguous and should be
able to use similar equipment. As noted above, we believe that applying
the rules currently applicable in the Upper 6 GHz band to the 6875-7125
MHz band will facilitate equipment development and provide consistency
to FS licensees. Specifically, we will apply: (1) A maximum frequency
tolerance of 0.005 percent; (2) a maximum transmitter power of +55 dBw;
(3) the antenna standards currently applicable to Upper 6 GHz Band
stations authorized after June 1, 1997, to the 6875-7125 MHz band; (4)
the capacity and loading requirements contained in Sec. 101.141(a)(3)
of the Commission's rules; and (5) the 17 kilometer minimum path length
requirement of Sec. 101.143. We retain the rules that are already
applicable to the 12700-13000 MHz band, with the exception of applying
the minimum payload capacity and loading requirements that currently
apply in the 11 GHz band to the 12700-13150 MHz band. Finally, with the
addition of part 101 fixed services in the BAS bands, we believe it is
necessary for our ULS database to include all fixed receive locations.
We therefore will require BAS TV pickup licensees to record their
stationary receive-only sites in ULS.
20. We do not believe that allowing FS sharing in these bands will
inhibit geographic expansion of BAS and CARS operations because, as a
practical matter, these services have not been expanding geographically
in recent years. Only one new BAS TV pickup license has been granted in
the 7 GHz and 13 GHz bands in the past two years. Moreover, FWCC
reports that BAS and CARS path and channel licensing, respectively, in
the 13 GHz band have dropped sharply in the last decade. Furthermore,
50 megahertz of spectrum in each band will remain exclusively for BAS
and CARS use, and BAS and CARS applicants will have co-primary status
and the ability to apply for new facilities in the shared portions of
the bands. We also note that development of new technologies could
provide broadcasters with new mechanisms to support of their electronic
newsgathering functions in the future. In light of this record, we
reject SBE's argument that FS should not be allowed in the 7 and 13 GHz
Bands because of a need to preserve spectrum for geographic expansion
of BAS and CARS.
21. We find that permitting fixed microwave operations in the 7 and
13 GHz bands will benefit operators and consumers alike and that these
benefits outweigh any potential costs, which our rules have been
designed to eliminate. Our actions today will enable these spectrum
bands to be used more intensively for wireless backhaul, public safety,
and other critical uses supported by microwave without limiting their
use for BAS or CARS. With this additional spectrum available for their
use, fixed microwave operators can establish more links in a given
geographic area and increase the capacity of existing links, which in
turn will facilitate deployment of wireless broadband services.
Although it would be difficult to quantify with precision the benefits
of opening the 7 and 13 GHz bands to FS, we find that those benefits
outweigh the at most minimal cost of our actions.
22. As a final matter, we reject SBE's allegation that we prejudged
the decision to allow FS operations in these bands. We have carefully
considered the issues raised concerning sharing between FS and mobile
and temporary fixed BAS and CARS, analyzing the record received in
response to the NPRM, as well as the record received in response to the
Bureau's 7 and 13 GHz Comment Public Notice. As discussed in detail
above, the rules we adopt today are clearly responsive to issues and
concerns raised in this record.
B. Elimination of Final Link Rule
23. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on eliminating the
``final link'' rule, which prohibits broadcasters from using part 101
stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of
distribution of the program material to broadcast stations. In other
words, the rule prevents the private FS stations from transmitting one
type of content (``program material'') to one type of business
(broadcasters) at one particular point in the transmission chain (the
final RF link). The Commission questioned the sense of maintaining
regulatory restrictions based on content as broadcasters and other
microwave users move to digital-based systems. It expressed the belief
that other existing rules would ensure productive use of spectrum and
prevent broadcasters from crowding other FS licensees out of the band.
The Commission also asked whether there were alternatives that could
facilitate broadcaster access to FS spectrum while retaining the
prohibition under certain circumstances.
24. As proposed in the NPRM, we herein eliminate the ``final link''
rule. Our action removes from our rules an artificial distinction based
solely on the type of content provided and directed solely at one type
of business, and is consistent with our decision to allow FS to share
in the 7 and 13 GHz BAS and CARS bands. We believe it makes little
sense to maintain restrictions based on content as both FS licensees
and broadcasters move to digital technologies. Furthermore, FS
licensees do not object to elimination of the rule
[[Page 59563]]
so long as FS is granted access to BAS and CARS spectrum in the 7 and
13 GHz bands, an action we are also taking in this Report and Order.
Although AT&T expresses concern about the effect of eliminating the
rule on spectrum availability, it does not object to legitimate
broadcaster use of FS spectrum that is compatible with existing uses.
While broadcasters have different opinions about the value of
eliminating the rule, they support doing so.
25. We find that there are significant benefits, and no costs, to
eliminating the final link rule. We note that no commenter has
identified any cognizable harm that would result from eliminating rule.
With increasing adoption of digital technologies, the final link rule
has become an outdated regulation that imposes unnecessary costs on
broadcasters. In some instances, it may have required broadcasters to
build two different, largely redundant, systems: One system to carry
program material to the transmitter site, and a separate system to
handle other data. Eliminating the rule will provide tangible benefits
to broadcasters, by reducing unnecessary duplication of systems and
facilities and enabling them to operate more efficiently. In such
light, we find the benefits of eliminating the final link rule to be
significant.
C. Adaptive Modulation
26. Section 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules establishes
minimum payload capacities (in terms of megabits per second) for
various channel sizes in certain part 101 bands. The underlying purpose
of the rule is to promote efficient frequency use. Requiring links to
carry a set amount of traffic (expressed in megabits/second) ensures
that licensees will actually use facilities they apply for. Although
the Commission has never quantified the time period over which
licensees must comply with those standards, the industry has generally
construed the payload requirements as applying whenever the link is in
service.
27. On May 8, 2009, Alcatel-Lucent, Dragonwave, Inc. Ericsson,
Inc., Exalt Communications, FWCC, Harris Stratex Networks and Motorola
(``Petitioners'') filed a request for interpretation of the
Commission's rules. Petitioners asked the Bureau to interpret Sec.
101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules to permit data rates to drop
for brief periods below the minimum payload capacity specified in the
rules, so long as the values mandated by the rules were maintained both
in normal operation and on average. In the NPRM, the Commission
determined that a rule change was needed to implement the policy
interpretation sought in the FWCC Request because the policy
interpretation was inconsistent with the plain language of the current
rule, which has been interpreted to require compliance with the minimum
payload capacity at all times when a system is in operation. The
Commission concluded that it would be in the public interest to
commence a rulemaking proceeding to facilitate the use of adaptive
modulation. It noted that ``[a]llowing carriers to operate below the
current efficiency standards for short periods when it is necessary to
maintain an operational link, without a need for waiver, could enable
carriers to save on costs and enhance reliability of microwave links.''
The Commission also recognized the benefits of allowing communications
to be maintained during adverse propagation conditions.
28. The Commission expressed a concern that the standard proposed
in the FWCC Request, i.e., requiring compliance with the efficiency
standards ``on average'' and ``during normal operation,'' would give
licensees too much latitude to deploy inefficient systems. The
Commission proposed a rule under which ``the minimum payload capacity
requirements must be met at all times, except during anomalous signal
fading, when lower capacities may be utilized in order to maintain
communications.'' Finally, the Commission asked whether it should
specify a minimum amount of time a link should be operational or a
minimum efficiency standard below which an FS station may not fall.
