Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, 44128-44165 [2018-18288]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
44128
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27
[GN Docket No. 18–122; GN Docket No. 17–
183; RM–11791; RM–11778; FCC 18–91]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to
4.2 GHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
This is a
summary of the NPRM portion of the
Commission’s Order and NPRM, GN
Docket No. 18–122, FCC 18–91, adopted
on July 12, 2018 and released on July
13, 2018. The complete text of this
document, as well as comments, reply
comments, and ex parte submissions, is
available for public inspection and
copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern
Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or
from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays
in the FCC Reference Information
Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY–
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The
complete text is available on the
Commission’s website at https://
wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search
function on the ECFS web page at
https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities by sending an
email to fcc504@fcc.gov or by calling the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at (202) 418–0530 (voice), (202)
418–0432 (tty).
Comment Filing Procedures:
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.415,
1.419, interested parties may file
comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated on the first
page of this document. Comments may
be filed using the Commission’s
Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS). See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings,
63 FR 24121 (1998).
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should
follow the instructions provided on the
website for submitting comments. In
completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S.
Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number, GN Docket
No. 18–122.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number. Filings can be sent by hand or
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
In this document, the Federal
Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to pursue
the joint goals of making 3.7–4.2 GHz
band spectrum available for new
wireless uses while balancing desired
speed to the market, efficiency of use,
and effectively accommodating
incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS)
and Fixed Service (FS) operations in the
band. The Commission seeks comment
on various proposals for transitioning
all or part of the band for flexible use,
terrestrial mobile spectrum, with
clearing for flexible use beginning at 3.7
GHz and moving higher up in the band
as more spectrum is cleared. The
Commission also seeks comment on
potential changes to its rules to promote
more efficient and intensive fixed use of
the band on a shared basis starting in
the top segment of the band and moving
down the band.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
October 29, 2018; reply comments are
due on or before November 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by GN Docket No. 18–122, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Federal Communications
Commission’s website: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov,
phone: 202–418–0530 or TTY: 202–418–
0432.
For detailed instructions for
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ariel Diamond of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau,
Broadband Division, at (202) 418–2803
or ariel.diamond@fcc.gov, Anna Gentry
SUMMARY:
of the Wireless Telecommunication
Bureau, Mobility Division, at 202–418–
7769 or anna.gentry@fcc.gov, or
Christopher Bair of the International
Bureau, Satellite Division, at 202–418–
0945 or chistopher.bair@fcc.gov. For
information regarding the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995, contact Cathy
Williams, Office of Managing Director,
at (202) 418–2918 or cathy.williams@
fcc.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
messenger delivery, by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• All hand-delivered or messengerdelivered paper filings for the
Commission’s Secretary must be
delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th St. SW, Room TW–A325,
Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand
deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any
envelopes and boxes must be disposed
of before entering the building.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction,
Annapolis MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 445 12th Street SW,
Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 888–
835–5322 (tty).
Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the
Commission’s rules, this Order and
NPRM shall be treated as a ‘‘permit-butdisclose’’ proceeding in accordance
with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
Persons making ex parte presentations
must file a copy of any written
presentation or a memorandum
summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the
presentation (unless a different deadline
applicable to the Sunshine period
applies). Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with
§ 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
§ 1.49(f) or for which the Commission
has made available a method of
electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this present IRFA of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in the
attached FNPRM. Written public
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines specified in the
FNPRM for comments. The Commission
will send a copy of this FNPRM,
including this IRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration (SBA).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Paperwork Reduction Act
The NPRM may result in new or
revised information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts
any new or revised information
collection requirements, the
Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the public to
comment on such requirements, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995. In addition, pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this proceeding, the Commission
is pursuing the joint goals of making
spectrum available for new wireless
uses while balancing desired speed to
the market, efficiency of use, and
effectively accommodating incumbent
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Service (FS) operations in the band. To
gain a clearer understanding of the
operations of current users in the band,
the Commission collects information on
current FSS uses. The Commission then
seeks comment on various proposals for
transitioning all or part of the band for
flexible use, terrestrial mobile spectrum,
with clearing for flexible use beginning
at 3.7 GHz and moving higher up in the
band as more spectrum is cleared. The
Commission also seeks comment on
potential changes to the Commission’s
rules to promote more efficient and
intensive fixed use of the band on a
shared basis starting in the top segment
of the band and moving down the band.
To add a mobile, except aeronautical
mobile, allocation and to develop rules
that would enable the band to be
transitioned for more intensive fixed
and flexible uses, the Commission
encourages commenters to discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits
associated with any proposed approach
along with other helpful technical or
procedural details.
II. Background
A. 5G Leadership and Closing the
Digital Divide
2. America’s appetite for wireless
broadband service is surging. And while
mobile traffic is surging in sections of
the United States, many communities
still lack access to meaningful
broadband connectivity. More intensive
use of spectrum can allow wireless
operators to fill in gaps in the current
broadband landscape. Additional
spectrum must be identified, however, if
the Commission is to seize the 5G future
and meet the connectivity needs of all
Americans.
3. Enabling next generation wireless
networks and closing the digital divide
will require efficient utilization of the
low-, mid-, and high-bands. In recent
years, the Commission has taken several
steps to use low-band spectrum below
3.7 GHz more efficiently and intensely,
and it has paved the way for new
opportunities in high-band spectrum
above 24 GHz. Having identified
additional spectrum in low- and highbands, the Commission now seeks to
identify mid-band spectrum for wireless
broadband services. Mid-band spectrum
is well-suited for next generation
wireless broadband services due to the
combination of favorable propagation
characteristics (compared to high bands)
and the opportunity for additional
channel re-use (as compared to low
bands).
4. Congress recently addressed the
pressing need for additional spectrum
for wireless broadband, including both
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44129
mobile and fixed services, in the FY
2018 omnibus spending bill, which
includes the MOBILE NOW Act under
Title VI of RAY BAUM’S Act. The
MOBILE NOW Act directs that spectrum
be made available for new technologies
and to maintain America’s leadership in
the future of communications
technology. Section 603(a)(1) of the
MOBILE NOW Act requires that no later
than December 31, 2022, the Secretary
of Commerce, working through the
National Telecommunications and
Information Administration (NTIA), and
the Commission ‘‘shall identify a total of
at least 255 megahertz of Federal and
non-Federal spectrum for mobile and
fixed wireless broadband use.’’ In
making 255 megahertz available, 100
megahertz below 8000 MHz shall be
identified for unlicensed use, 100
megahertz below 6000 MHz shall be
identified for use on exclusive, licensed
basis for commercial mobile use,
pursuant to the Commission’s authority
to implement such licensing in a
flexible manner, and 55 megahertz
below 8000 MHz shall be identified for
licensed, unlicensed, or a combination
of uses.
5. Additionally, § 605(b) of the
MOBILE NOW Act specifically requires
the Commission to evaluate ‘‘the
feasibility of allowing commercial
wireless services, licensed or
unlicensed, to use or share use of the
frequencies between 3700 megahertz
and 4200 megahertz,’’ which the
Commission sought comment on in May
1, 2018 Public Notice. The Commission
notes that there is no federal allocation
for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. The
Commission intends to consult with
NTIA and the heads of each affected
Federal agency, as required by the Act,
regarding the Federal entities, stations,
and operations in the band, and the
required issues and assessments for the
report under § 605(b). This NPRM, in
conjunction with the report under
§ 605(b), furthers the Commission’s
evaluation of mid-band spectrum to
meet § 603’s statutory mandate as well
as to accommodate projected future
demand.
B. 2017 Mid-Band Notice of Inquiry
6. In the 2017 Mid-Band NOI, the
Commission began an evaluation of
whether spectrum in-between 3.7 GHz
and 24 GHz can be made available for
flexible use—particularly for wireless
broadband services. The Mid-Band NOI
sought comment in particular on three
mid-range bands that have garnered
interest from stakeholders for expanded
flexible use (3.7–4.2 GHz, 5.925–6.425
GHz, and 6.425–7.125 GHz), and it
asked commenters to identify other mid-
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
44130
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
range frequencies that may be suitable
for expanded flexible use. In the interest
of clarity and expeditiously making
spectrum available for wireless
broadband use, this NPRM will evaluate
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band individually, and
the Commission may address other midband spectrum bands, including the
5.925–6.425 and 6.425–7.125 GHz
bands, in subsequent item(s).
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
A. The Future of Incumbent Usage of
3.7–4.2 GHz
1. Protecting Incumbent Earth Stations
7. The Commission proposes to
protect incumbent earth stations from
harmful interference as the Commission
increases the intensity of terrestrial use
in the band. The Commission seeks
comment on how to define the
appropriate class of incumbents for
protection. For FSS earth station
licensees and registrants, the
Commission proposes to define
incumbent stations as earth stations
that: (1) Were operational as of April 19,
2018; (2) are licensed or registered (or
had a pending application for license or
registration) in the IBFS database as of
October 17, 2018; and (3) have timely
certified the accuracy of information on
file with the Commission to the extent
required by the Order. Although earth
stations that have not filed an exhibit
demonstrating coordination with
terrestrial FS stations are unprotected
from interference by FS links, that
requirement is of less relevance today
given the minimal FS usage in the band,
as well as the fact that the Commission
proposes new terrestrial uses for which
coordination with existing FS users will
have little value. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes to protect even
such earth stations so long as they meet
the criteria described above.1
8. The Commission proposes to
exclude from the definition of
incumbents any earth stations that are
not licensed or registered in IBFS, or
that are licensed or registered in IBFS,
but for which the licensee/registrant
does not timely file the certification
required in the Order. The Commission
further proposes that unregistered FSS
earth stations could continue to receive
transmissions lawfully, but would
operate on an unprotected basis as to
any licensed operations in the band.
The Commission also seeks comment on
whether incumbents that are small
1 The Commission notes that the International
Bureau waived the coordination requirement for the
duration of the freeze for applications filed during
the filing window (April 19, 2018 to October 17,
2018). Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing
Window Public Notice at 3–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the transition
such that they should be defined
differently or have different obligations.
9. The Commission asks that
commenters be specific in defining a
protected incumbent and in explaining
the relative obligations and/or rights
that protected incumbents may have
under each approach for more intense
terrestrial use of the band. Which
categories of incumbents must new
flexible use licensees relocate under
each approach, what would be the
standard for determining the need to
relocate each category of incumbents,
and what are the terms or rules pursuant
to which these relocations will occur?
The Commission seeks comment on
specific relief that should be provided to
each class of incumbents. For example,
should incumbent earth station
operators be provided with filters to
block transmissions from flexible use
operations, should they receive filters
and the technical assistance necessary
to install them or repoint earth station
antennas as necessary, or should earth
station operators be provided with a
lump sum to be used at their own
discretion, either to upgrade existing
facilities or to enable the switch to other
means of transmission? Who would be
responsible for reimbursing incumbent
earth station operators and C-band
customers for costs incurred in any
transition, and how would such cost
reimbursement be accomplished? How
would disputes relating to cost
reimbursement be resolved? What
would be the basis for establishing
reasonable cost reimbursements? For
example, would it take into account any
required improvements or replacement
to an existing antenna or its supporting
structure? Would it cover any required
technological assistance? How should
satellite news gathering vehicles or
other temporary-fixed earth stations be
addressed?
a. Limiting New Earth Stations
10. On April 19, 2018, the staff
released the Freeze and 90-Day Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notice,
which froze applications for new or
modified earth stations in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band to preserve the current
landscape of authorized operations
pending action as part of the
Commission’s ongoing inquiry into the
possibility of permitting mobile
broadband use and more intensive fixed
use of the band through this proceeding.
The Commission now seeks comment
on revising the Part 25 rules to
permanently limit eligibility to file
applications for earth station licenses or
registrations to incumbent earth
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
stations. This would mean that earth
station operators that register or license
their existing stations by October 17,
2018, would be able to modify these
stations at the registered location but
not add new stations in new locations,
and applications for new earth station
registrations would not be allowed.
Limiting new earth stations in this
manner would provide a stable spectral
environment for more intensive
terrestrial use.
b. Removing Uncertified Earth Stations
11. In response to the Mid-band NOI,
the Commission received comments
from a variety of stakeholders, many of
which addressed whether the
Commission’s IBFS data about current
operations in the band is complete and
up to date. Some commenters stressed
the importance of identifying existing
unregistered earth stations before the
Commission makes any substantial
changes to the operations permitted in
the band, while other commenters
contend that there may be earth stations
in the database that are no longer in
operation.2
12. Regarding the first concern, in the
Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing
Window Public Notice, the International
Bureau announced as an exception to
the freeze, a 90-day window for earth
stations to register in IBFS. Also, to
obtain the best information possible on
existing earth stations in this band in
furtherance of the Commission’s
ongoing inquiry without imposing a
potentially unnecessary economic
burden on eligible FSS earth station
applicants in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
filing within the 90-day window, the
International Bureau granted a
temporary waiver of the frequency
coordination requirement.
Subsequently, the International Bureau
extended the filing window by 90 days
until October 17, 2018, waived
additional provisions of the rules,
clarified that multiple antennas located
at the same address or geographic
location may be filed under a single
registration application and pay a single
filing fee, and announced the
availability of an additional option to
facilitate the registration of large
numbers of geographically diverse earth
stations under a single ‘‘network’’
license and single fee.
13. Regarding the second concern, the
staff noted that ‘‘after the 90-day
window closes, the Commission may
determine to require all licensees,
2 Registrants are required to notify the
Commission when a receive-only earth station is no
longer operational or when it has not been used to
provide any service during any 6-month period. 47
CFR 25.131(i).
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
registrants, and operators with pending
applications for license or registration of
FSS earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band to file a certification that the earth
station was operational as of the start of
the freeze and remains operational at
the time of the certification along with
additional technical details regarding
their operations to inform the
Commission’s resolution of issues raised
in the inquiry.’’ 3 In the Order, the
Commission requires operators of earth
stations licensed or registered in IBFS
(except those that file new or modified
registrations between April 19, 2018,
and October 17, 2018, under the
modified registration process outlined
in the Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station
Filing Window Public Notice) to file
certifications as to the accuracy of all
information in IBFS concerning their
existing FSS earth station operations.4
14. To ensure that the Commission
has the best information possible on
existing earth stations in this band, the
Commission proposes to update IBFS to
remove 3.7–4.2 GHz band earth station
licenses or registrations for which the
licensee or registrant does not file the
certifications required in the Order (to
the extent they were licensed or
registered before April 19, 2018). The
Commission specifically proposes that
an earth station registered in IBFS be
automatically terminated unless the
registrant timely files the certification
required by the Order (to the extent they
were licensed or registered before April
19, 2018). The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
c. Maintenance of IBFS Data Accuracy
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
15. The Commission seeks comment
on how—once the accuracy of 3.7–4.2
GHz band earth station data has
improved—to ensure that earth station
data remains accurate to facilitate
frequency coordination and maximize
efficient use of the spectrum. How often
do the frequencies received by a given
earth station change? The Commission
seeks comment on whether, for a
constructed and operational earth
3 Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing Window
Public Notice at 5. The staff also advised all
potential applicants that ‘‘the Commission may, for
purposes of further action following the NOI,
choose to take into consideration only those earth
stations that are licensed, registered, or have
pending applications for license or registration on
file in IBFS as of [the close of the filing window].’’
Id at 5.
4 Above, the Commission proposes to limit the
definition of incumbent earth stations to licensed or
registered stations for which the operator timely
files the required certification, or for which the
operators timely filed for new or modified
registrations between April 19, 2018 and October
17, 2018 pursuant to the Earth Station Filing
Window Public Notices.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
station,5 any combination of frequency,
azimuth, and elevation listed in the
license or registration that is unused for
more than, e.g., 180 days, should be
deleted from the license or registration
to minimize unnecessary constraints on
successful frequency coordination of
new operations.
16. In addition, the Commission asks
for parties to comment on whether to
require an earth station licensee or
registrant in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band to
certify periodically, e.g., annually, the
continued accuracy of the information
on file with the Commission. Should
any requirements that the Commission
adopts to help ensure that IBFS data
remains accurate become effective after
a transition period?
d. Revising the Coordination Policy
17. Receive-only earth stations cannot
cause interference, but under the
Commission’s current rules they can be
coordinated and licensed or registered
with the Commission to protect them
from terrestrial microwave stations in
bands shared co-equally with the FS.
Section 25.203 requires FSS applicants
to coordinate their proposed frequency
use prior to filing their license
applications with the Commission.
Earth station applicants, to the extent
practicable, must select sites and
frequencies in areas where the
surrounding terrain and existing
frequency use will minimize the
possibility of harmful interference
between the sharing services. An earth
station applicant, prior to filing an
application to register or license with
the Commission, must coordinate its
proposed frequency usage with existing
terrestrial users and with applicants that
have filed for terrestrial station
authorizations. The purpose of this
coordination requirement is to establish
the baseline level of interference that an
earth station must accept in frequency
bands shared by the FS and FSS on a
co-primary basis. The coordination
results entitle the FSS earth station to
the interference protection levels agreed
to during coordination, including
against subsequent FS licensees.
Currently, registered or licensed earth
stations in the C-band are generally
coordinated and authorized to use the
entire band across the full geostationary
arc, a policy known as full-band, fullarc.
5 The Commission notes that under Part 25, a
station authorization shall be automatically
terminated in whole or in part without further
notice to the licensee upon the removal or
modification of the facilities which renders the
station not operational for more than 90 days,
unless specific authority is requested. Id.
§ 25.161(c).
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44131
18. A reexamination of the full-band,
full-arc coordination policy is
appropriate in light of the Commission’s
goal to maximize spectrum efficiency
and use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
including more intensive terrestrial use
of the band. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes that for purposes
of interference protection, earth station
operators will be entitled to protection
only for those frequencies, azimuths,
and elevation angles and other
parameters reported as in regular use
(i.e., at least daily) in response to future
information collections, until the
incumbent starts the coordination
process for an application to modify its
license or registration in IBFS for its
earth station. The Commission further
proposes that such modification
applications identify and include a
coordination report for the specific
combinations of frequency, azimuth,
and elevation angle that the incumbent
intends to use and that such technical
information be reflected on the earth
station application and authorization.
