Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings; Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 39977-40003 [2014-15769]
Download as PDF
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Respondents: Businesses or other forprofit.
Number of Respondents: 10,000
respondents; 10,000 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 0.5
hours.
Frequency of Response: One time
reporting requirement and third party
disclosure requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. Statutory
authority for this information collection
is contained in 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 302,
303, 303(r), and 307.
Total Annual Burden: 5,000 hours.
Total Annual Costs: N/A.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
There is no need for confidentiality.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: N/A.
Needs and Uses: On January 31, 2013,
the Commission adopted a Report and
Order, ET Docket Nos. 10–236 and 06–
155, FCC 13–15, which revised the rules
in § 2.803(c)(2) to include limited
marketing activities prior to equipment
authorization.
The Commission has established rules
for the marketing of radio frequency
(RF) devices prior to equipment
authorization under guidelines in 47
CFR 2.803. The general guidelines in
§ 2.803 prohibit the marketing or sale of
such equipment prior to a
demonstration of compliance with the
applicable equipment authorization and
technical requirements in the case of a
device subject to verification or
Declaration of Conformity without
special notification. Section 2.803(c)(2)
permits limited marketing activities
prior to equipment authorization, for
devices that could be authorized under
the current rules; could be authorized
under waivers of such rules that are in
effect at the time of marketing; or could
be authorized under rules that have
been adopted by the Commission but
that have not yet become effective.
These devices may be not operated
unless permitted by § 2.805.
The following general guidelines
apply for third party notifications: (a) A
RF device may be advertised and
displayed at a trade show or exhibition
prior to a demonstration of compliance
with the applicable technical standards
and compliance with the applicable
equipment authorization procedure
provided the advertising and display is
accompanied by a conspicuous notice
specified in §§ 2.803(c)(2)(iii)(A) or
2.803(c)(2)(iii)(B).
(b) An offer for sale solely to business,
commercial, industrial, scientific, or
medical users of an RF device in the
conceptual, developmental, design or
pre-production stage prior to
demonstration of compliance with the
equipment authorization regulations
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
may be permitted provided that the
prospective buyer is advised in writing
at the time of the offer for sale that the
equipment is subject to FCC rules and
that the equipment will comply with the
appropriate rules before delivery to the
buyer or centers of distribution.
(c) Equipment sold as evaluation kit
may be sold to specific users with notice
specified in § 2.803(c)(2)(iv)(B).
The information to be disclosed about
marketing of the RF device is intended:
(1) To ensure the compliance of the
proposed equipment with Commission
rules; and
(2) To assist industry efforts to
introduce new products to the
marketplace more promptly.
The information disclosure applies to
a variety of RF devices that:
(1) Is pending equipment
authorization or verification of
compliance;
(2) May be manufactured in the
future;
(3) May be sold as kits; and
(4) Operates under varying technical
standards.
The information disclosed is essential
to ensuring that interference to radio
communications is controlled.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014–15877 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 12–269; Docket No. 12–
268; FCC 14–63]
Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum
Holdings; Expanding the Economic
and Innovation Opportunities of
Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission) updates its initial screen
for review of spectrum acquisitions
through secondary markets and makes
determinations regarding whether to
establish mobile spectrum holding
limits for its upcoming auctions of highand low-band spectrum, in light of the
growing demand for spectrum, the
differences between spectrum bands,
and in accordance with its desire to
preserve and promote competition.
DATES: Effective September 9, 2014.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39977
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel Ball, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418–
1577, email Daniel.Ball@fcc.gov; Amy
Brett, Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau (202) 418–2703, email
Amy.Brett@fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Report
and Order (R&O), WT Docket No. 12–
269; Docket No. 12–268; FCC 14–63,
adopted May 15, 2014 and released June
2, 2014. The full text of this document
is available for inspection and copying
during business hours in the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II,
445 12th Street SW., Room CY–A257,
Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445
12th Street SW., Room CY–B402,
Washington, DC 20554; the contractor’s
Web site, https://www.bcpiweb.com; or
by calling (800) 378–3160, facsimile
(202) 488–5563, or email FCC@
BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the R&O also
may be obtained via the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) by entering the docket number
WT Docket No. 12–269. Additionally,
the complete item is available on the
Federal Communications Commission’s
Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
1. In the R&O the Commission
updates its spectrum screen for its
competitive review of proposed
secondary market transactions to reflect
current suitability and availability of
spectrum for mobile wireless services. It
adds to its spectrum screen: 40
megahertz of AWS–4; 10 megahertz of H
Block; 65 megahertz of AWS–3 (when it
becomes available on a market-bymarket basis); 12 megahertz of BRS; 89
megahertz of EBS; and the total amount
of 600 MHz spectrum auctioned in the
Incentive Auction. It subtract from its
spectrum screen: 12.5 megahertz of
SMR; and 10 megahertz that was the
Upper 700 MHz D Block. The
Commission establishes a market-based
spectrum reserve of up to 30 megahertz
in the Incentive Auction in each license
area to ensure against excessive
concentration in holdings of low-band
spectrum and ensuring that all bidders
bear a fair share of the cost of the
Incentive Auction. It adopts limits on
secondary market transactions of 600
MHz spectrum licenses for six years
post-auction. It declines to adopt
auction-specific limits for AWS–3. It
treats certain further concentrations of
below-1-GHz spectrum as an enhanced
factor in its case-by-case analysis of the
potential competitive harms posed by
individual transactions.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39978
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
I. Preserving and Promoting
Competition in the Mobile Wireless
Marketplace
2. The Commission has long
recognized that ‘‘spectrum is an input in
CMRS markets,’’ and that ‘‘the state of
control over the spectrum input is a
relevant factor’’ in its competitive
analysis. Ensuring that sufficient
spectrum is available for multiple
existing mobile service providers as
well as potential entrants is crucial to
promoting consumer choice and
competition throughout the country,
including in rural areas, and is similarly
crucial to fostering innovation in the
marketplace. For these reasons,
Congress directed the Commission to
proactively ‘‘include safeguards to
protect the public interest’’ when
specifying the classes and
characteristics of licenses and permits to
be issued by competitive bidding, and to
‘‘promot[e] economic opportunity and
competition and ensur[e] that new and
innovative technologies are readily
accessible to the American people by
avoiding excessive concentration of
licenses[.]’’ In order for there to be
robust competition, multiple competing
service providers must have access to or
hold sufficient spectrum to be able to
enter a marketplace or expand output
rapidly in response to any price increase
or reduction in quality, or other change
that would harm consumer welfare.
Consistent with the Commission’s
statutory mandate, the fundamental goal
that has guided its policies regarding
mobile spectrum holdings has been the
preservation and promotion of
competition, which in turn, enables
consumers to make choices among
numerous service providers and leads to
lower prices, improved quality, and
increased innovation.
3. Since the Commission’s last
comprehensive review of its mobile
spectrum holdings policies more than a
decade ago, the marketplace for mobile
wireless services has evolved
significantly—both in consumer
demand for services and market
structure—as has the role of low-band
spectrum for coverage purposes and
high-band spectrum for capacity
purposes in the deployment of
providers’ networks. As providers
deploy next-generation mobile
networks, the engineering properties
and deployment capabilities of the mix
of particular spectrum bands in
providers’ holdings have become
increasingly important, particularly as
multi-band phones allow users to take
advantage of the different properties of
different spectrum bands. Moreover,
while the mobile wireless marketplace a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
decade ago consisted of six nearnationwide providers and a substantial
number of regional and small providers,
since then, there has been a significant
degree of consolidation resulting in a
market with four nationwide providers
and a smaller number of regional and
more local service providers.
4. Reflecting this evolution in the
mobile wireless marketplace, the
Commission, in recent years, has
considered in more detail the technical
distinctions among spectrum bands
used to deploy next-generation mobile
networks. The Commission adopted
mobile spectrum holdings policies in
this rulemaking that address how the
differences among spectrum bands may
affect its overall competitive analysis of
spectrum acquisitions and therefore its
decision making for both auctions and
secondary market transactions.
5. In adopting these policies, the
Commission is mindful that the
statutory framework established by
Congress for mobile wireless services
and implemented by the Commission,
with its reliance on competition as the
primary driver of consumer benefits, has
fostered substantial economic growth
and consumer benefits for its nation.
Among other goals, Congress has
directed us as well to promote the
‘‘efficient and intensive use of the
electromagnetic spectrum’’ and avoid an
‘‘excessive concentration of licenses’’ in
the design of systems of competitive
bidding, as well as to review
transactions to ensure that they serve
the public interest.
6. Consistent with the evolution of the
marketplace and the Commission’s
statutory directives and policy goals,
and in light of the evolution of wireless
services demanded by consumers, the
Commission must ensure that multiple
service providers have access to
spectrum in the foreseeable future.
Existing marketplace conditions,
including concerns about the potential
for anticompetitive behavior, inform its
predictive judgment but are not
determinative as to whether the
Commission needs to act. The mobile
spectrum holdings policies the
Commission adopted are necessary to
preserve and promote consumer choice
and competition among multiple service
providers, promote the efficient and
intensive use of spectrum, maximize
economic opportunity, and foster the
deployment of innovative technologies.
A. Evolution of the Mobile Wireless
Marketplace
7. During the past decade, provider
supply and consumer demand for
wireless services has exploded, moving
from the provision of mobile voice
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
services to the provision of mobile
broadband services. The rapid adoption
of smartphones, tablet computers,
mobile applications, and increasing
deployment of high-speed 3G and now
4G technologies, is driving significantly
more intensive use of mobile networks.
In 2013, a single smartphone generated
48 times more mobile data traffic than
a feature phone, and average
smartphone usage grew 50 percent in
2013. The adoption of smartphones
increased from 27 percent to 54 percent
of U.S. subscribers from December 2010
to December 2012. Consequently,
service providers generally need access
to more spectrum to meet the increasing
demand for mobile broadband, which
consumes far greater amounts of
bandwidth than did mobile phones just
a short time ago.
8. The wireless industry has also
undergone significant consolidation
during the past decade. In 2003, there
were six nationwide facilities-based
wireless service providers: AT&T
Wireless, Sprint PCS, Verizon Wireless,
T-Mobile, Cingular Wireless, and
Nextel. Now there are four—Verizon
Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
In addition, there have been several
significant spectrum-only transactions,
such as AT&T-Qualcomm (2011),
Verizon Wireless-SpectrumCo (2012),
and AT&T WCS (2012) that have
resulted in increased spectrum
aggregation among the remaining
providers.
9. Concentration in the market share
of the major providers has also
increased during that time period. As of
December 2003, the top six facilitiesbased nationwide providers accounted
for approximately 79 percent of total
mobile wireless subscribers in the
country. By December 2013, the top four
facilities-based nationwide providers
had increased their combined market
share to 97 percent of all subscribers.
Verizon Wireless and AT&T together
accounted for 68 percent of the nation’s
subscribers as of year-end 2013,
compared to 51 percent in 2004. Some
regional and local service providers
have achieved significant market shares
within particular local markets, often
the most rural markets, but they
typically rely on roaming agreements
with nationwide facilities-based
providers to extend the geographic
reach of their networks.
10. The Commission has ‘‘ample
latitude to adapt its rules and policies
to the demands of changing
circumstances.’’ In light of these trends
and current spectrum aggregations, the
Commission must examine whether
changes in its mobile spectrum holdings
policies are necessary to facilitate the
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
robust competition that leads to lower
prices, improved quality, and greater
innovation. The following are some of
the benefits of competition: Service
providers have offered various pricing
plans, ranging from tiered usage-based
data pricing with overage charges
(Verizon Wireless, AT&T) to unlimited
data pricing (Sprint), and in 2012, both
Verizon Wireless and AT&T launched
shared data plans for smartphones and
other mobile data devices, and T-Mobile
reintroduced an unlimited smartphone
data pricing option.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
B. Ensuring That All Americans Benefit
From Mobile Wireless Competition
11. Based upon the record before us,
the Commission finds that the spectrum
aggregation limits the Commission
adopted is needed to advance its
statutory objectives under section 309(j),
to promote competition, and to avoid
competitive harms. The Commission’s
competition-related decision making is
designed to advance the public interest
by preserving and promoting
competition that benefits consumers
and the Commission must consider the
totality of the circumstances and choose
policies that are most likely to allow
competition to flourish for the public
benefit. Accordingly, the Commission
recognizes the important tradeoffs in the
policy decision at hand. Policies that
would limit the ability of major
providers to acquire additional
spectrum licenses may limit their ability
to provide new services or serve new
customers. At the same time, policies
that would allow these service providers
to acquire all or substantially all of the
spectrum licenses to be auctioned in the
near future, particularly spectrum
licenses being auctioned in the
Incentive Auction, or that would allow
further concentration in below-1-GHz
spectrum in secondary market
transactions without enhanced scrutiny,
would raise significant competitive
issues.
12. Raising Rivals’ Costs and
Foreclosure. In 2001, the Commission
recognized that ‘‘it is at least a threshold
possibility that because the supply of
suitable spectrum is limited, firms in
CMRS markets might choose to
overinvest in spectrum in order to deter
entry, depending on the costs of doing
so.’’ In certain situations, a dominant
firm may raise rivals’ costs by a variety
of means, including input
monopolization. As rivals’ costs are
raised, the competiveness of the
marketplace is likely to diminish.
Foreclosure can occur when competitors
have an incentive and ability to acquire
an input not only to put it to their own
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
use, but also to withhold it from their
rivals.
13. Discussion. In its review of the
evolution of the mobile wireless
marketplace, its current state, and the
potential future effects on consumers,
the Commission is required to consider
a number of concerns to advance the
public interest. Section 309(j) requires
the Commission to balance a number of
specific statutory objectives including
competition, diversity and the
avoidance of excessive concentration in
designing its rules regarding spectrum
licenses and the competitive bidding
assignment process. The Commission
finds that, under the totality of
circumstances, the public interest will
be advanced by: Reaffirming the current
case-by-case review of proposed
transactions, with continued use of a
spectrum screen triggered at
aggregations of approximately one third
or more of the spectrum suitable and
available for mobile telephony/
broadband; updating the spectrum
screen to include spectrum currently
suitable and available for mobile
telephony/broadband; treating certain
levels of increased aggregations of
below-1-GHz spectrum as an enhanced
factor during case-by-case review of
secondary market transactions involving
below-1-GHz spectrum; and establishing
a market-based spectrum reserve in the
upcoming 600 MHz auction.
14. There are three independent bases
for its conclusion, each of which the
Commission finds warrants the policies
the Commission adopted: (1) The
importance of access to low-band
spectrum to promote variety in licensees
and the advancement of rural
deployment as directed by Section
309(j), (2) the benefits to consumers
associated with robust competition
among multiple providers having access
to low-band spectrum, and (3) the
potential for competitive harm if the
Commission does not provide
safeguards to mitigate against the
possibility of providers raising rivals’
costs or foreclosing competition by
denying competitors access to low-band
spectrum.
15. Its findings are compelled by the
changing circumstances posed by the
marketplace today: Increased
consolidation, the growth in demand for
mobile broadband, and the significance
of the upcoming 600 MHz auction. First,
the Commission recognizes that the
mobile wireless marketplace has
undergone considerable consolidation,
both in terms of number of firms and
relative market shares, as well as
increased concentration of low-band
spectrum. Recent acquisitions have
exacerbated this concentration. While
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39979
limited amounts of low-band spectrum
might theoretically be acquired in
secondary market transactions, the vast
bulk of that spectrum has already been
acquired. There is also significantly less
low-band spectrum than there is highband spectrum: after its decisions, there
will be 134 megahertz of spectrum
below 1 GHz suitable and available for
the provision of mobile broadband
services and 446.5 megahertz of suitable
and available spectrum above 1 GHz.
Concentration in spectrum holdings by
service providers of low-band spectrum
has become particularly pronounced,
with Verizon Wireless and AT&T
together having aggregated more than 90
percent of all cellular spectrum. In
addition, these two service providers
together currently hold approximately
72 percent of 700 MHz spectrum. By
comparison, variation in spectrum
holdings of higher-frequency spectrum
in the range of 1 to 2 GHz is more
evenly distributed: Of the PCS
spectrum, Verizon Wireless holds 16
percent, AT&T holds 29 percent, Sprint
holds 28 percent and T-Mobile holds 22
percent; of the AWS–1 spectrum,
Verizon Wireless holds 37 percent,
AT&T holds 13 percent, and T-Mobile
holds 42 percent.
16. Second, its findings are informed
by the skyrocketing consumer demand
for mobile broadband. Today,
consumers are demanding more data at
higher speeds, while at home, at work,
and in transit. The Commission finds
that to provide sufficient level of service
in the marketplace to the benefit of
consumers, providers will need to
deploy more spectrum that can provide
both coverage and in-building
penetration, as well as spectrum that
can provide the increased throughput
for mobile broadband applications
17. Third, its findings are based on
the recognition that the 600 MHz
spectrum that will be made available in
the Incentive Auction will be the last
offering of a significant amount of
nationwide greenfield low-band
spectrum for the foreseeable future. This
is particularly important because of the
very different characteristics of lowband spectrum. There is a large
frequency gap between the below-1-GHz
spectrum (in the 700 and 800 MHz
bands now largely held by the leading
providers and the 600 MHz Incentive
Auction spectrum) and the remaining
spectrum currently suitable and
available for mobile broadband use,
beginning with the AWS–1 band at 1710
MHz. Low-band spectrum possesses
distinct propagation advantages for
network deployment, particularly in
rural areas and indoors. As a result, the
auction of spectrum below 1 GHz
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39980
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
presents a once-in-a-generation
opportunity to promote competition as
specifically required by section 309(j).
Based upon current trends in consumer
demand for mobile broadband services,
the Commission concludes that the
decisions the Commission makes here
will have a significant impact on the
extent to which competition may
flourish for years to come.
18. Though there is substantial
support in the record for distinguishing
between low-band and high-band
spectrum based on propagation
characteristics, as discussed above, the
Commission finds that the record does
not support such categorical
distinctions between three different
spectrum groupings—below-1-GHz,
1–2.2 GHz, and 2.3–2.7 GHz—as
recently advocated by Sprint.
19. Variety of Licensees and Rural
Deployment. Under Section 309(j),
Congress mandated that the
Commission designs auctions to
‘‘include safeguards to protect the
public interest in the use of the
spectrum,’’ including the objectives to
disseminate licenses ‘‘among a wide
variety of applicants’’ and to promote
deployment of new technologies,
products, and services to ‘‘those
residing in rural areas.’’ The limited
restrictions the Commission imposes on
spectrum holdings will promote both of
these statutory policies. A variety of
licensees is particularly important in
light of the lack of competitive offerings
in rural America today.
20. Increasing the number of
providers who have access to low-band
spectrum can increase the competitive
offerings of mobile wireless service for
consumers, particularly in rural areas.
Two nationwide providers control the
vast majority of low-band spectrum, and
this disparity makes it difficult for rural
consumers to have access to the
competition and choice that would be
available if more wireless competitors
also had access to low-band spectrum.
Low-band spectrum, given its unique
propagation characteristics, can serve as
a foundation for expansion of an
existing network or a new or upcoming
service providers’ network deployment
as it builds a customer base to support
further growth. The Commission finds
that its spectrum holdings policies will
promote variety in licensees and
deployment of new technologies to
those residing in rural areas.
21. The Commission believes that
holding a mix of spectrum bands is
advantageous to providers and that
consumer’s benefit when multiple
providers have access to a mix of
spectrum bands which in turn can
increase competition, drive down
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
prices, and ensure continued innovation
and investment. Accordingly, the
Commission finds its public interest
goal of promoting consumer welfare
would be advanced by the policies the
Commission adopted.
22. Potential for Competitive Harm
From Increased Aggregation of
Spectrum. The Commission also finds
that in the absence of additional below1-GHz spectrum on a nationwide basis,
there is a substantial likelihood of
competitive harm if providers that
currently lack sufficient access to such
spectrum cannot acquire it. Under
section 309(j), the Commission has
mandates to promote competition,
promote efficient use of spectrum, and
avoid the excessive concentration of
licenses. Low-band spectrum is less
costly to deploy and provides higher
coverage quality and the leading
providers have most of the low-band
spectrum available today. If they were to
acquire all or substantially all of the
remaining low-band spectrum, they
would benefit independently of any
deployment of this newly acquired
spectrum to the extent that their rivals
are denied its use. Without access to
this low-band spectrum, their rivals
would be less able to provide a
competitive alternative.
23. Along with an attenuated ability
to increase output or service quality in
response to price increases, providers
that lack access to low-band spectrum
may lack the ability quickly to expand
coverage or provide new or innovative
services, which would have a significant
impact on competition in the mobile
wireless marketplace. The Commission
agrees that a service provider that is
limited to high-band spectrum holdings
would face challenges to provide
services as robust as those offered by
providers holding a mix of low- and
high-band spectrum. The consumer
harms from the raising of rivals’ costs
from increased concentration of lowband spectrum outweigh the potential
benefits of unlimited spectrum
aggregation. Accordingly, the
Commission finds that the limited
restrictions the Commission adopted
will reasonably balance its goals of
promoting competition, ensuring the
efficient use of spectrum, and avoiding
an excessive concentration of licenses in
accord with section 309(j).
24. Foreclosure. The Commission
agrees with DOJ, today’s mobile wireless
marketplace is characterized by factors
that, according to DOJ, increase the
potential for anticompetitive conduct,
including high market concentration,
highly concentrated holdings of lowband spectrum, high margins, and high
barriers to entry. These risk factors
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
increase the incentive and ability for a
provider with low-band spectrum to bid
for the spectrum in an attempt to stifle
competition that may arise if multiple
licensees were to hold low frequency
spectrum. As a result, such a provider
might be the highest bidder in a
spectrum auction, not because it will
put the spectrum to its highest use, but
because it is motivated to engage in a
foreclosure strategy. In light of this risk
and balancing the inherent tradeoffs, the
Commission finds that the limited
restrictions the Commission enacted is a
reasonable balance of the Section 309(j)
and public interest factors that form its
statutory mandate, including the goals
to promote competition, disseminate
licenses among a wide variety of
applicants, ensure high quality service
to those in rural areas and avoid the
excessive concentration of licenses,
while also promoting the efficient and
intensive use of the spectrum.
C. Conclusion
25. For the reasons set forth above,
spectrum is a limited and essential
input for the provision of mobile
wireless telephony and broadband
services, and ensuring access to, and the
availability of, sufficient spectrum is
critical to promoting the competition
that drives innovation and investment.
The Communications Act has long
required the Commission to examine
closely the impact of spectrum
aggregation on competition, innovation,
and the efficient use of spectrum to
ensure that spectrum is allocated and
assigned in a manner that serves the
public interest, convenience and
necessity, and avoids the excessive
concentration of licenses. In recent
years, the Commission has considered
in more detail and largely in the context
of its case-by-case analysis of secondary
market transactions how distinctions
among spectrum bands affect
competition in the provision of nextgeneration mobile broadband services.
26. In today’s marketplace, in many
service areas currently suitable and
available below-1-GHz spectrum is
disproportionately concentrated in the
hands of larger nationwide service
providers: The two largest providers
hold 73 percent of the low-band
spectrum. Particularly in the context of
the once-in-a-generation Incentive
Auction, the Commission finds that
there is a reasonably foreseeable risk of
not achieving its various section 309(j)
goals whether or not leading providers
are motivated by foreclosure strategies.
The Commission concludes that if the
Commission do not act at this time to
ensure the highest use of low-band
spectrum, the competitive choices
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
available to wireless consumers will
likely be substantially less attractive.
The Commission therefore finds it
essential to establish clear and
transparent policies that will preserve
and promote competition in the future,
promote the efficient use of spectrum,
ensure competitive mobile broadband
service in rural areas, and avoid an
excessive concentration of licenses. The
Commission finds that excessive
concentration in the allocation of
relatively scarce below-1-GHz spectrum,
given ever increasing consumer demand
for more bandwidth-intensive services,
would substantially harm the public
interest and indeed, would create a
significant risk in the future of an
insufficient number of service providers
with a network capable of satisfying
consumer demand.
27. The Commission finds that the
promotion of competition, variety of
licensees, rural coverage, and consumer
choice in the mobile marketplace, as
well as in the future, crucially depends
upon multiple providers having access
to the low-band spectrum they need to
operate and vigorously compete. The
Commission also finds that the
Commission must consider the potential
for anticompetitive results if the
concentrated holdings of below-1-GHz
spectrum are not addressed. The
Commission cannot ignore the
possibility of diminished competition in
the future, both from rivals’ costs being
raised and from foreclosure. Further, the
Commission finds that the burden that
some providers may experience by
limits on their ability to acquire
increasing amounts of below-1-GHz
spectrum, when tailored to the
minimum the Commission believed
necessary to promote competition, will
be outweighed by the public interest
benefits that will flow from the
preservation and promotion of robust
and sustainable competition. By
adopting clear and transparent spectrum
aggregation limits, the Commission aim
to ensure that American consumers
have meaningful choices among
multiple service providers in the future.
II. Changes to the Spectrum Screen
28. The Commission retains the
current standard for whether particular
bands should be included in the
spectrum screen—‘‘suitable’’ and
‘‘available’’ in the near term for the
provision of mobile telephony/
broadband services. The Commission
determines that the following spectrum
should be added to the spectrum screen:
The 600 MHz band (at the conclusion of
the Incentive Auction), Advanced
Wireless Services in the 2000–2020
MHz and 2180–2200 MHz spectrum
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
bands (AWS–4), H Block, additional
BRS spectrum, the majority of the EBS
spectrum, and the AWS–3 band (on a
market-by-market basis as it becomes
‘‘available’’). The Commission also
determines that it should not include
the Upper 700 MHz D Block and a
certain amount of the SMR spectrum,
both of which previously have been
included.
A. Standard for Inclusion of Bands
29. When assessing spectrum
aggregation in its review of wireless
transactions, the Commission evaluates
the current spectrum holdings of the
acquiring firm that are ‘‘suitable’’ and
‘‘available’’ in the near term for the
provision of mobile telephony/
broadband services. Suitability is
determined by whether the spectrum is
capable of supporting mobile service
given its physical properties and the
state of equipment technology, whether
the spectrum is licensed with a mobile
allocation and corresponding service
rules, and whether the spectrum is
committed to another use that
effectively precludes its uses for mobile
services. Spectrum is considered
‘‘available’’ if it is ‘‘fairly certain that it
will meet the criteria for suitable
spectrum in the near term, an
assessment that can be made at the time
the spectrum is licensed or at later times
after changes in technology or
regulation that affect the consideration.’’
30. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, 77 FR 61330, October 9, 2012,
the Commission sought comment on
whether to continue to consider
spectrum based on the suitability and
availability standard or whether to
consider other factors and asked for any
legal, economic, and engineering
justifications to support existing or
modified criteria to determine the
suitability and availability standard.
The Commission also sought comment
on the application of the relevant factors
to particular spectrum bands and which
spectrum bands should be included in
the Commission’s spectrum analysis.
31. The Commission retains the
current definition. The Commission
finds that the current suitable and
available standard has worked well to
identify new spectrum to be included in
the spectrum screen, and the record
does not provide persuasive evidence to
support modifying the current
suitability and availability standard.
Any narrower definition such as
‘‘actually’’ or ‘‘imminently’’ available
would preclude relevant spectrum from
being accounted for in its analysis of
spectrum aggregation as the
Commission review secondary market
wireless transactions.
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39981
B. 600 MHz Band
32. The Commission finds that the
600 MHz Band is suitable for the
provision of mobile telephony/mobile
broadband services. In the Incentive
Auction Report and Order, the
Commission establishes rules to
implement the Incentive Auction and to
govern the use of the 600 MHz Band for
the provision of mobile wireless
services and adopts a band plan that
facilitates wireless broadband
deployment operations. The
Commission also finds that the 600 MHz
Band is available for the provision of
mobile telephony/mobile broadband
services, citing the framework for
transitioning incumbent broadcasters
from the 600 MHz Band within 39
months of the close of the auction set
forth in the Incentive Auction Report
and Order. Given this concrete
transition framework, the relative clarity
regarding the availability of this
spectrum, and the importance of this
band to the mobile wireless marketplace
going forward, the Commission
anticipates that the spectrum cleared at
auction is likely to begin having a
competitive impact very shortly after
the auction ends. As a result, the
Commission will consider the 600 MHz
Band to be available upon the release of
the Channel Reassignment PN after
conclusion of the Incentive Auction.
The amount of repurposed 600 MHz
Band spectrum added to the spectrum
screen will be equal to the total
megahertz amount of spectrum
repurposed for flexible use wireless
licenses.
C. Advanced Wireless Service
1. AWS–4 Spectrum
33. The Commission finds that the 40
megahertz of spectrum in the AWS–4
band is suitable and available for the
provision of mobile/telephony
broadband services, and therefore
should be included in the spectrum
screen. In the AWS–4 Report and Order,
the Commission adopted licensing,
operating, and technical rules for standalone terrestrial mobile wireless
operations in the AWS–4 band, which
already included an allocation for
mobile use, and took other actions to
remove regulatory barriers to mobile
broadband use of the AWS–4 band, as
described above. The Commission also
determined that it would assign AWS–
4 licenses to DISH, as the incumbent
MSS operator in that spectrum, and
established a concrete, proven process
for efficient relocation of incumbent
operations from 2180–2200 MHz. In
light of these Commission actions, the
Commission finds that the 40 megahertz
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
39982
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
in the AWS–4 band should be included
in the spectrum screen going forward.
34. The Commission rejects argument
that it should include only 35 out of the
40 megahertz of AWS–4 spectrum
because of the stringent technical
restrictions placed on AWS–4
operations in 2000–2005 MHz to protect
adjacent operations in the upper portion
of the H Block (1995–2000 MHz). Given
the flexibility provided in the AWS–4
Report and Order allowing these
technical restrictions on AWS–4
operations in 2000–2005 MHz to be
modified by commercial agreements
between licensees of the AWS–4 band
and the H Block, and the fact that DISH
now holds all AWS–4 and H Block
licenses, the Commission concludes that
any potential interference issues
between 2000–2005 MHz and 1995–
2000 MHz should be sufficiently
resolved so that the Commission should
count 2000–2005 MHz in the spectrum
screen along with the other 35
megahertz of AWS–4 spectrum.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
2. H Block
35. The Commission finds that the H
Block spectrum is suitable and available
for the provision of mobile/telephony
broadband services, and therefore
should be counted in the spectrum
screen. In the H Block Report and Order
(78 FR 50214, August 16, 2013), the
Commission explained that through the
adoption of service rules for this band,
the Commission increased the nation’s
supply of spectrum for flexible-use
services, including mobile broadband,
and in particular would extend the
widely deployed broadband PCS band
used by numerous providers to offer
mobile service across the United States.
The Commission also found that,
consistent with the technical rules it
adopted, the use of both the 1915–1920
MHz band and the 1995–2000 MHz
band can occur without causing harmful
interference to broadband PCS
downlink operations at 1930–1995
MHz. In light of these conclusions,
along with the recent completion of the
H Block auction and the fact that
incumbent licensees in these bands
previously were cleared by UTAM, Inc.
and by Sprint, the Commission finds
that the H Block should be included in
the spectrum screen going forward.
3. AWS–3 Bands
36. The Commission finds that the
AWS–3 bands (1695–1710 MHz, 1755–
1780 MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz) are
suitable for the provision of mobile
telephony/mobile broadband services.
In the recent AWS–3 Report and Order,
the Commission amended the
Allocation Table to include a mobile,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
non-Federal allocation for the 1695–
1710 MHz and 1755–1780 MHz bands,
which already applied to the 2155–2180
MHz band and found that licensing
AWS–3 bands in a combination of 5 and
10 megahertz blocks aligns well with a
variety of wireless broadband
technologies, including LTE, Wideband
Code Division Multiple Access
(WCDMA), HSPA, and LTE-advanced.
The Commission concluded that pairing
uplink/mobile transmit operations in
the 1755–1780 MHz band with
downlink operations in the 2155–2180
MHz band would be compatible with
similar operations in the adjacent AWS–
1 band, effectively creating a combined
140 megahertz band. Further, the
Commission observed that no regulation
would prohibit licensees from pairing
the unpaired 1695–1710 MHz uplink
band with another present or future
licensed downlink band. Given the
anticipated use of the AWS–3 bands for
mobile broadband service, either as an
extension of the AWS–1 band or
potentially in combination with other
AWS bands, the Commission concludes
that the AWS–3 bands are suitable for
the provision of mobile telephony/
mobile broadband service.
37. The Commission also finds that
the AWS–3 bands should be considered
available for mobile telephony/mobile
broadband services on a market-bymarket basis in the future, given that the
timing of that access will depend on the
nature of the Federal operations
affecting each particular market.
Commercial operators will have access
to the 1755–1780 MHz and 1695–1710
MHz bands outside of areas where
federal operations are protected during
their transition, inside areas where
federal operations are protected during
their transition if successfully
coordinated with the Federal
incumbent, in areas in which the
Federal incumbents have relocated
pursuant to their Transition Plan, and
inside areas in which Federal
incumbents are protected indefinitely if
successfully coordinated with the
Federal incumbent. Accordingly, given
that the effect of Federal incumbent
operations on the timing and scope of
commercial operations will vary from
market to market, the Commission
determines that the 1755–1780 MHz and
1695–1710 MHz bands will become
available on a market-by-market basis in
the future. In addition, consistent with
the paired offering of the 2155–2180
MHz band with the 1755–1780 MHz
band, the Commission will count the
2155–2180 MHz band as available for
purposes of the spectrum screen at the
same time the Commission counts the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
1755–1780 MHz band in the particular
market, consistent with its approach to
the paired AWS–1 band.
38. The Commission notes that the
timing and the extent of access by
commercial licensees to the 1755–1780
MHz and 1695–1710 MHz bands in
particular markets will depend, in part,
on the timelines to be set in the
Transition Plans for relocating Federal
incumbents, which will be made
publicly available. In light of the
importance of this band in adding
capacity spectrum for mobile wireless
providers to deploy next-generation
networks, and the timelines to be set in
the Transition Plans for different
systems in different markets, the
Commission will count the 1755–1780
MHz and 1695–1710 MHz bands in the
spectrum screen in a particular market
once all relocating Federal incumbent
systems in that market are within three
years of completing relocation,
according to the Transition Plans. The
Commission notes that the timing and
the extent of access by commercial
licensees to these AWS–3 bands also
will depend on successful coordination
with federal systems during the
transition process and the Federal
systems that will not be relocating from
these bands. However, given that the
nature and timing of the coordination
will be the subject of two-party private
discussions between commercial
licensees and Federal incumbents and
will vary from market to market, from
licensee to licensee, and from system to
system, the Commission will not base
the timing of when the Commission
count AWS–3 spectrum to be available
in a particular market on the status of
coordination with non-relocating
Federal incumbents. The Commission
notes that the Commission will count
the 2155–2180 MHz band in the
spectrum screen for a particular market
at the same time the Commission counts
the 1755–1780 MHz and 1695–1710
MHz bands in that market, for the
reasons indicated above.
D. Big LEO Bands
39. The Commission declines to add
to the spectrum screen Big LEO MSS
spectrum in the 2483.5–2495 MHz and
1610–1617.775 MHz ranges, noting that
Globalstar’s ATC authority to operate
terrestrial base stations and mobile
terminals using this spectrum under the
authority of a waiver granted in 2008
was suspended in 2010 and none of
these proposed changes have been acted
on by the Commission. Thus, the
Commission declines to add this Big
LEO MSS spectrum to the spectrum
screen at this time. The Commission
distinguishes this decision from its
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
determination to add to the spectrum
screen the AWS–4 band (2000–2020
MHz and 2180–2200 MHz), for which
the Commission has taken a number of
actions to make the band suitable and
available for mobile telephony/mobile
broadband. Specifically, for the AWS–4
band, the Commission has added a
mobile allocation, adopted licensing
rules for stand-alone terrestrial mobile
wireless operations, and assigned the
spectrum to the incumbent MSS
operator, DISH.
E. BRS/EBS Bands
40. Background. The 194 megahertz in
the 2496–2690 MHz band (2.5 GHz)
comprises (1) 73.5 megahertz licensed to
commercial operators in the BRS band;
(2) 112.5 megahertz licensed to eligible
educational institutions or non-profit
educational organizations in the EBS
band; and (3) 8 megahertz licensed to
BRS or EBS as guard bands dividing the
lower, middle, and upper band
segments of the 2.5 GHz.