29. We conclude that it is in the public interest to amend our
rules to facilitate the use of adaptive modulation. Most commenters
agree that allowing the use of adaptive modulation will have
significant benefits, including (1) Maintaining data throughput better
than the zero rate that would otherwise be caused by a fade; (2)
continuing to handle critical traffic when the link would otherwise
cease to operate; and (3) maintaining network synchronization without
the need for a time-consuming reboot. EIBASS, the only party that
opposes allowing adaptive modulation, argues that any attempt to define
by rule the conditions that justify adaptive modulation would open ``a
Pandora's box.'' As discussed below, however, we believe that it is
possible to craft rules that allow use of adaptive modulation while
maintaining spectrum efficiency.
30. Parties disagree about the protections that will be necessary
to ensure that adaptive modulation will not be abused by operators that
might seek to save money by operating inefficient links. Supporters of
adaptive modulation recognize that there is a potential for abuse and
offer a variety of proposals to address that problem. Several of them
support the Commission's proposed rule language. FWCC opposes
specifying a minimum percentage availability as a prerequisite for
adaptive modulation because writing a minimum number into the rules
will allegedly limit the freedom of link designers to specify
parameters appropriate to a particular objective. It asks the
Commission to impose one of several general conditions designed to
maximize licensee flexibility. On the other hand, Aviat Networks,
Comsearch, Motorola, Sprint, and Verizon argue that the rules should
specify a minimum percentage of time when the link would be available,
in order to allow use of modulations below the minimum payload
capacity. Several parties propose a requirement that paths using
adaptive modulation be designed to be available 99.995% or 99.999% of
the time while complying with the minimum payload capacity, while FWCC
and Motorola propose using a 99.95% standard.
31. In an ex parte filing, Verizon argues that a 99.95% standard
would undermine the Commission's goal in this proceeding to maximize
the opportunity for fixed services to share existing bands. In
particular, Verizon asserts that a 99.95% standard would create
improper incentives to use smaller and lower performance antennas,
which would significantly decrease spectral efficiency and increase the
deployment costs and interference to future microwave licensees.
Verizon also contends that a lower standard would increase the
potential for interference conflicts among wireless backhaul licensees.
32. We determine that applying a 99.95% standard strikes the
appropriate balance between providing operators with the flexibility to
address anomalous fading conditions while maintaining spectral
efficiency. Specifically, we will require applicants seeking permission
to use modulations below the minimums established in Sec.
101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules to design their paths to be
available at modulations compliant with the minimum payload capacity at
least 99.95% of the time. In other words, applicants will have to
design their paths to operate in full compliance with the capacity and
loading requirements for all but 4.38 hours out of the year. A
quantitative standard will provide an objective means for determining
[[Page 59564]]
compliance with the rules and eliminate some disputes. We are concerned
that under FWCC's proposal, as well as the Commission's proposal in the
NPRM, there would be insufficient safeguards to prevent the deployment
of inefficient systems. While we understand FWCC's concern about
providing sufficient flexibility to applicants, we do not believe that
a 99.95% standard would be overly restrictive, because most paths are
designed to a standard of at least 99.95% availability.
33. We decline to apply the 99.999% standard, as Verizon and others
advocate, because it would not provide meaningful relief, as it would
only anticipate 5.26 minutes a year of impaired operations for a link.
With a 99.999% standard, an applicant would be required to build a more
expensive system designed to operate through severe weather, which
could make deployment cost-prohibitive in some instances. By way of
hypothetical, consider a single link in the 6 GHz band that would
require 10-foot antennas with a 99.999% standard instead of 6-foot
antennas under the 99.95% standard. The total cost increase over a ten-
year period in this hypothetical example could exceed $100,000.
Furthermore, most systems use multiple links. We believe that the
increased reliability and cost savings adaptive modulation will make
possible under a 99.95% standard outweigh the marginal costs of a small
temporary reduction in spectral efficiency. Therefore, we find the
99.95% standard to be in the public interest.
34. We reject Verizon's arguments that a 99.95% design standard
will lead to increased interference or provide improper incentives to
deploy inefficient systems. A temporary drop in a data rate, by itself,
does not increase interference to other operators. Furthermore, we
adopt a series of safeguards designed to protect existing systems. We
adopt the NPRM's proposal to require licensees that plan to use
adaptive modulation to indicate their intent in prior coordination
notices. We agree with FWCC and AT&T that such a requirement will help
the industry catch possible abuses and address any potential issues
through the coordination process before the facilities are authorized.
We will also require applicants to apply for all modulations they
intend to use as part of their authorizations. Under the rule we adopt
today, adaptive modulation can only be used during periods of anomalous
signal fading, and the use must be necessary to allow licensees to
maintain communications. Furthermore, systems must be designed to
operate in full compliance with our existing capacity and loading
requirements for all but 4.38 hours out of the year. Finally, we
require applicants to use good engineering practice in determining the
percentage of time a system can operate in compliance with the capacity
and loading requirements. As suggested by FWCC, we will not dictate the
use of a specific engineering model to determine availability but
presume that use of Telecommunications Industry Association Bulletin
TSB 10-F to determine availability is consistent with good engineering
practice.
35. To the extent Verizon is concerned about the increased use of
smaller antennas, we note that our rules already contain protections
designed to minimize interference from smaller antennas. Section
101.115(b) of the Commission's rules establishes directional antenna
standards designed to maximize the use of microwave spectrum while
avoiding interference between operators. More specifically, the
Commission's rules set forth certain requirements, specifications, and
conditions pursuant to which FS stations may use antennas that comply
with either the more stringent performance standard in Category A (also
known as Standard A) or the less stringent performance standard in
Category B (also known as Standard B). In general, the Commission's
rules require a fixed microwave operator using a Category B antenna to
upgrade if its antenna causes interference problems that would be
resolved by the use of a Category A antenna. Thus, if adaptive
modulation allows a licensee to use a Category B antenna, but that
antenna would cause interference to (or receive interference from)
another operation, the other operator can require the licensee to
upgrade to a Category A antenna if the upgrade would resolve the
interference issue. This rule applies even when the use of the Category
B antenna precedes use by the other licensee.
36. Further, we decline to grant Verizon's request that we
establish additional equipment-based restrictions on adaptive
modulation--including requiring all licensees to operate at no less
than two-thirds of the minimum payload capacity values established in
Sec. 101.141(a)(3). We believe that the time-based design standard for
link availability, along with the other safeguards in the rule we adopt
today, will adequately prevent the proliferation of inefficient systems
and find that imposing additional requirements would limit licensee
flexibility and place undue regulatory burdens on licensees. Finally,
we reject Verizon's proposal to limit the transmit power and power
spectral density when using non-compliant modulations to no more than 3
dB greater than the values of the worst-case (highest total signal
power, highest power density) values of the available compliant
modulations. An applicant can specify multiple emissions/modulation
schemes, but they all must have the same EIRP unless they license
separate paths. The gains realized from the use of adaptive modulation
are related to the lower receiver threshold with lower order modulation
schemes, not by using higher power with lower order modulation.
37. We will not require licensees to log instances when they use
adaptive modulation or to include that information in station records.