The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
19. At the same time, the Commission
acknowledges that the full-band, full-arc
policy has certain advantages, e.g., it
affords FSS operational flexibility, and
the Commission seeks comment about
the consequences of eliminating the
policy. Specifically, how would this
policy alter current business models and
operations of C-band licensees and
registrants? Are there alternatives to
eliminating this policy that would have
less of an impact on the current C-band
business models and operations without
sacrificing the efficiency maximizing
goals of the Commission’s proposal?
e. Information on Incumbent FSS
Operations
20. In the Order, the Commission
directs incumbent FSS earth station
operators to certify as to the accuracy of
existing information in IBFS, and
require incumbent FSS space station
operators to provide additional
information. To develop a more
complete record on existing FSS
operations in this band, the Commission
proposes to require earth station
operators to file additional information
on their existing facilities. To the extent
that the information requested would
duplicate information already available
in IBFS, the Commission will direct the
International Bureau to permit operators
to certify that the information in IBFS
remains accurate in lieu of providing
the information again. Specifically, the
Commission proposes and seeks
comment on requiring authorized earth
station operators (including operators
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44132
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
that file new or modified registrations
between April 19, 2018, and October 17,
2018) to provide the following
information for each antenna under
each call sign: 6
• Earth station call sign;
• geographic location;
• licensee and point of contact
information;
• antenna gain;
• azimuth and elevation gain pattern;
• antenna azimuth relative to true
north;
• antenna elevation angle;
• satellite(s) at which the earth
station is pointed;
• transponder number(s) and how
often each transponder is used:
Regularly (i.e., at least daily);
infrequently; or backup capacity;
• antenna site elevation and height
above ground.
21. The Commission’s consideration
of some transition options may also
benefit from additional, more granular
information on FSS earth station and
space station operations in the band. For
example, information on the type of
content (i.e., audio or video feeds), the
total bandwidth occupied by particular
users or content feeds, and the identity
of the content provider could provide
additional clarity on the actual usage of
the band. In addition, more granular
information on the nature of any
periodic usage of transponder capacity
(i.e., daily, weekly or once a year) could
provide additional clarity on the
availability of spectrum in the band.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether to seek additional information
from incumbent FSS earth station or
space station operators beyond what is
included in the list above. Should the
Commission seek additional
information on transponder loading,
content type, content provider
information, periodic usage, or other
data that would provide a more detailed
picture of the actual usage of the band?
Should the Commission collect other
information to more fully assess
spectrum utilization in the band?
22. In the Order, the Commission
requires operators of temporary fixed or
transportable earth stations to file
information concerning their existing
operations, including the area within
which the equipment is typically used
and the frequency and duration of such
use. Consistent with the Commission’s
proposal to collect additional
information from fixed FSS earth
stations, the Commission seeks
comment on whether and to what extent
the Commission should collect
additional information specifically with
respect to temporary fixed or
transportable earth stations. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether the categories of information
proposed above for fixed FSS earth
stations would need to be modified or
supplemented with respect to temporary
fixed or transportable earth stations.7
For example, would it be useful to
further quantify the frequency or extent
of use for these operations and, if so,
how should they be quantified?
Commenters should provide a clear
rationale for any additional information
collection along with an analysis of the
costs and benefits of such additional
collections.
23. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether to collect the
information described above on a
nationwide basis or whether it may be
appropriate to conduct an initial
information collection for an initial
sample of areas. For example, should
the Commission collects information
from entities based on a representative
sampling of different types of areas,
such as urban, suburban, and rural
areas? If so, how should the sample be
determined? The Commission seeks
comment on this and any other
methodology that will effectively
balance the potential burden that an
information collection may impose
against the need to evaluate the
feasibility of clearing more spectrum in
this band. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether small entities and
entities operating in rural areas face any
special or unique issues with respect to
the information collection such that
they would require certain
accommodations or additional time to
comply. The Commission also seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of an
additional information collection on
this band.
24. Commenters should describe, with
specificity, how any additional
information collection would support a
given transition proposal and should
provide a detailed assessment of the
costs and benefits of such additional
collections. The Commission also
encourages commenters to submit any
information that could inform the
Commission’s consideration of specific
transition proposals, including the types
of information described in this section.
2. Limiting New Space Station
Operators
6 To reduce the burden on FSS earth station
operators and ensure the accuracy of data obtained
during the information collection process, IB would
release a public notice that will provide guidance
about how to obtain or calculate the information.
7 SES and Intelsat provided many questions that
could be asked about the nature of such earth
stations and their patterns of use, but it may be
difficult to quantify deployments for these earth
stations other than typical capacity used when they
are deployed and perhaps the area or areas within
which they are typically used. Intelsat, SES July 3,
2018 Ex Parte Letter (GN Docket Nos. 17–183, 18–
122).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
25. On June 21, 2018, the
International Bureau released the Space
Station Freeze Public Notice, which
froze the filing of certain space-station
applications in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
To limit speculative applications for
satellite usage of the band in light of this
proceeding, the Commission proposes to
revise the rules to similarly bar new
applications for space station licenses
and new petitions for market access
concerning space-to-Earth operations in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. These revisions
would not extend to applications for
extension, cancellation, replacement or
modification of existing authorizations.
Additionally, the Commission proposes
that this freeze would not bar operators
with existing space station
authorizations in the band as of June 21,
2018, from filing applications for
additional space stations, if
authorization of such space stations
would promote more efficient use of the
band. The Commission seeks comment
on the Commission’s proposal.
3. Sunsetting Incumbent Point-to-Point
Fixed Services
26. Due to the declining use of the
band for fixed point-to-point FS links as
well as the availability of other
spectrum options for point-to-point
links, the Commission proposes to
sunset point-to-point FS use in the
band. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on whether existing fixed
links should be grandfathered or
transitioned out of the band over some
time period, after which all licenses
would either be cancelled or modified
to operate on a secondary, noninterference basis. If the latter, how long
would incumbent users have to
transition from the band? Three years?
Five years? And should the Commission
differentiate in treatment between those
with permanent licenses and those with
temporary licenses? Or those that have
or are willing to relocate to the upper
portion of the band?
B. Increasing the Intensity of Terrestrial
Use
27. The Commission describes several
potential approaches for repurposing
the band and the Commission
encourages commenters in discussing
their proposals to consider the
economic tradeoffs described herein.
Figure 1 below demonstrates the current
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
44133
28. The Commission recognizes that
co-channel sharing of spectrum between
the FSS and more intensive terrestrial
wireless use in the same geographic area
may be difficult. For example, frequency
coordination allows FSS and terrestrial
fixed microwave to share the band on a
co-primary basis, but coordination of
mobile systems would be more
complicated because the movement of
the devices would require analyses and
interference mitigation to FSS earth
stations in this band spread over many
locations within any given geographic
area. In addition, because the C-band
satellites are in geostationary orbit
approximately 36,000 km above the
equator, the signals received at the earth
stations are extremely weak. This means
that terrestrial mobile operations could
cause harmful interference to the earth
station receivers over large distances
absent adequate protection.
29. Geographic sharing may be
similarly difficult. Current Commission
policy permits earth stations to
coordinate reception across the entire
GSO arc and over the entire 3.7–4.2 GHz
band, which would exclude mobile
wireless operations from transmitting
across the entire band in a wide area
around each earth station. For purposes
of illustration, Figure 2 below shows a
hypothetical 20 km exclusion zone
around each earth station in the
continental United States in the
International Bureau Filing System
(IBFS) database as of early May 2018.8
These exclusion zones would cover
83.25% of the United States population.
8 The Commission notes that commenters in this
proceeding have argued that IBFS significantly
undercounts the number of existing, but
unregistered, earth stations. For purposes of this
study the Commission used earth stations currently
licensed or registered in IBFS.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
EP29AU18.001</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
and proposed future allocations and
potential uses of the band.
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
30. The Commission was able to
establish the Citizens Broadband Radio
Service in the 3550–3700 MHz despite
the presence of FSS receivers because
there are only FSS earth stations in 35
cities and two MSS gateways in the
3600–3700 MHz band. This is unlike the
current incumbent earth station
environment in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
Therefore, subject to confirming the
landscape of existing earth stations
through the certifications required by
the Order, co-channel sharing between
FSS and mobile wireless could exclude
a majority of the population from
receiving flexible fixed and mobile
broadband service in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band unless FSS use of the band is
modified or FSS protection criteria are
significantly relaxed. The Commission
recognizes that the affected population
would likely be less if the Commission
was to only protect the earth stations
based on the transponder frequencies
received at each site and actual antenna
azimuth and elevation, but the overall
assessment that mobile service would
not be viable for much of the population
would remain the same. The
Commission seeks comment on this
assessment.
31. Notably, the Commission believes
that increased terrestrial use of the band
is ripe to meet the Commission’s
mandate under the MOBILE NOW Act
to identify (with NTIA) 255 megahertz
of spectrum for mobile and fixed
wireless broadband use. For purposes of
meeting § 603(a)(1), § 603(a)(3)(E) states
‘‘[s]pectrum that the Commission
determines had more than de minimis
mobile or fixed wireless broadband
operations within the band on the day
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
before the date of enactment of this Act’’
is non-eligible for purposes of satisfying
the 255 megahertz requirement. The
Commission believes that there was no
more than a de minimis amount of
mobile or fixed wireless broadband
operations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band on
March 22, 2018 (the day before the date
of enactment of the MOBILE NOW Act)
for purposes of fulfilling § 603.
Specifically, since FSS is neither an
‘‘unlicensed use’’ nor an ‘‘exclusive,
licensed basis for commercial mobile
use,’’ FSS services are not included in
the de minimis exception under
§ 603(a)(3)(E). Additionally, FSS in the
band is predominantly used for the
delivery of video programming with
only a de minimis portion of the
satellite capacity used to provide data
services. The Commission notes that
there is no mobile allocation in the band
and the Commission’s licensing
database indicates that there are only
115 fixed point-to-point licenses in the
band. Thus, any portion of this band
made available for flexible terrestrial or
more intensive fixed use would help
satisfy the requirement of § 603(a)(1) to
identify a total of at least 255 megahertz
of spectrum for ‘‘mobile and fixed
wireless broadband use.’’ The
Commission seeks comment on these
findings.
32. The Commission seeks comment
on approaches for expanding flexible
and more intensive fixed use of the
band without causing harmful
interference to incumbent operations. In
discussing how much of the band
should be made available for flexible
use, more intensive fixed use, or
maintained just for incumbent uses, the
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commission asks commenters to
address the relative present and future
economic value of each of these services
to individuals and businesses in the
United States. What are the tradeoffs in
accommodating one type of use instead
of another? And what are the costs
associated with accommodating new
uses? Commenters should provide a
detailed cost-benefit analysis in their
proposal and address the relative
economic values of alternative uses and
the implementation costs of their
specific proposal vis-a`-vis other possible
approaches to the band. The
Commission also asks commenters to
address the economic impact of the
implementation time frame associated
with their chosen approach.
33. The Commission proposes to add
a non-federal mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, service allocation
to the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, and given the
Commission’s conclusion that cochannel sharing is not feasible, seek
comment on several proposals below to
clear all or part of the band for flexible
use. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the economic benefits of
introducing a new allocation for mobile,
except aeronautical mobile, and flexible
use relative to the introduction of pointto-multipoint FS, perhaps shared with
FSS, in all or part of the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band. Commenters should consider the
economic value of current and future
use cases for each type of service,
including benefits and opportunity costs
to consumers and the Nation’s economy
overall, as well as to unserved or
underserved areas and specialized
market segments (e.g., education,
telemedicine, and manufacturing).
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
EP29AU18.002</GPH>
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44134
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Commenters should also address the
benefits of international harmonization
both in terms of devices and network
deployments. In addition, the
Commission encourages commenters to
consider the economic impact on
consumers and businesses in rural
communities and areas that are
unserved or underserved by current
broadband providers, as well as any
economic impact on small businesses.
The Commission also asks commenters
to address how long it will take to
transition various amounts of this band
to flexible use or to point-to-multipoint
FS use, how much such a transition will
cost for each 100 megahertz that is
transitioned, and how expeditiously the
transition can be completed.
34. The Commission also seeks
comment on the current and future
economic value of FSS in the band.
How intensively is this spectrum used
by existing FSS licensees and how
intensely will it be utilized in the
future? Is spectrum in the band
allocated to FSS currently being used
efficiently and are there technologies
that may facilitate more efficient use of
spectrum in the band by FSS licensees
without significant disruption to
consumers and businesses that rely on
these services? Are there alternative
technologies available that could wholly
or partially replace the services
provided by FSS without significant
disruption to existing customers? How
long would it take and how much
would it cost to transition existing
customers to these alternative
technologies? How may the cost-benefit
analysis shift depending on how much
spectrum is transitioned at particular
times? Are there other considerations
that the Commission should consider
when assessing the most economically
efficient allocation of the band between
services? And would such
considerations differ depending on
when and how much spectrum is
ultimately transitioned to flexible use?
1. Mechanisms for Expanding Flexible
Use
35. Repurposing of the 3.7–4.2 GHz
spectrum bands allocated to FSS raises
at least three economic problems, some
of which have not arisen in previous
spectrum auctions. The first two
problems are direct consequences of the
C-band licensing structure, while the
last is common to all spectrum
reallocations. First, because all FSS
licensees have equal, nonexclusive
rights to the entire band under part 25
of the Commission’s rules, they cannot
compete in the same way that broadcast
television licensees did in the broadcast
incentive auction. Second, this
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
nonexclusive licensing problem creates
an incentive for an FSS licensee to
overstate the value it assigns to the
spectrum in order to increase the share
of auction revenue it may receive. The
Commission will refer to this as the
‘‘holdout’’ problem. Third, repurposing
some of the 3.7–4.2 GHz spectrum band
will reduce the amount of spectrum
available for FSS, which lowers
industry capacity and could lead to
higher prices for downstream services,
such as the transmission of video to
cable head ends. The Commission notes
that the first and last problems create
opposite incentives for FSS licensees.
The first provides an incentive to
repurpose less than the efficient amount
of spectrum while the last may create an
incentive to repurpose more than the
efficient amount.
36. The broadcast incentive auction
relied on competition among licensees
to induce broadcast incumbents to
reveal the least amount they must be
paid to relinquish their spectrum rights.
Many broadcast licenses were
substitutes because if one licensee bid to
relinquish its spectrum usage rights this
could make spectrum available to
repack other broadcast stations and free
spectrum for flexible use. In the 3.7–4.2
GHz FSS, all licensees must agree to
relinquish their spectrum rights in a
given geographic area in order to
reassign spectrum and therefore licenses
are not substitutes and competition is
limited.
37. In addition to the problem that
satellite licensees will not be competing
to supply spectrum in the same way that
television licensees did in the
broadband incentive auction, there is an
additional problem concerning how the
satellite licensees will split any
revenues from repurposing. In order to
increase its share of auction revenues, a
FSS licensee may have an incentive to
overstate the value it assigns to the
spectrum or to withhold its consent to
repurpose. The holdout problem is the
inverse of a public goods problem. The
500 megahertz of spectrum allocated for
FSS is a public good, in that several
distinct companies make non-exclusive,
non-rivalrous use of the spectrum
within a geographic area.9 Were the
spectrum unallocated, the FSS
providers would face a classic public
goods problem since the total value of
the spectrum is the sum of the values of
the FSS operators. With property rights
assigned to FSS operators, the
Commission faces a reverse public
goods problem: How to recover an
efficient amount of a public good which
9 The Commission notes, however, that orbital
slots are rivalrous.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44135
is no longer efficiently allocated? In the
classic public goods problem, if
individuals are asked to pay for the
public good based on their valuation of
that good, they will have an incentive to
understate their value for the public
good to lower their payment. In the
reverse problem, however, each FSS
licensee has an incentive to overstate its
value of the spectrum in order to
increase its payment.
38. Several mechanisms have been
developed to generate an efficient
allocation of public goods, including
one proposed by Hal Varian. In the
standard public goods case, Varian
proposed that individuals have the
opportunity to subsidize the
contributions of others towards the
public good in a first-stage and then
decide how much to contribute in a
second-stage. Can such mechanisms be
adapted to solve the holdout problem
under consideration here? For example,
in the first stage might each party
announce the share of the payment it
receives that it will give to each other
party and in the second stage nominate
how much spectrum to clear? Can such
a mechanism be modified to mitigate
the incentive to clear less than the
efficient amount of spectrum? Some
commenters suggest having the FSS
providers meet, privately negotiate, and
agree to put spectrum up for auction.
The Commission seeks comment on the
relative merits of FSS provider
cooperation versus a more formal, noncooperative mechanism, especially with
regard to the three economic problems.
39. FSS operators currently compete
to provide communication services (for
example, to deliver programming
content to rural cable companies). For
the efficient allocation of spectrum, the
social value of these services needs to be
balanced against the social value of
alternative services that could be
provided by that spectrum, such as
mobile data. Several commenters, such
as the American Cable Association,
contend that earth stations can and do
switch providers, suggesting that
competition currently exists in the Cband. Since a reduction in industry
capacity generally leads to higher
prices, reducing the spectrum associated
with FSS may have the unintended
consequence of increasing the price of
FSS services and consequently of
downstream services. Conversely, such
a reduction should correspond with an
increase in industry capacity for highspeed wireless broadband services,
which would tend to lead to lower
prices. How should the Commission
evaluate proposed mechanisms with
regard to their effect on downstream
users of FSS and wireless broadband
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44136
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
services? How should the Commission
take into account other opportunities to
deliver these services—such as other
means of transmitting programming data
like alternative satellite bands 10 or fiber
and other means of transmitting highspeed broadband like other mid-band
spectrum or fiber—in evaluating these
effects?
40. In addition, the value of spectrum
in alternative uses like mobile data is
likely highest in dense urban areas.
When the Commission has sold
spectrum by geographic region, the
prices obtained have been positively
correlated with population density. FSS
substitutes, particularly fiber, are most
prevalent in urban areas while in rural
areas there are fewer FSS substitutes.
Thus, in rural areas, typically the value
of the spectrum remaining in FSS is
relatively high while the opportunity
cost of clearing less flexible-use
spectrum is relatively low, suggesting
that the amount of spectrum repurposed
should vary across geographic areas.
