[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44128-44165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18288]
[[Page 44127]]
Vol. 83
Wednesday,
No. 168
August 29, 2018
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, et al.
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 44128]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27
[GN Docket No. 18-122; GN Docket No. 17-183; RM-11791; RM-11778; FCC
18-91]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
pursue the joint goals of making 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum available
for new wireless uses while balancing desired speed to the market,
efficiency of use, and effectively accommodating incumbent Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service (FS) operations in the band.
The Commission seeks comment on various proposals for transitioning all
or part of the band for flexible use, terrestrial mobile spectrum, with
clearing for flexible use beginning at 3.7 GHz and moving higher up in
the band as more spectrum is cleared. The Commission also seeks comment
on potential changes to its rules to promote more efficient and
intensive fixed use of the band on a shared basis starting in the top
segment of the band and moving down the band.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 29, 2018; reply comments
are due on or before November 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 18-122,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected], 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: Ariel Diamond of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-2803 or
[email protected], Anna Gentry of the Wireless Telecommunication
Bureau, Mobility Division, at 202-418-7769 or [email protected], or
Christopher Bair of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at
202-418-0945 or [email protected]. For information regarding the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, contact Cathy Williams, Office of
Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the NPRM portion of the
Commission's Order and NPRM, GN Docket No. 18-122, FCC 18-91, adopted
on July 12, 2018 and released on July 13, 2018. The complete text of
this document, as well as comments, reply comments, and ex parte
submissions, is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m.
to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center,
445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is available on the Commission's website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS web page
at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by
calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
Comment Filing Procedures:
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website
for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 18-122.
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.
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. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Dr.,
Annapolis Junction, Annapolis MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 888-
835-5322 (tty).
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to Sec. 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this Order
and NPRM shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments
[[Page 44129]]
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
Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present IRFA of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the attached FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified
in the FNPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The NPRM may result in new or revised information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information
collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the public to comment on such requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this proceeding, the Commission is pursuing the joint goals
of making spectrum available for new wireless uses while balancing
desired speed to the market, efficiency of use, and effectively
accommodating incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service
(FS) operations in the band. To gain a clearer understanding of the
operations of current users in the band, the Commission collects
information on current FSS uses. The Commission then seeks comment on
various proposals for transitioning all or part of the band for
flexible use, terrestrial mobile spectrum, with clearing for flexible
use beginning at 3.7 GHz and moving higher up in the band as more
spectrum is cleared. The Commission also seeks comment on potential
changes to the Commission's rules to promote more efficient and
intensive fixed use of the band on a shared basis starting in the top
segment of the band and moving down the band. To add a mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, allocation and to develop rules that would enable
the band to be transitioned for more intensive fixed and flexible uses,
the Commission encourages commenters to discuss and quantify the costs
and benefits associated with any proposed approach along with other
helpful technical or procedural details.
II. Background
A. 5G Leadership and Closing the Digital Divide
2. America's appetite for wireless broadband service is surging.
And while mobile traffic is surging in sections of the United States,
many communities still lack access to meaningful broadband
connectivity. More intensive use of spectrum can allow wireless
operators to fill in gaps in the current broadband landscape.
Additional spectrum must be identified, however, if the Commission is
to seize the 5G future and meet the connectivity needs of all
Americans.
3. Enabling next generation wireless networks and closing the
digital divide will require efficient utilization of the low-, mid-,
and high-bands. In recent years, the Commission has taken several steps
to use low-band spectrum below 3.7 GHz more efficiently and intensely,
and it has paved the way for new opportunities in high-band spectrum
above 24 GHz. Having identified additional spectrum in low- and high-
bands, the Commission now seeks to identify mid-band spectrum for
wireless broadband services. Mid-band spectrum is well-suited for next
generation wireless broadband services due to the combination of
favorable propagation characteristics (compared to high bands) and the
opportunity for additional channel re-use (as compared to low bands).
4. Congress recently addressed the pressing need for additional
spectrum for wireless broadband, including both mobile and fixed
services, in the FY 2018 omnibus spending bill, which includes the
MOBILE NOW Act under Title VI of RAY BAUM'S Act. The MOBILE NOW Act
directs that spectrum be made available for new technologies and to
maintain America's leadership in the future of communications
technology. Section 603(a)(1) of the MOBILE NOW Act requires that no
later than December 31, 2022, the Secretary of Commerce, working
through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), and the Commission ``shall identify a total of at least 255
megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum for mobile and fixed
wireless broadband use.'' In making 255 megahertz available, 100
megahertz below 8000 MHz shall be identified for unlicensed use, 100
megahertz below 6000 MHz shall be identified for use on exclusive,
licensed basis for commercial mobile use, pursuant to the Commission's
authority to implement such licensing in a flexible manner, and 55
megahertz below 8000 MHz shall be identified for licensed, unlicensed,
or a combination of uses.
5. Additionally, Sec. 605(b) of the MOBILE NOW Act specifically
requires the Commission to evaluate ``the feasibility of allowing
commercial wireless services, licensed or unlicensed, to use or share
use of the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 megahertz,''
which the Commission sought comment on in May 1, 2018 Public Notice.
The Commission notes that there is no federal allocation for the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band. The Commission intends to consult with NTIA and the heads
of each affected Federal agency, as required by the Act, regarding the
Federal entities, stations, and operations in the band, and the
required issues and assessments for the report under Sec. 605(b). This
NPRM, in conjunction with the report under Sec. 605(b), furthers the
Commission's evaluation of mid-band spectrum to meet Sec. 603's
statutory mandate as well as to accommodate projected future demand.
B. 2017 Mid-Band Notice of Inquiry
6. In the 2017 Mid-Band NOI, the Commission began an evaluation of
whether spectrum in-between 3.7 GHz and 24 GHz can be made available
for flexible use--particularly for wireless broadband services. The
Mid-Band NOI sought comment in particular on three mid-range bands that
have garnered interest from stakeholders for expanded flexible use
(3.7-4.2 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, and 6.425-7.125 GHz), and it asked
commenters to identify other mid-
[[Page 44130]]
range frequencies that may be suitable for expanded flexible use. In
the interest of clarity and expeditiously making spectrum available for
wireless broadband use, this NPRM will evaluate the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
individually, and the Commission may address other mid-band spectrum
bands, including the 5.925-6.425 and 6.425-7.125 GHz bands, in
subsequent item(s).
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. The Future of Incumbent Usage of 3.7-4.2 GHz
1. Protecting Incumbent Earth Stations
7. The Commission proposes to protect incumbent earth stations from
harmful interference as the Commission increases the intensity of
terrestrial use in the band. The Commission seeks comment on how to
define the appropriate class of incumbents for protection. For FSS
earth station licensees and registrants, the Commission proposes to
define incumbent stations as earth stations that: (1) Were operational
as of April 19, 2018; (2) are licensed or registered (or had a pending
application for license or registration) in the IBFS database as of
October 17, 2018; and (3) have timely certified the accuracy of
information on file with the Commission to the extent required by the
Order. Although earth stations that have not filed an exhibit
demonstrating coordination with terrestrial FS stations are unprotected
from interference by FS links, that requirement is of less relevance
today given the minimal FS usage in the band, as well as the fact that
the Commission proposes new terrestrial uses for which coordination
with existing FS users will have little value. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes to protect even such earth stations so long as they
meet the criteria described above.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission notes that the International Bureau waived
the coordination requirement for the duration of the freeze for
applications filed during the filing window (April 19, 2018 to
October 17, 2018). Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing Window
Public Notice at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Commission proposes to exclude from the definition of
incumbents any earth stations that are not licensed or registered in
IBFS, or that are licensed or registered in IBFS, but for which the
licensee/registrant does not timely file the certification required in
the Order. The Commission further proposes that unregistered FSS earth
stations could continue to receive transmissions lawfully, but would
operate on an unprotected basis as to any licensed operations in the
band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether incumbents that are
small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to the
transition such that they should be defined differently or have
different obligations.
9. The Commission asks that commenters be specific in defining a
protected incumbent and in explaining the relative obligations and/or
rights that protected incumbents may have under each approach for more
intense terrestrial use of the band. Which categories of incumbents
must new flexible use licensees relocate under each approach, what
would be the standard for determining the need to relocate each
category of incumbents, and what are the terms or rules pursuant to
which these relocations will occur? The Commission seeks comment on
specific relief that should be provided to each class of incumbents.
For example, should incumbent earth station operators be provided with
filters to block transmissions from flexible use operations, should
they receive filters and the technical assistance necessary to install
them or repoint earth station antennas as necessary, or should earth
station operators be provided with a lump sum to be used at their own
discretion, either to upgrade existing facilities or to enable the
switch to other means of transmission? Who would be responsible for
reimbursing incumbent earth station operators and C-band customers for
costs incurred in any transition, and how would such cost reimbursement
be accomplished? How would disputes relating to cost reimbursement be
resolved? What would be the basis for establishing reasonable cost
reimbursements? For example, would it take into account any required
improvements or replacement to an existing antenna or its supporting
structure? Would it cover any required technological assistance? How
should satellite news gathering vehicles or other temporary-fixed earth
stations be addressed?
a. Limiting New Earth Stations
10. On April 19, 2018, the staff released the Freeze and 90-Day
Earth Station Filing Window Public Notice, which froze applications for
new or modified earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to preserve the
current landscape of authorized operations pending action as part of
the Commission's ongoing inquiry into the possibility of permitting
mobile broadband use and more intensive fixed use of the band through
this proceeding. The Commission now seeks comment on revising the Part
25 rules to permanently limit eligibility to file applications for
earth station licenses or registrations to incumbent earth stations.
This would mean that earth station operators that register or license
their existing stations by October 17, 2018, would be able to modify
these stations at the registered location but not add new stations in
new locations, and applications for new earth station registrations
would not be allowed. Limiting new earth stations in this manner would
provide a stable spectral environment for more intensive terrestrial
use.
b. Removing Uncertified Earth Stations
11. In response to the Mid-band NOI, the Commission received
comments from a variety of stakeholders, many of which addressed
whether the Commission's IBFS data about current operations in the band
is complete and up to date. Some commenters stressed the importance of
identifying existing unregistered earth stations before the Commission
makes any substantial changes to the operations permitted in the band,
while other commenters contend that there may be earth stations in the
database that are no longer in operation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Registrants are required to notify the Commission when a
receive-only earth station is no longer operational or when it has
not been used to provide any service during any 6-month period. 47
CFR 25.131(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Regarding the first concern, in the Freeze and 90-Day Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notice, the International Bureau announced
as an exception to the freeze, a 90-day window for earth stations to
register in IBFS. Also, to obtain the best information possible on
existing earth stations in this band in furtherance of the Commission's
ongoing inquiry without imposing a potentially unnecessary economic
burden on eligible FSS earth station applicants in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
filing within the 90-day window, the International Bureau granted a
temporary waiver of the frequency coordination requirement.
Subsequently, the International Bureau extended the filing window by 90
days until October 17, 2018, waived additional provisions of the rules,
clarified that multiple antennas located at the same address or
geographic location may be filed under a single registration
application and pay a single filing fee, and announced the availability
of an additional option to facilitate the registration of large numbers
of geographically diverse earth stations under a single ``network''
license and single fee.
13. Regarding the second concern, the staff noted that ``after the
90-day window closes, the Commission may determine to require all
licensees,
[[Page 44131]]
registrants, and operators with pending applications for license or
registration of FSS earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to file a
certification that the earth station was operational as of the start of
the freeze and remains operational at the time of the certification
along with additional technical details regarding their operations to
inform the Commission's resolution of issues raised in the inquiry.''
\3\ In the Order, the Commission requires operators of earth stations
licensed or registered in IBFS (except those that file new or modified
registrations between April 19, 2018, and October 17, 2018, under the
modified registration process outlined in the Freeze and 90-Day Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notice) to file certifications as to the
accuracy of all information in IBFS concerning their existing FSS earth
station operations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing Window Public Notice
at 5. The staff also advised all potential applicants that ``the
Commission may, for purposes of further action following the NOI,
choose to take into consideration only those earth stations that are
licensed, registered, or have pending applications for license or
registration on file in IBFS as of [the close of the filing
window].'' Id at 5.
\4\ Above, the Commission proposes to limit the definition of
incumbent earth stations to licensed or registered stations for
which the operator timely files the required certification, or for
which the operators timely filed for new or modified registrations
between April 19, 2018 and October 17, 2018 pursuant to the Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. To ensure that the Commission has the best information possible
on existing earth stations in this band, the Commission proposes to
update IBFS to remove 3.7-4.2 GHz band earth station licenses or
registrations for which the licensee or registrant does not file the
certifications required in the Order (to the extent they were licensed
or registered before April 19, 2018). The Commission specifically
proposes that an earth station registered in IBFS be automatically
terminated unless the registrant timely files the certification
required by the Order (to the extent they were licensed or registered
before April 19, 2018). The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
c. Maintenance of IBFS Data Accuracy
15. The Commission seeks comment on how--once the accuracy of 3.7-
4.2 GHz band earth station data has improved--to ensure that earth
station data remains accurate to facilitate frequency coordination and
maximize efficient use of the spectrum. How often do the frequencies
received by a given earth station change? The Commission seeks comment
on whether, for a constructed and operational earth station,\5\ any
combination of frequency, azimuth, and elevation listed in the license
or registration that is unused for more than, e.g., 180 days, should be
deleted from the license or registration to minimize unnecessary
constraints on successful frequency coordination of new operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission notes that under Part 25, a station
authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part
without further notice to the licensee upon the removal or
modification of the facilities which renders the station not
operational for more than 90 days, unless specific authority is
requested. Id. Sec. 25.161(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In addition, the Commission asks for parties to comment on
whether to require an earth station licensee or registrant in the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band to certify periodically, e.g., annually, the continued
accuracy of the information on file with the Commission. Should any
requirements that the Commission adopts to help ensure that IBFS data
remains accurate become effective after a transition period?
d. Revising the Coordination Policy
17. Receive-only earth stations cannot cause interference, but
under the Commission's current rules they can be coordinated and
licensed or registered with the Commission to protect them from
terrestrial microwave stations in bands shared co-equally with the FS.
Section 25.203 requires FSS applicants to coordinate their proposed
frequency use prior to filing their license applications with the
Commission. Earth station applicants, to the extent practicable, must
select sites and frequencies in areas where the surrounding terrain and
existing frequency use will minimize the possibility of harmful
interference between the sharing services. An earth station applicant,
prior to filing an application to register or license with the
Commission, must coordinate its proposed frequency usage with existing
terrestrial users and with applicants that have filed for terrestrial
station authorizations. The purpose of this coordination requirement is
to establish the baseline level of interference that an earth station
must accept in frequency bands shared by the FS and FSS on a co-primary
basis. The coordination results entitle the FSS earth station to the
interference protection levels agreed to during coordination, including
against subsequent FS licensees. Currently, registered or licensed
earth stations in the C-band are generally coordinated and authorized
to use the entire band across the full geostationary arc, a policy
known as full-band, full-arc.
18. A reexamination of the full-band, full-arc coordination policy
is appropriate in light of the Commission's goal to maximize spectrum
efficiency and use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band including more intensive
terrestrial use of the band. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that
for purposes of interference protection, earth station operators will
be entitled to protection only for those frequencies, azimuths, and
elevation angles and other parameters reported as in regular use (i.e.,
at least daily) in response to future information collections, until
the incumbent starts the coordination process for an application to
modify its license or registration in IBFS for its earth station. The
Commission further proposes that such modification applications
identify and include a coordination report for the specific
combinations of frequency, azimuth, and elevation angle that the
incumbent intends to use and that such technical information be
reflected on the earth station application and authorization. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
19. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that the full-
band, full-arc policy has certain advantages, e.g., it affords FSS
operational flexibility, and the Commission seeks comment about the
consequences of eliminating the policy. Specifically, how would this
policy alter current business models and operations of C-band licensees
and registrants? Are there alternatives to eliminating this policy that
would have less of an impact on the current C-band business models and
operations without sacrificing the efficiency maximizing goals of the
Commission's proposal?
e. Information on Incumbent FSS Operations
20. In the Order, the Commission directs incumbent FSS earth
station operators to certify as to the accuracy of existing information
in IBFS, and require incumbent FSS space station operators to provide
additional information. To develop a more complete record on existing
FSS operations in this band, the Commission proposes to require earth
station operators to file additional information on their existing
facilities. To the extent that the information requested would
duplicate information already available in IBFS, the Commission will
direct the International Bureau to permit operators to certify that the
information in IBFS remains accurate in lieu of providing the
information again. Specifically, the Commission proposes and seeks
comment on requiring authorized earth station operators (including
operators
[[Page 44132]]
that file new or modified registrations between April 19, 2018, and
October 17, 2018) to provide the following information for each antenna
under each call sign: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ To reduce the burden on FSS earth station operators and
ensure the accuracy of data obtained during the information
collection process, IB would release a public notice that will
provide guidance about how to obtain or calculate the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth station call sign;
geographic location;
licensee and point of contact information;
antenna gain;
azimuth and elevation gain pattern;
antenna azimuth relative to true north;
antenna elevation angle;
satellite(s) at which the earth station is pointed;
transponder number(s) and how often each transponder is
used: Regularly (i.e., at least daily); infrequently; or backup
capacity;
antenna site elevation and height above ground.
21. The Commission's consideration of some transition options may
also benefit from additional, more granular information on FSS earth
station and space station operations in the band. For example,
information on the type of content (i.e., audio or video feeds), the
total bandwidth occupied by particular users or content feeds, and the
identity of the content provider could provide additional clarity on
the actual usage of the band. In addition, more granular information on
the nature of any periodic usage of transponder capacity (i.e., daily,
weekly or once a year) could provide additional clarity on the
availability of spectrum in the band. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to seek additional information from incumbent FSS earth station
or space station operators beyond what is included in the list above.
Should the Commission seek additional information on transponder
loading, content type, content provider information, periodic usage, or
other data that would provide a more detailed picture of the actual
usage of the band? Should the Commission collect other information to
more fully assess spectrum utilization in the band?
22. In the Order, the Commission requires operators of temporary
fixed or transportable earth stations to file information concerning
their existing operations, including the area within which the
equipment is typically used and the frequency and duration of such use.
Consistent with the Commission's proposal to collect additional
information from fixed FSS earth stations, the Commission seeks comment
on whether and to what extent the Commission should collect additional
information specifically with respect to temporary fixed or
transportable earth stations. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether the categories of information proposed above for fixed FSS
earth stations would need to be modified or supplemented with respect
to temporary fixed or transportable earth stations.\7\ For example,
would it be useful to further quantify the frequency or extent of use
for these operations and, if so, how should they be quantified?
Commenters should provide a clear rationale for any additional
information collection along with an analysis of the costs and benefits
of such additional collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ SES and Intelsat provided many questions that could be asked
about the nature of such earth stations and their patterns of use,
but it may be difficult to quantify deployments for these earth
stations other than typical capacity used when they are deployed and
perhaps the area or areas within which they are typically used.
Intelsat, SES July 3, 2018 Ex Parte Letter (GN Docket Nos. 17-183,
18-122).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to collect the
information described above on a nationwide basis or whether it may be
appropriate to conduct an initial information collection for an initial
sample of areas. For example, should the Commission collects
information from entities based on a representative sampling of
different types of areas, such as urban, suburban, and rural areas? If
so, how should the sample be determined? The Commission seeks comment
on this and any other methodology that will effectively balance the
potential burden that an information collection may impose against the
need to evaluate the feasibility of clearing more spectrum in this
band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities and
entities operating in rural areas face any special or unique issues
with respect to the information collection such that they would require
certain accommodations or additional time to comply. The Commission
also seeks comment on the costs and benefits of an additional
information collection on this band.
24. Commenters should describe, with specificity, how any
additional information collection would support a given transition
proposal and should provide a detailed assessment of the costs and
benefits of such additional collections. The Commission also encourages
commenters to submit any information that could inform the Commission's
consideration of specific transition proposals, including the types of
information described in this section.
2. Limiting New Space Station Operators
25. On June 21, 2018, the International Bureau released the Space
Station Freeze Public Notice, which froze the filing of certain space-
station applications in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. To limit speculative
applications for satellite usage of the band in light of this
proceeding, the Commission proposes to revise the rules to similarly
bar new applications for space station licenses and new petitions for
market access concerning space-to-Earth operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band. These revisions would not extend to applications for extension,
cancellation, replacement or modification of existing authorizations.
Additionally, the Commission proposes that this freeze would not bar
operators with existing space station authorizations in the band as of
June 21, 2018, from filing applications for additional space stations,
if authorization of such space stations would promote more efficient
use of the band. The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's
proposal.