41. In 2008, in the Sprint-Clearwire
Order, the Commission decided to
include in the spectrum screen 55.5
megahertz of BRS spectrum in the upper
band segment, in those markets in
which the transition to the new band
plan was complete. The Commission
observed that 2.5 GHz licensees had
made substantial progress in the prior
few years in transitioning to the new
band plan, finalizing the WiMAX
standards, developing equipment, and
formulating their plans for using the 2.5
GHz band to provide service. The
Commission declined to include in the
spectrum screen the 12 megahertz of
BRS spectrum in the middle band
segment (‘‘MBS’’) due to concerns of
interference from legacy high-power
video operations, stating it lacked
sufficient information ‘‘to determine the
extent to which MBS is in fact available
for mobile telephony/broadband
services.’’ The Commission also
declined to include in the spectrum
screen the BRS Channel-1 (2496–2502
MHz), which is not contiguous to the
55.5 megahertz of BRS spectrum that
was included, finding that the Channel
does not fit into the contemplated
WiMAX deployment plans. Further, the
Commission excluded from the screen
the 8 megahertz of guard bands because
they are secondary to adjacent-channel
operations and they are too narrow to be
used unless they were all aggregated in
a market.
42. The Commission currently does
not include in the screen any EBS
spectrum, which is licensed to eligible
educational entities who can lease
spectrum to commercial operators
subject to the requirement, inter alia, to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
reserve at least five percent of digital
transmission capacity for educational
purposes. In the Sprint-Clearwire Order,
it declined to include EBS spectrum in
the screen, observing that ‘‘the primary
purpose of EBS is to further the
educational mission of accredited
public and private schools, colleges and
universities providing a formal
educational and cultural development
to enrolled students through video, data,
or voice transmissions.’’ The
Commission noted that, while
educational licensees are allowed to
lease their excess capacity to
commercial operators, leasing is subject
to various special requirements
designed to maintain the primary
educational character of services
provided using EBS spectrum. In
addition, the Commission recognized
that other elements of the EBS licensing
regime, such as its solely site-specific
character, with the absence of any
licensee in various unassigned EBS
‘‘white spaces,’’ complicate use of this
spectrum for commercial purposes.
Further, the Commission indicated that
it was sensitive to the concerns raised
by EBS licensees that potential
divestitures, in response to spectrum
aggregation concerns relating to
competition among commercial
services, could disproportionately harm
EBS licensees.
43. In subsequent transaction reviews,
the Commission declined to add EBS or
additional BRS spectrum to the
spectrum screen, finding either that the
circumstances had not sufficiently
changed from Sprint-Clearwire Order or
that the instant rulemaking proceeding
is a more appropriate place to evaluate
this issue. In the context of reviewing
the SoftBank-Sprint-Clearwire
transaction, however, the Commission
did consider arguments on the record
regarding the competitive effect of
Sprint obtaining 100 percent stock
ownership in and de facto control of
Clearwire’s BRS and EBS spectrum
holdings, finding competitive harm
unlikely.
44. Discussion. The Commission finds
that it is necessary to modify the
amount of 2.5 GHz spectrum the
Commission currently includes in the
screen to reflect today’s marketplace
realities. The Commission will update
the spectrum screen to increase the
amount of 2.5 GHz spectrum from 55.5
megahertz to 156.5 megahertz. The
Commission will add the 12 megahertz
in the two MBS BRS channels, as well
as 89 megahertz of EBS spectrum, which
represents most of the EBS spectrum,
adjusted to reflect white space and
education use elements. The
Commission will continue to exclude
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39983
the six megahertz in BRS Channel 1 and
the guard bands.
45. As an initial matter, the
Commission observes that Sprint
announced its intent to integrate its 2.5
GHz spectrum throughout its network to
provide mobile broadband service.
Sprint recently announced its next
generation service ‘‘Sprint Spark,’’ an
enhanced LTE network, which it plans
to deploy over the next three years using
its SMR, PCS, and 2.5 GHz spectrum.
The Commission finds that based upon
how the 2.5 GHz band is being used
today, and will be used in the near term;
the majority of the band is suitable and
available for mobile telephony/mobile
broadband services.
46. With respect to BRS spectrum, the
Commission finds that, in addition to
the 55.5 megahertz currently counted in
the screen, the Commission should
include 12 megahertz of BRS MBS
spectrum. The Commission recognizes
that legacy video operations in the MBS,
once considered a significant
impediment to the deployment of
cellularized operations in the MBS, are
now no longer a barrier to deploying
mobile broadband service in the vast
majority of markets. The Commission
notes that Sprint recently has
acknowledged that BRS MBS channels
are ‘‘more routinely available’’ for
mobile broadband use. Accordingly, the
Commission includes the 12 megahertz
of BRS MBS spectrum in the screen.
47. However, the Commission will
continue to exclude the 6 megahertz
BRS Channel 1 (2496–2502 MHz). The
proponents of including BRS Channel 1
in the screen have not demonstrated any
material change in circumstances since
2008 with respect to that channel and
the Commission acknowledges Sprint’s
concern that BRS Channel 1 is not
contiguous with the other BRS channels
and therefore is not conducive to the
provision of mobile telephony/mobile
broadband service.
48. With respect to EBS spectrum, the
Commission declines to continue its
policy of excluding all EBS spectrum.
Leasing in and of itself does not
preclude the spectrum from meeting the
suitable and available standard. The
Commission does not find that the
differences in propagation
characteristics between the 2.5 GHz
band and lower frequency spectrum
should result in its continued exclusion
of the 2.5 GHz band from the spectrum
screen for purposes of its competitive
review. Nor does the Commission agree
with Sprint that the aggregation of 20
megahertz of this band is a necessary
precursor to counting EBS in the screen.
The benefit of contiguous holdings in a
band is not a factor unique to EBS
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39984
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
spectrum that warrants excluding EBS
holdings from the screen in cases where
such contiguity is not achieved.
49. Although the Commission finds
that EBS spectrum generally is suitable
and available for mobile telephony/
mobile broadband services, the
Commission agrees with Sprint that
there are certain factors unique to EBS
that warrant not including all of the EBS
spectrum in the screen. The
Commission will continue to exclude
the five percent of the EBS capacity that
is reserved for educational uses. The
Commission remains committed to EBS
spectrum serving educational purposes.
Originally, the 2500–2690 MHz band
was allocated for ITFS service and
‘‘established to provide formal
education and cultural development in
aural and visual form to students
enrolled in accredited public and
private schools, colleges and
universities.’’ The Commission
continues to support the education
mission of accredited public and private
schools, colleges, and universities
providing a formal educational and
cultural development to enrolled
students through video, data, or voice
transmissions. Therefore, as a starting
point, the Commission will include 95
percent, or approximately 107
megahertz, of EBS spectrum in the
screen.
50. With EBS spectrum licensed on a
site-specific basis, certain areas exist
where the Commission has not assigned
a license to an educational entity. And
no educational entity has been able to
apply for a license for an EBS white
space since 1995. Therefore, no
commercial wireless provider has ever
had the opportunity to lease EBS
spectrum in that area. Therefore, white
spaces can present certain obstacles for
providing reliable, wide-area coverage.
The Commission finds it reasonable to
discount for white space when
including EBS spectrum in the screen.
51. Given the complexity of
calculating a white space discount on a
market-by-market basis, Sprint proposes
a uniform, nationwide EBS white space
discount for administrative
practicability and regulatory certainty.
Sprint calculated that across all EBS
channels, an average of approximately
16.5 percent of the population is located
in EBS white space and therefore
proposes to use a 16.5 percent discount.
The Commission agrees that a
nationwide discount is the best option
for applying a white space discount for
EBS spectrum and find Sprint’s
proposal reasonable. While as Verizon
Wireless notes, using a nationwide
average may in some instances
undercount EBS white space in some
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
markets and overcount EBS white space
in other markets, the Commission finds
that using an average across all markets
is a reasonable method, which balances
administrative efficiency with the
complexity of a precise market-bymarket calculation. Thus, after taking
the discount into consideration, of the
initial 107 megahertz of EBS spectrum,
the Commission will include 89
megahertz of EBS spectrum in the
screen. As discussed in Section VI.G
below, the Commission declines to
further weight EBS spectrum, or other
spectrum bands, based on propagation
characteristics.
F. Upper 700 MHz D Block
52. In light of Congress’ reallocation
of the Upper 700 MHz D Block spectrum
(758–763 MHz, 788–793 MHz) for
public safety use—and the subsequent
steps taken by the Commission and the
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureau to effectuate the reallocation and
licensing of this spectrum for public
safety—the Commission finds that the
10 megahertz previously designated as
the Upper 700 MHz D Block is no longer
suitable and available for the provision
of mobile telephony/mobile broadband
services. Therefore, going forward, the
Commission will exclude from the
spectrum screen that 10 megahertz
(758–763 MHz, 788–793 MHz) that
currently is part of the screen, along
with the adjacent public safety
broadband spectrum that is also now
licensed to FirstNet (763–768 MHz,
793–798 MHz), which was not
previously counted in the initial
spectrum screen.
53. The Commission notes that, under
the Spectrum Act, FirstNet is permitted
to provide access to the 20 megahertz of
Public Safety Broadband spectrum to
commercial entities through certain
‘‘covered leasing agreements.’’ The
Commission will not add to the screen
any of this spectrum merely because
FirstNet has entered into leasing
arrangements contemplated by the Act.
Deployment of this spectrum is essential
to the critical statutory goal of deploying
a nationwide interoperable public safety
broadband network, and the
Commission wants to provide equal
incentives to all commercial operators
to partner with FirstNet to make this
goal a reality.
G. SMR Bands
54. In 2004, the Commission adopted
a new band plan for the 800 MHz band
to ‘‘address the [then] ongoing and
growing problem of interference to
public safety communications in the
800 MHz band.’’ The interference
problem was caused ‘‘by a
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
fundamentally incompatible mix of two
types of communications systems:
Cellular-architecture multi-cell systems
. . . and high-site non-cellular
systems.’’ To provide immediate relief,
the Commission implemented technical
standards that defined unacceptable
interference in the 800 MHz band, while
also reconfiguring the band to separate
commercial wireless systems from
public safety and other high site
systems. Pursuant to the band
reconfiguration, the Commission
eliminated the interleaving of public
safety and commercial channels in the
800 MHz band and separated
cellularized multi-cell and noncellularized high-site systems within the
band.
55. Under the reconfiguration plan,
Nextel (now Sprint) was required to
vacate the 806–817 MHz and the 851–
862 MHz band segments and relocate to
817–824/862–869 MHz. The
Commission had designated the upper
portion of the 800 MHz band (817–824
MHz/862–869 MHz) for Enhanced
Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR)
systems and designated the lower
portion of the 800 MHz band (806–815
MHz/851–860 MHz) for use by public
safety, Critical Infrastructure Industries
(CII), and other non-cellular systems.
56. The Commission eliminates from
inclusion in the screen 7.5 megahertz in
the 800 MHz Band because, after the
Commission reconfigured the band, that
spectrum is no longer licensed for
commercial, cellularized operations.
The Commission also eliminates the
remaining 5 megahertz in the 900 MHz
band that is narrowly-channelized in
125 kHz blocks and not adjacent to the
remaining 14 megahertz of SMR
spectrum that is licensed for and
considered suitable and available for the
provision of mobile telephony/mobile
broadband services. Therefore, going
forward, the Commission finds only 14
megahertz of SMR spectrum is suitable
and available for the provision of mobile
telephony/mobile broadband services
and will be included in the screen.
III. Licensing Through Competitive
Bidding
57. The Commission concludes that it
is in the public interest, for auctions, to
replace the current case-by-case
approach of evaluating long form
applications of winning bidders with a
determination of whether a bandspecific spectrum holding limit should
apply ex ante to the licensing of
particular bands through competitive
bidding. In the R&O, the Commission
finds that the Commission should
determine what if any spectrum holding
limitations should affect the licensing of
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
particular bands through competitive
bidding before the relevant competitive
bidding process begins for that band.
The Commission determines certain
guidelines that the Commission will
consider in making such determinations
prior to the beginning of the competitive
bidding process for a particular band,
which generally will be made in the
service rulemakings for those bands,
enabling the Commission to take into
account all relevant objectives specific
to the bands in question and
competitive bidding process. Given the
proximity of the AWS–3 auction and
Incentive Auction, the Commission
makes determinations regarding
whether to adopt, in the context of this
rulemaking, any mobile spectrum
holdings limits for the licensing of these
bands through competitive bidding. In
particular, based on the record in this
proceeding and in the two service
rulemakings, as well as the statutory
goals set forth in the Communications
Act and the Spectrum Act, the
Commission reserves spectrum in the
forward auction for the 600 MHz Band
licenses in order to ensure against
excessive concentration in holdings of
below-1-GHz spectrum, and the
Commission declines to adopt any
mobile spectrum holding limits for the
licensing of the AWS–3 bands through
competitive bidding.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
A. Ex Ante Application of Mobile
Spectrum Holding Limits to the
Licensing of Spectrum Bands Through
Competitive Bidding
58. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on general approaches to
address mobile spectrum policies at
auction, including whether to retain its
current case-by-case approach or adopt
a bright-line limit. The Commission also
sought comment on the costs and
benefits of applying a case-by-case
approach to initial licenses acquired at
auction and whether it affords
participants sufficient certainty to
determine whether they would be
allowed to hold a given license postauction.
59. The Commission concludes that it
is in the public interest to replace its
post-auction case-by-case analysis of the
licensing of spectrum bands through
competitive bidding with a
determination of whether a bandspecific mobile spectrum holding limit
is necessary to carry out the duties
under the Communications Act and, if
so, to establish an ex ante application of
that limit to the competitive bidding for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
that band.1 The Commission finds that
upfront, clear determination, instead of
case-by-case analysis post-auction,
would provide potential bidders with
greater certainty in the auction process
regarding how much spectrum they
would be permitted to acquire at
auction. Providing such certainty is
consistent with Section 309(j)(3)(E) of
the Communications Act, which
emphasizes the need for clear bidding
rules ‘‘to ensure that interested parties
have a sufficient time to develop
business plans, assess marketplace
conditions, and evaluate the availability
of equipment for the relevant services.’’
60. To the extent that the Commission
adopts a mobile spectrum holding limit
for the licensing of a particular band
through competitive bidding, applying
the limit ex ante would provide greater
certainty and efficiency in the process of
licensing through competitive bidding,
which would be particularly important
for complex auctions like the Incentive
Auction. Upfront, bright-line
determinations would streamline the
post-auction review of license
applications, which should allow
winning bidders to receive their licenses
more quickly and proceed to deploy
service using the acquired spectrum.
The application of a mobile spectrum
holding limit ex ante would avoid
certain challenges in trying to remedy
concerns after post-auction competitive
review. If the Commission were to make
a finding post-auction that the
acquisition of spectrum by a winning
bidder would be likely to cause
competitive harm, it could compel
abandonment of the license application
or divestiture of the license won at
auction, which could create incentives
for bidder behavior that would
undermine the goals of the auction.
Alternatively, divestiture of another
license from the bidder’s pre-auction
spectrum holdings might not address
the Commission’s competitive concerns
with aggregation of the spectrum made
available at auction, especially if the
spectrum the winning bidder would
propose to divest does not have similar
characteristics of the spectrum acquired
in the auction.
61. The Commission finds that, for
competitive review of spectrum licenses
acquired through competitive bidding,
the benefits of a bright-line ex ante
application of a mobile spectrum
holding limit to the competitive bidding
for those licenses outweigh any costs
associated with any perceived loss of
1 In subsequent secondary market transactions,
the licenses acquired at auction will be included in
the application of our revised spectrum screen
when the spectrum is deemed suitable and
available for inclusion in the screen.
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39985
flexibility that the existing post-auction
review might afford. The Commission
notes that a case-by-case review of
spectrum licenses acquired through
secondary markets continues to be
appropriate, as discussed below.
62. The Commission finds that the
determination of whether to apply any
mobile spectrum holding limits to the
licensing of a particular band through
competitive bidding, and if so the scope
of such limits and policies, should be
clearly specified sufficiently in advance
of the auction. This approach would
afford a prospective bidder sufficient
time to develop a bidding strategy based
on the mobile spectrum holdings
determination adopted for an upcoming
auction, while allowing the Commission
to consider the unique circumstances of
each spectrum band auction when
making its determination.
63. The Commission would evaluate a
number of factors in considering
whether to adopt a mobile spectrum
holdings limit for the licensing of a
particular band through competitive
bidding and, if so, what type of limit to
apply. As an initial matter, its
evaluation will encompass the ‘‘broad
aims of the Communications Act,’’
which include, among other things,
preserving and enhancing competition
in relevant markets, accelerating private
sector deployment of advanced services,
and generally managing the spectrum in
the public interest. Its determination
will help carry out its duties under the
Communications Act, serving the public
interest. Its public interest analysis in
this context also may entail assessing
whether a particular auction specific
policy will affect the quality of
communications services or result in the
provision of new or additional services
to consumers. Moreover, the
Commission must consider any other
statutory goals and directives applicable
to a particular spectrum band being
licensed by competitive bidding.
64. The Commission will consider
whether the acquisition at auction of
licenses to use a significant portion of
spectrum by one or more providers
would potentially harm the public
interest by reducing the likelihood that
multiple service providers would have
access to sufficient spectrum to compete
robustly in the provision of mobile
telephony/mobile broadband service.
This determination will be based on
several factors, including total amount
of spectrum to be assigned,
characteristics of the spectrum to be
assigned, timing of when the spectrum
could be used for mobile telephony/
mobile broadband services, the specific
rights being granted to licensees of the
spectrum, and the extent to which
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
39986
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
competitors have opportunities to gain
access to alternative bands that would
serve the same purpose as the spectrum
licenses at issue.
B. 600 MHz Band Incentive Auction
65. For the Incentive Auction, the
Commission establishes a market-based
spectrum reserve of up to 30 megahertz
in each license area designed to ensure
against excessive concentration in
holdings of low-band spectrum—a
reserve that includes safeguards to
ensure that all bidders bear a fair share
of the cost of the Incentive Auction. The
market-based reserve balances the need
to meet the requirements for concluding
the Incentive Auction with the
competition goals discussed above.
66. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether to adopt limits on
the amount of spectrum that entities
could acquire in the context of spectrum
auctions mandated by the Spectrum
Act. In the Incentive Auction NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on what,
if anything, it should do to meet the
statutory requirements of section
309(j)(3)(B) and promote the goals of the
Incentive Auction. For instance, the
Commission noted that ‘‘section
309(j)(3)(B)’s directive to avoid
excessive concentration of licenses
might militate in favor of a rule that
permits any single participant in the
auction to acquire no more than onethird of all 600 MHz Band spectrum
being auctioned in a given licensed
area.’’
67. The amount of repurposed
spectrum depends on the outcome of
the reverse and forward auction
components of the Incentive Auction.
The reverse and forward auctions will
be integrated in a series of stages. Each
stage will consist of a reverse auction
and a forward auction bidding process.
Prior to the first stage, the initial
spectrum clearing target will be
determined based on broadcasters’
collective willingness to relinquish
spectrum usage rights at the opening
prices offered to them. The first stage
reverse auction bidding rounds will
determine the total amount of incentive
payments necessary in connection with
the initial clearing target. The forward
auction bidding process will follow. If
the final stage rule described below is
satisfied, the forward auction bidding
will continue until there is no excess
demand for 600 MHz Band licenses. If
the final stage rule is not satisfied,
additional stages will be run, with
progressively lower spectrum targets in
the reverse auction and less spectrum
available in the forward auction until
the rule is satisfied.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
68. The final stage rule is a reserve
price with two components, both of
which must be satisfied. The first
component requires that the prices for
licenses in the forward auction meet or
exceed a certain price benchmark to
assure that prices generally reflect
competitive market values for
comparable spectrum licenses. The first
component consists of alternative
conditions, depending on the clearing
target for the particular stage in which
it is being applied. The alternative
formulations recognize that per-unit
market prices for spectrum licenses may
decline consistent with an increase in
supply. The price and spectrum clearing
benchmarks will be established by the
Commission in the Incentive Auction
Procedures PN, after an opportunity for
additional comment. The second
component of the final stage rule
requires that the proceeds of the forward
auction be sufficient to meet expenses
set forth in the Spectrum Act and any
Public Safety Trust Fund amounts
needed for FirstNet. If the requirements
of both components of the reserve price
are met, then the final stage rule is
satisfied.
69. In the Incentive Auction Report
and Order, the Commission indicates
that, in the coming months, the
Commission will solicit public input on
final auction procedures by Public
Notice (‘‘Incentive Auction Comment
PN’’). This Public Notice will include
specific proposals on crucial auction
design issues such as opening prices,
television channel assignment
optimization, how much market
variation to accommodate in the 600
MHz Band Plan, and benchmarks for
implementing the final stage rule. Well
in advance of the auction, also by public
notice, the Commission will resolve
these implementation issues and
provide detailed explanations and
instructions for potential auction
participants (‘‘Incentive Auction
Procedures PN’’).
1. The Need for a Market-Based
Spectrum Reserve
70. Given the importance of multiple
providers, including rural and regional
providers, having access to below-1-GHz
spectrum for deployment and
competition, the Commission concludes
that a clear mobile spectrum holdings
policy for the Incentive Auction is
necessary to increase access
opportunities to the 600 MHz Band. The
Commission finds that it is appropriate
to adopt a market-based spectrum
reserve for entities that do not currently
hold a significant amount of below-1GHz spectrum.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71. The Commission will reserve on a
contingent basis, licenses covering up to
30 megahertz of spectrum for bidders
with spectrum holdings, at the deadline
for filing a short-form application to
participate in the forward auction, of
less than 45 megahertz, on a populationweighted basis, of suitable and available
below-1-GHz spectrum in a PEA. All
bidders, including those unable to bid
on reserved licenses, will be able to bid
on the unreserved licenses. The
Commission specifies the maximum
amount of spectrum that will be
reserved in each market for eligible
entities (‘‘reserve-eligible’’ entities) in
the forward auction under the various
band plan scenarios identified in the
Incentive Auction Report and Order, but
the actual amount of spectrum reserved
will depend on the demand by reserveeligible bidders when the auction
reaches a trigger (the ‘‘spectrum reserve
trigger’’). The Commission finds that
this approach balances a number of the
key statutory directives, including
promoting competition, facilitating the
deployment of advanced services by
making spectrum available for flexible
use, and sharing the costs of the
Incentive Auction on a fair and
equitable basis.
72. In reaching its decisions, the
Commission must consider a number of
statutory directives applicable to the
Incentive Auction, including promoting
competition, making spectrum available
for flexible use, meeting proceeds
requirements, and facilitating
deployment of advanced services. With
respect to promoting competition in the
mobile wireless marketplace, the
Commission observes that any of the
types of limits discussed on the
record—spectrum caps based on a
provider’s existing below-1-GHz
holdings, equal spectrum caps for all
bidders, or reserved spectrum—have the
potential to promote competition by
ensuring that in the near future, more
providers would hold a sufficient mix of
spectrum to compete robustly. The
Commission finds that its market-based
spectrum reserve for the Incentive
Auction has distinct advantages over the
other approaches with respect to the
other statutory directives.
73. First, the spectrum reserve gives
mobile service providers significant
latitude to bid on spectrum licenses
they need in each area to meet their
network requirements, including
providers who are unable to bid for
reserved spectrum in a particular PEA.
Rules that would restrict the larger
providers to no more than a 5 x 5
megahertz block of 600 MHz Band
spectrum do not adequately consider
the needs of those providers for
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
additional spectrum to meet the demand
of their subscribers in the longer term.
Nor do such rules adequately consider
that efficient deployment of services
using the 600 MHz Band spectrum
would likely rely on ensuring that the
larger as well as smaller nationwide
providers having a stake in the
development of equipment for the band.
Spectrum caps also could affect to a
certain extent mobile broadband
providers’ flexibility to expand services
to meet increasing consumer needs.
74. Second, proposals that would set
an individual spectrum cap on the
amount of 600 MHz Band spectrum for
which each provider could acquire
licenses have greater risk of decreasing
forward auction proceeds, and thus
endangering its ability to repurpose
spectrum, because it likely would lessen
competition between the largest
wireless providers for spectrum in
amounts greater than the cap would
permit.
75. The Commission concludes that
its market-based spectrum reserve,
particularly in the amounts and under
the rules the Commission adopts is
unlikely to reduce competition among
bidders and in fact, will encourage
competition among bidders wanting at
least 20 megahertz of spectrum, as
compared to other potential approaches
to mobile spectrum holdings limits that
could be applied to the Incentive
Auction. Under the market-based
spectrum reserve, every bidder will
have the opportunity to bid for, and
win, at least half of the 600 MHz Band
spectrum in each market, and at some
levels of spectrum made available in the
forward auction, significantly more than
half.
76. Third, the Commission concludes
that its approach would not reduce
participation in the auction by large
providers to a level that would reduce
the amount of spectrum that can be
repurposed by the Incentive Auction.
The reserved spectrum amount would
be contingent upon (and subject to a
reduction based on) the demand
expressed in the forward auction by
reserve-eligible bidders. If there is
insufficient demand for reserved
spectrum licenses, the amount of
reserved spectrum would be reduced.
77. The Commission also finds that its
market-based spectrum reserve is more
likely to achieve its purposes more
effectively than bidding credits based on
the level of spectrum holdings. On
balance, applying bidding credits based
on spectrum holdings as opposed to
reserving licenses for providers without
significant below-1-GHz spectrum
would not address the Commission’s
competitive concerns with aggregation
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
39987
of the spectrum made available at
auction. The Commission notes that in
the Incentive Auctions Report and Order
the Commission adopted the bidding
credits for the forward auction
applicable to small businesses. The
Commission also stated it will initiate a
separate proceeding to examine its
designated entity (‘‘DE’’) rules generally.
78. The Commission notes that its
decision to adopt a 600 MHz Band
spectrum reserve and to establish the
amounts of reserved spectrum specified
below is based on the current
marketplace structure of the mobile
wireless service industry. If significant
changes in the marketplace structure
occur or a proposed transaction is filed
with the Commission in the future
affecting the top four nationwide
providers and their spectrum holdings,
the Commission will revisit its
decisions here regarding the reserved
spectrum provisions for the 600 MHz
Band that the Commission adopted. The
Commission will review as well
whether changes should be made to any
other decisions in the R&O. The
Commission also plans to consider in a
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
possible change to certain auction rules
relating to joint bidding arrangements
and strategies in the Incentive Auction.
In order to allow the Commission to
evaluate how certain bidding
arrangements might affect the Incentive
Auction, potential bidders will need to
file well before the normal deadlines
some of the information currently
required in auction and license
application forms.
spectrum leasing arrangements, with
spectrum being attributed to both the
lessee and lessor. Further, it includes in
the calculations only the below-1-GHz
spectrum that the Commission currently
considers to be ‘‘suitable’’ and
‘‘available,’’ in the modified spectrum
screen adopted today, and thus, no 600
MHz Band spectrum is included, as
although it is suitable, it is not
considered available until the
conclusion of the Incentive Auction.
The 45 megahertz of below-1-GHz
spectrum approximates one-third of the
134 megahertz of below-1-GHz spectrum
that the Commission counts in the
modified total spectrum screen the
Commission adopted. The Commission
will measure an entity’s spectrum
holdings on a county-by-county basis
within a PEA,2 and then construct a
total county-population-weighted
below-1-GHz spectrum holding for each
entity within the PEA.3 As discussed
below, even if a non-nationwide
provider holds approximately one-third
or more of the suitable and available
below-1-GHz spectrum in a given
market, it will not be precluded from
bidding on reserved spectrum licenses
in any market.
80. The Commission observes that the
45 megahertz threshold (approximately
one-third of total below-1-GHz
spectrum) to identify those who can bid
on reserved licenses is consistent with
the approximately one-third threshold
for total spectrum that the Commission
uses to identify those holdings in local
markets that may raise particular
competitive concerns in the context of
2. Qualification To Bid on Reserved
Licenses
79. The Commission needs to
facilitate access by multiple providers to
below-1-GHz spectrum is the basis for
its adoption of a market-based spectrum
reserve for the Incentive Auction and,
accordingly, the Commission finds that
a provider’s existing below-1-GHz
holdings in a particular PEA should be
the threshold basis for determining
whether the provider qualifies to bid on
reserved spectrum. To qualify to bid on
reserved licenses in a PEA, an entity
must not have an attributable interest in
45 megahertz or more, on a populationweighted basis, of below-1-GHz
spectrum that is suitable and available
for the provision of mobile telephony/
mobile broadband services in that PEA,
at the deadline for filing a short-form
application to participate in the
Incentive Auction. In its calculation of
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings, the
Commission includes not only the
entity’s licensed spectrum, on a countyby-county basis, but also all long-term
2 In the context of secondary market transactions
review, the Commission typically measures a
provider’s holdings in a particular CMA based on
the maximum spectrum holdings in any one county
within that CMA. Unlike the screen the
Commission uses for reviewing transactions, the
qualification for bidding on reserved spectrum is a
bright-line test, and PEAs are generally larger in
geographic scope than the CMAs it uses for
competitive review of transactions. Given those
distinctions, the Commission finds that measuring
a bidder’s below-1-GHz spectrum holdings amount
in a given PEA, based on the highest below-1-GHz
holding amount in any one county within a PEA,
would not be appropriate.
3 To determine whether an entity is qualified to
bid on reserved spectrum, its below-1-GHz
spectrum holdings are calculated by summing (PEA
county spectrum holdings x PEA county population
(using U.S. Census 2010 population data)), and then
dividing that sum by the total population of the
PEA. In its calculations, the Commission includes
licensed spectrum, on a county-by-county basis, as
well as all long-term spectrum leasing
arrangements, with leased spectrum being
attributed to both the lessee and lessor. In those
PEAs where there are existing long-term
commercial leases, as the Commission attributes the
leased spectrum to both the lessee and lessor, it
increases the total below-1-GHz spectrum amount
included by the (population-weighted) amount of
the lease so that service providers’ holdings are not
overstated.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
39988
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
secondary market transactions, as
discussed below. The approximately
one-third threshold is, based on its
experience in numerous transactions
over the last decade, an effective
analytical tool in the secondary market
context. Similarly, the Commission
concludes that a threshold of
approximately one-third is an effective
line of demarcation to identify those
entities that currently lack significant
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings and
would likely benefit from access to the
reserved spectrum. In particular, the
Commission finds that this threshold
would help to ensure that multiple
providers are able to access a sufficient
amount of low-band spectrum, which
would facilitate the extension and
improvement of service in both rural
and urban areas, to the benefit of
consumers.
81. Non-Nationwide Providers. The 45
megahertz holding threshold may have
substantial effects on non-nationwide
providers that could outweigh the
intended benefits.4 In many areas,
regional and local service providers
offer consumers additional choices in
the areas they serve and provide some
constraint on the ability of nationwide
providers to act in anticompetitive ways
to the detriment of consumers. Although
nationwide providers generally set
prices on a national basis, there can be
significant variation in discounts,
service quality, and extent of coverage at
the local level. Non-nationwide
providers are also important sources of
competition in rural areas, where
multiple nationwide service providers
may have less incentive to offer high
quality services. Today, 92 percent of
non-rural consumers, but only 37
percent of rural consumers are covered
by at least four 3G or 4G mobile wireless
providers’ networks and more than 1.3
million people in rural areas have no
mobile broadband access. Smaller
providers in such areas are likely to be
more dependent upon the efficiencies
gained from the unique propagation
benefits of 600 MHz spectrum because
they are less able to subsidize their
deployment costs by revenues accrued
in more densely populated areas where
a nationwide subscriber base provides
them with greater scale economies.
Promoting competition by nonnationwide providers also advances the
statutory goals of avoiding excessive
concentration of licenses, disseminating
licenses among a wide variety of
applicants, and encouraging rapid
deployment of new wireless broadband
technologies to all Americans, including
those residing in rural areas.
82. The Commission will permit
bidding on 600 MHz reserve spectrum
by regional and local service providers
in all PEAs, including those where such
a provider holds more spectrum than its
45 megahertz holding threshold of the
available low-band spectrum. The
Commission establishes a bright-line
rule to address these issues for the same
reasons set forth above for generally
adopting bright line rules on spectrum
aggregation issues for its 600 MHz
Incentive Auction. Non-nationwide
service providers enhance competitive
choices for consumers in the mobile
wireless marketplace, and help promote
deployment in rural areas. They also
present a significantly lower risk of
effectively denying access of low band
spectrum to competitors in order to
foreclose competition or to raise rivals’
costs because of their relative lack of
resources. Accordingly, the Commission
concludes that non-nationwide service
providers should be eligible to bid on
reserved spectrum in all markets
nationwide.
83. In sum, to qualify to bid on
reserved licenses in a PEA, an entity
must not hold an attributable interest in
45 megahertz or more of below-1-GHz
spectrum in a PEA, as described above,
or must be a non-nationwide provider.
The Commission will revise the shortform application to provide for a
certification by an applicant intending
to bid on reserved spectrum that it
meets the qualification criteria. If any
entity plans to file a pre-auction
divestiture application to come into
compliance with the below-1-GHz
holdings threshold, it will have to file
in sufficient time to qualify by the shortform application deadline.
4 In the 16th Mobile Wireless Competition Report,
the Commission observed that there are four
nationwide providers in the U.S. with networks that
cover a majority of the population and land area of
the country—Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and
T-Mobile. For purposes of this R&O, the
Commission refers to other providers—with
networks that are limited to regional and local
areas—as ‘‘non-nationwide providers.’’
3. Market-Based Amount of Reserved
Spectrum
84. Because the Commission will not
know the exact number of blocks
licensed or their frequencies until the
Incentive Auction concludes, the 600
MHz Band Plan in the Incentive Auction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Report and Order adopted a set of band
plan scenarios that comprise the 600
MHz Band Plan, one of which will serve
as the ultimate Band Plan for the 600
MHz Band. Consistent with this
approach, the Commission specifies in
the chart below the maximum amount
of licensed spectrum that will be
reserved in each market for eligible
entities (‘‘reserve-eligible’’ entities) in a
forward auction for each indicated
amount of licensed spectrum at initial
stage spectrum clearing targets. A
spectrum clearing target will include
licensed spectrum and guard bands; the
chart refers only to the amount of
licensed spectrum included in each
target because only licensed spectrum is
relevant to determination of the reserve.
Each stage of the Incentive Auction will
consist of a reverse auction and a
forward auction bidding process. Prior
to the first stage, the Commission will
determine the initial spectrum clearing
target and will run additional stages if
necessary. If the auction does not close
in the initial stage, the maximum
amount of reserved licensed spectrum
in each individual market in subsequent
stages will be the smaller of: (1) The
maximum amount of reserved spectrum
in the previous stage, or (2) the amount
that the reserve-eligible bidders demand
at the end of the previous stage. For
example, if the initial clearing target is
100 megahertz, the maximum reserve
will be 30 megahertz in the initial and
subsequent stages. By contrast, if the
initial spectrum clearing target is 60
megahertz, the maximum reserve in the
initial and subsequent stages will be 20
megahertz. In either case, if the auction
fails to close at the initial stage, the
maximum reserved spectrum in each
PEA at the second stage will be the
smaller of the maximum reserve or the
amount that reserve-eligible bidders
demand at the end of the first stage in
that market. Correspondingly, the
amount of spectrum that an unreserved
bidder may acquire in subsequent stages
will depend on the amount that the
bidder demanded at the end of the
previous stage. The actual amount of
spectrum reserved will depend on the
demand by reserve-eligible bidders
when the auction reaches a trigger (the
‘‘spectrum reserve trigger’’). Because the
actual amount of reserved spectrum
depends on auction participation, the
Commission calls this a ‘‘market-based
spectrum reserve.’’
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
39989
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
Licensed Spectrum In the Initial Clearing Target (in
megahertz) ...................................................................
Minimum Unreserved Spectrum ......................................
Maximum Reserved Spectrum ........................................
* 100
70
30
90
60
30
70
40
30
60
40
20
50
40
10
40
30
10
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
* The maximum amount of reserved licensed spectrum is 30 megahertz for initial clearing targets with more than 100 megahertz of licensed
spectrum.
85. In determining how much
reserved and unreserved spectrum will
be available, the Commission balances a
number of the key statutory directives,
including promoting competition,
facilitating the deployment of advanced
services by making spectrum available
for flexible use, and sharing the costs of
the Incentive Auction on a fair and
equitable basis. For the reasons
explained above, the Commission finds
that access to licenses for sufficient
spectrum in the 600 MHz Band by
providers that do not already hold
licenses for significant amounts of
below-1-GHz spectrum is important to
the preservation and promotion of
competition in the mobile wireless
marketplace now and in the future. At
the same time, however, the
Commission recognizes that the
structure of the Incentive Auction
presents unique challenges to the
adoption of a spectrum reserve for
reserve-eligible bidders. In particular,
because the Incentive Auction will rely
on market forces to determine the
amount of spectrum licenses that will be
made available in the forward auction,
the Commission needs to ensure that all
bidders in the forward auction bear a
fair share of the clearing costs identified
in the reverse auction and the other
costs specified in the Incentive Auction
final stage rule.
86. The amount of reserved spectrum
in the Incentive Auction will depend
upon bidding in the forward auction.
The Commission specifies a maximum
amount of reserved spectrum in the
chart above, but the actual amount of
spectrum available only to reserveeligible bidders will be determined at a
spectrum reserve trigger that fairly
distributes the responsibility for
satisfying the costs of the Incentive
Auction among all bidders.
