Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility With Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, 48506-48527 [06-7051]

Agencies

• FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 161 (Monday, August 21, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48506-48527]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7051]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 20, 22, 24, 27, 68, 73, 74, 78, 80, 
87, 90, 95, 97, and 101

[WT Docket No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, WT Docket No. 01-309; FCC 
06-114]


Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands; 
Revision of the Commission's Rules To Ensure Compatibility With 
Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems; Hearing Aid-Compatible 
Telephones

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
(Commission) undertakes an examination of possible changes to service 
rules that primarily govern wireless licenses in the 698-746, 747-762, 
and 777-792 MHz bands (700 MHz Band) currently occupied by television 
(TV) broadcasters and being made available for new services as a result 
of the digital television (DTV) transition. Because of statutory 
changes, industry developments, and the fact more than four years have 
passed since the Commission adopted its initial band plans and service 
rules governing these licenses, the Commission is revisiting various of 
its earlier rule decisions regarding these 700 MHz Band licenses. The 
Commission also is requesting comment on: the tentative conclusion that 
services provided by licensees in the 700 MHz Band, and in other bands 
subject to Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services rules 
including the Advanced Wireless Services in the 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-
2155 MHz bands (AWS-1), should be subject to 911 and enhanced 911 (911/
E911) and hearing aid-compatibility requirements to the same extent 
that such services would be covered if provided in other bands; and how 
to modify Commission rules to ensure that they include all similar 
wireless services.

DATES: Comments due on or before September 20, 2006. Reply comments are 
due on or before October 20, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 06-150, 
CC Docket No. 94-102, WT Docket No. 01-309, by any of the following 
methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Federal Communications Commission's Web Site: https://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in 
the body of the message, ``get form.'' A sample form and directions 
will be sent in response.
     Mail: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, 
SW., Washington, DC 20554.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: 236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., 
Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002.
     Accessible Formats: Contact the FCC to request reasonable 
accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language 
interpreters, CART, etc.) for filing comments either by e-mail: 
FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name 
and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be 
posted without change to https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs including any 
personal information provided.

[[Page 48507]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Rowan, Special Counsel, 
Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Portals I, Room 6315, Washington, DC, 20554; and Bill Stafford, Special 
Counsel, Spectrum & Competition Policy Division, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Portals I, Room 6221, Washington, DC, 20554.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice 
of Proposed Rulemaking, Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in WT Docket 
No. 06-150, CC Docket No. 94-102, and WT Docket No. 01-309 released 
August 10, 2006. The complete text of the NPRM is available for public 
inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday 
or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Friday at the FCC Reference Information 
Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 
20554. The NPRM may also be purchased from the Commission's duplicating 
contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 202-488-
5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or you may contact BCPI at its Web site: 
https://www.BCPIWEB.com. When ordering documents from BCPI please 
provide the appropriate FCC document number, FCC 06-114. The NPRM is 
also available on the Internet at the Commission's Web site through its 
Electronic Document Management System (EDOCS): https://
hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/SilverStream/Pages/edocs.html.
    Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis: This document 
contains proposed new or modified information collection requirements. 
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork 
burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due on or 
before September 20, 2006. Comments should address: (a) Whether the 
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper 
performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the 
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the 
Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to 
minimize the burden of the collection of information on the 
respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or 
other forms of information technology. 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.'' The Commission notes, 
however, that section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act 2000, 
Public Law 106-113, provides that rules governing frequencies in the 
746-806 MHz Band become effective immediately upon publication in the 
Federal Register without regard to certain sections of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act. The Commission is therefore not inviting comment on any 
information collections that concern frequencies in the 746-806 MHz 
Band.

I. Introduction

    1. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on possible changes 
to the part 27 service rules governing wireless licenses in the 700 MHz 
Band currently occupied by TV broadcasters and being made available for 
new services as a result of the DTV transition. More than four years 
have passed since the Commission adopted its initial band plans and 
service rules governing these licenses. During that time, Congress 
enacted significant statutory changes to the DTV transition in the 
Digital Television and Public Safety Act of 2005 (DTV Act). The DTV Act 
could affect the Commission's existing regulatory approach to the 698-
806 MHz Band, which had envisioned ``early'' recovery of TV Channels 
60-69 (Upper 700 MHz Band), but had anticipated recovery of TV Channels 
52-59 (Lower 700 MHz Band) after the DTV transition was complete. In 
addition, during the past four years, U.S. consumers have been 
introduced to a variety of innovative wireless services and 
technologies at the same time that the number of subscribers for mobile 
telephone services has increased by approximately 50 percent. The 
Commission therefore is revisiting various of its earlier decisions 
regarding these 700 MHz Band licenses.
    2. This NPRM addresses many of the rules applicable to certain 
spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band (Television Channels 60-69 in the 
746-806 MHz band) and the Lower 700 MHz Band (TV Channels 52-59 in the 
698-746 MHz band). This includes licenses yet to be auctioned in 30 
megahertz of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz Band and in 30 megahertz of 
spectrum in the Lower 700 MHz Band, as well as licenses that already 
have been auctioned in 18 megahertz in the Lower 700 MHz Band. Rules 
applicable to spectrum currently occupied by TV Channels 63-64 (764-776 
MHz band) and 68-69 (794-806 MHz band) are not considered in this NPRM 
because that spectrum has been allocated to public safety (and thus is 
not included within the term of the 700 MHz Band as defined in this 
NPRM). Also, the rules applicable to the Guard Band spectrum at 746-
747/776-777 MHz and 762-764/792-794 MHz (which also are not included 
within the definition of the 700 MHz Band) are not considered in this 
NPRM except insofar as it is a part 27 service to which 911 and 
enhanced 911 and hearing aid compatibility rules may potentially be 
applied. Finally, in this NPRM the Commission does not seek comment on 
the allocation or service rules for broadcasting or other legacy 
operations in these bands.

II. Discussion

    3. Given that seven years have passed since the Commission first 
initiated a proceeding on the 700 MHz Band, the Commission seeks to 
evaluate whether changes to the existing service rules pertaining to 
700 MHz Band licenses--including 48 megahertz of Lower 700 MHz Band 
spectrum (Blocks A-E), and the 30 megahertz of Upper 700 MHz Band 
spectrum (Blocks C and D)--may ultimately permit more effective use of 
this spectrum to better meet the needs of today's consumers.

