[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 19575-19589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7760]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 27
[WT Docket No. 12-69; FCC 12-31]
Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz Commercial Spectrum;
Interoperability of Mobile User Equipment Across Paired Commercial
Spectrum Blocks in the 700 MHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether the
customers of Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees would experience
harmful interference--and if so, to what degree--if the Lower 700 MHz
band were interoperable. The Commission also explores the next steps
should it find that interoperability would cause
[[Page 19576]]
limited or no harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block
licensees, or that such interference can reasonably be mitigated
through industry efforts and/or through modifications to the
Commission's technical rules or other regulatory measures. The
Commission initiates this proceeding to promote interoperability in the
Lower 700 MHz band and to encourage the efficient use of spectrum.
DATES: Interested parties may file comments on or before June 1, 2012,
and reply comments on or before July 16, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 12-69,
by any of the following methods:
[ssquf] Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Federal Communications Commission's Web site: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
[ssquf] Mail: Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by
commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail (although the Commission continues to experience
delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail). All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[ssquf] People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected] or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Boykin, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-2062, email [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket No. 12-69, adopted March 21,
2012, and released March 21, 2012. The full text of the NPRM is
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street SW.,
Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site, http://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202) 488-
5563, or email [email protected]. Copies of the NPRM also may be obtained
via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) by
entering the docket number WT Docket No. 12-69. Additionally, the
complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's
Web site at http://www.fcc.gov.
I. Introduction
1. The Communications Act directs the Commission to, among other
things, promote the widest possible deployment of communications
services, ensure the most efficient use of spectrum, and protect and
promote vibrant competition in the marketplace. On each occasion where
the Commission has made available new spectrum for mobile telephony
and/or broadband, it has strived to meet these important goals. This
was the case when the Commission launched its proceeding to free up the
700 MHz band for commercial mobile services, as it expressly recognized
the need to ``balance several competing goals, including facilitating
access to spectrum by both small and large providers, providing for the
efficient use of the spectrum, and better enabling the delivery of
broadband services in the 700 MHz Band.''
2. Since the completion of the 700 MHz auction and the subsequent
clearing of the spectrum, however, certain Lower 700 MHz A Block
licensees have asserted that the development of two distinct band
classes within the Lower 700 MHz band has hampered their ability to
have meaningful access to a wide range of advanced devices. The result,
they argue, is that this spectrum is being built out less quickly than
anticipated (and in some cases not at all), so that a large number of
Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees are unable to provide the level of
service and degree of competition envisioned at the close of the
auction and as contemplated by the Communications Act. The 700 MHz
band, at 70 megahertz, one of the largest commercial mobile service
bands, is the only non-interoperable commercial mobile service band.
3. The record to date in response to the underlying Petition for
Rulemaking reveals disagreement over the rationale for the distinct
band classes, and the wisdom of maintaining both. At its core, the
dispute is whether a unified band class would result in harmful
interference to Lower 700 MHz licensees in the B and C Blocks and
whether, if harmful interference exists, it reasonably can be
mitigated.
4. There is express agreement, however, that a unified band class
across the Lower 700 MHz band has the potential to yield significant
benefits for all licensees. Indeed, as AT&T, the primary holder of
Lower B and C Block licenses, affirmed in a recent letter to the
Commission, ``[AT&T] indeed anticipate[s] that there would be increased
opportunity [if interference concerns were addressed] for commercial
relationships with A Block licensees.'' Unfortunately, no industry-led
solution to the lack of interoperability has yet emerged.
5. Therefore, the Commission initiates this rulemaking proceeding
to promote interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band and to encourage
the efficient use of spectrum.\1\ The Commission will evaluate whether
the customers of Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees would experience
harmful interference--and if so, to what degree--if the Lower 700 MHz
band were interoperable. The Commission also explores the next steps
should it find that interoperability would cause limited or no harmful
interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees, or that such
interference can reasonably be mitigated through industry efforts and/
or through modifications to the Commission's technical rules or other
regulatory measures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission has a longstanding interest in promoting the
interoperability of mobile user equipment in a variety of contexts
as a means to promote the widest possible deployment of mobile
services, ensure the most efficient use of spectrum, and protect and
promote competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Background
6. 700 MHz Band. The 700 MHz band (698-806 MHz), illustrated in the
following figure, is comprised of 70 megahertz of commercial, non-guard
band spectrum, 4 megahertz of guard band spectrum, 24 megahertz of
public safety: Spectrum, and 10 megahertz of spectrum that will be
reallocated for public safety use pursuant to recent Congressional
mandate.
[[Page 19577]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02AP12.004
7. As shown above, the Lower 700 MHz band spectrum (698-746 MHz)
consists of 48 megahertz of commercial spectrum, with three blocks of
12 megahertz each of paired spectrum (Lower A, B, and C Blocks), and
two blocks of 6 megahertz each of unpaired spectrum (Lower D and E
Blocks). The Lower A Block spectrum is adjacent to Channel 51 (692-698
MHz), which has been allocated for TV broadcast operations at power
levels of up to 1000 kW.\2\ The Lower A Block is also adjacent to the
unpaired Lower 700 MHz E Block, where licensees (along with Lower 700
MHz D Block licensees) may operate at power levels up to 50 kW.\3\ The
Upper 700 MHz band (746-806 MHz) consists of the C Block, which is
comprised of 22 megahertz of paired spectrum for commercial use, two
guard bands, the public safety allocation, and the D Block, which
consists of 10 megahertz of paired spectrum that will be reallocated
for use by public safety entities, in accordance with the Middle Class
Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 47 CFR 73.622(f)(8). Maximum ERP of 1000 kW is allowed if
antenna HAAT is at or below 365 meters. For higher HAAT levels,
lower maximum ERP is allowed according to the ``Maximum Allowable
ERP and Antenna Height for DTV Stations on Channels 14-59, All
Zones'' table.
\3\ 47 CFR 27.50(c)(7). Lower 700 MHz C, D, and E Block fixed
and base stations may operate at total power levels up to 50 kW ERP
in their authorized 6 megahertz spectrum blocks. In the recent ATT-
Qualcomm transaction, in which AT&T acquired all of the Lower 700
MHz D Block licenses and Lower 700 MHz E Block licenses covering 70
million people, the Commission conditioned the assignment of these
licenses on AT&T's compliance with the requirements that: (1) It
operates on the associated spectrum under the same power limits and
antenna height restrictions that apply to the Lower 700 MHz A, B,
and C Block licensees; (2) it does not use the acquired licenses for
uplink transmission; and (3) its operations on the associated
spectrum avoid undue interference to operations of other Lower 700
MHz A, B, and C Block licensees, as specified therein. Application
of AT&T Inc. and Qualcomm Incorporated For Consent To Assign
Licenses and Authorizations, Order, WT Docket No. 11-18, 26 FCC Rcd
17589, 17616-18 paras. 61-68 (2011) (AT&T/Qualcomm Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Assignment of Licenses in the 700 MHz Band. The Commission has
assigned licenses for the 700 MHz band through several auction
proceedings. The Commission auctioned licenses for the guard bands in
the Upper 700 MHz band in 2000, and it initially auctioned licenses in
the Lower C and D Blocks in 2002. In 2008, the Commission auctioned
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band A, B, and E Blocks, as well as the
Upper 700 MHz band C Block.
9. Performance Requirements. In adopting rules for the 700 MHz
band, the Commission's goals included promoting commercial access to
700 MHz band spectrum, as well as providing licensees with flexibility
in the services to be offered and the technologies to be deployed. For
the Lower 700 MHz C and D Block licenses that were auctioned in 2002,
the Commission required licensees to provide ``substantial service'' to
their license service areas no later than the end of the license term.
In 2007, the Commission adopted performance requirements for licenses
in the 700 MHz band that subsequently were auctioned in 2008, including
Lower 700 MHz A Block. Specifically, Cellular Market Area (CMA)-based
and Economic Area (EA)-based licensees are required to provide service
sufficient to cover 35 percent of the geographic area of their licenses
within four years and 70 percent of this area within ten years (the
license term), and Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) licensees
must provide service sufficient to cover 40 percent of the population
of their license areas within four years and 75 percent of the
population within ten years. For licensees that fail to meet the
applicable interim benchmark, the license term is reduced by two years,
which would require that the end-of-term benchmark be met within eight
years, and the Commission may take other enforcement action. At the end
of the license term, licensees that fail to meet the end-of-term
benchmark are subject to a ``keep what you use'' rule, which will make
unused spectrum available to other potential users.