We are establishing the minimum availability standard as a path design
requirement, not as an operational requirement. We believe that the
best time to enforce the rule is before equipment is deployed, not
after. Once an operator has made the investment required to deploy
adequate equipment in a well-designed link, it should have every
incentive to operate that equipment consistent with the design
standard. It is possible, of course, that unusual weather conditions
could require some operators to use adaptive modulation for longer
intervals than our design standard specifies. However, we see no reason
to penalize operators for events that are beyond their control. In that
context, we believe that the burden imposed by requiring the logging of
adaptive modulation episodes would outweigh any potential benefit of
the information.
38. We conclude that allowing licensees to use adaptive modulation
will confer substantial benefits on operators and their customers,
while imposing minimal, if any, cost. Adaptive modulation will allow
operators to maintain critical links during fade conditions, decreasing
the number of microwave service outages they experience, and the
detrimental impacts that these outages may cause for consumers.
Furthermore, by reducing service outages, use of adaptive modulation
may permit operators to avoid costs and delays associated with
reinitializing service. The rules we adopt are designed to
appropriately restrict use of adaptive modulation to provide fixed
microwave operators additional flexibility to deal with adverse
conditions while ensuring that their systems continue to be operated
efficiently.
[[Page 59565]]
D. Auxiliary Stations
39. In the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on a proposal to
permit greater reuse of scarce microwave resources by permitting FS
licensees to coordinate and deploy multiple links--a primary link and
``auxiliary'' links. The idea had its origin in a petition filed by
Wireless Strategies, Inc. (WSI) asking the Commission to issue a
declaratory ruling ``confirming that a Fixed Service licensee is
permitted to simultaneously coordinate multiple links whose transmitter
elements collectively comply with the Commission's antenna standards
and frequency coordination procedures.'' Although the Commission denied
WSI's petition for declaratory ruling, determining that WSI's requested
interpretation was inconsistent with its current rules, it found WSI's
concept to be ``worthy of further consideration.''
40. Generally, the concept of auxiliary stations rests on the fact
that a point-to-point microwave transmitter typically radiates energy
outward in a keyhole-shaped signal pattern. This signal pattern
precludes other stations from sharing the same spectrum in that area,
if placement of the new transmitter would interfere with the original
licensee's ability to receive its signal at its downlink station. The
auxiliary stations proposal contemplates placement of multiple smaller
transmitters within the signal pattern of the main link.
41. The Commission sought to clarify debate on the merits of the
proposal by proposing specific rule changes intended to capture WSI's
underlying concept, while preserving existing part 101 practices,
policies and expectations to the greatest extent possible. Accordingly,
the Commission sought comment on allowing FS licensees to deploy
auxiliary stations under the following conditions, among others:
Each auxiliary station would be required to operate on the
same frequencies as the main licensed link.
Auxiliary stations would not be allowed to cause any
incremental interference to other primary links, i.e., they would not
be allowed to cause any more interference to other primary stations
than the main link would cause.
Auxiliary stations would be secondary in status and would
have no right to claim protection from interference from any primary
stations.
Auxiliary stations would have to be coordinated in advance
with other licensees and applicants pursuant to the frequency
coordination process specified in Sec. 101.103 of the Commission's
rules.
Auxiliary stations would not be subject to the loading,
antenna standards or minimum path length requirements that apply to
main links.
42. In seeking comments on those proposals, we asked commenters to
provide (1) Estimates of how many systems they contemplated operating
with auxiliary stations, (2) information on whether such systems would
typically be deployed in urban or rural areas, (3) the types of uses to
which such systems would be put, (4) the distances they contemplated
between the auxiliary stations and their main links, and (5) the
relative amounts of traffic that they expected to carry on main links
versus the auxiliary links. We also asked commenters to discuss the
possibility that services where geographic area licensing already
exists--such as the Local Multipoint Distribution Service, the 24 GHz
Service, or operations in the 38.6-40.0 GHz band (39 GHz band)--might
provide a more reasonable way of accommodating any need for auxiliary
stations.
43. Most commenters oppose the proposal to allow auxiliary
stations. They argue that auxiliary stations will increase congestion,
cause greater interference, and create opportunities for gaming/
manipulation that would be detrimental to competition and efficient
deployment of microwave facilities. Supporters contend that auxiliary
stations could result in more efficient use of spectrum and could
support a variety of innovative uses.
44. We decline to adopt at this time our proposal to allow use of
auxiliary stations in FS bands. We lack a sufficient basis for
concluding that auxiliary stations could coexist with FS stations
without causing interference to primary FS stations. Moreover, we are
concerned that adopting the auxiliary stations proposal would create a
perverse incentive for applicants to propose excessive power for their
primary transmitters, wasting spectrum in an effort to stake out as
much territory as possible for auxiliary stations. Finally, using upper
microwave bands such as LMDS, 24 GHz, and 39 GHz appears to be a viable
alternative for the type of operations contemplated under the auxiliary
station proposal.
45. Proponents of auxiliary stations largely operate on the premise
that FS spectrum is ``wasted,'' particularly in urban areas. We
disagree with this premise because there is already extensive reuse of
FS spectrum. It is even possible to re-use a frequency at exactly the
same location, under existing procedures.
46. As mentioned above, there is an insufficient record for us to
conclude that auxiliary stations can coexist with existing microwave
operations without causing interference. We reject, however, the
argument that auxiliary stations should not be allowed solely because
authorizing them would cause further congestion to spectrum that is
already congested. If auxiliary stations could coexist with other
microwave operations, we would view the ability to use spectrum more
intensively as a positive development.
47. Most opponents of the auxiliary stations concept argue that it
would be inefficient to intermix frequency division duplex (FDD)
currently used in the microwave bands and time division duplex (TDD)
operations, as WSI proposes. Comsearch points out that intermixing FDD
and TDD increases the types of potential interference that may occur,
including direct interference between sites, co-site interference, and
reflective interference. In response, WSI relies on the ability of
smart antennas to adapt an antenna pattern and use spectrum more
efficiently. As noted by EIBASS, however, WSI has not provided any
detailed information concerning the physically small, phased-array
microwave antenna that it asserts would be suitable for auxiliary
stations. Indeed, WSI has allegedly ignored requests from SBE and NSMA
for credible proof of the performance that WSI ascribes to that
antenna.
48. Furthermore, while WSI has repeatedly claimed that TDD-style
auxiliary station operations would use spectrum more efficiently than
existing FDD-style microwave operations, it has offered insufficient
analysis of how auxiliary stations would co-exist with existing
microwave operations. In the NPRM, the Commission had emphasized its
intention to avoid interference to existing operations and
``maintaining the reliability and integrity of existing systems.''
Furthermore, the proposal to require prior coordination for auxiliary
stations and to make auxiliary stations secondary to existing primary
links does not adequately address the potential for interference but
instead could result in situations where incumbent microwave licensees
could face the costly and time-consuming process of identifying and
resolving complex interference issues.
49. An additional consideration is that adopting the auxiliary
stations proposal could create a perverse incentive for applicants to
propose excessive power for their primary transmitters, creating a more
diffuse antenna pattern, and thus precluding other microwave operators
from coordinating spectrum or operating in that larger area. In the
NPRM, the
[[Page 59566]]
Commission sought comment on that issue. EIBASS, San Mateo, and Verizon
point to a prior coordination notice submitted by OEM as an example of
how auxiliary stations could result in an inefficient use of spectrum
and preclude frequency sharing. Furthermore, several licenses issued to
WSI proposed the same very high EIRP level of 84.7 dBm. The proponents
of auxiliary stations have not adequately explained these
circumstances, or proposed any ways in which the Commission could
prevent or counteract manipulation of the auxiliary stations mechanism
in this manner. Thus, we remain concerned about the compatibility of
auxiliary stations with existing operations.