A. Size of Service Areas

1. Need for Additional Access to Spectrum Licensed Over Small Service 
Areas
    4. The Commission seeks comment on whether, in order to further 
enhance access to spectrum in rural areas, the service areas sizes of 
the licenses to be auctioned should be smaller than the EAGs provided 
for under existing rules. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to 
which the assignment of spectrum over smaller service areas could lead 
to increased and better service in these areas. In addition, parties 
should comment on possible transaction costs associated with the 
assignment of additional spectrum over small service areas on those 
service providers with business plans to provide service to rural areas 
as part of regional or national footprints. The Commission seeks 
comment on the

[[Page 48508]]

factors that the Commission should use in balancing the needs of small 
and rural carriers as well as large and national carriers as they seek 
to provide service to their rural customers.
    5. When addressing whether to license additional 700 MHz Band 
spectrum over small service areas, commenting parties should address 
the relationship between their ability to obtain licenses at auction 
and their ultimate deployment of service in rural areas. For example, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether certain areas may continue to 
have high costs of providing service that are unrelated to spectrum 
acquisition costs. The Commission seeks comment on whether certain 
areas may continue to have high costs of providing service that are 
unrelated to spectrum acquisition costs and whether or not there is a 
point at which the advantages of assigning additional small-area 
licenses diminish relative to the disadvantages.
    6. In assessing any particular need and/or amount of spectrum, 
commenters should consider the 700 MHz Band's potential suitability for 
more rapid deployment of mobile and other advanced services in high-
cost areas given its propagation and other technical characteristics. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether the benefits due to the 
propagation characteristics of this spectrum make it appropriate to 
assign an additional amount of 700 MHz Band spectrum over small areas, 
or whether other considerations support licensing the bands over EAGs 
or other large areas.
    7. As compared to other bands, the Commission seeks comment on the 
potential of 700 MHz Band spectrum to support broadband and other new 
applications. Commenters should explain how much additional 700 MHz 
Band spectrum licensed over areas other than EAGs may be necessary to 
support spectrum-based broadband applications in rural areas.
    8. The Commission seeks comment on the need for greater access to 
700 MHz Band spectrum on a smaller-area basis. In 2005, the Commission 
increased the amount of AWS spectrum to be assigned over CMAs due to 
market developments and the support of several commenters, including 
parties representing small and larger carriers. Commenters should also 
consider the Commission's decision to assign 12 megahertz of 700 MHz 
Band spectrum over CMAs. To the extent the Commission decides not to 
assign additional 700 MHz spectrum over small areas, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether at some point in the future (e.g., five years, 
ten years, twenty years) consumer demand and spectrum-intensive 
applications and technologies could exhaust the capacity of spectrum in 
rural areas that is currently assigned over CMAs.
2. Optimal Service Area Size(s) for Remaining Licenses
    9. In the event the Commission decides that there is a need for 
license sizes other than EAGs for the 700 MHz Band licenses that have 
yet to be auctioned, the Commission must determine the appropriate 
initial service area size, or combination of sizes, for those licenses. 
For instance, the Commission could modify the current service area 
designations for the 700 MHz Band to include one or more license sizes 
other than EAGs, or a combination thereof, or keep in place the service 
areas currently reflected in its rules. The Commission therefore seeks 
comment on the license size or combination of license sizes that should 
be provided.
    10. First, the Commission seeks general comment on the costs 
associated with the initial service area sizes the Commission adopts in 
the 700 MHz Band. The Commission recognizes that consumer needs and 
geographic coverage will change over time, and the Commission 
anticipates that there will be a need for providers to aggregate or 
disaggregate spectrum holdings as they address these evolving needs and 
market demands. Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on the 
transaction costs associated with pre- and post-auction aggregation and 
disaggregation. Both large nationwide providers as well as small 
regional and rural providers may be able to make use of this spectrum, 
yet the optimal size of geographic service area is different for these 
two types of providers, and licenses for areas that are larger or 
smaller than desired will impose transaction costs on those parties 
that wish to acquire them. Thus, the Commission considers the degree 
and likelihood of such costs as 700 MHz Band spectrum is licensed in 
the future, and the extent to which the transaction costs of 
aggregating, disaggregating, or partitioning spectrum are a significant 
concern for those parties that most highly value this spectrum. Parties 
should also address any costs resulting from the unwillingness to 
divide spectrum and service areas due to a lack of license 
marketability or other financial considerations.
    11. In addition to seeking comment on the continued use of the EAGs 
in the band, which consist of six geographic service areas, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether to license the unauctioned 
spectrum, for example, by using the twelve Regional Economic Area 
Groupings (REAGs), the 52 Major Economic Areas (MEAs), or some other 
large regional licensing area. To the extent the Commission adopts 
large geographic service areas for the 700 MHz Band other than EAGs, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether REAGs may have advantages over 
EAGs. On the other hand, the Commission requests comment on whether 
substituting REAGs for EAGs may have disadvantages.
    12. If the Commission determines that smaller areas should be 
provided, it could license the spectrum or some part thereof on the 
basis of local areas, such as Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), 
Rural Service Areas (RSAs), or EAs. The Commission seeks comment on the 
use of smaller, local license areas based on these, or some other small 
area sizes. In particular, the Commission asks that commenters address 
the request by Rural Cellular Association (RCA), as supported by other 
parties, that the Commission assign additional CMA-sized licenses in 
the 700 MHz Band. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether a 
combination of different license sizes should be adopted and, if so, 
what combination should be reflected in its rules for the spectrum.
    13. Notwithstanding the flexibility of use that permits 700 MHz 
Band spectrum to be used for any service consistent with the band's 
allocation, commenting parties should describe any anticipated 700 MHz 
Band service offerings that demonstrate a need for greater access to 
this spectrum on a specific geographic basis. Commenters should explain 
how certain service area sizes correspond to the business plans of 
potential licensees and thus avoid the transaction costs that could be 
associated with aggregation, disaggregation, or partitioning. 
Commenters should also identify the service area sizes that best suit 
the anticipated uses for 700 MHz Band spectrum. The Commission could 
assign all remaining spectrum in the 700 MHz Band using a combination 
of larger and smaller areas. Alternatively, it could employ medium-
sized license areas (e.g., MEAs). In such a case, commenters should 
consider whether the use of medium-sized initial service areas would be 
less efficient than a combination of differently sized service areas, 
given that transaction costs would be potentially incurred by auction 
winners of both small and large service areas that may have to 
aggregate, partition, or disaggregate spectrum in order to meet their 
particular spectrum needs.