3. Sunsetting Incumbent Point-to-Point Fixed Services
26. Due to the declining use of the band for fixed point-to-point
FS links as well as the availability of other spectrum options for
point-to-point links, the Commission proposes to sunset point-to-point
FS use in the band. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
whether existing fixed links should be grandfathered or transitioned
out of the band over some time period, after which all licenses would
either be cancelled or modified to operate on a secondary, non-
interference basis. If the latter, how long would incumbent users have
to transition from the band? Three years? Five years? And should the
Commission differentiate in treatment between those with permanent
licenses and those with temporary licenses? Or those that have or are
willing to relocate to the upper portion of the band?
B. Increasing the Intensity of Terrestrial Use
27. The Commission describes several potential approaches for
repurposing the band and the Commission encourages commenters in
discussing their proposals to consider the economic tradeoffs described
herein. Figure 1 below demonstrates the current
[[Page 44133]]
and proposed future allocations and potential uses of the band.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.001
28. The Commission recognizes that co-channel sharing of spectrum
between the FSS and more intensive terrestrial wireless use in the same
geographic area may be difficult. For example, frequency coordination
allows FSS and terrestrial fixed microwave to share the band on a co-
primary basis, but coordination of mobile systems would be more
complicated because the movement of the devices would require analyses
and interference mitigation to FSS earth stations in this band spread
over many locations within any given geographic area. In addition,
because the C-band satellites are in geostationary orbit approximately
36,000 km above the equator, the signals received at the earth stations
are extremely weak. This means that terrestrial mobile operations could
cause harmful interference to the earth station receivers over large
distances absent adequate protection.
29. Geographic sharing may be similarly difficult. Current
Commission policy permits earth stations to coordinate reception across
the entire GSO arc and over the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band, which would
exclude mobile wireless operations from transmitting across the entire
band in a wide area around each earth station. For purposes of
illustration, Figure 2 below shows a hypothetical 20 km exclusion zone
around each earth station in the continental United States in the
International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) database as of early May
2018.\8\ These exclusion zones would cover 83.25% of the United States
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Commission notes that commenters in this proceeding have
argued that IBFS significantly undercounts the number of existing,
but unregistered, earth stations. For purposes of this study the
Commission used earth stations currently licensed or registered in
IBFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44134]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.002
30. The Commission was able to establish the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service in the 3550-3700 MHz despite the presence of FSS
receivers because there are only FSS earth stations in 35 cities and
two MSS gateways in the 3600-3700 MHz band. This is unlike the current
incumbent earth station environment in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Therefore,
subject to confirming the landscape of existing earth stations through
the certifications required by the Order, co-channel sharing between
FSS and mobile wireless could exclude a majority of the population from
receiving flexible fixed and mobile broadband service in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band unless FSS use of the band is modified or FSS protection
criteria are significantly relaxed. The Commission recognizes that the
affected population would likely be less if the Commission was to only
protect the earth stations based on the transponder frequencies
received at each site and actual antenna azimuth and elevation, but the
overall assessment that mobile service would not be viable for much of
the population would remain the same. The Commission seeks comment on
this assessment.
31. Notably, the Commission believes that increased terrestrial use
of the band is ripe to meet the Commission's mandate under the MOBILE
NOW Act to identify (with NTIA) 255 megahertz of spectrum for mobile
and fixed wireless broadband use. For purposes of meeting Sec.
603(a)(1), Sec. 603(a)(3)(E) states ``[s]pectrum that the Commission
determines had more than de minimis mobile or fixed wireless broadband
operations within the band on the day before the date of enactment of
this Act'' is non-eligible for purposes of satisfying the 255 megahertz
requirement. The Commission believes that there was no more than a de
minimis amount of mobile or fixed wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band on March 22, 2018 (the day before the date of
enactment of the MOBILE NOW Act) for purposes of fulfilling Sec. 603.
Specifically, since FSS is neither an ``unlicensed use'' nor an
``exclusive, licensed basis for commercial mobile use,'' FSS services
are not included in the de minimis exception under Sec. 603(a)(3)(E).
Additionally, FSS in the band is predominantly used for the delivery of
video programming with only a de minimis portion of the satellite
capacity used to provide data services. The Commission notes that there
is no mobile allocation in the band and the Commission's licensing
database indicates that there are only 115 fixed point-to-point
licenses in the band. Thus, any portion of this band made available for
flexible terrestrial or more intensive fixed use would help satisfy the
requirement of Sec. 603(a)(1) to identify a total of at least 255
megahertz of spectrum for ``mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.''
The Commission seeks comment on these findings.
32. The Commission seeks comment on approaches for expanding
flexible and more intensive fixed use of the band without causing
harmful interference to incumbent operations. In discussing how much of
the band should be made available for flexible use, more intensive
fixed use, or maintained just for incumbent uses, the Commission asks
commenters to address the relative present and future economic value of
each of these services to individuals and businesses in the United
States. What are the tradeoffs in accommodating one type of use instead
of another? And what are the costs associated with accommodating new
uses? Commenters should provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis in
their proposal and address the relative economic values of alternative
uses and the implementation costs of their specific proposal vis-
[agrave]-vis other possible approaches to the band. The Commission also
asks commenters to address the economic impact of the implementation
time frame associated with their chosen approach.
33. The Commission proposes to add a non-federal mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, service allocation to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and
given the Commission's conclusion that co-channel sharing is not
feasible, seek comment on several proposals below to clear all or part
of the band for flexible use. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the economic benefits of introducing a new allocation for
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, and flexible use relative to the
introduction of point-to-multipoint FS, perhaps shared with FSS, in all
or part of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Commenters should consider the
economic value of current and future use cases for each type of
service, including benefits and opportunity costs to consumers and the
Nation's economy overall, as well as to unserved or underserved areas
and specialized market segments (e.g., education, telemedicine, and
manufacturing).
[[Page 44135]]
Commenters should also address the benefits of international
harmonization both in terms of devices and network deployments. In
addition, the Commission encourages commenters to consider the economic
impact on consumers and businesses in rural communities and areas that
are unserved or underserved by current broadband providers, as well as
any economic impact on small businesses. The Commission also asks
commenters to address how long it will take to transition various
amounts of this band to flexible use or to point-to-multipoint FS use,
how much such a transition will cost for each 100 megahertz that is
transitioned, and how expeditiously the transition can be completed.
34. The Commission also seeks comment on the current and future
economic value of FSS in the band. How intensively is this spectrum
used by existing FSS licensees and how intensely will it be utilized in
the future? Is spectrum in the band allocated to FSS currently being
used efficiently and are there technologies that may facilitate more
efficient use of spectrum in the band by FSS licensees without
significant disruption to consumers and businesses that rely on these
services? Are there alternative technologies available that could
wholly or partially replace the services provided by FSS without
significant disruption to existing customers? How long would it take
and how much would it cost to transition existing customers to these
alternative technologies? How may the cost-benefit analysis shift
depending on how much spectrum is transitioned at particular times? Are
there other considerations that the Commission should consider when
assessing the most economically efficient allocation of the band
between services? And would such considerations differ depending on
when and how much spectrum is ultimately transitioned to flexible use?
1. Mechanisms for Expanding Flexible Use
35. Repurposing of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum bands allocated to FSS
raises at least three economic problems, some of which have not arisen
in previous spectrum auctions. The first two problems are direct
consequences of the C-band licensing structure, while the last is
common to all spectrum reallocations. First, because all FSS licensees
have equal, nonexclusive rights to the entire band under part 25 of the
Commission's rules, they cannot compete in the same way that broadcast
television licensees did in the broadcast incentive auction. Second,
this nonexclusive licensing problem creates an incentive for an FSS
licensee to overstate the value it assigns to the spectrum in order to
increase the share of auction revenue it may receive. The Commission
will refer to this as the ``holdout'' problem. Third, repurposing some
of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band will reduce the amount of spectrum
available for FSS, which lowers industry capacity and could lead to
higher prices for downstream services, such as the transmission of
video to cable head ends. The Commission notes that the first and last
problems create opposite incentives for FSS licensees. The first
provides an incentive to repurpose less than the efficient amount of
spectrum while the last may create an incentive to repurpose more than
the efficient amount.
36. The broadcast incentive auction relied on competition among
licensees to induce broadcast incumbents to reveal the least amount
they must be paid to relinquish their spectrum rights. Many broadcast
licenses were substitutes because if one licensee bid to relinquish its
spectrum usage rights this could make spectrum available to repack
other broadcast stations and free spectrum for flexible use. In the
3.7-4.2 GHz FSS, all licensees must agree to relinquish their spectrum
rights in a given geographic area in order to reassign spectrum and
therefore licenses are not substitutes and competition is limited.
37. In addition to the problem that satellite licensees will not be
competing to supply spectrum in the same way that television licensees
did in the broadband incentive auction, there is an additional problem
concerning how the satellite licensees will split any revenues from
repurposing. In order to increase its share of auction revenues, a FSS
licensee may have an incentive to overstate the value it assigns to the
spectrum or to withhold its consent to repurpose. The holdout problem
is the inverse of a public goods problem. The 500 megahertz of spectrum
allocated for FSS is a public good, in that several distinct companies
make non-exclusive, non-rivalrous use of the spectrum within a
geographic area.\9\ Were the spectrum unallocated, the FSS providers
would face a classic public goods problem since the total value of the
spectrum is the sum of the values of the FSS operators. With property
rights assigned to FSS operators, the Commission faces a reverse public
goods problem: How to recover an efficient amount of a public good
which is no longer efficiently allocated? In the classic public goods
problem, if individuals are asked to pay for the public good based on
their valuation of that good, they will have an incentive to understate
their value for the public good to lower their payment. In the reverse
problem, however, each FSS licensee has an incentive to overstate its
value of the spectrum in order to increase its payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Commission notes, however, that orbital slots are
rivalrous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Several mechanisms have been developed to generate an efficient
allocation of public goods, including one proposed by Hal Varian. In
the standard public goods case, Varian proposed that individuals have
the opportunity to subsidize the contributions of others towards the
public good in a first-stage and then decide how much to contribute in
a second-stage. Can such mechanisms be adapted to solve the holdout
problem under consideration here? For example, in the first stage might
each party announce the share of the payment it receives that it will
give to each other party and in the second stage nominate how much
spectrum to clear? Can such a mechanism be modified to mitigate the
incentive to clear less than the efficient amount of spectrum? Some
commenters suggest having the FSS providers meet, privately negotiate,
and agree to put spectrum up for auction. The Commission seeks comment
on the relative merits of FSS provider cooperation versus a more
formal, non-cooperative mechanism, especially with regard to the three
economic problems.
39. FSS operators currently compete to provide communication
services (for example, to deliver programming content to rural cable
companies). For the efficient allocation of spectrum, the social value
of these services needs to be balanced against the social value of
alternative services that could be provided by that spectrum, such as
mobile data. Several commenters, such as the American Cable
Association, contend that earth stations can and do switch providers,
suggesting that competition currently exists in the C-band. Since a
reduction in industry capacity generally leads to higher prices,
reducing the spectrum associated with FSS may have the unintended
consequence of increasing the price of FSS services and consequently of
downstream services. Conversely, such a reduction should correspond
with an increase in industry capacity for high-speed wireless broadband
services, which would tend to lead to lower prices. How should the
Commission evaluate proposed mechanisms with regard to their effect on
downstream users of FSS and wireless broadband
[[Page 44136]]
services? How should the Commission take into account other
opportunities to deliver these services--such as other means of
transmitting programming data like alternative satellite bands \10\ or
fiber and other means of transmitting high-speed broadband like other
mid-band spectrum or fiber--in evaluating these effects?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Commission recognizes that other transmission methods
may also compete against satellite transmission via C-band spectrum.
For example, in certain urban and suburban areas where fiber is
widely deployed, fiber may be a cost-effective alternative. And
there may be other radio spectrum that can deliver video
transmission, such as the Ku band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. In addition, the value of spectrum in alternative uses like
mobile data is likely highest in dense urban areas. When the Commission
has sold spectrum by geographic region, the prices obtained have been
positively correlated with population density. FSS substitutes,
particularly fiber, are most prevalent in urban areas while in rural
areas there are fewer FSS substitutes. Thus, in rural areas, typically
the value of the spectrum remaining in FSS is relatively high while the
opportunity cost of clearing less flexible-use spectrum is relatively
low, suggesting that the amount of spectrum repurposed should vary
across geographic areas. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
whether the Commission should repurpose a minimum amount of spectrum
nationwide, and make additional fully unencumbered spectrum available
in any areas where it is less costly to transition earth stations to
other forms of transmission. Under this approach, the Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate size of such regions. If the regions
are too small, this could make mobile data use impractical because it
would not give wireless providers sufficient flexibility to scale their
networks using this band, while if the regions are too large, this
could threaten rural services because those regions would not be
attractive to small and rural wireless providers. Is it practical to
create regions based on the existence of alternatives to FSS like
fiber? The Commission seeks comment on whether any flexible use
licenses should also be overlay licenses, for which the terrestrial
licensee is obligated to protect licensed or registered earth stations
and can use any spectrum that becomes available by clearing earth
stations.
41. Another consideration in the geographical division of spectrum
involves the parties to compensate. Instead of paying FSS operators for
relinquishing spectrum usage rights nationwide or in specific
geographic regions a mechanism instead might pay earth stations for
relinquishing access to C-band spectrum in specific geographic areas.
Such earth stations might discontinue use in these areas by
discontinuing receiving content or by receiving it by alternative
transmission infrastructure like fiber, where the content might be
delivered to the fiber from C-band earth stations in rural areas. Would
such a mechanism present an alternative supplier of spectrum--with
either the FSS operators or the earth stations effectively releasing
spectrum rights? The Commission notes, however, that the holdout
problem for licensed earth stations is likely more severe because there
are more such earth stations that are independently owned than
satellite operators. The Commission seeks comment on the practicality
and social value of compensating licensed earth stations in exchange
for agreeing to no longer be licensed to receive in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band. In particular, would such a mechanism protect those earth
stations but not unlicensed earth stations? Also, how would satellite
operators be compensated for loss of revenues after the expiration of
their contracts with content providers serving the licensed earth
stations that discontinued their reliance on satellite delivery of
content?
a. A Market-Based Mechanism
42. The commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should
adopt rules that would facilitate a market-based approach to
transitioning incumbents from some or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
Under such an approach, the Commission would authorize incumbent FSS
operators to voluntarily clear all or part of the band. Satellite
operators in the band could choose to make some or all of their
spectrum available to terrestrial operators on the secondary market in
exchange for compensation. Under such an approach, satellite operators
could be responsible for clearing the portion of the band that would be
made available for flexible use, including notifying earth stations of
the need to modify their operations and compensating them for any costs
associated with that transition.
43. A secondary market approach might make spectrum available more
quickly than other available mechanisms, such as an FCC auction, and
thus could facilitate rapid deployment of next generation wireless
broadband networks. In addition, such an approach could leverage the
technical and operational knowledge of satellite space station
operators while relying on market incentives to promote economic
efficiency. The Commission seeks comment on whether a market-based
approach could effectively and rapidly facilitate new terrestrial
deployments in the band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a
market-based approach that allows FSS licensees to coordinate their
capacity would raise any antitrust concerns.
44. The Commission seeks comment on the efficacy of using a market-
based approach to transition some or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to
flexible terrestrial use. The Commission observes, and some commenters
in the record maintain, that a significant benefit of a market-based
approach may be a more rapid introduction of C-band spectrum to the
market. For example, Intel, Intelsat, and SES claim that their
consortium approach would result in licensed mobile services within 18-
36 months of a Commission order. Commenters also should address the
costs and benefits of this approach vis-[agrave]-vis the alternative
proposals set forth in this section.
45. The Commission seeks comment on using a market-based approach
through a Transition Facilitator, a cooperative entity created by
relevant satellite operators to coordinate negotiations, clearing, and
repacking the band. The Commission notes that because of the holdout
problem, a market-based approach in which FSS licensees act
independently is unlikely to succeed. Consequently, should the
Commission allow, encourage, or require satellite operators to
cooperate in negotiating with potential terrestrial mobile licensees
and in clearing an agreed amount of spectrum? A market-based approach
that uses a Transition Facilitator would enable the satellite operators
to use private negotiations to obtain participation and agreement from
the relevant satellite operators, rather than requiring the Commission
to address holdouts using more regulatory mechanisms.
46. The Commission seeks comment on whether using a market-based
approach in which FSS operators form a Transition Facilitator would
produce an economically efficient outcome. Specifically, would allowing
all potential sellers to agree on the amount and price of the spectrum
that will be repurposed result in a situation in which those sellers
offer a lower quantity than is socially efficient? Is that concern
mitigated by the fact that the market for spectrum for high-speed
broadband services is much broader than just the 3.7-4.2 GHz band? The
Commission seeks comment regarding some of these concerns about the
potential effects of allowing collective
[[Page 44137]]
action by C-band satellite operators below. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether a Transition Facilitator raises any particular
antitrust concerns.
47. A transition under a market-based approach could be undertaken
in a four-step process. The first step would involve the industry
voluntarily forming a Transition Facilitator composed of eligible C-
band satellite operators.\11\ In the second step, the Transition
Facilitator would negotiate with any interested terrestrial operators
and incumbent users. In the third step, the Commission would review the
Transition Facilitator's plan and conditionally authorize terrestrial
licenses in the band. And in step four, the Transition Facilitator
would clear the negotiated-for spectrum, making it available for
flexible use while protecting incumbent earth stations through a
variety of potential means. The Commission notes as well that a market-
based process need not be a one-time event--a Transition Facilitator
could negotiate with parties for compensation and protection, seek
Commission review and conditional authorization, and clear new spectrum
multiple times to ensure the total spectrum dedicated to flexible use
meets market demands. The Commission seeks comment on the effectiveness
of such a four-step process. In addition, the Commission invites
commenters supporting a market-based approach to suggest additional
details to the steps described below or other specific approaches for
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In this context, clearing refers to relinquishing
interference protection. Satellite transmissions that do not cause
interference to terrestrial operations would not necessarily have to
be cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Step 1: Formation of a Transition Facilitator.--The first step
in the process would be for the industry to form a Transition
Facilitator. Once the Transition Facilitator is formed and ready to
begin negotiations with potential licensees, the Transition Facilitator
would notify the Commission of its membership, its charter, i.e., its
structure, objectives, and planned operation, and its compliance with
any rules adopted as a result of this proceeding. Once the Transition
Facilitator has filed its notification, the Commission would have 60
days to review the filing and formally object to its creation through
an order. The Commission seeks comment on this process. What additional
information might the Commission need to conduct such a review? Should
any parties have the opportunity to formally object? Should the
Commission be required to affirmatively approve or reject the formation
of a Transition Facilitator, and if so on what timeline?
49. There is record support for a centralized facilitator. Intelsat
and SES--the two largest incumbent satellite operators in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band--support a consortium-based facilitator. While Eutelsat raises
concerns regarding how satellite operators eligible to participate in a
market-based approach would be defined it has stated publicly that it
wants to participate. In considering such an approach, the Commission
thus asks commenters to address how to define eligibility to
participate in the Transition Facilitator. The Commission seeks comment
on opening eligibility to participate in the Transition Facilitator to
all C-band satellite operators providing service to any part of the
United States pursuant to an FCC-issued license or grant of market
access. Should the Commission limit eligibility in any way, such as
requiring service throughout the lower 48 states?
50. Given the holdout problem, the Commission does not propose to
require that all eligible satellite operators agree to a Transition
Facilitator before it can take effect. Instead, the Commission seeks
comment on the appropriate number of satellite spectrum interests in
the band--a majority? all but one?--that should be represented by the
Transition Facilitator to effectuate a successful transition. Are a
minimum number of operators required to participate in the Transition
Facilitator for this approach to work? If this number is not met,
should the Transition Facilitator be approved by the Commission?
51. The Commission also seeks comment on what the Transition
Facilitator should do if one or more eligible C-band satellite
operators choose not to participate in the Transition Facilitator. Are
any Commission actions necessary if one or more eligible C-band
satellite operators do not join the Transition Facilitator? The
Commission notes that Intelsat and SES propose that eligible C-band
satellite operators that do not join a centralized facilitator would
nonetheless have their ``reconfiguration and relocation costs
covered.'' How would such a process work? Should the Transition
Facilitator, or members of the Transition Facilitator, negotiate with
non-participating satellite companies to ensure the spectrum is
successfully repurposed? Or should non-participating satellite
companies be bound by the decisions of the Transition Facilitator? If
the latter, would a non-participating satellite company be limited to
recouping its costs? Or would it be even eligible to recoup costs so
long as the Transition Facilitator adequately protects its associated
incumbent earth stations?