10. Development of 3GPP Technical Standards. Industry standards for
Long-Term Evolution (LTE) wireless broadband technology are developed
by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), a consensus-driven
international partnership of industry-based telecommunications
standards bodies. 3GPP, established in 1998, is an industry-based group
and it is not associated with any governmental agency.\4\ In the Lower
700 MHz band, there are two different 3GPP operating bands: \5\ Band
Class 12, which covers operations in the Lower A, B, and C Blocks, and
Band Class 17, which covers operations in the Lower B and C Blocks
only. The spectrum to which Band Class 17 applies is a subset of the
spectrum covered by Band Class 12. Entities involved in the creation of
Band
[[Page 19578]]
Class 17 during 3GPP proceedings assert that it was necessary to create
a separate band class for Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licenses in order
to avoid interference issues from DTV in Channel 51 and high power
operations in the E Block. In the Upper 700 MHz band, the Band Class 13
specification provides for operations in the Upper C Block, and Band
Class 14 provides for operations in the public safety spectrum
(including the Upper 700 MHz D Block). 3GPP has adopted certain
technical specifications for user equipment operating in different 700
MHz bands. Output power and the OOBE specifications for LTE equipment
are the same for all commercial paired frequencies in the Lower 700 MHz
band.\6\ The 3GPP specifications differ for receiver blocking
requirements. The 3GPP specified requirements for receiver blocking are
the same for Band Class 13 and Band Class 14 equipment, but Band Class
12 and Band Class 17 each have different and distinct blocking
requirements, due to differences in each band's relative proximity to
neighboring high-powered operations in the E block.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Its world-wide partners come from Asia, Europe, and North
America. 3GPP's many technical specification groups meet in various
countries throughout the year to carry out the organization's
mission. See 3GPP--About 3GPP, http://www.3gpp.org/-About-3GPP (last
visited Mar. 12, 2012). For the schedules of the meetings, see
3GPP--3GPP Calendar, http://www.3gpp.org/3GPP-Calendar (last visited
Mar. 12, 2012).
\5\ Hereinafter, the Commission refers to each 3GPP LTE
Operating Band as a ``Band Class.'' For example, the Commission
refers to 3GPP LTE Operating Band 12 as ``Band Class 12.''
\6\ See Sec. Sec. 6.2.2, 6.6.2, and 6.6.2.2.3 of 3GPP TS 36.101
V9.9.0 (2011-09). The class 3 devices (UE) maximum transmit power is
23dBm for all bands with 2dB tolerance, and Table
6.6.2.2.3-1 specifies the spectrum emission limits for available
channel bandwidths.
\7\ Receiver blocking requirements address a receiver's ability
to receive at least 95% of the maximum throughput at its assigned
channel in the presence of an unwanted interfering signal falling
into the device receive band or into the first adjacent 15
megahertz. See Table 7.6.1.1-2, Section 7.6.1 of 3GPP TS 36.104
V9.9.0 (2011-09). Unlike Band Class 17, 3GPP determined that Band
Class 12 cannot achieve the typical minimum specification for
blocking interference from the Lower 700 MHz E Block, so this
requirement was omitted from the Band 12 technical specification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. 700 MHz Interoperability Petition for Rulemaking. In late 2009,
an alliance comprised of four Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees
(Petitioners) filed a petition for rulemaking, asking the Commission to
``assure that consumers will have access to all paired 700 MHz spectrum
that the Commission licenses, to act so that the entire 700 MHz Band
will develop in a competitive fashion, and to adopt rules that prohibit
restrictive equipment arrangements that are contrary to the public
interest.'' Petitioners request the Commission to require that all
mobile units for the 700 MHz band be capable of operating over all
frequencies in the band. Petitioners further request ``an immediate
freeze on the authorization of mobile equipment that is not capable of
operation on all paired commercial 700 MHz frequencies.'' The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau sought comment on the Petition in 2010. See
75 FR 9210. All future filings concerning RM-11592 should be made in
this docket, WT Docket No. 12-69.
12. The Commission received 18 comments and 13 reply comments in
response to the Petition. Commenters are divided on the merits of the
relief sought in the Petition. Commenters in support of the Petition
include smaller, regional 700 MHz licensees, a coalition including
Sprint Nextel and T-Mobile, trade associations representing rural and
smaller providers, a coalition of public interest groups, and public
safety associations. These supporters assert that the mobile devices
currently being developed for AT&T and Verizon Wireless preclude
supporting operation on Lower A Block spectrum and that this is
contrary to the public interest and anti-competitive. They argue that
small providers that acquired Lower band 700 MHz Block A spectrum are
left without viable and widely usable equipment options. Thus, they
contend that unless Verizon Wireless and AT&T are required to support
Band Class 12 in their devices, Lower A Block licensees will not be
able to obtain devices with competitive economies of scale. They also
argue that requiring full 700 MHz support will maximize roaming
opportunities. Specifically, Petitioners assert that a prerequisite for
negotiating roaming agreements is the availability of capable devices
and that there is no basis for negotiation if there are no mobile
devices that work across 700 MHz frequency blocks. While the Petition
requests interoperability across the entire 700 MHz band, subsequent
filings from some of the proponents of an interoperability requirement,
including parties to the Petition, have asked the Commission to first
focus on establishing an interoperability requirement for the Lower 700
MHz band.
13. In their initial comments, parties such as AT&T and Verizon
Wireless, device manufacturers Motorola and Qualcomm, and TIA, a
manufacturer trade association, opposed the Petition. They argued that
without Band Class 17 filtering, Lower 700 MHz B and C licensees will
face greater levels of harmful interference. Further, they suggested
that an interoperability requirement at that time, spring 2010, would
have unnecessarily delayed the deployment of 700 MHz mobile broadband
devices. They contended that the existing 3GPP band classes were
crafted through an open process and are responsive to the realities of
the engineering and manufacturing constraints of the Commission-defined
spectrum blocks. Further, AT&T asserted that nothing prevents 700 MHz A
Block licensees from negotiating roaming deals with any provider
offering services on other 700 MHz blocks. AT&T also argued that even
if A Block licensees will have greater difficulty or face higher costs
in developing handsets for use on the A Block, those disadvantages are
fully reflected in the lower prices A Block licensees paid to obtain A
Block spectrum.
14. Workshop on Interoperability. Last year, to update the record
and gather additional information, the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau held a workshop on the status and availability of interoperable
mobile user equipment across commercial spectrum blocks in the 700 MHz
band. Panelists included a range of industry experts, including
licensees holding spectrum in different portions of the 700 MHz band,
as well as public interest advocates and equipment manufacturers. In
addition to exploring solutions for promoting the development and
availability of equipment for the 700 MHz band, the workshop discussed
providers' technology choices, such as the planned deployment of LTE,
and how these technology choices affect equipment availability,
competition, and roaming. Panelists discussed the technical feasibility
of an interoperability condition, as well as how an interoperability
requirement might affect such factors as device cost and performance,
and the need for additional development and testing.
15. Other Developments Regarding the 700 MHz Band. On March 15,
2011, CTIA and RCA filed a petition for rulemaking and request for
licensing freezes on Channel 51, urging the Commission to facilitate
the deployment of wireless broadband services in the Lower 700 MHz A
Block by providing a stable interference environment that allows
licensees to plan network deployments. The petition noted the potential
for interference between Channel 51 broadcast and Lower 700 MHz A Block
licensees. On March 28, 2011, the Media Bureau requested comment on the
petition, and in August 2011, the Media Bureau adopted a freeze on the
filing of certain applications with respect to operations on Channel
51. The freeze covers (1) applications for low power television, TV
translator, replacement translators, and Class A television facilities
on Channel 51, and displacement applications on this channel; and (2)
applications for minor change for low power and full power television
stations on Channel 51.
[[Page 19579]]
16. AT&T/Qualcomm Transaction. On January 13, 2011, AT&T and
Qualcomm filed an application for Commission consent to the assignment
or transfer of control of all eleven of Qualcomm's D and E Block
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band to AT&T. The Commission sought
comment on the proposed transaction. Several parties asked the
Commission to impose requirements relating to device interoperability
as a condition of approving the transaction. After examination of the
record, the Commission approved the assignment on December 22, 2011,
but declined to adopt an interoperability condition. The Commission
observed that even assuming that the lack of Lower 700 MHz
interoperability causes significant competitive harm, such harm already
existed independent of the license transfer applications. The
Commission concluded that the better course would be to consider the
numerous technical issues raised by the lack of interoperability
through a rulemaking proceeding, which the Commission undertakes in
this NPRM.
III. Discussion
A. Challenges To Achieving Interoperability
17. The Commission historically has been interested in promoting
interoperability. Beginning with the licensing of cellular spectrum,
the Commission has opined that consumer equipment should be capable of
operating over the entire range of cellular spectrum as a means to
``insure full coverage in all markets and compatibility on a nationwide
basis.'' Although the Commission did not adopt a rule to require band-
wide interoperability for PCS, it again stressed the importance of
interoperability by acknowledging industry efforts to establish
voluntary interoperability standards and asserted that ``[t]he
availability of interoperability standards will deliver important
benefits to consumers and help achieve the Commission's objectives of
universality, competitive delivery of PCS, that includes the ability of
consumers to switch between PCS systems at low cost, and competitive
markets for PCS equipment.'' The Commission also stated that if PCS
technology did not develop in a manner to accommodate roaming and
interoperability, it might consider ``what actions the Commission may
take to facilitate the more rapid development of appropriate
standards.''
18. Availability of End-User Equipment. According to the
Petitioners, a lack of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band has
cut off meaningful access for many Lower A Block licensees to cutting-
edge devices, and even those that do have access are able to acquire
only a fraction of what other 700 MHz licensees are able to procure.