[[Page 48509]]

    14. The Commission seeks comment on the type of services that 
commenters believe will be accommodated in the service areas they 
favor, the economic advantages of adopting their favored approach, and 
what sized service area would be most advantageous for the particular 
service. The Commission also seeks comment on whether changes related 
to developments in technology should affect the appropriate size of 
initial service areas. If there are different types of new technologies 
and services being created for these markets, commenters should address 
whether such developments support a certain service area size for 
portions of the 700 MHz Band.
    15. In addressing the appropriate size(s) of service areas for 700 
MHz Band licenses, the Commission seeks comment on any impact of using 
smaller service areas that cannot be used as building blocks to create 
larger service areas should the Commission adopt a combination of 
license area sizes for the unauctioned spectrum in the 700 MHz Band. 
Specifically, under a combination approach, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether it would be preferable to assign licenses over large 
and small areas that are based on the same geographic unit (e.g., MEAs 
and EAs).
    16. In the 700 MHz Band, the Gulf of Mexico was divided between two 
EAGs for EAG licensing, whereas it was designated as a separate area 
for CMA licensing. In the event that the Commission decides to revise 
its prior determinations regarding license sizes in the 700 MHz Band, 
the Commission seek comment on including the Gulf of Mexico as part of 
larger service areas, or whether the Commission should separately 
license one or more service areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico.
3. Spectrum Block(s) Suitable for Potential Reassignment
    17. In the event that the Commission decides to provide for service 
area sizes other than EAGs in future 700 MHz Band auctions, the 
Commission seeks comment on which of the spectrum block(s) in the band 
that have not been auctioned should be re-designated to a different 
service area size or sizes. The Commission seeks comment, for example, 
on the Rural Telecommunications Group's (RTG) suggestion that the 
Commission provide CMA licensing in the Lower 700 MHz Band's Block B 
and in the Upper 700 MHz Band's Block C.
    18. With respect to the blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band, the 
Commission seeks comment on the use of CMA or other small service area 
licenses, and which spectrum block or blocks in that band, if any, 
should be licensed on that basis. The Commission asks commenters to 
consider the presence of public safety systems, which, under Commission 
rules, receive special protection against harmful interference. For 
example, equipment operating in the Upper 700 MHz Band Blocks C and D 
must meet strict out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits to protect public 
safety operations. Due to the relatively small spectral separation 
between these blocks and the public safety spectrum, such equipment may 
have to employ enhanced filtering, which would likely add to the cost 
of base and mobile equipment. On the other hand, there may be certain 
spectrum blocks within the Upper 700 MHz Band that, because they are 
farther removed from the public safety spectrum, will require less 
costly equipment than equipment operating in spectrum blocks closer to 
the public safety bands. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on the 
impact of equipment costs in general if the Commission decides to 
revise the size of service area for Upper 700 MHz Band spectrum. The 
Commission seeks comment on which spectrum blocks in the current Upper 
700 MHz band plan (i.e., Blocks C or D), or in any revised band plan, 
would incur the greatest and least equipment costs and the extent to 
which such additional costs could affect the provision of service.
    19. Given these possible considerations relating to equipment 
costs, the Commission also seeks comment on whether any new CMA or 
other small service area licenses should be located in the Lower 700 
MHz Band, rather than the Upper 700 MHz Band, if the Commission decides 
to revise existing band plans to provide for small area licenses. In 
the event that additional equipment cost issues might make it 
preferable to locate new small-area licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether its 6 megahertz spectrum blocks 
would efficiently facilitate the implementation of 1xEV-DO and Wideband 
Code Division Multiple Access (CDMA) technologies--the third-generation 
(3G) technologies of CDMA and GSM networks--in the Lower 700 MHz Band. 
The Commission also seeks comment on whether 802.16 (WiMax), a possible 
alternative to 1xEV-DO and Wideband CDMA technologies, would support a 
variety of bandwidths, including 6 megahertz, and whether WiMax 
potentially could be readily accommodated on Lower 700 MHz Band 
spectrum blocks. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on the 
ability of 6 megahertz segments to accommodate high-speed data systems 
similar to the MediaFLO multi-media system being implemented by 
Qualcomm Inc. (Qualcomm) on Block D in the Lower 700 MHz Band.
    20. In the event the Commission decides to locate additional CMA or 
other small service area licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band, the 
Commission seeks comment on which spectrum blocks in that band should 
be licensed on that basis. The Commission asks that comments address 
whether any particular spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz Band (i.e., 
Blocks A, B, and/or E) would be better suited for small-area licensing 
than other blocks, and to state the reasons for supporting the use of 
any one or more of these spectrum blocks for this purpose.
    21. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on the impact of 
designating the unpaired 6 megahertz Block E in the Lower 700 MHz Band 
for small-area licensing. If 6 megahertz is sufficient to meet small 
and/or rural carriers' spectrum needs, commenters should address 
whether there are broadband technologies that can operate on unpaired 
spectrum such that the 6 megahertz of spectrum in Block E would be 
suitable for potential reassignment. On the other hand, the Commission 
seeks comment on what spectrum in the Lower 700 MHz Band should be 
licensed over CMAs or other small service areas if additional paired 
spectrum is determined to be necessary and/or appropriate for small 
service areas.
    22. The Commission notes that if it locates a CMA-based license 
adjacent to an EAG (or other differently sized area) in the Lower or 
Upper 700 MHz Band, there may be an impact on aggregation, including on 
the level of transaction costs. Thus, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether aggregation may be more difficult and complicated to accomplish 
if spectrum blocks of differing geographic sizes are located adjacent 
to one another, and what effect those factors should have on its 
consideration of the current band plan.
    23. The Commission also seeks comment on whether, and to what 
extent, there would be an impact on the need to provide protection to 
TV Channel 51 if the Commission were to provide for licensing areas 
that are smaller than EAGs in the adjacent Lower 700 MHz Band Block A.