50. Another reason we decline to authorize auxiliary stations in FS
bands is that such operations can be accommodated in several upper
microwave bands for which the Commission has issued geographic area
licenses, including Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) 24
GHz, and 39 GHz, in which licensees may freely deploy links as they see
fit.
51. While we do not authorize auxiliary stations in existing FS
bands today, we encourage proponents of the auxiliary stations concept
to continue working with other interested stakeholders to develop the
concept. We note that proponents of the auxiliary stations concept
believe that auxiliary stations would support such varied uses as the
provision of backhaul, telecommunications support for small intelligent
data centers, and rural telemedicine applications. We believe
proponents of auxiliary stations should take advantage of the
opportunities presented by 24 GHz, LMDS, and 39 GHz bands to develop
and deploy auxiliary stations. To the extent parties believe further
testing is needed to develop the auxiliary stations concept, we
encourage those parties to cooperate in testing and development
efforts, to develop a better factual record regarding the interaction
of potential auxiliary station configurations with existing incumbent
microwave systems, and with microwave applicants yet to come.
III. Memorandum Opinion and Order
52. In the Memorandum Opinion and Order, we address various other
proposals offered in response to the NOI that we do not intend to
consider further at this time, either because the proposals lack
specificity, are outside the scope of this proceeding, were previously
considered by the Commission, or are not ripe for consideration at this
time.
A. Local Multipoint Distribution Service
53. TIA recommends that the Commission consider harmonizing its
approach to the 27.5-28.35 GHz Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(LMDS) band with recent proposals by the Radio Advisory Board of Canada
(RABC). TIA says that Canada has designated that band for Local
Multipoint Communications Systems (LMCS), a service similar to LMDS. In
an effort to maximize use of the currently underutilized LMCS spectrum,
the RABC has proposed to apply site-based licensing in the band, with
technical rules that favor frequency division duplex operations on
bandwidths ranging from 10 to 50 megahertz. TIA argues that harmonizing
U.S. rules with Canada's would establish a broader market for equipment
and services, thus improving the band's market potential through
economies of scale. NSMA also supports this proposal.
54. We decline to take any action on this proposal at this time. No
current LMDS licensee supports the proposal. Furthermore, most LMDS
licensees have received an extension until June 1, 2012 to demonstrate
buildout. While LMDS licensees can deploy point-to-point services, the
majority of deployments that have been reported to the Commission at
this time have involved point-to-multipoint services. We believe it
would be premature to undertake the type of review contemplated by TIA
and NSMA before current licensees have had an opportunity to build out
their systems under the existing rules.
B. Wireless Communications Service
55. Sirius XM suggests that the Commission encourage use of the 2.3
GHz Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band for wireless backhaul
operations because it would present substantially fewer interference
concerns to adjacent licensees than the mobile operations. In 2010, the
Commission adopted technical rules for the 2.3 GHz band that would
allow WCS licensees to offer mobile broadband services while limiting
the potential for harmful interference to incumbent services operating
in adjacent bands such as Sirius XM. In response, Sirius XM and other
parties filed petitions for reconsideration asking, among other things,
that the Commission reconsider several technical rules that were
adopted. Given that the issue of the appropriate technical rules for
the 2.3 GHz band is currently pending in WT Docket No. 07-293, we
decline to consider it in the instant proceeding.
C. Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service
56. DTV Norwich, LLC (DTV Norwich), a licensee in the Multichannel
Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS), asks the Commission to
allow MVDDS licensees to utilize higher power to provide point-to-point
services. MVDDS is a fixed wireless terrestrial service at 12.2-12.7
GHz that may be used to provide one-way digital fixed non-broadcast
service, including one-way direct-to-home/office wireless service.
MVDDS is authorized on a co-primary, non-harmful interference basis
with incumbent Direct Broadcast Satellite Service (DBS) providers and
on a co-primary basis with non-geostationary satellite orbit fixed-
satellite service (NGSO FSS) stations. MVDDS is licensed on a
geographic area basis according to Nielsen's 2002 Designated Market
Areas and several FCC-defined areas.
57. DTV Norwich argues that MVDDS point-to-point operations at
higher power levels may be possible without causing interference to DBS
and NGSO FSS. According to DTV Norwich, however, ``at existing power
levels, the point-to-point path `hops' would simply be too short to be
economically viable.''
58. DTV Norwich's proposal lacks sufficient specificity to be
worthy of further consideration at this time. The Commission adopted
rules for MVDDS based on the extensive record of the MVDDS rule-making
proceeding, which included a congressionally mandated independent
analysis of potential MVDDS interference to DBS. These rules include
detailed frequency coordination procedures, interference protection
criteria, and limitations on signal emissions, transmitter power
levels, and transmitter locations. The rules limit the effective
isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for MVDDS stations to 14.0 dBm per 24
megahertz (-16.0 dBW per 24 megahertz). To accommodate co-primary DBS
earth stations, an MVDDS licensee shall not begin operation unless it
can ensure that the equivalent power flux density (EPFD) from a
proposed transmitting antenna does not exceed the applicable EPFD limit
at any DBS subscriber location.
59. Under these circumstances, DTV Norwich's proposal is far too
general to warrant further consideration. The Commission found that the
power limits and other technical requirements would ensure that any
interference caused to DBS customers will not exceed a level that is
considered permissible. Furthermore, the Commission also contemplated
that MVDDS service
[[Page 59567]]
providers might petition for waiver(s) of the technical rules, and
required that the petitioning party must ``submit an independent
technical demonstration of its equipment and technology.'' In denying
petitions to reconsider the power limits, the Commission reiterated
that MVDDS providers may seek waivers of the general MVDDS limits. DTV
Norwich's proposal, if considered as a waiver request, would not meet
that standard because it does not provide any technical analysis to
support its claims. Indeed, DTV Norwich does not identify the power
levels it wishes to use. For the reasons listed above, we decline to
consider DTV Norwich's proposal.
D. Revising Technical Rules in Bands Above 15 GHz
60. Sprint recommends that the Commission develop more specific
technical rules governing the use of spectrum masks above 15 GHz, which
would allow for less variance in the interpretation of the Commission's
rules by equipment vendors and enable more frequencies to be used while
also reducing interference. Sprint also asks that the Commission
establish maximum power limits based on the link distance for the bands
above 15 GHz. No other commenter responded to this suggestion. We
decline to take action at this time because (1) Sprint has not made a
concrete showing that there is a problem requiring Commission
intervention, and (2) Sprint does not offer specific proposals for
changes to our rules. We reserve the right to consider the matter
further if additional information is brought to our attention.
E. Modification of Existing Licensing Practices and Procedures
61. XO Communications (XO) expresses concern ``that substantial
portions of spectrum are made available to the public in a manner that
neither promotes * * * efficient spectrum use nor captures the value of
this spectrum for the United States Treasury.'' XO contends that making
``these frequencies available to interested parties at virtually no
cost on a first-come, first-served basis * * * undercut[s] the value of
existing LMDS spectrum licenses.'' XO suggests that the Commission
should consider changing its procedures for licensing point-to-point
services to promote more efficient spectrum use by implementing a
licensing regime under which mutually exclusive applications would be
accepted and resolved through competitive bidding, or alternatively,
applying spectrum usage fees, and by making changes to the Universal
Licensing System (ULS) database. XO argues that adopting competitive
bidding or spectrum fees would give licensees greater economic
incentives to use their spectrum fully and efficiently. XO also states
that the microwave link information provided in the ULS database for
LMDS spectrum relative to the more extensive technical information
provided for common carrier point-to-point microwave links may
discourage customers from seeking to lease LMDS spectrum and that we
should make changes to the ULS to place users of LMDS and common
carrier microwave spectrum on an equal footing.