Petitioners and proponents of a near-term interoperability requirement
make essentially two arguments. Specifically, Vulcan argues that
equipment vendors currently first serve the needs of ``the unique band
class that is dominated by AT&T'' and that this slows the time to
market for Lower A Block licensees because they experience a lack of
access to new devices and face delays in the development of standards,
chipsets, and equipment. Similarly, RTG asserts that equipment
manufacturers have little incentive to innovate and provide compatible
devices for smaller markets, particularly when providing interoperable
devices would run contrary to their largest customers' desires.
19. Petitioners and other proponents also claim that an
interoperability requirement should enable Lower A Block licensees and
other Lower 700 MHz licensees to benefit from economies of scale with
respect to mobile devices, which in turn would promote greater
affordability that can be passed along to consumers. RCA argues that
even where Band Class 12 equipment can be made available, the costs are
unnecessarily inflated by the limited scale resulting from the lack of
interoperability across the 700 MHz spectrum. According to the record,
Cellular South was able to find a manufacturer willing to supply it
with devices that included, at a minimum, Band Class 12 frequencies,
but ``the cost of obtaining such devices without the economies of scale
available based upon demand for similar devices by a nationwide carrier
made pursuing the opportunity not economically feasible.'' Cellular
South asserts that the necessary ``scale'' to obtain pricing that would
allow it to bring devices to market would be expected to involve more
than one million devices and in any case no less than a half million
devices.
20. Nationwide providers AT&T and Verizon Wireless respond that
Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees are free to negotiate with device
manufacturers. Verizon Wireless claims that ``those decisions have to
be made by those carriers to meet their own individual business plans.
Verizon Wireless has nothing to do with those decisions.'' Verizon
Wireless also asserts that there are at least 33 companies that
manufacture devices for the U.S. market and that Petitioners ``provide
no evidence about their efforts (or the apparent lack thereof) to
obtain the devices they want, either individually or through a
consortium, from any of these potential suppliers.''
21. The Commission seeks comment on Petitioners' and other
proponents' argument that an interoperability requirement in the 700
MHz band is necessary to obtain affordable, advanced mobile devices to
deploy service to consumers in smaller, regional, and rural service
areas. To what extent have any Lower A Block licensees successfully
negotiated with equipment vendors to date? What efforts have other
Lower A Block licensees undertaken to negotiate with equipment vendors?
Would an interoperability requirement help enable Lower A Block
licensees to benefit from economies of scale with respect to mobile
devices, and what would be the benefits to consumers? Do manufacturers
require a provider to purchase a minimum number of devices? If so, what
is that number and is it prohibitive for a smaller provider to achieve
such a scale? The Commission seeks data and evidence in support of all
of these claims.
22. Effect on the Deployment of Advanced Broadband Services. The
record to date suggests that, unless mobile user equipment is capable
of operating on all paired commercial Lower 700 MHz spectrum, the
deployment of facilities-based mobile broadband networks could be
hampered, particularly in rural and unserved areas. The Commission
notes that a significant number of Lower A Block licenses are held by
smaller, rural, and regional licensees. Petitioners and proponents
argue that requiring all Lower 700 MHz licensees to use interoperable
equipment would increase the likelihood that these Lower A Block
licensees can obtain the necessary financing to deploy networks and
devices. They add that the inability of small and regional providers to
obtain interoperable devices impedes their ability to compete in the
provision of 4G services, makes it difficult to maintain current
customers and acquire new ones, results in equipment costs that are
higher than for other bands, and creates uncertainty for spectrum
holders that could have adverse effects on investment in deployment of
networks and devices. RCA and Triad argue that Lower A Block licensees'
inability to obtain affordable end user devices could cause the A Block
spectrum to remain fallow for an extended period of time.
23. AT&T responds that an interoperability requirement in the Lower
700 MHz spectrum would impose unreasonable burdens on
[[Page 19580]]
AT&T's ability to build out its Lower 700 MHz spectrum. Specifically,
AT&T claims that such a requirement would create ``substantial
disruption and delay to [its] current LTE deployment plans and
significant additional costs.'' AT&T claims that if it were required to
abandon plans to use Band Class 17 and deploy a network around Band
Class 12, it would need to upgrade its LTE base stations and develop
and obtain ``new chipsets, devices and radio equipment, a process that
usually takes years to complete.'' It also asserts that adding Band
Class 12 capabilities into its mobile devices along with Band Class 17
capabilities would make the devices substantially larger, likely
shorten battery life, and potentially require the tradeoff of other
uses, such as bands used for international roaming. In addition, as
discussed below, AT&T's objections also stem from issues associated
with potential interference concerns from Channel 51 operations and
high power Lower E Block broadcasts.
24. The Commission asks commenters to submit additional detailed
metrics to evaluate the effects of an interoperability requirement on
competition. Specifically, would the use of interoperable equipment
promote consumer choice by facilitating the portability of mobile
devices between service providers, thereby allowing consumers to switch
more easily between providers? At the same time, would deployment of
Lower 700 MHz B and C Block service be delayed by a move towards
interoperability, either by rule or industry agreement? What would be
the relevant costs associated with possible Commission action? What
costs would Lower 700 MHz B and C licensees who have already committed
to Band Class 17, or who plan to do so, incur if the Commission adopts
an interoperability rule in the Lower 700 MHz spectrum?
25. Would a requirement that mobile user equipment be capable of
operating on all paired commercial Lower 700 MHz spectrum facilitate
deployment of facilities-based mobile broadband networks in rural and
unserved areas? Are Lower A Block licensees just as likely to obtain
funding and obtain affordable mobile equipment without Commission
action? The Commission also seeks specific data and anecdotal evidence
to support claims that an interoperability obligation would require
complete redesign and upgrade of devices and base stations. The
Commission seeks additional information on the necessary changes to
chipsets and the timeframes these changes will impose.
26. U.S. Cellular recently announced the planned launch of a 4G LTE
network that will cover 25 percent of U.S. Cellular's customers and
will use the 700 MHz licenses of its partner, King Street Wireless. C-
Spire, in contrast, reportedly has delayed its previously announced
launch of its 4G LTE network. The Commission asks Lower A Block
licensees to provide detailed information on the effect that a lack of
interoperability has had, if any, on their efforts to deploy service.
Commenters should be as specific as possible and should, where
possible, include data or affidavits.
27. Roaming. A number of commenters argue that an interoperability
requirement would promote roaming among 700 MHz licensees. These
proponents argue that requiring the use of interoperable equipment in
the Lower 700 MHz band would promote the commercial availability of
mobile device equipment for all Lower 700 MHz licensees. Without that
equipment, Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees maintain they cannot build
out their networks, which they claim is a prerequisite for the
negotiation of roaming agreements. Petitioners also claim that they
have no reason to expect such mobile devices to be available on a
widespread, affordable basis in the 700 MHz band and without such
devices, there is nothing to negotiate. Petitioners contend that small
rural and regional carriers are in no position to place bulk orders for
mobile devices that work in the Lower 700 MHz A Block and also work in
other 700 MHz frequency blocks. They claim that AT&T and Verizon
Wireless are the only ones who hold the market power with the device
manufacturers and the two carriers currently are developing mobile
devices that work exclusively on their bands. Without interoperable
devices, Petitioners state that there will be no roaming in the 700 MHz
band.
28. NTCA states that mobile customers rely on and expect a
``seamless experience'' that is made possible by roaming arrangements.
Without roaming, NTCA explains that customers will experience
``isolated islands of service.'' Further, Petitioners and other
supporters assert that even if Band Class 12 equipment were available,
from a technical perspective, Band Class 17 device users would be
unable to roam on Band Class 12 networks operating on Block A. They
argue that a lack of interoperability leaves customers of small
carriers ``without an option for a nationwide service, perpetually
unable to roam on the networks of the large carriers.''
29. AT&T and Verizon Wireless respond that the Lower A Block
licensees are not prevented from negotiating roaming arrangements with
providers offering services on the other 700 MHz blocks. AT&T also
responds that A Block licensees are free to negotiate with handset
manufacturers to design, manufacture and deploy wireless handsets and
other devices that operate within the spectrum bands that are needed
based upon their spectrum holdings and business plans, including Band
Class 12 or other commercial spectrum.'' AT&T argues that ``[t]he
Commission should not take action to force carriers to utilize a
certain spectrum band for roaming,'' but that carriers should be able
``to choose their roaming partners based on factors like network
compatibility, price, coverage, and call quality.'' The Commission
seeks comment on whether interoperability would promote reasonable
roaming arrangements among 700 MHz providers and would increase the
number of providers that are technologically compatible for roaming
partnership.
B. Potential for Harmful Interference
30. Even if the record demonstrates that the existence of two
distinct band classes in the Lower 700 MHz band is creating a device
and network deployment problem, the Commission must ultimately resolve
the central question as to whether a single band class would cause
widespread harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block
licensees, who would otherwise use Band Class 17 devices rather than
Band Class 12.