B. Size of Spectrum Blocks

    24. To the extent the Commission decides to auction and assign 
additional licenses over service area sizes other than the six EAGs, 
the Commission also

[[Page 48510]]

seeks comment on whether the Commission could better accommodate such 
assignments by reconfiguring or sub-dividing existing spectrum blocks 
in the band plans in the 700 MHz Band. The Commission seeks comment 
generally on whether the Commission should reconfigure the license 
blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band, the Lower 700 MHz Band, or both. 
Although the Commission believes the Commission should retain the 
current band plan in the Lower 700 MHz Band, the Commission 
nevertheless seeks comment on potential changes to the size of the 
spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz Band. The Commission also 
discusses the possibility of revising the size and pairing of licensed 
spectrum blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band. In particular, the 
Commission seeks comment on dividing the 20-megahertz Block D license 
in the Upper 700 MHz Band into two or more license blocks. In addition, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether and how to make more licenses 
available to be potentially assigned on a geographic basis or bases 
smaller than EAGs, and on ways to provide licenses that may better 
reflect recent developments. Although the Commission seeks comment on 
this issue primarily with respect to unauctioned licenses, there are 
certain issues which the Commission seeks comment on that relate to 
already auctioned spectrum, i.e., whether to change the size and 
location of the spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz Band, and the use 
of a ``two-sided auction.''
    25. The Commission seeks comment on whether the spectrum blocks in 
the Lower 700 MHz Band should be maintained at their current 6 
megahertz alignment and sizes. The spectrum comprising Lower 700 MHz 
Band Blocks C and D, consisting of 18 of the 48 megahertz in the Lower 
700 MHz Band, has already been auctioned, and the Commission believes 
that the location of these auctioned blocks limits its ability to 
reconfigure the remaining spectrum blocks in the Lower 700 MHz Band. 
The Commission is seeking comment in this NPRM on the use of 5 
megahertz blocks in the Upper 700 MHz Band. However, the use of 5 
megahertz blocks in the Lower 700 MHz Band appears to be problematic. 
For example, considering only the 12 megahertz of spectrum located at 
698-710 MHz (i.e., Blocks A and B), if the Commission were to place two 
5 megahertz blocks in this band, this would leave two megahertz of 
spectrum in the band that would have to be separately assigned. Also, 
because the 698-710 MHz band is paired with the 728-740 MHz band, this 
circumstance would apply to the 728-740 MHz band as well. The 
Commission nevertheless seeks comment on whether the Commission should 
make any changes to the size and location of spectrum blocks in the 
Lower 700 MHz Band and, if so, what those changes should be.
    26. With respect to the Upper 700 MHz Band, the Commission seeks 
comment on U.S. Cellular Corporation's (USCC) proposal to divide the 
current 20 megahertz Block D into two separate 10 megahertz blocks. 
USCC proposes that one of the new 10 megahertz blocks be assigned over 
EAs, and the other new 10 megahertz block be assigned over EAGs. The 
Commission seeks comment on possibly increasing the overall number of 
licenses available in any given geographic area by dividing Upper 700 
MHz Band Block D into two or more smaller-sized blocks, and thus 
provide one or more additional licenses.
    27. The Commission seeks comment on whether the provision of an 
additional 10 megahertz paired block in the Upper 700 MHz Band (by 
dividing the current Block D into two such blocks) would facilitate the 
implementation of a wider variety of technologies in the band. A 10 
megahertz paired block can readily accommodate Wideband CDMA and 1xEV-
DO technologies, and dividing Block D into two such blocks would, 
therefore, provide an additional license that could employ one of these 
technologies. In addition, commenters should address whether 5 
megahertz segments accommodate other systems that have recently been 
developed.
    28. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to divide the 
current 20 megahertz paired Block D into more than two smaller paired 
blocks to better accommodate other new technologies. For example, 
systems based on 802.16 standards (WiMax) could potentially operate on 
a variety of bandwidths ranging from 1.25 to 20 megahertz, including a 
number of bandwidths that are 5 megahertz or smaller. Accordingly, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether a division of the 10 megahertz 
segments of paired Block D to create two or more smaller blocks--e.g., 
1.25, 1.75, and 7 megahertz blocks--might better accommodate this 
technology. The Commission also seeks comment on other possible block 
sizes--either larger or smaller than the current blocks sizes--that 
might be supported by other existing or potential technologies.
    29. On the other hand, the Commission seeks comment on any 
disadvantages that may result from sub-dividing Upper 700 MHz Band 
Block D into two or more blocks. Comments should address whether the 
two licenses in the Upper 700 MHz Band (along with the five total 
licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band) are sufficient to help enhance 
competition among a wide variety of providers and applicants. The 
Commission asks that comments consider whether a 20 megahertz paired 
block licensed on, e.g., CMAs, in the Upper 700 MHz Band would help 
enhance competition among a wider variety of providers and applicants.
    30. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should sub-
divide Block D into two 10 megahertz paired blocks given that, in doing 
so, the overall spectrum efficiency of the band may be decreased. The 
Commission seeks comment as well on whether, if it sub-divides Block D 
into two blocks, it should necessarily divide the block into two equal-
sized 10 megahertz block pairs. WiMax, for example, may be able to be 
accommodated on 5 megahertz blocks, but the WiMax Forum has certified 
the use of 3.5, 7, and 10 megahertz bandwidths for 802.16-based 
equipment. The Commission also seeks comment on the effect of changing 
the block sizes on the overall spectrum efficiency of the band based on 
other existing or potential technologies.
    31. Finally, the Commission asks that commenters addressing 
proposals to reconfigure existing spectrum blocks in the 700 MHz Band 
also address existing and/or potential opportunities to aggregate new 
licenses and existing licenses. The Commission seeks comment on 
whether, for 700 MHz Band licenses, any changes to Commission 
competitive bidding rules are necessary or desirable in order to 
facilitate the efficient aggregation of new licenses, in light of the 
existing spectrum blocks for 700 MHz Band licenses and any spectrum 
blocks that may be proposed.
    32. The Commission further notes that, following an auction, 
parties that wish to do so may aggregate spectrum covered by new 700 
MHz Band licenses with spectrum covered by existing 700 MHz Band 
licenses available in the secondary market. The Commission seeks 
comment on whether any Commission action is necessary or desirable to 
facilitate the aggregation of new and existing 700 MHz Band licenses in 
the secondary market, in light of the existing and/or proposed 700 MHz 
Band spectrum blocks. If so, the Commission asks that commenters 
address whether any such steps require changes to existing Commission 
competitive bidding or secondary market rules.