The Commission therefore seeks
comment on whether the Commission
should repurpose a minimum amount of
spectrum nationwide, and make
additional fully unencumbered
spectrum available in any areas where it
is less costly to transition earth stations
to other forms of transmission. Under
this approach, the Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate size
of such regions. If the regions are too
small, this could make mobile data use
impractical because it would not give
wireless providers sufficient flexibility
to scale their networks using this band,
while if the regions are too large, this
could threaten rural services because
those regions would not be attractive to
small and rural wireless providers. Is it
practical to create regions based on the
existence of alternatives to FSS like
fiber? The Commission seeks comment
on whether any flexible use licenses
should also be overlay licenses, for
which the terrestrial licensee is
obligated to protect licensed or
registered earth stations and can use any
spectrum that becomes available by
clearing earth stations.
41. Another consideration in the
geographical division of spectrum
involves the parties to compensate.
Instead of paying FSS operators for
relinquishing spectrum usage rights
nationwide or in specific geographic
10 The Commission recognizes that other
transmission methods may also compete against
satellite transmission via C-band spectrum. For
example, in certain urban and suburban areas
where fiber is widely deployed, fiber may be a costeffective alternative. And there may be other radio
spectrum that can deliver video transmission, such
as the Ku band.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
regions a mechanism instead might pay
earth stations for relinquishing access to
C-band spectrum in specific geographic
areas. Such earth stations might
discontinue use in these areas by
discontinuing receiving content or by
receiving it by alternative transmission
infrastructure like fiber, where the
content might be delivered to the fiber
from C-band earth stations in rural
areas. Would such a mechanism present
an alternative supplier of spectrum—
with either the FSS operators or the
earth stations effectively releasing
spectrum rights? The Commission notes,
however, that the holdout problem for
licensed earth stations is likely more
severe because there are more such
earth stations that are independently
owned than satellite operators. The
Commission seeks comment on the
practicality and social value of
compensating licensed earth stations in
exchange for agreeing to no longer be
licensed to receive in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band. In particular, would such a
mechanism protect those earth stations
but not unlicensed earth stations? Also,
how would satellite operators be
compensated for loss of revenues after
the expiration of their contracts with
content providers serving the licensed
earth stations that discontinued their
reliance on satellite delivery of content?
a. A Market-Based Mechanism
42. The commission seeks comment
on whether the Commission should
adopt rules that would facilitate a
market-based approach to transitioning
incumbents from some or all of the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band. Under such an approach,
the Commission would authorize
incumbent FSS operators to voluntarily
clear all or part of the band. Satellite
operators in the band could choose to
make some or all of their spectrum
available to terrestrial operators on the
secondary market in exchange for
compensation. Under such an approach,
satellite operators could be responsible
for clearing the portion of the band that
would be made available for flexible
use, including notifying earth stations of
the need to modify their operations and
compensating them for any costs
associated with that transition.
43. A secondary market approach
might make spectrum available more
quickly than other available
mechanisms, such as an FCC auction,
and thus could facilitate rapid
deployment of next generation wireless
broadband networks. In addition, such
an approach could leverage the
technical and operational knowledge of
satellite space station operators while
relying on market incentives to promote
economic efficiency. The Commission
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
seeks comment on whether a marketbased approach could effectively and
rapidly facilitate new terrestrial
deployments in the band. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether a market-based approach that
allows FSS licensees to coordinate their
capacity would raise any antitrust
concerns.
44. The Commission seeks comment
on the efficacy of using a market-based
approach to transition some or all of the
3.7–4.2 GHz band to flexible terrestrial
use. The Commission observes, and
some commenters in the record
maintain, that a significant benefit of a
market-based approach may be a more
rapid introduction of C-band spectrum
to the market. For example, Intel,
Intelsat, and SES claim that their
consortium approach would result in
licensed mobile services within 18–36
months of a Commission order.
Commenters also should address the
costs and benefits of this approach visa`-vis the alternative proposals set forth
in this section.
45. The Commission seeks comment
on using a market-based approach
through a Transition Facilitator, a
cooperative entity created by relevant
satellite operators to coordinate
negotiations, clearing, and repacking the
band. The Commission notes that
because of the holdout problem, a
market-based approach in which FSS
licensees act independently is unlikely
to succeed. Consequently, should the
Commission allow, encourage, or
require satellite operators to cooperate
in negotiating with potential terrestrial
mobile licensees and in clearing an
agreed amount of spectrum? A marketbased approach that uses a Transition
Facilitator would enable the satellite
operators to use private negotiations to
obtain participation and agreement from
the relevant satellite operators, rather
than requiring the Commission to
address holdouts using more regulatory
mechanisms.
46. The Commission seeks comment
on whether using a market-based
approach in which FSS operators form
a Transition Facilitator would produce
an economically efficient outcome.
Specifically, would allowing all
potential sellers to agree on the amount
and price of the spectrum that will be
repurposed result in a situation in
which those sellers offer a lower
quantity than is socially efficient? Is that
concern mitigated by the fact that the
market for spectrum for high-speed
broadband services is much broader
than just the 3.7–4.2 GHz band? The
Commission seeks comment regarding
some of these concerns about the
potential effects of allowing collective
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
action by C-band satellite operators
below. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether a Transition
Facilitator raises any particular antitrust
concerns.
47. A transition under a market-based
approach could be undertaken in a fourstep process. The first step would
involve the industry voluntarily forming
a Transition Facilitator composed of
eligible C-band satellite operators.11 In
the second step, the Transition
Facilitator would negotiate with any
interested terrestrial operators and
incumbent users. In the third step, the
Commission would review the
Transition Facilitator’s plan and
conditionally authorize terrestrial
licenses in the band. And in step four,
the Transition Facilitator would clear
the negotiated-for spectrum, making it
available for flexible use while
protecting incumbent earth stations
through a variety of potential means.
The Commission notes as well that a
market-based process need not be a onetime event—a Transition Facilitator
could negotiate with parties for
compensation and protection, seek
Commission review and conditional
authorization, and clear new spectrum
multiple times to ensure the total
spectrum dedicated to flexible use
meets market demands. The
Commission seeks comment on the
effectiveness of such a four-step process.
In addition, the Commission invites
commenters supporting a market-based
approach to suggest additional details to
the steps described below or other
specific approaches for implementation.
48. Step 1: Formation of a Transition
Facilitator.—The first step in the
process would be for the industry to
form a Transition Facilitator. Once the
Transition Facilitator is formed and
ready to begin negotiations with
potential licensees, the Transition
Facilitator would notify the Commission
of its membership, its charter, i.e., its
structure, objectives, and planned
operation, and its compliance with any
rules adopted as a result of this
proceeding. Once the Transition
Facilitator has filed its notification, the
Commission would have 60 days to
review the filing and formally object to
its creation through an order. The
Commission seeks comment on this
process. What additional information
might the Commission need to conduct
such a review? Should any parties have
the opportunity to formally object?
Should the Commission be required to
11 In this context, clearing refers to relinquishing
interference protection. Satellite transmissions that
do not cause interference to terrestrial operations
would not necessarily have to be cleared.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
affirmatively approve or reject the
formation of a Transition Facilitator,
and if so on what timeline?
49. There is record support for a
centralized facilitator. Intelsat and
SES—the two largest incumbent satellite
operators in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band—
support a consortium-based facilitator.
While Eutelsat raises concerns regarding
how satellite operators eligible to
participate in a market-based approach
would be defined it has stated publicly
that it wants to participate. In
considering such an approach, the
Commission thus asks commenters to
address how to define eligibility to
participate in the Transition Facilitator.
The Commission seeks comment on
opening eligibility to participate in the
Transition Facilitator to all C-band
satellite operators providing service to
any part of the United States pursuant
to an FCC-issued license or grant of
market access. Should the Commission
limit eligibility in any way, such as
requiring service throughout the lower
48 states?
50. Given the holdout problem, the
Commission does not propose to require
that all eligible satellite operators agree
to a Transition Facilitator before it can
take effect. Instead, the Commission
seeks comment on the appropriate
number of satellite spectrum interests in
the band—a majority? all but one?—that
should be represented by the Transition
Facilitator to effectuate a successful
transition. Are a minimum number of
operators required to participate in the
Transition Facilitator for this approach
to work? If this number is not met,
should the Transition Facilitator be
approved by the Commission?
51. The Commission also seeks
comment on what the Transition
Facilitator should do if one or more
eligible C-band satellite operators
choose not to participate in the
Transition Facilitator. Are any
Commission actions necessary if one or
more eligible C-band satellite operators
do not join the Transition Facilitator?
The Commission notes that Intelsat and
SES propose that eligible C-band
satellite operators that do not join a
centralized facilitator would
nonetheless have their ‘‘reconfiguration
and relocation costs covered.’’ How
would such a process work? Should the
Transition Facilitator, or members of the
Transition Facilitator, negotiate with
non-participating satellite companies to
ensure the spectrum is successfully
repurposed? Or should nonparticipating satellite companies be
bound by the decisions of the Transition
Facilitator? If the latter, would a nonparticipating satellite company be
limited to recouping its costs? Or would
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44137
it be even eligible to recoup costs so
long as the Transition Facilitator
adequately protects its associated
incumbent earth stations?
52. If there are earth station registrants
or licensees that have no contractual
relationship with any of the members of
the Transition Facilitator or any FSS
space station operators, will that create
difficulties in clearing the band during
later steps in the process? If so, how can
those difficulties be addressed? Is there
any reason that the Transition
Facilitator would not able to negotiate
with earth stations that don’t have
contractual relationships with any of the
Transition Facilitator’s members?
Should there be a requirement that the
C-band operators participating in the
Transition Facilitator have contractual
relationships with a minimum
percentage of protected incumbent earth
stations to avoid these potential
difficulties? Should the Transition
Facilitator be required to work with
non-participating satellite companies to
protect incumbent earth stations, or
should the Transition Facilitator be free
to work directly with those entities?
53. To ensure that the transition
process proceeds expeditiously, should
the Commission establish a benchmark
for the Transition Facilitator filing of six
months after Federal Register
publication of an order in this
proceeding? 12 What if a Transition
Facilitator is not created within the
specified timeframe? Should the
Commission have in place other means
of reassigning the spectrum? Finally, the
Commission also seeks comment on
what form of supervisory authority the
Commission should maintain over the
Transition Facilitator, if any.
54. Step 2: Negotiation Period.—The
next step in the process would be to
undertake negotiations for spectrum
rights in the band. The Commission
anticipates that the Transition
Facilitator would engage in a multi-step
process to negotiate with prospective
licensees and protected incumbent earth
stations in the band. The result of these
negotiations would be a Transition
Facilitation Plan that would lay out
what spectrum would be made available
for flexible use (and where) as well as
the steps the Transition Facilitator plans
to take to ensure that protected
incumbent earth stations continue to
have access to the content or bandwidth
they currently receive using C-band
earth stations.
55. For example, the negotiation
process could include the following
steps. First, the Transition Facilitator
12 The Commission will release a Public Notice
announcing the start of the transition period.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44138
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
would identify the profit-maximizing
feasible amount of spectrum to make
available by soliciting inquiries from all
interested terrestrial wireless parties
and negotiating for specific spectrum
blocks and markets. This amount of
spectrum demanded might adjust
during the course of negotiations. The
Transition Facilitator would then
conclude private agreements to protect
incumbent earth stations and determine
the total available supply. Next, having
balanced the supply and the demand,
the Transition Facilitator would provide
each prospective licensee with a
certification of the specific spectrum
block(s) and market(s) negotiated for in
the associated private agreement.
Finally, the Transition Facilitator would
file its Transition Facilitation Plan with
the Commission. The Commission seeks
detailed comment on this possible
approach, including what, if any,
Commission oversight is warranted. The
Commission also seeks comment on this
approach’s costs and benefits as well as
any alternative approaches.
56. Given the high demand for and
high-value of mid-band spectrum, the
Commission should strive to adopt a
mechanism that will repurpose a
socially efficient amount of spectrum in
the band. Intelsat-SES-Intel believe that
consortium members could make
approximately 100 megahertz of
spectrum available for licensed
terrestrial service via privately
negotiated agreements between
consortium members and prospective
terrestrial licensees. In addition, under
that proposal, consortium members
would clear an additional 40 to 60
megahertz above this spectrum to act as
an internal band to protect against
harmful interference from transmissions
in the adjacent spectrum. Intel
maintains that, if the demand for
terrestrial mobile spectrum is as robust
as commonly believed by 5G supporters,
this market-based approach could clear
additional spectrum beyond the 100
megahertz proposed by Intelsat and SES
in the same timeframe. The Commission
notes that T-Mobile asserts that a
market-based approach ‘‘creates
tremendous uncertainty regarding the
availability of this spectrum for mobile
broadband services and will likely
result in inefficient reallocation of
spectrum.’’ To address this concern, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
to require that an Initial Minimum
Spectrum Benchmark—a socially
efficient amount of spectrum—be
repurposed in the band in order to use
a market-based approach, and what this
amount should be. Should the
Commission set the Initial Minimum
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Spectrum Benchmark to be 100
megahertz, given the comments of
Intelsat and SES? Would a higher or
lower benchmark be appropriate?
Should the Commission require the
Transition Facilitation Plan to require
the clearing of at least the Initial
Minimum Spectrum Benchmark for
approval? In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on whether an internal
protection band is necessary both above
and below (i.e., below 3.7 GHz) the
repurposed spectrum. What benchmarks
should be set for clearing an internal
protection band? Commenters should
describe the appropriate amount of
spectrum to be repurposed, taking into
account economic considerations and
the expected time and costs associated
with repurposing the spectrum.
57. To ensure a timely transition
process, should the Commission set
specific benchmarks for the completion
of initial negotiations with potential
terrestrial licensees as well as protected
incumbent earth stations? Intel, Intelsat,
and SES maintain that such negotiations
could be completed within three to
eight months. The Commission asks
commenters to consider whether eight
months is an appropriate benchmark for
completion of Transition Facilitator
negotiations and submission of the
Transition Facilitation Plan. What
should be the effect of a failure to meet
such a benchmark?
58. The Commission seeks comment
on how to ensure that the market-based
approach’s negotiation process will
facilitate a competitive and open
market. For example, should the
Commission require that all parties act
in good faith? What other rules could
the Commission adopt to ensure
competition in the marketplace? The
Commission notes that T-Mobile raises
concerns that satellite operators could
choose to limit the amount of spectrum
available for flexible use in order to
increase their profits, while others claim
it will not take into sufficient account
the interests of protected incumbent
earth stations. How can the Commission
ensure the negotiation process accounts
for the interests of all stakeholders that
have interests in the band—from new
wireless entrants to existing satellite
operators to protected incumbent earth
stations, from those living in rural
America to those living in cities? Would
Commission oversight of this marketbased approach—or over the Transition
Facilitator—benefit in any way from
insights from antitrust law?
59. The Commission also seeks
comment on what role, if any, the
Commission should play to facilitate or
oversee these private market
negotiations. For example, should the
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Commission allow some flexibility for
the negotiators to make more spectrum
available in some markets than others,
potentially allowing a limited number of
earth stations to continue to operate
using wider bandwidths in certain areas
where wireless operators are less
interested in deploying (e.g., remote
rural areas)? Should the Commission
have some input on the FSS frequencies
to be made available for private-market
negotiations? How should these
determinations be made? A marketbased approach would not likely result
in mutually exclusive applications for
the Commission to consider if, for
example, a negotiated agreement with
the Transition Facilitator is a
prerequisite for applying for a license in
this band. Would this negotiation satisfy
the Commission’s obligation in the
public interest to use negotiation to
avoid mutual exclusivity pursuant to
§ 309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications
Act?
60. The Commission also asks
commenters to discuss the requirements
and safeguards that the Commission
should adopt, if any, to ensure that
these privately negotiated agreements
result in a timely and complete
transition. The Commission will expect
parties to negotiate a full range of
transition commitments and penalties
for failure to meet transition
benchmarks. Nonetheless, does the
Commission need to adopt baseline
requirements, such as defining
comparable facilities, including the
relocation of incumbent operations to
another band, to fiber, and/or to more
efficient technologies? What would be
the relative costs and benefits associated
with adopting such requirements?
Would such definitions or rules
minimize disruption to existing
operations during the transition? Are
there mechanisms the Commission can
adopt to ensure that all or specific
categories of incumbents are not
adversely affected by repacking of this
band? For example, should the
Commission require FSS space station
licensees that are going to cease
transmitting on a primary basis to notify
earth stations receiving those signals?
Could the parties determine that the
transitioning of facilities should be
undertaken by the terrestrial licensee
instead of the Transition Facilitator? If
so, would the parties or the FCC
establish a benchmark for completing
such a transition? Should the Transition
Facilitator be required to have a
mechanism for receiving reports from
incumbents that experience disruptions,
and should the Transition Facilitator
also be required to notify the
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Commission when it receives such
reports? The Commission invites
commenters to address the specific form
of notification required, the time period
for providing each notification, and the
costs and benefits of each notification
requirement.
61. If the Commission’s role were
more limited, what level of
transparency, if any, should be required
during the negotiation process? For
example, should satellite operators be
required to notify the Commission
regarding the status of on-going
negotiations? What types of information
should be included in such a notice?
Further, should the Commission require
the filing of periodic reports (e.g.,
quarterly, bi-annually, annually) to
ensure that the overall transition of this
band will be completed in a timely
manner? What should such reports
include? The Commission encourages
interested parties to provide detailed
comments regarding the level of
Commission oversight envisioned for
this process including how such
oversight comports with the
Commission’s obligation to assign
spectrum in the public interest.
62. Step 3: Conditional Authorization
of Mobile Licensees.—Upon the
submission of a Transition Facilitation
Plan, the next step would be
Commission review and approval of the
plan, followed by applications for
terrestrial license authorizations filed
pursuant to the plan. The Commission
seeks comment on this process. To
facilitate a streamlined review, the
Commission seeks comment on
allowing applications for new terrestrial
authorizations to be filed at the same
time as a Transition Facilitation Plan, or
while the Commission reviews that
plan. And to avoid undue delay in
commencing the band clearing process,
the Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate timing, criteria, and
conditions that should apply to new
license authorizations.
63. The Commission seeks comment
on conducting the review of the
Transition Facilitation Plan. Most
specifically, how should the
Commission ensure that protected
incumbent earth stations are indeed
protected? What types of certifications
should be required to ensure that the
Commission can take all appropriate
actions to ensure that the Transition
Facilitator and its members carry out the
Transition Facilitation Plan and
appropriately protect, compensate, and
ensure adequate access for relevant
stakeholder? Should the Commission
make the plan available to comment,
and what confidential information is
likely to be included? How should the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Commission evaluate the various
methods suggested for protecting
incumbent earth stations, such as
installing filters, extending fiber,
offering service on new satellites or in
new satellite bands, offering service
over microwave links, and creating
geographic separation from harmful
interference (likely only in rural areas)?