31. Interoperability issues are particularly relevant at this time,
as licensees are in the process of deploying LTE in the Lower 700 MHz
band. As of December 2011, AT&T has launched LTE service using its
Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licenses in 15 markets. In addition, as
noted above, U.S. Cellular recently announced the planned launch of an
LTE network that will cover 25 percent of its customers and will use
the 700 MHz licenses of its partner, King Street Wireless. As discussed
earlier, there are two Lower 700 MHz band LTE standards for the Lower
700 MHz band, with 3GPP Band Class 17 spanning the B and C Blocks, and
Band Class 12 spanning the A, B, and C Blocks. Some commenters have
argued that this, in turn, fragments the device ecosystem for LTE
devices that operate in the Lower 700 MHz band and prevents
interoperability.
32. Commenters argue that there would be two primary interference
concerns for providers operating in the
[[Page 19581]]
Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks if these providers were to substitute Band
Class 12 for Band Class 17 in newly-offered devices (as opposed to
adding Band Class 12 capabilities into devices along with Band Class
17): (1) Reverse intermodulation interference from adjacent DTV Channel
51 operations; and (2) blocking interference from neighboring high-
powered operations in the Lower 700 MHz E Block. The Commission focuses
its technical analysis on these two primary issues. The Commission
notes that some commenters also express concern regarding the need to
deploy wider filters in order to migrate to Band Class 12. The
Commission observes, however, that a transition from Band Class 17 to
Band Class 12 does not necessitate a change to base station filtering.
Operators deploying networks in the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks can
continue to filter base station receivers as they would for Band Class
17, and thus interference from Channel 51 to B and C Block base
stations is the same regardless of whether Band Class 12 devices or
Band Class 17 devices are used. Commenters also raise other potential
interference concerns, including interference from Band Class 12
devices into Channel 51 television receivers, and other interference
issues that are specific to operations in the A Block. The Commission
does not address those issues herein. The Commission focuses the scope
of this proceeding to interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block
operations that may result from the adoption of Band Class 12 devices
by Lower 700 MHz B and C licensees, whether voluntarily or by
regulatory mandate.
33. AT&T asserts that both reverse intermodulation and blocking
interference are significant issues. It expects that managing and
mitigating the interference from Channel 51 and any high power Lower E
Block broadcasts to its network would account for the greatest
expenses, and that its customers would not, on balance, benefit from
AT&T migrating to Band Class 12. AT&T argues that if it were required
to use Band Class 12 devices as opposed to Band Class 17 devices, its
customers would be forced to use devices that would expose them to
interference risks (from Channel 51 and the E Block) they otherwise
would not face. Notwithstanding the foregoing, AT&T affirms that it
does not object to supporting interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz
band, assuming supply chain availability, if interference challenges
from Channel 51 and the Lower 700 MHz E Block licensees are addressed
to its satisfaction.
34. With regard to the Channel 51 interference concerns, Motorola's
view in its original 3GPP proposal to create Band Class 17 was that
reverse intermodulation interference could happen when Band Class 12
devices are close to high-powered Channel 51 transmission towers, which
it believes could result in in-band interference because of the limited
radio frequency (RF) filtering capability of Band Class 12 filters.
According to Motorola's paper, ``the key issue'' in determining the
possibility of such interference is ``the level of the DTV Channel 51
wideband signal that would be present at the UE antenna port based on a
reasonable deployment scenario,'' but Motorola does not provide
evidence showing the circumstances that could produce conditions
suitable to create reverse intermodulation interference from Channel
51.
35. Proponents of an interoperability requirement argue that no
reverse intermodulation interference would occur, and that if an
operator does experience any such interference, solutions exist to
mitigate Channel 51 interference concerns to Band Class 12 devices
operating in the B and/or C Blocks. According to Cellular South and
King Street Wireless, ``With [less than five megahertz] Tx bandwidth,
any Channel 51-700 intermodulation products would not fall within the
device receive blocks (no self-interference issue).'' They represent
that this is because a strong signal from Channel 51 must mix with a
full-power Lower 700 MHz B and C Block device transmission, but ``LTE
base stations do not allow devices to transmit at full power with
[greater than five megahertz] bandwidth due to a self-desense issue.''
Essentially, Cellular South and King Street Wireless argue that power
amplifier linearity in a mobile device improves considerably when it is
not transmitting at full power and that if the device transmitted
bandwidth is less than five megahertz, then intermodulation products
resulting from the combination of Channel 51 and Lower 700 MHz band C
Block transmit frequencies would not cause intermodulation
interference. Finally, they point out that if intermodulation
interference is experienced, the wireless operator ``may deploy an LTE
base station several hundred meters away from the Channel 51 station to
control device transmit power and provide a stronger downlink desired
signal.''
36. Vulcan performed lab and field tests to test the assertion that
``reverse intermodulation distortion caused by Channel 51 using a Band
Class 12 device would create an interfering signal in the B Block
receiver.'' Based on the results of lab tests, Vulcan concludes that a
minimum signal level of 0 dBm from Channel 51 would be necessary to
create an interference signal at the noise floor of the B Block
receiver, and field measurements showed that Channel 51 transmissions
were no stronger than -21 dBm. The report indicates that the strongest
signal strength in the field measurements of DTV Channel 51 is
typically much lower than necessary to generate noticeable reverse
intermodulation interference. AT&T responds that the tests referenced
by Vulcan do not represent real-world situations, because the tests
occurred only within a two kilometer radius of the Channel 51 tower,
whereas stronger signals from Channel 51 can occur at closer distances.
37. With regard to interference from Lower E Block operations,
Motorola asserts that receiver blocking performance may be degraded
when Band Class 12 devices are close to high-powered Lower E Block
transmission towers, due to limited Band Class 12 device out-of-band
blocking rejection. According to AT&T, Band Class 17, with an extra six
megahertz of separation from the Lower E Block, was created to
alleviate this concern, so that the device filter can provide
sufficient attenuation of the E Block transmissions. It further asserts
that Band Class 12 has sub-optimal filtering because of the lack of
sufficient frequency separation between the Lower E Block and the
starting frequencies of Band Class 12.
38. The Coalition for 4G asserts that network operators can
eliminate potential interference from Lower E Block operations by
deploying the A, B, or C Block base stations near the E Block
transmitters. In support of its position that interference from Lower
700 MHz E Block transmitters is manageable for Band Class 12 devices
operating in Lower 700 MHz B and C blocks, Vulcan's lab and field tests
assess the severity of interference issues to Band Class 12 devices
from high power 50 kW transmissions in the Lower 700 MHz E Block. The
tests indicate that the Atlanta field measurements of the highest
signal power ratios between the 50 kW Lower E Block and B Block are
typically 15 to 30 dB lower than necessary to produce Lower B Block
receiver blocking. The tests conclude that real-world tests found the
anticipated interference circumstances are manageable and Band Class 17
is redundant. Vulcan also asserts that the test results confirm Band
Class 12
[[Page 19582]]
devices performance would not be worse than Band Class 17 devices, and
that Band Class 17 already has greater levels of internal interference
from within the Lower B and C Blocks.
39. In response, AT&T disagrees generally with the effectiveness of
these potential mitigation techniques, stating that (1) increasing the
number of cell sites near E Block transmitters or Channel 51 towers
would increase the cost of providing 4G service, which would eventually
be passed on to consumers, and (2) given the limited number of
available site locations, coordination alone is insufficient to solve
Band Class 12 interference issues. AT&T also asserts that adequate
coverage of a 50 kW mobile broadcast service in the market in which
Vulcan conducted its testing would require at least thirteen Lower 700
MHz E Block transmitters, which would lead to higher signal levels
compared to the four transmitters that were active when testing was
conducted by Vulcan. It is unclear, however, how much higher the signal
levels may be close to a Lower E Block transmitter that is surrounded
by twelve additional E Block transmitters versus one that is surrounded
by only three. Whereas more base stations will improve overall signal
levels and coverage, basic engineering calculations would suggest that
any increase to the signal levels close to each base station, where
signals may be strong enough to cause in-band receiver blocking
interference to neighboring bands, would be negligible.
40. The Commission seeks comment on these and any additional
technical and operational factors that should be taken into
consideration in any transition to an interoperable Lower 700 MHz band.
The Commission asks interested parties to submit measurements and
quantitative analyses regarding the magnitude and extent of the
interference risk from adjacent Channel 51 and Lower Block E
transmissions for Band Class 12 devices operating in the Lower B and C
Blocks. How effective are existing mitigation measures, such as
coordination between Lower 700 MHz and DTV Channel 51 licensees?
Further, what innovative technical measures might be introduced in the
near future, such as better performing RF duplexers and filters? What
additional interoperability solutions exist or are being developed to
address these interference concerns? The Commission also seeks comment
on the performance of Band Class 12 devices compared to Band Class 17
devices, as well as on other factors relating to the operations in the
Lower B and C Blocks. Furthermore, in the event unwanted harmful
interference cannot be mitigated in some areas, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the potential harm resulting from interference in
those areas is outweighed by the public interest benefits that would
result from interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band, and what
factors should be considered in balancing these concerns.
41. As noted above, should Band Class 12 be substituted in devices
for Band Class 17, operational issues may arise to the extent that a
single network must be capable of supporting more than one device band
class. That is, if a licensee chooses to continue supporting its
existing grandfathered Band Class 17 devices, the wireless network will
need to support both Band Class 17 devices and Band Class 12 devices.
The Commission seeks comment on possible ways to address this issue.