[[Page 48511]]

    33. Alternatively, the Commission could facilitate such aggregation 
of spectrum by enabling an auction in which licenses for currently 
unassigned spectrum as well as licenses for spectrum previously 
assigned in the 700 MHz Band could be offered for sale in a single 
auction, a mechanism sometimes referred to as a ``two-sided auction.'' 
Such a ``two-sided auction'' could be implemented in several ways. As 
one example, the Commission might allow incumbent licensees to return 
their licenses to the Commission in exchange for a credit, which could 
be based on the prices of licenses for spectrum formerly associated 
with the returned licenses as determined in an auction. Alternatively, 
the Commission might allow existing licensees to offer their licenses 
in the auction, but relinquish the licenses in exchange for a credit 
only if prices (and related credit values) reached a certain level. A 
variation on this approach would be to allow incumbents to include 
their licenses in the auction inventory but ``pay themselves'' the 
winning bid if they chose to outbid other participants. In any of these 
alternatives, the Commission could provide that credits received in 
exchange for returned spectrum licenses would be transferable, and that 
bidders could use the credits to obtain other spectrum licenses in the 
same auction or another auction of spectrum licenses for the same or a 
different service. Consequently, incumbent licensees could exchange 
their current licenses for other spectrum licenses using credits, or 
transfer the credits to other bidders wishing to obtain licenses.
    34. Commenters addressing actions the Commission might take to 
create a two-sided auction should address details of how the existing 
licenses could be incorporated into the auction, how the incumbent 
licensees could be compensated for ``selling'' a license, and whether 
any particular aspects of such an auction, either discussed in the NPRM 
or proposed by commenters, might exceed the Commission's competitive 
bidding authority, under either the Commission's current rules or the 
Communications Act. In particular, commenters should consider whether 
the use of credits, or other means of compensating incumbents for their 
licenses, may require additional authority or the adoption of new 
Commission rules or procedures. Among other things, commenters should 
consider whether there are particular design elements of a two-sided 
auction that would help such a mechanism work more efficiently. 
Commenters also should address the extent to which a two-sided auction, 
by offering all available (Commission-held and previously assigned) 
spectrum simultaneously, may provide an alternative with lower 
transaction costs as compared to the secondary market and whether such 
an alternative is needed. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether the use of a two-sided auction could or would promote 
opportunities for interested parties to better meet their needs for 
particular amounts of spectrum in this band. The Commission asks 
whether an ability to acquire more spectrum or aggregate it differently 
would help promote service, especially in rural areas. Finally, 
commenters should address any issues or other matters which may relate 
to competitive bidding as a result of conducting a two-sided auction in 
the 700 MHz Band.

C. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and Provision of Service to 
Consumers

    35. First, the Commission considers the possibility of modifying 
performance requirements for unauctioned licenses to the extent they 
could better promote both spectrum access and service provision. 
Second, for all 700 MHz Band licensees, the Commission seeks comment on 
options that may facilitate access to spectrum in the secondary market 
for all potential service providers, including those specifically 
seeking to deliver service to rural areas. Finally, the Commission 
seeks comment on policies the Commission could implement to promote 
service on tribal lands.
1. Performance Requirements
    36. The Commission seeks comment on whether it needs to revise the 
existing ``substantial service'' performance requirement, or possibly 
adopt alternative build-out rules, for unauctioned licenses in the 700 
MHz Band in order to further access to spectrum and provision of 
service to consumers, including those in rural areas. To the extent 
commenters believe the current requirement, or its safe harbors, should 
be revised, the Commission seeks comment on whether other approaches 
may offer certain additional benefits that outweigh possible additional 
costs. These options could involve adopting rules that require specific 
actions by licensees in order to retain their licenses.
    37. The current performance requirement for the 700 MHz Band is 
based on the ``substantial service'' standard defined in 47 CFR 
27.14(a). The Commission seeks comment as to the effectiveness of this 
approach in promoting service in the unauctioned portions of the 700 
MHz Band, especially in rural areas. Under this standard, the 
Commission established ``safe harbors'' to provide examples of what 
would be considered substantial service in the 700 MHz Band. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether any changes to these safe harbors 
are warranted to better promote service to all areas. To the extent 
commenters address whether 47 CFR 27.14(a) or its safe harbors should 
be revised, they should also consider whether any other provisions in 
the existing part 27 rules require specific recognition or adjustment 
to comport with the potential application of those performance 
requirements for 700 MHz Band licensees. For example, the Commission 
seeks comment on whether it needs to clarify the extent to which 
certain of the Commission's non-part 27 rule parts, as listed in 47 CFR 
27.3, apply to 700 MHz Band licensees with regard to performance 
requirements relating to build-out and/or provision of service. In 
addition, the Commission notes that 47 CFR 27.15 describes inter alia 
elections for geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation to 
ensure the Commission's performance requirements are met when licenses 
are divided spectrally or geographically between two or more parties. 
The Commission seeks comment on whether to change any aspect of 47 CFR 
27.15 in order to help ensure the provision of service to consumers, 
including any rural areas that are part of a partitioned or 
disaggregated license.
    38. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should further 
define safe harbors for licensees seeking to meet the part 27 
``substantial service'' standard on 700 MHz Band spectrum. The 
Commission notes, for example, that the Commission's safe harbors for 
700 MHz Band licensees did not specifically mandate that a particular 
level of service be provided in rural areas. Rather, the Commission 
cites past statements that a licensee that limits buildout to urban and 
high density areas will not necessarily be ensured of license renewal 
even if it meets the construction benchmarks, as well as past 
statements that it believed substantial service requires the licensee 
to buildout in rural areas as well. The Commission cites past guidance 
on rural construction which established a safe harbor for providing 
mobile service to rural areas. In particular, the Commission cites 
statements that a mobile wireless service licensee in various bands, 
including the 700 MHz Band, can provide substantial service by