87. The Commission will set the
spectrum reserve trigger at the point
when the final stage rule is satisfied, so
that the actual amount of reserved
spectrum will be based on the quantity
demanded by reserve-eligible bidders in
each individual market at that point in
the forward auction. The amount of
reserved spectrum will be the smaller
of: (1) The maximum amount of
reserved spectrum for that stage, or (2)
the amount demanded by reserveeligible bidders at the trigger. The
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
Commission intends, after opportunity
for comment in the Incentive Auction
Comment PN, to clarify that reserveeligible bidders will not be able to
acquire more than 20 megahertz of
reserved spectrum in a market unless
there is another bidder for reserved
spectrum in that market. Until the
spectrum reserve trigger is met, bidding
for licenses in the forward auction will
not distinguish between licenses for
reserved and unreserved spectrum.
Accordingly, all bidders will compete
for generic licenses in each area—with
a single price applying in each area to
all the licenses in a category of generic
licenses—up to the point at which the
spectrum reserve trigger is reached.
88. Maximum Amount of Reserved
Spectrum. The Commission sets the
maximum amount of reserved spectrum
at 30 megahertz for most of the potential
amounts of total licensed spectrum
made available in the forward auction.
Setting the maximum amount of
reserved spectrum at a consistent
amount across most levels of total
licensed spectrum will, among other
things, facilitate the repurposing of
more spectrum in the 600 MHz Band,
because it provides the opportunity, and
creates incentives, for all auction
participants to bid aggressively to
acquire more spectrum licenses as the
total amount of available spectrum
increases.
89. A 30 megahertz maximum
spectrum reserve at most band clearing
scenarios also benefits competition and
consumers by giving reserve-eligible
bidders the assurance that, after the
spectrum reserve trigger is reached, they
will have a greater opportunity to
purchase licenses in the 600 MHz Band.
At the same time, its initial maximum
reserve amounts ensure that a majority
of licenses at the beginning of the
forward auction will be available for
bidding by all participants under all
circumstances. In the Incentive Auction
Report and Order, the Commission
determined that the 600 MHz Band will
be licensed in 10 megahertz (5x5 paired)
blocks. Some providers have advocated
that 20 megahertz of contiguous
spectrum is particularly valuable for the
deployment of next-generation
networks. A maximum of 30 megahertz
of reserved spectrum could permit at
least two reserve-eligible bidders to
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
acquire 600 MHz spectrum licenses for
deployment of next-generation
networks, with one of the bidders
potentially acquiring 20 megahertz of
reserved spectrum for such deployment.
Moreover, a maximum of 30 megahertz
of reserved spectrum, an odd number of
10-megahertz blocks, will facilitate
competition among bidders seeking to
acquire 20 megahertz. In addition, at
most levels of total licensed spectrum
made available in the forward auction,
a maximum of 30 megahertz of reserved
spectrum will leave a significant
amount of unreserved spectrum
available, for which all bidders will
have the opportunity to compete.
90. Accordingly, a maximum
spectrum reserve of 30 megahertz for
most levels of total available spectrum
licenses, on balance, will make
additional low-band spectrum available
to multiple providers; ensure that all
bidders have an opportunity to acquire
a stake in the 600 MHz ecosystem that
will be critical in the future; and
facilitate competitive bidding. However,
if the amount of licensed spectrum at
the initial stage target is less than 70
megahertz, maintaining a maximum of
30 megahertz of reserved spectrum
would not be in the public interest.
Maintaining that amount of reserved
spectrum would potentially reduce the
amount of unreserved spectrum to 20 or
even 10 megahertz, which the
Commission deemed to be too low to
provide all bidders with an adequate
opportunity to acquire licenses in the
600 MHz Band.
91. Market-Based Spectrum Reserve.
Under the market-based spectrum
reserve rule, the amount of reserved
spectrum in each individual PEA will
be set at the level demanded by reserveeligible entities at the time the spectrum
reserve trigger is satisfied, up to the
maximum amount of reserved spectrum
at the beginning of the stage. Once the
spectrum reserve is established, bidders
will bid separately for generic reserved
and unreserved spectrum licenses, with
reserve-eligible bidders able to bid for
spectrum in either category, and the
other bidders able to bid only for the
unreserved spectrum. For instance, if
the spectrum reserve trigger is met in a
stage with a maximum of 30 megahertz
of reserved spectrum, if reserve-eligible
bidders demand only 20 megahertz in a
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39990
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
given PEA at those prices when the
trigger is met, then 20 megahertz will be
reserved.
92. The market-based reserve rule
would not prevent unreserved bidders
from acquiring the minimum initial
stage amount of unreserved spectrum
specified in the chart above in
subsequent stages of the auction,
provided they bid actively on that
amount of spectrum throughout the
auction, beginning in the first stage. For
example, if an unreserved bidder
demands 20 megahertz throughout the
initial stage (including the extended
round) but the stage fails, that bidder
will be eligible to bid for 20 megahertz
in the next stage. The Commission
anticipates that bidding in the most
urban areas is likely to be the most
intense, with the highest bids, and thus
that the spectrum reserve trigger
mechanism the Commission ultimately
adopted will mean that reserved
spectrum in those areas will sell only at
substantial prices.
93. The market-based reserve rule the
Commission adopts balances the need to
meet the requirements for concluding
the Incentive Auction with the
competition goals discussed above.
Setting an appropriate spectrum reserve
trigger for determining how much
spectrum will be allotted for reserveeligible bidders will ensure that all
bidders, those eligible to bid on reserved
spectrum and other bidders, contribute
a fair share to the clearing costs
identified in the reverse auction and the
other costs specified in the Incentive
Auction final stage rule. The marketbased spectrum reserve leverages
competition across both reserved and
unreserved spectrum to provide all
bidders with the incentive to bid
aggressively and repurpose larger rather
than smaller amounts of spectrum.
Further, the contingent nature of the
reserve will create reserves only in PEAs
where there is sufficient demand at the
point where the spectrum reserve trigger
is reached. This will ensure spectrum is
reserved only where there is demand at
market-based prices and increase the
likelihood that the auction will close at
a higher spectrum target.
94. In the coming months, the
Commission will solicit public input in
the Incentive Auction Comment PN on
procedures for implementing certain
auction-related decisions made in the
Incentive Auction Report and Order.
Among other things, the Comment PN
will seek comment on how to establish
the details of a spectrum reserve trigger
based on the final stage rule, in order to
fairly distribute the responsibility for
satisfying the costs of the reverse
auction among all bidders. Among other
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
things, the Commission will consider
whether the trigger should be based
solely on prices or revenues in the
‘‘major markets’’ and, if so, how to
identify such markets. The Procedures
PN will adopt the details of its spectrum
reserve trigger at the same time that the
Commission establishes final auction
procedures and resolves crucial auction
design issues, including the benchmarks
required to implement the final stage
rule, opening prices, and how much
market variation to accommodate in the
600 MHz Band Plan.
4. Holding Period for 600 MHz Band
Licenses
95. The Commission finds that certain
restrictions on secondary market
transactions of 600 MHz Band licenses
are necessary in certain circumstances.
These secondary market restrictions for
600 MHz Band licenses will not apply
to exchanges of equal amounts of 600
MHz Band spectrum in the same
market.
96. First, the Commission recognizes
that its goal in adopting the spectrum
reserve—facilitating access to 600 MHz
Band licenses in order to ensure against
excessive concentration in holdings of
low-band spectrum—could be
undermined if entities that would not be
permitted to acquire reserved 600 MHz
Band licenses in the auction are
permitted to acquire them after the
auction through secondary markets. The
risk of undermining its goals for
competition and the Incentive Auction
must be balanced, however, against the
Commission’s general policy of
promoting flexibility in secondary
markets transactions. The Commission
finds that precluding secondary market
transactions of 600 MHz Band licenses
for six years, which represents the
interim buildout period for 600 MHz
licenses, strikes the appropriate balance
to preserve the integrity of its marketbased spectrum reserve while still
permitting some flexibility in secondary
markets transactions. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that, for a period
of six years, entities that acquired
reserved spectrum licenses in the
Incentive Auction cannot assign or
transfer those licenses to, or enter into
long-term leases regarding those
licenses with, entities that would not
have been in compliance with the
reserve-eligible entity requirements on
the date the short form application was
due for the Incentive Auction.
97. In addition, the Commission notes
that its decision to adopt a holding
period reflects its continuing efforts to
avoid excessive concentration of
licenses not only as a result of the
Incentive Auction, but also to ensure
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that secondary market transactions do
not frustrate the underlying public
interest goals of its mobile spectrum
holdings policies for this band.
Aggregation of 600 MHz Band spectrum
by means of secondary market
transactions has the potential to further
exacerbate its concerns about below-1GHz spectrum license concentration,
which must be balanced against the
Commission’s general policy of
promoting flexibility in secondary
market transactions. Accordingly, the
Commission will prohibit any transfer,
assignment, or long-term leasing of any
600 MHz Band licenses (including
unreserved 600 Band licenses) for a
period of six years post-auction that
would result in the acquiring entity
holding approximately one-third or
more of suitable and available below-1GHz spectrum post-transaction. Given
that this limit is a bright-line
prohibition, the acquiring entity’s
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings will be
determined by a population-weighted
methodology.
5. Further Implementation Issues
98. The Commission will seek
comment in the Incentive Auction
Comment PN on any further
implementation issues that may affect
its market-based spectrum reserve, and
whether and if so how the policies and
rules the Commission adopted should
apply or be adjusted based on any
auction details that might be relevant to
the process (e.g., auctioning impaired
spectrum blocks). The Commission will
resolve any relevant further
implementation in the Incentive
Auction Procedures PN.
6. Legal Authority
99. Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act,
codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(17), provides
that the Commission may not ‘‘prevent’’
a person who is otherwise qualified
from ‘‘participating in a system of
competitive bidding’’ under Section
309(j). However, Section 6404 further
provides that ‘‘[n]othing in [the
foregoing restriction] affects any
authority the Commission has to adopt
and enforce rules of general
applicability,’’ including without
limitation ‘‘rules concerning spectrum
aggregation that promote competition.’’
100. The Commission finds that its
adoption of reserved spectrum for the
Incentive Auction is fully consistent
with its authority under Title III and the
Spectrum Act. The market-based
spectrum reserve that the Commission
adopted are ‘‘rules of general
applicability’’ that fall under the
Spectrum Act’s savings clause codified
at 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(17)(B). The term
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
‘‘rule of general applicability’’ is a term
of art; it has an established meaning
under the Administrative Procedure
Act. ‘‘In the absence of contrary
indication, the Commission assumes
that when a statute uses . . . a term [of
art], Congress intended it to have its
established meaning.’’ The established
meaning of the term ‘‘rule of general
applicability’’ is a rule that is not partyspecific, that is, not a ‘‘rule of particular
applicability.’’ It is to be contrasted
with, for example, a named telephone
company’s rate of return. The rule that
the Commission adopted would be
triggered by the amount of an entity’s
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings;
depending upon the particular
geographic market, eligibility to bid for
the reserved spectrum may vary. And
the mere fact that, in a particular PEA,
a specific person would not be so
eligible does not render the rule one of
particular applicability. Even a general
rule must have potential particular
effect—otherwise every rule would be
ineffective. For similar reasons, it need
not apply on an industry-wide basis, or
apply to all Commission auctions.
Because the rule that the Commission
adopted applies to any entity that has
the general characteristics identified in
the rule, the rule is not party-specific.
101. In addition, by expressly stating
that ‘‘[n]othing in subparagraph (A)
affects any authority the Commission
has to adopt and enforce . . . rules
concerning spectrum aggregation that
promote competition[,]’’ Section
309(j)(17)(B) preserves the
Commission’s long-standing authority
under Title III of the Communications
Act to adopt ‘‘rules concerning
spectrum aggregation that promote
competition.’’ Over the past three
decades that the Commission has
licensed mobile wireless spectrum, Title
III authority has been the basis for
several restrictions that the Commission
has adopted regarding spectrum
aggregation, including ex ante
limitations. The Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit has
affirmed that Title III grants the
Commission ‘‘expansive authority’’ to
regulate mobile wireless licenses, and
that authority includes its power to
regulate spectrum concentration in
mobile wireless markets.
102. Because the rules the
Commission adopted today fall squarely
under the historical authority of the
Commission under Title III as preserved
by subparagraph (B), the new
prohibition created in subparagraph (A)
is not applicable. In other words, the
Commission interprets Section 6404 to
preserve the Commission’s authority to
adopt rules of general applicability
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
regarding spectrum aggregation, without
regard to whether such rules prevent
participation in a system of competitive
bidding.
103. Even if subparagraph (A) were to
apply to an ex ante reservation of
spectrum, the market-based spectrum
reserve that the Commission adopted
does not violate that provision because
it would not ‘‘prevent’’ any entity ‘‘from
participating’’ in a ‘‘system of
competitive bidding.’’ Supreme Court
precedent compels us to interpret these
terms according to their ordinary
meaning. The ordinary meaning of
‘‘prevent’’ is ‘‘to stop someone from
doing something,’’ and the ordinary
meaning of ‘‘participate’’ is ‘‘to take
part’’ or ‘‘to have a part or a share in
something.’’ Thus, the ordinary meaning
of the phrase ‘‘prevent . . . from
participating,’’ in context, is that the
Commission may not stop a person who
is otherwise qualified from taking part
in a system of competitive bidding.
104. The term ‘‘a system of
competitive bidding’’ is also a term of
art that refers broadly to the process for
granting licenses through competitive
bidding, including, identifying classes
of licenses to be assigned by auction,
specifying eligibility and other
characteristics of such licenses, and
designing the methodologies to be used
for competitive bidding for particular
licenses. Thus, participation in a
‘‘system of competitive bidding’’ does
not mean that every entity must be able
to participate in the bidding for every
single license or spectrum block that
may be available in an auction.
105. The market-based spectrum
reserve the Commission adopted will
permit all bidders to bid for some
spectrum licenses in every market,
while reserving certain spectrum blocks
for providers with existing holdings of
below-1-GHz spectrum of less than 45
megahertz. In a single PEA, under every
band scenario there will be at least as
much unreserved as reserved spectrum,
and in some scenarios from two to three
times as much. Its action will satisfy its
statutory mandate to promote very
broad participation in its systems of
competitive bidding by current
providers of mobile services and
potential entrants into the wireless data
and telephony marketplace.
106. Finally, the Commission
determined that it is clear from the plain
text of Section 309(j)(B)(17) that the
Commission has the authority to adopt
the market-based spectrum reserve in its
design of a system of competitive
bidding. Accordingly, the Commission
concluded that the market-based
spectrum reserve that the Commission
adopted does not prevent any person
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39991
from participating in its system of
competitive bidding in a manner
contrary to the Spectrum Act.
107. The Commission disagrees with
arguments that it did not provide
adequate notice under the APA. First,
the Commission inquired about an ex
ante restriction in the Incentive
Auctions NPRM, observing that ‘‘section
309(j)(3)(B)’s direction to avoid
excessive concentration of licenses
might militate in favor of a rule that
permits any single participant in the
auction to acquire no more than onethird of all 600 MHz spectrum being
auctioned in a given license area.’’ The
rule that the Commission adopted is a
‘‘variatio[n] of that approach,’’ on which
the Commission also sought comment. It
would prevent providers in certain
circumstances from bidding on reserved
600 MHz spectrum in some PEAs in the
Incentive Auction. However, all
providers will be permitted to bid on
more than one-third of the available
spectrum in any PEA. In addition, the
Commission specifically asked about
adoption of a bright-line limits approach
in the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, including limits on holdings
below 1 GHz and band-specific limits.
Applying a 600 MHz limit applicable
only to bidders with significant
holdings below 1 MHz also is a logical
outgrowth of issues identified in the
NPRM. Where the Commission asked
about a one-third limit, it did so ‘‘[a]s
[an] example.’’ The Commission finds
that the market-based spectrum reserve
the Commission adopted is consistent
with the Spectrum Act and with its
general authority under Title III and was
adequately noticed under the APA.
C. AWS–3 Auction
108. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether to adopt limits on
the amount of spectrum that entities
could acquire in the context of spectrum
auctions mandated by the Spectrum
Act. In the AWS–3 NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on
whether and how to address the mobile
spectrum holdings issues to meet its
statutory requirements pursuant to
section 309(j)(3)(B) and its goals for the
AWS–3 bands.
109. The Commission finds that, on
balance, it is not in the public interest
to adopt a band-specific mobile
spectrum holdings limit for the AWS–3
auction. Nothing in the record indicates
that without such a limitation,
opportunities for access to spectrum
with similar characteristics would be
significantly constrained. In particular,
the Commission emphasizes the
availability of a substantial amount of
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
39992
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
comparable high-band spectrum to
competitors and the significant existing
holdings of multiple providers of
comparable spectrum. In addition, with
rising demand for mobile broadband
services, increasing network capacity is
important to all providers, and above-1GHz spectrum is particularly suitable
for such needs. The 65 megahertz of
AWS–3 spectrum that the Commission
plans to auction have the potential to
allow for greater network capacity for all
providers to meet this demand.
110. The Commission notes that
multiple providers currently have
access to bands comparable to AWS–3.
Moreover, each of the four nationwide
providers holds a significant amount of
this spectrum. This is unlike the case
with the 600 MHz Band, which has
fewer ‘‘coverage band’’ substitutes (700
MHz and 800 MHz). Moreover, in
contrast to bands comparable to
AWS–3, the bands comparable to the
600 MHz Band are held by a limited
number of service providers.
Accordingly, while it is necessary to
adopt a 600 MHz Band specific
spectrum holding policy, such an
approach is not necessary for the AWS–
3 auction.
IV. Secondary Market Transactions
111. The Commission articulated its
framework for a case-by-case review for
the first time in analyzing the CingularAT&T Wireless transaction in 2004. In
particular, in that context and in its
analysis of subsequent proposed
transactions, the Commission used an
initial screen to help identify for caseby-case review local markets where
changes in spectrum holdings resulting
from the transaction may be of
particular concern. For transactions that
result in the acquisition of wireless
business units and customers or change
the number of firms in any market, the
Commission also applies an initial
screen based on the size of the posttransaction HHI of market concentration
and the change in the HHI. As set out
in various transactions orders, however,
the Commission has not limited its
consideration of potential competitive
harms solely to markets identified by its
initial screen, if it encounters other
factors, such as increased aggregation of
below-1-GHz spectrum that may bear on
the public interest inquiry.
112. The Commission finds that it is
in the public interest to retain its
current case-by-case review for
secondary market transactions. The
Commission will also retain its current
product and geographic market
definitions. The Commission will
continue to apply the spectrum screen
on a county-by-county basis to identify
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
those CMAs where an entity would hold
approximately one-third or more of the
total spectrum that is suitable and
available for the provision of mobile
telephony/broadband services posttransaction, and will evaluate these
markets for any competitive harm.
Further, the Commission will continue
to evaluate the likely competitive effects
of increased aggregation of below-1-GHz
spectrum, and in particular, will pay
specific attention to those markets in
which a proposed transaction would
result in a service provider holding
approximately one-third or more of
suitable and available below-1-GHz
spectrum post-transaction. Moreover,
the Commission finds that it is in the
public interest not to limit its analysis
of potential competitive harms to solely
those markets identified by the initial
screen, if the Commission encounters
other factors that may bear on the public
interest inquiry.
A. Case-by-Case Review vs. Bright Line
Limits
113. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission observed that
the case-by-case approach to proposed
transactions review affords the
Commission flexibility to consider the
unique circumstances of a proposed
transaction and the changing needs of
the mobile wireless marketplace
generally, and to tailor remedies to the
specific harm and circumstances. At the
same time, however, the Commission
noted that case-by-case review is both
time- and resource-intensive, and has
been criticized for creating uncertainty
as to whether a particular transaction
will be approved. The Commission
sought comment on the costs and
benefits of its case-by-case review and
whether the review of proposed
transactions could be more transparent,
predictable, or better tailored to promote
its goals. The Commission asked if
bright-line limits, similar to the CMRS
spectrum cap eliminated in 2003, would
better serve the public interest.
114. The Commission finds that it is
in the public interest to continue to use
its initial spectrum screen and case-bycase analysis to evaluate the likely
competitive effects of increased
spectrum aggregation through secondary
market transactions, rather than to adopt
a bright-line limit. It observes that the
fundamental principles that the
Commission articulated in eliminating
the spectrum cap in favor of a case-bycase approach to transactions review
continue to apply today. Moreover, in
the context of transactions review, the
Commission is concerned that ex ante
limits on spectrum aggregation may
prevent transactions that are in the
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
public interest. The Commission has
found that in reviewing secondary
market transactions, the complex
technical, strategic, and economic
factors that determine the likely
competitive effects of increased
spectrum aggregation require a case-bycase assessment.
115. The Commission distinguishes
its decision to retain case-by-case
review for spectrum acquisitions
through transactions from its
determination above that any mobile
spectrum holding limit applied to
auctions should be a bright-line rule.
The unique circumstances typically
associated with spectrum auctions,
particularly the time constraints and the
need for certainty for each bidder
regarding which licenses it would be
permitted to acquire at the auction,
make case-by-case analysis challenging
in the auction context.
B. Market Definitions
116. The Commission considers
whether to modify the current market
definitions that the Commission uses in
its competitive analysis for proposed
secondary market transactions. The
Commission concludes that it is in the
public interest to retain the current
product market definition and the
current geographic market definition.
1. Relevant Product Market
117. Background. In its recent
transaction orders, the Commission has
determined that the relevant product
market is a combined ‘‘mobile
telephony/broadband services’’ product
market that comprises mobile voice and
data services, including mobile voice
and data services provided over
advanced broadband wireless network
(mobile broadband services).
118. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether the product
market definition should be modified to
reflect differentiated service offerings,
devices and contract features, for
instance, or whether smaller submarkets should be defined within a
larger market. The Commission also
sought comment on the costs and
benefits of any potential modifications.
119. The Commission retains the
current product market definition. The
Commission does not find sufficient
evidence in the record to support a
change in the current product market
definition. The Commission finds that
the current product market definition,
‘‘mobile telephony/broadband services,’’
continues to encompass the mobile
voice and data services that are
provided today, and is sufficiently
flexible to reflect emerging, next-
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
generation wireless services. The
Commission did not find evidence in
the record to convince us that the
current definition has been defined too
broadly or too narrowly for purposes of
its competitive analysis. As set out in
prior transactions, the product market
the Commission defined encompasses
differentiated services (e.g., voicecentric or data-centric), devices (e.g.,
feature phone, smartphone, tablet, etc.),
and contract features (e.g., prepaid vs.
postpaid). While such distinctions may
suggest the possibility of smaller
markets nested within that larger
product market, the Commission finds it
unnecessary to define such smaller
product markets in order to analyze the
potential competitive effects of
secondary market transactions. The
Commission will continue to consider
these aspects of product differentiation,
as appropriate, when the Commission
analyzes the competitive effects of the
proposed secondary market transaction
within the markets the Commission
defined. Therefore, the Commission
finds it is in the public interest to retain
the current product market definition.
2. Relevant Geographic Market
120. In its recent transactions orders,
the Commission has found that the
relevant geographic markets for certain
wireless transactions generally are local,
while also evaluating a transaction’s
competitive effects at the national level
where a transaction exhibits certain
national characteristics that provide
cause for concern. In the Mobile
Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the
Commission sought comment on the
appropriate geographic market
definition to use when evaluating a
licensee’s mobile spectrum holdings,
under either its current case-by-case
analysis or if bright-line limits were
adopted.
121. The Commission finds for
purposes of evaluating the competitive
effects of proposed transactions it will
continue to use local geographic
markets, but also will analyze potential
national effects as appropriate. The
Commission continues to find that most
consumers use their mobile telephony/
broadband services at or close to where
they live, work, and shop, in support of
its decision that local markets are the
relevant geographic markets in which to
analyze the potential for competitive
harms as a result of certain wireless
transactions. Certain elements of the
provision of mobile wireless services are
national in scope, including key
variables such as pricing, development
of equipment, and service plan
offerings, and nothing in the record
suggests that the basis for this finding
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
39993
by, but not limited to, traditional
antitrust principles.
126. In addition, the Commission
declines to adopt a spectrum screen
threshold based on spectrum share HHIs
finding that to do so would mark a
substantial departure from its traditional
approach that is not supported by the
record. The Commission does not
believe the record demonstrates the
efficacy of applying an HHI analysis to
an input market, and believes
C. Applicable Spectrum Holdings
establishing such a requirement would
Threshold
be burdensome and create substantial
uncertainty.
122. In 2004 the Commission
127. The Commission declines to
established a spectrum screen threshold
establish a higher spectrum screen
of approximately one-third of suitable
threshold for rural markets. In rural
and available spectrum that would be
areas there are significant benefits to
held by the acquiring entity postconsumers of facilitating access by
transaction. In the Mobile Spectrum
Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought multiple providers to sufficient
spectrum, such that they are able to
comment on whether one-third is still
the appropriate threshold generally, and provide an effective competitive
constraint. To the extent there are
whether a higher threshold should
unique considerations in a particular
apply in rural areas.
rural market such that spectrum
123. The Commission will retain the
aggregation above the spectrum screen
approximately one-third threshold for
is in the public interest; its case-by-case
applying its initial spectrum screen.
analysis provides the Commission the
Based on its experience in applying this
flexibility to approve such a transaction.
threshold in numerous transactions over
128. Accordingly, the Commission
the last decade, the Commission has
will continue to apply an approximately
found it to be an effective analytical tool one-third spectrum screen threshold in
in helping to identify individual
its review of secondary market spectrum
markets where a proposed transaction
acquisitions. Specifically, the modified
may raise particular competitive
spectrum screen the Commission
concerns. In its application of the
adopted would include 580.5 megahertz
screen, the Commission includes not
of spectrum, with a trigger of 194
only the entity’s licensed spectrum, on
megahertz, or approximately one-third
a county-by-county basis, but also all
of the suitable and available spectrum.
long term spectrum leasing
The spectrum screen is triggered where
arrangements, with spectrum being
the Applicants would have, on a
attributed to both the lessee and lessor.
county-by-county basis, an attributable
124. The Commission finds that even
interest in 194 megahertz or more of
where one entity holds approximately
spectrum where both AWS–1 and BRS/
one-third of suitable and available
EBS spectrum are available in the
spectrum, a market may contain more
particular market. If AWS–1 and/or
than three viable competitors. Its goal is BRS/EBS spectrum are not available in
not to equalize the amount of spectrum
that market, these bands are not counted
held by each competitor in each market. for purposes of applying the spectrum
Increasing the threshold, would not be
screen trigger in that market.
in the public interest.
D. Operation of the Spectrum Screen
125. The Commission also disagrees
129. As set out in various transactions
with AT&T’s assertion that the
orders, the Commission has not limited
Commission can increase the spectrum
its consideration of potential
screen threshold because the costs of
competitive harms solely to markets
‘‘false positive’’ errors—chilling
identified by its initial screen, if it
innovation and investment, and an
encounters other factors that may bear
inefficient use of the Commission’s
on the public interest inquiry. For
resources—outweigh the costs of ‘‘false
example, the Commission has
negative’’ errors because spectrum
considered below-1-GHz concentration,
acquisitions that would harm
and concentration within a particular
competition would be remedied by
other Federal agencies (e.g., DOJ). As the spectrum band, including a band that
Commission previously has stated in the was not at the time included in the
spectrum screen. In the Mobile
context of orders addressing proposed
Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the
transactions, its competitive analysis,
Commission sought comment on
which forms an important part of the
establishing a higher burden of proof for
public interest evaluation, is informed
has changed. The Commission also will
continue therefore to analyze the
potential competitive effects of those
wireless transactions that exhibit
national characteristics, such as
increased spectrum aggregation in many
local markets across the country with
the implication that harms that may
occur at the local level collectively
could have nationwide competitive
effects.
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39994
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
the approval of proposed transactions
that would exceed the relevant
spectrum threshold.
130. The Commission will continue to
review on a case-by-case basis those
markets in which an entity would
exceed the initial spectrum screen if the
transaction as proposed were approved.
The Commission declines to establish a
rebuttable presumption, finding it
would unnecessarily limit the
Commission’s flexibility. Further, the
Commission affirms the Commission’s
conclusions that its consideration of
potential competitive harms resulting
from a proposed spectrum acquisition in
the secondary market should not be
limited solely to markets identified by
the initial screen, if the Commission
encounters other factors that may bear
on its public interest inquiry. For
instance, the Commission has
specifically analyzed the potential
competitive effects of aggregation of
spectrum below 1 GHz. The
Commission finds, in light of current
marketplace conditions, that access by
multiple service providers to sufficient
spectrum below 1 GHz will preserve
and promote competition in the mobile
wireless marketplace to the benefit of
American consumers, and therefore find
that further significant aggregation of
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings in
secondary market transactions will be
subject to enhanced review in its caseby-case competitive evaluation, as
discussed below.
131. While the Commission
recognizes that a safe harbor would
provide greater certainty to applicants,
just as a bright-line limit would provide
greater certainty, the Commission finds
that in the context of secondary market
transactions, it is in the public interest
to maintain flexibility to consider any
factors presented that may bear on our
review. Moreover, in the absence of
such flexibility, the Commission’s
review of future proposed transactions
would be limited by its understanding
of technology and industry practices at
the time it adopted the specific
thresholds. The Commission finds that
its articulation of factors it will consider
in its case-by-case analysis as set forth
below provides sufficient clarity to
potential applicants, while maintaining
flexibility to consider changes in
technology and industry practices in the
rapidly-evolving mobile wireless
marketplace.
132. The Commission distinguishes
its decision not to adopt a safe harbor
for case-by-case review of spectrum
acquisitions through transactions from
its determination above that any mobile
spectrum holdings limit applied to
auctions should be a bright-line rule.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
The unique circumstances typically
associated with spectrum auctions,
particularly the time constraints and the
need for certainty for each bidder
regarding which licenses it would be
permitted to acquire at the auction,
make case-by-case analysis challenging
in the auction context.
E. Nationwide Screen
133. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether, in addition to the
spectrum screen applied on a countyby-county basis in helping to identify
local markets of particular competitive
concern, it should also adopt a separate
screen that would be applied on a
nationwide basis.
134. The Commission declines to
establish a separate screen as a means to
evaluate spectrum holdings at the
nationwide level. The Commission finds
it would either be redundant or create
irrational incentives for providers to
divest or to forego acquisition of
spectrum in markets in which there
would be a net public benefit from such
an acquisition. However, as certain
elements of the provision of mobile
wireless services are national in scope,
including key variables such as pricing,
development of equipment, and service
plan offerings, the Commission will
continue to analyze the potential
competitive effects of those secondary
market transactions that exhibit national
characteristics. Increased spectrum
aggregation in many local markets
across the country may imply that
harms that occur at the local level
collectively could have nationwide
competitive effects. The Commission
finds that it is in the public interest to
continue to define local geographic
markets but also to analyze potential
national effects as appropriate.
F. Distinguishing among Spectrum
Bands for Transactions Review
135. In recent years, the Commission
has considered below-1-GHz spectrum
concentration as a factor in its review of
spectrum acquisitions in the secondary
market. In the Mobile Spectrum
Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether it should adopt a
separate screen for below-1-GHz
spectrum under which an entity that
would hold, post-transaction,
approximately one-third or more of the
relevant spectrum below 1 GHz in a
geographic market would be subject to
a more detailed competitive review in
that market. The Commission also
sought comment on whether,
alternatively, it should establish a
bright-line limit for spectrum holdings
below 1 GHz, whether it should assign
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
different weights to each of the
spectrum bands as part of its case-bycase review, or whether it should take
any other action to recognize
distinctions between spectrum bands in
its competitive review of proposed
transactions.
136. The Commission declines to
adopt a separate screen or bright-line
limit for below-1-GHz spectrum
holdings, or a set of weighting factors
for each spectrum band included in its
initial spectrum screen. Post-transaction
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings will be
an enhanced factor under its case-bycase review.
1. Below-1-GHz Limit
137. Several commenters assert that
the Commission should supplement the
total spectrum screen applied to
transactions with a screen or a brightline limit for below-1-GHz spectrum,
ranging from 25 percent to 40 percent.
138. The Commission adopts a
market-based spectrum reserve for the
Incentive Auction and to set limitations
on the assignment or transfer of 600
MHz licenses after the Incentive
Auction. These actions will help to
ensure that multiple providers are able
to access a sufficient amount of lowband spectrum, which will facilitate the
extension and improvement of service
in both rural and urban areas, to the
benefit of consumers. In light of these
actions, the Commission concludes that
it is not necessary at this time to adopt
a separate screen or cap applicable to its
evaluation of the assignment or transfer
of below-1-GHz spectrum. Nonetheless,
the Commission will continue to
evaluate below-1-GHz holdings as a
factor in its case-by-case review of such
transactions, consistent with the
Commission’s precedent in the past few
years. Moving forward, post-transaction
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings will
become an enhanced factor in its
competitive evaluation, as discussed
below, and therefore, the Commission
will apply particular focus to its review
of this factor as the Commission
evaluated the likelihood of potential
competitive harms.
2. Spectrum Weighting
139. Background. Several
commenters, including Sprint, assert
that the Commission should weight
spectrum bands to reflect the extent to
which spectrum at that frequency yields
lower costs for the deployment and
operation of equipment. Other
approaches to weighting raised on the
record include using price data from
spectrum auctions and secondary
market transactions. Others contend that
spectrum weighting would distort the
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Commission’s analysis of the
competitive effect of proposed
transactions and is otherwise
impractical to implement. Sprint argues
that weight spectrum should be based
on the cost to deploy and operate using
a particular band, arguing that low-band
spectrum is typically significantly more
cost-effective to deploy than higherfrequency spectrum.
140. The Commission finds that, in
principle, spectrum weighting has the
potential to enhance its competitive
analysis of proposed spectrum
acquisitions. However, the Commission
concludes that, at this time, it cannot
justify, on the basis of the record,
adopting specific weighting factors for
each spectrum band. Nonetheless, the
Commission observes that the data
submitted on the record does
demonstrate that there are significant
differences in deployment costs
between low-band and high-band
spectrum, and it is able to consider
those differences as a key factor in its
case-by-case analysis moving forward.
141. The Commission finds that to
establish specific weighting factors for
each spectrum band based on bandspecific signal propagation
characteristics raises certain issues,
including the underlying assumptions
that are appropriate to make. Further,
the Commission finds that establishing
specific weighting factors based on
other factors, such as the ‘‘value’’ of the
spectrum, also raises certain issues as
prices paid at auction vary significantly
over time based on a variety of factors
not necessarily related to the
characteristics of the spectrum being
auctioned. The Commission finds that
treating below-1-GHz spectrum
concentration as an enhanced factor in
its case-by-case analysis is a better
approach at this time because it is able
to distinguish between the
characteristics of different frequency
bands without imposing a weighting
schema that may fail to accurately
reflect their competitive significance.
Based upon the record in this
proceeding, the Commission concludes
that adopting a spectrum weighting
schema would not be in the public
interest at this time.
G. Factors Considered in Competitive
Analysis
142. Background. In its evaluation of
proposed secondary market
transactions, the Commission broadly
assesses whether and to what extent
proposed acquisitions of wireless
spectrum could affect downstream
competition in the mobile telephony/
broadband services marketplace. In
particular, the Commission’s
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
competitive analysis of wireless
transactions focuses initially on those
markets identified by the screen where
the acquisition of customers and/or
spectrum would result in significant
concentration of either or both, and
thereby could lead to competitive harm.
As discussed above, however, the
Commission has not limited its
consideration of potential competitive
harms solely to markets identified by its
initial screen if it encounters other
factors that may bear on the public
interest inquiry. Specifically, the
Commission has considered
concentration of below-1-GHz holdings,
and concentration of spectrum within a
specific band.
143. In its transactions analyses, the
Commission has considered various
other factors that help to predict the
likelihood of competitive harm posttransaction. These competitive variables
include, but are not limited to: The total
number of rival service providers; the
number of rival firms that can offer
competitive nationwide service plans;
the coverage by technology of the firms’
respective networks; the rival firms’
market shares; the combined entity’s
post-transaction market share and how
that share changes as a result of the
transaction; the amount of spectrum
suitable for the provision of mobile
telephony/broadband services
controlled by the combined entity; and
the spectrum holdings of each of the
rival service providers. The Commission
notes that it is important to recognize
that many transactions are more than
spectrum transfers; they involve the
disappearance of a separate business
enterprise as an ongoing potential
competitive constraint and source of
innovations in services and marketing.
144. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission asked if it
should adopt guidelines setting forth the
factors that will be considered during
any review of a licensee’s mobile
spectrum holdings or delegate authority
to the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau to do so.
145. Discussion. The Commission
retains the authority to consider all
factors that could affect the likely
competitive impact of proposed
transactions, and declines to adopt a
formal set of guidelines at this time. It
does not find sufficient evidence in the
record to support the adoption of the
specific standards advocated by
commenters regarding spectrum
utilization or spectrum weighting.