Since the two Band Classes overlap in frequencies, the Commission
thinks it is likely that there are relatively simple, cost effective
solutions that will allow a single network to accommodate devices from
both band classes. For example, would the Equivalent Home Public Land
Mobile Network file (EHPLMN) update in devices allow the LTE network to
support both Band Class 12 and Band Class 17 devices?
42. The Commission seeks comment on whether there are measures it
should take to address Lower 700 MHz interference concerns that may be
preventing the voluntary adoption of Band Class 12 by Lower B and C
Block licensees. The Commission notes that AT&T asks it to ``modify the
rules governing service in Channel 51 and in the 700 MHz Lower E Block
to permit power levels, out of band emissions and antenna heights that
are no greater than those currently permitted in the 700 MHz Lower A
and B blocks, to allow downlink only in the Lower E Block and uplink
only in Channel 51, and to relocate any incumbent high power broadcast
operations out of Channel 51 and the Lower E Block.'' In approving
AT&T's acquisition of Qualcomm's Lower 700 MHz licenses (comprising all
of the Lower 700 MHz D Block licenses and five of the Lower E Block
licenses), the Commission included a condition that AT&T operate under
the same power limits and height restrictions applicable to Lower 700
MHz A and B Block licensees, which will reduce the instances of high-
powered operations in the Lower D and E Blocks. Specifically, the
Commission stated that ``AT&T must operate on the Lower D and E Block
licenses consistent with the limits set forth in Section 27.50(c),
excluding Subsection 27.50(c)(7).'' The Commission also conditioned the
transaction on AT&T's use of this spectrum only for downlink
transmissions. In addition, it conditioned the transaction on AT&T
taking certain steps to mitigate possible interference caused by AT&T's
use of the Lower D and E Blocks to the uplink operations of licensees
operating in the Lower 700 MHz A, B, and C Blocks, including mitigating
interference within 30 days after receiving written notice from the A,
B, or C Block licensee.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ AT&T/Qualcomm Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 17617 para. 67.
Specifically, the condition requires AT&T to ``(1) coordinate with
the A, B, or C Block licensee to mitigate potential interference;
(2) mitigate interference to A, B, or C Block operations within 30
days after receiving written notice from the A, B, or C Block
licensee; and (3) ensure that D/E Block transmissions in areas where
another licensee holds the A, B, or C Block license are filtered at
least to the extent that D/E Block transmissions are filtered in
markets where AT&T holds the A, B, or C Block license, as
applicable.'' Id. U.S. Cellular urges the Commission to seek comment
on and adopt a rule that imposes conditions on Lower E Block
licensees consistent with the power limit restrictions, requirement
for downlink-only transmissions, and interference mitigation
requirements in the conditions adopted in the AT&T/Qualcomm Order.
U.S. Cellular asserts that ``[i]mposition of such conditions will
serve the public interest by helping to accelerate the further
development of the Lower 700 MHz ecosystem.'' Letter from Grant B.
Spellmeyer, Executive Director, Federal Affairs and Public Policy,
U.S. Cellular, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March 15, 2012, at
1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
43. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should modify its
rules for Lower 700 MHz D and E Block operations, using the technical
conditions set forth in the AT&T/Qualcomm decision as a template.
Modifying the Commission's rules in this manner would lead to
consistency in the technical requirements for the Lower D and E Blocks
and would help to address potential harmful interference from
operations on the Lower E Block licenses that are not held by AT&T.
Would these modifications adequately address concerns that Lower B and
C Block licensees may experience harmful interference from Lower D and
E Block operations if they transition to Band Class 12? As a practical
matter, would modifying the Commission's rules in this manner encourage
Lower B and C Block licensees to voluntarily adopt interoperable
devices? The Commission also seeks comment on how such modifications
would affect the operations and plans of Lower E Block licensees, other
than AT&T. What other modifications to the Lower 700 MHz D and E Block
technical operational rules should the Commission consider and what are
the costs and public interest benefits of these alternative rules?
[[Page 19583]]
44. With respect to potential interference as a result of Channel
51 operations, are there steps the Commission could take to reduce the
threat of such potential interference that would balance the needs and
rights of Channel 51 incumbents with Lower 700 MHz licensees? What
role, if any, should the passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012, which gives the Commission authority to conduct
incentive auctions, including in the television broadcast bands, have
in the Commission's approach to potential interference from Channel 51
to the Lower 700 MHz band licensees? Could any measures be implemented
without causing an undue burden on existing licensees? What is the
likelihood that Channel 51 licensees will experience interference from
operations in the Lower 700 MHz band? Vulcan asserts that ``Band Class
12 device interference into TV receivers is a claim that has never been
substantiated,'' and that the potential for Channel 51 licensees to
cause interference to A Block base stations ``is a deployment issue to
be managed by the Lower A Block licensees.'' Aside from regulatory
measures, what steps should the Commission take to encourage voluntary
industry efforts to find solutions to interference concerns?
45. Other Issues. Commenters are concerned that if a provider adds
Band Class 12 capabilities into mobile devices along with Band Class 17
(as opposed to substituting Band Class 12 for Band Class 17 in newly
offered devices), the devices will be adversely affected with respect
to form factor, cost, and battery life. The Commission seeks comment on
these assertions. What network-specific issues would arise, and how
could licensees address those issues? How difficult or costly would it
be for licensees to address any network-specific issues? Are there
interim as well as long-term solutions that might be employed, and what
is their timing? Are there any roaming or legacy device support issues
that one solution may address that another may not? Given the highly
technical and complex nature of this proceeding, the Commission seeks
qualitative and quantitative data and engineering analyses to support
commenters' claims.
46. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether its efforts
should be focused exclusively--as they are now--on interoperability in
the Lower 700 MHz band, as opposed to the entire band. As the
Commission noted above, although the Petition initially requests an
interoperability requirement that requires mobile equipment to be
capable of operating on all paired commercial frequency blocks in both
the Upper and Lower 700 MHz bands, subsequent filings from some of the
proponents of an interoperability requirement focus on requiring the
use of Band Class 12 devices in the Lower 700 MHz band.\9\ The
Commission notes that there are unique interference environments and
different technology-related issues, including the ability of equipment
to accommodate multi-band interoperability, that are specific to the
Lower versus Upper 700 MHz bands, as well as additional issues
pertaining to consideration of requiring equipment to accommodate
multi-band interoperability.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Commission notes that certain recent ex parte filings
urge it to consider interoperability across the entire 700 MHz band
in light of the recent passage of the Spectrum Act, either now or in
a future proceeding. See, e.g., Letter from Harold Feld, Legal
Director, Public Knowledge, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed March
13, 2012 at 2; Letter from Kathleen O'Brien Ham, Vice President,
Federal Regulatory Affairs, T-Mobile USA, Inc., to Marlene H.
Dortch, FCC, filed March 13, 2012 at 1, 4. The Commission's focus on
the Lower 700 MHz band in this NPRM does not preclude the Commission
from considering broader interoperability issues, including
interoperability across the entire 700 MHz band, in the future.
\10\ The recent technical study submitted by a consortium of
several Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees focuses on interference
issues associated with the use of Band Class 17 versus Band Class 12
in the Lower 700 MHz Band. See Letter from Mark W. Brennan, Hogan
Lovells, Counsel to Vulcan, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, filed Nov.
25, 2011, Attachment, ``Study to Review Interference Claims that
have Thwarted Interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz Band.'' The
Commission notes that requiring interoperability in the Upper 700
MHz Band would introduce additional and unique interference
scenarios, particularly technical issues related to implementing
both Band Class 13 and Band Class 14 in a single device, as well as
the use of such a device while also protecting GPS receivers and
Public Safety Narrowband operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Promoting Interoperability
47. Assuming the Commission concludes that concerns regarding
harmful interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees are not a
reasonable obstacle to interoperability or can be mitigated through
industry efforts and/or Commission action, the Commission seeks comment
on whether there is likely to be a timely industry solution to
interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band, or whether additional
regulatory measures will be necessary to promote interoperability
across the Lower 700 MHz band. Commenters currently supporting Band
Class 17 suggest that resolving interference concerns would encourage
the use of Band Class 12. For example, Verizon asserts that it ``fully
supports commercial development of Band Class 12 devices,'' and that
``actions addressing interference issues would spur evolution of the
device market toward full Lower 700 MHz interoperability.'' AT&T
asserts that, if interference challenges from high power broadcasts in
Channel 51 and in the Lower 700 MHz E Block are addressed
satisfactorily, it will not object to supporting interoperability in
the Lower 700 MHz band. Further, AT&T contends that ``these challenges
can and should be addressed.'' Absent a regulatory mandate to implement
interoperability, will Lower 700 MHz licensees voluntarily ensure that
all of the Lower 700 MHz spectrum used for mobile transmit is included
in their mobile equipment?
48. In what timeframe would a voluntary migration to interoperable
devices reasonably take place? The Commission notes that while U.S.