[[Page 48512]]

serving at least 75 percent of the geographic area of at least 20 
percent of the `rural areas' within its licensed area. The Commission 
seeks comment on whether this ``rural safe harbor'' for mobile wireless 
services should continue to apply to the 700 MHz Band licenses that 
have not been auctioned, or whether it should be revised. The 
Commission also seeks comment as to whether to apply a safe harbor to 
other types of services (e.g., fixed) in the 700 MHz Band and, if so, 
what other services should be included and how the safe harbor should 
be defined. In addition, the Commission asks how ``coverage'' would be 
measured for these other services so as to improve incentives to serve 
rural areas. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on whether there are 
other safe harbors pertaining to construction in rural areas that 
should fulfill the substantial service requirement and that would 
provide additional regulatory certainty regarding the Commission's 
performance requirements.
    39. As an alternative to maintaining the substantial service 
standard that the Commission previously determined should apply to the 
700 MHz Band, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should apply 
more specific construction benchmarks to the unauctioned licenses in 
the 700 MHz Band. In the past, such construction benchmarks have 
required a licensee to make service available to a certain percentage 
of the population or geographic area.
    40. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt a 
population-based construction requirement as part of any possible 
revisions to the licensing rules in some or all of the spectrum bands 
to be auctioned in the 700 MHz Band. If such a benchmark were adopted, 
the Commission seeks comment on the precise population benchmark that 
should be adopted, and whether it should be more extensive than the 
previous Personal Communications Service (PCS) rules, such as requiring 
coverage sufficient to provide service to one-half of the population of 
the license area within five years and three-fourths within ten years.
    41. As another option, the Commission seeks comment on whether a 
benchmark based on geography for 700 MHz Band unauctioned licenses 
would be more effective in promoting service to underserved areas 
without offsetting disadvantages. In this NPRM, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether geographic-based benchmarks warrant further 
consideration and, in particular, whether these rules could be designed 
to promote build-out in rural portions of these licenses yet to be 
auctioned. If so, the Commission seeks comment on how such a geography-
based benchmark could or should be structured. The Commission also 
seeks comment on any other geographic benchmarks that would be 
appropriate for these licenses. For any proposed benchmark, the 
Commission asks commenters to describe how the Commission should apply 
it to the variety of fixed, mobile, broadcast, and private services 
that are authorized in this spectrum.
    42. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should consider 
adopting a ``keep what you use'' re-licensing mechanism for the 
unauctioned spectrum in the 700 MHz Band, similar to the approach 
adopted for Cellular Radiotelephone Service (cellular) service in the 
1980s. Under a ``keep what you use'' rule, the Commission would reclaim 
any ``unused'' spectrum in a license area after a pre-defined period of 
time. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should consider a 
modified version of this rule, such as a ``triggered keep what you 
use'' rule, in which the Commission, rather than reclaiming ``unused'' 
spectrum after a period of time, would reclaim spectrum only in the 
event a party other than the licensee (e.g., a spectrum lessee) seeks 
access to the licensed spectrum in an unserved portion of the license 
area. Similarly, the Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission 
should consider applying either the ``keep what you use'' rule or 
``triggered keep what you use'' rule only to a portion of the spectrum 
(e.g., one-half) of the spectrum that otherwise would be reclaimed, or 
eligible for reclamation, by the Commission.
    43. Given that these variations of the ``keep what you use'' 
approach may make unused spectrum available to other parties interested 
in gaining access to spectrum, the Commission seeks comment on whether 
it may be an effective means to provide additional service, including 
in rural areas. To the extent that licensees may be less likely to use 
the spectrum in rural portions of their license areas, the Commission 
also seeks comment as to whether the Commission should apply this 
approach only to licenses covering rural areas, or only to that portion 
of licenses that covers rural areas.
    44. To the extent commenters believe a ``keep what you use'' 
mechanism is appropriate, the Commission seeks comment on how ``use'' 
could or should be defined, given the goals the Commission seeks to 
further. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on how it should 
define what type of activities demonstrate that the spectrum is being 
``used'' in this context, considering that the part 27 rules facilitate 
a wide variety of services and uses in this band.
2. Facilitating Access to Spectrum in the Secondary Market
    45. In addition to facilitating access to spectrum based on 
Commission rules relating to the size of geographic license areas and 
spectrum blocks, the Commission also seeks comment on the extent to 
which it could facilitate access through possible revisions to its 
existing secondary markets policies and rules applicable to both 
unauctioned and previously auctioned licenses in the 700 MHz Band. The 
Commission notes that it took significant steps in 2003 and 2004 to 
facilitate the ability of entities, through spectrum leasing 
arrangements, to gain access to licensed spectrum in areas and amounts 
suited to their particular spectrum needs, including through a 
streamlined or immediate approval process for transfers and assignments 
of licenses.
    46. Given the passage of time, the Commission now seeks comment on 
whether there are additional mechanisms relating to its secondary 
market policies that should be adopted so as to help move spectrum from 
licensees to other entities that place a higher value on its use. For 
instance, the Commission seeks comment on whether requiring licensees 
to make ``good faith'' efforts to negotiate with potential spectrum 
lessees could help increase access to spectrum, including in rural 
areas, and thus promote the development of these markets. Potential 
``good faith'' requirements could take one of several forms. At a 
minimal level, licensees could be required to establish a contact point 
for potential lessees, e.g., providing the name and contact information 
of a designated representative in the licensee's organization who would 
accept inquiries from potential spectrum lessees. Under an alternative 
approach, licensees could be required to engage in ``good faith'' 
negotiations with potential spectrum lessees, with the Commission 
determining the minimum steps necessary to meet this requirement. For 
example, 700 MHz Band licensees could be required to have a minimum 
number of meetings with potential spectrum lessees and/or provide their 
terms for an acceptable spectrum leasing arrangement. Would the use of 
such requirements for licensees in the 700 MHz Band encourage licensees 
to more seriously consider the opportunity cost