Nonetheless, the Commission retains
the right to consider such factors in
specific future transactions. In addition,
parties are free to bring such matters to
the Commission’s attention. It affirms its
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39995
continued use of the factors considered
in the Commission’s case-by-case
analyses to date of the potential
competitive impacts of further
concentration of spectrum in particular
markets. The Commission continues to
hold the view that band concentration
may be a relevant factor to consider in
its case-by-case analysis, and recognize
that changes in technology and the
marketplace may result in band-specific
concentrations warranting increased
scrutiny.
146. Certain frequencies possess
distinct characteristics for the provision
of mobile wireless services, and a
service provider is best positioned if it
holds spectrum licenses for both lowand high-band spectrum. The
Commission finds that spectrum
holdings by service provider in the
limited low- (i.e., below-1-GHz) bands
have become particularly concentrated.
The Commission has concerns about the
potential effects of further concentration
of below-1-GHz spectrum on
competition and innovation in the
mobile wireless services marketplace.
The Commission decided not to adopt a
separate below-1-GHz screen or cap at
this time. Building on the Commission
precedent in the past few years,
however, it will treat certain further
concentration of below-1-GHz spectrum
as an enhanced factor in its case-by-case
analysis of the potential competitive
harms posed by individual transactions.
147. The Commission currently
considers a variety of factors in its caseby-case analysis of spectrum acquisition
through transactions–including, but not
limited to the total number of rival
service providers; the number of rival
firms that can offer competitive service
plans; the coverage by technology of the
firms’ respective networks; the rival
firms’ market shares; the amount of
spectrum suitable for the provision of
mobile telephony/broadband services
controlled by the combined entity; the
spectrum holdings of each of the rival
service providers; the acquisition of
below-1-GHz spectrum nationwide; and
concentration in a particular band with
an important ecosystem. In analyzing
spectrum acquisitions based on these
factors, the Commission generally
determines, based on the totality of the
circumstances, whether there is an
increased ability or incentive for the
acquiring firm to successfully raise
prices or otherwise engage in anticompetitive behavior. The Commission
then employs a balancing test weighing
any potential public interest harms
against any potential public interest
benefits, and the applicants bear the
burden of proving, by a preponderance
of the evidence, that the proposed
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39996
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
transaction, on balance, will serve the
public interest.
148. In implementing this approach
going forward, the Commission
anticipates that any entity that would
end up with more than one third of
below-1-GHz spectrum as a result of a
proposed transaction would facilitate its
case-by-case review with a detailed
demonstration regarding why the public
interest benefits outweigh harms. When
the other factors the Commission
ordinarily considers indicate a low
potential for competitive or other public
interest harm, the acquisition of below1-GHz spectrum resulting in holdings of
approximately one-third or more of such
spectrum will not preclude a conclusion
that a proposed transaction, on balance,
furthers the public interest. Absent that,
however, any transaction that would
result in an entity holding
approximately one-third or more of
suitable and available below-1-GHz
spectrum will more likely be found to
cause competitive harm in its case-bycase review.
149. Consistent with its overall
concerns about the potential public
interest harms regarding the
concentration of below-1-GHz spectrum,
the Commission anticipates it likely
would have even greater concerns
where the proposed transaction would
result in an assignee or transferee that
already holds approximately one-third
or more of below-1-GHz spectrum in a
market acquiring additional below-1GHz spectrum in that market, especially
with regard to paired low-band
spectrum. In these cases, the
demonstration of the public interest
benefits of the proposed transaction
would need to clearly outweigh the
potential public interest harms
associated with such additional
concentration of below-1-GHz spectrum,
irrespective of other factors. For
instance, applicants could provide a
particularly detailed showing in such
cases that they currently are maximizing
the use of their spectrum and how the
proposed transaction is necessary to
maintain, enhance, or expand services
provided to consumers. The
Commission believes such a showing
would be required to achieve its goal of
ensuring that the ability of rival service
providers to offer a competitive
response to any price increase or to offer
new innovative services is not
eliminated or significantly lessened.
150. The Commission finds that
considering additional below-1-GHz
spectrum concentration as an enhanced
factor in its review of secondary market
transactions will help ensure that
further concentration of such spectrum
will not have adverse competitive
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
effects either in particular local markets
or on a broader regional or national
level.
151. In addition, although the
Commission declines to adopt specific
weighting factors for each band, or for
groups of bands, it recognizes that
differences between spectrum bands can
be relevant to a determination of the
public interest in the context of
reviewing transactions. It will consider
such differences in its case-by-case
review of specific transactions. For
example, applications involving small
amounts of high-band spectrum,
particularly EBS spectrum, likely would
present limited potential for public
interest harms.
H. Remedies
152. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on the remedies, including
divestitures that would be appropriate
for it to prevent competitive harm
resulting from spectrum acquisitions. In
particular, it sought comment on
whether different approaches or types of
divestures would best serve the
Commission’s goals, and whether the
Commission should adopt different
criteria for divestiture based on whether
the spectrum to be divested is from
lower or upper frequency bands or is
immediately ‘‘useable’’ by another
licensee. It sought comment on the
extent to which the Commission should
remedy the potential harms posed by a
transaction by placing other conditions,
such as, for example, requirements to
offer leasing, roaming or collocation, in
conjunction with, or in lieu of, requiring
divestitures.
153. Based upon the record in this
proceeding, the Commission believes it
is unnecessary to change its existing
approach to protecting and promoting
the public interest, including
competition, through the application of
transaction-specific remedies. Its caseby-case analysis allows the Commission
to carefully tailor remedies that address
and ameliorate public interest harms or
alternatively ensure that proposed
public interest benefits are realized by
consumers. The Commission does not
believe, and the record does not
indicate, that the narrowly-tailored, factspecific remedies it has required in
recent transactions have discouraged
transactions that generally are in the
public interest, and it does not conclude
that any greater specificity with regard
to remedies would significantly affect
parties’ willingness to enter into
transactions. The Commission finds that
the public interest benefits and public
interest harms often are specific to each
transaction, and that limiting possible
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
remedies ex ante would undercut the
benefits of case-by-case review, that is,
the tailoring of the review, and
remedies, to the specific circumstances
of any given transaction. The
Commission does not see any evidence
in the record that the use of tailored
remedies has inhibited competitivenessenhancing transactions, and it finds that
there are the pro-competitive effects of
the Commission’s policies on
remediation. The Commission declines
to limit possible remedial action as
AT&T suggests. The Commission’s
public interest analysis, which
considers the near and long-term
competitive effects of spectrum
aggregation, and which may have an
impact beyond the local markets
involved should not be limited to a
particular geographic location or
spectrum band in proposing remedies to
protect the public interest.
V. Attribution of Interests in License
Holdings
154. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission proposed to
codify the attribution threshold and
sought comment on proposed section
20.21 of the Commission’s Rules, which
would apply to mobile spectrum
holdings. Pursuant to the proposal, all
controlling interest and non-controlling
interests of ten percent or more would
be attributable. In addition, noncontrolling interests of less than ten
percent would be attributable if the
Commission determined that the
interest confers de facto control,
including but not limited to partnership
and other ownership interests and any
stock interest in a licensee. The
Commission also sought comment on
whether to include a specific waiver
provision if it codified the rule. In
addition, consistent with its current
practice, the Commission proposed to
attribute long-term de facto transfer
leasing arrangements and long-term
spectrum manager leasing arrangements
to the lessees, lessors, sublessees, and
sublessors.
155. The Commission finds
insufficient evidence in the record to
support any modifications to its current
practices for attribution. The
Commission has developed its current
practices over the years through its caseby-case review of secondary market
transactions and related transfer of
control applications. Therefore, the
Commission finds that retaining the
current ten percent attribution threshold
will serve the public interest.
Accordingly, all controlling interests
and non-controlling interests of ten
percent or more would be attributable.
In addition, interests of less than ten
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
percent would be attributable if the
interest confers de facto control,
including but not limited to partnership
and other ownership interests and any
stock interest in a licensee. The
Commission also codifies these rules for
purposes of determining spectrum
holdings amounts before an auction.
The Commission finds that codifying
the rules will provide additional
transparency and clarity for applicants
and prospective auction participants.
The Commission also concludes that the
general waiver standard provided in
Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules
provides sufficient guidance for
applicants seeking to waive of these
attribution rules.
156. Consistent with its current
practice, the Commission also attributed
long-term de facto transfer leasing
arrangements and long-term spectrum
manager leasing arrangements to the
lessor and the lessee, including
sublessors and sublessees. Spectrum
leasing arrangement are arrangements
between a licensed entity and a thirdparty entity in which the licensee leases
certain of its spectrum usage rights in
the licensed spectrum to the third-party
entity, the spectrum lessee. Leasing
provides lessees the flexibility to lease
a small or large quantity of spectrum for
short or longer time periods depending
on their business needs. The
Commission will attribute only the longterm spectrum leasing arrangements,
with limited exceptions, to both lessee
and lessor. The attribution rule will
apply to determine partial ownership
and other interests in spectrum holdings
for purposes of: (1) Applying a mobile
spectrum holding limit to the licensing
of spectrum through competitive
bidding; and (2) applying the initial
spectrum screen to secondary market
transactions. Consistent with current
practices, if, after applying the initial
screen, the Commission’s analysis of a
particular market reveals concerns with
respect to attribution due to a particular
organizational or financial relationship,
it may evaluate such relationships in the
context of the relevant secondary market
transaction.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
VI. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
157. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) requires that agencies prepare a
regulatory flexibility analysis for noticeand-comment rulemaking proceedings,
unless the agency certifies that ‘‘the rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.’’ Accordingly, the Commission
has prepared a Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
the possible impact of the rule changes
contained in the R&O on small entities.
158. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
(WTB) sought written public comment
on the proposals in the Notice,
including comment on the IRFA. This
present Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
159. The Commission believes that it
would serve the public interest to
analyze the possible significant
economic impact on small entities of the
policy and rule changes in the R&O.
Accordingly, this FRFA contains an
analysis of this impact in connection
with the adoption in the R&O of mobile
spectrum holdings rule changes meant
to protect and promote competition for
the benefit of consumers, while
facilitating greater transparency and
predictability to better allow service
providers to make investment and
transactional decisions.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Report and Order
160. The Commission is under a
Congressional mandate to manage
spectrum to promote economic
opportunity, competition, innovation,
and service accessibility. In the wake of
recent industry trends, both in service
evolution and marketplace structure, the
Commission has revisited its mobile
spectrum holdings rules and policies.
The Commission adopts several mobile
spectrum holdings policies today:
Entering the spectrum screen into FCC
rules; specifying which spectrum blocks
are included in the spectrum screen;
replacing case-by-case, post-auction
spectrum screen analysis with
consideration of auction specific
spectrum limits; and reserving a certain
amount of 600 MHz spectrum in order
to ensure against excessive
concentration in holdings of below-1GHz spectrum. These policies will
promote consumer choice and
competition among multiple service
providers, and consistent with its
statutory mandate, will promote the
efficient and intensive use of scarce
spectrum as well as maximizing
economic opportunity and the
deployment of innovative technologies.
The Commission seeks to minimize the
risk of the lessening of competition in
the future due to the likelihood that an
insufficient number of service providers
would have access to the mix of lowand high-band spectrum needed to
ensure robust competition in the mobile
wireless marketplace.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39997
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised
by Public Comments in Response to the
IRFA
161. There were no comments filed
that specifically addressed the rules and
policies proposed in the IRFA.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities to Which the
Proposed Rules Would Apply
162. 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 adopted herein. The RFA
generally defines the term ‘‘small
entity’’ as having the same meaning as
the terms ‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small
organization,’’ and ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction.’’ In addition, the term
‘‘small business’’ has the same meaning
as the term ‘‘small business concern’’
under the Small Business Act. A ‘‘small
business concern’’ is one which: (1) Is
independently owned and operated; (2)
is not dominant in its field of operation;
and (3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
163. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Its action may, over time,
affect small entities that are not easily
categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset,
three comprehensive, statutory small
entity size standards. First, nationwide,
there are a total of approximately 27.5
million small businesses, according to
the SBA. In addition, a ‘‘small
organization’’ is generally ‘‘any not-forprofit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.’’ Nationwide, as of
2007, there were approximately
1,621,315 small organizations. Finally,
the term ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as
‘‘governments of cities, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.’’ Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there
were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. The
Commission estimates that, of this total,
as many as 88,506 entities may qualify
as ‘‘small governmental jurisdictions.’’
Thus, the Commission estimates that
most governmental jurisdictions are
small.
164. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for small businesses in the
category ‘‘Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except satellite).’’ Under that
SBA category, a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. The
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
39998
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
census category of ‘‘Cellular and Other
Wireless Telecommunications’’ is no
longer used and has been superseded by
the larger category ‘‘Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite).’’ The Census Bureau defines
this larger category to include
‘‘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
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services.’’
165. In this category, the SBA has
deemed a wireless telecommunications
carrier to be small if it has fewer than
1,500 employees. For this category of
carriers, Census data for 2007, which
supersede similar data from the 2002
Census, shows 1,383 firms in this
category. Of these 1,383 firms, only 15
(approximately 1%) had 1,000 or more
employees. While there is no precise
Census data on the number of firms in
the group with fewer than 1,500
employees, it is clear that at least the
1,368 firms with fewer than 1,000
employees would be found in that
group. Thus, at least 1,368 of these
1,383 firms (approximately 99%) had
fewer than 1,500 employees.
Accordingly, the Commission estimates
that at least 1,368 (approximately 99%)
had fewer than 1,500 employees and,
thus, would be considered small under
the applicable SBA size standard.
166. 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
phone services, paging services,
wireless Internet access, and wireless
video services. The appropriate size
standard under SBA rules is for the
category Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this
category, census data for 2007 show that
there were 11,163 establishments that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 10,791 establishments had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 372 had employment of 1,000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated small
business size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
satellite) are small entities that may be
affected by its proposed action.
167. 2.3 GHz Wireless
Communications Services. This service
can be used for fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and digital audio
broadcasting satellite uses. The
Commission defined ‘‘small business’’
for the wireless communications
services (‘‘WCS’’) auction as an entity
with average gross revenues of $40
million for each of the three preceding
years, and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an
entity with average gross revenues of
$15 million for each of the three
preceding years. The SBA approved
these definitions. The Commission
conducted an auction of geographic area
licenses in the WCS service in 1997. In
the auction, seven bidders that qualified
as very small business entities won 31
licenses, and one bidder that qualified
as a small business entity won a license.
168. 1670–1675 MHz Services. This
service can be used for fixed and mobile
uses, except aeronautical mobile. An
auction for one license in the 1670–1675
MHz band was conducted in 2003. The
Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’
as an entity with attributable average
annual gross revenues of not more than
$40 million for the preceding three
years, which would thus be eligible for
a 15 percent discount on its winning bid
for the 1670–1675 MHz band license.
Further, the Commission defined a
‘‘very small business’’ as an entity with
attributable average annual gross
revenues of not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years, which
would thus be eligible to receive a 25
percent discount on its winning bid for
the 1670–1675 MHz band license. The
winning bidder was not a small entity.
169. 3650–3700 MHz Band Licensees.
In March 2005, the Commission
released an order providing for the
nationwide, non-exclusive licensing of
terrestrial operations, utilizing
contention-based technologies, in the
3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650–3700 MHz).
As of April 2010, more than 1270
licenses have been granted and more
than 7433 sites have been registered.
The Commission has not developed a
definition of small entities applicable to
3650–3700 MHz band nationwide, nonexclusive licensees. However, the
Commission estimated that the majority
of these licensees are Internet Access
Service Providers (ISPs) and that most
of those licensees are small businesses.
170. Wireless Telephony. Wireless
telephony includes cellular, personal
communications services, and
specialized mobile radio telephony
carriers. As noted, the SBA has
developed a small business size
standard for Wireless
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business
size standard, a business is small if it
has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census
data for 2007 shows that there were
1,383 firms in the Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite) category that operated that
year. Of those 1,383, 1,368 had fewer
than 100 employees, and 15 firms had
more than 100 employees. Thus under
this category and the associated small
business size standard, the majority of
firms can be considered small.
According to Trends in Telephone
Service data, 434 carriers reported that
they were engaged in wireless
telephony. Of these, an estimated 222
have 1,500 or fewer employees and 212
have more than 1,500 employees.
Therefore, approximately half of these
entities can be considered small.
Similarly, according to Commission
data, 413 carriers reported that they
were engaged in the provision of
wireless telephony, including cellular
service, Personal Communications
Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile
Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of
these, an estimated 261 have 1,500 or
fewer employees and 152 have more
than 1,500 employees. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these
firms can be considered small. Thus,
using available data, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless
firms can be considered small.
171. Broadband Personal
Communications Service. The
broadband PCS spectrum is divided into
six frequency blocks designated A
through F, and the Commission has held
auctions for each block. The
Commission initially defined a ‘‘small
business’’ for C- and F-Block licenses as
an entity that has average gross revenues
of $40 million or less in the three
previous years. For F-Block licenses, an
additional small business size standard
for ‘‘very small business’’ was added
and is defined as an entity that, together
with its affiliates, has average gross
revenues of not more than $15 million
for the preceding three years. These
small business size standards, in the
context of broadband PCS auctions,
have been approved by the SBA. No
small businesses within the SBAapproved small business size standards
bid successfully for licenses in Blocks A
and B. There were 90 winning bidders
that claimed small business status in the
first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93
bidders that claimed small and very
small business status won
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479
licenses in the first auction for the D, E,
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the
Commission completed the re-auction of
347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in
Auction No. 22. Of the 57 winning
bidders in that auction, 48 claimed
small business status and won 277
licenses.
172. On January 26, 2001, the
Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29
claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction
35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163
C and F Block licenses being available
for grant. On February 15, 2005, the
Commission completed an auction of
242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in
Auction No. 58. Of the 24 winning
bidders in that auction, 16 claimed
small business status and won 156
licenses. On May 21, 2007, the
Commission completed an auction of 33
licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in
Auction No. 71. Of the 14 winning
bidders in that auction, six claimed
small business status and won 18
licenses. On August 20, 2008, the
Commission completed the auction of
20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband
PCS licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the
eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed
small business status and won 14
licenses.
173. AWS Services (1710–1755 MHz
and 2110–2155 MHz bands (AWS–1);
1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz,
2020–2025 MHz and 2175–2180 MHz
bands (AWS–2); 2155–2175 MHz band
(AWS–3)). For the AWS–1 bands, the
Commission has defined a ‘‘small
business’’ as an entity with average
annual gross revenues for the preceding
three years not exceeding $40 million,
and a ‘‘very small business’’ as an entity
with average annual gross revenues for
the preceding three years not exceeding
$15 million. In 2006, the Commission
conducted its first auction of AWS–1
licenses. In that initial AWS–1 auction,
31 winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses.
Twenty-six of the winning bidders
identified themselves as small
businesses. In a subsequent 2008
auction, the Commission offered 35
AWS–1 licenses. Four winning bidders
identified themselves as very small
businesses, and three of the winning
bidders identified themselves as a small
business. For AWS–2 and AWS–3,
although the Commission does not
know for certain which entities are
likely to apply for these frequencies, the
Commission noted that the AWS–1
bands are comparable to those used for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
cellular service and personal
communications service. The
Commission has not yet adopted size
standards for the AWS–2 bands but has
proposed to treat both AWS–2 similarly
to broadband PCS service and AWS–1
service due to the comparable capital
requirements and other factors, such as
issues involved in relocating
incumbents and developing markets,
technologies, and services.
174. On March 31, 2014, the
Commission adopted rules for spectrum
in the 1695–1710 MHz, 1755–1780
MHz, and 2155–2180 MHz bands
(collectively, ‘‘AWS–3’’) that make
available an additional sixty-five
megahertz of commercial spectrum for
the provision of mobile broadband
services. The Commission indicated that
the Commission will assign AWS–3
licenses by competitive bidding,
offering five megahertz and ten
megahertz blocks. The Spectrum Act
states that the Commission shall grant
new initial licenses for these bands by
February 23, 2015.
175. In December 2012, the
Commission adopted licensing,
operating, and technical rules for standalone terrestrial mobile wireless
operations in the AWS–4 spectrum. The
Commission concluded that it would
assign the AWS–4 spectrum to the
incumbent Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) operators in order to make this
spectrum available efficiently and
quickly for flexible, terrestrial use, such
as mobile broadband. The Commission
also determined that it would assign
AWS–4 licenses to DISH, as the
incumbent MSS operator in that
spectrum, and established a concrete,
proven process for efficient relocation of
incumbent operations from 2180–2200
MHz.
176. In June 2013, the Commission
implemented the Spectrum Act
provisions pertaining to the H Block by
adopting service rules for the band,
including pairing the two 5 megahertz
blocks establishing EAs as the license
area, and generally adopting Part 27
flexible use rules. On February 27, 2014
the Commission concluded its auction
of H Block licenses, with DISH placing
the winning bids on all 176 licenses
across the nation.
177. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses.
The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of
small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special
provisions such as bidding credits. The
Commission defined a ‘‘small business’’
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding
$40 million for the preceding three
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
39999
years. A ‘‘very small business’’ is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, the Lower 700
MHz Service had a third category of
small business status for Metropolitan/
Rural Service Area (‘‘MSA/RSA’’)
licenses —‘‘entrepreneur’’— which is
defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals,
has average gross revenues that are not
more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these
small size standards. An auction of 740
licenses was conducted in 2002 (one
license in each of the 734 MSAs/RSAs
and one license in each of the six
Economic Area Groupings (EAGs)). Of
the 740 licenses available for auction,
484 licenses were won by 102 winning
bidders. Seventy-two of the winning
bidders claimed small business, very
small business, or entrepreneur status
and won a total of 329 licenses. A
second auction commenced on May 28,
2003, closed on June 13, 2003, and
included 256 licenses. Seventeen
winning bidders claimed small or very
small business status and won 60
licenses, and nine winning bidders
claimed entrepreneur status and won
154 licenses. In 2005, the Commission
completed an auction of 5 licenses in
the lower 700 MHz band (Auction 60).
All three winning bidders claimed small
business status.
178. In 2007, the Commission
reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second
Report and Order. An auction of A, B
and E block licenses in the Lower 700
MHz band was held in 2008. Twenty
winning bidders claimed small business
status (those with attributable average
annual gross revenues that exceed $15
million and do not exceed $40 million
for the preceding three years). Thirty
three winning bidders claimed very
small business status (those with
attributable average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years). In 2011,
the Commission conducted Auction 92,
which offered 16 lower 700 MHz band
licenses that had been made available in
Auction 73 but either remained unsold
or were licenses on which a winning
bidder defaulted. Two of the seven
winning bidders in Auction 92 claimed
very small business status, winning a
total of four licenses.
179. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses.
In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules
regarding Upper 700 MHz licenses. On
January 24, 2008, the Commission
commenced Auction 73 in which
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
40000
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz
band were available for licensing: 12
Regional Economic Area Grouping
licenses in the C Block, and one
nationwide license in the D Block. The
auction concluded on March 18, 2008,
with three winning bidders claiming
very small business status (those with
attributable average annual gross
revenues that do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years) and
winning five licenses.
180. Pursuant to the Spectrum Act,
Congress provided for the deployment
of a nationwide public safety broadband
network in the 700 MHz band,
including reallocating the Upper 700
MHz D Block from a commercial
spectrum block to public safety use. On
September 7, 2012, the Public Safety
and Homeland Security Bureau adopted
a Report and Order to reallocate the D
Block for ‘‘public safety services.’’
Congress established FirstNet as an
independent authority within the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and
required the Commission to grant a
license to FirstNet for the use of both
the existing public safety broadband
spectrum (763–768/793–798 MHz) and
the Upper D Block. On November 15,
2012, the Public Safety and Homeland
Security Bureau granted FirstNet the
license prescribed by statute, under call
sign WQQE234.
181. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses.
In 2000, the Commission adopted the
700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order,
in which it established rules for the A
and B block licenses in the Upper 700
MHz band, including size standards for
‘‘small businesses’’ and ‘‘very small
businesses’’ for purposes of determining
their eligibility for special provisions
such as bidding credits. A small
business in this service is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $40 million for
the preceding three years. Additionally,
a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
revenues that are not more than $15
million for the preceding three years.
SBA approval of these definitions is not
required. An auction of these licenses
was conducted in 2000. Of the 104
licenses auctioned, 96 licenses were
won by nine bidders. Five of these
bidders were small businesses that won
a total of 26 licenses. A second auction
of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses was
held in 2001. All eight of the licenses
auctioned were sold to three bidders.
One of these bidders was a small
business that won a total of two
licenses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
182. Specialized Mobile Radio. The
Commission adopted small business
size standards for the purpose of
determining eligibility for bidding
credits in auctions of SMR geographic
area licenses in the 800 MHz and 900
MHz bands. The Commission defined a
‘‘small business’’ as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years. The
Commission defined a ‘‘very small
business’’ as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues
not exceeding $3 million for the
preceding three years. The SBA has
approved these small business size
standards for both the 800 MHz and 900
MHz SMR Service. The first 900 MHz
SMR auction was completed in 1996.
Sixty bidders claiming that they
qualified as small businesses under the
$15 million size standard won 263
licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In
2004, the Commission held a second
auction of 900 MHz SMR licenses and
three winning bidders identifying
themselves as very small businesses
won 7 licenses. The auction of 800 MHz
SMR licenses for the upper 200
channels was conducted in 1997. Ten
bidders claiming that they qualified as
small or very small businesses under the
$15 million size standard won 38
licenses for the upper 200 channels. A
second auction of 800 MHz SMR
licenses was conducted in 2002 and
included 23 Basic Economic Area
(‘‘BEA’’) licenses. One bidder claiming
small business status won five licenses.
183. The auction of the 1,053 800
MHz SMR licenses for the General
Category channels was conducted in
2000. Eleven bidders who won 108
licenses for the General Category
channels in the 800 MHz SMR band
qualified as small or very small
businesses. In an auction completed in
2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area
licenses in the lower 80 channels of the
800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of
the 22 winning bidders, 19 claimed
small or very small business status and
won 129 licenses. Thus, combining all
four auctions, 41 winning bidders for
geographic licenses in the 800 MHz
SMR band claimed to be small
businesses.
184. In addition, there are numerous
incumbent site-by-site SMR licensees
and licensees with extended
implementation authorizations in the
800 and 900 MHz bands. The
Commission does not know how many
firms provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz
geographic area SMR pursuant to
extended implementation
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
authorizations, nor how many of these
providers have annual revenues not
exceeding $15 million. One firm has
over $15 million in revenues. In
addition, the Commission does not
know how many of these firms have
1,500 or fewer employees. The
Commission assumes, for purposes of
this analysis, that all of the remaining
existing extended implementation
authorizations are held by small
entities, as that small business size
standard is approved by the SBA.
185. 1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The
Commission conducted an auction of 64
1.4 GHz band licenses in the paired
1392–1395 MHz and 1432–1435 MHz
bands, and in the unpaired 1390–1392
MHz band in 2007. For these licenses,
the Commission defined ‘‘small
business’’ as an entity that, together
with its affiliates and controlling
interests, had average gross revenues not
exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years, and a ‘‘very small business’’
as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has
had average annual gross revenues not
exceeding $15 million for the preceding
three years. Neither of the two winning
bidders claimed small business status.
186. Broadband Radio Service and
Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems,
previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (‘‘MDS’’) and
Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (‘‘MMDS’’) systems, and
‘‘wireless cable,’’ transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide
two-way high speed data operations
using the microwave frequencies of the
Broadband Radio Service (‘‘BRS’’) and
Educational Broadband Service (‘‘EBS’’)
(previously referred to as the
Instructional Television Fixed Service
(‘‘ITFS’’)). In connection with the 1996
BRS auction, the Commission
established a ‘‘small business’’ as an
entity that had annual average gross
revenues of no more than $40 million in
the previous three years. The BRS
auctions resulted in 67 successful
bidders obtaining licensing
opportunities for 493 Basic Trading
Areas (‘‘BTAs’’). Of the 67 auction
winners, 61 met the definition of a small
business. BRS also includes licensees of
stations authorized prior to the auction.
At this time, the Commission estimated
that of the 61 small business BRS
auction winners, 48 remain small
business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA
authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent BRS licensees that are
considered small entities. After adding
the number of small business auction
licensees to the number of incumbent
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
licensees not already counted, the
Commission finds that there are
currently approximately 440 BRS
licensees that are defined as small
businesses under either the SBA or the
Commission’s rules. In 2009, the
Commission conducted Auction 86,
which resulted in the licensing of 78
authorizations in the BRS areas. The
Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with
attributed average annual gross revenues
that exceed $15 million and do not
exceed $40 million for the preceding
three years (small business) will receive
a 15 percent discount on its winning
bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3
million and do not exceed $15 million
for the preceding three years (very small
business) will receive a 25 percent
discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a
bidder with attributed average annual
gross revenues that do not exceed $3
million for the preceding three years
(entrepreneur) will receive a 35 percent
discount on its winning bid. Auction 86
concluded in 2009 with the sale of 61
licenses. Of the ten winning bidders,
two bidders that claimed small business
status won four licenses; one bidder that
claimed very small business status won
three licenses; and two bidders that
claimed entrepreneur status won six
licenses.
187. In addition, the SBA’s Cable
Television Distribution Services small
business size standard is applicable to
EBS. There are presently 2,032 EBS
licensees. All but 100 of these licenses
are held by educational institutions.
Educational institutions are included in
this analysis as small entities. Thus, the
Commission estimated that at least
1,932 licensees are small businesses.
Since 2007, Cable Television
Distribution Services have been defined
within the broad economic census
category of Wired Telecommunications
Carriers; that category is defined as
follows: ‘‘This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in
operating and/or providing access to
transmission facilities and infrastructure
that they own and/or lease for the
transmission of voice, data, text, sound,
and video using wired
telecommunications networks.
Transmission facilities may be based on
a single technology or a combination of
technologies.’’ For these services, the
Commission uses the SBA small
business size standard for the category
‘‘Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except satellite),’’ which is 1,500 or
fewer employees. To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable
services the Commission must,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
however, use the most current census
data. According to Census Bureau data
for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms
in this previous category that operated
for the entire year. Of this total, 939
firms employed 999 or fewer employees,
and 16 firms employed 1,000 employees
or more. Thus, the majority of these
firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
188. The R&O implements several
rule and policy modifications: (1)
Codifying the Commission’s policies for
attributing spectrum holdings for certain
purposes; (2) including in the initial
spectrum screen applied to the
Commission’s review of transactions the
AWS–4 band, AWS H Block, additional
BRS spectrum, most of the EBS
spectrum and the AWS–3 band (on a
market-by-market basis); (3) replacing
the current application of the mobile
spectrum screen in case-by-case analysis
of post-auction applications with a
determination for each auction of
whether to apply mobile spectrum
holding limits to that auction; and (4)
reserving a certain amount of 600 MHz
spectrum (to be determined by a marketbased mechanism during the Incentive
Auction) for qualified bidders. These
modifications should have minimal, if
any reporting, recordkeeping or
compliance impact on small entities,
which tend to have relatively small
spectrum holdings and rarely engage in
the sort of large mergers and spectrum
acquisitions that would trigger the
spectrum screen and competitive
scrutiny. All four rule modifications are
intended to provide a clear framework
for the Commission’s competitive
review of spectrum acquisitions in
auctions and secondary markets—a
framework that focuses, among other
things, on facilitating access by multiple
providers, including small entities, to a
mix of low-band and high-band
spectrum. Rule modification 3 is
intended to facilitate access to 600 MHz
spectrum for the entry and expansion of
multiple providers, including small
entities.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities and
Significant Alternatives Considered
189. The rule modifications the
Commission implements in the R&O are
intended to promote competition in the
provision of mobile services by, among
other measures, facilitating access to
spectrum by multiple providers,
including small entities. The
Commission has done so by imposing a
minor new regulatory requirement on
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40001
small firms, namely that such firms (and
others) certify their qualification to bid
on the reserved 600 MHz spectrum.
After careful review, the Commission
has determined that imposing this
qualification to bid on reserved
spectrum is necessary to help preserve
spectrum for small entities. This
certification process saves time and
resources for small entities, making
them better equipped to compete in
spectrum auctions.
F. Report to Congress
190. The Commission will send a
copy of the R&O, including this FRFA,
in a report to be sent to Congress
pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act. In addition, the Commission will
send a copy of the R&O, including this
FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the
R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof)
will also be published in the Federal
Register.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
191. The Report and Order contains
new or modified information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public
Law 104–13. It will be submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or
modified information collection
requirements contained in this
proceeding in a separate Federal
Register notice. In addition, the
Commission notes that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission previously
sought specific comment on how the
Commission might further reduce the
information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25
employees.
192. In this present document, the
Commission has assessed the effects of
modifying reporting rules, and finds
that doing so does not change the
burden on small businesses with fewer
than 25 employees.
VII. Ordering Clauses
193. Accordingly, it is ordered,
pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201, 301,
303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, and 332 of
the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, and sections 6003, 6401,
6402, 6403, and 6404 of the Middle
Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, Public Law
112–96, 126 Stat. 156, 47 U.S.C. 151,
154(i), 201, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310,
316, 332, 1403, 451, and 1452, that this
Report and Order is hereby adopted.
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
40002
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
194. It is further ordered that the rules
adopted herein will become effective
September 9, 2014.
195. It is further ordered that,
pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A) of the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), the Commission shall send
a copy of the R&O to Congress and to
the Government Accountability Office.
196. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this R&O, including the Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects in Part 20
Communications common carriers,
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as
follows:
PART 20—COMMERCIAL MOBILE
SERVICES
1. The authority citation for part 20
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251–
254, 301, 303, 316, and 332 unless otherwise
noted.
Section 20.12 is also issued under 47
U.S.C. 1302.
■
2. Add § 20.22 to read as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
§ 20.22 Rules Governing Mobile Spectrum
Holdings
(a) Applicants for mobile wireless
licenses for commercial use, for
assignment or transfer of control of such
licenses, or for long-term de facto
transfer leasing arrangements as defined
in § 1.9003 of this chapter and long-term
spectrum manager leasing arrangements
as identified in § 1.9020(e)(1)(ii) must
demonstrate that the public interest,
convenience, and necessity will be
served thereby. The Commission will
evaluate any such license application
consistent with the policies set forth in
Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum
Holdings, Report and Order, FCC 14–63,
WT Docket No. 12–269, adopted May
15, 2014.
(b) Attribution of interests. (1) The
following criteria will apply to attribute
partial ownership and other interests in
spectrum holdings for purposes of:
(i) Applying a mobile spectrum
holding limit to the licensing of
spectrum through competitive bidding;
and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
(ii) Applying the initial spectrum
screen to secondary market transactions.
(2) Controlling interests shall be
attributable. Controlling interest means
majority voting equity ownership, any
general partnership interest, or any
means of actual working control
(including negative control) over the
operation of the licensee, in whatever
manner exercised.
(3) Non-controlling interests of 10
percent or more in spectrum shall be
attributable. Interests of less than 10
percent in spectrum shall be attributable
if such interest confers de facto control,
including but not limited to partnership
and other ownership interests and any
stock interest in a licensee.
(4) The following interests in
spectrum shall also be attributable to
holders:
(i) Officers and directors of a licensee
shall be considered to have an
attributable interest in the entity with
which they are so associated. The
officers and directors of an entity that
controls a licensee or applicant shall be
considered to have an attributable
interest in the licensee.
(ii) Ownership interests that are held
indirectly by any party through one or
more intervening corporations will be
determined by successive multiplication
of the ownership percentages for each
link in the vertical ownership chain and
application of the relevant attribution
benchmark to the resulting product,
except that if the ownership percentage
for an interest in any link in the chain
exceeds 50 percent or represents actual
control, it shall be treated as if it were
a 100 percent interest. (For example, if
A owns 20% of B, and B owns 40% of
licensee C, then A’s interest in licensee
C would be 8%. If A owns 20% of B,
and B owns 51% of licensee C, then A’s
interest in licensee C would be 20%
because B’s ownership of C exceeds
50%).
(iii) Any person who manages the
operations of a licensee pursuant to a
management agreement shall be
considered to have an attributable
interest in such licensee if such person,
or its affiliate, has authority to make
decisions or otherwise engage in
practices or activities that determine, or
significantly influence, the nature or
types of services offered by such
licensee, the terms upon which such
services are offered, or the prices
charged for such services.
(iv) Any licensee or its affiliate who
enters into a joint marketing
arrangement with another licensee or its
affiliate shall be considered to have an
attributable interest in the other
licensee’s holdings if it has authority to
make decisions or otherwise engage in
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
practices or activities that determine or
significantly influence the nature or
types of services offered by the other
licensee, the terms upon which such
services are offered, or the prices
charged for such services.
(v) Limited partnership interests shall
be attributed to limited partners and
shall be calculated according to both the
percentage of equity paid in and the
percentage of distribution of profits and
losses.