62. We are not persuaded that we should adopt XO's proposed changes
to our licensing procedures for point-to-point services at this time.
XO has provided no factual basis upon which to decide that the existing
frequency coordination-based licensing regime, under which we accept
applications for each microwave link or path, leads to inefficient use
of this spectrum or is otherwise no longer in the public interest.
While we recognize that accepting mutually exclusive applications that
are resolved through competitive bidding is often an efficient way to
assign licenses, we do not believe that the spectrum coordination
regime for point-to-point services currently in effect, which does not
result in the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications, has failed
thus far either to promote efficient spectrum use or capture its value.
We note, further, that the Commission may continue to use licensing
schemes and other means to avoid mutual exclusivity if public interest
goals are met. Moreover, we decline to implement XO's proposal to
impose fees for the use of this spectrum. As the Commission has
previously noted in other proceedings, we may lack the authority to
impose certain user fees. Finally, to the extent that XO seeks to
eliminate what it sees as an ``economic disparity'' between common
carrier microwave spectrum and existing LMDS spectrum, we observe as an
initial matter that there are significant differences between these
spectrum bands. To the extent that XO's proposals regarding possible
changes to the ULS are motivated by its desire to lease its LMDS
spectrum for point-to-point uses, we are unaware of any obstacles that
would prevent an LMDS licensee such as XO from making additional
detailed technical information available to potential users seeking to
lease spectrum for point-to-point use.
F. Siting Issues
1. OTARD
63. PCIA states that ``local regulations continue to be a
significant barrier to the collocation of antennas on existing towers''
and recommends that the Commission examine its authority to streamline
the collocation review process by restricting the ability of local
authorities to review the placement of wireless antenna. We deny PCIA's
request. In 2000, the Commission determined that section 332(c)(7) of
the Communications Act provides state and local governments with the
authority to regulate the placement, construction, and modification of
carrier hub sites and relay antennas. PCIA is asking the Commission to
modify this decision. PCIA, however, has not presented any change of
circumstances, legal precedent, or statutory authority to support this
change, so we see no reason to revisit the Commission's decision in the
2000 OTARD Report and Order.
2. Colocation of Microwave Facilities
64. XO states that some carriers violate section 251(c)(6) of the
Communications Act by hindering XO's efforts to expand its collocation
facilities at incumbent LEC central offices to include microwave
transmission equipment. XO contends that ``the Commission should
expressly confirm that the collocation of microwave transmission
facilities as proposed by XO was one of the arrangements contemplated
by section 251(c)(6) of the [Communication] Act.'' We find that the
limited information provided by XO on this issue does not provide us
with a sufficient basis upon which to act at this time. This decision
does not preclude XO from filing a more complete submission as it deems
appropriate.
G. Universal Service
65. FiberTower suggests that the Commission utilize the Universal
Service Fund to make wireless backhaul available to qualifying areas
and for qualifying purposes. In February of 2011, the Commission
proposed to revise the Universal Service Fund. In that item, the
Commission asked whether it should modify the universal service rules
to provide additional support for middle mile costs and what effect
would middle mile support have on incentives for small carriers to
develop regional networks that provide lower cost, higher capacity
backhaul capability. Given that the issue of providing Universal
Service funding for wireless backhaul service is currently pending in
the Universal Service
[[Page 59568]]
proceeding, we decline to address this issue in this proceeding but are
incorporating FiberTower's comments into the record of WC Docket No.
10-90.
H. Upper Microwave Substantial Service
66. NSMA argues that in determining whether 24 GHz, 39 GHz, and
LMDS licensees have offered substantial service, the Commission fails
to positively consider ``basic and important steps that lead to
successful band utilization * * *'' It gives the following examples of
such activity: (1) Spending significant resources producing Requests
for Proposals (RFPs) to develop equipment in its band; (2) utilizing
the Secondary Markets rules to offer spectrum leases throughout the
license area; (3) submitting proposals to carrier, government or
enterprise customers that rely upon utilizing the wide-area license;
and/or (4) building several links, but has not yet met the safe harbor
criterion (typically four links per million of population). NSMA asks
the Commission to ``track and credit'' such activities.
67. We see no need to modify our substantial service rules and
policies. NSMA's arguments ignore one of the Commission's overriding
purposes of buildout requirements: Providing ``a clear and expeditious
accounting of spectrum use by licensees to ensure that service is
indeed being provided to the public.'' The Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau has correctly rejected substantial service showings based on
preparatory activities of the type described by NSMA where there is no
actual service being provided to the public. We emphasize, however,
that safe harbors are merely one means of demonstrating substantial
service, and given an appropriate showing, a level of service that does
not meet a safe harbor may still constitute substantial service.
Furthermore, we will evaluate all substantial service showings that do
not meet an established safe harbor on a case-by-case basis.
I. Other Pending Matters
68. We recognize that there are other pending matters and
proceedings relating to wireless backhaul that are not addressed in
this item. Those matters and proceedings include: (1) A petition for
rulemaking asking that the 7125-8500 MHz band be allocated for non-
Federal use and allotted for FS use, (2) a petition for rulemaking
asking that conditional authority be authorized throughout the 23 GHz
band and change the mechanism for coordinating operation with the
National Telecommunications Information Administration (NTIA), and (3)
a request made in this proceeding to revise the Commission's policy of
allowing a satellite earth station to coordinate for the full 360-
degree azimuth range of the earth station even when it is communicating
with only one satellite in a limited segment of the band. We will
address these issues separately or in future orders in this proceeding.
IV. Procedural Matters
69. Paperwork Reduction Analysis: This document contains new
information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. While we did not seek comment on
the information collection requirements in the NPRM, we are seeking
comments now. The information collection will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
70. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Report and Order:
Because we amend the rules in this Report and Order, we have included
this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA). This present FRFA
conforms to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). Accordingly, we have
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concerning the
possible impact of the rule changes contained in the Report and Order
on small entities.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
In this Report and Order, we adopt three changes to our rules
involving microwave stations. First, we allow fixed service (FS)
stations to operate in the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13150 MHz bands.
Second, we eliminate the prohibition on broadcasters using part 101
stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of
distribution of program material to broadcast stations. Third, we amend
our minimum payload capacity rule to facilitate the use of adaptive
modulation to allow licensees to maintain communications by briefly
reducing the rate at which they send data.
With respect to the first action, we anticipate that demand for
fixed service spectrum will increase substantially as it is
increasingly used for wireless backhaul and other important purposes.
The 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13150 MHz bands are currently assigned to
television pickup, television studio-transmitter links, television
relay stations, television translator relay stations, and mobile-only
CARS. Assigning this spectrum to the fixed service will provide
additional spectrum that will be used for wireless backhaul and other
critical applications, while protecting other existing services in
these bands.