52. If there are earth station registrants or licensees that have
no contractual relationship with any of the members of the Transition
Facilitator or any FSS space station operators, will that create
difficulties in clearing the band during later steps in the process? If
so, how can those difficulties be addressed? Is there any reason that
the Transition Facilitator would not able to negotiate with earth
stations that don't have contractual relationships with any of the
Transition Facilitator's members? Should there be a requirement that
the C-band operators participating in the Transition Facilitator have
contractual relationships with a minimum percentage of protected
incumbent earth stations to avoid these potential difficulties? Should
the Transition Facilitator be required to work with non-participating
satellite companies to protect incumbent earth stations, or should the
Transition Facilitator be free to work directly with those entities?
53. To ensure that the transition process proceeds expeditiously,
should the Commission establish a benchmark for the Transition
Facilitator filing of six months after Federal Register publication of
an order in this proceeding? \12\ What if a Transition Facilitator is
not created within the specified timeframe? Should the Commission have
in place other means of reassigning the spectrum? Finally, the
Commission also seeks comment on what form of supervisory authority the
Commission should maintain over the Transition Facilitator, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Commission will release a Public Notice announcing the
start of the transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Step 2: Negotiation Period.--The next step in the process would
be to undertake negotiations for spectrum rights in the band. The
Commission anticipates that the Transition Facilitator would engage in
a multi-step process to negotiate with prospective licensees and
protected incumbent earth stations in the band. The result of these
negotiations would be a Transition Facilitation Plan that would lay out
what spectrum would be made available for flexible use (and where) as
well as the steps the Transition Facilitator plans to take to ensure
that protected incumbent earth stations continue to have access to the
content or bandwidth they currently receive using C-band earth
stations.
55. For example, the negotiation process could include the
following steps. First, the Transition Facilitator
[[Page 44138]]
would identify the profit-maximizing feasible amount of spectrum to
make available by soliciting inquiries from all interested terrestrial
wireless parties and negotiating for specific spectrum blocks and
markets. This amount of spectrum demanded might adjust during the
course of negotiations. The Transition Facilitator would then conclude
private agreements to protect incumbent earth stations and determine
the total available supply. Next, having balanced the supply and the
demand, the Transition Facilitator would provide each prospective
licensee with a certification of the specific spectrum block(s) and
market(s) negotiated for in the associated private agreement. Finally,
the Transition Facilitator would file its Transition Facilitation Plan
with the Commission. The Commission seeks detailed comment on this
possible approach, including what, if any, Commission oversight is
warranted. The Commission also seeks comment on this approach's costs
and benefits as well as any alternative approaches.
56. Given the high demand for and high-value of mid-band spectrum,
the Commission should strive to adopt a mechanism that will repurpose a
socially efficient amount of spectrum in the band. Intelsat-SES-Intel
believe that consortium members could make approximately 100 megahertz
of spectrum available for licensed terrestrial service via privately
negotiated agreements between consortium members and prospective
terrestrial licensees. In addition, under that proposal, consortium
members would clear an additional 40 to 60 megahertz above this
spectrum to act as an internal band to protect against harmful
interference from transmissions in the adjacent spectrum. Intel
maintains that, if the demand for terrestrial mobile spectrum is as
robust as commonly believed by 5G supporters, this market-based
approach could clear additional spectrum beyond the 100 megahertz
proposed by Intelsat and SES in the same timeframe. The Commission
notes that T-Mobile asserts that a market-based approach ``creates
tremendous uncertainty regarding the availability of this spectrum for
mobile broadband services and will likely result in inefficient
reallocation of spectrum.'' To address this concern, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to require that an Initial Minimum Spectrum
Benchmark--a socially efficient amount of spectrum--be repurposed in
the band in order to use a market-based approach, and what this amount
should be. Should the Commission set the Initial Minimum Spectrum
Benchmark to be 100 megahertz, given the comments of Intelsat and SES?
Would a higher or lower benchmark be appropriate? Should the Commission
require the Transition Facilitation Plan to require the clearing of at
least the Initial Minimum Spectrum Benchmark for approval? In addition,
the Commission seeks comment on whether an internal protection band is
necessary both above and below (i.e., below 3.7 GHz) the repurposed
spectrum. What benchmarks should be set for clearing an internal
protection band? Commenters should describe the appropriate amount of
spectrum to be repurposed, taking into account economic considerations
and the expected time and costs associated with repurposing the
spectrum.
57. To ensure a timely transition process, should the Commission
set specific benchmarks for the completion of initial negotiations with
potential terrestrial licensees as well as protected incumbent earth
stations? Intel, Intelsat, and SES maintain that such negotiations
could be completed within three to eight months. The Commission asks
commenters to consider whether eight months is an appropriate benchmark
for completion of Transition Facilitator negotiations and submission of
the Transition Facilitation Plan. What should be the effect of a
failure to meet such a benchmark?
58. The Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that the market-
based approach's negotiation process will facilitate a competitive and
open market. For example, should the Commission require that all
parties act in good faith? What other rules could the Commission adopt
to ensure competition in the marketplace? The Commission notes that T-
Mobile raises concerns that satellite operators could choose to limit
the amount of spectrum available for flexible use in order to increase
their profits, while others claim it will not take into sufficient
account the interests of protected incumbent earth stations. How can
the Commission ensure the negotiation process accounts for the
interests of all stakeholders that have interests in the band--from new
wireless entrants to existing satellite operators to protected
incumbent earth stations, from those living in rural America to those
living in cities? Would Commission oversight of this market-based
approach--or over the Transition Facilitator--benefit in any way from
insights from antitrust law?
59. The Commission also seeks comment on what role, if any, the
Commission should play to facilitate or oversee these private market
negotiations. For example, should the Commission allow some flexibility
for the negotiators to make more spectrum available in some markets
than others, potentially allowing a limited number of earth stations to
continue to operate using wider bandwidths in certain areas where
wireless operators are less interested in deploying (e.g., remote rural
areas)? Should the Commission have some input on the FSS frequencies to
be made available for private-market negotiations? How should these
determinations be made? A market-based approach would not likely result
in mutually exclusive applications for the Commission to consider if,
for example, a negotiated agreement with the Transition Facilitator is
a prerequisite for applying for a license in this band. Would this
negotiation satisfy the Commission's obligation in the public interest
to use negotiation to avoid mutual exclusivity pursuant to Sec.
309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act?
60. The Commission also asks commenters to discuss the requirements
and safeguards that the Commission should adopt, if any, to ensure that
these privately negotiated agreements result in a timely and complete
transition. The Commission will expect parties to negotiate a full
range of transition commitments and penalties for failure to meet
transition benchmarks. Nonetheless, does the Commission need to adopt
baseline requirements, such as defining comparable facilities,
including the relocation of incumbent operations to another band, to
fiber, and/or to more efficient technologies? What would be the
relative costs and benefits associated with adopting such requirements?
Would such definitions or rules minimize disruption to existing
operations during the transition? Are there mechanisms the Commission
can adopt to ensure that all or specific categories of incumbents are
not adversely affected by repacking of this band? For example, should
the Commission require FSS space station licensees that are going to
cease transmitting on a primary basis to notify earth stations
receiving those signals? Could the parties determine that the
transitioning of facilities should be undertaken by the terrestrial
licensee instead of the Transition Facilitator? If so, would the
parties or the FCC establish a benchmark for completing such a
transition? Should the Transition Facilitator be required to have a
mechanism for receiving reports from incumbents that experience
disruptions, and should the Transition Facilitator also be required to
notify the
[[Page 44139]]
Commission when it receives such reports? The Commission invites
commenters to address the specific form of notification required, the
time period for providing each notification, and the costs and benefits
of each notification requirement.
61. If the Commission's role were more limited, what level of
transparency, if any, should be required during the negotiation
process? For example, should satellite operators be required to notify
the Commission regarding the status of on-going negotiations? What
types of information should be included in such a notice? Further,
should the Commission require the filing of periodic reports (e.g.,
quarterly, bi-annually, annually) to ensure that the overall transition
of this band will be completed in a timely manner? What should such
reports include? The Commission encourages interested parties to
provide detailed comments regarding the level of Commission oversight
envisioned for this process including how such oversight comports with
the Commission's obligation to assign spectrum in the public interest.
62. Step 3: Conditional Authorization of Mobile Licensees.--Upon
the submission of a Transition Facilitation Plan, the next step would
be Commission review and approval of the plan, followed by applications
for terrestrial license authorizations filed pursuant to the plan. The
Commission seeks comment on this process. To facilitate a streamlined
review, the Commission seeks comment on allowing applications for new
terrestrial authorizations to be filed at the same time as a Transition
Facilitation Plan, or while the Commission reviews that plan. And to
avoid undue delay in commencing the band clearing process, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate timing, criteria, and
conditions that should apply to new license authorizations.
63. The Commission seeks comment on conducting the review of the
Transition Facilitation Plan. Most specifically, how should the
Commission ensure that protected incumbent earth stations are indeed
protected? What types of certifications should be required to ensure
that the Commission can take all appropriate actions to ensure that the
Transition Facilitator and its members carry out the Transition
Facilitation Plan and appropriately protect, compensate, and ensure
adequate access for relevant stakeholder? Should the Commission make
the plan available to comment, and what confidential information is
likely to be included? How should the Commission evaluate the various
methods suggested for protecting incumbent earth stations, such as
installing filters, extending fiber, offering service on new satellites
or in new satellite bands, offering service over microwave links, and
creating geographic separation from harmful interference (likely only
in rural areas)? What level of granularity should the Commission
require the steps of the Transition Facilitation Plan to meet? And how
long should the Commission have to review and approve or reject a
Transition Facilitation Plan?
64. The Commission seeks comment on how to address initial
licensing applications. First, the Commission seeks comment on
establishing a 30-day filing window for new terrestrial license
applications. Prospective licensees would file an application for any
new licenses they have agreed to acquire through their negotiations
with the Transition Facilitator, along with a certification from the
Transition Facilitator to clear that portion of the band for the
terrestrial operator's use. Should the Commission require any other
specific information to be submitted as part of the application
process? Applications would be accepted and reviewed pursuant to the
requirements and procedures set forth in part 1 of the Commission's
rules, including, among other things, the filing of certain FCC forms,
release of a public notice listing the application as accepted for
filing, and the opportunity for third parties to file petitions to deny
the application. Upon the Commission's review and confirmation that the
applicant has complied with all other Commission filing and
qualification requirements, the Commission would grant a license
subject to certain conditions discussed below. Second, the Commission
could treat the Transition Facilitation Plan as an application for all
the flexible use licenses that would be made available as a result of
it being carried out, and then allow the Transition Facilitator and
prospective licensees to file separate applications to transfer those
licenses as the parties saw fit. Under this approach, the Transition
Facilitation Plan would also have to comport with the requirements and
procedures set forth in Part 1 of the Commission's rules and would be
conditioned as discussed below.
65. The Commission will condition authorizations for licensed
terrestrial operations on the licensee not commencing operations until
the Transition Facilitation Plan's protections for incumbent earth
stations have been carried out in that area (and subject to those
conditions to the extent the plan requires geographic or other
sharing). The provisions of any private agreement to transition
designated spectrum to licensed terrestrial operations would therefore
need to comply with the service rules the Commission may ultimately
adopt in this proceeding. For example, under this approach, the
deadlines for a licensee's regulatory obligations, including
construction benchmarks, would begin running on the date of license
issuance. The Commission therefore anticipates that private agreements
would take construction deadlines into account when negotiating the
date by which the Transition Facilitator must clear the relevant
spectrum such that the licensee may commence operations. However, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should consider the
individually negotiated time periods for band clearing when setting the
deadlines for each licensee's satisfaction of its construction
benchmarks. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other
conditions on new license authorizations that would facilitate
efficient implementation of the market-based approach.
66. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on what, if any,
conditions should be placed on the license with respect to the
protection or relocation of the approximately 115 incumbent microwave
links in the band that would sunset under out proposal. For example,
should the Commission require as a condition of the license that new
licensees either protect or relocate incumbent users under the same
part 27 and part 101 rules used for incumbent microwave links in the
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) bands or under some other protection
and/or relocation mechanism?
67. To ensure a timely transition process, should the Commission
set specific benchmarks for the completion of its review of the
Transition Facilitation Plan and the processing of conditional
authorizations? Intel, Intelsat, and SES expect the review process
would take two to seven months, and propose the license grant would
trigger certain obligations under private agreements, including the
clearing of the band within 12-20 months. The Commission seeks comment
on a process whereby the Commission would take action on all unopposed
applications found acceptable for filing within four months from the
commencement of the filing window discussed above (i.e., a 30-day
filing window plus three months of review). Upon completion of the
four-month application and review process,
[[Page 44140]]
the Commission would notify the Transition Facilitator that it may
begin clearing the designated spectrum in the band. The Commission
seeks comment on this approach to triggering the commencement of the
band-clearing process. Should the process instead be triggered only
upon the Commission's grant of all licenses negotiated by the
Transition Facilitator? Or is a certain critical mass of license grants
sufficient to begin clearing incumbent users from the band? For
example, to avoid undue delay of licensed operations in the band, would
it be appropriate to begin clearing the band upon issuance of licenses
authorized for operation in a certain portion of contiguous spectrum in
the band? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other
benchmarks that may be appropriate.
68. The Commission also recognizes that the Transition Facilitator
may find it necessary and beneficial to modify certain aspects of its
Transition Facilitation Plan. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
allowing the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to approve minor
amendments to the Transition Facilitation Plan that would not increase
harmful interference to protected incumbent earth stations.
69. The Commission notes that the ultimate assignment of any
license is subject to FCC approval under Sec. 310(d) of the
Communications Act. The Commission therefore seeks comment on the
application process described above and any other application criteria
that may be appropriate to fulfill the Commission's statutory
obligations to license spectrum in the public interest and ensure that
spectrum is put to its highest and best use.
70. Step 4--Band Clearing. Following approval of the Transition
Facilitation Plan and grant of new terrestrial licenses in the band,
the final step would be clearing certain incumbent users as needed from
the designated spectrum and giving new terrestrial licensees access to
their licensed spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on the best way
to effectuate this process.
71. The Commission seeks comment on reasonable benchmarks for
incumbents to cease transmitting on a primary basis in the portion of
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that becomes available for flexible use, a process
Intel, Intelsat, and SES expect to take 12-20 months. The Commission
seeks comment on providing the Transition Facilitator with 20 months to
clear incumbent users from the designated spectrum in the band. Under
this approach, the Transition Facilitator would be responsible for
enforcing the various private agreements between new terrestrial
licensees and incumbent users to clear the band. As spectrum becomes
available for licensed use, the Transition Facilitator would notify
licensees that they may begin operating in particular areas covered by
their licenses where the spectrum has been cleared.\13\ In light of the
Commission's expectation that spectrum will be cleared incrementally
over the course of the 20-month band-clearing process, the Commission
proposes to require the Transition Facilitator to provide periodic
updates notifying the Commission of the specific spectrum that has been
cleared. Should the Commission require the Transition Facilitator to
file status reports at various benchmarks (e.g., every four months)?
The Commission seeks comment on these and any other benchmarks that may
be appropriate to promote timely completion of the band-clearing
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The entire area covered by a new license would not need to
be cleared in order for licensees to begin operating. Instead,
subject to their individual agreements, the Transition Facilitator
could begin notifying licensees of their ability to begin operations
once certain portions of the area covered by the license (e.g.,
counties) have been cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Finally, in light of our goal to promote the rapid deployment
of new licensed terrestrial operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, the
Commission seeks comment on any further safeguards that should apply
during the band-clearing process to ensure the transition is completed
within a reasonable period of time. The Commission expects that the
private agreements between new terrestrial licensees and incumbent
users would contain provisions and penalties sufficient to address
either party's failure to satisfy their respective contractual
obligations in a timely manner. In addition to, and independent of,
those private agreements, the Commission seeks comment on any
appropriate penalties that should apply in the event that the
Transition Facilitator is unable to clear the designated spectrum
within the 20-month time period discussed above. What, if any,
opportunities to cure should the Commission provide? For example,
should the Commission allow new terrestrial licensees and incumbent
users that default on their private agreements to re-enter the process
beginning with Step 2 negotiations? If so, should the Commission apply
more abbreviated time periods for the completion of each step? The
Commission seeks comment on these and any other actions that may be
appropriate to provide adequate opportunity for successful completion
of a market-based approach, while also ensuring a rapid and efficient
transition to flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
b. Auction Mechanisms
73. The Commission seeks comment on various auction approaches to
expand flexible use of the band. Specifically, the Commission asks
commenters to consider whether an overlay auction, incentive auction,
capacity auction or other auction mechanism could be used to create
opportunities for flexible use of the band.
74. Overlay Auction.--An overlay license authorizes operations for
an entire geographic area but requires the licensee to protect existing
incumbents from interference indefinitely, i.e., until the rights are
relinquished. The Commission notes that the Commission has used overlay
licensing to transition several bands from site-based to geographic-
area licensing.
75. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission shall
accept applications for one or more overlay licenses--assigned by
competitive bidding if mutually exclusive applications for it were
accepted--that would permit an overlay licensee to negotiate with both
incumbent space station licensees and earth station owners and
operators to clear all or part of the band. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the Commission shall require the overlay licensee(s)
to transfer flexible use licenses in the secondary market (i.e., limit
an individual licensee from holding more than a certain amount of
spectrum in each market). Under this approach, the overlay licensee(s)
would have the right to flexible use of any spectrum that becomes
available as a result of incumbents' relinquishing their spectrum usage
rights. If this approach were adopted, the Commission's presumption
would be that incumbent space station licensees could bid individually,
but not as a consortium. Allowing incumbents to bid collectively would
eliminate the possibility of competition among them for the overlay
license, and would discourage other potential bidders from
participating in the auction. To encourage participation in the
auction, are there rules the Commission can adopt to share the risk
(between bidders and the U.S. Treasury) of a less profitable repurpose
than anticipated? The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if no
voluntary agreement is reached between an overlay licensee and earth
station operators after some number of years, the earth station
operators should be
[[Page 44141]]
required to discontinue operation in some portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band if requested by the overlay licensee and if the overlay licensee
delivers equivalent quality service to the locations of the earth
stations that would no longer be protected. The Commission seeks
comment on how equivalent quality service should be defined, especially
with respect to reliability. The Commission also seeks comment on how
many years incumbent earth station operators should have before they
would no longer receive protection in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and whether
this deadline should apply to all areas or only to high-population-
density areas. If the latter, how should such areas be defined?
76. Would assigning an overlay license or licenses for all of the
band expedite flexible use of more of the band compared to other
approaches? Compared to the market-based proposal, the overlay license
approach potentially would allow non-incumbent bidders to develop
innovative ways to clear the spectrum and clear more spectrum or
varying amounts of spectrum depending on the relative costs and
benefits of such repurposing. On the other hand, an overlay licensee
may take longer to clear spectrum because the two largest FSS space
station operators appear to already have an agreement on how to clear
at least 100 megahertz for flexible use.
77. The Commission also seeks comment on how all parties that would
be affected by repurposing 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum should be treated.
In particular, should the space station operators relinquishing
spectrum or the overlay licensee be required to provide incumbent earth
station operators comparable replacement facilities or media? Would an
overlay auction expedite the provision of terrestrial mobile services
in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band or facilitate making more than 100 megahertz of
the band available for flexible use? Commenters should also address the
potential costs and benefits of an overlay approach for consumers and
businesses in rural and underserved communities, as well as any
economic impact on small businesses, and discuss any rules or
procedures that could be implemented to ensure that the needs of these
communities and businesses are adequately addressed. The Commission
invites comment on these issues and on other matters that it may need
to address to conduct an overlay auction in this band.
78. Incentive Auction.--The Commission also seeks comment on
approaches using the Commission's general incentive auction authority
to introduce flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. One commenter
suggests that ``[FSS incumbent] satellite operators, earth station
licensees, and microwave licensees all could participate in a reverse
auction and choose from among several options including, for example,
vacating the band for another or a fiber alternative; limiting
operations to a smaller swath of spectrum; or moving to a more remote
location.'' A forward auction would then generate the revenues from new
entrants to support the reverse auction results, and repack incumbents
into the remaining portion of the band for FSS and/or move earth
stations to more remote locations.
79. The Commission seeks comment on whether a variation of the
incentive auction could work in the context of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
The Commission notes that in the case of the Commission's incentive
auction authority, there is a legal aspect to the problem of FSS
satellite operators' incentives to reduce the amount of spectrum for
repurposing discussed above. Specifically, the Commission's legal
authority to use that mechanism depends on having ``at least two
competing licensees participate in the reverse auction.'' Would the
Varian approach, discussed above, satisfy the statutory requirement
that an incentive auction have at least two competing bidders take part
in the reverse auction? The Commission seeks comment on means of
inducing supply competition, such as by bringing in alternative bands
as substitutes, both to insure a more competitive and efficient
outcome, and to meet the legal requirement of having competing
licensees participate in the reverse auction. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether provision of supply by licensed earth stations can
substitute for provision by FSS operators.