(vi) Debt and instruments such as
warrants, convertible debentures,
options, or other interests (except nonvoting stock) with rights of conversion
to voting interests shall not be attributed
unless and until converted or unless the
Commission determines that these
interests confer de facto control.
(vii) Long-term de facto transfer
leasing arrangements as defined in
§ 1.9003 of this chapter and long-term
spectrum manager leasing arrangements
as identified in § 1.9020(e)(1)(ii) that
enable commercial use shall be
attributable to lessees, lessors,
sublessees, and sublessors for purposes
of this section.
(c) 600 MHz Band holdings. (1) The
Commission will reserve licenses for up
to 30 megahertz of the 600 MHz Band,
offered in the Incentive Auction
authorized by Congress pursuant to 47
U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G), for otherwise
qualified bidders who do not hold an
attributable interest in 45 megahertz or
more of the total 134 megahertz of
below-1-GHz spectrum which consists
of the cellular (50 megahertz), the 700
MHz (70 megahertz), and the SMR (14
megahertz) spectrum in a Partial
Economic Area (PEA), as calculated on
a county by county population-weighted
basis, utilizing 2010 U.S. Census data.
The amount of reserved and unreserved
600 MHz Band licenses will be
determined based on the market-based
spectrum reserve set forth in Policies
Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings,
Report and Order, FCC 14–63, WT
Docket No. 12–269, adopted May 15,
2014, as well as subsequent Public
Notices. Nothing in this paragraph will
limit, or may be construed to limit, an
otherwise qualified bidder that is a nonnationwide provider of mobile wireless
services from bidding on any reserved
or unreserved license offered in the
Incentive Auction.
(2) For a period of six years, after
initial licensing, no 600 MHz Band
license, regardless of whether it is
reserved or unreserved, may be
transferred, assigned, partitioned,
disaggregated, or long term leased to any
entity that, after consummation of the
transfer, assignment, or leased on a long
term basis, would hold an attributable
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 133 / Friday, July 11, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
interest in one-third or more of the total
suitable and available below-1-GHz
spectrum as calculated on a county by
county population-weighted basis in the
relevant license area, utilizing 2010 U.S.
Census data.
(3) For a period of six years, after
initial licensing, no 600 MHz Band
reserved license may be transferred,
assigned, partitioned, disaggregated, or
leased on a long term basis to an entity
that was not qualified to bid on that
reserved spectrum license under
paragraph (c)(1) of this section at the
time of the Incentive Auction short-form
application deadline.
[FR Doc. 2014–15769 Filed 7–10–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CG Docket Nos. 13–24 and 03–123; FCC
13–118]
Misuse of Internet Protocol (IP)
Captioned Telephone Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services
and Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals With Hearing and Speech
Disabilities
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission announces that the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved, for a period of three years, the
information collection associated with
the Commission’s document Misuse of
Internet Protocol (IP) Captioned
Telephone Service;
Telecommunications Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities (Report and Order). This
announcement is consistent with the
Report and Order, which stated that the
Commission would publish a document
in the Federal Register announcing the
effective date of those rules.
DATES: 47 CFR 64.604(c)(10)(iv),
(c)(11)(iii) and (iv), and
64.606(a)(2)(ii)(F), published at 78 FR
53684, August 30, 2013, are effective
July 11, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eliot
Greenwald, Disability Rights Office,
Consumer and Governmental Affairs
Bureau, at (202) 418–2235, or email
Eliot.Greenwald@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
document announces that, on June 18,
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:49 Jul 10, 2014
Jkt 232001
2014, OMB approved, for a period of
three years, the information collection
requirements contained in the
Commission’s Report and Order, FCC
13–118, published at 78 FR 53684,
August 30, 2013. The OMB Control
Number is 3060–1053. The Commission
publishes this document as an
announcement of the effective date of
the rules. If you have any comments on
the burden estimates listed below, or
how the Commission can improve the
collections and reduce any burdens
caused thereby, please contact Cathy
Williams, Federal Communications
Commission, Room 1–C823, 445 12th
Street SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Please include the OMB Control
Number, 3060–1053, in your
correspondence. The Commission will
also accept your comments via the
Internet if you send them to PRA@
fcc.gov.
To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities
(Braille, large print, electronic files,
audio format), send an email to fcc504@
fcc.gov or call the Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
Synopsis
As required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507),
the FCC is notifying the public that it
received OMB approval on June 18,
2014, for the information collection
requirements contained in the
Commission’s rules at 47 CFR
64.604(c)(10)(iv), (c)(11)(iii) and (iv),
and 64.606(a)(2)(F). Under 5 CFR 1320,
an agency may not conduct or sponsor
a collection of information unless it
displays a current, valid OMB Control
Number.
No person shall be subject to any
penalty for failing to comply with a
collection of information subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act that does not
display a current, valid OMB Control
Number. The OMB Control Number is
3060–1053.
The foregoing notice is required by
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
Public Law 104–13, October 1, 1995,
and 44 U.S.C. 3507.
The total annual reporting burdens
and costs for the respondents are as
follows:
OMB Control Number: 3060–1053.
OMB Approval Date: June 18, 2014.
OMB Expiration Date: June 30, 2017.
Title: Two-Line Captioned Telephone
Order and IP Captioned Telephone
Service Declaratory Ruling; and Internet
Protocol Captioned Telephone Service
Reform Order, CG Docket Nos. 13–24
and 03–123.
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40003
Form Number: N/A.
Type of Review: Revision of a
currently approved collection.
Respondents: Business or other forprofit entities.
Number of Respondents and
Responses: 153,605 respondents;
373,280 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: .25
hours (15 minutes) to 20 hours.
Frequency of Response: Annual, every
five years, on-going, and one-time
reporting requirement; Recordkeeping
requirement; Third party disclosure
requirement.
Obligation to Respond: Required to
obtain or retain benefits. The statutory
authority for the information collection
requirements is found at Sec. 225 [47
U.S.C. 225] Telecommunications
Services for Hearing-Impaired
Individuals; The Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), Public
Law 101–336, 104 Stat. 327, 366–69,
was enacted on July 26, 1990.
Total Annual Burden: 113,252 hours.
Total Annual Cost: $558,000.
Nature and Extent of Confidentiality:
An assurance of confidentiality is not
offered because this information
collection does not require the
collection of personally identifiable
information by the Commission from
individuals.
Privacy Impact Assessment: No
impact(s).
Needs and Uses: On August 1, 2003,
the Commission released the
Declaratory Ruling, In the Matter of
Telecommunication Relay Services and
Speech-to-Speech Services for
Individuals with Hearing and Speech
Disabilities, CC Docket No. 98–67,
published at 68 FR 55898, September
28, 2003. In the Declaratory Ruling, the
Commission clarified that one-line
captioned telephone voice carry over
(VCO) service is a type of
telecommunications relay service (TRS)
and that eligible providers of such
services are eligible to recover their
costs in accordance with section 225 of
the Communications Act. The
Commission also clarified that certain
TRS mandatory minimum standards do
not apply to one-line captioned
telephone VCO service and waived 47
CFR 64.604(a)(1) and (a)(3) for all
current and future captioned telephone
VCO service providers, for the same
period of time beginning August 1,
2003. The waivers were contingent on
the filing of annual reports, for a period
of three years, with the Commission.
Sections 64.604(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the
Commission’s rules, which contained
information collection requirements
under the PRA, became effective on
March 26, 2004.
E:\FR\FM\11JYR1.SGM
11JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 133 (Friday, July 11, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39977-40003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15769]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 20
[WT Docket No. 12-269; Docket No. 12-268; FCC 14-63]
Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings; Expanding the
Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive
Auctions
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission) updates its initial screen for review of spectrum
acquisitions through secondary markets and makes determinations
regarding whether to establish mobile spectrum holding limits for its
upcoming auctions of high- and low-band spectrum, in light of the
growing demand for spectrum, the differences between spectrum bands,
and in accordance with its desire to preserve and promote competition.
DATES: Effective September 9, 2014.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel Ball, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-1577, email Daniel.Ball@fcc.gov;
Amy Brett, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (202) 418-2703, email
Amy.Brett@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (R&O), WT Docket No. 12-269; Docket No. 12-268; FCC 14-63,
adopted May 15, 2014 and released June 2, 2014. The full text of this
document is available for inspection and copying during business hours
in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. Also, it may be purchased from
the Commission's duplicating contractor at Portals II, 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554; the contractor's Web site,
https://www.bcpiweb.com; or by calling (800) 378-3160, facsimile (202)
488-5563, or email FCC@BCPIWEB.com. Copies of the R&O also may be
obtained via the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS)
by entering the docket number WT Docket No. 12-269. Additionally, the
complete item is available on the Federal Communications Commission's
Web site at https://www.fcc.gov.
1. In the R&O the Commission updates its spectrum screen for its
competitive review of proposed secondary market transactions to reflect
current suitability and availability of spectrum for mobile wireless
services. It adds to its spectrum screen: 40 megahertz of AWS-4; 10
megahertz of H Block; 65 megahertz of AWS-3 (when it becomes available
on a market-by-market basis); 12 megahertz of BRS; 89 megahertz of EBS;
and the total amount of 600 MHz spectrum auctioned in the Incentive
Auction. It subtract from its spectrum screen: 12.5 megahertz of SMR;
and 10 megahertz that was the Upper 700 MHz D Block. The Commission
establishes a market-based spectrum reserve of up to 30 megahertz in
the Incentive Auction in each license area to ensure against excessive
concentration in holdings of low-band spectrum and ensuring that all
bidders bear a fair share of the cost of the Incentive Auction. It
adopts limits on secondary market transactions of 600 MHz spectrum
licenses for six years post-auction. It declines to adopt auction-
specific limits for AWS-3. It treats certain further concentrations of
below-1-GHz spectrum as an enhanced factor in its case-by-case analysis
of the potential competitive harms posed by individual transactions.
[[Page 39978]]
I. Preserving and Promoting Competition in the Mobile Wireless
Marketplace
2. The Commission has long recognized that ``spectrum is an input
in CMRS markets,'' and that ``the state of control over the spectrum
input is a relevant factor'' in its competitive analysis. Ensuring that
sufficient spectrum is available for multiple existing mobile service
providers as well as potential entrants is crucial to promoting
consumer choice and competition throughout the country, including in
rural areas, and is similarly crucial to fostering innovation in the
marketplace. For these reasons, Congress directed the Commission to
proactively ``include safeguards to protect the public interest'' when
specifying the classes and characteristics of licenses and permits to
be issued by competitive bidding, and to ``promot[e] economic
opportunity and competition and ensur[e] that new and innovative
technologies are readily accessible to the American people by avoiding
excessive concentration of licenses[.]'' In order for there to be
robust competition, multiple competing service providers must have
access to or hold sufficient spectrum to be able to enter a marketplace
or expand output rapidly in response to any price increase or reduction
in quality, or other change that would harm consumer welfare.
Consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate, the fundamental
goal that has guided its policies regarding mobile spectrum holdings
has been the preservation and promotion of competition, which in turn,
enables consumers to make choices among numerous service providers and
leads to lower prices, improved quality, and increased innovation.
3. Since the Commission's last comprehensive review of its mobile
spectrum holdings policies more than a decade ago, the marketplace for
mobile wireless services has evolved significantly--both in consumer
demand for services and market structure--as has the role of low-band
spectrum for coverage purposes and high-band spectrum for capacity
purposes in the deployment of providers' networks. As providers deploy
next-generation mobile networks, the engineering properties and
deployment capabilities of the mix of particular spectrum bands in
providers' holdings have become increasingly important, particularly as
multi-band phones allow users to take advantage of the different
properties of different spectrum bands. Moreover, while the mobile
wireless marketplace a decade ago consisted of six near-nationwide
providers and a substantial number of regional and small providers,
since then, there has been a significant degree of consolidation
resulting in a market with four nationwide providers and a smaller
number of regional and more local service providers.
4. Reflecting this evolution in the mobile wireless marketplace,
the Commission, in recent years, has considered in more detail the
technical distinctions among spectrum bands used to deploy next-
generation mobile networks. The Commission adopted mobile spectrum
holdings policies in this rulemaking that address how the differences
among spectrum bands may affect its overall competitive analysis of
spectrum acquisitions and therefore its decision making for both
auctions and secondary market transactions.
5. In adopting these policies, the Commission is mindful that the
statutory framework established by Congress for mobile wireless
services and implemented by the Commission, with its reliance on
competition as the primary driver of consumer benefits, has fostered
substantial economic growth and consumer benefits for its nation. Among
other goals, Congress has directed us as well to promote the
``efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum'' and
avoid an ``excessive concentration of licenses'' in the design of
systems of competitive bidding, as well as to review transactions to
ensure that they serve the public interest.
6. Consistent with the evolution of the marketplace and the
Commission's statutory directives and policy goals, and in light of the
evolution of wireless services demanded by consumers, the Commission
must ensure that multiple service providers have access to spectrum in
the foreseeable future. Existing marketplace conditions, including
concerns about the potential for anticompetitive behavior, inform its
predictive judgment but are not determinative as to whether the
Commission needs to act. The mobile spectrum holdings policies the
Commission adopted are necessary to preserve and promote consumer
choice and competition among multiple service providers, promote the
efficient and intensive use of spectrum, maximize economic opportunity,
and foster the deployment of innovative technologies.
A. Evolution of the Mobile Wireless Marketplace
7. During the past decade, provider supply and consumer demand for
wireless services has exploded, moving from the provision of mobile
voice services to the provision of mobile broadband services. The rapid
adoption of smartphones, tablet computers, mobile applications, and
increasing deployment of high-speed 3G and now 4G technologies, is
driving significantly more intensive use of mobile networks. In 2013, a
single smartphone generated 48 times more mobile data traffic than a
feature phone, and average smartphone usage grew 50 percent in 2013.
The adoption of smartphones increased from 27 percent to 54 percent of
U.S. subscribers from December 2010 to December 2012. Consequently,
service providers generally need access to more spectrum to meet the
increasing demand for mobile broadband, which consumes far greater
amounts of bandwidth than did mobile phones just a short time ago.
8. The wireless industry has also undergone significant
consolidation during the past decade. In 2003, there were six
nationwide facilities-based wireless service providers: AT&T Wireless,
Sprint PCS, Verizon Wireless, T-Mobile, Cingular Wireless, and Nextel.
Now there are four--Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile. In
addition, there have been several significant spectrum-only
transactions, such as AT&T-Qualcomm (2011), Verizon Wireless-SpectrumCo
(2012), and AT&T WCS (2012) that have resulted in increased spectrum
aggregation among the remaining providers.
9. Concentration in the market share of the major providers has
also increased during that time period. As of December 2003, the top
six facilities-based nationwide providers accounted for approximately
79 percent of total mobile wireless subscribers in the country. By
December 2013, the top four facilities-based nationwide providers had
increased their combined market share to 97 percent of all subscribers.
Verizon Wireless and AT&T together accounted for 68 percent of the
nation's subscribers as of year-end 2013, compared to 51 percent in
2004. Some regional and local service providers have achieved
significant market shares within particular local markets, often the
most rural markets, but they typically rely on roaming agreements with
nationwide facilities-based providers to extend the geographic reach of
their networks.
10. The Commission has ``ample latitude to adapt its rules and
policies to the demands of changing circumstances.'' In light of these
trends and current spectrum aggregations, the Commission must examine
whether changes in its mobile spectrum holdings policies are necessary
to facilitate the
[[Page 39979]]
robust competition that leads to lower prices, improved quality, and
greater innovation. The following are some of the benefits of
competition: Service providers have offered various pricing plans,
ranging from tiered usage-based data pricing with overage charges
(Verizon Wireless, AT&T) to unlimited data pricing (Sprint), and in
2012, both Verizon Wireless and AT&T launched shared data plans for
smartphones and other mobile data devices, and T-Mobile reintroduced an
unlimited smartphone data pricing option.
B. Ensuring That All Americans Benefit From Mobile Wireless Competition
11. Based upon the record before us, the Commission finds that the
spectrum aggregation limits the Commission adopted is needed to advance
its statutory objectives under section 309(j), to promote competition,
and to avoid competitive harms. The Commission's competition-related
decision making is designed to advance the public interest by
preserving and promoting competition that benefits consumers and the
Commission must consider the totality of the circumstances and choose
policies that are most likely to allow competition to flourish for the
public benefit. Accordingly, the Commission recognizes the important
tradeoffs in the policy decision at hand. Policies that would limit the
ability of major providers to acquire additional spectrum licenses may
limit their ability to provide new services or serve new customers. At
the same time, policies that would allow these service providers to
acquire all or substantially all of the spectrum licenses to be
auctioned in the near future, particularly spectrum licenses being
auctioned in the Incentive Auction, or that would allow further
concentration in below-1-GHz spectrum in secondary market transactions
without enhanced scrutiny, would raise significant competitive issues.
12. Raising Rivals' Costs and Foreclosure. In 2001, the Commission
recognized that ``it is at least a threshold possibility that because
the supply of suitable spectrum is limited, firms in CMRS markets might
choose to overinvest in spectrum in order to deter entry, depending on
the costs of doing so.'' In certain situations, a dominant firm may
raise rivals' costs by a variety of means, including input
monopolization. As rivals' costs are raised, the competiveness of the
marketplace is likely to diminish. Foreclosure can occur when
competitors have an incentive and ability to acquire an input not only
to put it to their own use, but also to withhold it from their rivals.
13. Discussion. In its review of the evolution of the mobile
wireless marketplace, its current state, and the potential future
effects on consumers, the Commission is required to consider a number
of concerns to advance the public interest. Section 309(j) requires the
Commission to balance a number of specific statutory objectives
including competition, diversity and the avoidance of excessive
concentration in designing its rules regarding spectrum licenses and
the competitive bidding assignment process. The Commission finds that,
under the totality of circumstances, the public interest will be
advanced by: Reaffirming the current case-by-case review of proposed
transactions, with continued use of a spectrum screen triggered at
aggregations of approximately one third or more of the spectrum
suitable and available for mobile telephony/broadband; updating the
spectrum screen to include spectrum currently suitable and available
for mobile telephony/broadband; treating certain levels of increased
aggregations of below-1-GHz spectrum as an enhanced factor during case-
by-case review of secondary market transactions involving below-1-GHz
spectrum; and establishing a market-based spectrum reserve in the
upcoming 600 MHz auction.
14. There are three independent bases for its conclusion, each of
which the Commission finds warrants the policies the Commission
adopted: (1) The importance of access to low-band spectrum to promote
variety in licensees and the advancement of rural deployment as
directed by Section 309(j), (2) the benefits to consumers associated
with robust competition among multiple providers having access to low-
band spectrum, and (3) the potential for competitive harm if the
Commission does not provide safeguards to mitigate against the
possibility of providers raising rivals' costs or foreclosing
competition by denying competitors access to low-band spectrum.
15. Its findings are compelled by the changing circumstances posed
by the marketplace today: Increased consolidation, the growth in demand
for mobile broadband, and the significance of the upcoming 600 MHz
auction. First, the Commission recognizes that the mobile wireless
marketplace has undergone considerable consolidation, both in terms of
number of firms and relative market shares, as well as increased
concentration of low-band spectrum. Recent acquisitions have
exacerbated this concentration. While limited amounts of low-band
spectrum might theoretically be acquired in secondary market
transactions, the vast bulk of that spectrum has already been acquired.
There is also significantly less low-band spectrum than there is high-
band spectrum: after its decisions, there will be 134 megahertz of
spectrum below 1 GHz suitable and available for the provision of mobile
broadband services and 446.5 megahertz of suitable and available
spectrum above 1 GHz. Concentration in spectrum holdings by service
providers of low-band spectrum has become particularly pronounced, with
Verizon Wireless and AT&T together having aggregated more than 90
percent of all cellular spectrum. In addition, these two service
providers together currently hold approximately 72 percent of 700 MHz
spectrum. By comparison, variation in spectrum holdings of higher-
frequency spectrum in the range of 1 to 2 GHz is more evenly
distributed: Of the PCS spectrum, Verizon Wireless holds 16 percent,
AT&T holds 29 percent, Sprint holds 28 percent and T-Mobile holds 22
percent; of the AWS-1 spectrum, Verizon Wireless holds 37 percent, AT&T
holds 13 percent, and T-Mobile holds 42 percent.
16. Second, its findings are informed by the skyrocketing consumer
demand for mobile broadband. Today, consumers are demanding more data
at higher speeds, while at home, at work, and in transit. The
Commission finds that to provide sufficient level of service in the
marketplace to the benefit of consumers, providers will need to deploy
more spectrum that can provide both coverage and in-building
penetration, as well as spectrum that can provide the increased
throughput for mobile broadband applications
17. Third, its findings are based on the recognition that the 600
MHz spectrum that will be made available in the Incentive Auction will
be the last offering of a significant amount of nationwide greenfield
low-band spectrum for the foreseeable future. This is particularly
important because of the very different characteristics of low-band
spectrum. There is a large frequency gap between the below-1-GHz
spectrum (in the 700 and 800 MHz bands now largely held by the leading
providers and the 600 MHz Incentive Auction spectrum) and the remaining
spectrum currently suitable and available for mobile broadband use,
beginning with the AWS-1 band at 1710 MHz. Low-band spectrum possesses
distinct propagation advantages for network deployment, particularly in
rural areas and indoors. As a result, the auction of spectrum below 1
GHz
[[Page 39980]]
presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to promote competition as
specifically required by section 309(j). Based upon current trends in
consumer demand for mobile broadband services, the Commission concludes
that the decisions the Commission makes here will have a significant
impact on the extent to which competition may flourish for years to
come.
18. Though there is substantial support in the record for
distinguishing between low-band and high-band spectrum based on
propagation characteristics, as discussed above, the Commission finds
that the record does not support such categorical distinctions between
three different spectrum groupings--below-1-GHz, 1-2.2 GHz, and 2.3-2.7
GHz--as recently advocated by Sprint.
19. Variety of Licensees and Rural Deployment. Under Section
309(j), Congress mandated that the Commission designs auctions to
``include safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of the
spectrum,'' including the objectives to disseminate licenses ``among a
wide variety of applicants'' and to promote deployment of new
technologies, products, and services to ``those residing in rural
areas.'' The limited restrictions the Commission imposes on spectrum
holdings will promote both of these statutory policies. A variety of
licensees is particularly important in light of the lack of competitive
offerings in rural America today.
20. Increasing the number of providers who have access to low-band
spectrum can increase the competitive offerings of mobile wireless
service for consumers, particularly in rural areas. Two nationwide
providers control the vast majority of low-band spectrum, and this
disparity makes it difficult for rural consumers to have access to the
competition and choice that would be available if more wireless
competitors also had access to low-band spectrum. Low-band spectrum,
given its unique propagation characteristics, can serve as a foundation
for expansion of an existing network or a new or upcoming service
providers' network deployment as it builds a customer base to support
further growth. The Commission finds that its spectrum holdings
policies will promote variety in licensees and deployment of new
technologies to those residing in rural areas.
21. The Commission believes that holding a mix of spectrum bands is
advantageous to providers and that consumer's benefit when multiple
providers have access to a mix of spectrum bands which in turn can
increase competition, drive down prices, and ensure continued
innovation and investment. Accordingly, the Commission finds its public
interest goal of promoting consumer welfare would be advanced by the
policies the Commission adopted.
22. Potential for Competitive Harm From Increased Aggregation of
Spectrum. The Commission also finds that in the absence of additional
below-1-GHz spectrum on a nationwide basis, there is a substantial
likelihood of competitive harm if providers that currently lack
sufficient access to such spectrum cannot acquire it. Under section
309(j), the Commission has mandates to promote competition, promote
efficient use of spectrum, and avoid the excessive concentration of
licenses. Low-band spectrum is less costly to deploy and provides
higher coverage quality and the leading providers have most of the low-
band spectrum available today. If they were to acquire all or
substantially all of the remaining low-band spectrum, they would
benefit independently of any deployment of this newly acquired spectrum
to the extent that their rivals are denied its use. Without access to
this low-band spectrum, their rivals would be less able to provide a
competitive alternative.
23. Along with an attenuated ability to increase output or service
quality in response to price increases, providers that lack access to
low-band spectrum may lack the ability quickly to expand coverage or
provide new or innovative services, which would have a significant
impact on competition in the mobile wireless marketplace. The
Commission agrees that a service provider that is limited to high-band
spectrum holdings would face challenges to provide services as robust
as those offered by providers holding a mix of low- and high-band
spectrum. The consumer harms from the raising of rivals' costs from
increased concentration of low-band spectrum outweigh the potential
benefits of unlimited spectrum aggregation. Accordingly, the Commission
finds that the limited restrictions the Commission adopted will
reasonably balance its goals of promoting competition, ensuring the
efficient use of spectrum, and avoiding an excessive concentration of
licenses in accord with section 309(j).
24. Foreclosure. The Commission agrees with DOJ, today's mobile
wireless marketplace is characterized by factors that, according to
DOJ, increase the potential for anticompetitive conduct, including high
market concentration, highly concentrated holdings of low-band
spectrum, high margins, and high barriers to entry. These risk factors
increase the incentive and ability for a provider with low-band
spectrum to bid for the spectrum in an attempt to stifle competition
that may arise if multiple licensees were to hold low frequency
spectrum. As a result, such a provider might be the highest bidder in a
spectrum auction, not because it will put the spectrum to its highest
use, but because it is motivated to engage in a foreclosure strategy.
In light of this risk and balancing the inherent tradeoffs, the
Commission finds that the limited restrictions the Commission enacted
is a reasonable balance of the Section 309(j) and public interest
factors that form its statutory mandate, including the goals to promote
competition, disseminate licenses among a wide variety of applicants,
ensure high quality service to those in rural areas and avoid the
excessive concentration of licenses, while also promoting the efficient
and intensive use of the spectrum.
C. Conclusion
25. For the reasons set forth above, spectrum is a limited and
essential input for the provision of mobile wireless telephony and
broadband services, and ensuring access to, and the availability of,
sufficient spectrum is critical to promoting the competition that
drives innovation and investment. The Communications Act has long
required the Commission to examine closely the impact of spectrum
aggregation on competition, innovation, and the efficient use of
spectrum to ensure that spectrum is allocated and assigned in a manner
that serves the public interest, convenience and necessity, and avoids
the excessive concentration of licenses. In recent years, the
Commission has considered in more detail and largely in the context of
its case-by-case analysis of secondary market transactions how
distinctions among spectrum bands affect competition in the provision
of next-generation mobile broadband services.
26. In today's marketplace, in many service areas currently
suitable and available below-1-GHz spectrum is disproportionately
concentrated in the hands of larger nationwide service providers: The
two largest providers hold 73 percent of the low-band spectrum.
Particularly in the context of the once-in-a-generation Incentive
Auction, the Commission finds that there is a reasonably foreseeable
risk of not achieving its various section 309(j) goals whether or not
leading providers are motivated by foreclosure strategies. The
Commission concludes that if the Commission do not act at this time to
ensure the highest use of low-band spectrum, the competitive choices
[[Page 39981]]
available to wireless consumers will likely be substantially less
attractive. The Commission therefore finds it essential to establish
clear and transparent policies that will preserve and promote
competition in the future, promote the efficient use of spectrum,
ensure competitive mobile broadband service in rural areas, and avoid
an excessive concentration of licenses. The Commission finds that
excessive concentration in the allocation of relatively scarce below-1-
GHz spectrum, given ever increasing consumer demand for more bandwidth-
intensive services, would substantially harm the public interest and
indeed, would create a significant risk in the future of an
insufficient number of service providers with a network capable of
satisfying consumer demand.
27. The Commission finds that the promotion of competition, variety
of licensees, rural coverage, and consumer choice in the mobile
marketplace, as well as in the future, crucially depends upon multiple
providers having access to the low-band spectrum they need to operate
and vigorously compete. The Commission also finds that the Commission
must consider the potential for anticompetitive results if the
concentrated holdings of below-1-GHz spectrum are not addressed. The
Commission cannot ignore the possibility of diminished competition in
the future, both from rivals' costs being raised and from foreclosure.
Further, the Commission finds that the burden that some providers may
experience by limits on their ability to acquire increasing amounts of
below-1-GHz spectrum, when tailored to the minimum the Commission
believed necessary to promote competition, will be outweighed by the
public interest benefits that will flow from the preservation and
promotion of robust and sustainable competition. By adopting clear and
transparent spectrum aggregation limits, the Commission aim to ensure
that American consumers have meaningful choices among multiple service
providers in the future.
II. Changes to the Spectrum Screen
28. The Commission retains the current standard for whether
particular bands should be included in the spectrum screen--
``suitable'' and ``available'' in the near term for the provision of
mobile telephony/broadband services. The Commission determines that the
following spectrum should be added to the spectrum screen: The 600 MHz
band (at the conclusion of the Incentive Auction), Advanced Wireless
Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands (AWS-4),
H Block, additional BRS spectrum, the majority of the EBS spectrum, and
the AWS-3 band (on a market-by-market basis as it becomes
``available''). The Commission also determines that it should not
include the Upper 700 MHz D Block and a certain amount of the SMR
spectrum, both of which previously have been included.
A. Standard for Inclusion of Bands
29. When assessing spectrum aggregation in its review of wireless
transactions, the Commission evaluates the current spectrum holdings of
the acquiring firm that are ``suitable'' and ``available'' in the near
term for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services.
Suitability is determined by whether the spectrum is capable of
supporting mobile service given its physical properties and the state
of equipment technology, whether the spectrum is licensed with a mobile
allocation and corresponding service rules, and whether the spectrum is
committed to another use that effectively precludes its uses for mobile
services. Spectrum is considered ``available'' if it is ``fairly
certain that it will meet the criteria for suitable spectrum in the
near term, an assessment that can be made at the time the spectrum is
licensed or at later times after changes in technology or regulation
that affect the consideration.''
30. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, 77 FR 61330, October 9,
2012, the Commission sought comment on whether to continue to consider
spectrum based on the suitability and availability standard or whether
to consider other factors and asked for any legal, economic, and
engineering justifications to support existing or modified criteria to
determine the suitability and availability standard. The Commission
also sought comment on the application of the relevant factors to
particular spectrum bands and which spectrum bands should be included
in the Commission's spectrum analysis.
31. The Commission retains the current definition. The Commission
finds that the current suitable and available standard has worked well
to identify new spectrum to be included in the spectrum screen, and the
record does not provide persuasive evidence to support modifying the
current suitability and availability standard. Any narrower definition
such as ``actually'' or ``imminently'' available would preclude
relevant spectrum from being accounted for in its analysis of spectrum
aggregation as the Commission review secondary market wireless
transactions.
B. 600 MHz Band
32. The Commission finds that the 600 MHz Band is suitable for the
provision of mobile telephony/mobile broadband services. In the
Incentive Auction Report and Order, the Commission establishes rules to
implement the Incentive Auction and to govern the use of the 600 MHz
Band for the provision of mobile wireless services and adopts a band
plan that facilitates wireless broadband deployment operations. The
Commission also finds that the 600 MHz Band is available for the
provision of mobile telephony/mobile broadband services, citing the
framework for transitioning incumbent broadcasters from the 600 MHz
Band within 39 months of the close of the auction set forth in the
Incentive Auction Report and Order. Given this concrete transition
framework, the relative clarity regarding the availability of this
spectrum, and the importance of this band to the mobile wireless
marketplace going forward, the Commission anticipates that the spectrum
cleared at auction is likely to begin having a competitive impact very
shortly after the auction ends. As a result, the Commission will
consider the 600 MHz Band to be available upon the release of the
Channel Reassignment PN after conclusion of the Incentive Auction. The
amount of repurposed 600 MHz Band spectrum added to the spectrum screen
will be equal to the total megahertz amount of spectrum repurposed for
flexible use wireless licenses.
C. Advanced Wireless Service
1. AWS-4 Spectrum
33. The Commission finds that the 40 megahertz of spectrum in the
AWS-4 band is suitable and available for the provision of mobile/
telephony broadband services, and therefore should be included in the
spectrum screen. In the AWS-4 Report and Order, the Commission adopted
licensing, operating, and technical rules for stand-alone terrestrial
mobile wireless operations in the AWS-4 band, which already included an
allocation for mobile use, and took other actions to remove regulatory
barriers to mobile broadband use of the AWS-4 band, as described above.
The Commission also determined that it would assign AWS-4 licenses to
DISH, as the incumbent MSS operator in that spectrum, and established a
concrete, proven process for efficient relocation of incumbent
operations from 2180-2200 MHz. In light of these Commission actions,
the Commission finds that the 40 megahertz
[[Page 39982]]
in the AWS-4 band should be included in the spectrum screen going
forward.
34. The Commission rejects argument that it should include only 35
out of the 40 megahertz of AWS-4 spectrum because of the stringent
technical restrictions placed on AWS-4 operations in 2000-2005 MHz to
protect adjacent operations in the upper portion of the H Block (1995-
2000 MHz). Given the flexibility provided in the AWS-4 Report and Order
allowing these technical restrictions on AWS-4 operations in 2000-2005
MHz to be modified by commercial agreements between licensees of the
AWS-4 band and the H Block, and the fact that DISH now holds all AWS-4
and H Block licenses, the Commission concludes that any potential
interference issues between 2000-2005 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz should be
sufficiently resolved so that the Commission should count 2000-2005 MHz
in the spectrum screen along with the other 35 megahertz of AWS-4
spectrum.
2. H Block
35. The Commission finds that the H Block spectrum is suitable and
available for the provision of mobile/telephony broadband services, and
therefore should be counted in the spectrum screen. In the H Block
Report and Order (78 FR 50214, August 16, 2013), the Commission
explained that through the adoption of service rules for this band, the
Commission increased the nation's supply of spectrum for flexible-use
services, including mobile broadband, and in particular would extend
the widely deployed broadband PCS band used by numerous providers to
offer mobile service across the United States. The Commission also
found that, consistent with the technical rules it adopted, the use of
both the 1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz band can occur
without causing harmful interference to broadband PCS downlink
operations at 1930-1995 MHz. In light of these conclusions, along with
the recent completion of the H Block auction and the fact that
incumbent licensees in these bands previously were cleared by UTAM,
Inc. and by Sprint, the Commission finds that the H Block should be
included in the spectrum screen going forward.
3. AWS-3 Bands
36. The Commission finds that the AWS-3 bands (1695-1710 MHz, 1755-
1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz) are suitable for the provision of mobile
telephony/mobile broadband services. In the recent AWS-3 Report and
Order, the Commission amended the Allocation Table to include a mobile,
non-Federal allocation for the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands,
which already applied to the 2155-2180 MHz band and found that
licensing AWS-3 bands in a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks
aligns well with a variety of wireless broadband technologies,
including LTE, Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), HSPA,
and LTE-advanced. The Commission concluded that pairing uplink/mobile
transmit operations in the 1755-1780 MHz band with downlink operations
in the 2155-2180 MHz band would be compatible with similar operations
in the adjacent AWS-1 band, effectively creating a combined 140
megahertz band. Further, the Commission observed that no regulation
would prohibit licensees from pairing the unpaired 1695-1710 MHz uplink
band with another present or future licensed downlink band. Given the
anticipated use of the AWS-3 bands for mobile broadband service, either
as an extension of the AWS-1 band or potentially in combination with
other AWS bands, the Commission concludes that the AWS-3 bands are
suitable for the provision of mobile telephony/mobile broadband
service.
37. The Commission also finds that the AWS-3 bands should be
considered available for mobile telephony/mobile broadband services on
a market-by-market basis in the future, given that the timing of that
access will depend on the nature of the Federal operations affecting
each particular market. Commercial operators will have access to the
1755-1780 MHz and 1695-1710 MHz bands outside of areas where federal
operations are protected during their transition, inside areas where
federal operations are protected during their transition if
successfully coordinated with the Federal incumbent, in areas in which
the Federal incumbents have relocated pursuant to their Transition
Plan, and inside areas in which Federal incumbents are protected
indefinitely if successfully coordinated with the Federal incumbent.
Accordingly, given that the effect of Federal incumbent operations on
the timing and scope of commercial operations will vary from market to
market, the Commission determines that the 1755-1780 MHz and 1695-1710
MHz bands will become available on a market-by-market basis in the
future. In addition, consistent with the paired offering of the 2155-
2180 MHz band with the 1755-1780 MHz band, the Commission will count
the 2155-2180 MHz band as available for purposes of the spectrum screen
at the same time the Commission counts the 1755-1780 MHz band in the
particular market, consistent with its approach to the paired AWS-1
band.