Second, Sec. 101.603(a)(7) of the Commission's rules, commonly
known as the ``final link'' rule, prohibits broadcasters from using
part 101 stations as the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of
distribution of program material to broadcast stations. The rule
ensures that private operational fixed stations are used for private,
internal purposes and prevents broadcasters from causing congestion
when part 74 Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) frequencies are
available. In light of the increasing use of digital technologies, we
conclude that the ``final link'' rule may no longer serve its intended
purpose and may in fact inhibit the full use of part 101 spectrum. As
broadcasters and other microwave users move to digital-based systems,
we conclude it does not make sense to distinguish between program
material and other types of content transmitted using digital
technologies. Furthermore, the rule may impose additional costs by
requiring broadcasters to build two different systems: one system to
carry program material to the transmitter site and a separate system to
handle other data. In light of the extensive sharing between BAS and FS
of the same bands, we believe it is appropriate to provide broadcasters
with additional flexibility to use the FS bands. We therefore eliminate
this rule.
Third, we amend our part 101 technical rules to facilitate the use
of adaptive modulation, which is a process that reduces the data rate
of a microwave link in order to maintain communications. Section
101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules establishes minimum payload
capacities (in terms of megabits per second) for various channel sizes
in certain part 101 bands. The underlying purpose of the rule is to
promote efficient frequency use. Although the Commission has never
quantified the time period over which licensees must comply with those
[[Page 59569]]
standards, the industry has generally construed the payload
requirements as applying whenever the link is in service. Fixed service
links, especially long links, are subject to atmospheric fading: a
temporary drop in received power caused by changes in propagation
conditions. Fading leads to an increase in errors and sometimes to a
complete loss of communications. One way to combat fading is by briefly
reducing the data rate, which requires a temporary change in the type
of modulation, a process called ``adaptive modulation.'' The use of
adaptive modulation may reduce the minimum payload capacity below the
value specified in the rule for a short time, although this still
represents an increase over the otherwise zero level during the fade.
Adaptive modulation has public interest benefits of allowing
communications to be maintained during adverse propagation conditions.
Given the critical backhaul and public safety applications of fixed
service stations, we find this benefit to be significant. By allowing
this level of flexibility in our efficiency standards, we hope to
provide carriers with a way to lower their costs yet still use the
spectrum efficiently. This rule change will allow licensees to take
advantage of the benefits of adaptive modulation while ensuring
efficient use of the spectrum.
B. Legal Basis
The action is authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 201,
301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333,
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
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.
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 27.5 million
small businesses, 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.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census Bureau data for
2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that there
were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year. Of
this total, 3,144 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had
employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and the
associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite)
are small entities that may be affected by our proposed action.
Fixed Microwave Services. Microwave services include common
carrier, private-operational fixed, and broadcast auxiliary radio
services. At present, there are approximately 31,549 common carrier
fixed licensees and 89,633 private and public safety operational-fixed
licensees and broadcast auxiliary radio licensees in the 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), and the 24 GHz Service, where
licensees can choose between common carrier and non-common carrier
status. 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. For the category of Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite), Census data for 2007,
which supersede data contained in the 2002 Census, show that there were
1,383 firms that operated that year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100 employees. Thus
under this category and the associated small business size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small. 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.
Radio Broadcasting. The subject rules and policies potentially will
apply to all AM and FM radio broadcasting licensees and potential
licensees. A radio broadcasting station is an establishment primarily
engaged in broadcasting aural programs by radio to the public. Included
in this industry are commercial, religious, educational, and other
radio stations. Radio broadcasting stations which primarily are engaged
in radio broadcasting and which produce radio program materials are
similarly included. However, radio stations that are separate
establishments and are primarily engaged in producing radio program
material are classified under another NAICS number. The SBA has
established a small business size standard for this category, which is:
firms having $7 million or less in annual receipts. According to BIA/
Kelsey, MEDIA Access Pro Database on January 13, 2011, 10,820 (97%) of
11,127 commercial radio stations have revenue of $7 million or less.
Therefore, the majority of such entities are small entities. We note,
however, that many radio stations are affiliated with much larger
corporations having much higher revenue. Our estimate, therefore,
likely overstates the number of small entities that might be affected
by any ultimate changes to the rules and forms.
Television stations. The SBA defines a television broadcasting
station as a small business if such station has no more than $14.0
million in annual receipts. Business concerns included in this industry
are those ``primarily
[[Page 59570]]
engaged in broadcasting images together with sound.'' The Commission
has estimated the number of licensed commercial television stations to
be 1,390. According to Commission staff review of the BIA Kelsey Inc.
Media Access Pro Television Database (BIA) as of January 31, 2011,
1,006 (or about 78 percent) of an estimated 1,298 commercial television
stations in the United States have revenues of $14 million or less and,
thus, qualify as small entities under the SBA definition. The
Commission has estimated the number of licensed noncommercial
educational (NCE) television stations to be 391. We note, however,
that, in assessing whether a business concern qualifies as small under
the above definition, business (control) affiliations must be included.
Our estimate, therefore, likely overstates the number of small entities
that might be affected by our action, because the revenue figure on
which it is based does not include or aggregate revenues from
affiliated companies. The Commission does not compile and otherwise
does not have access to information on the revenue of NCE stations that
would permit it to determine how many such stations would qualify as
small entities.
In addition, an element of the definition of ``small business'' is
that the entity not be dominant in its field of operation. We are
unable at this time to define or quantify the criteria that would
establish whether a specific television station is dominant in its
field of operation. Accordingly, the estimate of small businesses to
which rules may apply do not exclude any television station from the
definition of a small business on this basis and are therefore over-
inclusive to that extent. Also, as noted, an additional element of the
definition of ``small business'' is that the entity must be
independently owned and operated. We note that it is difficult at times
to assess these criteria in the context of media entities and our
estimates of small businesses to which they apply may be over-inclusive
to this extent.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
This Report and Order contains new information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the
general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on
the new or modified information collection requirements contained in
this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how the Commission might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may
include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
As noted above, this Report and Order (1) allows fixed service
stations to operate in the 6875-7125 and 12700-13150 MHz bands, (2)
eliminates the prohibition on broadcasters using part 101 stations as
the final radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of distribution of the
program material to broadcast stations, (3) and amends our minimum
payload capacity rule to facilitate the use of adaptive modulation to
allow licensees to maintain communications by briefly reducing the rate
at which they send data. These actions would provide additional options
to all licensees, including small entity licensees. Such actions will
serve the public interest by making additional spectrum available for
fixed service users, providing additional flexibility for broadcasters
to use microwave spectrum, and allowing communications to be maintained
during adverse propagation conditions. The rules could therefore open
up beneficial economic opportunities to a variety of spectrum users,
including small businesses.
Generally, the alternative approach would be to maintain the
existing rules. If the rules were not changed, the 6875-7125 MHz and
12700-13150 MHz bands would remain unavailable for fixed service use.
Given the increasing demand for part 101 spectrum for backhaul and
other uses, not making that spectrum available would make it
increasingly difficult to meet the demand for microwave facilities. If
the prohibition on broadcasters using part 101 stations as the final
radiofrequency (RF) link in the chain of distribution of the program
material to broadcast stations is not eliminated, broadcasters will be
limited to using Broadcast Auxiliary Service spectrum for that purpose,
and may have to build two separate microwave systems using different
frequencies. Such an alternative would be inadequate to meet the
demands of licensees and is therefore less than ideal. If no BAS
spectrum is available, broadcasters will have to pay to prepare a
request for waiver to access part 101 spectrum and await action on that
waiver request before they can begin operation. Such expense and delay
may be particularly harmful to small businesses.