80. Capacity Auction.--As an alternative to paying satellite
incumbents to directly relinquish their rights to operate on specified
frequencies, the Commission seeks comment on a reverse auction for
satellite transponder capacity that could be used to compensate the
satellite incumbents for giving up C-band transponder capacity in order
to enable the Commission to reallocate C-band spectrum to flexible use.
Under this approach, an individual bidder in the reverse auction would
help to clear spectrum by bidding to relinquish some (or all) of the
bundle of rights they hold under their licenses and the Commission's
rules to lease capacity to other parties, so as to allow alternative
use of the bands of spectrum associated with specific transponders.
Potential bidders could be any FCC licensee that could make transponder
capacity available in, for example, either the C-band or Ku-band, as
discussed further below. Satellite operators could offer capacity
created by launching new satellites in vacant orbital slots and/or by
relinquishing some or all of their existing capacity.
81. At the time of any incentive auction, could satellite customers
or earth stations in their own right be eligible to offer capacity? For
example, could they make available capacity through mechanisms such as
substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill their capacity needs,
reducing the amount or quality of programming distributed, or using
greater compression to reduce the capacity required to carry a given
amount of programming or data? C-band capacity lost due to the reduced
amount of available spectrum and that was not relinquished in the
reverse auction by C-band satellite operators, could be repacked onto
replacement capacity for the remaining lives of those lost
transponders. This would compensate C-band licensees for their lost
capital investments, but not for the loss of their spectrum. The amount
of C-band spectrum reallocated could be determined by the reverse
auction in combination with a forward auction for cleared spectrum.
Adapting the approach of the broadcast incentive auction, the amount
cleared could be the largest amount for which forward auction revenues
exceed the cost of repacking the remaining C-band services plus any
other compensation, e.g., for the loss of spectrum, and the cost of
running the auction. The Commission seeks comment on a capacity auction
and whether such a mechanism could be used to create flexible use in
the band.
82. Several commenters propose that Ku-band capacity could be
utilized for C-band services. Other commenters raise the concern that
Ku-band capacity is not a reliable replacement spectrum for C-band
services. The Commission seeks comment on Ku-band capacity as a
replacement for C-band, including as an alternative for infrequent,
portable, or more temporary uses such as for breaking news or live
sporting events. The Commission also seeks comment on how to define
capacity for purpose of this approach. What capacity definition meets
the needs of such an auction? Depending on the band, what adjustments
would be appropriate to ensure a unit of capacity in the band is
comparable with a C-band unit of capacity? Would comparable
communication capacity be defined in
[[Page 44142]]
terms of throughput, reliability, and operating costs?
83. Advocates for a capacity auction should specifically discuss
the Commission's legal authority as well as implementation details and
options. For example, could the Commission use its general incentive
auction authority to hold a capacity auction? Which parties should be
allowed to participate in the reverse auction? Is there a way for end
users to participate and, if so, how would their costs be compensated?
Would this approach incentivize bidders to make the appropriate
tradeoffs among inputs such as compression technology and bandwidth in
producing capacity? How could a capacity auction be designed to
allocate capacity efficiently over time? Would this require the reverse
auction to establish separate prices for capacity in each year? Would
capacity need to be defined as packages of capacity at specified dates,
and would a combinatorial auction be needed to determine auction
winners and prices?
84. The Commission seeks comment on the applicability of Sec. 647
of the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act) to a capacity or other auction
mechanism. The Commission tentatively concludes that the prohibition is
not applicable here, as any auctioned spectrum would be used for a new
domestic terrestrial service, and the spectrum capacity auction does
not propose to assign by competitive bidding orbital locations or
spectrum used for the provision of international or global satellite
communications services. The Commission also tentatively concludes that
the participation in an incentive auction by Ku-band operators to
provide spectrum capacity to C-band operators would not violate the
ORBIT Act, because this would not constitute an ``assignment'' of
satellite spectrum, because the Ku-band operators would only be giving
up some of their licensed spectrum capacity, rather than ceding their
actual licenses. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion and invite commenters to discuss the ORBIT Act's application
to any proposed auction mechanism.
85. The Commission also invites comment on other novel incentive
auction mechanisms under the Commission's general incentive auction
authority. Commenters should provide data on the costs and benefits
associated with any proposed approach along with other helpful
technical or procedural details. Commenters should also address the
potential costs and benefits of an incentive-auction approach for
consumers and businesses in rural and underserved communities, as well
as any economic impact on small businesses, and they should discuss any
rules or procedures that could be implemented to ensure that the needs
of these communities and businesses are adequately addressed.
c. Alternative Mechanisms
86. The Commission also seeks comment on approaches that combine
various elements of the mechanisms discussed above, as well as other
mechanisms for transitioning all or part of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band for
wireless broadband use. Commenters offering sequential alternatives
should address the circumstances under which one method of
transitioning the band would end and a subsequent one would begin. Are
any conditions necessary to prevent one approach from precluding later
alternatives?
87. In response to the Mid-Band NOI, T-Mobile proposed a hybrid
approach that would combine elements of an incentive auction and the
market-based approach. Under this proposal, a consortium of satellite
operators (similar to the Transition Facilitator discussed above) and
potential wireless bidders would participate in a phased auction
process with both forward and reverse auction components. First, the
Commission would conduct a simultaneous or near simultaneous auction of
the band on a geographic basis to establish the initial price per area.
Second, in those areas where satellite operators were all willing to
clear all 500 megahertz at the prices established in the initial phase,
the spectrum would be sold and these areas would be deemed ``cleared''
for flexible terrestrial wireless use. The Commission would then
determine an appropriate amount of the remaining spectrum to reserve
for satellite use and the forward and reverse auction processes would
repeat until a Commission-determined amount of spectrum has been
cleared. Although T-Mobile proposes that auction revenues would be
split between the federal government and the satellite operators, with
the latter responsible for end-user relocation costs as applicable, the
Commission tentatively concludes there could be statutory barriers to
this aspect of the proposal, and seek comment.
88. The Commission seeks comment on whether T-Mobile's proposal, or
a variant of this proposal, would solve or ameliorate the three
economic problems discussed above. As discussed, there is a legal
aspect to the problem of FSS satellite operators' incentives to reduce
the amount of spectrum for repurposing because the Commission's
incentive auction authority requires at least two competing
participants in the reverse auction. Would T-Mobile's proposal, or a
variant of that proposal, comply with the requirement that an incentive
auction have two competing licensees in the reverse auction, as well as
other requirements associated with the Commission's general incentive
auction authority?
89. The Commission seeks comment on whether a hybrid approach that
combines elements of the approaches discussed above would strike a
balance between incumbent and new entrant interests. If the Commission
decides to clear and auction the entire band, but reserve some of the
band for satellite use in certain areas, what is the minimum amount
that should be cleared for flexible wireless use? Would the minimum
amount differ based on geographic area? Should the Commission consider
auctioning a majority of the band, versus the entire band, and if so,
what would be the appropriate amount of spectrum to be cleared under
such an approach? How can the Commission ensure that the band is
transitioned in a timely manner? Should a backstop approach be
triggered by a FSS operator's failure to clear the band in a timely
manner? Is this the right balance, or is there a better way that
traditional relocation could be used as a backstop approach to any
hybrid mechanism? Additionally, would this approach allow the
Commission to meet its statutory requirements under its general
incentive auction authority?
90. The Commission asks commenters to provide data on the costs and
benefits associated with any hybrid approach over other possible or
suggested methods. If the Commission adopted a split-revenue approach,
under which revenue would be split between the federal government and
the satellite operators, how would those funds be distributed? Are
there are legal obstacles to such an approach? Commenters should also
address the potential costs and benefits of any hybrid or alternative
approach for consumers and businesses in rural and underserved
communities, as well as any economic impact on small businesses, and
discuss any rules or procedures that could be implemented to ensure
that the needs of these communities and businesses are adequately
addressed. Commenters should provide complete proposals to the extent
technically and economically feasible.
[[Page 44143]]
2. More Intensive Point-to-Multipoint Fixed Use
91. In connection with the Commission's proposals above to reform
the full-band, full-arc earth station coordination policy, the
Commission seeks comment on rule changes to Part 101 to allow point-to-
multipoint FS use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band and invite parties to offer
alternative rules or requirements that will allow for the more
intensive point-to-multipoint FS use of the band. In doing so, the
Commission seeks comment on how permitting fixed wireless would affect
the possible future clearing of the band for flexible use and the use
of the band for satellite operations. The Commission seeks to protect
incumbent FSS earth stations from harmful interference and avoid
disruption to existing operations in the band. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on the impact that point-to-multipoint use
would have on the flexibility of FSS earth stations to modify their
operations in response to technical and business needs. The Commission
emphasizes that--under the proposals in this NPRM--point-to-multipoint
would operate on a secondary basis vis-[agrave]-vis FSS in any part of
the band in which FSS continues to operate during a transition period
to accommodate repacking and, thereafter, on a frequency-coordinated
basis to protect actual FSS operations.
92. Channel Plan.--The Commission seeks comment on amending Sec.
101.101 to permit point-to-multipoint FS in some portion of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band. The Commission seeks further comment on amending the existing
channel plan for FS in the band (paired 20 megahertz channels for
frequency division duplex (FDD)) to allow time division duplex (TDD) on
unpaired 20 megahertz channels. The Commission asks commenters to
address interference concerns between FDD and TDD, explain how, or if,
they could coexist in the portion of the band not being used for
flexible use, and discuss coordination and interference rules that must
apply if both were to be permitted. Should the Commission allow
licensees to aggregate contiguous 20 megahertz channels up to a maximum
of 160 megahertz of bandwidth? To the extent a licensee has 40
megahertz of unconstructed spectrum in a licensed service area, should
the Commission require construction before allowing the licensee to
acquire additional spectrum in the licensed service area? The
Commission invites alternative proposals with specific discussion of
the costs and benefits as to each. The Commission also seeks comment
generally on the technical improvements to allow for better band
utilization.
93. The Commission seeks comment on authorizing point-to-multipoint
FS service, on a primary basis, in some portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
that does not become available for flexible use. The Commission
proposes that flexible use licensees would operate in the lower segment
of the band (starting at 3.7 GHz) and, if additional spectrum is
cleared in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, it would be relatively easy and cost-
effective to expeditiously deploy more flexible use in the lower
segment of this band that has been cleared and is contiguous to the
spectrum for which flexible use is already licensed. The Commission
also seeks comment as to whether, regardless of how much spectrum
becomes available for flexible use in the near term, to make available
for licensed point-to-multipoint use up to 160 megahertz (e.g., 4.04-
4.2 GHz) to accommodate a transition from FSS to flexible use working-
up from 3.7 GHz. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on making
available for point-to-multipoint use 40 megahertz, 100 megahertz or up
to 320 megahertz.
94. Service Area of Each Point-to-Multipoint FS Access Point.--The
Commission seeks comment on the best approach to define a point-to-
multipoint FS access point service area. The Broadband Access Coalition
requests frequency coordinated, site-specific license areas, defined as
a circle designated by a specified radial distance from a center point.
Should the Commission define a service area based on a specified
geographic access point location and maximum radius? As an alternative,
should the Commission consider coverage arc sector(s) (e.g., 0[deg]N to
30[deg]) around the access point location and specified radii, and what
should such coverage arcs be based on (e.g., antenna beamwidth)? If a
maximum radius around an access point is specified, should the
Commission adopt a single value for all access points or values
relative to whether the access point is in densely populated or rural
areas? For example, the Broadband Access Coalition proposes 10
kilometers for densely populated areas and 18 kilometers for rural
areas. If the Commission allows different radii based on area
population density, what threshold should the Commission use to
differentiate between densely populated, rural, and other areas? Should
the definition of ``rural'' for these purposes be the definition used
for the E-Rate program? If based on a population density, should the
population be based on residents or businesses, or perhaps some
combination of both? Should this information be based on the most
current available U.S. Census database at the time of the license
application? Is there some other metric that would be better suited to
determining the appropriate maximum radius limit? The Commission seeks
comment on variations of these approaches, as well as those of
alternatives that might not necessarily be limited to circles, arcs, or
population density.
95. Frequency Coordination and Interference Protection.--The
Commission seeks comment on technical requirements for frequency
coordination between point-to-multipoint FS applicants and licensees
and FSS under Part 25 and point-to-point FS, if they are grandfathered
or otherwise remain in the band, under part 101. Under the Commission's
current rules, the technical aspects of coordination between FSS and
terrestrial operations are based on Appendix 7 of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations and certain
recommendations of the ITU Radiocommunication Sector and the technical
aspects of coordination between terrestrial licensees are based on
Telecommunications Industry Association's Telecommunications System
Bulletin (TSB) 10-F or other procedures generally following acceptable
good engineering practices. The Commission asks parties to comment on
how either of the above or other standards, such as those developed by
the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) or another
organization, may be applicable or adaptable to point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment
on whether there are interference protection criteria set forth in
other parts of the Commission's rules that may be adapted to protect
FSS earth stations from interference by point-to-multipoint operations
in the portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that does not become available
for flexible use. Are there technical operating characteristics of
point-to-multipoint equipment, such as power levels, that would require
us to adopt different values to protect FSS earth stations from
interference by point-to-multipoint operations? The Commission asks
that commenters be specific in addressing the technical requirements
for coordination.
96. The Commission seeks comment on allowing a point-to-multipoint
FS applicant to coordinate each access point by sector based on the
radius
[[Page 44144]]
around the geographic coordinates of the site, the antenna
characteristics (e.g., beamwidth), and a maximum number of client
devices to be deployed within a specific distance from the access
point. Should point-to-multipoint FS applicants be required to submit
frequency coordination for each access point, including geographic
coordinates of the access point, frequency range, power and antenna
characteristics, service area limits, maximum number of future
authorized client devices, and the power and antenna characteristics of
individual client devices? How will prior coordination be achieved for
point-to-multipoint access points when the location, height, and
technical characteristics of the client devices in the access point
service area are not available at the time of access point
coordination? If some probability of location/height is assigned for
the maximum number of client locations in order to develop an
interference profile for purposes of coordination, the resulting
interference predictions will have some associated probability of
interference occurrence; in that case should point-to-multipoint
licensees be able to add up to the maximum number of client devices
without independently coordinating each client device? Should client
devices be subject to additional technical limitations, such as minimum
directional antenna requirements, EIRP limits, or other criteria to
limit their interference potential? Should the maximum number of client
devices be specified for each channel? The Commission seeks comment on
the above proposals and, whether, if a point-to-multipoint FS applicant
cannot successfully coordinate a geographic service area, it should be
permitted to coordinate client devices on a path-to-path basis. Parties
should address the technical requirements of the above, offer
alternatives, and specifically detail the costs and benefits of each
proposal.
97. The Commission also seeks comment on the administrative process
that should apply to the coordination of point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the band. Under the current rules, the administrative
aspects of the coordination process are set forth in Sec. 101.103(d)
in the case of coordination of terrestrial stations with earth stations
and in Sec. 25.203 in the case of coordination of earth stations with
terrestrial stations. What modifications to Sec. Sec. 101.103(d),
25.203, or to another rule must be made to govern the administrative
process that will apply to the coordination of point-to-multipoint FS
operations with FSS and point-to-point FS, if grandfathered or remain
in the band, and the coordination of FSS and point-to-point FS, if
grandfathered or remain in the band, with point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the band? The Commission seeks comment on subjecting
point-to-multipoint FS applicants to an expedited coordination process
with mandatory electronic notification and response. Should an
expedited process, if adopted, govern coordination that occurs
beginning 90 days after the adoption of final rules published in the
Federal Register? The Commission also seeks comment on any other
modifications to the Commission's rules with respect to the
coordination administrative process that would reduce the economic
impact of the proposed rule changes on small entities.
98. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the possibility
of adopting an automated coordination process for point-to-multipoint
FS applications. There is a lack of a consensus in the record as to
when, or if, the Commission will be in a position to propose and adopt
rules for automated coordination of point-to-multipoint FS applications
in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Broadband Access Coalition contends that
automated coordination should not be the same as the Spectrum
Allocation Server (SAS) system for licensing in the 3.5 GHz band.
However, the Broadband Access Coalition believes that the existing
process can be modified and automated over time to incorporate real-
time, real-world FSS protection criteria and enable coordination
between and among point-to-point FS, if grandfathered or remain in the
band, and point-to-multipoint FS based on FSS, point-to-point FS and
point-to-multipoint FS industry standards of protection criteria to be
developed by affected stake-holders. Several commenters including IEE
DySPAN, OTI &PK, and Federated, support using a spectrum access
database similar to the sharing system used below 3.7 GHz for the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Google offers another variant
contending that a lightweight database supported authorization
framework would enable the efficient deployment of fixed broadband
access (FBA) systems. However, the satellite industry and content
providers have strong objections to more intensive use of the 3.7-4.2
GHz by FS and have raised very specific concerns over the lack of
proven methods for spectrum sharing with more intensive fixed use in
this band. Satellite operators also raise concern about the ability of
point-to-multipoint systems to quickly remedy interference when it is
identified or to accommodate FSS earth stations when they change
frequencies. The Commission seeks comment on the above. The Commission
also asks that, given the lack of consensus, parties continue to work
together to offer a more widely supported proposal for the Commission
to consider.
99. Power Limits.--The Commission seeks comment on adopting power
limits for point-to-multipoint FS operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
The Commission existing rules for FS provide power limits based on the
link length. With point-to-multipoint FS service areas, individual
links between access points and client devices will vary in length.
Should the Commission apply a rule to point-to-multipoint FS links
specifying a minimum path length, similar to those specified for point-
to-point FS links in Sec. 101.143 or is some other variation of this
rule more applicable to point-to-multipoint FS operations? What should
the Commission's power limits be for point-to-multipoint FS service?
The Broadband Access Coalition has proposed a 50 dBm EIRP limit and a
maximum conducted power of 1 Watt. Should the access point EIRP be
scalable with bandwidth? Likewise, should client devices be limited to
50 dBm EIRP regardless of bandwidth? If not scalable, how do changes in
bandwidth impact frequency coordination? Should the Commission apply
the emission limits set forth in Sec. 101.111 to point-to-multipoint
FS operations in this band, or would some other limits be more
appropriate to protect adjacent-band operations? The Broadband Access
Coalition anticipates that point-to-multipoint FS systems would be able
to meet existing Part 101 out-of-band emission limits, without
modification, but the Commission seeks comment as to this issue. The
Commission also invites comment on other proposals. The Commission
notes that the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band is allocated to the
aeronautical radionavigation service on a primary basis and that, at
WRC-15, the 4.2-4.4 GHz band was also allocated to the aeronautical
mobile (R) service on a primary basis in all ITU Regions with use
reserved for WAIC systems. WAIC systems are onboard short range
wireless systems that will replace substantial portions of aircraft
wiring. These systems increase aircraft safety by providing dissimilar
redundancy in communications links between aircraft systems. The
Commission solicits comment on the needed out-of-band emission limit
required to protect the
[[Page 44145]]
aeronautical radionavigation service in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band.
100. Antenna Standards.--The Commission asks parties to provide
detailed technical comments as to antenna standards that should apply
to point-to-multipoint FS operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Section
101.115 of the Commission's rules specifies the maximum beamwidth,
minimum antenna gain and radiation suppression envelope for FS antennas
in this band. How should these antenna standards be modified to
accommodate the range of antennas typically used in point-to-multipoint
applications? The Broadband Access Coalition Petition proposes that,
unlike point-to-point FS licensees subject to Sec. 101.115, point-to-
multipoint FS licensees be permitted to use any antenna in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band that meets the minimum performance requirements for access
points and client devices. Specifically, the Broadband Access Coalition
Petition proposes that a point-to-multipoint FS licensee would be
required to specify the gain; azimuth; polarization; height; azimuth
and elevation half-power beamwidths; and tilt (e.g., -10 degrees) for
sectorized antennas and gain, height and any electrical tilt for omni-
directional antennas. Should the Commission specify a minimum radiation
suppression at some angle from the edge of the main beam for sectorized
antennas? The Commission seeks comment on the above and invite parties
to offer alternative proposals. What are the relative costs and
benefits for each proposal? How would each proposal affect other users
in the band or provide mechanisms to address interference?
101. Client Devices.--The Commission seeks comment on whether the
Commission should require directional antennas on outdoor point-to-
multipoint client devices and if so what should those antenna standards
be? Would antenna standards for client devices make coordination
easier? The Commission asks that commenters address the minimum antenna
gain and minimum suppression from main beam centerline. Should client
devices be limited to outdoor antennas only and permanently affixed at
the client location? Should the Commission allow portable indoor client
devices, and should such devices be allowed under point-to-multipoint
or flexible use rules? If the Commission permits portable client
devices with non-directional antennas, how will this impact the access
point service area frequency coordination with incumbent licensees?