38. The Commission notes that the timing and the extent of access
by commercial licensees to the 1755-1780 MHz and 1695-1710 MHz bands in
particular markets will depend, in part, on the timelines to be set in
the Transition Plans for relocating Federal incumbents, which will be
made publicly available. In light of the importance of this band in
adding capacity spectrum for mobile wireless providers to deploy next-
generation networks, and the timelines to be set in the Transition
Plans for different systems in different markets, the Commission will
count the 1755-1780 MHz and 1695-1710 MHz bands in the spectrum screen
in a particular market once all relocating Federal incumbent systems in
that market are within three years of completing relocation, according
to the Transition Plans. The Commission notes that the timing and the
extent of access by commercial licensees to these AWS-3 bands also will
depend on successful coordination with federal systems during the
transition process and the Federal systems that will not be relocating
from these bands. However, given that the nature and timing of the
coordination will be the subject of two-party private discussions
between commercial licensees and Federal incumbents and will vary from
market to market, from licensee to licensee, and from system to system,
the Commission will not base the timing of when the Commission count
AWS-3 spectrum to be available in a particular market on the status of
coordination with non-relocating Federal incumbents. The Commission
notes that the Commission will count the 2155-2180 MHz band in the
spectrum screen for a particular market at the same time the Commission
counts the 1755-1780 MHz and 1695-1710 MHz bands in that market, for
the reasons indicated above.
D. Big LEO Bands
39. The Commission declines to add to the spectrum screen Big LEO
MSS spectrum in the 2483.5-2495 MHz and 1610-1617.775 MHz ranges,
noting that Globalstar's ATC authority to operate terrestrial base
stations and mobile terminals using this spectrum under the authority
of a waiver granted in 2008 was suspended in 2010 and none of these
proposed changes have been acted on by the Commission. Thus, the
Commission declines to add this Big LEO MSS spectrum to the spectrum
screen at this time. The Commission distinguishes this decision from
its
[[Page 39983]]
determination to add to the spectrum screen the AWS-4 band (2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz), for which the Commission has taken a number of
actions to make the band suitable and available for mobile telephony/
mobile broadband. Specifically, for the AWS-4 band, the Commission has
added a mobile allocation, adopted licensing rules for stand-alone
terrestrial mobile wireless operations, and assigned the spectrum to
the incumbent MSS operator, DISH.
E. BRS/EBS Bands
40. Background. The 194 megahertz in the 2496-2690 MHz band (2.5
GHz) comprises (1) 73.5 megahertz licensed to commercial operators in
the BRS band; (2) 112.5 megahertz licensed to eligible educational
institutions or non-profit educational organizations in the EBS band;
and (3) 8 megahertz licensed to BRS or EBS as guard bands dividing the
lower, middle, and upper band segments of the 2.5 GHz.
41. In 2008, in the Sprint-Clearwire Order, the Commission decided
to include in the spectrum screen 55.5 megahertz of BRS spectrum in the
upper band segment, in those markets in which the transition to the new
band plan was complete. The Commission observed that 2.5 GHz licensees
had made substantial progress in the prior few years in transitioning
to the new band plan, finalizing the WiMAX standards, developing
equipment, and formulating their plans for using the 2.5 GHz band to
provide service. The Commission declined to include in the spectrum
screen the 12 megahertz of BRS spectrum in the middle band segment
(``MBS'') due to concerns of interference from legacy high-power video
operations, stating it lacked sufficient information ``to determine the
extent to which MBS is in fact available for mobile telephony/broadband
services.'' The Commission also declined to include in the spectrum
screen the BRS Channel-1 (2496-2502 MHz), which is not contiguous to
the 55.5 megahertz of BRS spectrum that was included, finding that the
Channel does not fit into the contemplated WiMAX deployment plans.
Further, the Commission excluded from the screen the 8 megahertz of
guard bands because they are secondary to adjacent-channel operations
and they are too narrow to be used unless they were all aggregated in a
market.
42. The Commission currently does not include in the screen any EBS
spectrum, which is licensed to eligible educational entities who can
lease spectrum to commercial operators subject to the requirement,
inter alia, to reserve at least five percent of digital transmission
capacity for educational purposes. In the Sprint-Clearwire Order, it
declined to include EBS spectrum in the screen, observing that ``the
primary purpose of EBS is to further the educational mission of
accredited public and private schools, colleges and universities
providing a formal educational and cultural development to enrolled
students through video, data, or voice transmissions.'' The Commission
noted that, while educational licensees are allowed to lease their
excess capacity to commercial operators, leasing is subject to various
special requirements designed to maintain the primary educational
character of services provided using EBS spectrum. In addition, the
Commission recognized that other elements of the EBS licensing regime,
such as its solely site-specific character, with the absence of any
licensee in various unassigned EBS ``white spaces,'' complicate use of
this spectrum for commercial purposes. Further, the Commission
indicated that it was sensitive to the concerns raised by EBS licensees
that potential divestitures, in response to spectrum aggregation
concerns relating to competition among commercial services, could
disproportionately harm EBS licensees.
43. In subsequent transaction reviews, the Commission declined to
add EBS or additional BRS spectrum to the spectrum screen, finding
either that the circumstances had not sufficiently changed from Sprint-
Clearwire Order or that the instant rulemaking proceeding is a more
appropriate place to evaluate this issue. In the context of reviewing
the SoftBank-Sprint-Clearwire transaction, however, the Commission did
consider arguments on the record regarding the competitive effect of
Sprint obtaining 100 percent stock ownership in and de facto control of
Clearwire's BRS and EBS spectrum holdings, finding competitive harm
unlikely.
44. Discussion. The Commission finds that it is necessary to modify
the amount of 2.5 GHz spectrum the Commission currently includes in the
screen to reflect today's marketplace realities. The Commission will
update the spectrum screen to increase the amount of 2.5 GHz spectrum
from 55.5 megahertz to 156.5 megahertz. The Commission will add the 12
megahertz in the two MBS BRS channels, as well as 89 megahertz of EBS
spectrum, which represents most of the EBS spectrum, adjusted to
reflect white space and education use elements. The Commission will
continue to exclude the six megahertz in BRS Channel 1 and the guard
bands.
45. As an initial matter, the Commission observes that Sprint
announced its intent to integrate its 2.5 GHz spectrum throughout its
network to provide mobile broadband service. Sprint recently announced
its next generation service ``Sprint Spark,'' an enhanced LTE network,
which it plans to deploy over the next three years using its SMR, PCS,
and 2.5 GHz spectrum. The Commission finds that based upon how the 2.5
GHz band is being used today, and will be used in the near term; the
majority of the band is suitable and available for mobile telephony/
mobile broadband services.
46. With respect to BRS spectrum, the Commission finds that, in
addition to the 55.5 megahertz currently counted in the screen, the
Commission should include 12 megahertz of BRS MBS spectrum. The
Commission recognizes that legacy video operations in the MBS, once
considered a significant impediment to the deployment of cellularized
operations in the MBS, are now no longer a barrier to deploying mobile
broadband service in the vast majority of markets. The Commission notes
that Sprint recently has acknowledged that BRS MBS channels are ``more
routinely available'' for mobile broadband use. Accordingly, the
Commission includes the 12 megahertz of BRS MBS spectrum in the screen.
47. However, the Commission will continue to exclude the 6
megahertz BRS Channel 1 (2496-2502 MHz). The proponents of including
BRS Channel 1 in the screen have not demonstrated any material change
in circumstances since 2008 with respect to that channel and the
Commission acknowledges Sprint's concern that BRS Channel 1 is not
contiguous with the other BRS channels and therefore is not conducive
to the provision of mobile telephony/mobile broadband service.
48. With respect to EBS spectrum, the Commission declines to
continue its policy of excluding all EBS spectrum. Leasing in and of
itself does not preclude the spectrum from meeting the suitable and
available standard. The Commission does not find that the differences
in propagation characteristics between the 2.5 GHz band and lower
frequency spectrum should result in its continued exclusion of the 2.5
GHz band from the spectrum screen for purposes of its competitive
review. Nor does the Commission agree with Sprint that the aggregation
of 20 megahertz of this band is a necessary precursor to counting EBS
in the screen. The benefit of contiguous holdings in a band is not a
factor unique to EBS
[[Page 39984]]
spectrum that warrants excluding EBS holdings from the screen in cases
where such contiguity is not achieved.
49. Although the Commission finds that EBS spectrum generally is
suitable and available for mobile telephony/mobile broadband services,
the Commission agrees with Sprint that there are certain factors unique
to EBS that warrant not including all of the EBS spectrum in the
screen. The Commission will continue to exclude the five percent of the
EBS capacity that is reserved for educational uses. The Commission
remains committed to EBS spectrum serving educational purposes.
Originally, the 2500-2690 MHz band was allocated for ITFS service and
``established to provide formal education and cultural development in
aural and visual form to students enrolled in accredited public and
private schools, colleges and universities.'' The Commission continues
to support the education mission of accredited public and private
schools, colleges, and universities providing a formal educational and
cultural development to enrolled students through video, data, or voice
transmissions. Therefore, as a starting point, the Commission will
include 95 percent, or approximately 107 megahertz, of EBS spectrum in
the screen.
50. With EBS spectrum licensed on a site-specific basis, certain
areas exist where the Commission has not assigned a license to an
educational entity. And no educational entity has been able to apply
for a license for an EBS white space since 1995. Therefore, no
commercial wireless provider has ever had the opportunity to lease EBS
spectrum in that area. Therefore, white spaces can present certain
obstacles for providing reliable, wide-area coverage. The Commission
finds it reasonable to discount for white space when including EBS
spectrum in the screen.
51. Given the complexity of calculating a white space discount on a
market-by-market basis, Sprint proposes a uniform, nationwide EBS white
space discount for administrative practicability and regulatory
certainty. Sprint calculated that across all EBS channels, an average
of approximately 16.5 percent of the population is located in EBS white
space and therefore proposes to use a 16.5 percent discount. The
Commission agrees that a nationwide discount is the best option for
applying a white space discount for EBS spectrum and find Sprint's
proposal reasonable. While as Verizon Wireless notes, using a
nationwide average may in some instances undercount EBS white space in
some markets and overcount EBS white space in other markets, the
Commission finds that using an average across all markets is a
reasonable method, which balances administrative efficiency with the
complexity of a precise market-by-market calculation. Thus, after
taking the discount into consideration, of the initial 107 megahertz of
EBS spectrum, the Commission will include 89 megahertz of EBS spectrum
in the screen. As discussed in Section VI.G below, the Commission
declines to further weight EBS spectrum, or other spectrum bands, based
on propagation characteristics.
F. Upper 700 MHz D Block
52. In light of Congress' reallocation of the Upper 700 MHz D Block
spectrum (758-763 MHz, 788-793 MHz) for public safety use--and the
subsequent steps taken by the Commission and the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau to effectuate the reallocation and licensing
of this spectrum for public safety--the Commission finds that the 10
megahertz previously designated as the Upper 700 MHz D Block is no
longer suitable and available for the provision of mobile telephony/
mobile broadband services. Therefore, going forward, the Commission
will exclude from the spectrum screen that 10 megahertz (758-763 MHz,
788-793 MHz) that currently is part of the screen, along with the
adjacent public safety broadband spectrum that is also now licensed to
FirstNet (763-768 MHz, 793-798 MHz), which was not previously counted
in the initial spectrum screen.
53. The Commission notes that, under the Spectrum Act, FirstNet is
permitted to provide access to the 20 megahertz of Public Safety
Broadband spectrum to commercial entities through certain ``covered
leasing agreements.'' The Commission will not add to the screen any of
this spectrum merely because FirstNet has entered into leasing
arrangements contemplated by the Act. Deployment of this spectrum is
essential to the critical statutory goal of deploying a nationwide
interoperable public safety broadband network, and the Commission wants
to provide equal incentives to all commercial operators to partner with
FirstNet to make this goal a reality.
G. SMR Bands
54. In 2004, the Commission adopted a new band plan for the 800 MHz
band to ``address the [then] ongoing and growing problem of
interference to public safety communications in the 800 MHz band.'' The
interference problem was caused ``by a fundamentally incompatible mix
of two types of communications systems: Cellular-architecture multi-
cell systems . . . and high-site non-cellular systems.'' To provide
immediate relief, the Commission implemented technical standards that
defined unacceptable interference in the 800 MHz band, while also
reconfiguring the band to separate commercial wireless systems from
public safety and other high site systems. Pursuant to the band
reconfiguration, the Commission eliminated the interleaving of public
safety and commercial channels in the 800 MHz band and separated
cellularized multi-cell and non-cellularized high-site systems within
the band.
55. Under the reconfiguration plan, Nextel (now Sprint) was
required to vacate the 806-817 MHz and the 851-862 MHz band segments
and relocate to 817-824/862-869 MHz. The Commission had designated the
upper portion of the 800 MHz band (817-824 MHz/862-869 MHz) for
Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio (ESMR) systems and designated the
lower portion of the 800 MHz band (806-815 MHz/851-860 MHz) for use by
public safety, Critical Infrastructure Industries (CII), and other non-
cellular systems.
56. The Commission eliminates from inclusion in the screen 7.5
megahertz in the 800 MHz Band because, after the Commission
reconfigured the band, that spectrum is no longer licensed for
commercial, cellularized operations. The Commission also eliminates the
remaining 5 megahertz in the 900 MHz band that is narrowly-channelized
in 125 kHz blocks and not adjacent to the remaining 14 megahertz of SMR
spectrum that is licensed for and considered suitable and available for
the provision of mobile telephony/mobile broadband services. Therefore,
going forward, the Commission finds only 14 megahertz of SMR spectrum
is suitable and available for the provision of mobile telephony/mobile
broadband services and will be included in the screen.
III. Licensing Through Competitive Bidding
57. The Commission concludes that it is in the public interest, for
auctions, to replace the current case-by-case approach of evaluating
long form applications of winning bidders with a determination of
whether a band-specific spectrum holding limit should apply ex ante to
the licensing of particular bands through competitive bidding. In the
R&O, the Commission finds that the Commission should determine what if
any spectrum holding limitations should affect the licensing of
[[Page 39985]]
particular bands through competitive bidding before the relevant
competitive bidding process begins for that band. The Commission
determines certain guidelines that the Commission will consider in
making such determinations prior to the beginning of the competitive
bidding process for a particular band, which generally will be made in
the service rulemakings for those bands, enabling the Commission to
take into account all relevant objectives specific to the bands in
question and competitive bidding process. Given the proximity of the
AWS-3 auction and Incentive Auction, the Commission makes
determinations regarding whether to adopt, in the context of this
rulemaking, any mobile spectrum holdings limits for the licensing of
these bands through competitive bidding. In particular, based on the
record in this proceeding and in the two service rulemakings, as well
as the statutory goals set forth in the Communications Act and the
Spectrum Act, the Commission reserves spectrum in the forward auction
for the 600 MHz Band licenses in order to ensure against excessive
concentration in holdings of below-1-GHz spectrum, and the Commission
declines to adopt any mobile spectrum holding limits for the licensing
of the AWS-3 bands through competitive bidding.
A. Ex Ante Application of Mobile Spectrum Holding Limits to the
Licensing of Spectrum Bands Through Competitive Bidding
58. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on general approaches to address mobile spectrum policies at
auction, including whether to retain its current case-by-case approach
or adopt a bright-line limit. The Commission also sought comment on the
costs and benefits of applying a case-by-case approach to initial
licenses acquired at auction and whether it affords participants
sufficient certainty to determine whether they would be allowed to hold
a given license post-auction.
59. The Commission concludes that it is in the public interest to
replace its post-auction case-by-case analysis of the licensing of
spectrum bands through competitive bidding with a determination of
whether a band-specific mobile spectrum holding limit is necessary to
carry out the duties under the Communications Act and, if so, to
establish an ex ante application of that limit to the competitive
bidding for that band.\1\ The Commission finds that upfront, clear
determination, instead of case-by-case analysis post-auction, would
provide potential bidders with greater certainty in the auction process
regarding how much spectrum they would be permitted to acquire at
auction. Providing such certainty is consistent with Section
309(j)(3)(E) of the Communications Act, which emphasizes the need for
clear bidding rules ``to ensure that interested parties have a
sufficient time to develop business plans, assess marketplace
conditions, and evaluate the availability of equipment for the relevant
services.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In subsequent secondary market transactions, the licenses
acquired at auction will be included in the application of our
revised spectrum screen when the spectrum is deemed suitable and
available for inclusion in the screen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
60. To the extent that the Commission adopts a mobile spectrum
holding limit for the licensing of a particular band through
competitive bidding, applying the limit ex ante would provide greater
certainty and efficiency in the process of licensing through
competitive bidding, which would be particularly important for complex
auctions like the Incentive Auction. Upfront, bright-line
determinations would streamline the post-auction review of license
applications, which should allow winning bidders to receive their
licenses more quickly and proceed to deploy service using the acquired
spectrum. The application of a mobile spectrum holding limit ex ante
would avoid certain challenges in trying to remedy concerns after post-
auction competitive review. If the Commission were to make a finding
post-auction that the acquisition of spectrum by a winning bidder would
be likely to cause competitive harm, it could compel abandonment of the
license application or divestiture of the license won at auction, which
could create incentives for bidder behavior that would undermine the
goals of the auction. Alternatively, divestiture of another license
from the bidder's pre-auction spectrum holdings might not address the
Commission's competitive concerns with aggregation of the spectrum made
available at auction, especially if the spectrum the winning bidder
would propose to divest does not have similar characteristics of the
spectrum acquired in the auction.
61. The Commission finds that, for competitive review of spectrum
licenses acquired through competitive bidding, the benefits of a
bright-line ex ante application of a mobile spectrum holding limit to
the competitive bidding for those licenses outweigh any costs
associated with any perceived loss of flexibility that the existing
post-auction review might afford. The Commission notes that a case-by-
case review of spectrum licenses acquired through secondary markets
continues to be appropriate, as discussed below.
62. The Commission finds that the determination of whether to apply
any mobile spectrum holding limits to the licensing of a particular
band through competitive bidding, and if so the scope of such limits
and policies, should be clearly specified sufficiently in advance of
the auction. This approach would afford a prospective bidder sufficient
time to develop a bidding strategy based on the mobile spectrum
holdings determination adopted for an upcoming auction, while allowing
the Commission to consider the unique circumstances of each spectrum
band auction when making its determination.
63. The Commission would evaluate a number of factors in
considering whether to adopt a mobile spectrum holdings limit for the
licensing of a particular band through competitive bidding and, if so,
what type of limit to apply. As an initial matter, its evaluation will
encompass the ``broad aims of the Communications Act,'' which include,
among other things, preserving and enhancing competition in relevant
markets, accelerating private sector deployment of advanced services,
and generally managing the spectrum in the public interest. Its
determination will help carry out its duties under the Communications
Act, serving the public interest. Its public interest analysis in this
context also may entail assessing whether a particular auction specific
policy will affect the quality of communications services or result in
the provision of new or additional services to consumers. Moreover, the
Commission must consider any other statutory goals and directives
applicable to a particular spectrum band being licensed by competitive
bidding.
64. The Commission will consider whether the acquisition at auction
of licenses to use a significant portion of spectrum by one or more
providers would potentially harm the public interest by reducing the
likelihood that multiple service providers would have access to
sufficient spectrum to compete robustly in the provision of mobile
telephony/mobile broadband service. This determination will be based on
several factors, including total amount of spectrum to be assigned,
characteristics of the spectrum to be assigned, timing of when the
spectrum could be used for mobile telephony/mobile broadband services,
the specific rights being granted to licensees of the spectrum, and the
extent to which
[[Page 39986]]
competitors have opportunities to gain access to alternative bands that
would serve the same purpose as the spectrum licenses at issue.
B. 600 MHz Band Incentive Auction
65. For the Incentive Auction, the Commission establishes a market-
based spectrum reserve of up to 30 megahertz in each license area
designed to ensure against excessive concentration in holdings of low-
band spectrum--a reserve that includes safeguards to ensure that all
bidders bear a fair share of the cost of the Incentive Auction. The
market-based reserve balances the need to meet the requirements for
concluding the Incentive Auction with the competition goals discussed
above.
66. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether to adopt limits on the amount of spectrum that
entities could acquire in the context of spectrum auctions mandated by
the Spectrum Act. In the Incentive Auction NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on what, if anything, it should do to meet the statutory
requirements of section 309(j)(3)(B) and promote the goals of the
Incentive Auction. For instance, the Commission noted that ``section
309(j)(3)(B)'s directive to avoid excessive concentration of licenses
might militate in favor of a rule that permits any single participant
in the auction to acquire no more than one-third of all 600 MHz Band
spectrum being auctioned in a given licensed area.''
67. The amount of repurposed spectrum depends on the outcome of the
reverse and forward auction components of the Incentive Auction. The
reverse and forward auctions will be integrated in a series of stages.
Each stage will consist of a reverse auction and a forward auction
bidding process. Prior to the first stage, the initial spectrum
clearing target will be determined based on broadcasters' collective
willingness to relinquish spectrum usage rights at the opening prices
offered to them. The first stage reverse auction bidding rounds will
determine the total amount of incentive payments necessary in
connection with the initial clearing target. The forward auction
bidding process will follow. If the final stage rule described below is
satisfied, the forward auction bidding will continue until there is no
excess demand for 600 MHz Band licenses. If the final stage rule is not
satisfied, additional stages will be run, with progressively lower
spectrum targets in the reverse auction and less spectrum available in
the forward auction until the rule is satisfied.
68. The final stage rule is a reserve price with two components,
both of which must be satisfied. The first component requires that the
prices for licenses in the forward auction meet or exceed a certain
price benchmark to assure that prices generally reflect competitive
market values for comparable spectrum licenses. The first component
consists of alternative conditions, depending on the clearing target
for the particular stage in which it is being applied. The alternative
formulations recognize that per-unit market prices for spectrum
licenses may decline consistent with an increase in supply. The price
and spectrum clearing benchmarks will be established by the Commission
in the Incentive Auction Procedures PN, after an opportunity for
additional comment. The second component of the final stage rule
requires that the proceeds of the forward auction be sufficient to meet
expenses set forth in the Spectrum Act and any Public Safety Trust Fund
amounts needed for FirstNet. If the requirements of both components of
the reserve price are met, then the final stage rule is satisfied.
69. In the Incentive Auction Report and Order, the Commission
indicates that, in the coming months, the Commission will solicit
public input on final auction procedures by Public Notice (``Incentive
Auction Comment PN''). This Public Notice will include specific
proposals on crucial auction design issues such as opening prices,
television channel assignment optimization, how much market variation
to accommodate in the 600 MHz Band Plan, and benchmarks for
implementing the final stage rule. Well in advance of the auction, also
by public notice, the Commission will resolve these implementation
issues and provide detailed explanations and instructions for potential
auction participants (``Incentive Auction Procedures PN'').
1. The Need for a Market-Based Spectrum Reserve
70. Given the importance of multiple providers, including rural and
regional providers, having access to below-1-GHz spectrum for
deployment and competition, the Commission concludes that a clear
mobile spectrum holdings policy for the Incentive Auction is necessary
to increase access opportunities to the 600 MHz Band. The Commission
finds that it is appropriate to adopt a market-based spectrum reserve
for entities that do not currently hold a significant amount of below-
1-GHz spectrum.
71. The Commission will reserve on a contingent basis, licenses
covering up to 30 megahertz of spectrum for bidders with spectrum
holdings, at the deadline for filing a short-form application to
participate in the forward auction, of less than 45 megahertz, on a
population-weighted basis, of suitable and available below-1-GHz
spectrum in a PEA. All bidders, including those unable to bid on
reserved licenses, will be able to bid on the unreserved licenses. The
Commission specifies the maximum amount of spectrum that will be
reserved in each market for eligible entities (``reserve-eligible''
entities) in the forward auction under the various band plan scenarios
identified in the Incentive Auction Report and Order, but the actual
amount of spectrum reserved will depend on the demand by reserve-
eligible bidders when the auction reaches a trigger (the ``spectrum
reserve trigger''). The Commission finds that this approach balances a
number of the key statutory directives, including promoting
competition, facilitating the deployment of advanced services by making
spectrum available for flexible use, and sharing the costs of the
Incentive Auction on a fair and equitable basis.
72. In reaching its decisions, the Commission must consider a
number of statutory directives applicable to the Incentive Auction,
including promoting competition, making spectrum available for flexible
use, meeting proceeds requirements, and facilitating deployment of
advanced services. With respect to promoting competition in the mobile
wireless marketplace, the Commission observes that any of the types of
limits discussed on the record--spectrum caps based on a provider's
existing below-1-GHz holdings, equal spectrum caps for all bidders, or
reserved spectrum--have the potential to promote competition by
ensuring that in the near future, more providers would hold a
sufficient mix of spectrum to compete robustly. The Commission finds
that its market-based spectrum reserve for the Incentive Auction has
distinct advantages over the other approaches with respect to the other
statutory directives.
73. First, the spectrum reserve gives mobile service providers
significant latitude to bid on spectrum licenses they need in each area
to meet their network requirements, including providers who are unable
to bid for reserved spectrum in a particular PEA. Rules that would
restrict the larger providers to no more than a 5 x 5 megahertz block
of 600 MHz Band spectrum do not adequately consider the needs of those
providers for
[[Page 39987]]
additional spectrum to meet the demand of their subscribers in the
longer term. Nor do such rules adequately consider that efficient
deployment of services using the 600 MHz Band spectrum would likely
rely on ensuring that the larger as well as smaller nationwide
providers having a stake in the development of equipment for the band.
Spectrum caps also could affect to a certain extent mobile broadband
providers' flexibility to expand services to meet increasing consumer
needs.
74. Second, proposals that would set an individual spectrum cap on
the amount of 600 MHz Band spectrum for which each provider could
acquire licenses have greater risk of decreasing forward auction
proceeds, and thus endangering its ability to repurpose spectrum,
because it likely would lessen competition between the largest wireless
providers for spectrum in amounts greater than the cap would permit.
75. The Commission concludes that its market-based spectrum
reserve, particularly in the amounts and under the rules the Commission
adopts is unlikely to reduce competition among bidders and in fact,
will encourage competition among bidders wanting at least 20 megahertz
of spectrum, as compared to other potential approaches to mobile
spectrum holdings limits that could be applied to the Incentive
Auction. Under the market-based spectrum reserve, every bidder will
have the opportunity to bid for, and win, at least half of the 600 MHz
Band spectrum in each market, and at some levels of spectrum made
available in the forward auction, significantly more than half.
76. Third, the Commission concludes that its approach would not
reduce participation in the auction by large providers to a level that
would reduce the amount of spectrum that can be repurposed by the
Incentive Auction. The reserved spectrum amount would be contingent
upon (and subject to a reduction based on) the demand expressed in the
forward auction by reserve-eligible bidders. If there is insufficient
demand for reserved spectrum licenses, the amount of reserved spectrum
would be reduced.
77. The Commission also finds that its market-based spectrum
reserve is more likely to achieve its purposes more effectively than
bidding credits based on the level of spectrum holdings. On balance,
applying bidding credits based on spectrum holdings as opposed to
reserving licenses for providers without significant below-1-GHz
spectrum would not address the Commission's competitive concerns with
aggregation of the spectrum made available at auction. The Commission
notes that in the Incentive Auctions Report and Order the Commission
adopted the bidding credits for the forward auction applicable to small
businesses. The Commission also stated it will initiate a separate
proceeding to examine its designated entity (``DE'') rules generally.
78. The Commission notes that its decision to adopt a 600 MHz Band
spectrum reserve and to establish the amounts of reserved spectrum
specified below is based on the current marketplace structure of the
mobile wireless service industry. If significant changes in the
marketplace structure occur or a proposed transaction is filed with the
Commission in the future affecting the top four nationwide providers
and their spectrum holdings, the Commission will revisit its decisions
here regarding the reserved spectrum provisions for the 600 MHz Band
that the Commission adopted. The Commission will review as well whether
changes should be made to any other decisions in the R&O. The
Commission also plans to consider in a Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking possible change to certain auction rules relating to joint
bidding arrangements and strategies in the Incentive Auction. In order
to allow the Commission to evaluate how certain bidding arrangements
might affect the Incentive Auction, potential bidders will need to file
well before the normal deadlines some of the information currently
required in auction and license application forms.
2. Qualification To Bid on Reserved Licenses
79. The Commission needs to facilitate access by multiple providers
to below-1-GHz spectrum is the basis for its adoption of a market-based
spectrum reserve for the Incentive Auction and, accordingly, the
Commission finds that a provider's existing below-1-GHz holdings in a
particular PEA should be the threshold basis for determining whether
the provider qualifies to bid on reserved spectrum. To qualify to bid
on reserved licenses in a PEA, an entity must not have an attributable
interest in 45 megahertz or more, on a population-weighted basis, of
below-1-GHz spectrum that is suitable and available for the provision
of mobile telephony/mobile broadband services in that PEA, at the
deadline for filing a short-form application to participate in the
Incentive Auction. In its calculation of below-1-GHz spectrum holdings,
the Commission includes not only the entity's licensed spectrum, on a
county-by-county basis, but also all long-term spectrum leasing
arrangements, with spectrum being attributed to both the lessee and
lessor. Further, it includes in the calculations only the below-1-GHz
spectrum that the Commission currently considers to be ``suitable'' and
``available,'' in the modified spectrum screen adopted today, and thus,
no 600 MHz Band spectrum is included, as although it is suitable, it is
not considered available until the conclusion of the Incentive Auction.
The 45 megahertz of below-1-GHz spectrum approximates one-third of the
134 megahertz of below-1-GHz spectrum that the Commission counts in the
modified total spectrum screen the Commission adopted. The Commission
will measure an entity's spectrum holdings on a county-by-county basis
within a PEA,\2\ and then construct a total county-population-weighted
below-1-GHz spectrum holding for each entity within the PEA.\3\ As
discussed below, even if a non-nationwide provider holds approximately
one-third or more of the suitable and available below-1-GHz spectrum in
a given market, it will not be precluded from bidding on reserved
spectrum licenses in any market.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ In the context of secondary market transactions review, the
Commission typically measures a provider's holdings in a particular
CMA based on the maximum spectrum holdings in any one county within
that CMA. Unlike the screen the Commission uses for reviewing
transactions, the qualification for bidding on reserved spectrum is
a bright-line test, and PEAs are generally larger in geographic
scope than the CMAs it uses for competitive review of transactions.
Given those distinctions, the Commission finds that measuring a
bidder's below-1-GHz spectrum holdings amount in a given PEA, based
on the highest below-1-GHz holding amount in any one county within a
PEA, would not be appropriate.
\3\ To determine whether an entity is qualified to bid on
reserved spectrum, its below-1-GHz spectrum holdings are calculated
by summing (PEA county spectrum holdings x PEA county population
(using U.S. Census 2010 population data)), and then dividing that
sum by the total population of the PEA. In its calculations, the
Commission includes licensed spectrum, on a county-by-county basis,
as well as all long-term spectrum leasing arrangements, with leased
spectrum being attributed to both the lessee and lessor. In those
PEAs where there are existing long-term commercial leases, as the
Commission attributes the leased spectrum to both the lessee and
lessor, it increases the total below-1-GHz spectrum amount included
by the (population-weighted) amount of the lease so that service
providers' holdings are not overstated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
80. The Commission observes that the 45 megahertz threshold
(approximately one-third of total below-1-GHz spectrum) to identify
those who can bid on reserved licenses is consistent with the
approximately one-third threshold for total spectrum that the
Commission uses to identify those holdings in local markets that may
raise particular competitive concerns in the context of
[[Page 39988]]
secondary market transactions, as discussed below. The approximately
one-third threshold is, based on its experience in numerous
transactions over the last decade, an effective analytical tool in the
secondary market context. Similarly, the Commission concludes that a
threshold of approximately one-third is an effective line of
demarcation to identify those entities that currently lack significant
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings and would likely benefit from access to
the reserved spectrum. In particular, the Commission finds that this
threshold would help to ensure that multiple providers are able to
access a sufficient amount of low-band spectrum, which would facilitate
the extension and improvement of service in both rural and urban areas,
to the benefit of consumers.
81. Non-Nationwide Providers. The 45 megahertz holding threshold
may have substantial effects on non-nationwide providers that could
outweigh the intended benefits.\4\ In many areas, regional and local
service providers offer consumers additional choices in the areas they
serve and provide some constraint on the ability of nationwide
providers to act in anticompetitive ways to the detriment of consumers.
Although nationwide providers generally set prices on a national basis,
there can be significant variation in discounts, service quality, and
extent of coverage at the local level. Non-nationwide providers are
also important sources of competition in rural areas, where multiple
nationwide service providers may have less incentive to offer high
quality services. Today, 92 percent of non-rural consumers, but only 37
percent of rural consumers are covered by at least four 3G or 4G mobile
wireless providers' networks and more than 1.3 million people in rural
areas have no mobile broadband access. Smaller providers in such areas
are likely to be more dependent upon the efficiencies gained from the
unique propagation benefits of 600 MHz spectrum because they are less
able to subsidize their deployment costs by revenues accrued in more
densely populated areas where a nationwide subscriber base provides
them with greater scale economies. Promoting competition by non-
nationwide providers also advances the statutory goals of avoiding
excessive concentration of licenses, disseminating licenses among a
wide variety of applicants, and encouraging rapid deployment of new
wireless broadband technologies to all Americans, including those
residing in rural areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In the 16th Mobile Wireless Competition Report, the
Commission observed that there are four nationwide providers in the
U.S. with networks that cover a majority of the population and land
area of the country--Verizon Wireless, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile.
For purposes of this R&O, the Commission refers to other providers--
with networks that are limited to regional and local areas--as
``non-nationwide providers.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. The Commission will permit bidding on 600 MHz reserve spectrum
by regional and local service providers in all PEAs, including those
where such a provider holds more spectrum than its 45 megahertz holding
threshold of the available low-band spectrum. The Commission
establishes a bright-line rule to address these issues for the same
reasons set forth above for generally adopting bright line rules on
spectrum aggregation issues for its 600 MHz Incentive Auction. Non-
nationwide service providers enhance competitive choices for consumers
in the mobile wireless marketplace, and help promote deployment in
rural areas. They also present a significantly lower risk of
effectively denying access of low band spectrum to competitors in order
to foreclose competition or to raise rivals' costs because of their
relative lack of resources. Accordingly, the Commission concludes that
non-nationwide service providers should be eligible to bid on reserved
spectrum in all markets nationwide.
83. In sum, to qualify to bid on reserved licenses in a PEA, an
entity must not hold an attributable interest in 45 megahertz or more
of below-1-GHz spectrum in a PEA, as described above, or must be a non-
nationwide provider. The Commission will revise the short-form
application to provide for a certification by an applicant intending to
bid on reserved spectrum that it meets the qualification criteria. If
any entity plans to file a pre-auction divestiture application to come
into compliance with the below-1-GHz holdings threshold, it will have
to file in sufficient time to qualify by the short-form application
deadline.
3. Market-Based Amount of Reserved Spectrum
84. Because the Commission will not know the exact number of blocks
licensed or their frequencies until the Incentive Auction concludes,
the 600 MHz Band Plan in the Incentive Auction Report and Order adopted
a set of band plan scenarios that comprise the 600 MHz Band Plan, one
of which will serve as the ultimate Band Plan for the 600 MHz Band.
Consistent with this approach, the Commission specifies in the chart
below the maximum amount of licensed spectrum that will be reserved in
each market for eligible entities (``reserve-eligible'' entities) in a
forward auction for each indicated amount of licensed spectrum at
initial stage spectrum clearing targets. A spectrum clearing target
will include licensed spectrum and guard bands; the chart refers only
to the amount of licensed spectrum included in each target because only
licensed spectrum is relevant to determination of the reserve. Each
stage of the Incentive Auction will consist of a reverse auction and a
forward auction bidding process. Prior to the first stage, the
Commission will determine the initial spectrum clearing target and will
run additional stages if necessary. If the auction does not close in
the initial stage, the maximum amount of reserved licensed spectrum in
each individual market in subsequent stages will be the smaller of: (1)
The maximum amount of reserved spectrum in the previous stage, or (2)
the amount that the reserve-eligible bidders demand at the end of the
previous stage. For example, if the initial clearing target is 100
megahertz, the maximum reserve will be 30 megahertz in the initial and
subsequent stages. By contrast, if the initial spectrum clearing target
is 60 megahertz, the maximum reserve in the initial and subsequent
stages will be 20 megahertz. In either case, if the auction fails to
close at the initial stage, the maximum reserved spectrum in each PEA
at the second stage will be the smaller of the maximum reserve or the
amount that reserve-eligible bidders demand at the end of the first
stage in that market. Correspondingly, the amount of spectrum that an
unreserved bidder may acquire in subsequent stages will depend on the
amount that the bidder demanded at the end of the previous stage. The
actual amount of spectrum reserved will depend on the demand by
reserve-eligible bidders when the auction reaches a trigger (the
``spectrum reserve trigger''). Because the actual amount of reserved
spectrum depends on auction participation, the Commission calls this a
``market-based spectrum reserve.''
[[Page 39989]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Licensed Spectrum In the Initial * 100 90 70 60 50 40
Clearing Target (in megahertz)...
Minimum Unreserved Spectrum....... 70 60 40 40 40 30
Maximum Reserved Spectrum......... 30 30 30 20 10 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The maximum amount of reserved licensed spectrum is 30 megahertz for initial clearing targets with more than
100 megahertz of licensed spectrum.