With respect to our proposal to amend our minimum capacity payload
rule to facilitate adaptive modulation, if our rules are not amended to
facilitate the use of adaptive modulation, licensees will be unable to
fully use technology to maintain critical communications during signal
fades. An alternative to the adaptive modulation proposal made in the
NPRM would be to allow compliance with the efficiency standards ``on
average'' and ``during normal operation.'' We believe that standard
would give licensees too much latitude to deploy inefficient systems
that would be inconsistent with good engineering practices.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
None.
V. Ordering Clauses
71. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7,
201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, and 333,
and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 1302, that this Report and Order is hereby adopted.
72. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein will become
effective 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal
Register, except for Sec. 74.605, which contains new or modified
information collection requirements that require approval by the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
and will become effective after the Commission publishes a notice in
the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant
effective date.
[[Page 59571]]
73. It is further ordered that the Comments of FiberTower
Corporation filed on October 25, 2010 shall be inserted into the record
of WC Docket No. 10-90.
74. It is further ordered that the Commission shall send a copy of
this Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A).
75. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order,
including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Parts 74 and 101
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Federal Communications Commission
Bulah P. Wheeler,
Deputy Manager.
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission hereby amends 47 CFR parts 74 and 101 as
follows:
PART 74--EXPERIMENTAL RADIO, AUXILIARY, SPECIAL BROADCAST AND OTHER
PROGRAM DISTRIBUTIONAL SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 74 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 307, 336(f), 336(h) and
554.
0
2. Amend Sec. 74.602 by revising paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 74.602 Frequency assignment.
(a) The following frequencies are available for assignment to
television pickup, television STL, television relay and television
translator relay stations. The band segments 17,700-18,580 and 19,260-
19,700 MHz are available for broadcast auxiliary stations as described
in paragraph (g) of this section. The band segment 6425-6525 MHz is
available for broadcast auxiliary stations as described in paragraph
(i) of this section. The bands 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-13200 MHz are
co-equally shared with stations licensed pursuant to Parts 78 and 101
of the Commission's Rules. Broadcast network-entities may also use the
1990-2110, 6425-6525 and 6875-7125 MHz bands for mobile television
pickup only.
* * * * *
0
3. Sec. 74.605 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 74.605 Registration of stationary television pickup receive
sites.
Licensees of TV pickup stations in the 6875-7125 MHz and 12700-
13200 MHz bands shall register their stationary receive sites using the
Commission's Universal Licensing System.
PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
0
4. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
0
5. Amend Sec. 101.31 by revising paragraph (b)(1) introductory text to
read as follows:
Sec. 101.31 Temporary and conditional authorizations.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) An applicant for a new point-to-point microwave radio
station(s) or a modification of an existing station(s) in the 952.95-
956.15, 956.55-959.75, 3,700-4,200; 5,925-6,425; 6,525-6,875; 6,875-
7,125; 10,550-10,680; 10,700-11,700; 11,700-12,200; 12,700-13,150;
13,200-13,250; 17,700-19,700; and 21,800-22,000 MHz, and 23,000-23,200
MHz bands (see Sec. 101.147(s) for specific service usage) may operate
the proposed station(s) during the pendency of its applications(s) upon
the filing of a properly completed formal application(s) that complies
with subpart B of part 101 if the applicant certifies that the
following conditions are satisfied:
* * * * *
0
6. Amend Sec. 101.101 by adding the entry ``6875-7125'' to the table
to read as follows:
Sec. 101.101 Frequency availability.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radio Service
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency Band (MHz) Other (Parts 15, 21,
Common carrier (Part Private radio (Part Broadcast Auxiliary 22, 24, 25, 74, 78, & Notes
101) 101) (Part 74) 100)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
6875-7125.......................... CC.................... OFS................... TV BAS............... CARS.................
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec. 101.103 by revising paragraph (d)(2)(ii) to read as
follows:
Sec. 101.103 Frequency coordination procedures.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) Notification must include relevant technical details of the
proposal. At minimum, this should include, as applicable, the
following:
Applicant's name and address.
Transmitting station name.
Transmitting station coordinates.
Frequencies and polarizations to be added, changed or deleted.
Transmitting equipment type, its stability, actual output power,
emission designator, and type of modulation(s) (loading). Notification
shall indicate if modulations lower than the values listed in the table
to Sec. 101.141(a)(3) of the Commission's rules will be used.
Transmitting antenna type(s), model, gain and, if required, a
radiation pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer.
Transmitting antenna center line height(s) above ground level and
ground elevation above mean sea level.
Receiving station name.
Receiving station coordinates.
Receiving antenna type(s), model, gain, and, if required, a
radiation pattern provided or certified by the manufacturer.
Receiving antenna center line height(s) above ground level and
ground elevation above mean sea level.
Path azimuth and distance.
[[Page 59572]]
Estimated transmitter transmission line loss expressed in dB.
Estimated receiver transmission line loss expressed in dB.
For a system utilizing ATPC, maximum transmit power, coordinated
transmit power, and nominal transmit power.
Note: The position location of antenna sites shall be
determined to an accuracy of no less than 1 second in
the horizontal dimensions (latitude and longitude) and 1
meter in the vertical dimension (ground elevation) with respect to
the National Spatial Reference System.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec. 101.107(a), in the table by adding the entry ``6,875 to
7,125\1\'' to read as follows:
Sec. 101.107 Frequency tolerance.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency
Frequency (MHz) Tolerance
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
6,875 to 7,125 \1\......................................... 0.005
* * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
9. Amend Sec. 101.109(c), in the table by adding the entries ``6,875
to 7,125'' and ``12,700-13,150'' to read as follows:
Sec. 101.109 Bandwidth.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency band (MHz) Maximum authorized bandwidth
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
6,875 to 7,125........................... 25 MHz \1\
12,700 to 13,150......................... 50 MHz
* * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 101.113(a), in the table by adding the entry ``6,875-
7,125'' to read as follows:
Sec. 101.113 Transmitter power limitations.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum allowable
EIRP \1, 2\
Frequency band (MHz) ----------------------
Fixed\1,2\ Mobile
(dBW) (dBW)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
6,875-7,125...................................... +55 .........
* * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 101.115(b), in the table by adding the entry ``6,875-
7,125'' to read as follows:
Sec. 101.115 Directional antennas.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
Antenna Standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum Minimum radiation suppression to angle in degrees from
beamwidth centerline of main beam in decibels
to 3 dB Minimum -----------------------------------------------------------------
Frequency (MHz) Category points \1\ antenna
(included gain (dBi) 5[deg] 10[deg] 15[deg] 20[deg] 30[deg] 100[deg] 140[deg]
angle in to to to to to to to
degrees) 10[deg] 15[deg] 20[deg] 30[deg] 100[deg] 140[deg] 180[deg]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
6,875 to 7,125................................. A 2.2 38 25 29 33 36 42 55 55
B 2.2 38 21 25 29 32 35 39 45
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec. 101.141 by revising paragraph (a)(3) introductory text
and by adding the following entries ``25.0 89.4 \3\50 2 DS-3/STS-1'' in
the table as follows:
Sec. 101.141 Microwave modulation.