[[Page 48513]]

of the spectrum they hold but do not use? On the other hand, given the 
large number and diverse nature of potential users in this band, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether a requirement to, e.g., establish 
contact and/or communicate with all interested parties would be unduly 
burdensome or subject to abuse. The Commission also seeks comment on 
whether it should adopt additional mechanisms to encourage partitioning 
and/or disaggregation of 700 MHz Band spectrum and the extent to which 
such policies ultimately may promote more service, especially in rural 
areas.
    47. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether it could 
use its existing oversight role during the license renewal process to 
review a 700 MHz Band licensee's actions during its license term, 
including its participation in secondary market transactions, and 
evaluate issues related to spectrum access, service to rural areas, or 
both. Under this approach, licensees of unauctioned and auctioned 700 
MHz Band spectrum would be subject to greater informational filings and 
Commission review at renewal even if they are not involved in a 
comparative renewal proceeding.
3. Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to 
Tribal Lands
    48. Ensuring that qualifying tribal lands have access to 
affordable, quality telecommunications services continues to be a goal 
of the Commission. Promoting access to spectrum and the provision of 
service on tribal lands is an important means to meet that goal. 
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on what steps, if any, it can 
take with regard to the 700 MHz Band to further facilitate access to 
spectrum and the provision of service to tribal lands. Some of these 
steps, such as the performance requirements discussed in this NPRM, 
generally would be applicable to the unauctioned spectrum in the 700 
MHz Band. In contrast, policies to facilitate access to spectrum in 
tribal lands could be applied to both unauctioned and the already 
auctioned spectrum in this band.
    49. The Commission's rules currently promote deployment of wireless 
services on tribal lands through its Tribal Lands Bidding Credit. The 
Commission seeks comment on whether it should make any potential 
adjustments to its Tribal Land Bidding Credit rules as they apply to 
the 700 MHz Band licenses to be auctioned in order to further the 
deployment of wireless services to tribal lands. The Commission also 
seeks comment on use of the Tribal Land Bidding Credit in this context 
given statutory requirements that the Commission commence the auction 
for recovered analog broadcast spectrum no later than January 28, 2008, 
and deposit the proceeds from such an auction in the Digital Television 
Transition and Public Safety Fund no later than June 30, 2008. For 
instance, the Commission asks whether it needs to reduce for the 700 
MHz Band auction the 180 day period that winning bidders currently have 
to obtain a Tribal Lands Bidding Credit. Alternatively, the Commission 
asks whether it should accept as sufficient from winning bidders in a 
700 MHz Band auction either self-certification or a promise to 
negotiate in good faith with the tribal government. In either case, the 
Commission would thereby rely, at least in part, on the winning 
bidder's need to obtain consent of the tribal government to ensure that 
the tribes are adequately included in the process. The Commission asks 
what, if any, other changes should be made to the Tribal Lands Bidding 
Credit process in light of the special circumstances for the 700 MHz 
Band. In addition, given the statutory deadlines, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether its goal of promoting the deployment of wireless 
services to tribal lands would be better served with respect to the 700 
MHz Band by exploring other means to promote access to spectrum and the 
provision of service in tribal lands.
    50. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it should consider 
applying a ``keep what you use'' performance requirement to the tribal 
lands portion of geographic license areas, even if it decides to apply 
some other standard, such as substantial service, to all other areas of 
a license that are not tribal lands. In addition, the Commission seeks 
comment on whether any policies designed to facilitate access to 
spectrum, such as requiring ``good faith'' negotiations or other 
efforts by licensees in response to a request for a spectrum lease, 
should be applied specifically to tribal lands, even if the Commission 
decides not to apply these policies to non-tribal license areas. 
Similarly, the Commission asks whether there are other steps that it 
could take to revise its partitioning and disaggregation rules in order 
to better facilitate access to spectrum on tribal lands. Commenters 
also should consider, as discussed in this NPRM, whether the provision 
of service to tribal lands could be codified as a criteria or factor 
relevant to a licensee's demonstration that renewal is in the public 
interest.
    51. To the extent the Commission should revise its performance 
requirements and/or policies to facilitate access to spectrum and apply 
these policies only to tribal lands, it seeks comment generally on how 
such a process should be implemented. For instance, the Commission 
seeks comment on how a ``keep what you use'' approach for tribal lands 
would operate in the event all other license areas were subject to 
different performance requirements. Similarly, the Commission seeks 
comment on the feasibility of applying one set of secondary markets 
rules to those portions of a license that cover tribal lands while 
applying different rules to the rest of a licensee's geographic area.
    52. The Commission also seeks comment on whether it would 
facilitate access to spectrum and promote service to tribal lands to 
create license areas based on the contours of a reservation or any 
tribal boundary line. The Commission seeks comment whether adopting 
this policy would have the unintended consequence of partitioning off 
licenses covering tribal lands such that the newly created license 
areas will remain unbuilt, because companies will bid only for the 
licenses not covering the tribal lands. For instance, the Commission 
asks whether it would generally be economically feasible to provide 
service only within a tribal land service area. The Commission notes 
that, unlike other service areas, many tribal land service areas would 
result in licensed areas wholly contained within the larger geographic 
area of other licensees. The Commission asks whether: (1) Interference 
issues would be more significant because of the greater number of 
borders between licensed service areas; and (2) limitations of system 
design may make it difficult to engineer solutions around multiple 
small areas. It asks whether any of these technical obstacles could be 
mitigated by limiting tribal land license areas to tribal lands of a 
particular size or greater, or to those not contained wholly within 
another license area. The Commission also asks commenters to address 
possible auction-related difficulties caused by this approach, 
especially those for potential bidders. For instance, if the Commission 
were to implement this approach for a single spectrum block for which 
the basic geographic area was CMAs, the 585 federally recognized tribal 
lands, combined with the 734 CMAs, would result in 1319 separate 
licenses being offered for that one block.
    53. Finally, in the event the Commission adopts other policies 
discussed in this NPRM, such as increasing the number of spectrum 
blocks made available and/or the

[[Page 48514]]

amount of spectrum assigned by small geographic license areas in the 
700 MHz Band, the Commission seeks comment on whether policies focused 
solely on tribal lands would be necessary.