85. In determining how much reserved and unreserved spectrum will
be available, the Commission balances a number of the key statutory
directives, including promoting competition, facilitating the
deployment of advanced services by making spectrum available for
flexible use, and sharing the costs of the Incentive Auction on a fair
and equitable basis. For the reasons explained above, the Commission
finds that access to licenses for sufficient spectrum in the 600 MHz
Band by providers that do not already hold licenses for significant
amounts of below-1-GHz spectrum is important to the preservation and
promotion of competition in the mobile wireless marketplace now and in
the future. At the same time, however, the Commission recognizes that
the structure of the Incentive Auction presents unique challenges to
the adoption of a spectrum reserve for reserve-eligible bidders. In
particular, because the Incentive Auction will rely on market forces to
determine the amount of spectrum licenses that will be made available
in the forward auction, the Commission needs to ensure that all bidders
in the forward auction bear a fair share of the clearing costs
identified in the reverse auction and the other costs specified in the
Incentive Auction final stage rule.
86. The amount of reserved spectrum in the Incentive Auction will
depend upon bidding in the forward auction. The Commission specifies a
maximum amount of reserved spectrum in the chart above, but the actual
amount of spectrum available only to reserve-eligible bidders will be
determined at a spectrum reserve trigger that fairly distributes the
responsibility for satisfying the costs of the Incentive Auction among
all bidders.
87. The Commission will set the spectrum reserve trigger at the
point when the final stage rule is satisfied, so that the actual amount
of reserved spectrum will be based on the quantity demanded by reserve-
eligible bidders in each individual market at that point in the forward
auction. The amount of reserved spectrum will be the smaller of: (1)
The maximum amount of reserved spectrum for that stage, or (2) the
amount demanded by reserve-eligible bidders at the trigger. The
Commission intends, after opportunity for comment in the Incentive
Auction Comment PN, to clarify that reserve-eligible bidders will not
be able to acquire more than 20 megahertz of reserved spectrum in a
market unless there is another bidder for reserved spectrum in that
market. Until the spectrum reserve trigger is met, bidding for licenses
in the forward auction will not distinguish between licenses for
reserved and unreserved spectrum. Accordingly, all bidders will compete
for generic licenses in each area--with a single price applying in each
area to all the licenses in a category of generic licenses--up to the
point at which the spectrum reserve trigger is reached.
88. Maximum Amount of Reserved Spectrum. The Commission sets the
maximum amount of reserved spectrum at 30 megahertz for most of the
potential amounts of total licensed spectrum made available in the
forward auction. Setting the maximum amount of reserved spectrum at a
consistent amount across most levels of total licensed spectrum will,
among other things, facilitate the repurposing of more spectrum in the
600 MHz Band, because it provides the opportunity, and creates
incentives, for all auction participants to bid aggressively to acquire
more spectrum licenses as the total amount of available spectrum
increases.
89. A 30 megahertz maximum spectrum reserve at most band clearing
scenarios also benefits competition and consumers by giving reserve-
eligible bidders the assurance that, after the spectrum reserve trigger
is reached, they will have a greater opportunity to purchase licenses
in the 600 MHz Band. At the same time, its initial maximum reserve
amounts ensure that a majority of licenses at the beginning of the
forward auction will be available for bidding by all participants under
all circumstances. In the Incentive Auction Report and Order, the
Commission determined that the 600 MHz Band will be licensed in 10
megahertz (5x5 paired) blocks. Some providers have advocated that 20
megahertz of contiguous spectrum is particularly valuable for the
deployment of next-generation networks. A maximum of 30 megahertz of
reserved spectrum could permit at least two reserve-eligible bidders to
acquire 600 MHz spectrum licenses for deployment of next-generation
networks, with one of the bidders potentially acquiring 20 megahertz of
reserved spectrum for such deployment. Moreover, a maximum of 30
megahertz of reserved spectrum, an odd number of 10-megahertz blocks,
will facilitate competition among bidders seeking to acquire 20
megahertz. In addition, at most levels of total licensed spectrum made
available in the forward auction, a maximum of 30 megahertz of reserved
spectrum will leave a significant amount of unreserved spectrum
available, for which all bidders will have the opportunity to compete.
90. Accordingly, a maximum spectrum reserve of 30 megahertz for
most levels of total available spectrum licenses, on balance, will make
additional low-band spectrum available to multiple providers; ensure
that all bidders have an opportunity to acquire a stake in the 600 MHz
ecosystem that will be critical in the future; and facilitate
competitive bidding. However, if the amount of licensed spectrum at the
initial stage target is less than 70 megahertz, maintaining a maximum
of 30 megahertz of reserved spectrum would not be in the public
interest. Maintaining that amount of reserved spectrum would
potentially reduce the amount of unreserved spectrum to 20 or even 10
megahertz, which the Commission deemed to be too low to provide all
bidders with an adequate opportunity to acquire licenses in the 600 MHz
Band.
91. Market-Based Spectrum Reserve. Under the market-based spectrum
reserve rule, the amount of reserved spectrum in each individual PEA
will be set at the level demanded by reserve-eligible entities at the
time the spectrum reserve trigger is satisfied, up to the maximum
amount of reserved spectrum at the beginning of the stage. Once the
spectrum reserve is established, bidders will bid separately for
generic reserved and unreserved spectrum licenses, with reserve-
eligible bidders able to bid for spectrum in either category, and the
other bidders able to bid only for the unreserved spectrum. For
instance, if the spectrum reserve trigger is met in a stage with a
maximum of 30 megahertz of reserved spectrum, if reserve-eligible
bidders demand only 20 megahertz in a
[[Page 39990]]
given PEA at those prices when the trigger is met, then 20 megahertz
will be reserved.
92. The market-based reserve rule would not prevent unreserved
bidders from acquiring the minimum initial stage amount of unreserved
spectrum specified in the chart above in subsequent stages of the
auction, provided they bid actively on that amount of spectrum
throughout the auction, beginning in the first stage. For example, if
an unreserved bidder demands 20 megahertz throughout the initial stage
(including the extended round) but the stage fails, that bidder will be
eligible to bid for 20 megahertz in the next stage. The Commission
anticipates that bidding in the most urban areas is likely to be the
most intense, with the highest bids, and thus that the spectrum reserve
trigger mechanism the Commission ultimately adopted will mean that
reserved spectrum in those areas will sell only at substantial prices.
93. The market-based reserve rule the Commission adopts balances
the need to meet the requirements for concluding the Incentive Auction
with the competition goals discussed above. Setting an appropriate
spectrum reserve trigger for determining how much spectrum will be
allotted for reserve-eligible bidders will ensure that all bidders,
those eligible to bid on reserved spectrum and other bidders,
contribute a fair share to the clearing costs identified in the reverse
auction and the other costs specified in the Incentive Auction final
stage rule. The market-based spectrum reserve leverages competition
across both reserved and unreserved spectrum to provide all bidders
with the incentive to bid aggressively and repurpose larger rather than
smaller amounts of spectrum. Further, the contingent nature of the
reserve will create reserves only in PEAs where there is sufficient
demand at the point where the spectrum reserve trigger is reached. This
will ensure spectrum is reserved only where there is demand at market-
based prices and increase the likelihood that the auction will close at
a higher spectrum target.
94. In the coming months, the Commission will solicit public input
in the Incentive Auction Comment PN on procedures for implementing
certain auction-related decisions made in the Incentive Auction Report
and Order. Among other things, the Comment PN will seek comment on how
to establish the details of a spectrum reserve trigger based on the
final stage rule, in order to fairly distribute the responsibility for
satisfying the costs of the reverse auction among all bidders. Among
other things, the Commission will consider whether the trigger should
be based solely on prices or revenues in the ``major markets'' and, if
so, how to identify such markets. The Procedures PN will adopt the
details of its spectrum reserve trigger at the same time that the
Commission establishes final auction procedures and resolves crucial
auction design issues, including the benchmarks required to implement
the final stage rule, opening prices, and how much market variation to
accommodate in the 600 MHz Band Plan.
4. Holding Period for 600 MHz Band Licenses
95. The Commission finds that certain restrictions on secondary
market transactions of 600 MHz Band licenses are necessary in certain
circumstances. These secondary market restrictions for 600 MHz Band
licenses will not apply to exchanges of equal amounts of 600 MHz Band
spectrum in the same market.
96. First, the Commission recognizes that its goal in adopting the
spectrum reserve--facilitating access to 600 MHz Band licenses in order
to ensure against excessive concentration in holdings of low-band
spectrum--could be undermined if entities that would not be permitted
to acquire reserved 600 MHz Band licenses in the auction are permitted
to acquire them after the auction through secondary markets. The risk
of undermining its goals for competition and the Incentive Auction must
be balanced, however, against the Commission's general policy of
promoting flexibility in secondary markets transactions. The Commission
finds that precluding secondary market transactions of 600 MHz Band
licenses for six years, which represents the interim buildout period
for 600 MHz licenses, strikes the appropriate balance to preserve the
integrity of its market-based spectrum reserve while still permitting
some flexibility in secondary markets transactions. Accordingly, the
Commission concludes that, for a period of six years, entities that
acquired reserved spectrum licenses in the Incentive Auction cannot
assign or transfer those licenses to, or enter into long-term leases
regarding those licenses with, entities that would not have been in
compliance with the reserve-eligible entity requirements on the date
the short form application was due for the Incentive Auction.
97. In addition, the Commission notes that its decision to adopt a
holding period reflects its continuing efforts to avoid excessive
concentration of licenses not only as a result of the Incentive
Auction, but also to ensure that secondary market transactions do not
frustrate the underlying public interest goals of its mobile spectrum
holdings policies for this band. Aggregation of 600 MHz Band spectrum
by means of secondary market transactions has the potential to further
exacerbate its concerns about below-1-GHz spectrum license
concentration, which must be balanced against the Commission's general
policy of promoting flexibility in secondary market transactions.
Accordingly, the Commission will prohibit any transfer, assignment, or
long-term leasing of any 600 MHz Band licenses (including unreserved
600 Band licenses) for a period of six years post-auction that would
result in the acquiring entity holding approximately one-third or more
of suitable and available below-1-GHz spectrum post-transaction. Given
that this limit is a bright-line prohibition, the acquiring entity's
below-1-GHz spectrum holdings will be determined by a population-
weighted methodology.
5. Further Implementation Issues
98. The Commission will seek comment in the Incentive Auction
Comment PN on any further implementation issues that may affect its
market-based spectrum reserve, and whether and if so how the policies
and rules the Commission adopted should apply or be adjusted based on
any auction details that might be relevant to the process (e.g.,
auctioning impaired spectrum blocks). The Commission will resolve any
relevant further implementation in the Incentive Auction Procedures PN.
6. Legal Authority
99. Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act, codified at 47 U.S.C.
309(j)(17), provides that the Commission may not ``prevent'' a person
who is otherwise qualified from ``participating in a system of
competitive bidding'' under Section 309(j). However, Section 6404
further provides that ``[n]othing in [the foregoing restriction]
affects any authority the Commission has to adopt and enforce rules of
general applicability,'' including without limitation ``rules
concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.''
100. The Commission finds that its adoption of reserved spectrum
for the Incentive Auction is fully consistent with its authority under
Title III and the Spectrum Act. The market-based spectrum reserve that
the Commission adopted are ``rules of general applicability'' that fall
under the Spectrum Act's savings clause codified at 47 U.S.C.
309(j)(17)(B). The term
[[Page 39991]]
``rule of general applicability'' is a term of art; it has an
established meaning under the Administrative Procedure Act. ``In the
absence of contrary indication, the Commission assumes that when a
statute uses . . . a term [of art], Congress intended it to have its
established meaning.'' The established meaning of the term ``rule of
general applicability'' is a rule that is not party-specific, that is,
not a ``rule of particular applicability.'' It is to be contrasted
with, for example, a named telephone company's rate of return. The rule
that the Commission adopted would be triggered by the amount of an
entity's below-1-GHz spectrum holdings; depending upon the particular
geographic market, eligibility to bid for the reserved spectrum may
vary. And the mere fact that, in a particular PEA, a specific person
would not be so eligible does not render the rule one of particular
applicability. Even a general rule must have potential particular
effect--otherwise every rule would be ineffective. For similar reasons,
it need not apply on an industry-wide basis, or apply to all Commission
auctions. Because the rule that the Commission adopted applies to any
entity that has the general characteristics identified in the rule, the
rule is not party-specific.
101. In addition, by expressly stating that ``[n]othing in
subparagraph (A) affects any authority the Commission has to adopt and
enforce . . . rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote
competition[,]'' Section 309(j)(17)(B) preserves the Commission's long-
standing authority under Title III of the Communications Act to adopt
``rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.''
Over the past three decades that the Commission has licensed mobile
wireless spectrum, Title III authority has been the basis for several
restrictions that the Commission has adopted regarding spectrum
aggregation, including ex ante limitations. The Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed that Title III grants the
Commission ``expansive authority'' to regulate mobile wireless
licenses, and that authority includes its power to regulate spectrum
concentration in mobile wireless markets.
102. Because the rules the Commission adopted today fall squarely
under the historical authority of the Commission under Title III as
preserved by subparagraph (B), the new prohibition created in
subparagraph (A) is not applicable. In other words, the Commission
interprets Section 6404 to preserve the Commission's authority to adopt
rules of general applicability regarding spectrum aggregation, without
regard to whether such rules prevent participation in a system of
competitive bidding.
103. Even if subparagraph (A) were to apply to an ex ante
reservation of spectrum, the market-based spectrum reserve that the
Commission adopted does not violate that provision because it would not
``prevent'' any entity ``from participating'' in a ``system of
competitive bidding.'' Supreme Court precedent compels us to interpret
these terms according to their ordinary meaning. The ordinary meaning
of ``prevent'' is ``to stop someone from doing something,'' and the
ordinary meaning of ``participate'' is ``to take part'' or ``to have a
part or a share in something.'' Thus, the ordinary meaning of the
phrase ``prevent . . . from participating,'' in context, is that the
Commission may not stop a person who is otherwise qualified from taking
part in a system of competitive bidding.
104. The term ``a system of competitive bidding'' is also a term of
art that refers broadly to the process for granting licenses through
competitive bidding, including, identifying classes of licenses to be
assigned by auction, specifying eligibility and other characteristics
of such licenses, and designing the methodologies to be used for
competitive bidding for particular licenses. Thus, participation in a
``system of competitive bidding'' does not mean that every entity must
be able to participate in the bidding for every single license or
spectrum block that may be available in an auction.
105. The market-based spectrum reserve the Commission adopted will
permit all bidders to bid for some spectrum licenses in every market,
while reserving certain spectrum blocks for providers with existing
holdings of below-1-GHz spectrum of less than 45 megahertz. In a single
PEA, under every band scenario there will be at least as much
unreserved as reserved spectrum, and in some scenarios from two to
three times as much. Its action will satisfy its statutory mandate to
promote very broad participation in its systems of competitive bidding
by current providers of mobile services and potential entrants into the
wireless data and telephony marketplace.
106. Finally, the Commission determined that it is clear from the
plain text of Section 309(j)(B)(17) that the Commission has the
authority to adopt the market-based spectrum reserve in its design of a
system of competitive bidding. Accordingly, the Commission concluded
that the market-based spectrum reserve that the Commission adopted does
not prevent any person from participating in its system of competitive
bidding in a manner contrary to the Spectrum Act.
107. The Commission disagrees with arguments that it did not
provide adequate notice under the APA. First, the Commission inquired
about an ex ante restriction in the Incentive Auctions NPRM, observing
that ``section 309(j)(3)(B)'s direction to avoid excessive
concentration of licenses might militate in favor of a rule that
permits any single participant in the auction to acquire no more than
one-third of all 600 MHz spectrum being auctioned in a given license
area.'' The rule that the Commission adopted is a ``variatio[n] of that
approach,'' on which the Commission also sought comment. It would
prevent providers in certain circumstances from bidding on reserved 600
MHz spectrum in some PEAs in the Incentive Auction. However, all
providers will be permitted to bid on more than one-third of the
available spectrum in any PEA. In addition, the Commission specifically
asked about adoption of a bright-line limits approach in the Mobile
Spectrum Holdings NPRM, including limits on holdings below 1 GHz and
band-specific limits. Applying a 600 MHz limit applicable only to
bidders with significant holdings below 1 MHz also is a logical
outgrowth of issues identified in the NPRM. Where the Commission asked
about a one-third limit, it did so ``[a]s [an] example.'' The
Commission finds that the market-based spectrum reserve the Commission
adopted is consistent with the Spectrum Act and with its general
authority under Title III and was adequately noticed under the APA.
C. AWS-3 Auction
108. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether to adopt limits on the amount of spectrum that
entities could acquire in the context of spectrum auctions mandated by
the Spectrum Act. In the AWS-3 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on
whether and how to address the mobile spectrum holdings issues to meet
its statutory requirements pursuant to section 309(j)(3)(B) and its
goals for the AWS-3 bands.
109. The Commission finds that, on balance, it is not in the public
interest to adopt a band-specific mobile spectrum holdings limit for
the AWS-3 auction. Nothing in the record indicates that without such a
limitation, opportunities for access to spectrum with similar
characteristics would be significantly constrained. In particular, the
Commission emphasizes the availability of a substantial amount of
[[Page 39992]]
comparable high-band spectrum to competitors and the significant
existing holdings of multiple providers of comparable spectrum. In
addition, with rising demand for mobile broadband services, increasing
network capacity is important to all providers, and above-1-GHz
spectrum is particularly suitable for such needs. The 65 megahertz of
AWS-3 spectrum that the Commission plans to auction have the potential
to allow for greater network capacity for all providers to meet this
demand.
110. The Commission notes that multiple providers currently have
access to bands comparable to AWS-3. Moreover, each of the four
nationwide providers holds a significant amount of this spectrum. This
is unlike the case with the 600 MHz Band, which has fewer ``coverage
band'' substitutes (700 MHz and 800 MHz). Moreover, in contrast to
bands comparable to AWS-3, the bands comparable to the 600 MHz Band are
held by a limited number of service providers. Accordingly, while it is
necessary to adopt a 600 MHz Band specific spectrum holding policy,
such an approach is not necessary for the AWS-3 auction.
IV. Secondary Market Transactions
111. The Commission articulated its framework for a case-by-case
review for the first time in analyzing the Cingular-AT&T Wireless
transaction in 2004. In particular, in that context and in its analysis
of subsequent proposed transactions, the Commission used an initial
screen to help identify for case-by-case review local markets where
changes in spectrum holdings resulting from the transaction may be of
particular concern. For transactions that result in the acquisition of
wireless business units and customers or change the number of firms in
any market, the Commission also applies an initial screen based on the
size of the post-transaction HHI of market concentration and the change
in the HHI. As set out in various transactions orders, however, the
Commission has not limited its consideration of potential competitive
harms solely to markets identified by its initial screen, if it
encounters other factors, such as increased aggregation of below-1-GHz
spectrum that may bear on the public interest inquiry.
112. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to
retain its current case-by-case review for secondary market
transactions. The Commission will also retain its current product and
geographic market definitions. The Commission will continue to apply
the spectrum screen on a county-by-county basis to identify those CMAs
where an entity would hold approximately one-third or more of the total
spectrum that is suitable and available for the provision of mobile
telephony/broadband services post-transaction, and will evaluate these
markets for any competitive harm. Further, the Commission will continue
to evaluate the likely competitive effects of increased aggregation of
below-1-GHz spectrum, and in particular, will pay specific attention to
those markets in which a proposed transaction would result in a service
provider holding approximately one-third or more of suitable and
available below-1-GHz spectrum post-transaction. Moreover, the
Commission finds that it is in the public interest not to limit its
analysis of potential competitive harms to solely those markets
identified by the initial screen, if the Commission encounters other
factors that may bear on the public interest inquiry.
A. Case-by-Case Review vs. Bright Line Limits
113. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission observed
that the case-by-case approach to proposed transactions review affords
the Commission flexibility to consider the unique circumstances of a
proposed transaction and the changing needs of the mobile wireless
marketplace generally, and to tailor remedies to the specific harm and
circumstances. At the same time, however, the Commission noted that
case-by-case review is both time- and resource-intensive, and has been
criticized for creating uncertainty as to whether a particular
transaction will be approved. The Commission sought comment on the
costs and benefits of its case-by-case review and whether the review of
proposed transactions could be more transparent, predictable, or better
tailored to promote its goals. The Commission asked if bright-line
limits, similar to the CMRS spectrum cap eliminated in 2003, would
better serve the public interest.
114. The Commission finds that it is in the public interest to
continue to use its initial spectrum screen and case-by-case analysis
to evaluate the likely competitive effects of increased spectrum
aggregation through secondary market transactions, rather than to adopt
a bright-line limit. It observes that the fundamental principles that
the Commission articulated in eliminating the spectrum cap in favor of
a case-by-case approach to transactions review continue to apply today.
Moreover, in the context of transactions review, the Commission is
concerned that ex ante limits on spectrum aggregation may prevent
transactions that are in the public interest. The Commission has found
that in reviewing secondary market transactions, the complex technical,
strategic, and economic factors that determine the likely competitive
effects of increased spectrum aggregation require a case-by-case
assessment.
115. The Commission distinguishes its decision to retain case-by-
case review for spectrum acquisitions through transactions from its
determination above that any mobile spectrum holding limit applied to
auctions should be a bright-line rule. The unique circumstances
typically associated with spectrum auctions, particularly the time
constraints and the need for certainty for each bidder regarding which
licenses it would be permitted to acquire at the auction, make case-by-
case analysis challenging in the auction context.
B. Market Definitions
116. The Commission considers whether to modify the current market
definitions that the Commission uses in its competitive analysis for
proposed secondary market transactions. The Commission concludes that
it is in the public interest to retain the current product market
definition and the current geographic market definition.
1. Relevant Product Market
117. Background. In its recent transaction orders, the Commission
has determined that the relevant product market is a combined ``mobile
telephony/broadband services'' product market that comprises mobile
voice and data services, including mobile voice and data services
provided over advanced broadband wireless network (mobile broadband
services).
118. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether the product market definition should be modified to
reflect differentiated service offerings, devices and contract
features, for instance, or whether smaller sub-markets should be
defined within a larger market. The Commission also sought comment on
the costs and benefits of any potential modifications.
119. The Commission retains the current product market definition.
The Commission does not find sufficient evidence in the record to
support a change in the current product market definition. The
Commission finds that the current product market definition, ``mobile
telephony/broadband services,'' continues to encompass the mobile voice
and data services that are provided today, and is sufficiently flexible
to reflect emerging, next-
[[Page 39993]]
generation wireless services. The Commission did not find evidence in
the record to convince us that the current definition has been defined
too broadly or too narrowly for purposes of its competitive analysis.
As set out in prior transactions, the product market the Commission
defined encompasses differentiated services (e.g., voice-centric or
data-centric), devices (e.g., feature phone, smartphone, tablet, etc.),
and contract features (e.g., prepaid vs. postpaid). While such
distinctions may suggest the possibility of smaller markets nested
within that larger product market, the Commission finds it unnecessary
to define such smaller product markets in order to analyze the
potential competitive effects of secondary market transactions. The
Commission will continue to consider these aspects of product
differentiation, as appropriate, when the Commission analyzes the
competitive effects of the proposed secondary market transaction within
the markets the Commission defined. Therefore, the Commission finds it
is in the public interest to retain the current product market
definition.
2. Relevant Geographic Market
120. In its recent transactions orders, the Commission has found
that the relevant geographic markets for certain wireless transactions
generally are local, while also evaluating a transaction's competitive
effects at the national level where a transaction exhibits certain
national characteristics that provide cause for concern. In the Mobile
Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the
appropriate geographic market definition to use when evaluating a
licensee's mobile spectrum holdings, under either its current case-by-
case analysis or if bright-line limits were adopted.
121. The Commission finds for purposes of evaluating the
competitive effects of proposed transactions it will continue to use
local geographic markets, but also will analyze potential national
effects as appropriate. The Commission continues to find that most
consumers use their mobile telephony/broadband services at or close to
where they live, work, and shop, in support of its decision that local
markets are the relevant geographic markets in which to analyze the
potential for competitive harms as a result of certain wireless
transactions. Certain elements of the provision of mobile wireless
services are national in scope, including key variables such as
pricing, development of equipment, and service plan offerings, and
nothing in the record suggests that the basis for this finding has
changed. The Commission also will continue therefore to analyze the
potential competitive effects of those wireless transactions that
exhibit national characteristics, such as increased spectrum
aggregation in many local markets across the country with the
implication that harms that may occur at the local level collectively
could have nationwide competitive effects.
C. Applicable Spectrum Holdings Threshold
122. In 2004 the Commission established a spectrum screen threshold
of approximately one-third of suitable and available spectrum that
would be held by the acquiring entity post-transaction. In the Mobile
Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether one-
third is still the appropriate threshold generally, and whether a
higher threshold should apply in rural areas.
123. The Commission will retain the approximately one-third
threshold for applying its initial spectrum screen. Based on its
experience in applying this threshold in numerous transactions over the
last decade, the Commission has found it to be an effective analytical
tool in helping to identify individual markets where a proposed
transaction may raise particular competitive concerns. In its
application of the screen, the Commission includes not only the
entity's licensed spectrum, on a county-by-county basis, but also all
long term spectrum leasing arrangements, with spectrum being attributed
to both the lessee and lessor.
124. The Commission finds that even where one entity holds
approximately one-third of suitable and available spectrum, a market
may contain more than three viable competitors. Its goal is not to
equalize the amount of spectrum held by each competitor in each market.
Increasing the threshold, would not be in the public interest.
125. The Commission also disagrees with AT&T's assertion that the
Commission can increase the spectrum screen threshold because the costs
of ``false positive'' errors--chilling innovation and investment, and
an inefficient use of the Commission's resources--outweigh the costs of
``false negative'' errors because spectrum acquisitions that would harm
competition would be remedied by other Federal agencies (e.g., DOJ). As
the Commission previously has stated in the context of orders
addressing proposed transactions, its competitive analysis, which forms
an important part of the public interest evaluation, is informed by,
but not limited to, traditional antitrust principles.
126. In addition, the Commission declines to adopt a spectrum
screen threshold based on spectrum share HHIs finding that to do so
would mark a substantial departure from its traditional approach that
is not supported by the record. The Commission does not believe the
record demonstrates the efficacy of applying an HHI analysis to an
input market, and believes establishing such a requirement would be
burdensome and create substantial uncertainty.
127. The Commission declines to establish a higher spectrum screen
threshold for rural markets. In rural areas there are significant
benefits to consumers of facilitating access by multiple providers to
sufficient spectrum, such that they are able to provide an effective
competitive constraint. To the extent there are unique considerations
in a particular rural market such that spectrum aggregation above the
spectrum screen is in the public interest; its case-by-case analysis
provides the Commission the flexibility to approve such a transaction.
128. Accordingly, the Commission will continue to apply an
approximately one-third spectrum screen threshold in its review of
secondary market spectrum acquisitions. Specifically, the modified
spectrum screen the Commission adopted would include 580.5 megahertz of
spectrum, with a trigger of 194 megahertz, or approximately one-third
of the suitable and available spectrum. The spectrum screen is
triggered where the Applicants would have, on a county-by-county basis,
an attributable interest in 194 megahertz or more of spectrum where
both AWS-1 and BRS/EBS spectrum are available in the particular market.
If AWS-1 and/or BRS/EBS spectrum are not available in that market,
these bands are not counted for purposes of applying the spectrum
screen trigger in that market.
D. Operation of the Spectrum Screen
129. As set out in various transactions orders, the Commission has
not limited its consideration of potential competitive harms solely to
markets identified by its initial screen, if it encounters other
factors that may bear on the public interest inquiry. For example, the
Commission has considered below-1-GHz concentration, and concentration
within a particular spectrum band, including a band that was not at the
time included in the spectrum screen. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on establishing a higher burden of
proof for
[[Page 39994]]
the approval of proposed transactions that would exceed the relevant
spectrum threshold.
130. The Commission will continue to review on a case-by-case basis
those markets in which an entity would exceed the initial spectrum
screen if the transaction as proposed were approved. The Commission
declines to establish a rebuttable presumption, finding it would
unnecessarily limit the Commission's flexibility. Further, the
Commission affirms the Commission's conclusions that its consideration
of potential competitive harms resulting from a proposed spectrum
acquisition in the secondary market should not be limited solely to
markets identified by the initial screen, if the Commission encounters
other factors that may bear on its public interest inquiry. For
instance, the Commission has specifically analyzed the potential
competitive effects of aggregation of spectrum below 1 GHz. The
Commission finds, in light of current marketplace conditions, that
access by multiple service providers to sufficient spectrum below 1 GHz
will preserve and promote competition in the mobile wireless
marketplace to the benefit of American consumers, and therefore find
that further significant aggregation of below-1-GHz spectrum holdings
in secondary market transactions will be subject to enhanced review in
its case-by-case competitive evaluation, as discussed below.
131. While the Commission recognizes that a safe harbor would
provide greater certainty to applicants, just as a bright-line limit
would provide greater certainty, the Commission finds that in the
context of secondary market transactions, it is in the public interest
to maintain flexibility to consider any factors presented that may bear
on our review. Moreover, in the absence of such flexibility, the
Commission's review of future proposed transactions would be limited by
its understanding of technology and industry practices at the time it
adopted the specific thresholds. The Commission finds that its
articulation of factors it will consider in its case-by-case analysis
as set forth below provides sufficient clarity to potential applicants,
while maintaining flexibility to consider changes in technology and
industry practices in the rapidly-evolving mobile wireless marketplace.
132. The Commission distinguishes its decision not to adopt a safe
harbor for case-by-case review of spectrum acquisitions through
transactions from its determination above that any mobile spectrum
holdings limit applied to auctions should be a bright-line rule. The
unique circumstances typically associated with spectrum auctions,
particularly the time constraints and the need for certainty for each
bidder regarding which licenses it would be permitted to acquire at the
auction, make case-by-case analysis challenging in the auction context.
E. Nationwide Screen
133. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on whether, in addition to the spectrum screen applied on a
county-by-county basis in helping to identify local markets of
particular competitive concern, it should also adopt a separate screen
that would be applied on a nationwide basis.
134. The Commission declines to establish a separate screen as a
means to evaluate spectrum holdings at the nationwide level. The
Commission finds it would either be redundant or create irrational
incentives for providers to divest or to forego acquisition of spectrum
in markets in which there would be a net public benefit from such an
acquisition. However, as certain elements of the provision of mobile
wireless services are national in scope, including key variables such
as pricing, development of equipment, and service plan offerings, the
Commission will continue to analyze the potential competitive effects
of those secondary market transactions that exhibit national
characteristics. Increased spectrum aggregation in many local markets
across the country may imply that harms that occur at the local level
collectively could have nationwide competitive effects. The Commission
finds that it is in the public interest to continue to define local
geographic markets but also to analyze potential national effects as
appropriate.
F. Distinguishing among Spectrum Bands for Transactions Review
135. In recent years, the Commission has considered below-1-GHz
spectrum concentration as a factor in its review of spectrum
acquisitions in the secondary market. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether it should adopt a
separate screen for below-1-GHz spectrum under which an entity that
would hold, post-transaction, approximately one-third or more of the
relevant spectrum below 1 GHz in a geographic market would be subject
to a more detailed competitive review in that market. The Commission
also sought comment on whether, alternatively, it should establish a
bright-line limit for spectrum holdings below 1 GHz, whether it should
assign different weights to each of the spectrum bands as part of its
case-by-case review, or whether it should take any other action to
recognize distinctions between spectrum bands in its competitive review
of proposed transactions.
136. The Commission declines to adopt a separate screen or bright-
line limit for below-1-GHz spectrum holdings, or a set of weighting
factors for each spectrum band included in its initial spectrum screen.
Post-transaction below-1-GHz spectrum holdings will be an enhanced
factor under its case-by-case review.
1. Below-1-GHz Limit
137. Several commenters assert that the Commission should
supplement the total spectrum screen applied to transactions with a
screen or a bright-line limit for below-1-GHz spectrum, ranging from 25
percent to 40 percent.
138. The Commission adopts a market-based spectrum reserve for the
Incentive Auction and to set limitations on the assignment or transfer
of 600 MHz licenses after the Incentive Auction. These actions will
help to ensure that multiple providers are able to access a sufficient
amount of low-band spectrum, which will facilitate the extension and
improvement of service in both rural and urban areas, to the benefit of
consumers. In light of these actions, the Commission concludes that it
is not necessary at this time to adopt a separate screen or cap
applicable to its evaluation of the assignment or transfer of below-1-
GHz spectrum. Nonetheless, the Commission will continue to evaluate
below-1-GHz holdings as a factor in its case-by-case review of such
transactions, consistent with the Commission's precedent in the past
few years. Moving forward, post-transaction below-1-GHz spectrum
holdings will become an enhanced factor in its competitive evaluation,
as discussed below, and therefore, the Commission will apply particular
focus to its review of this factor as the Commission evaluated the
likelihood of potential competitive harms.
2. Spectrum Weighting
139. Background. Several commenters, including Sprint, assert that
the Commission should weight spectrum bands to reflect the extent to
which spectrum at that frequency yields lower costs for the deployment
and operation of equipment. Other approaches to weighting raised on the
record include using price data from spectrum auctions and secondary
market transactions. Others contend that spectrum weighting would
distort the
[[Page 39995]]
Commission's analysis of the competitive effect of proposed
transactions and is otherwise impractical to implement. Sprint argues
that weight spectrum should be based on the cost to deploy and operate
using a particular band, arguing that low-band spectrum is typically
significantly more cost-effective to deploy than higher-frequency
spectrum.
140. The Commission finds that, in principle, spectrum weighting
has the potential to enhance its competitive analysis of proposed
spectrum acquisitions. However, the Commission concludes that, at this
time, it cannot justify, on the basis of the record, adopting specific
weighting factors for each spectrum band. Nonetheless, the Commission
observes that the data submitted on the record does demonstrate that
there are significant differences in deployment costs between low-band
and high-band spectrum, and it is able to consider those differences as
a key factor in its case-by-case analysis moving forward.
141. The Commission finds that to establish specific weighting
factors for each spectrum band based on band-specific signal
propagation characteristics raises certain issues, including the
underlying assumptions that are appropriate to make. Further, the
Commission finds that establishing specific weighting factors based on
other factors, such as the ``value'' of the spectrum, also raises
certain issues as prices paid at auction vary significantly over time
based on a variety of factors not necessarily related to the
characteristics of the spectrum being auctioned. The Commission finds
that treating below-1-GHz spectrum concentration as an enhanced factor
in its case-by-case analysis is a better approach at this time because
it is able to distinguish between the characteristics of different
frequency bands without imposing a weighting schema that may fail to
accurately reflect their competitive significance. Based upon the
record in this proceeding, the Commission concludes that adopting a
spectrum weighting schema would not be in the public interest at this
time.
G. Factors Considered in Competitive Analysis
142. Background. In its evaluation of proposed secondary market
transactions, the Commission broadly assesses whether and to what
extent proposed acquisitions of wireless spectrum could affect
downstream competition in the mobile telephony/broadband services
marketplace. In particular, the Commission's competitive analysis of
wireless transactions focuses initially on those markets identified by
the screen where the acquisition of customers and/or spectrum would
result in significant concentration of either or both, and thereby
could lead to competitive harm. As discussed above, however, the
Commission has not limited its consideration of potential competitive
harms solely to markets identified by its initial screen if it
encounters other factors that may bear on the public interest inquiry.
Specifically, the Commission has considered concentration of below-1-
GHz holdings, and concentration of spectrum within a specific band.
143. In its transactions analyses, the Commission has considered
various other factors that help to predict the likelihood of
competitive harm post-transaction. These competitive variables include,
but are not limited to: The total number of rival service providers;
the number of rival firms that can offer competitive nationwide service
plans; the coverage by technology of the firms' respective networks;
the rival firms' market shares; the combined entity's post-transaction
market share and how that share changes as a result of the transaction;
the amount of spectrum suitable for the provision of mobile telephony/
broadband services controlled by the combined entity; and the spectrum
holdings of each of the rival service providers. The Commission notes
that it is important to recognize that many transactions are more than
spectrum transfers; they involve the disappearance of a separate
business enterprise as an ongoing potential competitive constraint and
source of innovations in services and marketing.
144. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission asked if
it should adopt guidelines setting forth the factors that will be
considered during any review of a licensee's mobile spectrum holdings
or delegate authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to do
so.
145. Discussion. The Commission retains the authority to consider
all factors that could affect the likely competitive impact of proposed
transactions, and declines to adopt a formal set of guidelines at this
time. It does not find sufficient evidence in the record to support the
adoption of the specific standards advocated by commenters regarding
spectrum utilization or spectrum weighting. Nonetheless, the Commission
retains the right to consider such factors in specific future
transactions. In addition, parties are free to bring such matters to
the Commission's attention. It affirms its continued use of the factors
considered in the Commission's case-by-case analyses to date of the
potential competitive impacts of further concentration of spectrum in
particular markets. The Commission continues to hold the view that band
concentration may be a relevant factor to consider in its case-by-case
analysis, and recognize that changes in technology and the marketplace
may result in band-specific concentrations warranting increased
scrutiny.