(a) * * *
(3) The following capacity and loading requirements must be met for
equipment applied for, authorized, and placed in service after June 1,
1997 in 3700-4200 MHz (4 GHz), 5925-6425, 6525-6875 MHz (6 GHz), 6875-
7125 MHz (7 GHz), 10,550-10,680 MHz (10 GHz), 10,700-11700 MHz (11
GHz), and 12,700-13,150 MHz (13 GHz) bands, except during anomalous
signal fading. During anomalous signal fading, licensees may adjust to
a modulation specified in their authorization if such modulation is
necessary to allow licensees to maintain communications, even if the
modulation will not comply with the capacity and loading requirements
specified in this paragraph. Links that use equipment capable of
adjusting modulation must be designed using generally accepted
multipath fading and rain fading models to meet the specified capacity
and loading requirements at least 99.95% of the time, in the aggregate
of both directions in a two-way link.
* * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum traffic payload
Nominal channel bandwidth (MHz) Minimum Payload (as percent of payload Typical utilization \2\
capacity (MBits/s) \1\ capacity)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
25.0........................... 89.4 \3\50 2 DS-3/STS-1.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 59573]]
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 101.147 as follows:
0
a. Add the entry ``6,875-7,125 MHz'' to the table in paragraph (a);
0
b. Revise the entry ``12,700-13,200 MHz'' in the table in paragraph
(a);
0
c. Add note (34) to paragraph (a);
0
d. Redesignate paragraph (l) as paragraph (k);
0
e. Add a new paragraph (l);
0
f. Revise paragraph (p).
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 101.147 Frequency assignments.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * *
6,875-7,125 MHz (10), (34)
* * * * *
12,700-13,200 (22), (34)
* * * * *
(34) In the bands 6,875-7,125 MHz and 12,700-13,150 MHz, links
shall not intersect with the service areas of television pickup
stations.
* * * * *
(l) 6875 to 7125 MHz. 25 MHz authorized bandwidth.
(1) 5 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6877.5 7027.5
6882.5 7032.5
6887.5 7037.5
6892.5 7042.5
6897.5 7047.5
6902.5 7052.5
6907.5 7057.5
6912.5 7062.5
6917.5 7067.5
6922.5 7072.5
6927.5 7077.5
6932.5 7082.5
6937.5 7087.5
6942.5 7092.5
6947.5 7097.5
6952.5 7102.5
6957.5 7107.5
6962.5 7112.5
6967.5 7117.5
6972.5 7122.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) 8.33 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6879.165 7029.165
6887.495 7037.495
6895.825 7045.825
6904.155 7054.155
6912.485 7062.485
6920.815 7070.815
6929.145 7079.145
6937.475 7087.475
6945.805 7095.805
6954.135 7104.135
6962.465 7112.465
6970.795 7120.795
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) 12.5 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6881.25 7031.25
6893.75 7043.75
6906.25 7056.25
6918.75 7068.75
6931.25 7081.25
6943.75 7093.75
6956.25 7106.25
6968.75 7118.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(4) 25 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6887.5 7037.5
6912.5 7062.5
6937.5 7087.5
6962.5 7112.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(p)12,200 to 13,150 MHz. (1) 12,000-12,700 MHz. The Commission has
allocated the 12.2-12.7 GHz band for use by the Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service (DBS), the Multichannel Video Distribution and Data
Service (MVDDS), and the Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit Fixed
Satellite Service (NGSO FSS). MVDDS shall be licensed on a non-harmful
interference co-primary basis to existing DBS operations and on a co-
primary basis with NGSO FSS stations in this band. MVDDS use can be on
a common carrier and/or non-common carrier basis and can use channels
of any desired bandwidth up to the maximum of 500 MHz provided the EIRP
does not exceed 14 dBm per 24 megahertz. Private operational fixed
point-to-point microwave stations authorized after September 9, 1983,
are licensed on a non-harmful interference basis to DBS and are
required to make any and all adjustments necessary to prevent harmful
interference to operating domestic DBS receivers. Incumbent public
safety licensees shall be afforded protection from MVDDS and NGSO FSS
licensees, however all other private operational fixed licensees shall
be secondary to DBS, MVDDS and NGSO FSS licensees. As of May 23, 2002,
the Commission no longer accepts applications for new licenses for
point-to-point private operational fixed stations in this band,
however, incumbent licensees and previously filed applicants may file
applications for minor modifications and amendments (as defined in
Sec. 1.929 of this chapter) thereto, renewals, transfer of control, or
assignment of license. Notwithstanding any other provisions, no private
operational fixed point-to-point microwave stations are permitted to
cause harmful interference to broadcasting-satellite stations of other
countries operating in accordance with the Region 2 plan for the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service established at the 1983 WARC.
(2) 12,700 to 13,150 MHz. 50 MHz authorized bandwidth.
(i) 5 MHz channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12702.5 12927.5
12707.5 12932.5
12712.5 12937.5
12717.5 12942.5
12722.5 12947.5
12727.5 12952.5
12732.5 12957.5
12737.5 12962.5
12742.5 12967.5
12747.5 12972.5
12752.5 12977.5
12757.5 12982.5
12762.5 12987.5
12767.5 12992.5
12772.5 12997.5
12777.5 13002.5
12782.5 13007.5
12787.5 13012.5
12792.5 13017.5
12797.5 13022.5
12802.5 13027.5
12807.5 13032.5
12812.5 13037.5
12817.5 13042.5
12822.5 13047.5
12827.5 13052.5
12832.5 13057.5
12837.5 13062.5
12842.5 13067.5
12847.5 13072.5
12852.5 13077.5
12857.5 13082.5
12862.5 13087.5
12867.5 13092.5
12872.5 13097.5
12877.5 13102.5
12882.5 13107.5
12887.5 13112.5
12892.5 13117.5
12897.5 13122.5
12902.5 13127.5
12907.5 13132.5
12912.5 13137.5
12917.5 13142.5
12922.5 13147.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) 8.33 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12704.165 12929.165
12712.495 12937.495
[[Page 59574]]
12720.825 12945.825
12729.155 12954.155
12737.485 12962.485
12745.815 12970.815
12754.145 12979.145
12762.475 12987.475
12770.805 12995.805
12779.135 13004.135
12787.465 13012.465
12795.795 13020.795
12804.125 13029.125
12812.455 13037.455
12820.785 13045.785
12829.115 13054.115
12837.445 13062.445
12845.775 13070.775
12854.105 13079.105
12862.435 13087.435
12870.765 13095.765
12879.095 13104.095
12887.425 13112.425
12895.755 13120.755
12904.085 13129.085
12912.415 13137.415
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iii) 12.5 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12706.25 12931.25
12718.75 12943.75
12731.25 12956.25
12743.75 12968.75
12756.25 12981.25
12768.75 12993.75
12781.25 13006.25
12793.75 13018.75
12806.25 13031.25
12818.75 13043.75
12831.25 13056.25
12843.75 13068.75
12856.25 13081.25
12868.75 13093.75
12881.25 13106.25
12893.75 13118.75
12906.25 13131.25
12918.75 13143.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(iv) 25 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12712.5 12937.5
12737.5 12962.5
12762.5 12987.5
12787.5 13012.5
12812.5 13037.5
12837.5 13062.5
12862.5 13087.5
12887.5 13112.5
12912.5 13137.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(v) 50 MHz bandwidth channels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transmit (receive) (MHz) Receive (transmit) (MHz)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12725 12925
12775 12975
12825 13025
12875 13075
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec. 101.603 by revising paragraph (a)(7) to read as
follows:
Sec. 101.603 Permissible communications.
(a) * * *
(7) Licensees may transmit program material from one location to
another;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-23001 Filed 9-26-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P