102. Frequency Agility and Radio Capabilities.--The Commission
seeks comment on whether the Commission should require point-to-
multipoint FS radios (both access points and client devices) to be
frequency agile and thus capable of operating across the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band or allow radios to be agile over 3.7-4.2 GHz so long as the
flexible use portion of the band is locked out and be able to
accommodate any 20 megahertz channel assignment? The Broadband Access
Coalition requests that licensed point-to-multipoint radios (both
access points and client devices) be frequency agile and thus capable
of operating across the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and accommodate any 20
megahertz channel assignment. Additionally, should the Commission
require that client devices be capable of modifying channel and
bandwidth assignment when prompted by the associated access point?
Should access points be software upgradable to communicate with future
automated database and client devices to be capable of following
instructions from associated access point to change channels and
bandwidth, as necessary? The Commission seeks comment on how such
requirements might be implemented in regulations, or whether any such
features may instead be developed by manufacturer technical standards
and/or multi-stakeholder interest groups.
103. Construction.--The Commission seeks comment on the
construction deadlines and notifications that should apply to point-to-
multipoint FS licensees in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Should the Commission
require point-to-multipoint FS licensees to build out, within 12
months, and operate at least one access point and at least five client
radios in licensed areas or lose protection for the service area? If a
point-to-multipoint FS licensee fails to meet the above requirements,
should the Commission allow links already in service from that access
point to maintain coordinated protection on an individual, path-by-path
basis to protect existing customers served by those links? In addition,
the Commission encourages commenters to consider the economic impact on
consumers and businesses in rural communities and areas that are
unserved or underserved by current broadband providers, as well as any
economic impact on small businesses. The Commission asks parties to
comment on this proposal, offer alternative proposals, and discuss the
relative costs and benefits for each proposal.
104. Additionally, Sec. 101.141(a)(3)(ii) requires that ``traffic
loading payload shall exceed 50 percent of payload capacity within 30
months of licensing.'' The Commission recognizes that the minimum
traffic loading payload requirement in Sec. 101.141(a)(3)(ii) was
designed for symmetrical traffic and that IP traffic is often
asymmetrical. Should the Commission therefore not adopt a requirement
for point-to-multipoint FS licensees or do parties have alternative
proposals for us to consider?
105. Equipment Access/RF Exposure.--Section 101.131(a) requires
that ``[t]he equipment at the operating and transmitting positions must
be so installed and protected that it is not accessible to, or capable
of being operated by, persons other than those duly authorized by the
licensee.'' The Broadband Access Coalition states that client radios
providing low power point-to-multipoint services will operate from
residential premises and will not present a radiofrequency (RF) hazard
because, when operated at full power, the RF exposure keep-out zone for
point-to-multipoint client radios operating at the proposed maximum
EIRP level is less than 0.6 meters (2 feet). The Commission anticipates
that client devices would likely be mounted in such a way as to provide
a good connection back to the access point, free from obstructions
within the transmission path, and so while such an installation may not
strictly comply with the access restriction requirement in the
Commission's rules, it is possible that other regulatory examples or
analogies may apply to point-to-multipoint situations where home
subscriber devices are involved. For example, fixed wireless licensees
with home-installed consumer equipment are generally required to attach
a label to transceiver antennas that: (1) Provides adequate notice
regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information
regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users
and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted
limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in Sec. 1.1310. The
Commission seeks comment on whether a similar requirement for point-to-
multipoint client devices may be a preferred alternative to Sec.
101.1310 of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on the possibility that there may be any other potential use
cases, such as wireless routers or other types of devices, that may
require separate consideration for the purposes of equipment
authorization and RF exposure compliance. The Commission notes that
[[Page 44146]]
all transmitters must comply with the Commission's exposure limits and
requirements of Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the
Commission's rules, as applicable.
106. ULS Requirements.--What technical data should point-to-
multipoint FS licensees be required to provide in ULS? The Commission
notes that the Broadband Access Coalition requests in its petition that
the applicant's frequency coordination should correspond to the
specific equipment and antenna orientation the applicant selects, and
so the Commission seeks comment on whether at least that same
information used for frequency coordination should be entered into the
Commission's licensing database. At a minimum should licensees be
required to provide the antenna gain, azimuth, polarization, height,
half-power beamwidth (azimuth and elevation), and tilt (e.g. -10[deg])
for each access point by sector?
3. Service Rules for Flexible Use
107. The scope of the service rules adopted herein will vary
depending on the mechanism ultimately adopted by the Commission to
expand flexible use in the band. For convenience, the Commission refers
to this indeterminate amount of spectrum as the Mid-Band Flexible Use
or ``MBX'' spectrum. Assuming that the Commission ultimately decides to
add a mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation and to make some
or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for flexible use, in this
section the Commission proposes or seeks comment on band plan,
licensing and operating and technical rules for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
spectrum that becomes available for terrestrial mobile and fixed
flexible-use. The Commission proposes to license this spectrum under
the Commission's flexible-use, part-27 rules that permit licensees to
provide any fixed or mobile service consistent with the allocations for
this spectrum, subject to rules necessary to prevent or minimize
harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
The Commission also seeks comment, however, on whether there are any
services, e.g., Internet of Things, that would not qualify under Sec.
603(a)(2)(B) of the MOBILE NOW Act, which requires the Commission to
identify 100 megahertz below 6000 MHz for use on exclusive, licensed
basis for commercial mobile use, pursuant to the Commission's authority
to implement such licensing in a flexible manner?
a. Band Plan
108. Block Sizes.--The Commission seeks comment on appropriate
block size to promote efficient and robust use of the band for next
generation wireless technologies, including 5G. Currently, the 3.7-4.2
GHz band is licensed terrestrially by 20 megahertz channels for fixed
use. However, the current channelization of the band should not affect
the Commission's consideration of alternate band plans. Therefore, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate block size(s) to best
accommodate the fullest range of terrestrial wireless services.\14\
Would 20 megahertz blocks be appropriate for the wireless technologies
that are likely to be deployed in this band? Should the Commission
allow blocks to be aggregated to provide greater capacity where needed?
Or, would licensing the 3.7-4.2 GHz band in larger block sizes (e.g.,
50-100 megahertz) better support 5G services while promoting
competition? Would a mix of channel sizes improve efficiency and
flexibility for a wider variety of users in the band?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The use of 20 megahertz blocks will enable transmission
efficiencies achieved by 5G voluntary standards, including Long-Term
Evolution (``LTE'') derivatives. Vivint Wireless Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the appropriate
block sizes should be affected by the specific transition mechanism
adopted by the Commission. For example, if the Commission adopts a
market-based approach, the Commission seeks comment on allowing parties
to define block sizes in their agreements. In this regard, would a
default block size that could be aggregated and disaggregated help
facilitate a market-based process? Commenters should discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of their proposals.
110. Spectrum Block Configuration.--The Commission generally has
licensed bands that support mobile broadband services on a paired basis
but specified the downlink and uplink bands only when necessary to
avoid harmful interference, e.g., to Federal incumbents. The Commission
recognizes that the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum that becomes available for
flexible use could be configured in any number of paired or unpaired
modes. The Commission therefore seeks comment on a range of options. If
the Commission adopts an unpaired approach, are any administrative
measures necessary to keep track of how spectrum blocks are being used?
The Commission invites comment on what approach to take, and the costs
and benefits of particular approaches. Above, the Commission discusses
various mechanisms for expanding flexible use in all or part of the
band. The Commission asks proponents of the various approaches
described whether there are issues specific to this section and their
preferred approach.
111. Use of Geographic Licensing.--Consistent with the Commission's
approach in several other bands used to provide fixed and mobile
services, the Commission proposes to license the 3.7-4.2 GHz MBX
spectrum on an exclusive, geographic area basis. Geographic area
licensing provides flexibility to licensees, promotes efficient
spectrum use, and helps facilitate rapid assignment of licenses,
utilizing competitive bidding when necessary. The Commission seeks
comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting
a geographic area licensing scheme. In the event that a party does not
support using geographic licensing, it should explain its position,
describe what type of licensing scheme it supports and identify the
costs and benefits associated with its alternative licensing proposal.
112. Service Areas.--The Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate service areas for any flexible use licenses. In determining
the appropriate geographic license size, the Commission must consider
several factors, including: (1) Facilitating access to spectrum by both
small and large providers; (2) providing for the efficient use of
spectrum; (3) encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to
consumers, especially those in rural areas and Tribal lands; and (4)
promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and
services. In light of these statutory considerations, the Commission
asks commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and
other public interest considerations of licensing on a PEA, county,
nationwide, or other basis. The Commission asks commenters to address
the costs and benefits of their recommended licensing approach.
113. The Commission also seeks comment on a licensing approach for
the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for the Gulf of Mexico. In the
Upper 700 MHz band, however, the Commission included the Gulf of Mexico
in larger service areas. Commenters who advocate a separate service
area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what
boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection
criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique
radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that
exist for Gulf licensees.
[[Page 44147]]
114. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the service areas
should be affected by the specific transition mechanism adopted by the
Commission. For example, if the Commission adopts a market-based
approach, the Commission seeks comment on allowing parties to define
service areas in their agreements. In this regard, would a default
service-area size smaller than the contiguous 48 states that could be
aggregated and disaggregated help facilitate a market-based process? If
the Commission adopts an overlay auction, the Commission seeks comment
on issuing a single nationwide license, or alternatively issuing
licenses for five regions: (1) The contiguous 48 states and the Gulf of
Mexico, (2) Alaska, (3) Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and (5) Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Samoa. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of
their proposals.
115. The Commission also seeks comment on a licensing approach for
the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for the Gulf of Mexico. In the
Upper 700 MHz band, however, the Commission included the Gulf of Mexico
in larger service areas. Commenters who advocate a separate service
area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what
boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection
criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique
radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that
exist for Gulf licensees.
b. Licensing and Operating Rules
116. The Commission seeks to afford licensees the flexibility to
align licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band with licenses in other spectrum
bands governed by Part 27 of the Commission's rules. The Commission
therefore proposes that licensees in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band comply with
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all Part 27
services, including assignment of licenses by competitive bidding,
flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting,
compliance with construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent
discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and
spectrum leasing. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and ask
commenters to identify any aspects of the Commission's general Part 27
service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular
characteristics of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission asks proponents
of the various mechanisms described above whether there are issues
specific to this section and their preferred approach.
117. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on service-specific
rules for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, including eligibility, mobile spectrum
holdings policies, license term, performance requirements, renewal term
construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In
addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that
commenters propose.
118. Eligibility.--Consistent with established Commission practice,
the Commission proposes to adopt an open eligibility standard for
licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether
adopting an open eligibility standard for the licensing of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band would encourage efforts to develop new technologies, products,
and services, while helping to ensure efficient use of this spectrum.
The Commission notes that an open eligibility approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications
that may apply under the Commission's rules. Commenters should discuss
the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal on competition,
innovation, and investment. Above, the Commission discusses various
mechanisms for expanding flexible use in all or part of the band. The
Commission asks proponents of the various approaches described above
whether there are issues specific to this section and their preferred
approach. Finally, a person who has been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding
on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant is
ineligible to hold a license that is required by 47 U.S.C. Chapter 13
(the Spectrum Act) to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding
under Sec. 309(j) of the Communications Act. In the event that the
Commission assigns licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission
proposes to apply this ineligibility provision to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
119. Mobile Spectrum Holdings.--Spectrum is an essential input for
the provision of mobile wireless services, and to implement provisions
of the Communications Act, the Commission has developed policies to
ensure that spectrum is assigned in a manner that promotes competition,
innovation, and efficient use.
120. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether and how to
address any mobile spectrum holdings issues involving 3.7-4.2 GHz
spectrum to meet the Commission's statutory requirements and ensure
competitive access to the band. Similar to the Commission's approach in
the 2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, the Commission proposes
not to adopt a pre-auction bright-line limit on the ability of any
entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band through competitive
bidding at auction. Since such pre-auction limits may unnecessarily
restrict the ability of entities to participate in and acquire spectrum
in an auction, the Commission is not inclined to adopt such limits
absent a clear indication that they are necessary to address a specific
competitive concern, and the Commission seeks comment on any specific
concerns of this type.
121. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this band should
be included in the Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to
identify markets that may warrant further competitive analysis, for
evaluating proposed secondary market transactions. If the Commission
does determine that an auction is appropriate, the Commission seeks
comment on reviewing holdings on a case-by-case basis when applications
for initial licenses are filed post-auction to ensure that the public
interest benefits of having a threshold on spectrum applicable to
secondary market transactions are not rendered ineffective. The
Commission seeks comment on whether and how the similarity of this
spectrum to spectrum currently included in the screen should be
factored into the Commission's analysis, including the suitability of
3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum for use in the provision of mobile telephony or
broadband services. Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs
and benefits associated with any proposals on the applicability of
mobile spectrum holdings policies to 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum. The
Commission discusses above various mechanisms for expanding flexible
use in all or part of the band. The Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described above whether there are issues specific to
this section and their preferred approach. For example, should the
Commission impose limits on the amount of spectrum acquired by one
party through a market-based mechanism?
[[Page 44148]]
122. License term.--The Commission seeks comment on a 15-year term
for licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.\15\ The Commission believes that
15 years will afford licensees sufficient time to achieve this
significant buildout obligation. The Commission seeks comment on the
costs and benefits of this proposal. In addition, the Commission
invites commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate
license term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs
and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Communications Act does not specify a term limit for
wireless radio services licenses. The only statutory limit on
license terms is eight years for licenses in the broadcast services.
See 47 U.S.C. 307(c)(1); see also 47 CFR 73.1020(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. Performance requirements.--The Commission establishes
performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is intensely and
efficiently utilized. The Commission has applied different performance
and construction requirements to different spectrum bands based on
considerations relevant to those bands. The Commission continues to
believe that performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring
that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow.
124. Accordingly, considering the unique characteristics of this
band, and to ensure that licensees begin providing service to consumers
in a timely manner, the Commission seeks comment on adopting specific
quantifiable benchmarks as an important component of its performance
requirements. The Commission seeks comment on requiring a 3.7-4.2 GHz
band licensee, relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service in
accordance with the Commission's part 27 rules, to provide reliable
signal coverage and offer service to at least forty-five (45) percent
of the population in each of its license areas within six years of the
license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at least
eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its license areas
within 12 years from the license issue date (second performance
benchmark). For licensees relying on point-to-point service, the
Commission seeks comment on requiring them to demonstrate within six
years of the license issue date (first performance benchmark) that they
have four links operating and providing service, either to customers or
for internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to
or less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is
greater than 268,000, the Commission seeks comment on requiring a
licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate it has at
least one link in operation and providing service per every 67,000
persons within a license area. The Commission seeks comment on
requiring licensees relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate
within 12 years of the license issue date (final performance benchmark)
that they have eight links operating and providing service, either to
customers or for internal use, if the population within the license
area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the Commission seeks comment on
requiring a licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate
it is providing service and has at least two links in operation per
every 67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission seeks
comment on whether in order to be eligible to be counted under the
point-to-point buildout standard, a point-to-point link must operate
with a transmit power greater than + 43 dBm.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission defined a ``fixed
point-to-point link'' as ``a radio transmission between point-to-
point stations (as already defined in part 30), where transmit power
exceeds + 43 dBm.'' Under this definition, stations or devices
transmitting using lower power levels will not count towards the
number of fixed links required under the performance metric.
Licensees whose networks include such low-power connections may rely
on another part of their network to demonstrate buildout (e.g.,
mobile area coverage or higher-power fixed backhaul links). See 2017
Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 11008-09,
paragraph 66 through 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
125. The Commission believes that 12 years will provide sufficient
time for any 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee to meet the proposed coverage
requirements. The Commission anticipates that after satisfying the 12-
year second performance benchmark, a licensee will continue to provide
reliable signal coverage, or point-to-point links, as applicable, and
offer service at or above that level for the remaining three years in
the proposed 15-year license term prior to renewal. Establishing
benchmarks before the end of the license term will ensure continuity of
service over the license term, which is essential to the Commission's
evaluation under the Commission's renewal standards.
126. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposals
discussed above represent the appropriate balance between license-term
length and a significant final buildout requirement. The Commission
seeks comment on the proposed buildout requirements and any potential
alternatives. The Commission, for example, seeks comment on alternative
methodologies for measuring population coverage requirements in the
Gulf of Mexico. Above, the Commission discusses various mechanisms for
expanding flexible use in all or part of the band. The Commission asks
proponents of the various approaches described above whether there are
issues specific to this section and their preferred approach. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities face any
special or unique issues with respect to buildout requirements such
that they would require certain accommodations or additional time to
comply. Finally, commenters should discuss and quantify how any
supported buildout requirements will affect investment and innovation,
as well as discuss and quantify other costs and benefits associated
with the proposal.
127. Internet of Things (IoT) Performance Requirements.--While the
Commission proposes performance benchmarks based on population coverage
applicable for a range of fixed and mobile services, the Commission
recognizes that 3.7-4.2 GHz licenses have flexibility to provide
services potentially less suited to a population coverage metric. In
particular, licensees providing IoT-type fixed and mobile services may
benefit from an alternative performance benchmark metric, and the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate metric to accommodate such
service offerings. As the Commission did in Spectrum Frontiers, the
Commission acknowledges that some IoT-type services may have difficulty
meeting the population-based metrics that the Commission proposes for
fixed and mobile services. In Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission
modified its existing part 30 rules to adopt a specific definition of
``fixed point-to-point link,'' which includes the use of point-to-point
stations as already defined in part 30 and is based on power level.
This definition is intended to separate ``traditional'' point-to-point
links from the sensor and device connections the Commission anticipates
will be part of new Internet of Things networks in these bands. This
definition applies to a network of fixed sensors or smart devices
operating at low power over short distances. The Commission seeks
comment on applying the same framework here and invite commenters to
suggest new metrics that will accommodate innovative services in mid-
band spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on how relatively
lower power point-to-point operations at or below a transmit power of +
43 dBm should be required to meet the buildout rules for 3.7-4.2 GHz
licensees.
[[Page 44149]]
128. The Commission seeks additional comment on what metric it
should adopt to accommodate IoT services, while recognizing the
difficulty of crafting an IoT-specific metric, especially while the
relevant technologies and use cases are still being developed. For
example, a performance metric based on geographic area coverage (or
presence) could allow for networks that provide meaningful service but
deploy along lines other than residential population. Consistent with
the Commission's approach above seeking comment on a first and second
performance benchmark, the Commission seeks comment on the following
metrics as an option for MBX-spectrum licensees to fulfill their
buildout requirements: geographic area coverage of 35 percent of the
license area at the first (six-year) performance benchmark, and
geographic area coverage of 65 percent of the license area at the
second (12-year) performance benchmark. The Commission also seeks
comment on an alternative requirement of presence in 35 percent of
subset units of the license area, such as census tracts, counties, or
some other area at the first performance benchmark, and presence in 65
percent of subset units at the second benchmark. A standard requiring
presence in subset units of a license area could accommodate
deployments, such as sensor networks, that are not designed to provide
mobile or point-to-multipoint area coverage, and for whom calculating
``coverage of 65 percent of the area'' would therefore not be a
meaningful standard. Licensees would demonstrate compliance with this
metric through a showing of the equipment or deployments that are part
of a network that is actually providing service, either to external
customers or for internal uses.
129. The Commission suggests these levels of geographic coverage as
an attempt to maintain parity between the requirements in these metrics
and the requirements of its earlier proposal based on population
coverage.\17\ The Commission seeks comment on these coverage levels,
including any suggestions of alternative levels of coverage that might
be more appropriate. The Commission also emphasizes that any metric it
adopts to accommodate IoT services would, like the population coverage
and fixed link metrics ultimately adopted, be available to any MBX-
spectrum licensee. While the Commission suggests an additional metric
in order to facilitate the deployment of IoT and other innovative
services, there would be no requirement that a licensee build a
particular type of network or provide a particular type of service in
order to use whatever metric the Commission ultimately adopts. Above,
the Commission discusses various mechanisms for expanding flexible use
in all or part of the band. The Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described above whether there are issues specific to
this section and their preferred approach. The Commission strongly
encourages stakeholders to fully develop a record on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In most license areas, the residential population is
unevenly distributed. In those areas, building a network covering
65% of the geographic area would require more intensive deployment
than one covering 65% of the population, suggesting that a lower
percent coverage requirement for geographic area could be
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
130. Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements.--Along
with performance benchmarks, the Commission seeks to adopt meaningful
and enforceable penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks. The
Commission seeks comment on which penalties will most effectively
ensure timely build-out. Specifically, the Commission proposes that, in
the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz MHz licensee fails to meet the first
performance benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term
would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license
term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. The Commission further
proposes that, in the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee fails to meet the
second performance benchmark for a particular license area, its
authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the
performance requirement shall terminate automatically without
Commission action.