146. Certain frequencies possess distinct characteristics for the
provision of mobile wireless services, and a service provider is best
positioned if it holds spectrum licenses for both low- and high-band
spectrum. The Commission finds that spectrum holdings by service
provider in the limited low- (i.e., below-1-GHz) bands have become
particularly concentrated. The Commission has concerns about the
potential effects of further concentration of below-1-GHz spectrum on
competition and innovation in the mobile wireless services marketplace.
The Commission decided not to adopt a separate below-1-GHz screen or
cap at this time. Building on the Commission precedent in the past few
years, however, it will treat certain further concentration of below-1-
GHz spectrum as an enhanced factor in its case-by-case analysis of the
potential competitive harms posed by individual transactions.
147. The Commission currently considers a variety of factors in its
case-by-case analysis of spectrum acquisition through transactions-
including, but not limited to the total number of rival service
providers; the number of rival firms that can offer competitive service
plans; the coverage by technology of the firms' respective networks;
the rival firms' market shares; the amount of spectrum suitable for the
provision of mobile telephony/broadband services controlled by the
combined entity; the spectrum holdings of each of the rival service
providers; the acquisition of below-1-GHz spectrum nationwide; and
concentration in a particular band with an important ecosystem. In
analyzing spectrum acquisitions based on these factors, the Commission
generally determines, based on the totality of the circumstances,
whether there is an increased ability or incentive for the acquiring
firm to successfully raise prices or otherwise engage in anti-
competitive behavior. The Commission then employs a balancing test
weighing any potential public interest harms against any potential
public interest benefits, and the applicants bear the burden of
proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the proposed
[[Page 39996]]
transaction, on balance, will serve the public interest.
148. In implementing this approach going forward, the Commission
anticipates that any entity that would end up with more than one third
of below-1-GHz spectrum as a result of a proposed transaction would
facilitate its case-by-case review with a detailed demonstration
regarding why the public interest benefits outweigh harms. When the
other factors the Commission ordinarily considers indicate a low
potential for competitive or other public interest harm, the
acquisition of below-1-GHz spectrum resulting in holdings of
approximately one-third or more of such spectrum will not preclude a
conclusion that a proposed transaction, on balance, furthers the public
interest. Absent that, however, any transaction that would result in an
entity holding approximately one-third or more of suitable and
available below-1-GHz spectrum will more likely be found to cause
competitive harm in its case-by-case review.
149. Consistent with its overall concerns about the potential
public interest harms regarding the concentration of below-1-GHz
spectrum, the Commission anticipates it likely would have even greater
concerns where the proposed transaction would result in an assignee or
transferee that already holds approximately one-third or more of below-
1-GHz spectrum in a market acquiring additional below-1-GHz spectrum in
that market, especially with regard to paired low-band spectrum. In
these cases, the demonstration of the public interest benefits of the
proposed transaction would need to clearly outweigh the potential
public interest harms associated with such additional concentration of
below-1-GHz spectrum, irrespective of other factors. For instance,
applicants could provide a particularly detailed showing in such cases
that they currently are maximizing the use of their spectrum and how
the proposed transaction is necessary to maintain, enhance, or expand
services provided to consumers. The Commission believes such a showing
would be required to achieve its goal of ensuring that the ability of
rival service providers to offer a competitive response to any price
increase or to offer new innovative services is not eliminated or
significantly lessened.
150. The Commission finds that considering additional below-1-GHz
spectrum concentration as an enhanced factor in its review of secondary
market transactions will help ensure that further concentration of such
spectrum will not have adverse competitive effects either in particular
local markets or on a broader regional or national level.
151. In addition, although the Commission declines to adopt
specific weighting factors for each band, or for groups of bands, it
recognizes that differences between spectrum bands can be relevant to a
determination of the public interest in the context of reviewing
transactions. It will consider such differences in its case-by-case
review of specific transactions. For example, applications involving
small amounts of high-band spectrum, particularly EBS spectrum, likely
would present limited potential for public interest harms.
H. Remedies
152. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission sought
comment on the remedies, including divestitures that would be
appropriate for it to prevent competitive harm resulting from spectrum
acquisitions. In particular, it sought comment on whether different
approaches or types of divestures would best serve the Commission's
goals, and whether the Commission should adopt different criteria for
divestiture based on whether the spectrum to be divested is from lower
or upper frequency bands or is immediately ``useable'' by another
licensee. It sought comment on the extent to which the Commission
should remedy the potential harms posed by a transaction by placing
other conditions, such as, for example, requirements to offer leasing,
roaming or collocation, in conjunction with, or in lieu of, requiring
divestitures.
153. Based upon the record in this proceeding, the Commission
believes it is unnecessary to change its existing approach to
protecting and promoting the public interest, including competition,
through the application of transaction-specific remedies. Its case-by-
case analysis allows the Commission to carefully tailor remedies that
address and ameliorate public interest harms or alternatively ensure
that proposed public interest benefits are realized by consumers. The
Commission does not believe, and the record does not indicate, that the
narrowly-tailored, fact-specific remedies it has required in recent
transactions have discouraged transactions that generally are in the
public interest, and it does not conclude that any greater specificity
with regard to remedies would significantly affect parties' willingness
to enter into transactions. The Commission finds that the public
interest benefits and public interest harms often are specific to each
transaction, and that limiting possible remedies ex ante would undercut
the benefits of case-by-case review, that is, the tailoring of the
review, and remedies, to the specific circumstances of any given
transaction. The Commission does not see any evidence in the record
that the use of tailored remedies has inhibited competitiveness-
enhancing transactions, and it finds that there are the pro-competitive
effects of the Commission's policies on remediation. The Commission
declines to limit possible remedial action as AT&T suggests. The
Commission's public interest analysis, which considers the near and
long-term competitive effects of spectrum aggregation, and which may
have an impact beyond the local markets involved should not be limited
to a particular geographic location or spectrum band in proposing
remedies to protect the public interest.
V. Attribution of Interests in License Holdings
154. In the Mobile Spectrum Holdings NPRM, the Commission proposed
to codify the attribution threshold and sought comment on proposed
section 20.21 of the Commission's Rules, which would apply to mobile
spectrum holdings. Pursuant to the proposal, all controlling interest
and non-controlling interests of ten percent or more would be
attributable. In addition, non-controlling interests of less than ten
percent would be attributable if the Commission determined that the
interest confers de facto control, including but not limited to
partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest in a
licensee. The Commission also sought comment on whether to include a
specific waiver provision if it codified the rule. In addition,
consistent with its current practice, the Commission proposed to
attribute long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements and long-
term spectrum manager leasing arrangements to the lessees, lessors,
sublessees, and sublessors.
155. The Commission finds insufficient evidence in the record to
support any modifications to its current practices for attribution. The
Commission has developed its current practices over the years through
its case-by-case review of secondary market transactions and related
transfer of control applications. Therefore, the Commission finds that
retaining the current ten percent attribution threshold will serve the
public interest. Accordingly, all controlling interests and non-
controlling interests of ten percent or more would be attributable. In
addition, interests of less than ten
[[Page 39997]]
percent would be attributable if the interest confers de facto control,
including but not limited to partnership and other ownership interests
and any stock interest in a licensee. The Commission also codifies
these rules for purposes of determining spectrum holdings amounts
before an auction. The Commission finds that codifying the rules will
provide additional transparency and clarity for applicants and
prospective auction participants. The Commission also concludes that
the general waiver standard provided in Section 1.925 of the
Commission's rules provides sufficient guidance for applicants seeking
to waive of these attribution rules.
156. Consistent with its current practice, the Commission also
attributed long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements and long-
term spectrum manager leasing arrangements to the lessor and the
lessee, including sublessors and sublessees. Spectrum leasing
arrangement are arrangements between a licensed entity and a third-
party entity in which the licensee leases certain of its spectrum usage
rights in the licensed spectrum to the third-party entity, the spectrum
lessee. Leasing provides lessees the flexibility to lease a small or
large quantity of spectrum for short or longer time periods depending
on their business needs. The Commission will attribute only the long-
term spectrum leasing arrangements, with limited exceptions, to both
lessee and lessor. The attribution rule will apply to determine partial
ownership and other interests in spectrum holdings for purposes of: (1)
Applying a mobile spectrum holding limit to the licensing of spectrum
through competitive bidding; and (2) applying the initial spectrum
screen to secondary market transactions. Consistent with current
practices, if, after applying the initial screen, the Commission's
analysis of a particular market reveals concerns with respect to
attribution due to a particular organizational or financial
relationship, it may evaluate such relationships in the context of the
relevant secondary market transaction.
VI. Procedural Matters
A. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
157. The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires that agencies
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has prepared a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) concerning the possible impact
of the rule changes contained in the R&O on small entities.
158. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was
incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau (WTB) sought written public comment on the
proposals in the Notice, including comment on the IRFA. This present
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
159. The Commission believes that it would serve the public
interest to analyze the possible significant economic impact on small
entities of the policy and rule changes in the R&O. Accordingly, this
FRFA contains an analysis of this impact in connection with the
adoption in the R&O of mobile spectrum holdings rule changes meant to
protect and promote competition for the benefit of consumers, while
facilitating greater transparency and predictability to better allow
service providers to make investment and transactional decisions.
B. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
160. The Commission is under a Congressional mandate to manage
spectrum to promote economic opportunity, competition, innovation, and
service accessibility. In the wake of recent industry trends, both in
service evolution and marketplace structure, the Commission has
revisited its mobile spectrum holdings rules and policies. The
Commission adopts several mobile spectrum holdings policies today:
Entering the spectrum screen into FCC rules; specifying which spectrum
blocks are included in the spectrum screen; replacing case-by-case,
post-auction spectrum screen analysis with consideration of auction
specific spectrum limits; and reserving a certain amount of 600 MHz
spectrum in order to ensure against excessive concentration in holdings
of below-1-GHz spectrum. These policies will promote consumer choice
and competition among multiple service providers, and consistent with
its statutory mandate, will promote the efficient and intensive use of
scarce spectrum as well as maximizing economic opportunity and the
deployment of innovative technologies. The Commission seeks to minimize
the risk of the lessening of competition in the future due to the
likelihood that an insufficient number of service providers would have
access to the mix of low- and high-band spectrum needed to ensure
robust competition in the mobile wireless marketplace.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response
to the IRFA
161. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the
rules and policies proposed in the IRFA.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Would Apply
162. 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 adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the Small Business
Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).
163. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. Its action may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present. The Commission therefore
describes here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small
entity size standards. First, nationwide, there are a total of
approximately 27.5 million small businesses, according to the SBA. In
addition, a ``small organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' Nationwide, as of 2007, there were
approximately 1,621,315 small organizations. Finally, the term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of
cities, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' Census
Bureau data for 2011 indicate that there were 89,476 local governmental
jurisdictions in the United States. The Commission estimates that, of
this total, as many as 88,506 entities may qualify as ``small
governmental jurisdictions.'' Thus, the Commission estimates that most
governmental jurisdictions are small.
164. Cellular Licensees. The SBA has developed a small business
size standard for small businesses in the category ``Wireless
Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' Under that SBA
category, a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. The
[[Page 39998]]
census category of ``Cellular and Other Wireless Telecommunications''
is no longer used and has been superseded by the larger category
``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite).'' The Census
Bureau defines this larger category to include ``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 phone services, paging services, wireless
Internet access, and wireless video services.''
165. In this category, the SBA has deemed a wireless
telecommunications carrier to be small if it has fewer than 1,500
employees. For this category of carriers, Census data for 2007, which
supersede similar data from the 2002 Census, shows 1,383 firms in this
category. Of these 1,383 firms, only 15 (approximately 1%) had 1,000 or
more employees. While there is no precise Census data on the number of
firms in the group with fewer than 1,500 employees, it is clear that at
least the 1,368 firms with fewer than 1,000 employees would be found in
that group. Thus, at least 1,368 of these 1,383 firms (approximately
99%) had fewer than 1,500 employees. Accordingly, the Commission
estimates that at least 1,368 (approximately 99%) had fewer than 1,500
employees and, thus, would be considered small under the applicable SBA
size standard.
166. 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 phone services,
paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video services.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers. The size standard for that
category is that a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this category, census data for 2007 show that there were
11,163 establishments that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
10,791 establishments had employment of 999 or fewer employees and 372
had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this category and
the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates
that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities that may be affected by its proposed
action.
167. 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Services. This service can be
used for fixed, mobile, radiolocation, and digital audio broadcasting
satellite uses. The Commission defined ``small business'' for the
wireless communications services (``WCS'') auction as an entity with
average gross revenues of $40 million for each of the three preceding
years, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average gross
revenues of $15 million for each of the three preceding years. The SBA
approved these definitions. The Commission conducted an auction of
geographic area licenses in the WCS service in 1997. In the auction,
seven bidders that qualified as very small business entities won 31
licenses, and one bidder that qualified as a small business entity won
a license.
168. 1670-1675 MHz Services. This service can be used for fixed and
mobile uses, except aeronautical mobile. An auction for one license in
the 1670-1675 MHz band was conducted in 2003. The Commission defined a
``small business'' as an entity with attributable average annual gross
revenues of not more than $40 million for the preceding three years,
which would thus be eligible for a 15 percent discount on its winning
bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. Further, the Commission defined
a ``very small business'' as an entity with attributable average annual
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years, which would thus be eligible to receive a 25 percent discount on
its winning bid for the 1670-1675 MHz band license. The winning bidder
was not a small entity.
169. 3650-3700 MHz Band Licensees. In March 2005, the Commission
released an order providing for the nationwide, non-exclusive licensing
of terrestrial operations, utilizing contention-based technologies, in
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., 3650-3700 MHz). As of April 2010, more than
1270 licenses have been granted and more than 7433 sites have been
registered. The Commission has not developed a definition of small
entities applicable to 3650-3700 MHz band nationwide, non-exclusive
licensees. However, the Commission estimated that the majority of these
licensees are Internet Access Service Providers (ISPs) and that most of
those licensees are small businesses.
170. Wireless Telephony. Wireless telephony includes cellular,
personal communications services, and specialized mobile radio
telephony carriers. As noted, the SBA has developed a small business
size standard for Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
Satellite). Under the SBA small business size standard, a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. Census data for 2007 shows
that there were 1,383 firms in the Wireless Telecommunications Carriers
(except Satellite) category that operated that year. Of those 1,383,
1,368 had fewer than 100 employees, and 15 firms had more than 100
employees. Thus under this category and the associated small business
size standard, the majority of firms can be considered small. According
to Trends in Telephone Service data, 434 carriers reported that they
were engaged in wireless telephony. Of these, an estimated 222 have
1,500 or fewer employees and 212 have more than 1,500 employees.
Therefore, approximately half of these entities can be considered
small. Similarly, according to Commission data, 413 carriers reported
that they were engaged in the provision of wireless telephony,
including cellular service, Personal Communications Service (PCS), and
Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) Telephony services. Of these, an
estimated 261 have 1,500 or fewer employees and 152 have more than
1,500 employees. Consequently, the Commission estimates that
approximately half or more of these firms can be considered small.
Thus, using available data, the Commission estimates that the majority
of wireless firms can be considered small.
171. Broadband Personal Communications Service. The broadband PCS
spectrum is divided into six frequency blocks designated A through F,
and the Commission has held auctions for each block. The Commission
initially defined a ``small business'' for C- and F-Block licenses as
an entity that has average gross revenues of $40 million or less in the
three previous years. For F-Block licenses, an additional small
business size standard for ``very small business'' was added and is
defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates, has average
gross revenues of not more than $15 million for the preceding three
years. These small business size standards, in the context of broadband
PCS auctions, have been approved by the SBA. No small businesses within
the SBA-approved small business size standards bid successfully for
licenses in Blocks A and B. There were 90 winning bidders that claimed
small business status in the first two C-Block auctions. A total of 93
bidders that claimed small and very small business status won
approximately 40 percent of the 1,479 licenses in the first auction for
the D, E,
[[Page 39999]]
and F Blocks. On April 15, 1999, the Commission completed the re-
auction of 347 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 22. Of
the 57 winning bidders in that auction, 48 claimed small business
status and won 277 licenses.
172. On January 26, 2001, the Commission completed the auction of
422 C and F Block Broadband PCS licenses in Auction No. 35. Of the 35
winning bidders in that auction, 29 claimed small business status.
Subsequent events concerning Auction 35, including judicial and agency
determinations, resulted in a total of 163 C and F Block licenses being
available for grant. On February 15, 2005, the Commission completed an
auction of 242 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block licenses in Auction No. 58. Of
the 24 winning bidders in that auction, 16 claimed small business
status and won 156 licenses. On May 21, 2007, the Commission completed
an auction of 33 licenses in the A, C, and F Blocks in Auction No. 71.
Of the 14 winning bidders in that auction, six claimed small business
status and won 18 licenses. On August 20, 2008, the Commission
completed the auction of 20 C-, D-, E-, and F-Block Broadband PCS
licenses in Auction No. 78. Of the eight winning bidders for Broadband
PCS licenses in that auction, six claimed small business status and won
14 licenses.
173. AWS Services (1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1);
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz bands
(AWS-2); 2155-2175 MHz band (AWS-3)). For the AWS-1 bands, the
Commission has defined a ``small business'' as an entity with average
annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40
million, and a ``very small business'' as an entity with average annual
gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million.
In 2006, the Commission conducted its first auction of AWS-1 licenses.
In that initial AWS-1 auction, 31 winning bidders identified themselves
as very small businesses. Twenty-six of the winning bidders identified
themselves as small businesses. In a subsequent 2008 auction, the
Commission offered 35 AWS-1 licenses. Four winning bidders identified
themselves as very small businesses, and three of the winning bidders
identified themselves as a small business. For AWS-2 and AWS-3,
although the Commission does not know for certain which entities are
likely to apply for these frequencies, the Commission noted that the
AWS-1 bands are comparable to those used for cellular service and
personal communications service. The Commission has not yet adopted
size standards for the AWS-2 bands but has proposed to treat both AWS-2
similarly to broadband PCS service and AWS-1 service due to the
comparable capital requirements and other factors, such as issues
involved in relocating incumbents and developing markets, technologies,
and services.
174. On March 31, 2014, the Commission adopted rules for spectrum
in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands
(collectively, ``AWS-3'') that make available an additional sixty-five
megahertz of commercial spectrum for the provision of mobile broadband
services. The Commission indicated that the Commission will assign AWS-
3 licenses by competitive bidding, offering five megahertz and ten
megahertz blocks. The Spectrum Act states that the Commission shall
grant new initial licenses for these bands by February 23, 2015.
175. In December 2012, the Commission adopted licensing, operating,
and technical rules for stand-alone terrestrial mobile wireless
operations in the AWS-4 spectrum. The Commission concluded that it
would assign the AWS-4 spectrum to the incumbent Mobile Satellite
Service (MSS) operators in order to make this spectrum available
efficiently and quickly for flexible, terrestrial use, such as mobile
broadband. The Commission also determined that it would assign AWS-4
licenses to DISH, as the incumbent MSS operator in that spectrum, and
established a concrete, proven process for efficient relocation of
incumbent operations from 2180-2200 MHz.
176. In June 2013, the Commission implemented the Spectrum Act
provisions pertaining to the H Block by adopting service rules for the
band, including pairing the two 5 megahertz blocks establishing EAs as
the license area, and generally adopting Part 27 flexible use rules. On
February 27, 2014 the Commission concluded its auction of H Block
licenses, with DISH placing the winning bids on all 176 licenses across
the nation.
177. Lower 700 MHz Band Licenses. The Commission previously adopted
criteria for defining three groups of small businesses for purposes of
determining their eligibility for special provisions such as bidding
credits. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
A ``very small business'' is defined as an entity that, together with
its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues
that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years.
Additionally, the Lower 700 MHz Service had a third category of small
business status for Metropolitan/Rural Service Area (``MSA/RSA'')
licenses --``entrepreneur''-- which is defined as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $3 million for the preceding
three years. The SBA approved these small size standards. An auction of
740 licenses was conducted in 2002 (one license in each of the 734
MSAs/RSAs and one license in each of the six Economic Area Groupings
(EAGs)). Of the 740 licenses available for auction, 484 licenses were
won by 102 winning bidders. Seventy-two of the winning bidders claimed
small business, very small business, or entrepreneur status and won a
total of 329 licenses. A second auction commenced on May 28, 2003,
closed on June 13, 2003, and included 256 licenses. Seventeen winning
bidders claimed small or very small business status and won 60
licenses, and nine winning bidders claimed entrepreneur status and won
154 licenses. In 2005, the Commission completed an auction of 5
licenses in the lower 700 MHz band (Auction 60). All three winning
bidders claimed small business status.
178. In 2007, the Commission reexamined its rules governing the 700
MHz band in the 700 MHz Second Report and Order. An auction of A, B and
E block licenses in the Lower 700 MHz band was held in 2008. Twenty
winning bidders claimed small business status (those with attributable
average annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed
$40 million for the preceding three years). Thirty three winning
bidders claimed very small business status (those with attributable
average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $15 million for the
preceding three years). In 2011, the Commission conducted Auction 92,
which offered 16 lower 700 MHz band licenses that had been made
available in Auction 73 but either remained unsold or were licenses on
which a winning bidder defaulted. Two of the seven winning bidders in
Auction 92 claimed very small business status, winning a total of four
licenses.
179. Upper 700 MHz Band Licenses. In the 700 MHz Second Report and
Order, the Commission revised its rules regarding Upper 700 MHz
licenses. On January 24, 2008, the Commission commenced Auction 73 in
which
[[Page 40000]]
several licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band were available for
licensing: 12 Regional Economic Area Grouping licenses in the C Block,
and one nationwide license in the D Block. The auction concluded on
March 18, 2008, with three winning bidders claiming very small business
status (those with attributable average annual gross revenues that do
not exceed $15 million for the preceding three years) and winning five
licenses.
180. Pursuant to the Spectrum Act, Congress provided for the
deployment of a nationwide public safety broadband network in the 700
MHz band, including reallocating the Upper 700 MHz D Block from a
commercial spectrum block to public safety use. On September 7, 2012,
the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau adopted a Report and
Order to reallocate the D Block for ``public safety services.''
Congress established FirstNet as an independent authority within the
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), and
required the Commission to grant a license to FirstNet for the use of
both the existing public safety broadband spectrum (763-768/793-798
MHz) and the Upper D Block. On November 15, 2012, the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau granted FirstNet the license prescribed by
statute, under call sign WQQE234.
181. 700 MHz Guard Band Licenses. In 2000, the Commission adopted
the 700 MHz Guard Band Report and Order, in which it established rules
for the A and B block licenses in the Upper 700 MHz band, including
size standards for ``small businesses'' and ``very small businesses''
for purposes of determining their eligibility for special provisions
such as bidding credits. A small business in this service is an entity
that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding
three years. Additionally, a very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average
gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding
three years. SBA approval of these definitions is not required. An
auction of these licenses was conducted in 2000. Of the 104 licenses
auctioned, 96 licenses were won by nine bidders. Five of these bidders
were small businesses that won a total of 26 licenses. A second auction
of 700 MHz Guard Band licenses was held in 2001. All eight of the
licenses auctioned were sold to three bidders. One of these bidders was
a small business that won a total of two licenses.
182. Specialized Mobile Radio. The Commission adopted small
business size standards for the purpose of determining eligibility for
bidding credits in auctions of SMR geographic area licenses in the 800
MHz and 900 MHz bands. The Commission defined a ``small business'' as
an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling
principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for
the preceding three years. The Commission defined a ``very small
business'' as an entity that, together with its affiliates and
controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3
million for the preceding three years. The SBA has approved these small
business size standards for both the 800 MHz and 900 MHz SMR Service.
The first 900 MHz SMR auction was completed in 1996. Sixty bidders
claiming that they qualified as small businesses under the $15 million
size standard won 263 licenses in the 900 MHz SMR band. In 2004, the
Commission held a second auction of 900 MHz SMR licenses and three
winning bidders identifying themselves as very small businesses won 7
licenses. The auction of 800 MHz SMR licenses for the upper 200
channels was conducted in 1997. Ten bidders claiming that they
qualified as small or very small businesses under the $15 million size
standard won 38 licenses for the upper 200 channels. A second auction
of 800 MHz SMR licenses was conducted in 2002 and included 23 Basic
Economic Area (``BEA'') licenses. One bidder claiming small business
status won five licenses.
183. The auction of the 1,053 800 MHz SMR licenses for the General
Category channels was conducted in 2000. Eleven bidders who won 108
licenses for the General Category channels in the 800 MHz SMR band
qualified as small or very small businesses. In an auction completed in
2000, a total of 2,800 Economic Area licenses in the lower 80 channels
of the 800 MHz SMR service were awarded. Of the 22 winning bidders, 19
claimed small or very small business status and won 129 licenses. Thus,
combining all four auctions, 41 winning bidders for geographic licenses
in the 800 MHz SMR band claimed to be small businesses.
184. In addition, there are numerous incumbent site-by-site SMR
licensees and licensees with extended implementation authorizations in
the 800 and 900 MHz bands. The Commission does not know how many firms
provide 800 MHz or 900 MHz geographic area SMR pursuant to extended
implementation authorizations, nor how many of these providers have
annual revenues not exceeding $15 million. One firm has over $15
million in revenues. In addition, the Commission does not know how many
of these firms have 1,500 or fewer employees. The Commission assumes,
for purposes of this analysis, that all of the remaining existing
extended implementation authorizations are held by small entities, as
that small business size standard is approved by the SBA.
185. 1.4 GHz Band Licensees. The Commission conducted an auction of
64 1.4 GHz band licenses in the paired 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz
bands, and in the unpaired 1390-1392 MHz band in 2007. For these
licenses, the Commission defined ``small business'' as an entity that,
together with its affiliates and controlling interests, had average
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years,
and a ``very small business'' as an entity that, together with its
affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross
revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
Neither of the two winning bidders claimed small business status.
186. Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service.
Broadband Radio Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint
Distribution Service (``MDS'') and Multichannel Multipoint Distribution
Service (``MMDS'') systems, and ``wireless cable,'' transmit video
programming to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data
operations using the microwave frequencies of the Broadband Radio
Service (``BRS'') and Educational Broadband Service (``EBS'')
(previously referred to as the Instructional Television Fixed Service
(``ITFS'')). In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the Commission
established a ``small business'' as an entity that had annual average
gross revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three years.
The BRS auctions resulted in 67 successful bidders obtaining licensing
opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (``BTAs''). Of the 67 auction
winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes
licensees of stations authorized prior to the auction. At this time,
the Commission estimated that of the 61 small business BRS auction
winners, 48 remain small business licensees. In addition to the 48
small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are approximately
392 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities. After
adding the number of small business auction licensees to the number of
incumbent
[[Page 40001]]
licensees not already counted, the Commission finds that there are
currently approximately 440 BRS licensees that are defined as small
businesses under either the SBA or the Commission's rules. In 2009, the
Commission conducted Auction 86, which resulted in the licensing of 78
authorizations in the BRS areas. The Commission offered three levels of
bidding credits: (i) A bidder with attributed average annual gross
revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the
preceding three years (small business) will receive a 15 percent
discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed average
annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15
million for the preceding three years (very small business) will
receive a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder
with attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3
million for the preceding three years (entrepreneur) will receive a 35
percent discount on its winning bid. Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with
the sale of 61 licenses. Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that
claimed small business status won four licenses; one bidder that
claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders
that claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.
187. In addition, the SBA's Cable Television Distribution Services
small business size standard is applicable to EBS. There are presently
2,032 EBS licensees. All but 100 of these licenses are held by
educational institutions. Educational institutions are included in this
analysis as small entities. Thus, the Commission estimated that at
least 1,932 licensees are small businesses. Since 2007, Cable
Television Distribution Services have been defined within the broad
economic census category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers; that
category is defined as follows: ``This industry comprises
establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access
to transmission facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or
lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and video using
wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based
on a single technology or a combination of technologies.'' For these
services, the Commission uses the SBA small business size standard for
the category ``Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except
satellite),'' which is 1,500 or fewer employees. To gauge small
business prevalence for these cable services the Commission must,
however, use the most current census data. According to Census Bureau
data for 2007, there were a total of 955 firms in this previous
category that operated for the entire year. Of this total, 939 firms
employed 999 or fewer employees, and 16 firms employed 1,000 employees
or more. Thus, the majority of these firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
188. The R&O implements several rule and policy modifications: (1)
Codifying the Commission's policies for attributing spectrum holdings
for certain purposes; (2) including in the initial spectrum screen
applied to the Commission's review of transactions the AWS-4 band, AWS
H Block, additional BRS spectrum, most of the EBS spectrum and the AWS-
3 band (on a market-by-market basis); (3) replacing the current
application of the mobile spectrum screen in case-by-case analysis of
post-auction applications with a determination for each auction of
whether to apply mobile spectrum holding limits to that auction; and
(4) reserving a certain amount of 600 MHz spectrum (to be determined by
a market-based mechanism during the Incentive Auction) for qualified
bidders. These modifications should have minimal, if any reporting,
recordkeeping or compliance impact on small entities, which tend to
have relatively small spectrum holdings and rarely engage in the sort
of large mergers and spectrum acquisitions that would trigger the
spectrum screen and competitive scrutiny. All four rule modifications
are intended to provide a clear framework for the Commission's
competitive review of spectrum acquisitions in auctions and secondary
markets--a framework that focuses, among other things, on facilitating
access by multiple providers, including small entities, to a mix of
low-band and high-band spectrum. Rule modification 3 is intended to
facilitate access to 600 MHz spectrum for the entry and expansion of
multiple providers, including small entities.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities and Significant Alternatives Considered
189. The rule modifications the Commission implements in the R&O
are intended to promote competition in the provision of mobile services
by, among other measures, facilitating access to spectrum by multiple
providers, including small entities. The Commission has done so by
imposing a minor new regulatory requirement on small firms, namely that
such firms (and others) certify their qualification to bid on the
reserved 600 MHz spectrum. After careful review, the Commission has
determined that imposing this qualification to bid on reserved spectrum
is necessary to help preserve spectrum for small entities. This
certification process saves time and resources for small entities,
making them better equipped to compete in spectrum auctions.
F. Report to Congress
190. The Commission will send a copy of the R&O, including this
FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional
Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the R&O,
including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A
copy of the R&O and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published
in the Federal Register.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis
191. The Report and Order contains new or modified information
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the
PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies will be
invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding in a separate Federal
Register notice. In addition, the Commission notes that pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission previously sought specific comment on
how the Commission might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
192. In this present document, the Commission has assessed the
effects of modifying reporting rules, and finds that doing so does not
change the burden on small businesses with fewer than 25 employees.
VII. Ordering Clauses
193. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), 201,
301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, and 332 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, and sections 6003, 6401, 6402, 6403, and 6404 of the
Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156,
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 201, 301, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 332,
1403, 451, and 1452, that this Report and Order is hereby adopted.
[[Page 40002]]
194. It is further ordered that the rules adopted herein will
become effective September 9, 2014.
195. It is further ordered that, pursuant to section 801(a)(1)(A)
of the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), the Commission
shall send a copy of the R&O to Congress and to the Government
Accountability Office.
196. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this R&O, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in Part 20
Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 20 as follows:
PART 20--COMMERCIAL MOBILE SERVICES
0
1. The authority citation for part 20 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 160, 201, 251-254, 301, 303, 316, and
332 unless otherwise noted.
Section 20.12 is also issued under 47 U.S.C. 1302.
0
2. Add Sec. 20.22 to read as follows:
Sec. 20.22 Rules Governing Mobile Spectrum Holdings
(a) Applicants for mobile wireless licenses for commercial use, for
assignment or transfer of control of such licenses, or for long-term de
facto transfer leasing arrangements as defined in Sec. 1.9003 of this
chapter and long-term spectrum manager leasing arrangements as
identified in Sec. 1.9020(e)(1)(ii) must demonstrate that the public
interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby. The
Commission will evaluate any such license application consistent with
the policies set forth in Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings,
Report and Order, FCC 14-63, WT Docket No. 12-269, adopted May 15,
2014.
(b) Attribution of interests. (1) The following criteria will apply
to attribute partial ownership and other interests in spectrum holdings
for purposes of:
(i) Applying a mobile spectrum holding limit to the licensing of
spectrum through competitive bidding; and
(ii) Applying the initial spectrum screen to secondary market
transactions.
(2) Controlling interests shall be attributable. Controlling
interest means majority voting equity ownership, any general
partnership interest, or any means of actual working control (including
negative control) over the operation of the licensee, in whatever
manner exercised.
(3) Non-controlling interests of 10 percent or more in spectrum
shall be attributable. Interests of less than 10 percent in spectrum
shall be attributable if such interest confers de facto control,
including but not limited to partnership and other ownership interests
and any stock interest in a licensee.
(4) The following interests in spectrum shall also be attributable
to holders:
(i) Officers and directors of a licensee shall be considered to
have an attributable interest in the entity with which they are so
associated. The officers and directors of an entity that controls a
licensee or applicant shall be considered to have an attributable
interest in the licensee.
(ii) Ownership interests that are held indirectly by any party
through one or more intervening corporations will be determined by
successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link in
the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant
attribution benchmark to the resulting product, except that if the
ownership percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds
50 percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it
were a 100 percent interest. (For example, if A owns 20% of B, and B
owns 40% of licensee C, then A's interest in licensee C would be 8%. If
A owns 20% of B, and B owns 51% of licensee C, then A's interest in
licensee C would be 20% because B's ownership of C exceeds 50%).
(iii) Any person who manages the operations of a licensee pursuant
to a management agreement shall be considered to have an attributable
interest in such licensee if such person, or its affiliate, has
authority to make decisions or otherwise engage in practices or
activities that determine, or significantly influence, the nature or
types of services offered by such licensee, the terms upon which such
services are offered, or the prices charged for such services.
(iv) Any licensee or its affiliate who enters into a joint
marketing arrangement with another licensee or its affiliate shall be
considered to have an attributable interest in the other licensee's
holdings if it has authority to make decisions or otherwise engage in
practices or activities that determine or significantly influence the
nature or types of services offered by the other licensee, the terms
upon which such services are offered, or the prices charged for such
services.
(v) Limited partnership interests shall be attributed to limited
partners and shall be calculated according to both the percentage of
equity paid in and the percentage of distribution of profits and
losses.
(vi) Debt and instruments such as warrants, convertible debentures,
options, or other interests (except non-voting stock) with rights of
conversion to voting interests shall not be attributed unless and until
converted or unless the Commission determines that these interests
confer de facto control.
(vii) Long-term de facto transfer leasing arrangements as defined
in Sec. 1.9003 of this chapter and long-term spectrum manager leasing
arrangements as identified in Sec. 1.9020(e)(1)(ii) that enable
commercial use shall be attributable to lessees, lessors, sublessees,
and sublessors for purposes of this section.
(c) 600 MHz Band holdings. (1) The Commission will reserve licenses
for up to 30 megahertz of the 600 MHz Band, offered in the Incentive
Auction authorized by Congress pursuant to 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(8)(G), for
otherwise qualified bidders who do not hold an attributable interest in
45 megahertz or more of the total 134 megahertz of below-1-GHz spectrum
which consists of the cellular (50 megahertz), the 700 MHz (70
megahertz), and the SMR (14 megahertz) spectrum in a Partial Economic
Area (PEA), as calculated on a county by county population-weighted
basis, utilizing 2010 U.S. Census data. The amount of reserved and
unreserved 600 MHz Band licenses will be determined based on the
market-based spectrum reserve set forth in Policies Regarding Mobile
Spectrum Holdings, Report and Order, FCC 14-63, WT Docket No. 12-269,
adopted May 15, 2014, as well as subsequent Public Notices. Nothing in
this paragraph will limit, or may be construed to limit, an otherwise
qualified bidder that is a non-nationwide provider of mobile wireless
services from bidding on any reserved or unreserved license offered in
the Incentive Auction.
(2) For a period of six years, after initial licensing, no 600 MHz
Band license, regardless of whether it is reserved or unreserved, may
be transferred, assigned, partitioned, disaggregated, or long term
leased to any entity that, after consummation of the transfer,
assignment, or leased on a long term basis, would hold an attributable
[[Page 40003]]
interest in one-third or more of the total suitable and available
below-1-GHz spectrum as calculated on a county by county population-
weighted basis in the relevant license area, utilizing 2010 U.S. Census
data.
(3) For a period of six years, after initial licensing, no 600 MHz
Band reserved license may be transferred, assigned, partitioned,
disaggregated, or leased on a long term basis to an entity that was not
qualified to bid on that reserved spectrum license under paragraph
(c)(1) of this section at the time of the Incentive Auction short-form
application deadline.
[FR Doc. 2014-15769 Filed 7-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P