What level of granularity should the
Commission require the steps of the
Transition Facilitation Plan to meet?
And how long should the Commission
have to review and approve or reject a
Transition Facilitation Plan?
64. The Commission seeks comment
on how to address initial licensing
applications. First, the Commission
seeks comment on establishing a 30-day
filing window for new terrestrial license
applications. Prospective licensees
would file an application for any new
licenses they have agreed to acquire
through their negotiations with the
Transition Facilitator, along with a
certification from the Transition
Facilitator to clear that portion of the
band for the terrestrial operator’s use.
Should the Commission require any
other specific information to be
submitted as part of the application
process? Applications would be
accepted and reviewed pursuant to the
requirements and procedures set forth
in part 1 of the Commission’s rules,
including, among other things, the filing
of certain FCC forms, release of a public
notice listing the application as
accepted for filing, and the opportunity
for third parties to file petitions to deny
the application. Upon the Commission’s
review and confirmation that the
applicant has complied with all other
Commission filing and qualification
requirements, the Commission would
grant a license subject to certain
conditions discussed below. Second, the
Commission could treat the Transition
Facilitation Plan as an application for
all the flexible use licenses that would
be made available as a result of it being
carried out, and then allow the
Transition Facilitator and prospective
licensees to file separate applications to
transfer those licenses as the parties saw
fit. Under this approach, the Transition
Facilitation Plan would also have to
comport with the requirements and
procedures set forth in Part 1 of the
Commission’s rules and would be
conditioned as discussed below.
65. The Commission will condition
authorizations for licensed terrestrial
operations on the licensee not
commencing operations until the
Transition Facilitation Plan’s
protections for incumbent earth stations
have been carried out in that area (and
subject to those conditions to the extent
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44139
the plan requires geographic or other
sharing). The provisions of any private
agreement to transition designated
spectrum to licensed terrestrial
operations would therefore need to
comply with the service rules the
Commission may ultimately adopt in
this proceeding. For example, under this
approach, the deadlines for a licensee’s
regulatory obligations, including
construction benchmarks, would begin
running on the date of license issuance.
The Commission therefore anticipates
that private agreements would take
construction deadlines into account
when negotiating the date by which the
Transition Facilitator must clear the
relevant spectrum such that the licensee
may commence operations. However,
the Commission seeks comment on
whether the Commission should
consider the individually negotiated
time periods for band clearing when
setting the deadlines for each licensee’s
satisfaction of its construction
benchmarks. The Commission seeks
comment on these and any other
conditions on new license
authorizations that would facilitate
efficient implementation of the marketbased approach.
66. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on what, if any,
conditions should be placed on the
license with respect to the protection or
relocation of the approximately 115
incumbent microwave links in the band
that would sunset under out proposal.
For example, should the Commission
require as a condition of the license that
new licensees either protect or relocate
incumbent users under the same part 27
and part 101 rules used for incumbent
microwave links in the Advanced
Wireless Services (AWS) bands or under
some other protection and/or relocation
mechanism?
67. To ensure a timely transition
process, should the Commission set
specific benchmarks for the completion
of its review of the Transition
Facilitation Plan and the processing of
conditional authorizations? Intel,
Intelsat, and SES expect the review
process would take two to seven
months, and propose the license grant
would trigger certain obligations under
private agreements, including the
clearing of the band within 12–20
months. The Commission seeks
comment on a process whereby the
Commission would take action on all
unopposed applications found
acceptable for filing within four months
from the commencement of the filing
window discussed above (i.e., a 30-day
filing window plus three months of
review). Upon completion of the fourmonth application and review process,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44140
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the Commission would notify the
Transition Facilitator that it may begin
clearing the designated spectrum in the
band. The Commission seeks comment
on this approach to triggering the
commencement of the band-clearing
process. Should the process instead be
triggered only upon the Commission’s
grant of all licenses negotiated by the
Transition Facilitator? Or is a certain
critical mass of license grants sufficient
to begin clearing incumbent users from
the band? For example, to avoid undue
delay of licensed operations in the band,
would it be appropriate to begin
clearing the band upon issuance of
licenses authorized for operation in a
certain portion of contiguous spectrum
in the band? The Commission seeks
comment on these and any other
benchmarks that may be appropriate.
68. The Commission also recognizes
that the Transition Facilitator may find
it necessary and beneficial to modify
certain aspects of its Transition
Facilitation Plan. The Commission
therefore seeks comment on allowing
the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau to approve minor amendments
to the Transition Facilitation Plan that
would not increase harmful interference
to protected incumbent earth stations.
69. The Commission notes that the
ultimate assignment of any license is
subject to FCC approval under § 310(d)
of the Communications Act. The
Commission therefore seeks comment
on the application process described
above and any other application criteria
that may be appropriate to fulfill the
Commission’s statutory obligations to
license spectrum in the public interest
and ensure that spectrum is put to its
highest and best use.
70. Step 4—Band Clearing. Following
approval of the Transition Facilitation
Plan and grant of new terrestrial
licenses in the band, the final step
would be clearing certain incumbent
users as needed from the designated
spectrum and giving new terrestrial
licensees access to their licensed
spectrum. The Commission seeks
comment on the best way to effectuate
this process.
71. The Commission seeks comment
on reasonable benchmarks for
incumbents to cease transmitting on a
primary basis in the portion of the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band that becomes available for
flexible use, a process Intel, Intelsat, and
SES expect to take 12–20 months. The
Commission seeks comment on
providing the Transition Facilitator with
20 months to clear incumbent users
from the designated spectrum in the
band. Under this approach, the
Transition Facilitator would be
responsible for enforcing the various
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
private agreements between new
terrestrial licensees and incumbent
users to clear the band. As spectrum
becomes available for licensed use, the
Transition Facilitator would notify
licensees that they may begin operating
in particular areas covered by their
licenses where the spectrum has been
cleared.13 In light of the Commission’s
expectation that spectrum will be
cleared incrementally over the course of
the 20-month band-clearing process, the
Commission proposes to require the
Transition Facilitator to provide
periodic updates notifying the
Commission of the specific spectrum
that has been cleared. Should the
Commission require the Transition
Facilitator to file status reports at
various benchmarks (e.g., every four
months)? The Commission seeks
comment on these and any other
benchmarks that may be appropriate to
promote timely completion of the bandclearing process.
72. Finally, in light of our goal to
promote the rapid deployment of new
licensed terrestrial operations in the
3.7–4.2 GHz band, the Commission
seeks comment on any further
safeguards that should apply during the
band-clearing process to ensure the
transition is completed within a
reasonable period of time. The
Commission expects that the private
agreements between new terrestrial
licensees and incumbent users would
contain provisions and penalties
sufficient to address either party’s
failure to satisfy their respective
contractual obligations in a timely
manner. In addition to, and
independent of, those private
agreements, the Commission seeks
comment on any appropriate penalties
that should apply in the event that the
Transition Facilitator is unable to clear
the designated spectrum within the 20month time period discussed above.
What, if any, opportunities to cure
should the Commission provide? For
example, should the Commission allow
new terrestrial licensees and incumbent
users that default on their private
agreements to re-enter the process
beginning with Step 2 negotiations? If
so, should the Commission apply more
abbreviated time periods for the
completion of each step? The
Commission seeks comment on these
and any other actions that may be
appropriate to provide adequate
13 The entire area covered by a new license would
not need to be cleared in order for licensees to begin
operating. Instead, subject to their individual
agreements, the Transition Facilitator could begin
notifying licensees of their ability to begin
operations once certain portions of the area covered
by the license (e.g., counties) have been cleared.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
opportunity for successful completion
of a market-based approach, while also
ensuring a rapid and efficient transition
to flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
b. Auction Mechanisms
73. The Commission seeks comment
on various auction approaches to
expand flexible use of the band.
Specifically, the Commission asks
commenters to consider whether an
overlay auction, incentive auction,
capacity auction or other auction
mechanism could be used to create
opportunities for flexible use of the
band.
74. Overlay Auction.—An overlay
license authorizes operations for an
entire geographic area but requires the
licensee to protect existing incumbents
from interference indefinitely, i.e., until
the rights are relinquished. The
Commission notes that the Commission
has used overlay licensing to transition
several bands from site-based to
geographic-area licensing.
75. The Commission seeks comment
on whether the Commission shall accept
applications for one or more overlay
licenses—assigned by competitive
bidding if mutually exclusive
applications for it were accepted—that
would permit an overlay licensee to
negotiate with both incumbent space
station licensees and earth station
owners and operators to clear all or part
of the band. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the Commission
shall require the overlay licensee(s) to
transfer flexible use licenses in the
secondary market (i.e., limit an
individual licensee from holding more
than a certain amount of spectrum in
each market). Under this approach, the
overlay licensee(s) would have the right
to flexible use of any spectrum that
becomes available as a result of
incumbents’ relinquishing their
spectrum usage rights. If this approach
were adopted, the Commission’s
presumption would be that incumbent
space station licensees could bid
individually, but not as a consortium.
Allowing incumbents to bid collectively
would eliminate the possibility of
competition among them for the overlay
license, and would discourage other
potential bidders from participating in
the auction. To encourage participation
in the auction, are there rules the
Commission can adopt to share the risk
(between bidders and the U.S. Treasury)
of a less profitable repurpose than
anticipated? The Commission also seeks
comment on whether, if no voluntary
agreement is reached between an
overlay licensee and earth station
operators after some number of years,
the earth station operators should be
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
required to discontinue operation in
some portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
if requested by the overlay licensee and
if the overlay licensee delivers
equivalent quality service to the
locations of the earth stations that
would no longer be protected. The
Commission seeks comment on how
equivalent quality service should be
defined, especially with respect to
reliability. The Commission also seeks
comment on how many years
incumbent earth station operators
should have before they would no
longer receive protection in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band, and whether this deadline
should apply to all areas or only to highpopulation-density areas. If the latter,
how should such areas be defined?
76. Would assigning an overlay
license or licenses for all of the band
expedite flexible use of more of the
band compared to other approaches?
Compared to the market-based proposal,
the overlay license approach potentially
would allow non-incumbent bidders to
develop innovative ways to clear the
spectrum and clear more spectrum or
varying amounts of spectrum depending
on the relative costs and benefits of such
repurposing. On the other hand, an
overlay licensee may take longer to clear
spectrum because the two largest FSS
space station operators appear to
already have an agreement on how to
clear at least 100 megahertz for flexible
use.
77. The Commission also seeks
comment on how all parties that would
be affected by repurposing 3.7–4.2 GHz
band spectrum should be treated. In
particular, should the space station
operators relinquishing spectrum or the
overlay licensee be required to provide
incumbent earth station operators
comparable replacement facilities or
media? Would an overlay auction
expedite the provision of terrestrial
mobile services in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
or facilitate making more than 100
megahertz of the band available for
flexible use? Commenters should also
address the potential costs and benefits
of an overlay approach for consumers
and businesses in rural and underserved
communities, as well as any economic
impact on small businesses, and discuss
any rules or procedures that could be
implemented to ensure that the needs of
these communities and businesses are
adequately addressed. The Commission
invites comment on these issues and on
other matters that it may need to
address to conduct an overlay auction in
this band.
78. Incentive Auction.—The
Commission also seeks comment on
approaches using the Commission’s
general incentive auction authority to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
introduce flexible use in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band. One commenter suggests that
‘‘[FSS incumbent] satellite operators,
earth station licensees, and microwave
licensees all could participate in a
reverse auction and choose from among
several options including, for example,
vacating the band for another or a fiber
alternative; limiting operations to a
smaller swath of spectrum; or moving to
a more remote location.’’ A forward
auction would then generate the
revenues from new entrants to support
the reverse auction results, and repack
incumbents into the remaining portion
of the band for FSS and/or move earth
stations to more remote locations.
79. The Commission seeks comment
on whether a variation of the incentive
auction could work in the context of the
3.7–4.2 GHz band. The Commission
notes that in the case of the
Commission’s incentive auction
authority, there is a legal aspect to the
problem of FSS satellite operators’
incentives to reduce the amount of
spectrum for repurposing discussed
above. Specifically, the Commission’s
legal authority to use that mechanism
depends on having ‘‘at least two
competing licensees participate in the
reverse auction.’’ Would the Varian
approach, discussed above, satisfy the
statutory requirement that an incentive
auction have at least two competing
bidders take part in the reverse auction?
The Commission seeks comment on
means of inducing supply competition,
such as by bringing in alternative bands
as substitutes, both to insure a more
competitive and efficient outcome, and
to meet the legal requirement of having
competing licensees participate in the
reverse auction. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether provision of
supply by licensed earth stations can
substitute for provision by FSS
operators.
80. Capacity Auction.—As an
alternative to paying satellite
incumbents to directly relinquish their
rights to operate on specified
frequencies, the Commission seeks
comment on a reverse auction for
satellite transponder capacity that could
be used to compensate the satellite
incumbents for giving up C-band
transponder capacity in order to enable
the Commission to reallocate C-band
spectrum to flexible use. Under this
approach, an individual bidder in the
reverse auction would help to clear
spectrum by bidding to relinquish some
(or all) of the bundle of rights they hold
under their licenses and the
Commission’s rules to lease capacity to
other parties, so as to allow alternative
use of the bands of spectrum associated
with specific transponders. Potential
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44141
bidders could be any FCC licensee that
could make transponder capacity
available in, for example, either the Cband or Ku-band, as discussed further
below. Satellite operators could offer
capacity created by launching new
satellites in vacant orbital slots and/or
by relinquishing some or all of their
existing capacity.
81. At the time of any incentive
auction, could satellite customers or
earth stations in their own right be
eligible to offer capacity? For example,
could they make available capacity
through mechanisms such as
substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill
their capacity needs, reducing the
amount or quality of programming
distributed, or using greater
compression to reduce the capacity
required to carry a given amount of
programming or data? C-band capacity
lost due to the reduced amount of
available spectrum and that was not
relinquished in the reverse auction by
C-band satellite operators, could be
repacked onto replacement capacity for
the remaining lives of those lost
transponders. This would compensate
C-band licensees for their lost capital
investments, but not for the loss of their
spectrum. The amount of C-band
spectrum reallocated could be
determined by the reverse auction in
combination with a forward auction for
cleared spectrum. Adapting the
approach of the broadcast incentive
auction, the amount cleared could be
the largest amount for which forward
auction revenues exceed the cost of
repacking the remaining C-band services
plus any other compensation, e.g., for
the loss of spectrum, and the cost of
running the auction. The Commission
seeks comment on a capacity auction
and whether such a mechanism could
be used to create flexible use in the
band.
82. Several commenters propose that
Ku-band capacity could be utilized for
C-band services. Other commenters
raise the concern that Ku-band capacity
is not a reliable replacement spectrum
for C-band services. The Commission
seeks comment on Ku-band capacity as
a replacement for C-band, including as
an alternative for infrequent, portable,
or more temporary uses such as for
breaking news or live sporting events.
The Commission also seeks comment on
how to define capacity for purpose of
this approach. What capacity definition
meets the needs of such an auction?
Depending on the band, what
adjustments would be appropriate to
ensure a unit of capacity in the band is
comparable with a C-band unit of
capacity? Would comparable
communication capacity be defined in
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44142
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
terms of throughput, reliability, and
operating costs?
83. Advocates for a capacity auction
should specifically discuss the
Commission’s legal authority as well as
implementation details and options. For
example, could the Commission use its
general incentive auction authority to
hold a capacity auction? Which parties
should be allowed to participate in the
reverse auction? Is there a way for end
users to participate and, if so, how
would their costs be compensated?
Would this approach incentivize
bidders to make the appropriate
tradeoffs among inputs such as
compression technology and bandwidth
in producing capacity? How could a
capacity auction be designed to allocate
capacity efficiently over time? Would
this require the reverse auction to
establish separate prices for capacity in
each year? Would capacity need to be
defined as packages of capacity at
specified dates, and would a
combinatorial auction be needed to
determine auction winners and prices?
84. The Commission seeks comment
on the applicability of § 647 of the
Open-market Reorganization for the
Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act) to
a capacity or other auction mechanism.
The Commission tentatively concludes
that the prohibition is not applicable
here, as any auctioned spectrum would
be used for a new domestic terrestrial
service, and the spectrum capacity
auction does not propose to assign by
competitive bidding orbital locations or
spectrum used for the provision of
international or global satellite
communications services. The
Commission also tentatively concludes
that the participation in an incentive
auction by Ku-band operators to provide
spectrum capacity to C-band operators
would not violate the ORBIT Act,
because this would not constitute an
‘‘assignment’’ of satellite spectrum,
because the Ku-band operators would
only be giving up some of their licensed
spectrum capacity, rather than ceding
their actual licenses. The Commission
seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion and invite commenters to
discuss the ORBIT Act’s application to
any proposed auction mechanism.
85. The Commission also invites
comment on other novel incentive
auction mechanisms under the
Commission’s general incentive auction
authority. Commenters should provide
data on the costs and benefits associated
with any proposed approach along with
other helpful technical or procedural
details. Commenters should also
address the potential costs and benefits
of an incentive-auction approach for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
consumers and businesses in rural and
underserved communities, as well as
any economic impact on small
businesses, and they should discuss any
rules or procedures that could be
implemented to ensure that the needs of
these communities and businesses are
adequately addressed.
c. Alternative Mechanisms
86. The Commission also seeks
comment on approaches that combine
various elements of the mechanisms
discussed above, as well as other
mechanisms for transitioning all or part
of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band for wireless
broadband use. Commenters offering
sequential alternatives should address
the circumstances under which one
method of transitioning the band would
end and a subsequent one would begin.
Are any conditions necessary to prevent
one approach from precluding later
alternatives?
87. In response to the Mid-Band NOI,
T-Mobile proposed a hybrid approach
that would combine elements of an
incentive auction and the market-based
approach. Under this proposal, a
consortium of satellite operators (similar
to the Transition Facilitator discussed
above) and potential wireless bidders
would participate in a phased auction
process with both forward and reverse
auction components. First, the
Commission would conduct a
simultaneous or near simultaneous
auction of the band on a geographic
basis to establish the initial price per
area. Second, in those areas where
satellite operators were all willing to
clear all 500 megahertz at the prices
established in the initial phase, the
spectrum would be sold and these areas
would be deemed ‘‘cleared’’ for flexible
terrestrial wireless use. The Commission
would then determine an appropriate
amount of the remaining spectrum to
reserve for satellite use and the forward
and reverse auction processes would
repeat until a Commission-determined
amount of spectrum has been cleared.