131. The Commission proposes that, in the event a licensee's
authority to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of Sec. 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's
rules for other licenses, including AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4 and H Block,
the Commission proposes that any 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits its
license for failure to meet its performance requirements would be
precluded from regaining the license.
132. Compliance Procedures.--In addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all Part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting documentation, the Commission proposes
that such electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the
boundaries of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If
a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire
license area, the Commission proposes that its map must accurately
depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each license area not
being served. Further, the Commission proposes that each licensee also
must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is
providing for each licensed area within its service territory and the
type of technology used to provide such service. Supporting
documentation must include the assumptions used to create the coverage
maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary
to provide reliable service with the licensee's technology. The
Commission seeks comment on the Commission's proposal. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether small entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the transition such that they would require
additional time to comply.
133. Renewal Term Construction Obligation.--In addition to, and
independent of, the general renewal requirements contained in Sec.
1.949 of the Commission's rules, which apply to all Wireless Radio
Services (WRS) licensees, the Commission also seeks comment on
application of specific renewal term construction obligations to 3.7-
4.2 GHz licensees.
134. The WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM proposed to apply rules adopted
in that proceeding to all flexible geographic licenses. Given the
Commission's proposal to license this band on a geographic basis for
flexible use, any additional renewal term construction obligations
proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also would apply to licenses
in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on whether there
are unique characteristics of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that might require a
different approach than the various proposals raised by the WRS Renewal
Reform FNPRM. For example, while the vast majority of existing wireless
radio services have 10-year license terms, here the Commission seeks
comment on a 15-year license term for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Do any of
the Commission's proposals for this band, such as potentially longer
license terms, necessitate a more tailored approach than the rules of
general applicability proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM? For
instance, should the Commission requires buildout to 85 percent of the
population by the end of second license term? Commenters advocating
rules specific to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band should address the costs and
benefits of their proposed
[[Page 44150]]
rules and discuss how a given proposal will encourage investment and
deployment in areas that might not otherwise benefit from significant
wireless coverage. Above, the Commission discusses various mechanisms
for expanding flexible use in all or part of the band. The Commission
asks proponents of the various approaches described above whether there
are issues specific to this section and their preferred approach. The
Commission seeks comment on whether to require an applicant deploying
IoT applications in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to exceed its original
construction metric by an additional five percent in its next full
renewal term.
135. Competitive Bidding Procedures.-- The Commission seeks comment
above on the types of licenses for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that would best
serve the public interest. In the event that the Commission accepts
mutually exclusive applications for licenses in the band, the
Commission will grant the licenses through a system of competitive
bidding, consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on a number of proposals
relating to competitive bidding for licenses for spectrum in this band,
including the costs and benefits of those proposals.
136. Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the
Commission has used in previous auctions, the Commission proposes that
the Commission would conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band in conformity with the general competitive bidding
rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules.
Specifically, the Commission proposes to employ the part 1 rules
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences,
unjust enrichment, application and certification procedures, payment
procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain
communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal, such
rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may
adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future.
In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on general application of
the part 1 competitive bidding rules to any auction of 3.7-4.2 GHz
licenses. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any of the
Commission's part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified
for an auction of licenses in this frequency band. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the following proposals for bidding credits
for designated entities in this band. As with other flexible use
licenses in recent years, the Commission proposes in this band to adopt
bidding credits for the two larger designated entity business sizes
provided in the part 1 rules. The Commission also proposes to offer
rural service providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses
in this band. Commenters addressing these proposals should consider
what details of licenses in the band may affect whether designated
entities will apply for them. The Commission seeks comment on new or
revised rules that would be necessary to implement an incentive auction
if the Commission adopted that approach. Would a tailored version of
the rules adopted for the reverse auction portion of the broadcast
incentive auction be appropriate?
c. Technical Rules
137. Power Limits for Fixed and Base Stations.--The current rules
for AWS-1, AWS-3 and AWS-4 limit base station power in non-rural areas
to 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than one megahertz and
to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than one
megahertz and they double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or 3280 watts/
MHz) in rural areas. The same limits apply to broadband PCS stations.
There are a few services that have a power limit of 2000 Watts per MHz,
most notably, the recent 600 MHz band. In the Commission's experience
the AWS limits have provided good service while avoiding harmful
interference. Further, the higher power limit for rural areas may
promote the Commission's goals of furthering rural deployment of
broadband services. Therefore, the Commission proposes to extend Sec.
27.50(d)(1)-(2) to apply to both fixed and base stations in the 3.7-4.2
GHz MBX-spectrum. Thus, the power limits are proposed to be 1640 watts
EIRP for emission bandwidths less than one megahertz and to 1640 watts
per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than one megahertz. For
operation in rural areas, defined as any county with population density
of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, the
power limits are proposed to be 3280 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths
less than one megahertz and to 3280 watts per MHz EIRP for emission
bandwidths greater than one megahertz. These power limits apply to the
sum of the power of all antenna elements of the fixed or base station.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Are the power levels the
Commission proposes sufficient to provide robust mobile broadband
service as well as being practical and realistic in this particular
spectrum? Alternatively, would the proposed power levels need to be
reduced to avoid the blocking of receivers operating in the adjacent
Citizen's Broadband Radio Service at 3.5-3.7 GHz? The Commission
invites commenters who propose alternative solutions to provide
specific technical details and thorough analysis to support their
proposals.
138. It is anticipated that this new band may be able to
accommodate much wider channel bandwidths than in the past. Current
plans for 5G deployments are capable of channel bandwidths of as much
as 100 MHz at frequencies below 6 GHz. There is some concern regarding
the total power of a wide bandwidth channel when the power limit is
specified as a power density level. Should the Commission propose a
limit on the total power of a base station in order to relieve
potential blocking? One possible solution is that the total power of a
base station should be limited to 75 dBm EIRP, summed over all antenna
elements, for fixed and base stations. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal.
139. The Commission notes that the power limit for most AWS
services is specified based on an RMS-equivalent or average power
measurement. This power measurement methodology is preferred for
advanced digital modulation schemes that could create very short
duration power spikes, while the overall power remains low. There are a
few services whose power limit is specified based on a peak power
measurement. The Commission proposes that the power limit be based on
the average power measurement and seek comment on this proposal.
140. Power Limits for Mobiles and Portables.--The Commission
proposes to limit the power of mobiles and portables in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
MBX spectrum to 1 Watt (30 dBm). While power limits for flexible use
mobile services vary in the Commission's rules (e.g., 50 milliwatts per
MHz EIRP for WCS, 2 Watts EIRP for PCS, 3 Watts ERP in the 600 MHz
band, 1 Watt EIRP for the AWS-1 and AWS-3 uplink bands, and 2 Watts
EIRP for the AWS-4 uplink band); most device operate at levels under 1
Watt to preserve battery life, meet exposure limits and meet power
control requirements. The limit the Commission proposes falls within a
range of values typically seen in AWS services, and should provide
adequate power for the 5G mobile applications envisioned for the MBX
spectrum
[[Page 44151]]
considering the similarity in propagation characteristics for the MBX-
spectrum band and AWS bands. Indeed, most commercial services,
including LTE, CDMA and UMTS, commonly deploy mobile devices which
operate at a maximum output power of 23 dBm (200 milliwatts),
regardless of higher FCC power limits. However, there are a few new
power class II LTE devices being developed with slightly higher output
power of 26 dBm. Similar devices are expected for the new 5G standard
as well. This development warrants continued flexibility in the rules
to allow for a wider range of devices types. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. The Commission further proposes that mobile
and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
141. Out of Band Emissions Limits.--The limits the Commission sets
on out of band emissions are important to protecting services in
adjacent bands. This band is adjacent to the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband
Radio Service and will also be adjacent to any service that remains in
a portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz FSS band after the Commission adopts and
completes a transition plan. The Commission proposes that out of band
emissions be kept to a level that will provide protection to incumbent
services in adjacent bands, while allowing the full use of the new
band. The Commission proposes to apply the longstanding limit on out of
band emissions of -13 dBm/MHz at the authorized channel edge as
measured at the antenna terminals. This out of band emission level has
been used successfully to protect adjacent operations from harmful
interference in several AWS bands. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and whether to apply more stringent out of band emission
limits beyond the band edge, as described below.
142. The out of band emission limits that the Commission adopts for
the MBX spectrum will depend on the characteristics of the services
likely to be deployed in the MBX spectrum and the coexistence needs of
services in the adjacent bands. Notably, to ensure effective
coexistence with adjacent band services, it may be necessary to adopt
more stringent out of band emission limits beyond the edges of the
band. For example, in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the
Commission limits out of band emission to -25 dBm/MHz at or beyond 10
megahertz outside of the band edge and -40 dBm/MHz at or beyond 20
megahertz outside of the band edge. The Commission seeks comment on the
out of band emission limits that will be needed to facilitate
widespread deployment of next generation wireless services in the MBX
spectrum while ensuring effective coexistence with the services
operating in the adjacent bands. Commenters should analyze the costs
and benefits of different options and provide detailed technical
analysis in support of their proposals.
143. To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission's rules
generally specify details on how to measure the power of the emissions,
such as the resolution bandwidth. For most AWS bands, the resolution
bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for base
stations is one megahertz or greater, except that within one megahertz
of the channel edge where a resolution bandwidth of at least one
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the
transmitter may be employed. Rather than allow use of a bandwidth
dependent resolution bandwidth near the channel edge, the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules under Part 30 instead
specify use of a one megahertz resolution bandwidth but allow an out of
band emission limit of -5 dBm per megahertz from the channel edge out
to 10 percent of the channel. Considering that the MBX spectrum, like
UMFUS, will likely employ much larger signal bandwidths than AWS,
should the MBX spectrum rules adopt the AWS approach to defining the
resolution bandwidth or follow the UMFUS approach?
144. Finally, should the same out of band emission limits apply to
both base stations and mobile handsets? While the Commission finds that
mobile handsets can meet the out of band emission limit the Commission
has proposed, they also operate at lower power levels and their size
could restrict the implementation of more stringent emission limits
that would require nonstandard filtering. However, base station
equipment may have more flexibility to implement more stringent filters
if necessary to protect adjacent services. The Commission seeks comment
on all aspects of the emission limits for mobile and portable devices
as part of the discussion above.
145. Coexistence with FSS Operations Above the MBX Spectrum.--The
Commission seeks comment on whether additional technical protection
criteria, beyond out of band emission limits, are necessary to ensure
effective coexistence with adjacent band FSS operations. As discussed
above, several of the transition mechanisms under consideration could
make available a portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for flexible
use, while allowing continued widespread FSS operations in adjacent
portions of the band. For example, under the proposal submitted by
Intelsat and SES, the 3700-3800 MHz portion of the band would be
initially cleared for flexible use along with an additional 40 to 60
megahertz of guard band adjacent to and above it. As part of the
clearing process, Intelsat and SES have proposed to install a filter or
replace the Low Noise Block converter (LNB) in every earth station so
as to prevent 5G transmission in the 3700-3800 MHz from saturating the
LNB of the earth stations. Intelsat and SES state that they are working
with manufacturers to define the desired filter characteristics such as
the rejection, roll-off, and insertion loss, but have not provided any
specific numbers. The Commission seeks comment on whether such
additional requirements are necessary to ensure coexistence with
adjacent band operations.
146. In general, the width of the guard band and roll-off of the
filter determine the amount of out-of-band rejection provided to a
receiver. The Commission seeks comment on the earth station receiver
protection criteria, necessary rejection performance from the external
filter, and amount of spectrum it requires for the filter roll off.
Should the protection limit of the FSS earth stations be based solely
on interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) regardless of the actual FSS
carrier power and/or earth station configuration? Should the Commission
establish a baseline FSS earth station configuration (antenna, LNB,
receiver) for any interference and protection assumptions? Given the
signal strength differential between the terrestrial and satellite
systems, can terrestrial wireless base or mobile stations cause
saturation of the LNB of FSS earth stations? Could an external filter
be tunable across 3700-4200 MHz band? Will there be a minimum distance
separation required between MBX transmitters and earth station
receivers? What are the tradeoffs among filter performance, required
guard band, level of protection, and cost of such filter? The
Commission requests commenters to provide details of assumptions and
analysis including MBX transmit power level, earth station protection
limit, propagation model, antenna aperture and off-axis isolation.
147. Alternatively, should the Commission define the MBX transmit
power limit, out of band emission limits, and guard band and allow the
satellite service providers to determine how to protect the earth
station receivers? The Commission typically
[[Page 44152]]
does not specify receiver performance, and there are many variables
that contribute to the receiver blocking performance from strong
transmit signals in an adjacent band, including external filter, low-
noise amplifier (LNA), mixer and other RF components, and digital
signal processing in the baseband. Given the current design and
operation of the earth stations, each earth station receiver may be
impacted differently for a given MBX transmit power. Therefore, it may
be more practical for satellite service providers to determine how to
protect the earth station receivers given the allowed transmit power
level and out of band emission limits. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal.
148. The guard band used for receiver filter rejection can also be
used to enhance the out of band emission performance of MBX
transmitters. The Commission seeks comment on the out of band emission
limit necessary at the upper end of guard band in order to ensure
coexistence with earth station receivers. Does this out of band
emission limit allow ubiquitous operation of base stations and mobile
stations or does it require a minimum distance separation from earth
station receivers? The Commission requests commenters to include
proposed out of band emission at the upper end of guard band,
propagation model, antenna gains and off-axis isolation between MBX
transmitters and earth station receivers in their analysis. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether this guard band could be used
for other purposes such as coordinated fixed point-to-multipoint
operations, a low power wireless broadband system, indoor-only system,
or unlicensed use.
149. Coexistence with FSS Operations in the MBX Spectrum. There may
be some FSS earth stations operating co-channel with MBX, depending on
the mechanisms of expanding flexible use as described above. The
Commission seeks comment on the coexistence challenges between
terrestrial mobile services and the FSS earth stations that may remain
in the cleared spectrum and on any specific rules that should be
adopted to ensure effective coexistence between these services. In
other bands, the Commission has adopted exclusion or coordination zones
to protect co-channel FSS earth stations from harmful interference.
Would exclusion zones or coordination zones be appropriate to protect
any existing FSS earth stations in the MBX spectrum? If so, how should
the size of the exclusion zone or coordination zone be determined?
Should the Commission instead specify interference protection limits
that the terrestrial systems must meet to protect the earth stations?
Such protection limits could take the form, for example, of an
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N), carrier to interference-plus-noise
ratio (C/I+N),\18\ or a power density at the FSS receiver. If so, how
would such a protection limit be modeled and enforced? In applying a
protection limit, exclusion zone, or coordination zone, how should the
aggregate interference from multiple base stations and associated
mobile devices from the different MBX licensees be taken into account?
Should the Commission require that earth stations remaining in the band
be moved to less populated areas or can RF shielding of earth stations
be employed to reduce the size of exclusion or coordination zones?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The carrier power is the power received by the earth
station from the satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
150. Coexistence with FSS Operation Below 3700 MHz.--There are 120
FSS earth stations that are authorized in the 3600-3700 MHz band. Yet,
unlike FSS earth stations operating above 3800 MHz, Intelsat and SES
have not proposed any particular means of protecting these earth
stations against interference. Given that there will be no guard band
to help prevent interference in this band, should operators of these
stations be included in any transition mechanisms, including possible
relocation to transponders above the MBX spectrum? How should these
earth stations be treated during any transition process that is adopted
for the MBX spectrum? If an earth station continues to receive signals
below 3700 MHz, could the receiver be modified to protect the LNB from
the MBX transmitters (e.g., by adding a filter)? The Commission seeks
comment on alternative means for mitigating interference to protect any
continued FSS downlink operation below 3700 MHz.
151. The Commission seeks comment and quantitative analysis to
demonstrate if the proposed MBX spectrum power and emission limits are
sufficient, without additional mitigation methods, to protect any FSS
earth station operation below 3700 MHz. The Commission expects that a
minimum propagation loss plus additional attenuation would be required
to protect FSS earth stations below 3700 MHz, depending on the
separation distance between FSS and MBX-spectrum transmitters, the RF
propagation environment, and FSS antenna (gain) orientation. Would
exclusion zones or coordination zones be required around the earth
stations?
152. The Commission seeks comment on the achievable RF shielding
around the FSS earth stations and the cost thereof. Would using RF
shielding be sufficient to protect FSS earth stations below 3700 MHz?
In addition, or alternatively, would it be possible for the MBX
spectrum licensees to engineer around the FSS antenna sites, such that
the predicted propagation loss and additional attenuation of base/
mobile emissions (fundamental power and out of band emission) would be
sufficient to ensure that co-channel/out of band emission and blocking
FSS thresholds were not exceeded?
153. Coexistence with Telemetry, Tracking, and Command.--FSS Earth
stations that are used for telemetry, tracking and command of
satellites have assignments near 3700 MHz, 3950 MHz, and 4200 MHz.
These telemetry, tracking and command licenses may list widely varying
bandwidths in IBFS. Most assignments are no more than 1-2 megahertz
wide; however, others are less specific, and are recorded across the
entire passband of the earth station receiver (i.e., 3625-4200 MHz).
Since there are a limited number of telemetry, tracking and command
earth stations, should the Commission consider protection on a case-by-
case basis through coordination between MBX-spectrum licensees and FSS
earth station operators? What are the appropriate coexistence criteria
for telemetry, tracking and command receivers \19\ and do they differ
from other earth station receivers? What interference mitigation
techniques could be used to protect telemetry, tracking and command
earth stations? For example, could RF shielding effectively reduce the
interference to the telemetry, tracking and command earth stations? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether telemetry, tracking and
command earth stations located in or near densely populated areas could
be relocated to more remote locations and, if so, how much such
relocations would cost. Because telemetry, tracking and command
transmissions are a function of satellite design and cannot be changed
following launch, the Commission recognizes that earth stations
receiving telemetry, tracking and command transmissions in the
[[Page 44153]]
MBX spectrum will require protection for the lifetime of the satellite.
The Commission seeks comment on if protection of these operations would
require a different approach depending on whether telemetry, tracking
and command earth stations are within or outside of the MBX spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Commission has adopted specific rules to protect TT&C
earth stations that operate in in and adjacent to the 3.55-3.7 GHz
band. These rules require that the aggregate passband RF power
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna
at the location of a TT&C FSS earth station produced by all Citizens
Broadband Service Devices within 40km of the earth station shall not
exceed a median RMS value of -129 dBm/MHz. See 47 CFR 96.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
154. Coexistence with Citizens Broadband Radio Service Operations
in the 3550-3700 MHz Band.--The Commission seeks comment on the
compatibility between Citizens Broadband Radio Service and MBX systems,
including the suitability of the out of band emission limit proposed
above.\20\ One concern about deploying a robust mobile broadband
service adjacent to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service arises from
the relatively higher power limits proposed above. One possibility for
preventing interference between the services would be to impose
adjacent channel power limits that could limit the differential between
power levels for adjacent stations operating in the same area. Such a
limit would be specified as a ratio between the total power in the
channels immediately adjacent to an MBX-spectrum station to the total
power in the MBX-spectrum station's emission bandwidth. Should the
Commission specify such a ratio for MBX-spectrum devices, and if so,
what limit would be appropriate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission has
adopted out-of-channel emission limits of -13 dBm/MHz starting at
the channel edges and -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz of the channel
edges. Additionally, the Commission adopted an out of band emission
limit of -40 dBm/MHz beyond 20 megahertz of the 3.5 GHz band edges.
47 CFR 96.41(e). The Commission is currently considering proposals
to change the emission limits based on claims that more relaxed
limits are necessary to facilitate wider channels in the 3.5 GHz
band. See Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order Terminating Petitions, 32 FCC Rcd
8071, 8089-8092 paragraph. 50 through 58 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
155. Field Strength Limit and Market Boundaries.--If the Commission
ultimately decide to license the MBX spectrum based on geographic
service areas that are less than nationwide, the Commission will have
to ensure that such licensees do not cause interference to co-channel
systems operating along common geographic borders. The current rules
for AWS-1, AWS-3 and AWS-4 address the possibility of harmful co-
channel interference between geographically adjacent licenses by
setting a field strength limit from base stations of 47 dB[mu]V/m at
the edge of the license area. In the 600 MHz band, the Commission
adopted a field strength limit of 40 dB[mu]V/m. In the UMFUS rules, the
Commission adopted a limit of -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz at a height of 1.5
meters above ground at the border of a licensee's service area.