Cellular recently announced that it has impending plans to launch 4G
LTE service, together with its partner King Street Wireless L.P., it
nevertheless asserts that ``the Commission must still act quickly to
address issues related to interoperability within the lower 700 MHz
bands.'' Similarly, proponents of an interoperability requirement argue
that action must be taken by the end of 2012. Aside from the widespread
and exclusive adoption of Band Class 12 in devices, which would
necessitate only a single duplexer solution, what other solutions exist
that might address interoperability concerns without regulatory
intervention and within a reasonable timeframe? What would be a
reasonable timeframe for a path to interoperability, and how will this
timing affect consumers and competition?
49. The Commission thinks that an industry solution to the question
of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band would be preferable
because such a solution allows the market greater flexibility in
responding to evolving consumer needs and dynamic and fast-paced
technological developments. At the same time, the Commission recognizes
that if the industry fails to move timely toward interoperability once
interference concerns are adequately addressed (by regulatory action or
otherwise), additional regulatory steps might be appropriate to further
the public interest. The Commission staff will remain vigilant in
monitoring the state of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band to
ensure that the industry is making sufficient progress. What metrics
and quantifiable data can the Commission use to measure whether the
industry is making adequate progress towards achieving interoperability
in the Lower 700 MHz band? In the event that such steps are warranted,
the Commission seeks
[[Page 19584]]
comment on whether it would be necessary to mandate interoperability in
the Lower 700 MHz band or whether there are other, flexible regulatory
measures that the Commission should consider.
50. In the event that interference concerns are reasonably
addressed and the Commission is left with no other option to maximize
innovation and investment in the Lower 700 MHz band besides mandating
mobile device interoperability, one approach would be to require Lower
700 MHz A, B, or C Block licensees, with respect to their networks
operating in this spectrum, to use only mobile user equipment that has
the capability to operate across all of these blocks. For example,
those licensees deploying LTE in the Lower 700 MHz band would no longer
be allowed to offer mobile units operating on Band Class 17, which
provides for operation on only the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks. Those
licensees deploying LTE in the Lower 700 MHz band would substitute Band
Class 17 with Band Class 12. The Commission notes that this approach
focuses on mobile user device interoperability and would not require
modifications to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees' base stations
beyond those necessary to support Band Class 12 devices operating on
these licensees' authorized Lower 700 MHz frequencies only. In other
words, the Commission is not contemplating requiring licensees to
implement base station operations on frequencies they do not have the
potential to use, in order to spur production of base station elements
that can be used only by licensees operating on other frequencies. The
Commission seeks comment on this approach and how, if adopted, it would
promote key public interest objectives, including competition and
consumer choice among mobile broadband service providers, the
widespread deployment of 4G networks, particularly in rural and
unserved areas, the availability of additional innovative 4G devices,
and increased roaming opportunities. In order to facilitate a smooth
transition to interoperable mobile equipment use in the Lower 700 MHz
band, the Commission would propose a reasonable transition period of no
longer than two years after the effective date of an interoperability
requirement, thereby minimizing the possibility of stranded investments
in existing equipment. Furthermore, the Commission would propose to
grandfather the use of devices already in use by consumers as of the
transition deadline, so that consumers using existing Band Class 17
equipment would not be adversely affected. The Commission seeks comment
on this approach--as well as on any alternative approaches, including
associated costs and benefits--that might equally satisfy the
Commission's public interest objectives in promoting the widespread
deployment of broadband service and increased competition and consumer
choice in the mobile broadband marketplace.
51. The Commission notes that, in considering whether to adopt
rules to promote the development of interoperable equipment in the
Lower 700 MHz band, the Commission will consider a number of factors,
including the costs or burdens that any such new obligation would
impose on licensees or others, and whether the costs would be offset by
benefits to consumers, including those that would result from
innovation in the marketplace, increased investments in networks, or
additional competition. The Commission therefore requests comment on
the costs and the benefits of adopting rules that would promote
interoperability. The Commission also seeks comment on the costs and
benefits of an industry-based solution to interoperability in the Lower
700 MHz band. Are there cost savings to consider, or conversely, are
there costs that Lower 700 MHz licensees would incur if the industry
resolved the interoperability issue without a regulatory mandate?
52. Commenters should quantify the costs of implementing any
proposed solutions to the interference issues discussed above. The
Commission seeks comment on costs that Lower 700 MHz B and C licensees
are likely to incur in order to comply with a device interoperability
requirement, including quantification of the costs to develop and
obtain new compatible chipsets or front ends; design and manufacture
new mobile devices; and develop any hardware or software changes
necessary to implement an interoperability requirement. How much will
the costs and prices of devices change as a result of an
interoperability requirement? The Commission seeks comment on the
revenue implications an interoperability requirement would have for
providers and device manufacturers. The Commission also seeks comment
on quantifiable ways in which licensees may benefit from a sunset of
devices capable of operating only on a subset of paired Lower 700 MHz
frequencies. For example, will Lower 700 MHz licensees achieve
economies of scale in devices? The Commission seeks quantification of
these economies of scale. What cost savings might result from an
interoperability rule? The Commission also seeks comment on the
potential costs associated with interoperability if interference cannot
be mitigated in some areas. In these areas, will the public interest
benefits from interoperability outweigh the costs?
53. The Commission seeks data on consumer benefits that may result
from interoperability, including greater affordability and availability
of 4G equipment, increasing consumer choice in equipment, promoting the
widespread deployment of broadband services, providing greater options
in selecting a service provider, and facilitating greater roaming
opportunities. How would a rule requiring interoperability affect
innovation and investment, both in the near term and in the longer
term? Would such a requirement foster additional competition, and how
would any increase in competition be measured?
54. What are the particular benefits to consumers or others that
would result from a device interoperability requirement that includes a
reasonable transition period (e.g., two years) and grandfathers the use
of existing, non-interoperable devices after the transition deadline?
The Commission seeks comment on the costs that licensees may incur in
continuing to offer service for non-interoperable devices. How long
will such devices need to be supported? Are there any classes of
customers that will require longer-term support than others? Further,
the Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the proposed
transition period minimizes or alleviates any adverse economic impact
to licensees and device manufacturers. Is there an optimal transition
period that would reduce costs to the extent practicable while
maximizing benefits?
55. In providing responses to these questions, the Commission asks
commenters to take into account only those costs and benefits that
directly result from the implementation of particular rules that could
be adopted. Commenters should identify the various costs and benefits
associated with a particular requirement. Further, to the extent
possible, commenters should provide specific data and information, such
as actual or estimated dollar figures for each specific cost or benefit
addressed, including a description of how the data or information was
calculated or obtained, and any supporting documentation or other
evidentiary support.
56. Legal authority. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on its
authority to mandate a device interoperability requirement should
[[Page 19585]]
interference concerns be reasonably addressed and there be no industry
solution in place. The record is divided on this issue. On the one
hand, Petitioners argue that the Commission should find the current
contractual arrangements between wireless providers and equipment
providers unlawful under Section 201(b), which prohibits unjust or
unreasonable practices in connection with communications services, and
Section 202(a), which prohibits unjust or unreasonable discrimination.
Petitioners also claim that a device interoperability requirement would
fall within the purview of Section 1 of the Communications Act, which
directs the Commission to establish policies that promote the provision
of communications service to all people of the United States, without
discrimination. Petitioners argue that, at a minimum, ``Section 1 can
be combined by the Commission with other `express delegations of
authority' to enable the Commission to exercise ancillary jurisdiction
over issues that are reasonably related to the policies stated in
Section 1.'' Commenters also reference additional sections of the
Communications Act as support for Commission authority, including:
Section 4(i), which specifies that the Commission ``may * * * make such
rules and regulations * * * as may be necessary in the execution of its
functions;'' Section 254(b)(3), which sets forth universal service
principles; Section 303(g), to ``encourage the larger and more
effective use of radio in the public interest;'' Section 303(r), which
directs the Commission to prescribe such restrictions and conditions as
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Act; Section 307(b), which
directs the Commission to consider a ``fair, efficient and equitable''
distribution of radio services in applications for licenses,
modifications, and renewals; and Section 706, which encourages the
reasonable and timely deployment of advanced telecommunications
capability to all Americans through ``measures that promote competition
in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods
that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.''
57. On the other hand, other commenters argue that Petitioners fail
to cite a valid legal basis to adopt such an interoperability
requirement. Both Verizon and AT&T argue that Sections 201 and 202
prohibit providers from unreasonable practices or discrimination among
consumers. Verizon and AT&T also argue that the other provisions
referenced by supporters of an interoperability requirement do not
grant the Commission the authority to regulate equipment, or else are
not substantive grants of authority for Commission action.
58. The Commission observes that, under Title III of the
Communications Act, the Commission has broad and extensive authority to
manage the use of spectrum.\11\ This authority includes the power and
obligation to condition the Commission's licensing actions on
compliance with requirements that the Commission deems consistent with
the public interest, convenience, and necessity,\12\ including
operational requirements, if the condition or obligations will further
the goals of the Communications Act without contradicting any basic
parameters of the agency's authority.\13\ It also includes the powers
to ``prescribe the nature of the service to be rendered by each class
of licensed stations and each station within any class,'' \14\ to
``generally encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the
public interest,'' \15\ and to modify licenses if, in the judgment of
the Commission, such action will promote the public interest,
convenience, and necessity.\16\ Furthermore, the Communications Act
provides the Commission with broad powers under such provisions as
Section 302(a) to promulgate regulations designed to address radio
frequency (RF) interference, including the regulation of devices that
are capable of emitting RF energy,\17\ and Section 303(e) and (f),
which empower the Commission to regulate licensees and the equipment
and apparatus they use.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 301 (stating that ``[i]t is the
purpose of this Act, among other things, to maintain the control of
the United States over all the channels of radio transmission; and
to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership
thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses
granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed
to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of
the license'').