Although T-Mobile proposes that
auction revenues would be split
between the federal government and the
satellite operators, with the latter
responsible for end-user relocation costs
as applicable, the Commission
tentatively concludes there could be
statutory barriers to this aspect of the
proposal, and seek comment.
88. The Commission seeks comment
on whether T-Mobile’s proposal, or a
variant of this proposal, would solve or
ameliorate the three economic problems
discussed above. As discussed, there is
a legal aspect to the problem of FSS
satellite operators’ incentives to reduce
the amount of spectrum for repurposing
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
because the Commission’s incentive
auction authority requires at least two
competing participants in the reverse
auction. Would T-Mobile’s proposal, or
a variant of that proposal, comply with
the requirement that an incentive
auction have two competing licensees in
the reverse auction, as well as other
requirements associated with the
Commission’s general incentive auction
authority?
89. The Commission seeks comment
on whether a hybrid approach that
combines elements of the approaches
discussed above would strike a balance
between incumbent and new entrant
interests. If the Commission decides to
clear and auction the entire band, but
reserve some of the band for satellite use
in certain areas, what is the minimum
amount that should be cleared for
flexible wireless use? Would the
minimum amount differ based on
geographic area? Should the
Commission consider auctioning a
majority of the band, versus the entire
band, and if so, what would be the
appropriate amount of spectrum to be
cleared under such an approach? How
can the Commission ensure that the
band is transitioned in a timely manner?
Should a backstop approach be triggered
by a FSS operator’s failure to clear the
band in a timely manner? Is this the
right balance, or is there a better way
that traditional relocation could be used
as a backstop approach to any hybrid
mechanism? Additionally, would this
approach allow the Commission to meet
its statutory requirements under its
general incentive auction authority?
90. The Commission asks commenters
to provide data on the costs and benefits
associated with any hybrid approach
over other possible or suggested
methods. If the Commission adopted a
split-revenue approach, under which
revenue would be split between the
federal government and the satellite
operators, how would those funds be
distributed? Are there are legal obstacles
to such an approach? Commenters
should also address the potential costs
and benefits of any hybrid or alternative
approach for consumers and businesses
in rural and underserved communities,
as well as any economic impact on
small businesses, and discuss any rules
or procedures that could be
implemented to ensure that the needs of
these communities and businesses are
adequately addressed. Commenters
should provide complete proposals to
the extent technically and economically
feasible.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
2. More Intensive Point-to-Multipoint
Fixed Use
91. In connection with the
Commission’s proposals above to reform
the full-band, full-arc earth station
coordination policy, the Commission
seeks comment on rule changes to Part
101 to allow point-to-multipoint FS use
of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band and invite
parties to offer alternative rules or
requirements that will allow for the
more intensive point-to-multipoint FS
use of the band. In doing so, the
Commission seeks comment on how
permitting fixed wireless would affect
the possible future clearing of the band
for flexible use and the use of the band
for satellite operations. The Commission
seeks to protect incumbent FSS earth
stations from harmful interference and
avoid disruption to existing operations
in the band. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on the
impact that point-to-multipoint use
would have on the flexibility of FSS
earth stations to modify their operations
in response to technical and business
needs. The Commission emphasizes
that—under the proposals in this
NPRM—point-to-multipoint would
operate on a secondary basis vis-a`-vis
FSS in any part of the band in which
FSS continues to operate during a
transition period to accommodate
repacking and, thereafter, on a
frequency-coordinated basis to protect
actual FSS operations.
92. Channel Plan.—The Commission
seeks comment on amending § 101.101
to permit point-to-multipoint FS in
some portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
The Commission seeks further comment
on amending the existing channel plan
for FS in the band (paired 20 megahertz
channels for frequency division duplex
(FDD)) to allow time division duplex
(TDD) on unpaired 20 megahertz
channels. The Commission asks
commenters to address interference
concerns between FDD and TDD,
explain how, or if, they could coexist in
the portion of the band not being used
for flexible use, and discuss
coordination and interference rules that
must apply if both were to be permitted.
Should the Commission allow licensees
to aggregate contiguous 20 megahertz
channels up to a maximum of 160
megahertz of bandwidth? To the extent
a licensee has 40 megahertz of
unconstructed spectrum in a licensed
service area, should the Commission
require construction before allowing the
licensee to acquire additional spectrum
in the licensed service area? The
Commission invites alternative
proposals with specific discussion of
the costs and benefits as to each. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Commission also seeks comment
generally on the technical
improvements to allow for better band
utilization.
93. The Commission seeks comment
on authorizing point-to-multipoint FS
service, on a primary basis, in some
portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that
does not become available for flexible
use. The Commission proposes that
flexible use licensees would operate in
the lower segment of the band (starting
at 3.7 GHz) and, if additional spectrum
is cleared in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, it
would be relatively easy and costeffective to expeditiously deploy more
flexible use in the lower segment of this
band that has been cleared and is
contiguous to the spectrum for which
flexible use is already licensed. The
Commission also seeks comment as to
whether, regardless of how much
spectrum becomes available for flexible
use in the near term, to make available
for licensed point-to-multipoint use up
to 160 megahertz (e.g., 4.04–4.2 GHz) to
accommodate a transition from FSS to
flexible use working-up from 3.7 GHz.
Alternatively, the Commission seeks
comment on making available for pointto-multipoint use 40 megahertz, 100
megahertz or up to 320 megahertz.
94. Service Area of Each Point-toMultipoint FS Access Point.—The
Commission seeks comment on the best
approach to define a point-to-multipoint
FS access point service area. The
Broadband Access Coalition requests
frequency coordinated, site-specific
license areas, defined as a circle
designated by a specified radial distance
from a center point. Should the
Commission define a service area based
on a specified geographic access point
location and maximum radius? As an
alternative, should the Commission
consider coverage arc sector(s) (e.g., 0°N
to 30°) around the access point location
and specified radii, and what should
such coverage arcs be based on (e.g.,
antenna beamwidth)? If a maximum
radius around an access point is
specified, should the Commission adopt
a single value for all access points or
values relative to whether the access
point is in densely populated or rural
areas? For example, the Broadband
Access Coalition proposes 10 kilometers
for densely populated areas and 18
kilometers for rural areas. If the
Commission allows different radii based
on area population density, what
threshold should the Commission use to
differentiate between densely
populated, rural, and other areas?
Should the definition of ‘‘rural’’ for
these purposes be the definition used
for the E-Rate program? If based on a
population density, should the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44143
population be based on residents or
businesses, or perhaps some
combination of both? Should this
information be based on the most
current available U.S. Census database
at the time of the license application? Is
there some other metric that would be
better suited to determining the
appropriate maximum radius limit? The
Commission seeks comment on
variations of these approaches, as well
as those of alternatives that might not
necessarily be limited to circles, arcs, or
population density.
95. Frequency Coordination and
Interference Protection.—The
Commission seeks comment on
technical requirements for frequency
coordination between point-tomultipoint FS applicants and licensees
and FSS under Part 25 and point-topoint FS, if they are grandfathered or
otherwise remain in the band, under
part 101. Under the Commission’s
current rules, the technical aspects of
coordination between FSS and
terrestrial operations are based on
Appendix 7 of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio
Regulations and certain
recommendations of the ITU
Radiocommunication Sector and the
technical aspects of coordination
between terrestrial licensees are based
on Telecommunications Industry
Association’s Telecommunications
System Bulletin (TSB) 10–F or other
procedures generally following
acceptable good engineering practices.
The Commission asks parties to
comment on how either of the above or
other standards, such as those
developed by the European
Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI) or another organization, may be
applicable or adaptable to point-tomultipoint FS operations in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether there are
interference protection criteria set forth
in other parts of the Commission’s rules
that may be adapted to protect FSS earth
stations from interference by point-tomultipoint operations in the portion of
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that does not
become available for flexible use. Are
there technical operating characteristics
of point-to-multipoint equipment, such
as power levels, that would require us
to adopt different values to protect FSS
earth stations from interference by
point-to-multipoint operations? The
Commission asks that commenters be
specific in addressing the technical
requirements for coordination.
96. The Commission seeks comment
on allowing a point-to-multipoint FS
applicant to coordinate each access
point by sector based on the radius
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44144
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
around the geographic coordinates of
the site, the antenna characteristics (e.g.,
beamwidth), and a maximum number of
client devices to be deployed within a
specific distance from the access point.
Should point-to-multipoint FS
applicants be required to submit
frequency coordination for each access
point, including geographic coordinates
of the access point, frequency range,
power and antenna characteristics,
service area limits, maximum number of
future authorized client devices, and the
power and antenna characteristics of
individual client devices? How will
prior coordination be achieved for
point-to-multipoint access points when
the location, height, and technical
characteristics of the client devices in
the access point service area are not
available at the time of access point
coordination? If some probability of
location/height is assigned for the
maximum number of client locations in
order to develop an interference profile
for purposes of coordination, the
resulting interference predictions will
have some associated probability of
interference occurrence; in that case
should point-to-multipoint licensees be
able to add up to the maximum number
of client devices without independently
coordinating each client device? Should
client devices be subject to additional
technical limitations, such as minimum
directional antenna requirements, EIRP
limits, or other criteria to limit their
interference potential? Should the
maximum number of client devices be
specified for each channel? The
Commission seeks comment on the
above proposals and, whether, if a
point-to-multipoint FS applicant cannot
successfully coordinate a geographic
service area, it should be permitted to
coordinate client devices on a path-topath basis. Parties should address the
technical requirements of the above,
offer alternatives, and specifically detail
the costs and benefits of each proposal.
97. The Commission also seeks
comment on the administrative process
that should apply to the coordination of
point-to-multipoint FS operations in the
band. Under the current rules, the
administrative aspects of the
coordination process are set forth in
§ 101.103(d) in the case of coordination
of terrestrial stations with earth stations
and in § 25.203 in the case of
coordination of earth stations with
terrestrial stations. What modifications
to §§ 101.103(d), 25.203, or to another
rule must be made to govern the
administrative process that will apply to
the coordination of point-to-multipoint
FS operations with FSS and point-topoint FS, if grandfathered or remain in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
the band, and the coordination of FSS
and point-to-point FS, if grandfathered
or remain in the band, with point-tomultipoint FS operations in the band?
The Commission seeks comment on
subjecting point-to-multipoint FS
applicants to an expedited coordination
process with mandatory electronic
notification and response. Should an
expedited process, if adopted, govern
coordination that occurs beginning 90
days after the adoption of final rules
published in the Federal Register? The
Commission also seeks comment on any
other modifications to the Commission’s
rules with respect to the coordination
administrative process that would
reduce the economic impact of the
proposed rule changes on small entities.
98. Additionally, the Commission
seeks comment on the possibility of
adopting an automated coordination
process for point-to-multipoint FS
applications. There is a lack of a
consensus in the record as to when, or
if, the Commission will be in a position
to propose and adopt rules for
automated coordination of point-tomultipoint FS applications in the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band. The Broadband Access
Coalition contends that automated
coordination should not be the same as
the Spectrum Allocation Server (SAS)
system for licensing in the 3.5 GHz
band. However, the Broadband Access
Coalition believes that the existing
process can be modified and automated
over time to incorporate real-time, realworld FSS protection criteria and enable
coordination between and among pointto-point FS, if grandfathered or remain
in the band, and point-to-multipoint FS
based on FSS, point-to-point FS and
point-to-multipoint FS industry
standards of protection criteria to be
developed by affected stake-holders.
Several commenters including IEE
DySPAN, OTI &PK, and Federated,
support using a spectrum access
database similar to the sharing system
used below 3.7 GHz for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service. Google offers
another variant contending that a
lightweight database supported
authorization framework would enable
the efficient deployment of fixed
broadband access (FBA) systems.
However, the satellite industry and
content providers have strong objections
to more intensive use of the 3.7–4.2 GHz
by FS and have raised very specific
concerns over the lack of proven
methods for spectrum sharing with
more intensive fixed use in this band.
Satellite operators also raise concern
about the ability of point-to-multipoint
systems to quickly remedy interference
when it is identified or to accommodate
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
FSS earth stations when they change
frequencies. The Commission seeks
comment on the above. The
Commission also asks that, given the
lack of consensus, parties continue to
work together to offer a more widely
supported proposal for the Commission
to consider.
99. Power Limits.—The Commission
seeks comment on adopting power
limits for point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. The
Commission existing rules for FS
provide power limits based on the link
length. With point-to-multipoint FS
service areas, individual links between
access points and client devices will
vary in length. Should the Commission
apply a rule to point-to-multipoint FS
links specifying a minimum path length,
similar to those specified for point-topoint FS links in § 101.143 or is some
other variation of this rule more
applicable to point-to-multipoint FS
operations? What should the
Commission’s power limits be for pointto-multipoint FS service? The
Broadband Access Coalition has
proposed a 50 dBm EIRP limit and a
maximum conducted power of 1 Watt.
Should the access point EIRP be
scalable with bandwidth? Likewise,
should client devices be limited to 50
dBm EIRP regardless of bandwidth? If
not scalable, how do changes in
bandwidth impact frequency
coordination? Should the Commission
apply the emission limits set forth in
§ 101.111 to point-to-multipoint FS
operations in this band, or would some
other limits be more appropriate to
protect adjacent-band operations? The
Broadband Access Coalition anticipates
that point-to-multipoint FS systems
would be able to meet existing Part 101
out-of-band emission limits, without
modification, but the Commission seeks
comment as to this issue. The
Commission also invites comment on
other proposals. The Commission notes
that the adjacent 4.2–4.4 GHz band is
allocated to the aeronautical
radionavigation service on a primary
basis and that, at WRC–15, the 4.2–4.4
GHz band was also allocated to the
aeronautical mobile (R) service on a
primary basis in all ITU Regions with
use reserved for WAIC systems. WAIC
systems are onboard short range
wireless systems that will replace
substantial portions of aircraft wiring.
These systems increase aircraft safety by
providing dissimilar redundancy in
communications links between aircraft
systems. The Commission solicits
comment on the needed out-of-band
emission limit required to protect the
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
aeronautical radionavigation service in
the 4.2–4.4 GHz band.
100. Antenna Standards.—The
Commission asks parties to provide
detailed technical comments as to
antenna standards that should apply to
point-to-multipoint FS operations in the
3.7–4.2 GHz band. Section 101.115 of
the Commission’s rules specifies the
maximum beamwidth, minimum
antenna gain and radiation suppression
envelope for FS antennas in this band.
How should these antenna standards be
modified to accommodate the range of
antennas typically used in point-tomultipoint applications? The Broadband
Access Coalition Petition proposes that,
unlike point-to-point FS licensees
subject to § 101.115, point-to-multipoint
FS licensees be permitted to use any
antenna in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that
meets the minimum performance
requirements for access points and
client devices. Specifically, the
Broadband Access Coalition Petition
proposes that a point-to-multipoint FS
licensee would be required to specify
the gain; azimuth; polarization; height;
azimuth and elevation half-power
beamwidths; and tilt (e.g., ¥10 degrees)
for sectorized antennas and gain, height
and any electrical tilt for omnidirectional antennas. Should the
Commission specify a minimum
radiation suppression at some angle
from the edge of the main beam for
sectorized antennas? The Commission
seeks comment on the above and invite
parties to offer alternative proposals.
What are the relative costs and benefits
for each proposal? How would each
proposal affect other users in the band
or provide mechanisms to address
interference?
101. Client Devices.—The
Commission seeks comment on whether
the Commission should require
directional antennas on outdoor pointto-multipoint client devices and if so
what should those antenna standards
be? Would antenna standards for client
devices make coordination easier? The
Commission asks that commenters
address the minimum antenna gain and
minimum suppression from main beam
centerline. Should client devices be
limited to outdoor antennas only and
permanently affixed at the client
location? Should the Commission allow
portable indoor client devices, and
should such devices be allowed under
point-to-multipoint or flexible use
rules? If the Commission permits
portable client devices with nondirectional antennas, how will this
impact the access point service area
frequency coordination with incumbent
licensees?
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
102. Frequency Agility and Radio
Capabilities.—The Commission seeks
comment on whether the Commission
should require point-to-multipoint FS
radios (both access points and client
devices) to be frequency agile and thus
capable of operating across the 3.7–4.2
GHz band or allow radios to be agile
over 3.7–4.2 GHz so long as the flexible
use portion of the band is locked out
and be able to accommodate any 20
megahertz channel assignment? The
Broadband Access Coalition requests
that licensed point-to-multipoint radios
(both access points and client devices)
be frequency agile and thus capable of
operating across the entire 3.7–4.2 GHz
band, and accommodate any 20
megahertz channel assignment.
Additionally, should the Commission
require that client devices be capable of
modifying channel and bandwidth
assignment when prompted by the
associated access point? Should access
points be software upgradable to
communicate with future automated
database and client devices to be
capable of following instructions from
associated access point to change
channels and bandwidth, as necessary?
The Commission seeks comment on
how such requirements might be
implemented in regulations, or whether
any such features may instead be
developed by manufacturer technical
standards and/or multi-stakeholder
interest groups.
103. Construction.—The Commission
seeks comment on the construction
deadlines and notifications that should
apply to point-to-multipoint FS
licensees in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
Should the Commission require pointto-multipoint FS licensees to build out,
within 12 months, and operate at least
one access point and at least five client
radios in licensed areas or lose
protection for the service area? If a
point-to-multipoint FS licensee fails to
meet the above requirements, should the
Commission allow links already in
service from that access point to
maintain coordinated protection on an
individual, path-by-path basis to protect
existing customers served by those
links? In addition, the Commission
encourages commenters to consider the
economic impact on consumers and
businesses in rural communities and
areas that are unserved or underserved
by current broadband providers, as well
as any economic impact on small
businesses. The Commission asks
parties to comment on this proposal,
offer alternative proposals, and discuss
the relative costs and benefits for each
proposal.