D. Criteria for Renewal

    54. The Commission seeks comment on whether to amend its rules to 
clarify or modify the requirements and procedures of the renewal 
process for licenses in the 700 MHz Band, including both licenses that 
have already been auctioned and those that have yet to be auctioned. 
For example, the Commission seeks comment on whether to use renewal 
criteria to replace the procedures for the filing of competing 
applications at renewal time. For instance, the licenses could revert 
to the Commission for re-auction should a license not be renewed. The 
Commission also asks commenters to address whether any amendments of 
its rules on the renewal process should be limited to the unauctioned 
700 MHz Band licenses, or whether any such amendments also should apply 
to those 700 MHz Band licenses which already have been auctioned in 
order to have a unitary regime for these licenses. The renewal criteria 
and process for authorizations for the 700 MHz Guard Bands at Blocks A 
and B in the Upper 700 MHz Band are beyond the scope of this NPRM.
    55. The Commission first seeks comment on whether 700 MHz Band 
licensees should be subject to requirements at renewal in addition to 
any end-of-term performance requirements. Licensees are required to 
meet ``substantial service'' under the performance requirements of 47 
CFR 27.14(a) as well as in the context of any renewal proceedings under 
47 CFR 27.14(b) of the Commission's rules. Although renewal of 700 MHz 
Band licensees is governed under 47 CFR 27.14(b) through (d) of the 
Commission's rules, which indicates that a comparative process is used 
to choose among renewal applicants based on certain showings, the rule 
does not describe the factors that the Commission will consider in 
connection with a license renewal application to the extent no 
competing application is filed. When establishing the part 27 rules 
that apply to the 700 MHz Band, the Commission notes that it stated 
only that it will require that a renewal application include at a 
minimum the following showing for a renewal expectancy: (1) A 
description of current service in terms of geographic coverage and 
population served or links installed; (2) an explanation of the 
licensee's record of expansion, including a timetable for the 
construction of new base sites or links to meet changes in demand for 
service; (3) a description of the licensee's investments in its system; 
and (4) copies of any Commission orders finding the licensee to have 
violated the Communications Act or any Commission rule or policy, and a 
list of any pending proceedings that relate to any matter described by 
the requirements for the renewal expectancy. Although the Commission 
did not codify any special informational showings from 700 MHz renewal 
applicants unless they are ``involved in a comparative renewal 
proceeding'' triggered by the filing of a competing application, 47 CFR 
27.14(b), licensees' renewal applications are nevertheless subject to 
Commission's review and approval based on general public interest 
factors (e.g., amount and type of service provided by the licensee 
during its license term). Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether it should amend its rules to define the standards and 
informational filings that apply to license renewal applications for 
these licenses. These criteria for renewal would apply to 700 MHz 
authorizations that have been assigned, transferred, partitioned or 
disaggregated during their license terms. In particular, the Commission 
seeks comment on the requirements (or factors) that should be 
considered for 700 MHz Band licensees at renewal, including: the level 
of service and whether it was ``substantial''; whether service was ever 
interrupted and discontinued; whether service has been provided to any 
rural areas; whether a licensee has received any requests from others 
seeking to enter into spectrum leasing arrangements, and whether it has 
entered into any such arrangements; and any other factors typically 
associated with assessments of a licensee's level of service to the 
public. Commenters should address which, if any, of these or other 
elements should be codified as requirements for renewal or, in the 
alternative, whether the Commission should list factors that are 
relevant to a licensee's demonstration that renewal is in the public 
interest.
    56. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should 
integrate 47 CFR 27.14(a)'s ``substantial service'' performance 
requirement, and any new end-of-term requirements, into the renewal 
process for 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission notes that, in its 
past orders, it focused on renewal in the context of partitioned and 
disaggregated licenses, and stated that to the extent a licensee meets 
the substantial service performance requirement, it will be deemed to 
have met this element of the renewal expectancy requirement regardless 
of which of the construction options it has chosen. Accordingly, to the 
extent the Commission's renewal requirements and at least some of its 
performance requirements apply at the end of a license term, the 
Commission seeks comment on the advantages and disadvantages of 
combining these requirements into, for example, a single substantial 
service provision in 47 CFR 27.14 of the Commission's rules. This rule 
section requires that licensees demonstrate ``substantial'' service 
both as a ``construction requirement'' ``within the prescribed license 
term'' and to obtain a renewal expectancy preference in a comparative 
hearing. 47 CFR 27.14(a) and (b). Thus, the Commission's rules require 
substantial service by the end of a 700 MHz Band licensee's term, the 
same point at which renewal filings would be reviewed and potentially 
granted. See 47 CFR 27.14(a).
    57. For instance, instead of requiring the enforcement of separate 
rules regulating construction or discontinuance of service, see 47 CFR 
1.955(a)(3) (providing that wireless licenses automatically terminate 
if service is permanently discontinued and stating that ``permanent 
discontinuance'' is defined in either the specific authorization or the 
service rules governing that authorization); but see 47 CFR 27.66 
(requiring Part 27 licensees that discontinue service to notify the 
Commission in certain contexts, but not providing a definition of 
``permanent discontinuance''), the Commission could replace such end-
of-term/mid-term requirement(s) and require 700 MHz Band licensees to 
submit informational showings in their renewal applications based on 
factors that could be used to determine whether a grant of renewal is 
in the public interest. Under this approach, all licensees, included 
those holding authorizations that have been assigned, transferred, 
partitioned or disaggregated during their license terms, would be 
subject to review on these criteria, and the Commission would not need 
to have separate procedures for assessing satisfaction of construction 
standards (e.g., standards pertaining to partitioned licenses under 47 
CFR 27.15(d)(1)), and for determining whether renewal criteria have 
been met. In the event that the Commission decides to integrate 
performance requirements and end-of-term requirements into the renewal 
process for 700 MHz Band licensees, the Commission seeks comment on 
whether

[[Page 48515]]

licensees who fail to meet such requirements could be subject to 
potential forfeiture penalties. If, for example, a licensee files for 
renewal, but fails to meet the substantial service requirement, the 
Commission seeks comment on whether it could be subject to forfeiture 
penalties under this approach.
    58. Finally, under a modified or combined 47 CFR 27.14 standard, 
the Commission seeks comment on whether to use codified renewal 
criteria to measure the 700 MHz Band licensees' level of service 
instead of relying on any performance incentives that may arise due to 
the possibility of competing applications being filed against a renewal 
(with the concomitant need for the incumbent to demonstrate 
``substantial service'' to receive a renewal expectancy preference). 
Although 47 CFR 27.14(b) through (d) of Commission rules indicates that 
a comparative process is used to choose among renewal and competing 
applicants, it is unclear what type of comparative hearing is to be 
employed. Under a modified 47 CFR 27.14 of the Commission's rules, the 
Commission could eliminate the filing of competing applications at 
renewal time and, for example, adopt a process by which licenses revert 
to the Commission for re-auction if a license is not renewed. To the 
extent such an approach is ad