\12\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 301 (authorizing the Commission to
issue licenses for use of radio spectrum); 47 U.S.C. 304 (stating
that ``[n]o station license shall be granted by the Commission until
the applicant therefore shall have waived any claim to the use of
any particular frequency or of the electromagnetic spectrum as
against the regulatory power of the United States because of the
previous use of the same, whether by license or otherwise''); 47
U.S.C. 307(a) (stating that Commission shall grant licenses ``if
public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby,
subject to the limitations of [the Communications Act]''); 47 U.S.C.
309(j)(3) (requiring the Commission to design and conduct
competitive bidding systems for issuance of licenses to promote the
purposes of section 1 of the Act and specified statutory objectives,
including ``the development and rapid deployment of new
technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the public,
including those residing in rural areas'').
\13\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 303(r) (stating that if ``the public
convenience, interest, or necessity requires [, the Commission]
shall * * * prescribe such restrictions and conditions, not
inconsistent with law, as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act''); Schurz Communications, Inc. v. FCC, 982
F.2d 1043 (7th Cir. 1992) (Communications Act invests Commission
with ``enormous discretion'' in promulgating licensee obligations
that the agency determines will serve the public interest).
\14\ 47 U.S.C. 303(b).
\15\ 47 U.S.C. 303(g). See also 47 U.S.C. 151 (creating the
Commission for the purpose of regulating communications in order to
make available to all people of the United States a rapid,
efficient, nationwide and world-wide communication service with
adequate facilities at reasonable prices).
\16\ See 47 U.S.C. 316(a)(1) (stating that ``[a]ny station
license or construction permit may be modified by the Commission
either for a limited time or for the duration of the term thereof,
if in the judgment of the Commission such action will promote the
public interest, convenience, and necessity''); see also Committee
for Effective Cellular Rules v. FCC, 53 F.3d 1309 (DC Cir. 1995).
\17\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 302a(a) (providing Commission with
authority, consistent with the public interest, convenience and
necessity, to make reasonable regulations ``governing the
interference potential of devices which in their operation are
capable of emitting radio frequency energy by radiation, conduction,
or other means in sufficient degree to cause harmful interference to
radio communications'').
\18\ See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. 303(e) (providing Commission with
authority to ``[r]egulate the kind of apparatus to be used with
respect to its external effects and the purity and sharpness of the
emissions from each station and from the apparatus therein'') and 47
U.S.C. 303(f) (providing Commission with authority to ``[m]ake such
regulations not inconsistent with law as it may deem necessary to
prevent interference between stations and to carry out the
provisions of this Act'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
59. The Commission seeks comment on its statutory authority to
adopt a device interoperability requirement. The Commission notes that
it has previously required interoperability across licensed spectrum as
a means to ``insure full coverage in all markets and compatibility on a
nationwide basis.'' \19\ In addition, by promoting the availability of
subscriber handsets and network buildout of Lower 700 MHz A Block
licenses an interoperability requirement of the type discussed here can
facilitate the provision of roaming services, which is subject to
Commission rules.\20\ The Commission
[[Page 19586]]
seeks comment on its analysis of these Title III statutory provisions
as a basis for its authority to take the actions proposed herein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Inquiry Into the Use of the Bands 825-845 MHz and 870-890
MHz for Cellular Communications Systems; and Amendment of Parts 2
and 22 of the Commission's Rules Relative to Cellular Communications
Systems, CC Docket No. 79-318, Report and Order, 86 FCC 2d 469, 482
(1981).
\20\ See 47 U.S.C. 303(r). The Commission has imposed voice
roaming requirements for interconnected CMRS providers under, inter
alia, its Title II authority, and requirements to promote the
availability of data roaming arrangements under, inter alia, its
Title III authority. See, e.g., Reexamination of Roaming Obligations
of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers and Other Providers of
Mobile Data Services, WT Docket No. 05-265, Order on Reconsideration
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 25 FCC Rcd 4181,
4184 para. 5 (2010) (based on Commission's Title II authority);
Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Mobile Radio
Service Providers and Other Providers of Mobile Data Services, WT
Docket No. 05-265, Second Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5411, 5439-46
paras. 61-68 (2011) (based on Commission's Title III authority).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Conclusion
60. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission is
focused primarily on resolving a long-running dispute over the threat
of interference to Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees either by
agreement on the part of these licensees to be interoperable with the
Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees, or by a regulatory mandate for such
interoperability. Should the Commission find that interference concerns
are truly minimal or can be reasonably mitigated, then the Commission,
along with industry, must determine the next best steps to ensure
interoperability. The Commission's aim is to explore various options
through this proceeding that help achieve the ultimate goal of
interoperability.
V. Procedural Matters
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
61. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (the RFA),\21\ the Commission has prepared this Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact of the policies and rules proposed in the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on a substantial number of small entities.
Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments must be
identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadline
for comments on the NPRM provided in the item. The Commission will send
a copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).\22\ In addition,
the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
Federal Register.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(``SBREFA''), Public Law 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
\22\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\23\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
62. Certain Lower 700 MHz A Block licensees have asserted that the
development of two distinct band classes within the Lower 700 MHz band
has hampered their ability to have meaningful access to a wide range of
advanced devices. The Commission initiates this rulemaking proceeding
to promote interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. The Commission
states that the Communications Act directs it to, among other things,
promote the widest possible deployment of communications services,
ensure the most efficient use of spectrum, and protect and promote
vibrant competition in the marketplace. In this NPRM, the Commission's
objective is to evaluate whether the customers of Lower 700 MHz B and C
Block licensees would experience harmful interference, and if so to
what degree, if the Lower 700 MHz were interoperable. Assuming that
interoperability would cause limited or no harmful interference to
Lower 700 MHz B and C Block licensees or that such interference can
reasonably be mitigated through industry efforts and/or through
modifications to the Commission's technical rules or other regulatory
measures, the Commission asks whether there is likely to be a timely
industry solution to interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band, or
whether additional regulatory measures will be necessary to promote
interoperability across the Lower 700 MHz band, such as requiring Lower
700 MHz A, B, or C Block licensees, with respect to their networks
operating in this spectrum, to use only mobile user equipment that has
the capability to operate across all of these paired commercial 700 MHz
blocks.
63. The Commission considers whether a requirement that mobile user
equipment be capable of operating on all paired commercial Lower 700
MHz spectrum could foster deployment of facilities-based mobile
broadband networks, particularly in rural and unserved areas. The
Commission also considers whether such a requirement would increase the
likelihood that the Lower A Block licensees can obtain the necessary
financing to deploy networks and devices, particularly in smaller and
regional areas. The Commission considers the extent to which Lower A
Block licensees have successfully negotiated with equipment vendors,
whether an interoperability requirement will enable the A Block
licensees to benefit from economies of scale with respect to mobile
devices and whether manufacturers require a provider to purchase a
minimum number of devices. The Commission considers whether
interoperability would promote reasonable roaming arrangements among
700 MHz providers and would increase the number of providers that are
technologically compatible for roaming partnership.
64. With respect to the technical issues, the Commission states
that it must ultimately resolve the central question as to whether a
single band class would cause widespread harmful interference to Lower
700 MHz B and C Block licensees, who would otherwise use Band Class 17
devices rather than Band Class 12. The Commission's goal is to
determine the extent of two primary interference concerns for providers
operating in the Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks if these providers
substitute Band Class 12 for Band Class 17 in newly-offered devices:
(1) Reverse intermodulation interference from adjacent DTV Channel 51
operations; and (2) blocking interference from neighboring high-powered
operations in the Lower 700 MHz E Block. The Commission considers and
seeks comment on the extent of the interference risk from adjacent
Channel 51 and Lower Block E transmissions for Band Class 12 devices
operating in the Lower B and C Blocks, the effectiveness of existing
mitigation measures, and the extent of any innovative technical
measures in the near future, or that can be developed. The Commission
also considers how licensees can continue to support its existing
grandfathered Band Class 17 devices and Band Class 12 devices.
65. Through the NPRM, the Commission's objective is to develop a
record to determine whether there are measures it should take to
address Lower 700 MHz interference concerns that may be preventing a
voluntary adoption of Band Class 12 by Lower B and C Block licensees.
For instance, the Commission seeks comment on whether to modify its
technical rules for Lower 700 MHz D and E Block operations. In
addition, the Commission considers steps to take to reduce the threat
of potential interference to balance the needs and rights of Channel 51
incumbents with Lower 700 MHz licensees.
66. The Commission thinks that an industry solution to the question
of interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band would be preferable to a
regulatory approach because such a solution allows the market greater
flexibility in responding to evolving consumer needs and dynamic and
fast-paced technological developments. The Commission considers what
would be a reasonable timeframe for a voluntary migration to
interoperability and how such timing may affect consumers and
competition.