104. Additionally, § 101.141(a)(3)(ii)
requires that ‘‘traffic loading payload
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44145
shall exceed 50 percent of payload
capacity within 30 months of
licensing.’’ The Commission recognizes
that the minimum traffic loading
payload requirement in
§ 101.141(a)(3)(ii) was designed for
symmetrical traffic and that IP traffic is
often asymmetrical. Should the
Commission therefore not adopt a
requirement for point-to-multipoint FS
licensees or do parties have alternative
proposals for us to consider?
105. Equipment Access/RF
Exposure.—Section 101.131(a) requires
that ‘‘[t]he equipment at the operating
and transmitting positions must be so
installed and protected that it is not
accessible to, or capable of being
operated by, persons other than those
duly authorized by the licensee.’’ The
Broadband Access Coalition states that
client radios providing low power
point-to-multipoint services will operate
from residential premises and will not
present a radiofrequency (RF) hazard
because, when operated at full power,
the RF exposure keep-out zone for
point-to-multipoint client radios
operating at the proposed maximum
EIRP level is less than 0.6 meters (2
feet). The Commission anticipates that
client devices would likely be mounted
in such a way as to provide a good
connection back to the access point, free
from obstructions within the
transmission path, and so while such an
installation may not strictly comply
with the access restriction requirement
in the Commission’s rules, it is possible
that other regulatory examples or
analogies may apply to point-tomultipoint situations where home
subscriber devices are involved. For
example, fixed wireless licensees with
home-installed consumer equipment are
generally required to attach a label to
transceiver antennas that: (1) Provides
adequate notice regarding potential
radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g.,
information regarding the safe minimum
separation distance required between
users and transceiver antennas; and (2)
references the applicable FCC-adopted
limits for radiofrequency exposure
specified in § 1.1310. The Commission
seeks comment on whether a similar
requirement for point-to-multipoint
client devices may be a preferred
alternative to § 101.1310 of the
Commission’s rules. In addition, the
Commission seeks comment on the
possibility that there may be any other
potential use cases, such as wireless
routers or other types of devices, that
may require separate consideration for
the purposes of equipment
authorization and RF exposure
compliance. The Commission notes that
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
44146
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
all transmitters must comply with the
Commission’s exposure limits and
requirements of §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310,
2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission’s
rules, as applicable.
106. ULS Requirements.—What
technical data should point-tomultipoint FS licensees be required to
provide in ULS? The Commission notes
that the Broadband Access Coalition
requests in its petition that the
applicant’s frequency coordination
should correspond to the specific
equipment and antenna orientation the
applicant selects, and so the
Commission seeks comment on whether
at least that same information used for
frequency coordination should be
entered into the Commission’s licensing
database. At a minimum should
licensees be required to provide the
antenna gain, azimuth, polarization,
height, half-power beamwidth (azimuth
and elevation), and tilt (e.g. ¥10°) for
each access point by sector?
3. Service Rules for Flexible Use
107. The scope of the service rules
adopted herein will vary depending on
the mechanism ultimately adopted by
the Commission to expand flexible use
in the band. For convenience, the
Commission refers to this indeterminate
amount of spectrum as the Mid-Band
Flexible Use or ‘‘MBX’’ spectrum.
Assuming that the Commission
ultimately decides to add a mobile,
except aeronautical mobile, allocation
and to make some or all of the 3.7–4.2
GHz band available for flexible use, in
this section the Commission proposes or
seeks comment on band plan, licensing
and operating and technical rules for the
3.7–4.2 GHz band spectrum that
becomes available for terrestrial mobile
and fixed flexible-use. The Commission
proposes to license this spectrum under
the Commission’s flexible-use, part-27
rules that permit licensees to provide
any fixed or mobile service consistent
with the allocations for this spectrum,
subject to rules necessary to prevent or
minimize harmful interference. The
Commission seeks comment on this
approach. The Commission also seeks
comment, however, on whether there
are any services, e.g., Internet of Things,
that would not qualify under
§ 603(a)(2)(B) of the MOBILE NOW Act,
which requires the Commission to
identify 100 megahertz below 6000 MHz
for use on exclusive, licensed basis for
commercial mobile use, pursuant to the
Commission’s authority to implement
such licensing in a flexible manner?
a. Band Plan
108. Block Sizes.—The Commission
seeks comment on appropriate block
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
size to promote efficient and robust use
of the band for next generation wireless
technologies, including 5G. Currently,
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band is licensed
terrestrially by 20 megahertz channels
for fixed use. However, the current
channelization of the band should not
affect the Commission’s consideration of
alternate band plans. Therefore, the
Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate block size(s) to best
accommodate the fullest range of
terrestrial wireless services.14 Would 20
megahertz blocks be appropriate for the
wireless technologies that are likely to
be deployed in this band? Should the
Commission allow blocks to be
aggregated to provide greater capacity
where needed? Or, would licensing the
3.7–4.2 GHz band in larger block sizes
(e.g., 50–100 megahertz) better support
5G services while promoting
competition? Would a mix of channel
sizes improve efficiency and flexibility
for a wider variety of users in the band?
109. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the appropriate
block sizes should be affected by the
specific transition mechanism adopted
by the Commission. For example, if the
Commission adopts a market-based
approach, the Commission seeks
comment on allowing parties to define
block sizes in their agreements. In this
regard, would a default block size that
could be aggregated and disaggregated
help facilitate a market-based process?
Commenters should discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of their
proposals.
110. Spectrum Block Configuration.—
The Commission generally has licensed
bands that support mobile broadband
services on a paired basis but specified
the downlink and uplink bands only
when necessary to avoid harmful
interference, e.g., to Federal
incumbents. The Commission
recognizes that the 3.7–4.2 GHz
spectrum that becomes available for
flexible use could be configured in any
number of paired or unpaired modes.
The Commission therefore seeks
comment on a range of options. If the
Commission adopts an unpaired
approach, are any administrative
measures necessary to keep track of how
spectrum blocks are being used? The
Commission invites comment on what
approach to take, and the costs and
benefits of particular approaches.
Above, the Commission discusses
various mechanisms for expanding
flexible use in all or part of the band.
14 The use of 20 megahertz blocks will enable
transmission efficiencies achieved by 5G voluntary
standards, including Long-Term Evolution (‘‘LTE’’)
derivatives. Vivint Wireless Comments at 3.
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
The Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described whether
there are issues specific to this section
and their preferred approach.
111. Use of Geographic Licensing.—
Consistent with the Commission’s
approach in several other bands used to
provide fixed and mobile services, the
Commission proposes to license the
3.7–4.2 GHz MBX spectrum on an
exclusive, geographic area basis.
Geographic area licensing provides
flexibility to licensees, promotes
efficient spectrum use, and helps
facilitate rapid assignment of licenses,
utilizing competitive bidding when
necessary. The Commission seeks
comment on this approach, including
the costs and benefits of adopting a
geographic area licensing scheme. In the
event that a party does not support
using geographic licensing, it should
explain its position, describe what type
of licensing scheme it supports and
identify the costs and benefits
associated with its alternative licensing
proposal.
112. Service Areas.—The Commission
seeks comment on the appropriate
service areas for any flexible use
licenses. In determining the appropriate
geographic license size, the Commission
must consider several factors, including:
(1) Facilitating access to spectrum by
both small and large providers; (2)
providing for the efficient use of
spectrum; (3) encouraging deployment
of wireless broadband services to
consumers, especially those in rural
areas and Tribal lands; and (4)
promoting investment in and rapid
deployment of new technologies and
services. In light of these statutory
considerations, the Commission asks
commenters to discuss and quantify the
economic, technical, and other public
interest considerations of licensing on a
PEA, county, nationwide, or other basis.
The Commission asks commenters to
address the costs and benefits of their
recommended licensing approach.
113. The Commission also seeks
comment on a licensing approach for
the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS–1, AWS–3,
AWS–4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for
the Gulf of Mexico. In the Upper 700
MHz band, however, the Commission
included the Gulf of Mexico in larger
service areas. Commenters who
advocate a separate service area or areas
to cover the Gulf of Mexico should
discuss what boundaries should be
used, and whether special interference
protection criteria or performance
requirements are necessary due to the
unique radio propagation characteristics
and antenna siting challenges that exist
for Gulf licensees.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
114. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the service areas
should be affected by the specific
transition mechanism adopted by the
Commission. For example, if the
Commission adopts a market-based
approach, the Commission seeks
comment on allowing parties to define
service areas in their agreements. In this
regard, would a default service-area size
smaller than the contiguous 48 states
that could be aggregated and
disaggregated help facilitate a marketbased process? If the Commission
adopts an overlay auction, the
Commission seeks comment on issuing
a single nationwide license, or
alternatively issuing licenses for five
regions: (1) The contiguous 48 states
and the Gulf of Mexico, (2) Alaska, (3)
Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and (5) Guam, the
Northern Mariana Islands, and
American Samoa. Commenters should
discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits of their proposals.
115. The Commission also seeks
comment on a licensing approach for
the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS–1, AWS–3,
AWS–4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for
the Gulf of Mexico. In the Upper 700
MHz band, however, the Commission
included the Gulf of Mexico in larger
service areas. Commenters who
advocate a separate service area or areas
to cover the Gulf of Mexico should
discuss what boundaries should be
used, and whether special interference
protection criteria or performance
requirements are necessary due to the
unique radio propagation characteristics
and antenna siting challenges that exist
for Gulf licensees.
b. Licensing and Operating Rules
116. The Commission seeks to afford
licensees the flexibility to align licenses
in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band with licenses
in other spectrum bands governed by
Part 27 of the Commission’s rules. The
Commission therefore proposes that
licensees in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
comply with licensing and operating
rules that are applicable to all Part 27
services, including assignment of
licenses by competitive bidding, flexible
use, regulatory status, foreign ownership
reporting, compliance with construction
requirements, renewal criteria,
permanent discontinuance of
operations, partitioning and
disaggregation, and spectrum leasing.
The Commission seeks comment on this
approach and ask commenters to
identify any aspects of the
Commission’s general Part 27 service
rules that should be modified to
accommodate the particular
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
characteristics of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
The Commission asks proponents of the
various mechanisms described above
whether there are issues specific to this
section and their preferred approach.
117. In addition, the Commission
seeks comment on service-specific rules
for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, including
eligibility, mobile spectrum holdings
policies, license term, performance
requirements, renewal term
construction obligations, and other
licensing and operating rules. In
addressing these issues, commenters
should discuss the costs and benefits
associated with these proposals and any
alternatives that commenters propose.
118. Eligibility.—Consistent with
established Commission practice, the
Commission proposes to adopt an open
eligibility standard for licenses in the
3.7–4.2 GHz band. The Commission
seeks comment on this approach.
Specifically, the Commission seeks
comment on whether adopting an open
eligibility standard for the licensing of
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band would encourage
efforts to develop new technologies,
products, and services, while helping to
ensure efficient use of this spectrum.
The Commission notes that an open
eligibility approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally
applicable qualifications that may apply
under the Commission’s rules.
Commenters should discuss the costs
and benefits of the open eligibility
proposal on competition, innovation,
and investment. Above, the Commission
discusses various mechanisms for
expanding flexible use in all or part of
the band. The Commission asks
proponents of the various approaches
described above whether there are
issues specific to this section and their
preferred approach. Finally, a person
who has been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or
receiving a grant is ineligible to hold a
license that is required by 47 U.S.C.
Chapter 13 (the Spectrum Act) to be
assigned by a system of competitive
bidding under § 309(j) of the
Communications Act. In the event that
the Commission assigns licenses
through competitive bidding, the
Commission proposes to apply this
ineligibility provision to the 3.7–4.2
GHz band.
119. Mobile Spectrum Holdings.—
Spectrum is an essential input for the
provision of mobile wireless services,
and to implement provisions of the
Communications Act, the Commission
has developed policies to ensure that
spectrum is assigned in a manner that
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44147
promotes competition, innovation, and
efficient use.
120. The Commission seeks comment
generally on whether and how to
address any mobile spectrum holdings
issues involving 3.7–4.2 GHz spectrum
to meet the Commission’s statutory
requirements and ensure competitive
access to the band. Similar to the
Commission’s approach in the 2017
Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM,
the Commission proposes not to adopt
a pre-auction bright-line limit on the
ability of any entity to acquire spectrum
in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band through
competitive bidding at auction. Since
such pre-auction limits may
unnecessarily restrict the ability of
entities to participate in and acquire
spectrum in an auction, the Commission
is not inclined to adopt such limits
absent a clear indication that they are
necessary to address a specific
competitive concern, and the
Commission seeks comment on any
specific concerns of this type.
121. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether this band should
be included in the Commission’s
spectrum screen, which helps to
identify markets that may warrant
further competitive analysis, for
evaluating proposed secondary market
transactions. If the Commission does
determine that an auction is
appropriate, the Commission seeks
comment on reviewing holdings on a
case-by-case basis when applications for
initial licenses are filed post-auction to
ensure that the public interest benefits
of having a threshold on spectrum
applicable to secondary market
transactions are not rendered
ineffective. The Commission seeks
comment on whether and how the
similarity of this spectrum to spectrum
currently included in the screen should
be factored into the Commission’s
analysis, including the suitability of
3.7–4.2 GHz spectrum for use in the
provision of mobile telephony or
broadband services. Commenters should
discuss and quantify any costs and
benefits associated with any proposals
on the applicability of mobile spectrum
holdings policies to 3.7–4.2 GHz
spectrum. The Commission discusses
above various mechanisms for
expanding flexible use in all or part of
the band. The Commission asks
proponents of the various approaches
described above whether there are
issues specific to this section and their
preferred approach. For example,
should the Commission impose limits
on the amount of spectrum acquired by
one party through a market-based
mechanism?
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44148
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
122. License term.—The Commission
seeks comment on a 15-year term for
licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.15 The
Commission believes that 15 years will
afford licensees sufficient time to
achieve this significant buildout
obligation. The Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of
this proposal. In addition, the
Commission invites commenters to
submit alternate proposals for the
appropriate license term, which should
similarly include a discussion on the
costs and benefits.
123. Performance requirements.—The
Commission establishes performance
requirements to ensure that spectrum is
intensely and efficiently utilized. The
Commission has applied different
performance and construction
requirements to different spectrum
bands based on considerations relevant
to those bands. The Commission
continues to believe that performance
requirements play a critical role in
ensuring that licensed spectrum does
not lie fallow.
124. Accordingly, considering the
unique characteristics of this band, and
to ensure that licensees begin providing
service to consumers in a timely
manner, the Commission seeks
comment on adopting specific
quantifiable benchmarks as an
important component of its performance
requirements. The Commission seeks
comment on requiring a 3.7–4.2 GHz
band licensee, relying on mobile or
point-to-multipoint service in
accordance with the Commission’s part
27 rules, to provide reliable signal
coverage and offer service to at least
forty-five (45) percent of the population
in each of its license areas within six
years of the license issue date (first
performance benchmark), and to at least
eighty (80) percent of the population in
each of its license areas within 12 years
from the license issue date (second
performance benchmark). For licensees
relying on point-to-point service, the
Commission seeks comment on
requiring them to demonstrate within
six years of the license issue date (first
performance benchmark) that they have
four links operating and providing
service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within
the license area is equal to or less than
268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the
Commission seeks comment on
requiring a licensee relying on point-topoint service to demonstrate it has at
15 The Communications Act does not specify a
term limit for wireless radio services licenses. The
only statutory limit on license terms is eight years
for licenses in the broadcast services. See 47 U.S.C.
307(c)(1); see also 47 CFR 73.1020(a).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
least one link in operation and
providing service per every 67,000
persons within a license area. The
Commission seeks comment on
requiring licensees relying on point-topoint service to demonstrate within 12
years of the license issue date (final
performance benchmark) that they have
eight links operating and providing
service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within
the license area is equal to or less than
268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the
Commission seeks comment on
requiring a licensee relying on point-topoint service to demonstrate it is
providing service and has at least two
links in operation per every 67,000
persons within a license area. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
in order to be eligible to be counted
under the point-to-point buildout
standard, a point-to-point link must
operate with a transmit power greater
than + 43 dBm.16
125. The Commission believes that 12
years will provide sufficient time for
any 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee to meet the
proposed coverage requirements. The
Commission anticipates that after
satisfying the 12-year second
performance benchmark, a licensee will
continue to provide reliable signal
coverage, or point-to-point links, as
applicable, and offer service at or above
that level for the remaining three years
in the proposed 15-year license term
prior to renewal. Establishing
benchmarks before the end of the
license term will ensure continuity of
service over the license term, which is
essential to the Commission’s
evaluation under the Commission’s
renewal standards.
126. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the proposals
discussed above represent the
appropriate balance between licenseterm length and a significant final
buildout requirement. The Commission
seeks comment on the proposed
buildout requirements and any potential
alternatives. The Commission, for
example, seeks comment on alternative
methodologies for measuring population
16 In Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission defined
a ‘‘fixed point-to-point link’’ as ‘‘a radio
transmission between point-to-point stations (as
already defined in part 30), where transmit power
exceeds + 43 dBm.’’ Under this definition, stations
or devices transmitting using lower power levels
will not count towards the number of fixed links
required under the performance metric. Licensees
whose networks include such low-power
connections may rely on another part of their
network to demonstrate buildout (e.g., mobile area
coverage or higher-power fixed backhaul links). See
2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, 32
FCC Rcd at 11008–09, paragraph 66 through 68.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
coverage requirements in the Gulf of
Mexico. Above, the Commission
discusses various mechanisms for
expanding flexible use in all or part of
the band. The Commission asks
proponents of the various approaches
described above whether there are
issues specific to this section and their
preferred approach. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether small
entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to buildout
requirements such that they would
require certain accommodations or
additional time to comply. Finally,
commenters should discuss and
quantify how any supported buildout
requirements will affect investment and
innovation, as well as discuss and
quantify other costs and benefits
associated with the proposal.