156. The 47 dB[micro]V/m limit that has been used in the AWS rules
was developed at a time when signal bandwidths were much smaller than
are likely to be used in the MBX spectrum. Furthermore, the 47
dB[micro]V/m limit did not have an associated bandwidth. In the H Block
proceeding, Sprint requested that the Commission modify the boundary
limit to set a reference measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, with the aim
of limiting boundary power density to the equivalent of that first
applied to PCS systems in 1993. At that time, operators were deploying
mostly Digital AMPS, PCS1900 and CDMA technologies, which had channel
bandwidths of 30 kHz, 200 kHz and 1.25 MHz, respectively. Sprint claims
that because today's LTE transmissions operate on much wider bandwidths
up to 20 MHz, a 47 dB[micro]V/m limit measured over the full channel
bandwidth will effectively result in a comparatively lower power level.
Sprint proposed to adjust the field strength limit from 47 dB[micro]V/m
to 62 dB[micro]V/m per MHz. Verizon has made a similar claim in the
Incentive Auctions proceeding, proposing a field strength limit of 50
dB[micro]V/m per MHz.
157. The Commission agrees with Sprint and Verizon that the market
boundary limit should be related to the signal bandwidth. The
Commission proposes to adopt the same -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz power flux
density limit at the service area boundaries as is used for the UMFUS
rules. This UMFUS limit was calculated based on an interference
criterion of 0 dB I/N and made assumptions about a typical antenna
gain. The Commission seeks comment on whether the interference
criterion and technical assumptions are appropriate
158. Finally, the Commission proposes that adjacent affected area
licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field strength boundary
levels. This concept is already codified in the field strength rules
for both PCS and AWS services, as Sprint acknowledges. Accordingly, to
maintain consistency with the PCS and other AWS bands, the Commission
proposes to permit adjacent area licensees to agree to a higher field
strength limit
159. Antenna Height Limits.--The Commission proposes, as discussed
below, that the flexible antenna height rules that apply to AWS-1 and
AWS-3 should generally also apply to MBX spectrum. Specific antenna
height restrictions for AWS-1 and AWS-3 base stations are not set forth
in part 27 of the Commission rules. However, all part 27 services are
subject to Sec. 27.56, which bans antenna heights that would be a
hazard to air navigation. Furthermore, the limitations of field
strength at the geographical boundary of the license discussed above
also effectively limit antenna heights. The Commission similarly
proposes that no unique antenna height limits are needed for MBX-
spectrum facilities; rather, the Commission believes that the general
height restrictions are sufficient. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any
alternatives. The Commission does not propose a height limit for fixed
stations in the MBX spectrum. Although fixed stations were limited to
10 meters above ground in the AWS-1 band and were prohibited in the
AWS-3 band. There are no antenna height limits for fixed stations in
the AWS-4 band, since, unlike the former, it is not directly adjacent
to certain Federal incumbents. Using this same reasoning, the
Commission proposes no antenna height limits for fixed operation in the
MBX spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and request
technical support for any alternative proposals.
160. Canadian and Mexican Coordination.--Section 27.57(c) of the
Commission's rules provide that several AWS services, including WCS,
AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4 and the H Block, are subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. The Commission proposes to apply the
same limitation to the new MBX spectrum. Until such time as any
adjusted agreements between the United States, Mexico, and/or Canada
can be agreed to, operations must not cause harmful interference across
the border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in
force. The Commission notes that further modification (of the proposed
or final rules) might be necessary in order to comply with any future
agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. The
Commission seeks comment on this issue, including the costs and
benefits of alternative approaches to this issue.
161. General Part 27 Rules--There are several additional technical
rules applicable to all Part 27 services, including Sec. Sec. 27.51
Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 Frequency stability,
27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation safety, and 27.63 Disturbance
of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. As operations in the MBX
spectrum will be a Part 27 service, the Commission proposes that all of
these general Part 27 rules should
[[Page 44154]]
apply to all MBX-spectrum licensees, including licensees who acquire
their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent
the rules permit such aggregation). The Commission seeks comment on
this approach, including its costs and benefits.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
162. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this NPRM. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B
of the NPRM. Written comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
163. The NPRM seeks comment and makes proposals on a range of
potential opportunities for more intensive fixed or flexible uses--
particularly for wireless broadband services--in 500 megahertz of mid-
band spectrum between 3.7-4.2 GHz (the band). In doing so, the NPRM
proposes to add a mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to the
band and seeks comment on transitioning all or part of the band to
terrestrial wireless broadband services. The actions are another step
in the Commissions efforts to close the digital divide by providing
wireless broadband connectivity across the nation and to secure U.S.
leadership in the next generation of wireless services, including
fifth-generation (5G) wireless, Internet of Things (IoT), and other
advanced spectrum-based services.
164. In this proceeding, the Commission is pursuing the joint goals
of making spectrum available for new wireless uses while effectively
accommodating incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service
(FS) operations in the band. The NPRM seeks comment on various
proposals for transitioning all or part of the band for flexible use.
The NPRM also proposes and seeks comment on revisions to Parts 25 and
101 of the Commission's rules to promote more intensive fixed use of
the band. Additionally, as part of the Commission's proposal to add a
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation, and to develop rules
that would enable the band to be transitioned for more intensive fixed
and flexible uses, the Commission encourages commenters to discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits associated with any proposed approach
along with other helpful technical or procedural details.
165. The 3.7-4.2 GHz band is currently allocated in the United
States exclusively for non-federal use on a primary basis for the FSS
(space-to-Earth) and the FS. For FSS, the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (space-to-
Earth or downlink) is paired with the 5.925-6.425 GHz band (Earth-to-
space or uplink), and collectively these bands are known as the
``conventional C-band.'' Domestically, satellite operators use this
band to provide downlink signals of various bandwidths to licensed
transmit receive, registered receive-only, and unregistered receive-
only earth stations throughout the United States. Geostationary orbit
(GSO) FSS satellites operating in the C-band typically have 24
transponders, each with a bandwidth of 36 megahertz received by one or
more earth stations. Predominant GSO FSS uses include delivery of
programming content to television and radio broadcasters, including
transportable antennas used to cover live news and sports events, cable
television and small master antenna systems, as well as the backhaul of
telephone and data traffic. The band is also used for reception of
telemetry signals transmitted by satellites, typically near 3.7 or 4.2
GHz.
166. Mid-band spectrum, in conjunction with lower and higher bands,
is well suited for next generation wireless broadband services due to
the combination of favorable propagation characteristics (as comparted
to bands above 24 GHz) and the opportunity for additional channel re-
use (as compared to bands below 3.7 GHz). With the ever-increasing
demand for more data on mobile networks, wireless network operators
have increasingly focused on providing more data capacity rather than
providing coverage over large areas from individual base stations. One
technique for providing increased capacity is to use smaller cell
sizes--i.e., have each base station provide coverage over a smaller
area. Using higher frequencies can be advantageous for deploying a
higher density of base stations. The decreased propagation distances at
higher frequencies reduces the interference between base stations using
the same frequency, thereby allowing base stations to be more densely
packed and increasing the overall system capacity. Therefore, mid-band
spectrum presents wireless providers with the opportunity to deploy
base stations using smaller cells to get higher spectrum reuse than the
lower frequency bands while still providing indoor coverage. Relative
to higher bands, mid-band spectrum also offers favorable propagation
characteristics for fixed wireless broadband services in less densely
populated areas.
167. In the NPRM the Commission proposes to add a non-federal
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, service allocation to the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, and based on the Commission's conclusion that co-channel
sharing is not feasible, the Commission seeks comment on several
proposals to clear all or part of the band for flexible use. Because
the NPRM seeks comment on several alternate approaches for making
portions of the band available for flexible use, the appropriate
operational and technical restrictions on terrestrial and FSS use of
the band will depend on the selected mechanism for expanding flexible
use in the band. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on three
potential mechanisms for expanding flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band: (1) A market-based mechanism, (2) auctions mechanisms, and (3)
alternative mechanisms. In pursuing the Commission's goal of creating
additional opportunities for wireless broadband in mid-band spectrum,
under each approach, the Commission seeks to balance incumbent
interests, speed to market, and efficiency of use.
B. Legal Basis
168. The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3,
4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153,
154(i), 157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, and section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
169. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of--and
where feasible, an estimate of--the number of small entities that may
be affected by the rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term
[[Page 44155]]
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
170. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
171. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
172. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category show that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
173. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities.
174. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of
$32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
175. The potential rule changes proposed in this NPRM, if adopted,
could impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements on some small entities. In addition to the proposed rule
changes associated with the proposed mechanisms for expanding flexible
use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, there could be new service rule compliance
obligations. For new licensed flexible uses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band,
the NPRM seeks comment on various service rules that should apply,
including construction benchmarks and technical operating requirements.
In the event the Commission adopts the proposed service rules and
issues licenses for flexible use in the band, any small entity licensee
would be required to satisfy construction requirements, and comply with
limits on power, out of band emissions, field strength, antenna height,
and other existing coordination requirements. Licensees would be
responsible for making certain construction demonstrations with the
Commission through the Universal Licensing System showing that they
have satisfied the relevant construction benchmarks.
176. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements proposed in the NPRM will apply to all entities in the
same manner. The Commission believes that applying the same rules
equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The
revisions the Commission may ultimately adopt however, should benefit
small entities by giving them more information about opportunities in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, more flexibility to provide a wider range of
services, and more options for gaining access to wireless spectrum.
177. Application/Petition Freeze & Part 25 and 101 Modifications.
Applications for new or modified earth stations, applications for new
or modified fixed microwave stations, and applications for new space
stations operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band were previously frozen by
the International, Wireless Telecommunications, and Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureaus.\21\ The Bureaus took these actions to
preserve the current landscape of authorized operations while the
Commission proceeded with an ongoing inquiry into the possibility of
permitting mobile broadband use and more intensive fixed use of the
band in this proceeding. To reexamine the existing full-band, full-arc
coordination policy, the NPRM proposes to revise the Commission's rules
to bar new applications for space station licenses
[[Page 44156]]
and new petitions for market access concerning space-to-Earth
operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Additionally, the NPRM seeks
comment on modifying the Commission's part 25 rules to require
operators of licensed or registered FSS earth stations receiving in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band to coordinate only the specific combinations of
frequency, azimuth, and elevation angle that they regularly use and
that such technical information be reflected on each earth station
application and authorization. The NPRM seeks comment on whether this
information should form the basis for protection from terrestrial
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ On April 19, 2018, the staff froze applications for new or
modified fixed microwave stations and earth stations in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band to preserve the current landscape of authorized operations
pending action as part of the Commission's ongoing inquiry into the
possibility of permitting mobile broadband use and more intensive
fixed use of the band through this proceeding. To provide the
Commission and commenters with more accurate information about
existing earth stations, however, the International Bureau, as a
limited exception to the freeze, concurrently opened a 90-day window
during which entities that own or operate existing FSS earth
stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band could file an application to
register or license the earth station, or file an application to
modify an existing registration or license. On June 21, 2018, the
International Bureau extended this filing-window for an additional
90 days until October 17, 2018, and also imposed a freeze on new
space stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
178. The NPRM further proposes to update IBFS to remove 3.7-4.2 GHz
band earth station licenses or registrations for which the licensee or
registrant does not file the certifications required in the Order (to
the extent they registered before April 19, 2018) and, more
specifically, proposes that an earth station licensed or registered in
IBFS be automatically terminated unless the licensee or registrant
timely files the certification required by the Order. The NPRM seeks
comment on revising the part 25 rules to limit eligibility to file
applications for earth station licenses or registrations to incumbent
earth stations, including comments on the relative costs and benefits
of such a restriction.
179. The NPRM proposes to define incumbent earth stations as only
those earth stations that (1) were operational as of April 19, 2018,
(2) are licensed or registered in IBFS, or had a pending application
for license or registration as of October 17, 2018, and (3) the
licensee/registrant timely filed the certification required by the
Order. The Commission further proposes that unregistered FSS earth
stations lawfully receiving transmissions could continue to operate on
an unprotected basis. The Commission seeks comment on whether
incumbents that are small entities face any special or unique issues
with respect to the transition such that they should be defined
differently or have different obligations.
180. Because the Commission's consideration of some transition
options may benefit from additional, more granular information on FSS
earth station and space station operations in the band, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether to seek additional information from FSS earth
station or space station operators,\22\ including information on
transponder use, satellite points of communication, and other technical
and operational data that would provide a more detailed picture of the
actual usage of the band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to
proposed information collections such that they would require certain
accommodations or additional time to comply. Commenters have been asked
to describe, with specificity, how any additional information
collection would support a given transition proposal and should provide
a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of such additional
collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the Order, the Commission directed temporary fixed or
transportable FSS earth station operators and FSS space station
operators in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to provide certain information on
their current operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
181. Comments have also been sought by the Commission on amending
Sec. 101.101 of the Commission's rules to permit point-to-multipoint
FS broadband service in a portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. In order to
accommodate point-to-multipoint operations, the NPRM seeks comment on
several amendments that may be necessary to part 25 and part 101 of the
Commission's rules that currently apply to FS. The part 25 and 101
rules that would apply to point-to-multipoint FS operators would
include regulatory requirements and restrictions including power
limits, frequency coordination, and potential construction
requirements. The NPRM also seeks comment on the appropriate channel
plan, power limits, service areas, antenna standards, and construction
requirements for point-to-multipoint operations in the band. Further,
the NPRM seeks comment on any necessary technical requirements for
frequency coordination between point-to-multipoint FS applicants and
licensees and other operators in the band, including equipment
authorizations for client devices that may be operated by persons other
than those duly authorized by the licensee. The NPRM also seeks comment
on whether to sunset the existing point-to-point FS operations in the
band.
182. Transitioning Mechanisms. The transition to more intensive
fixed and flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band will require Commission
action to clear existing incumbent users from the band. The NPRM
discusses various mechanisms for clearing incumbent users from the
band. Each of these potential mechanisms for transitioning the band to
flexible use--(1) a market-based mechanism, (2) auctions mechanisms,
(3) alternative mechanisms--would require small entities that are
incumbent operators in the band to participate in some sort of
negotiation and agreement (either through the secondary market or
through a Commission-administered auction) to reassign their spectrum
access rights. Incumbents operating in the spectrum designated for new
licensed flexible use would further be required to relocate their
operations to different bands, potentially requiring reconfiguration or
replacement of their existing facilities. However, once relocated, such
operators and licensees would remain subject to the same Commission
rules and obligations under which they are already operating.
183. In light of the differing approaches to transitioning the band
to flexible use and the obligations that would result, the NPRM seeks
comment from the parties on each mechanism. Specifically, for the
market-based mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt rules that would enable a market-based
mechanism to the clearing of incumbents from some or all of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, introducing flexible use in the band or encouraging more
intensive fixed use while simultaneously protecting critical services
offered by incumbents (i.e., FSS space stations, FSS earth stations, FS
licensees). Under such an approach, the Commission would seek to
encourage incumbent FSS operators to voluntarily clear the spectrum.
Satellite operators in the band could choose to make some or all of
their spectrum available to terrestrial operators on the secondary
market. In return, terrestrial operators would compensate affected
incumbents. A secondary market approach could make spectrum available
more quickly than other available mechanisms, such as an auction, and
thus could facilitate rapid deployment of next generation wireless
broadband networks. Moreover, such an approach could leverage the
technical and operational knowledge of satellite space station
operators while relying on market incentives to promote economic
efficiency. The NPRM seeks comment on whether a market-based mechanism
could effectively and rapidly facilitate new terrestrial deployments in
the band.
184. More specifically, the NPRM states that a transition under a
market-based mechanism could be undertaken in a four-step process. The
first step would involve the industry voluntarily forming a Transition
Facilitator composed of eligible C-band satellite operators. In the
second step, the Transition Facilitator would negotiate with any
interested terrestrial operators and incumbent users. In the third
step, the Commission would review the Transition Facilitator's plan and
conditionally authorize terrestrial licenses in the band. And in step
four, the Transition Facilitator would clear
[[Page 44157]]
the negotiated-for spectrum, making it available for flexible use while
protecting incumbent earth stations through a variety of potential
means. The NPRM notes as well that a market-based process need not be a
one-time event--a Transition Facilitator could negotiate with parties
for compensation and protection, seek Commission review and conditional
authorization, and clear new spectrum multiple times to ensure the
total spectrum dedicated to flexible use meets market demands.
185. For auctions as a transition mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment
on approaches using the Commission's general auction authority to
introduce flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Incentive auctions
provide the Commission with new tools to make additional spectrum
available for broadband. Incentive auctions are a voluntary, market-
based means of repurposing spectrum by encouraging licensees to compete
to voluntarily relinquish spectrum usage rights in exchange for a share
of the proceeds from an auction of new licenses to use the repurposed
spectrum. The NPRM therefore seeks comment on whether an incentive
auction could work in the context of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
186. Recognizing that the band's incumbent structure presents
unique issues distinct from those present in the broadcast incentive
auction, the NPRM seeks comment on possible approaches to inducing
satellite incumbents to reveal the least amount they must be paid to
relinquish any given amount of spectrum. The NPRM also seeks comment on
whether the Commission should accept applications for overlay
licenses--assigned by competitive bidding if mutually exclusive
applications for it were accepted--that would permit the overlay
licensees to negotiate with incumbent licensees to clear all or part of
the band and then transfer flexible use licenses in the secondary
market. An overlay license authorizes operation for an entire
geographic area but requires the licensee to protect existing
incumbents from interference indefinitely, i.e., until the rights are
relinquished. The NPRM seeks comment on whether assigning overlay
licenses in the band would expedite flexible use of more of the band
compared with other approaches. Under this approach, the overlay
licensee would have the right to flexible use of any spectrum that
becomes available as a result of incumbents' relinquishing their
spectrum usage rights. The NPRM seeks comment on how other parties that
would be affected by repurposing 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum should be
treated, and whether the overlay licensee or the satellite incumbents
relinquishing spectrum should be required to provide incumbent earth
station operators comparable replacement facilities or media.
187. With the auctions mechanism, the NPRM further seeks comment,
as an alternative to paying satellite incumbents to relinquish spectrum
usage rights, on conducting a reverse auction for satellite transponder
capacity that could be used to replace lost C-band transponder capacity
resulting from reallocating C-band spectrum to flexible use. Under this
approach, an individual bidder in the reverse auction could contribute
towards clearing spectrum. Potential bidders could be any FCC licensee
that could make transponder capacity available in either C-band or Ku-
band. Satellite bidders could offer capacity created by launching new
satellites in vacant orbital slots and by relinquishing existing
capacity. Satellite customers can offer capacity made available by
substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill their capacity needs,
reducing the amount or quality of programming distributed, or using
greater compression to reduce the capacity required to carry a given
amount of programming or data. C-band transponder capacity that is lost
due to the reduced amount of available spectrum and that was not
relinquished in the reverse auction by C-band satellite operators,
could be repacked onto replacement capacity for the life of those lost
transponders. This would compensate C-band licensees for their lost
capital investments, but not for the loss of their spectrum. The NPRM
seeks comment on whether under this approach such additional
compensation for the loss of spectrum should be accomplished by
extending the length of time free replacement capacity is offered or by
some other means, e.g., a financial payment.
188. As another possible transition mechanism, the NPRM seeks
comment on approaches that combine various elements of the mechanisms
discussed above, as well as other mechanisms for transitioning all or
part of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band for wireless broadband use. For example,
the NPRM seeks comment on a hybrid approach under which the Commission
would auction a majority of the band under traditional mechanisms and
grant FSS operators flexible use authority (i.e., allowing them to use
a market-based approach) for the rest of the band so long as they
timely clear the auctioned portion. The NPRM asks whether the
Commission could use this approach or another combination of approaches
to strike a balance between incumbent and new entrant interests and, if
so, how much of the band should be cleared under a traditional
mechanism and how much could be left for FSS space station operators to
clear under a market approach. The NPRM seeks comment on how the
Commission can ensure the band is transitioned in a timely manner and
whether a backstop mechanism should be triggered by a FSS operator's
failure to clear the band in a timely manner. The NPRM asks commenters
to provide data on the costs and benefits associated with any
alternative mechanism over other possible or suggested methods.
189. Recognizing that the transition to flexible use licenses in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band will be complicated logistically and needs to be
carried out promptly in order to get the repurposed spectrum into the
hands of flexible use licensees to address spectrum needs, the NPRM
seeks comment on a range of transition issues applicable to each of the
alternative mechanisms for expanding flexible use discussed above. The
NPRM seeks comment on reasonable deadlines for implementation of each
mechanism, or other approaches suggested by commenters, including
deadlines for incumbents to cease transmitting on a primary basis in
the portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that becomes available for flexible
use. The NPRM seeks comment on how to define the appropriate class of
incumbents for protection and possible reimbursement purposes and the
relative obligations and/or rights that each category of incumbents may
have under each mechanism. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on what
requirements and safeguards the Commission should adopt to ensure the
timely and complete transition of all required incumbents pursuant to
each mechanism for expanding flexible use in the band. Such
requirements and safeguards could include, among others: Requiring all
parties act in good faith; adopting a definition of comparable
facilities; adopting financial or regulatory protections that can
ensure that all transition obligations are satisfied in the event of
bankruptcy or other events; and any technical rules that the Commission
needs to adopt to apply specifically during the transition. Finally,
the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should seek additional
information from FSS earth station and space station operators in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band that would provide additional clarity on the actual
usage and availability of spectrum in the band.