[[Page 19587]]
67. However, the Commission recognizes that if the industry fails
to move timely toward interoperability once interference concerns are
adequately addressed, by regulation or otherwise, additional regulatory
steps might be appropriate to further the public interest. If
interference concerns are reasonable addressed and the Commission is
left with no other option to maximize innovation and investment in the
Lower 700 MHz band besides mandating mobile device interoperability,
one approach to achieve the Commission's goals would be to require
Lower 700 MHz A, B, or C Block licensees, with respect to their
networks operating in this spectrum, to use only mobile user equipment
that has the capability to operate across all of these blocks. For
example, the Commission considers whether to prohibit those licensees
deploying LTE in the Lower 700 MHz band from offering mobile units that
operate on Band Class 17, which provides for operation on only the
Lower 700 MHz B and C Blocks. In order to facilitate the goal of a
smooth transition to interoperable mobile equipment use in the Lower
700 MHz band, the Commission would propose a transition period of no
longer than two years after the effective date of an interoperability
requirement. The Commission also would propose to grandfather the use
of devices already in use by consumers as of the transition deadline,
so that consumers using existing Band Class 17 equipment would not be
adversely affected.
B. Legal Basis
68. The authority for the actions taken in this Notice is contained
in Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 4(j), 301, 302(a), 303(b), 303(e), 303(f),
303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i),
154(j), 301, 302a(a), 303(b), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304,
307(a), 309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1), and Sections 1.401 et seq. of the
Commission's rules. 47 CFR 1.401 et seq.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
69. 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, 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.'' \24\ In addition, the term ``small
business'' has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern''
under the Small Business Act.\25\ 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 Small Business Administration (SBA).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
\25\ 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition
of ``small-business concern'' in the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C.
632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a
small business applies ``unless an agency, after consultation with
the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and
after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more
definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of
the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal
Register.''
\26\ 15 U.S.C. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
70. In the following paragraphs, the Commission further describes
and estimates the number of small entity licensees that may be affected
by an interoperability rule. Implementing a mobile user equipment
interoperability requirement in the Lower 700 MHz band affects 700 MHz
spectrum licensees.
71. This IRFA analyzes the number of small entities affected on a
service-by-service basis. When identifying small entities that could be
affected by the Commission's new rules, this IRFA provides information
that describes auction results, including the number of small entities
that were winning bidders. However, the number of winning bidders that
qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not
necessarily reflect the total number of small entities currently in a
particular service. The Commission does not generally require that
licensees later provide business size information, except in the
context of an assignment or a transfer of control application that
involves unjust enrichment issues.
72. Wireless Telecommunications Carrier (except satellite). The
appropriate size standard under SBA Rules is for the category Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that category is
that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.\27\ 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
its proposed action.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
\28\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=600&-ds_name=EC0751SSSZ5&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
73. Upper 700 MHz Band Licensees. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses.\29\ On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73
in which several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block.\30\ The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with 3 winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz
Band, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of the Commission's Rules to
Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC
Docket No. 94-102, Sec. 68.4(a) of the Commission's Rules Governing
Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephone, WT Docket No. 01-309, Biennial
Regulatory Review--Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to
Streamline and Harmonize Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio
Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc.
Upper 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the
Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169, Implementing a Nationwide,
Broadband Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band,
PS Docket No. 06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and
Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public
Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket
No. 96-86, Declaratory Ruling on Reporting Requirement Under
Commission's Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket No. 07-166,
Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 (2007) (700 MHz Second
Report and Order).
\30\ See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice,
23 FCC Rcd 4572 (WTB 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
74. Lower 700 MHz Band Licensees. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits.\31\ The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years.\32\ A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the
preceding three years.\33\
[[Page 19588]]
Additionally, the lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (MSA/RSA)
licenses--``entrepreneur''--which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years.\34\ The SBA approved these small size standards.\35\ An
auction of 740 licenses (one license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs and
one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)) was
conducted in 2002. Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484
licenses were won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning
bidders claimed small business, very small business or entrepreneur
status and won licenses.\36\ A second auction commenced on May 28,
2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses.\37\ Seventeen
winning bidders claimed small or very small business status, and nine
winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status.\38\ In 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of 5 licenses in the Lower 700 MHz
band. All three winning bidders claimed small business status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698-746 MHz
Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52-59), Report and Order, 17 FCC
Rcd 1022 (2002).
\32\ See id., 17 FCC Rcd at 1087-88 para. 172.
\33\ See id.
\34\ See id., 17 FCC Rcd at 1088 para. 173.
\35\ See Letter from Aida Alvarez, Administrator, SBA, to Thomas
Sugrue, Chief, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC (Aug. 10,
1999).
\36\ See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 17
FCC Rcd 17272 (2002).
\37\ See Lower 700 MHz Band Auction Closes, Public Notice, 18
FCC Rcd 11873 (2003).
\38\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
75. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order.\39\ An auction of A, B
and E Block 700 MHz licenses was held in 2008.\40\ Twenty winning
bidders claimed small business status (those with attributable average
annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40
million for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning bidders
claimed very small business status (those with attributable average
annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the preceding
three years).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15359 n.434.
\40\ See Auction of 700 MHz Band Licenses Closes, Public Notice,
23 FCC Rcd 4572 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
76. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications
Equipment Manufacturing. The Census Bureau defines this category as
follows: ``This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
manufacturing radio and television broadcast and wireless
communications equipment. Examples of products made by these
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable
television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular phones, mobile
communications equipment, and radio and television studio and
broadcasting equipment.'' \41\ The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having
750 or fewer employees. According to Census Bureau data for 2007, there
were a total of 939 establishments in this category that operated for
part or all of the entire year. According to Census Bureau data for
2007, there were a total of 919 firms in this category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 771 had less than 100 employees and
148 had more than 100 employees.\42\ Thus, under that size standard,
the majority of firms can be considered small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ The NAICS Code for this service is 334220. See 13 CFR
121.201. See also http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-geo_id=&-_skip=300&-ds_name=EC0731SG2&-_lang=en.
\42\ See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=&-fds_name=EC0700A1&-_skip=4500&-ds_name=EC0731SG3&-_lang=en.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
77. This NPRM proposes no new reporting or recording keeping
requirements.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
78. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in developing its approach, which
may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. As an alternative to a regulatory approach, the Commission
considers the impact of a timely voluntary industry solution to
interoperability in the Lower 700 MHz band. The Commission considers
how this alternative approach may affect consumers and competition. The
Commission seeks comment on the economic impact of this approach on
licensees, including small entities. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on other alternative approaches to interoperability in the
Lower 700 MHz band that would reduce or eliminate economic adversity on
licensees, including small entities.
80. Whether the Commission implements an interoperability
requirement, or an industry solution, it seeks comment on the relevant
costs and benefits on small entities. The Commission considers the
potential benefits to consumers, innovation, and investment. In
addition, it considers the revenue implications, cost savings, or
adverse economic impact of an interoperability rule or an industry-
based solution for Lower 700 MHz providers and device manufacturers.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
81. None.
VI. Other Procedural Matters
A. Ex Parte Rules
82. The proceeding initiated by this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must: (1) List
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made; and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda, or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may
provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior
comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page
and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in
lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a
[[Page 19589]]
method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and
memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding and must be filed in their native format
(e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.
B. Filing Requirements
83. Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's
rules, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments
may be filed using: (1) The Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (``ECFS''), (2) the Federal Government's eRulemaking Portal, or
(3) by filing paper copies.
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service
mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary,
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are
8 a.m. to 7 p.m.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 East Hampton
Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW., Washington DC 20554.
84. Comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions will be
available for public inspection during regular business hours in the
FCC Reference Center, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th
Street SW., CY-A257, Washington, DC, 20554. These documents will also
be available via ECFS. Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.
85. To request information in accessible formats (Braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to [email protected]
or call the FCC's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document can also be
downloaded in Word and Portable Document Format (PDF) at: http://www.fcc.gov.
86. For additional information on this proceeding, contact Brenda
Boykin of the Spectrum and Competition Policy Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-2062.
C. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
87. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980
(``RFA''), the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) relating to this NPRM. The IRFA is attached
to this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These
comments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as
comments filed in response to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as set
forth on the first page of this document and have a separate and
distinct heading designating them as responses to the IRFA.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
88. This document does not contain proposed information
collection(s) subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA),
Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new
or modified information collection burden for small business concerns
with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
VII. Ordering Clauses
89. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i),
4(j), 301, 302(a), 303(b), 303(e), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a),
309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154(i), 154(j), 301, 302(a), 303(b), 303(e),
303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 304, 307(a), 309(j)(3), and 316(a)(1), and
Sec. 1.401 et seq. of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.401 et seq.,
that this Notice in WT Docket No. 12-69 IS adopted.
90. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking of the
700 MHz Block A Good Faith Purchaser Alliance is granted to the extent
described herein.
91. It is further ordered that the proceeding in RM-11592 is hereby
terminated.
92. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer &
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice, including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Bulah P. Wheeler,
Deputy Manager.
[FR Doc. 2012-7760 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P