127. Internet of Things (IoT)
Performance Requirements.—While the
Commission proposes performance
benchmarks based on population
coverage applicable for a range of fixed
and mobile services, the Commission
recognizes that 3.7–4.2 GHz licenses
have flexibility to provide services
potentially less suited to a population
coverage metric. In particular, licensees
providing IoT-type fixed and mobile
services may benefit from an alternative
performance benchmark metric, and the
Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate metric to accommodate
such service offerings. As the
Commission did in Spectrum Frontiers,
the Commission acknowledges that
some IoT-type services may have
difficulty meeting the population-based
metrics that the Commission proposes
for fixed and mobile services. In
Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission
modified its existing part 30 rules to
adopt a specific definition of ‘‘fixed
point-to-point link,’’ which includes the
use of point-to-point stations as already
defined in part 30 and is based on
power level. This definition is intended
to separate ‘‘traditional’’ point-to-point
links from the sensor and device
connections the Commission anticipates
will be part of new Internet of Things
networks in these bands. This definition
applies to a network of fixed sensors or
smart devices operating at low power
over short distances. The Commission
seeks comment on applying the same
framework here and invite commenters
to suggest new metrics that will
accommodate innovative services in
mid-band spectrum. The Commission
also seeks comment on how relatively
lower power point-to-point operations
at or below a transmit power of + 43
dBm should be required to meet the
buildout rules for 3.7–4.2 GHz licensees.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
128. The Commission seeks
additional comment on what metric it
should adopt to accommodate IoT
services, while recognizing the
difficulty of crafting an IoT-specific
metric, especially while the relevant
technologies and use cases are still
being developed. For example, a
performance metric based on geographic
area coverage (or presence) could allow
for networks that provide meaningful
service but deploy along lines other
than residential population. Consistent
with the Commission’s approach above
seeking comment on a first and second
performance benchmark, the
Commission seeks comment on the
following metrics as an option for MBXspectrum licensees to fulfill their
buildout requirements: geographic area
coverage of 35 percent of the license
area at the first (six-year) performance
benchmark, and geographic area
coverage of 65 percent of the license
area at the second (12-year) performance
benchmark. The Commission also seeks
comment on an alternative requirement
of presence in 35 percent of subset units
of the license area, such as census tracts,
counties, or some other area at the first
performance benchmark, and presence
in 65 percent of subset units at the
second benchmark. A standard
requiring presence in subset units of a
license area could accommodate
deployments, such as sensor networks,
that are not designed to provide mobile
or point-to-multipoint area coverage,
and for whom calculating ‘‘coverage of
65 percent of the area’’ would therefore
not be a meaningful standard. Licensees
would demonstrate compliance with
this metric through a showing of the
equipment or deployments that are part
of a network that is actually providing
service, either to external customers or
for internal uses.
129. The Commission suggests these
levels of geographic coverage as an
attempt to maintain parity between the
requirements in these metrics and the
requirements of its earlier proposal
based on population coverage.17 The
Commission seeks comment on these
coverage levels, including any
suggestions of alternative levels of
coverage that might be more
appropriate. The Commission also
emphasizes that any metric it adopts to
accommodate IoT services would, like
the population coverage and fixed link
metrics ultimately adopted, be available
17 In most license areas, the residential
population is unevenly distributed. In those areas,
building a network covering 65% of the geographic
area would require more intensive deployment than
one covering 65% of the population, suggesting that
a lower percent coverage requirement for
geographic area could be appropriate.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
to any MBX-spectrum licensee. While
the Commission suggests an additional
metric in order to facilitate the
deployment of IoT and other innovative
services, there would be no requirement
that a licensee build a particular type of
network or provide a particular type of
service in order to use whatever metric
the Commission ultimately adopts.
Above, the Commission discusses
various mechanisms for expanding
flexible use in all or part of the band.
The Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described above
whether there are issues specific to this
section and their preferred approach.
The Commission strongly encourages
stakeholders to fully develop a record
on this issue.
130. Penalty for Failure to Meet
Performance Requirements.—Along
with performance benchmarks, the
Commission seeks to adopt meaningful
and enforceable penalties for failing to
meet the benchmarks. The Commission
seeks comment on which penalties will
most effectively ensure timely build-out.
Specifically, the Commission proposes
that, in the event a 3.7–4.2 GHz MHz
licensee fails to meet the first
performance benchmark, the licensee’s
second benchmark and license term
would be reduced by two years, thereby
requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years
sooner (at 10 years into the license term)
and reducing its license term to 13
years. The Commission further proposes
that, in the event a 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee
fails to meet the second performance
benchmark for a particular license area,
its authorization for each license area in
which it fails to meet the performance
requirement shall terminate
automatically without Commission
action.
131. The Commission proposes that,
in the event a licensee’s authority to
operate terminates, the licensee’s
spectrum rights would become available
for reassignment pursuant to the
competitive bidding provisions of
§ 309(j). Further, consistent with the
Commission’s rules for other licenses,
including AWS–1, AWS–3, AWS–4 and
H Block, the Commission proposes that
any 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits
its license for failure to meet its
performance requirements would be
precluded from regaining the license.
132. Compliance Procedures.—In
addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all Part 27 licensees,
including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting
documentation, the Commission
proposes that such electronic coverage
maps must accurately depict the
boundaries of each license area in the
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44149
licensee’s service territory. If a licensee
does not provide reliable signal
coverage to an entire license area, the
Commission proposes that its map must
accurately depict the boundaries of the
area or areas within each license area
not being served. Further, the
Commission proposes that each licensee
also must file supporting documentation
certifying the type of service it is
providing for each licensed area within
its service territory and the type of
technology used to provide such
service. Supporting documentation
must include the assumptions used to
create the coverage maps, including the
propagation model and the signal
strength necessary to provide reliable
service with the licensee’s technology.
The Commission seeks comment on the
Commission’s proposal. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether small entities face any special
or unique issues with respect to the
transition such that they would require
additional time to comply.
133. Renewal Term Construction
Obligation.—In addition to, and
independent of, the general renewal
requirements contained in § 1.949 of the
Commission’s rules, which apply to all
Wireless Radio Services (WRS)
licensees, the Commission also seeks
comment on application of specific
renewal term construction obligations to
3.7–4.2 GHz licensees.
134. The WRS Renewal Reform
FNPRM proposed to apply rules
adopted in that proceeding to all
flexible geographic licenses. Given the
Commission’s proposal to license this
band on a geographic basis for flexible
use, any additional renewal term
construction obligations proposed in the
WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also
would apply to licenses in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band. The Commission seeks
comment on whether there are unique
characteristics of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
that might require a different approach
than the various proposals raised by the
WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM. For
example, while the vast majority of
existing wireless radio services have 10year license terms, here the Commission
seeks comment on a 15-year license
term for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. Do any
of the Commission’s proposals for this
band, such as potentially longer license
terms, necessitate a more tailored
approach than the rules of general
applicability proposed in the WRS
Renewal Reform FNPRM? For instance,
should the Commission requires
buildout to 85 percent of the population
by the end of second license term?
Commenters advocating rules specific to
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band should address
the costs and benefits of their proposed
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44150
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
rules and discuss how a given proposal
will encourage investment and
deployment in areas that might not
otherwise benefit from significant
wireless coverage. Above, the
Commission discusses various
mechanisms for expanding flexible use
in all or part of the band. The
Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described above
whether there are issues specific to this
section and their preferred approach.
The Commission seeks comment on
whether to require an applicant
deploying IoT applications in the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band to exceed its original
construction metric by an additional
five percent in its next full renewal
term.
135. Competitive Bidding
Procedures.— The Commission seeks
comment above on the types of licenses
for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that would
best serve the public interest. In the
event that the Commission accepts
mutually exclusive applications for
licenses in the band, the Commission
will grant the licenses through a system
of competitive bidding, consistent with
the Commission’s statutory mandate.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks
comment on a number of proposals
relating to competitive bidding for
licenses for spectrum in this band,
including the costs and benefits of those
proposals.
136. Consistent with the competitive
bidding procedures the Commission has
used in previous auctions, the
Commission proposes that the
Commission would conduct any auction
for licenses for spectrum in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band in conformity with the
general competitive bidding rules set
forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the
Commission’s rules. Specifically, the
Commission proposes to employ the
part 1 rules governing competitive
bidding design, designated entity
preferences, unjust enrichment,
application and certification
procedures, payment procedures,
reporting requirements, and the
prohibition on certain communications
between auction applicants. Under this
proposal, such rules would be subject to
any modifications that the Commission
may adopt for its part 1 general
competitive bidding rules in the future.
In this NPRM, the Commission seeks
comment on general application of the
part 1 competitive bidding rules to any
auction of 3.7–4.2 GHz licenses. The
Commission also seeks comment on
whether any of the Commission’s part 1
rules would be inappropriate or should
be modified for an auction of licenses in
this frequency band. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
following proposals for bidding credits
for designated entities in this band. As
with other flexible use licenses in recent
years, the Commission proposes in this
band to adopt bidding credits for the
two larger designated entity business
sizes provided in the part 1 rules. The
Commission also proposes to offer rural
service providers a designated entity
bidding credit for licenses in this band.
Commenters addressing these proposals
should consider what details of licenses
in the band may affect whether
designated entities will apply for them.
The Commission seeks comment on
new or revised rules that would be
necessary to implement an incentive
auction if the Commission adopted that
approach. Would a tailored version of
the rules adopted for the reverse auction
portion of the broadcast incentive
auction be appropriate?
c. Technical Rules
137. Power Limits for Fixed and Base
Stations.—The current rules for AWS–1,
AWS–3 and AWS–4 limit base station
power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts
EIRP for emission bandwidths less than
one megahertz and to 1640 watts per
MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths
greater than one megahertz and they
double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or
3280 watts/MHz) in rural areas. The
same limits apply to broadband PCS
stations. There are a few services that
have a power limit of 2000 Watts per
MHz, most notably, the recent 600 MHz
band. In the Commission’s experience
the AWS limits have provided good
service while avoiding harmful
interference. Further, the higher power
limit for rural areas may promote the
Commission’s goals of furthering rural
deployment of broadband services.
Therefore, the Commission proposes to
extend § 27.50(d)(1)–(2) to apply to both
fixed and base stations in the 3.7–4.2
GHz MBX-spectrum. Thus, the power
limits are proposed to be 1640 watts
EIRP for emission bandwidths less than
one megahertz and to 1640 watts per
MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths
greater than one megahertz. For
operation in rural areas, defined as any
county with population density of 100
or fewer persons per square mile, based
upon the most recently available
population statistics from the Bureau of
the Census, the power limits are
proposed to be 3280 watts EIRP for
emission bandwidths less than one
megahertz and to 3280 watts per MHz
EIRP for emission bandwidths greater
than one megahertz. These power limits
apply to the sum of the power of all
antenna elements of the fixed or base
station. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. Are the
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
power levels the Commission proposes
sufficient to provide robust mobile
broadband service as well as being
practical and realistic in this particular
spectrum? Alternatively, would the
proposed power levels need to be
reduced to avoid the blocking of
receivers operating in the adjacent
Citizen’s Broadband Radio Service at
3.5–3.7 GHz? The Commission invites
commenters who propose alternative
solutions to provide specific technical
details and thorough analysis to support
their proposals.
138. It is anticipated that this new
band may be able to accommodate much
wider channel bandwidths than in the
past. Current plans for 5G deployments
are capable of channel bandwidths of as
much as 100 MHz at frequencies below
6 GHz. There is some concern regarding
the total power of a wide bandwidth
channel when the power limit is
specified as a power density level.
Should the Commission propose a limit
on the total power of a base station in
order to relieve potential blocking? One
possible solution is that the total power
of a base station should be limited to 75
dBm EIRP, summed over all antenna
elements, for fixed and base stations.
The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal.
139. The Commission notes that the
power limit for most AWS services is
specified based on an RMS-equivalent
or average power measurement. This
power measurement methodology is
preferred for advanced digital
modulation schemes that could create
very short duration power spikes, while
the overall power remains low. There
are a few services whose power limit is
specified based on a peak power
measurement. The Commission
proposes that the power limit be based
on the average power measurement and
seek comment on this proposal.
140. Power Limits for Mobiles and
Portables.—The Commission proposes
to limit the power of mobiles and
portables in the 3.7–4.2 GHz MBX
spectrum to 1 Watt (30 dBm). While
power limits for flexible use mobile
services vary in the Commission’s rules
(e.g., 50 milliwatts per MHz EIRP for
WCS, 2 Watts EIRP for PCS, 3 Watts ERP
in the 600 MHz band, 1 Watt EIRP for
the AWS–1 and AWS–3 uplink bands,
and 2 Watts EIRP for the AWS–4 uplink
band); most device operate at levels
under 1 Watt to preserve battery life,
meet exposure limits and meet power
control requirements. The limit the
Commission proposes falls within a
range of values typically seen in AWS
services, and should provide adequate
power for the 5G mobile applications
envisioned for the MBX spectrum
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
considering the similarity in
propagation characteristics for the MBXspectrum band and AWS bands. Indeed,
most commercial services, including
LTE, CDMA and UMTS, commonly
deploy mobile devices which operate at
a maximum output power of 23 dBm
(200 milliwatts), regardless of higher
FCC power limits. However, there are a
few new power class II LTE devices
being developed with slightly higher
output power of 26 dBm. Similar
devices are expected for the new 5G
standard as well. This development
warrants continued flexibility in the
rules to allow for a wider range of
devices types. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. The
Commission further proposes that
mobile and portable stations operating
in these bands must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum
necessary for successful
communications.
141. Out of Band Emissions Limits.—
The limits the Commission sets on out
of band emissions are important to
protecting services in adjacent bands.
This band is adjacent to the 3.5 GHz
Citizens Broadband Radio Service and
will also be adjacent to any service that
remains in a portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz
FSS band after the Commission adopts
and completes a transition plan. The
Commission proposes that out of band
emissions be kept to a level that will
provide protection to incumbent
services in adjacent bands, while
allowing the full use of the new band.
The Commission proposes to apply the
longstanding limit on out of band
emissions of ¥13 dBm/MHz at the
authorized channel edge as measured at
the antenna terminals. This out of band
emission level has been used
successfully to protect adjacent
operations from harmful interference in
several AWS bands. The Commission
seeks comment on this proposal and
whether to apply more stringent out of
band emission limits beyond the band
edge, as described below.
142. The out of band emission limits
that the Commission adopts for the
MBX spectrum will depend on the
characteristics of the services likely to
be deployed in the MBX spectrum and
the coexistence needs of services in the
adjacent bands. Notably, to ensure
effective coexistence with adjacent band
services, it may be necessary to adopt
more stringent out of band emission
limits beyond the edges of the band. For
example, in the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service, the Commission limits
out of band emission to ¥25 dBm/MHz
at or beyond 10 megahertz outside of the
band edge and ¥40 dBm/MHz at or
beyond 20 megahertz outside of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
band edge. The Commission seeks
comment on the out of band emission
limits that will be needed to facilitate
widespread deployment of next
generation wireless services in the MBX
spectrum while ensuring effective
coexistence with the services operating
in the adjacent bands. Commenters
should analyze the costs and benefits of
different options and provide detailed
technical analysis in support of their
proposals.
143. To fully define an emissions
limit, the Commission’s rules generally
specify details on how to measure the
power of the emissions, such as the
resolution bandwidth. For most AWS
bands, the resolution bandwidth used to
determine compliance with this limit
for base stations is one megahertz or
greater, except that within one
megahertz of the channel edge where a
resolution bandwidth of at least one
percent of the emission bandwidth of
the fundamental emission of the
transmitter may be employed. Rather
than allow use of a bandwidth
dependent resolution bandwidth near
the channel edge, the Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules
under Part 30 instead specify use of a
one megahertz resolution bandwidth but
allow an out of band emission limit of
¥5 dBm per megahertz from the
channel edge out to 10 percent of the
channel. Considering that the MBX
spectrum, like UMFUS, will likely
employ much larger signal bandwidths
than AWS, should the MBX spectrum
rules adopt the AWS approach to
defining the resolution bandwidth or
follow the UMFUS approach?
144. Finally, should the same out of
band emission limits apply to both base
stations and mobile handsets? While the
Commission finds that mobile handsets
can meet the out of band emission limit
the Commission has proposed, they also
operate at lower power levels and their
size could restrict the implementation of
more stringent emission limits that
would require nonstandard filtering.
However, base station equipment may
have more flexibility to implement more
stringent filters if necessary to protect
adjacent services. The Commission
seeks comment on all aspects of the
emission limits for mobile and portable
devices as part of the discussion above.
145. Coexistence with FSS Operations
Above the MBX Spectrum.—The
Commission seeks comment on whether
additional technical protection criteria,
beyond out of band emission limits, are
necessary to ensure effective
coexistence with adjacent band FSS
operations. As discussed above, several
of the transition mechanisms under
consideration could make available a
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44151
portion of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
available for flexible use, while allowing
continued widespread FSS operations
in adjacent portions of the band. For
example, under the proposal submitted
by Intelsat and SES, the 3700–3800 MHz
portion of the band would be initially
cleared for flexible use along with an
additional 40 to 60 megahertz of guard
band adjacent to and above it. As part
of the clearing process, Intelsat and SES
have proposed to install a filter or
replace the Low Noise Block converter
(LNB) in every earth station so as to
prevent 5G transmission in the 3700–
3800 MHz from saturating the LNB of
the earth stations. Intelsat and SES state
that they are working with
manufacturers to define the desired
filter characteristics such as the
rejection, roll-off, and insertion loss, but
have not provided any specific
numbers. The Commission seeks
comment on whether such additional
requirements are necessary to ensure
coexistence with adjacent band
operations.
146. In general, the width of the guard
band and roll-off of the filter determine
the amount of out-of-band rejection
provided to a receiver. The Commission
seeks comment on the earth station
receiver protection criteria, necessary
rejection performance from the external
filter, and amount of spectrum it
requires for the filter roll off. Should the
protection limit of the FSS earth stations
be based solely on interference-to-noise
ratio (I/N) regardless of the actual FSS
carrier power and/or earth station
configuration? Should the Commission
establish a baseline FSS earth station
configuration (antenna, LNB, receiver)
for any interference and protection
assumptions? Given the signal strength
differential between the terrestrial and
satellite systems, can terrestrial wireless
base or mobile stations cause saturation
of the LNB of FSS earth stations? Could
an external filter be tunable across
3700–4200 MHz band? Will there be a
minimum distance separation required
between MBX transmitters and earth
station receivers? What are the tradeoffs
among filter performance, required
guard band, level of protection, and cost
of such filter? The Commission requests
commenters to provide details of
assumptions and analysis including
MBX transmit power level, earth station
protection limit, propagation model,
antenna aperture and off-axis isolation.