190. Assuming that the Commission ultimately decides to add a
mobile,
[[Page 44158]]
except aeronautical mobile, allocation and make some or all of the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band available for flexible use, the NPRM proposes and seeks
comment on band plans, licensing and operating, and technical rules for
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum that becomes available for terrestrial
mobile and fixed flexible use. The NPRM proposes to license this
spectrum under the Commission's flexible use, part 27 rules that permit
licensees to provide any fixed or mobile service consistent with the
allocations for this spectrum, subject to rules necessary to prevent or
minimize harmful interference.
191. Band Plan(s). The NPRM seeks comment on whether to license
according to part 27 nationwide or only in the contiguous 48 states and
whether there are issues unique to any of the areas outside of the
contiguous 48 that would make it impractical to transition all or part
of the band to flexible use. The NPRM seeks comment on appropriate
block size(s) to promote efficient and robust use of the band for next
generation wireless technologies, including 5G. Recognizing that the
3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum that becomes available for flexible use could be
configured in any number of paired or unpaired modes, the NPRM seeks
comment on a range of options for paired and/or unpaired blocks and the
costs and benefits of particular approaches. Finally, consistent with
the Commission's approach in several other bands used to provide fixed
and mobile services, the NPRM proposes to license the 3.7-4.2 GHz Mid-
Band Flexible Use (MBX) spectrum on an exclusive, geographic area
basis. The NPRM seeks comment on an appropriate geographic license area
size(s) for this band and asks commenters to discuss and quantify the
economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of
licensing on a PEA, county, nationwide, or other basis.
192. Licensing and Operating Rules. In order to afford licensees
the flexibility to align licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band with licenses
in other spectrum bands governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules,
the NPRM proposes that licensees in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band comply with
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 27
services, including assignment of licenses by competitive bidding,
flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting,
compliance with construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent
discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and
spectrum leasing, and seeks comment on this approach. The NPRM also
proposes an open eligibility standard for licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band and seeks comments on the proposal that should include a
discussion of the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal
on competition, innovation, and investment. The adoption of an open
eligibility approach would not affect citizenship, character, or other
generally applicable qualifications that may apply under the
Commission's rules. The NPRM further seeks comment on a 15-year term
for licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Finally, in the event that the
Commission assigns licenses for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band through
competitive bidding, the Commission proposes to exclude from
eligibility a person who has been, for reasons of national security,
barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant.
193. Regarding mobile spectrum holding policies, the Commission
proposes not to adopt a pre-auction bright-line limit on the ability of
any entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band through
competitive bidding at auction similar to the Commission's approach in
the 2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM. Additionally, if an
auction is chosen as the mechanism to transition to flexible uses in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, the Commission proposes to review holdings on a
case-by-case basis when applications for initial licenses are filed
post-auction to ensure that the public interest benefits of having a
threshold on spectrum applicable to secondary market transactions are
not rendered ineffective.
194. Performance Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on requiring
a 3.7-4.2 GHz band licensee, relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint
service in accordance with the Commission's part 27 rules, to provide
reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least forty-five (45)
percent of the population in each of its license areas within six years
of the license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at
least eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its license
areas within 12 years from the license issue date (second performance
benchmark). For licensees relying on point-to-point service, the NPRM
seeks comment on requiring them to demonstrate within six years of the
license issue date (first performance benchmark) that they have four
links operating and providing service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or
less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater
than 268,000, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring a licensee relying on
point-to-point service to demonstrate it has at least one link in
operation and providing service per every 67,000 persons within a
license area. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring licensees
relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate within 12 years of the
license issue date (final performance benchmark) that they have eight
links operating and providing service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or
less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater
than 268,000, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring a licensee relying on
point-to-point service to demonstrate it is providing service and has
at least two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a
license area.
195. While the NPRM seeks comment on performance benchmarks based
on population coverage applicable for a range of fixed and mobile
services, the NPRM recognizes that 3.7-4.2 GHz licenses have
flexibility to provide services potentially less suited to a population
coverage metric. In particular, licensees providing Internet of Things-
type fixed and mobile services may benefit from an alternative
performance benchmark metric, and the NPRM seeks comment on the
appropriate metric to accommodate such service offerings.
196. Along with performance benchmarks, the NPRM seeks comment on
which penalties will most effectively ensure timely build-out.
Specifically, the NPRM states that, in the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee
fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's second
benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby
requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years sooner
(at 10 years into the license term) and reducing its license term to 13
years. The NPRM proposes that, in the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee
fails to meet the second performance benchmark for a particular license
area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet
the performance requirement shall terminate automatically without
Commission action. Additionally, the Commission also proposes that, in
the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates, the licensee's
spectrum rights would become available for reassignment pursuant to the
competitive bidding provisions of Sec. 309(j). Further, consistent
with the Commission's rules for other licenses, including AWS-1, AWS-3,
AWS-4, and H Block, the NPRM proposes that any
[[Page 44159]]
3.7-4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits its license for failure to meet its
performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the license.
197. Compliance Procedures. In addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting documentation, the NPRM proposes that such
electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each
license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee does
not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, the
NPRM proposes that its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the
area or areas within each license area not being served. Further, the
NPRM proposes that each licensee also must file supporting
documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each
licensed area within its service territory and the type of technology
used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the
assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation
model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service
with the licensee's technology. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities
face any special or unique issues with respect to the transition such
that they would require additional time to comply.
198. Renewal Term Construction Obligations. The WRS Renewal Reform
FNPRM proposed to apply rules adopted in that proceeding to all
flexible geographic licenses. Given the proposal to license this band
on a geographic basis for flexible use, any additional renewal term
construction obligations proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also
would apply to licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Accordingly, the NPRM
seeks comment on whether there are unique characteristics of the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band that might require a different approach than the various
proposals raised by the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM.
199. Competitive Bidding Procedures. Consistent with the
competitive bidding procedures the Commission has used in previous
auctions, the NPRM proposes that the Commission would conduct any
auction for licenses for spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band in conformity
with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, Subpart
Q, of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to employ
the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated
entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application and certification
procedures, payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the
prohibition on certain communications between auction applicants. Under
this proposal, such rules would be subject to any modifications that
the Commission may adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding
rules in the future. The NPRM seeks comment on whether any of the
Commission's part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified
for an auction of licenses in this frequency band. In particular, the
NPRM seeks comment on the following proposals for bidding credits for
designated entities in this band. As with other flexible use licenses
in recent years, the NPRM proposes to adopt in this band, bidding
credits for the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in
the part 1 rules. The NPRM also proposes to offer rural service
providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses in this band.
The NPRM asks commenters addressing these proposals to consider what
details of licenses in the band may affect whether designated entities
will apply for them.
200. Technical Rules. Consistent with existing rules for other
advanced wireless services, the NPRM proposes power limits for fixed
and base stations of 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than
one megahertz and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths
greater than one megahertz. For mobiles and portables in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, the NPRM proposes to limit the power to 1 Watt (30 dBm). The
NPRM also proposes that the power limit measurement methodology be
based on the average power measurement and seeks comment on this
proposal. Additionally, the NPRM proposes that mobile and portable
stations operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
201. For out-of-band-emissions, the NPRM proposes that emissions be
kept to a level that will provide protection to incumbent services in
adjacent bands, while allowing the full use of the new band, and
therefore proposes to apply the longstanding limit on out-of-band-
emission of -13 dBm/MHz at the authorized channel edge as measured at
the antenna terminals. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on whether
additional technical protection criteria, beyond out-of-band-emission
limits, are necessary to ensure effective coexistence with adjacent
band FSS operations.
202. To implement field strength limit at market boundaries, the
NPRM proposes to adopt a -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz power flux density limit at
the service area boundaries, and further proposes that adjacent
affected area licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field
strength boundary levels and to permit such agreement. Regarding
antenna height, the NPRM proposes that the part 27 flexible antenna
height rules that apply to AWS-1 and AWS-3 should generally also apply
to MBX spectrum, that no unique antenna height limits are needed for
MBX-spectrum facilities and that no antenna height limits are needed
for fixed operation in the MBX spectrum. The Commission seeks comments
on these proposals, including cost and benefit information.
203. For new MBX spectrum, the NPRM proposes to apply the
limitations to Canada and Mexico from Sec. 27.57(c) of the
Commission's rules that provide that several AWS services, including
WCS, AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4 and H Block are subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. Lastly, the NPRM proposes that
several additional technical rules applicable to all part 27 services,
including Sec. Sec. 27.51 Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety,
27.54 Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation
safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns
should apply to all MBX-spectrum licensees, including licensees who
acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the
extent the rules permit such aggregation). The Commission seeks comment
on this approach, including its costs and benefits.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
204. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
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.''
205. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks to identify potential
opportunities for additional flexible access--particularly for wireless
broadband services--in 500 megahertz
[[Page 44160]]
of mid-band spectrum between 3.7-4.2 GHz. While lacking specific data
in general, which includes data on small entities, the Commission has
taken steps to enable it to minimize the economic burden on small
entities that could occur if some of the rule changes or approaches
proposed in the NPRM are adopted. Throughout the NPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on whether small entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the information collection such that they would
require certain accommodations or additional time to comply. The
Commission also seeks comment on modifications that could be made to
the Commission's rules regarding administrative processes that would
reduce the economic impacts of proposed rule changes on small entities.
Seeking comments specifically targeting small entities should provide
the Commission with the requisite data to consider the most cost-
effective approach to minimize the economic impact for such entities
while achieving its statutory objectives.
206. With respect to the application freeze and information
collection for incumbent earth stations operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band, the Commission has taken several steps to reduce the economic
burden of its actions. During the freeze on new earth station
applications and filing window for incumbent FSS earth station
operators, the International Bureau granted a temporary waiver of the
frequency coordination requirement in the band. To ensure that earth
station data contained in the Commission's IBFS remains accurate to
facilitate frequency coordination and maximize efficient use of the
spectrum, the NPRM seeks comment on whether, for a constructed and
operational earth station, any combination of frequency, azimuth, and
elevation listed in the license or registration that is unused for more
than, e.g., 180 days, must be deleted from the license or registration.
By proposing to delete data for earth stations that are unused, the
NPRM seeks to minimize unnecessary constraints on successful frequency
coordination of new operations, which reduces the economic impact on
small entities, who often have more limited resources to allocate
towards such regulatory compliance burdens. The NPRM also proposes to
adopt specific definitions of each class of incumbents that would
require protection and be entitled to possible reimbursement for
clearing the band. This proposal has the dual benefit to small entities
of creating a means for compensating any unexpected costs they may
experience as a result of transitioning the band to flexible use, as
well as providing a clear definition of the class of operators that
requires interference protection and coordination, thereby avoiding
overly burdensome and unnecessary obligations.
207. The NPRM seeks comment on several ways to facilitate more
intensive fixed use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band by allowing point-to-
multipoint operations in the band through rules that will promote more
efficient use of the limited spectrum available. In doing so, the NPRM
makes several proposals to reduce the burden of frequency coordination
for any new point-to-multipoint licensees, which would benefit small
entities, and seeks comment on rules that are narrowly tailored to the
needs of point-to-multipoint operations in particular, without the need
for unnecessary regulatory burdens. The NPRM seeks comment on
subjecting point-to-multipoint FS applicants to an expedited
coordination process with mandatory electronic notification and
response, and on the possibility of adopting an automated coordination
process for point-to-multipoint FS applications. The NPRM asks
commenters to discuss specifically any modifications that could be made
to the Commission's coordination rules that would reduce the economic
impact on small entities. In seeking comment on the appropriate
construction requirements to apply to point-to-multipoint operations,
the NPRM asks commenters to consider the economic impact on consumers
and businesses in rural communities and areas that are unserved or
underserved by current broadband providers, as well as any economic
impact on small businesses.
208. The NPRM discusses various proposals to reallocate and
transition the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to more intensive fixed and flexible
use, and seeks comment on ways to minimize the economic impact of any
rule changes specifically with respect to small entities. For example,
in seeking comment on whether to seek additional information from FSS
earth station registrants or space station licensees, the NPRM asks
whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect
to the information collection such that they would require certain
accommodations or additional time to comply.
209. Further, in its discussion of the three potential mechanisms
for transitioning the band to flexible use--(1) market-based mechanism,
(2) auctions mechanisms, (3) alternative mechanisms--the Commission
seeks specific comment on the costs, benefits, and potential economic
impact on small businesses, and asks commenters to discuss any rules or
procedures that could be implemented to ensure that the needs of these
communities and businesses are adequately addressed. Each of these
transition mechanisms rely heavily on a competitive marketplace to set
the value of spectrum and compensate incumbents for the costs of
relocating, reconfiguring, and potentially lost opportunity cost.
Specifically, for small entities that may be incumbent satellite or
earth station operators in the band, the Commission is focused on
facilitating competition in the band and ensuring that all relevant
interests, not just those of the largest companies, are represented.
This will help to reduce the potential economic impact on small
entities.
210. The NPRM also seeks comment on applying 15-year license terms
for any licensees issued in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Specifically for
small entities who must allocate resources carefully over the length of
their license term, and have more limited funds should they be required
to compete at auction for a particular license, the certainty of a
longer license term would provide licensees with sufficient incentive
to make the long-term investments necessary for compliance.
211. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in
encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to
scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid deployment of mobile
services to Americans. All licensees, including small entities, play a
crucial role in achieving these goals. Thus while the NPRM does not
propose any exemption for small entities, as mentioned above, the
Commission seeks comment on alternative obligations, timing for
implementation, scope of subject licenses, penalties for failure, and
other measures that could accommodate the needs and resources of small
entities. The Commission will carefully consider these matters as it
relates to small entities before adopting final rules in this
proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
212. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
213. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1,
2, 3, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 157, 201,
301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308,
[[Page 44161]]
309, 310, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and 1.411 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
1.411, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
214. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the
proposed regulatory changes described in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
215. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the Broadband Access Coalition on June 21, 2017, RM-11791, is
granted to the extent indicated herein and is otherwise denied.
216. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc, on October 11,
2016, RM-11778, is granted to the extent indicated herein and is
otherwise denied.
217. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27
Practice and procedure, Communications common carrier,
Communications equipment, Reporting and recording requirements,
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 25, and
27 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201,
225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.907 by revising the definition of ``Covered Geographic
Licenses'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Covered Geographic Licenses. Covered geographic licenses consist of
the following services: 1.4 GHz Service (part 27, subpart I); 1.6 GHz
Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and Digital Electronic
Message Services (part 101, subpart G); 218-219 MHz Service (part 95,
subpart F); 220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part
90, subpart T); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz
Commercial Services (part 27, subpart F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band
Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service
(part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part
90, subpart S); Mid-Band Flexible Use Service (part 27, subpart O);
Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L); Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (part 22, subpart G);
Broadband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart E);
Broadband Radio Service (part 27, subpart M); Cellular Radiotelephone
Service (part 22, subpart H); Dedicated Short Range Communications
Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart M); H Block
Service (part 27, subpart K); Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(part 101, subpart L); Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service
(part 101, subpart P); Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service
(part 90, subpart M); Multiple Address Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart
O); Narrowband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart D);
Paging and Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart E; part 90, subpart
P); VHF Public Coast Stations, including Automated Maritime
Telecommunications Systems (part 80, subpart J); Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service (part 30); and Wireless Communications Service
(part 27, subpart D).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1.9005 by adding paragraph (mm) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(mm) The Mid-Band Flexible Use Service in the 3700-4200 MHz band.
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
4. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
5. Amend Sec. 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, by revising
page 41 and, under ``Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes,'' adding
footnote NG182 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 44162]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.003
[[Page 44163]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.004
[[Page 44164]]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes
* * * * *
NG182 In the band 3700-4200 MHz, the following provisions shall
apply to geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) fixed-satellite service
(space-to-Earth) operations:
(a) Space stations authorized prior to, or authorized as a result
of an application filed prior to, June 21, 2018 may continue to operate
on a primary basis, but no applications for new space station
authorizations or new petitions for market access shall be accepted for
filing after that date, other than applications by existing operators
in the band seeking to make more efficient use of the band.
Applications for extension, cancellation, replacement, or modification
of existing space station authorizations in the band will continue to
be accepted and processed normally.
(b) Earth station operations shall not claim protection from
terrestrial stations, unless the requirements of 47 CFR 25.203(n) are
satisfied.
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
6. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
0
7. Amend Sec. 25.203 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.203 Choice of sites and frequencies.
* * * * *
(n) Earth stations operating in the 3700-4200 MHz band shall
receive interference protection from terrestrial stations only to the
extent that (1) the earth station was operational as of April 19, 2018,
(2) the earth station was licensed or registered (or had a pending
application for license or registration) in the IBFS database as of
October 17, 2018, and (3) the operator timely certified the accuracy of
information on file with the Commission to the extent required by the
Order adopted in FCC 18-XXX. Earth stations failing to satisfy any of
the above may continue to operate, but such operations shall be on an
unprotected basis.
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
8. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
0
9. Amend Sec. 27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(15) 3700-4200 MHz.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 27.13 by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(m) 3700-4200 MHz band. Authorizations for the 3700-4200 MHz band
will have a term not to exceed 15 years from the date of issuance or
renewal.
0
11. Amend Sec. 27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a)
and (k), and adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 600 MHz band, Block A in the 698-704 MHz
and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz
bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-
757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-
2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands,
Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band,
and 3700-4200 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and
2155-2180 MHz bands, must, as a performance requirement, make a showing
of ``substantial service'' in their license area within the prescribed
license term set forth in Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r), (s), (t), and
(u) of this section, including any licensee that obtained its license
pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section,
shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(u) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an
authorization in the 3700-4200 MHz band:
(1) A licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer
service within six (6) years from the date of the initial license to at
least forty-five (45) percent of the population in each of its license
areas (``First Buildout Requirement'').
(2) A licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer
service within twelve (12) years from the date of the initial license
to at least eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its
license areas (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, the licensee's
Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced
by two years.
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, its authorization
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second Buildout
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action,
and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission
makes the license available at a later date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census
Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of
population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The
population within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only if it provides
reliable signal coverage to and offers service within the specific
Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census
Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of
a license area, a licensee with authorizations for such areas may
include only the population within the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) towards meeting the performance requirement of a
single, individual license. For the Gulf of Mexico license area, the
licensee shall demonstrate compliance with these performance
requirements, using off-shore platforms, including production,
manifold, compression, pumping and valving platforms as a proxy for
population in the Gulf of Mexico.
0
12. Amend Sec. 27.50 by revising the introductory text to paragraphs
(d), (d)(1), and (d)(2) and paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780
MHz,
[[Page 44165]]
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz band, or
3700-4200 MHz band and located in any county with population density of
100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is
limited to:
* * * * *
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz, the 2110-2155 MHz 2155-2180 MHz band, 2180-2200, or
3700-4200 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than
that described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is limited to:
* * * * *
(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in
the 1710-1755 MHz band and mobile and portable stations operating in
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands are limited
to 1 watt EIRP. Fixed stations operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band are
limited to a maximum antenna height of 10 meters above ground. Mobile
and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 27.53 by revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(h) AWS emission limits--(1) General protection levels. Except as
otherwise specified below, for operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-
1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz,
2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands,
the power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 27.55 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
* * * * *
(d) Power flux density for stations operating in the 3700-4200 MHz
band. The predicted or measured Power Flux Density from any Base
Station operating in the 3700-4200 MHz bands at any location on the
geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed -
76dBm/m\2\/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) unless the
adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.
0
15. Amend Sec. 27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(c) Operation in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz,
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands is subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada.
0
16. Add subpart O to read as follows:
Subpart O--3700-4200 MHz Band
Sec.
27.1400 3700-4200 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700-4200 MHz band.
Sec. 27.1400 3700-4200 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 3700-4200 MHz band
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q of this
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700-4200 MHz band.
(a) Eligibility for small business provisions--(1) Definitions--(i)
Small business. A small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $55
million for the preceding three (3) years.
(ii) Very small business. A very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $20 million for the preceding three (3) years.
(2) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small
businesses may use the bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in
Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a
consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit of 25
percent, as specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(b) Eligibility for rural service provider bidding credit. A rural
service provider, as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter,
that has not claimed a small business bidding credit may use the
bidding credit of 15 percent specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4) of this
chapter.
[FR Doc. 2018-18288 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P