147. Alternatively, should the
Commission define the MBX transmit
power limit, out of band emission
limits, and guard band and allow the
satellite service providers to determine
how to protect the earth station
receivers? The Commission typically
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44152
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
does not specify receiver performance,
and there are many variables that
contribute to the receiver blocking
performance from strong transmit
signals in an adjacent band, including
external filter, low-noise amplifier
(LNA), mixer and other RF components,
and digital signal processing in the
baseband. Given the current design and
operation of the earth stations, each
earth station receiver may be impacted
differently for a given MBX transmit
power. Therefore, it may be more
practical for satellite service providers
to determine how to protect the earth
station receivers given the allowed
transmit power level and out of band
emission limits. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal.
148. The guard band used for receiver
filter rejection can also be used to
enhance the out of band emission
performance of MBX transmitters. The
Commission seeks comment on the out
of band emission limit necessary at the
upper end of guard band in order to
ensure coexistence with earth station
receivers. Does this out of band
emission limit allow ubiquitous
operation of base stations and mobile
stations or does it require a minimum
distance separation from earth station
receivers? The Commission requests
commenters to include proposed out of
band emission at the upper end of guard
band, propagation model, antenna gains
and off-axis isolation between MBX
transmitters and earth station receivers
in their analysis. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether this guard
band could be used for other purposes
such as coordinated fixed point-tomultipoint operations, a low power
wireless broadband system, indoor-only
system, or unlicensed use.
149. Coexistence with FSS Operations
in the MBX Spectrum. There may be
some FSS earth stations operating cochannel with MBX, depending on the
mechanisms of expanding flexible use
as described above. The Commission
seeks comment on the coexistence
challenges between terrestrial mobile
services and the FSS earth stations that
may remain in the cleared spectrum and
on any specific rules that should be
adopted to ensure effective coexistence
between these services. In other bands,
the Commission has adopted exclusion
or coordination zones to protect cochannel FSS earth stations from harmful
interference. Would exclusion zones or
coordination zones be appropriate to
protect any existing FSS earth stations
in the MBX spectrum? If so, how should
the size of the exclusion zone or
coordination zone be determined?
Should the Commission instead specify
interference protection limits that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
terrestrial systems must meet to protect
the earth stations? Such protection
limits could take the form, for example,
of an interference-to-noise ratio (I/N),
carrier to interference-plus-noise ratio
(C/I+N),18 or a power density at the FSS
receiver. If so, how would such a
protection limit be modeled and
enforced? In applying a protection limit,
exclusion zone, or coordination zone,
how should the aggregate interference
from multiple base stations and
associated mobile devices from the
different MBX licensees be taken into
account? Should the Commission
require that earth stations remaining in
the band be moved to less populated
areas or can RF shielding of earth
stations be employed to reduce the size
of exclusion or coordination zones?
150. Coexistence with FSS Operation
Below 3700 MHz.—There are 120 FSS
earth stations that are authorized in the
3600–3700 MHz band. Yet, unlike FSS
earth stations operating above 3800
MHz, Intelsat and SES have not
proposed any particular means of
protecting these earth stations against
interference. Given that there will be no
guard band to help prevent interference
in this band, should operators of these
stations be included in any transition
mechanisms, including possible
relocation to transponders above the
MBX spectrum? How should these earth
stations be treated during any transition
process that is adopted for the MBX
spectrum? If an earth station continues
to receive signals below 3700 MHz,
could the receiver be modified to
protect the LNB from the MBX
transmitters (e.g., by adding a filter)?
The Commission seeks comment on
alternative means for mitigating
interference to protect any continued
FSS downlink operation below 3700
MHz.
151. The Commission seeks comment
and quantitative analysis to demonstrate
if the proposed MBX spectrum power
and emission limits are sufficient,
without additional mitigation methods,
to protect any FSS earth station
operation below 3700 MHz. The
Commission expects that a minimum
propagation loss plus additional
attenuation would be required to protect
FSS earth stations below 3700 MHz,
depending on the separation distance
between FSS and MBX-spectrum
transmitters, the RF propagation
environment, and FSS antenna (gain)
orientation. Would exclusion zones or
coordination zones be required around
the earth stations?
18 The carrier power is the power received by the
earth station from the satellite.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
152. The Commission seeks comment
on the achievable RF shielding around
the FSS earth stations and the cost
thereof. Would using RF shielding be
sufficient to protect FSS earth stations
below 3700 MHz? In addition, or
alternatively, would it be possible for
the MBX spectrum licensees to engineer
around the FSS antenna sites, such that
the predicted propagation loss and
additional attenuation of base/mobile
emissions (fundamental power and out
of band emission) would be sufficient to
ensure that co-channel/out of band
emission and blocking FSS thresholds
were not exceeded?
153. Coexistence with Telemetry,
Tracking, and Command.—FSS Earth
stations that are used for telemetry,
tracking and command of satellites have
assignments near 3700 MHz, 3950 MHz,
and 4200 MHz. These telemetry,
tracking and command licenses may list
widely varying bandwidths in IBFS.
Most assignments are no more than 1–
2 megahertz wide; however, others are
less specific, and are recorded across the
entire passband of the earth station
receiver (i.e., 3625–4200 MHz). Since
there are a limited number of telemetry,
tracking and command earth stations,
should the Commission consider
protection on a case-by-case basis
through coordination between MBXspectrum licensees and FSS earth
station operators? What are the
appropriate coexistence criteria for
telemetry, tracking and command
receivers 19 and do they differ from
other earth station receivers? What
interference mitigation techniques could
be used to protect telemetry, tracking
and command earth stations? For
example, could RF shielding effectively
reduce the interference to the telemetry,
tracking and command earth stations?
The Commission also seeks comment on
whether telemetry, tracking and
command earth stations located in or
near densely populated areas could be
relocated to more remote locations and,
if so, how much such relocations would
cost. Because telemetry, tracking and
command transmissions are a function
of satellite design and cannot be
changed following launch, the
Commission recognizes that earth
stations receiving telemetry, tracking
and command transmissions in the
19 The Commission has adopted specific rules to
protect TT&C earth stations that operate in in and
adjacent to the 3.55–3.7 GHz band. These rules
require that the aggregate passband RF power
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter
and antenna at the location of a TT&C FSS earth
station produced by all Citizens Broadband Service
Devices within 40km of the earth station shall not
exceed a median RMS value of ¥129 dBm/MHz.
See 47 CFR 96.17.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
MBX spectrum will require protection
for the lifetime of the satellite. The
Commission seeks comment on if
protection of these operations would
require a different approach depending
on whether telemetry, tracking and
command earth stations are within or
outside of the MBX spectrum.
154. Coexistence with Citizens
Broadband Radio Service Operations in
the 3550–3700 MHz Band.—The
Commission seeks comment on the
compatibility between Citizens
Broadband Radio Service and MBX
systems, including the suitability of the
out of band emission limit proposed
above.20 One concern about deploying a
robust mobile broadband service
adjacent to the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service arises from the relatively
higher power limits proposed above.
One possibility for preventing
interference between the services would
be to impose adjacent channel power
limits that could limit the differential
between power levels for adjacent
stations operating in the same area.
Such a limit would be specified as a
ratio between the total power in the
channels immediately adjacent to an
MBX-spectrum station to the total
power in the MBX-spectrum station’s
emission bandwidth. Should the
Commission specify such a ratio for
MBX-spectrum devices, and if so, what
limit would be appropriate?
155. Field Strength Limit and Market
Boundaries.—If the Commission
ultimately decide to license the MBX
spectrum based on geographic service
areas that are less than nationwide, the
Commission will have to ensure that
such licensees do not cause interference
to co-channel systems operating along
common geographic borders. The
current rules for AWS–1, AWS–3 and
AWS–4 address the possibility of
harmful co-channel interference
between geographically adjacent
licenses by setting a field strength limit
from base stations of 47 dBmV/m at the
edge of the license area. In the 600 MHz
band, the Commission adopted a field
strength limit of 40 dBmV/m. In the
UMFUS rules, the Commission adopted
20 In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the
Commission has adopted out-of-channel emission
limits of ¥13 dBm/MHz starting at the channel
edges and ¥25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz of
the channel edges. Additionally, the Commission
adopted an out of band emission limit of ¥40 dBm/
MHz beyond 20 megahertz of the 3.5 GHz band
edges. 47 CFR 96.41(e). The Commission is
currently considering proposals to change the
emission limits based on claims that more relaxed
limits are necessary to facilitate wider channels in
the 3.5 GHz band. See Promoting Investment in the
3550–3700 MHz Band, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order Terminating Petitions, 32
FCC Rcd 8071, 8089–8092 paragraph. 50 through 58
(2017).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
a limit of ¥76 dBm/m2/MHz at a height
of 1.5 meters above ground at the border
of a licensee’s service area.
156. The 47 dBmV/m limit that has
been used in the AWS rules was
developed at a time when signal
bandwidths were much smaller than are
likely to be used in the MBX spectrum.
Furthermore, the 47 dBmV/m limit did
not have an associated bandwidth. In
the H Block proceeding, Sprint
requested that the Commission modify
the boundary limit to set a reference
measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, with
the aim of limiting boundary power
density to the equivalent of that first
applied to PCS systems in 1993. At that
time, operators were deploying mostly
Digital AMPS, PCS1900 and CDMA
technologies, which had channel
bandwidths of 30 kHz, 200 kHz and 1.25
MHz, respectively. Sprint claims that
because today’s LTE transmissions
operate on much wider bandwidths up
to 20 MHz, a 47 dBmV/m limit measured
over the full channel bandwidth will
effectively result in a comparatively
lower power level. Sprint proposed to
adjust the field strength limit from 47
dBmV/m to 62 dBmV/m per MHz.
Verizon has made a similar claim in the
Incentive Auctions proceeding,
proposing a field strength limit of 50
dBmV/m per MHz.
157. The Commission agrees with
Sprint and Verizon that the market
boundary limit should be related to the
signal bandwidth. The Commission
proposes to adopt the same ¥76 dBm/
m2/MHz power flux density limit at the
service area boundaries as is used for
the UMFUS rules. This UMFUS limit
was calculated based on an interference
criterion of 0 dB I/N and made
assumptions about a typical antenna
gain. The Commission seeks comment
on whether the interference criterion
and technical assumptions are
appropriate
158. Finally, the Commission
proposes that adjacent affected area
licensees may voluntarily agree upon
higher field strength boundary levels.
This concept is already codified in the
field strength rules for both PCS and
AWS services, as Sprint acknowledges.
Accordingly, to maintain consistency
with the PCS and other AWS bands, the
Commission proposes to permit
adjacent area licensees to agree to a
higher field strength limit
159. Antenna Height Limits.—The
Commission proposes, as discussed
below, that the flexible antenna height
rules that apply to AWS–1 and AWS–
3 should generally also apply to MBX
spectrum. Specific antenna height
restrictions for AWS–1 and AWS–3 base
stations are not set forth in part 27 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44153
Commission rules. However, all part 27
services are subject to § 27.56, which
bans antenna heights that would be a
hazard to air navigation. Furthermore,
the limitations of field strength at the
geographical boundary of the license
discussed above also effectively limit
antenna heights. The Commission
similarly proposes that no unique
antenna height limits are needed for
MBX-spectrum facilities; rather, the
Commission believes that the general
height restrictions are sufficient. The
Commission seeks comment on this
proposal, including the costs and
benefits of the proposal and any
alternatives. The Commission does not
propose a height limit for fixed stations
in the MBX spectrum. Although fixed
stations were limited to 10 meters above
ground in the AWS–1 band and were
prohibited in the AWS–3 band. There
are no antenna height limits for fixed
stations in the AWS–4 band, since,
unlike the former, it is not directly
adjacent to certain Federal incumbents.
Using this same reasoning, the
Commission proposes no antenna height
limits for fixed operation in the MBX
spectrum. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal and request
technical support for any alternative
proposals.
160. Canadian and Mexican
Coordination.—Section 27.57(c) of the
Commission’s rules provide that several
AWS services, including WCS, AWS–1,
AWS–3, AWS–4 and the H Block, are
subject to international agreements with
Mexico and Canada. The Commission
proposes to apply the same limitation to
the new MBX spectrum. Until such time
as any adjusted agreements between the
United States, Mexico, and/or Canada
can be agreed to, operations must not
cause harmful interference across the
border, consistent with the terms of the
agreements currently in force. The
Commission notes that further
modification (of the proposed or final
rules) might be necessary in order to
comply with any future agreements with
Canada and Mexico regarding the use of
these bands. The Commission seeks
comment on this issue, including the
costs and benefits of alternative
approaches to this issue.
161. General Part 27 Rules—There are
several additional technical rules
applicable to all Part 27 services,
including §§ 27.51 Equipment
authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54
Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas
structures; air navigation safety, and
27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast
station antenna patterns. As operations
in the MBX spectrum will be a Part 27
service, the Commission proposes that
all of these general Part 27 rules should
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
44154
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
apply to all MBX-spectrum licensees,
including licensees who acquire their
licenses through partitioning or
disaggregation (to the extent the rules
permit such aggregation). The
Commission seeks comment on this
approach, including its costs and
benefits.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis
162. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared
this Initial Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis (IRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities by
the policies and rules proposed in this
NPRM. The text of the IRFA is set forth
in Appendix B of the NPRM. Written
comments are requested on this IRFA.
Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed
by the deadlines for comments on the
NPRM. The Commission will send a
copy of the NPRM, including this IRFA,
to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the
Proposed Rules
163. The NPRM seeks comment and
makes proposals on a range of potential
opportunities for more intensive fixed
or flexible uses—particularly for
wireless broadband services—in 500
megahertz of mid-band spectrum
between 3.7–4.2 GHz (the band). In
doing so, the NPRM proposes to add a
mobile, except aeronautical mobile,
allocation to the band and seeks
comment on transitioning all or part of
the band to terrestrial wireless
broadband services. The actions are
another step in the Commissions efforts
to close the digital divide by providing
wireless broadband connectivity across
the nation and to secure U.S. leadership
in the next generation of wireless
services, including fifth-generation (5G)
wireless, Internet of Things (IoT), and
other advanced spectrum-based
services.
164. In this proceeding, the
Commission is pursuing the joint goals
of making spectrum available for new
wireless uses while effectively
accommodating incumbent Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed
Service (FS) operations in the band. The
NPRM seeks comment on various
proposals for transitioning all or part of
the band for flexible use. The NPRM
also proposes and seeks comment on
revisions to Parts 25 and 101 of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Commission’s rules to promote more
intensive fixed use of the band.
Additionally, as part of the
Commission’s proposal to add a mobile,
except aeronautical mobile, allocation,
and to develop rules that would enable
the band to be transitioned for more
intensive fixed and flexible uses, the
Commission encourages commenters to
discuss and quantify the costs and
benefits associated with any proposed
approach along with other helpful
technical or procedural details.
165. The 3.7–4.2 GHz band is
currently allocated in the United States
exclusively for non-federal use on a
primary basis for the FSS (space-toEarth) and the FS. For FSS, the 3.7–4.2
GHz band (space-to-Earth or downlink)
is paired with the 5.925–6.425 GHz
band (Earth-to-space or uplink), and
collectively these bands are known as
the ‘‘conventional C-band.’’
Domestically, satellite operators use this
band to provide downlink signals of
various bandwidths to licensed transmit
receive, registered receive-only, and
unregistered receive-only earth stations
throughout the United States.
Geostationary orbit (GSO) FSS satellites
operating in the C-band typically have
24 transponders, each with a bandwidth
of 36 megahertz received by one or more
earth stations. Predominant GSO FSS
uses include delivery of programming
content to television and radio
broadcasters, including transportable
antennas used to cover live news and
sports events, cable television and small
master antenna systems, as well as the
backhaul of telephone and data traffic.
The band is also used for reception of
telemetry signals transmitted by
satellites, typically near 3.7 or 4.2 GHz.
166. Mid-band spectrum, in
conjunction with lower and higher
bands, is well suited for next generation
wireless broadband services due to the
combination of favorable propagation
characteristics (as comparted to bands
above 24 GHz) and the opportunity for
additional channel re-use (as compared
to bands below 3.7 GHz). With the everincreasing demand for more data on
mobile networks, wireless network
operators have increasingly focused on
providing more data capacity rather
than providing coverage over large areas
from individual base stations. One
technique for providing increased
capacity is to use smaller cell sizes—i.e.,
have each base station provide coverage
over a smaller area. Using higher
frequencies can be advantageous for
deploying a higher density of base
stations. The decreased propagation
distances at higher frequencies reduces
the interference between base stations
using the same frequency, thereby
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
allowing base stations to be more
densely packed and increasing the
overall system capacity. Therefore, midband spectrum presents wireless
providers with the opportunity to
deploy base stations using smaller cells
to get higher spectrum reuse than the
lower frequency bands while still
providing indoor coverage. Relative to
higher bands, mid-band spectrum also
offers favorable propagation
characteristics for fixed wireless
broadband services in less densely
populated areas.
167. In the NPRM the Commission
proposes to add a non-federal mobile,
except aeronautical mobile, service
allocation to the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, and
based on the Commission’s conclusion
that co-channel sharing is not feasible,
the Commission seeks comment on
several proposals to clear all or part of
the band for flexible use. Because the
NPRM seeks comment on several
alternate approaches for making
portions of the band available for
flexible use, the appropriate operational
and technical restrictions on terrestrial
and FSS use of the band will depend on
the selected mechanism for expanding
flexible use in the band. Specifically,
the NPRM seeks comment on three
potential mechanisms for expanding
flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band: (1)
A market-based mechanism, (2) auctions
mechanisms, and (3) alternative
mechanisms. In pursuing the
Commission’s goal of creating
additional opportunities for wireless
broadband in mid-band spectrum, under
each approach, the Commission seeks to
balance incumbent interests, speed to
market, and efficiency of use.
B. Legal Basis
168. The proposed action is taken
pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3, 4(i), 7, 201,
301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, and
310 of the Communications Act of 1934,
as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153,
154(i), 157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307,
308, 309, 310, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the
Number of Small Entities To Which the
Proposed Rules Will Apply
169. The RFA directs agencies to
provide a description of—and where
feasible, an estimate of—the number of
small entities that may be affected by
the rules, if adopted. The RFA generally
defines the term ‘‘small entity’’ as
having the same meaning as the terms
‘‘small business,’’ ‘‘small organization,’’
and ‘‘small governmental jurisdiction.’’
In addition, the term ‘‘small business’’
has the same meaning as the term
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
‘‘small business concern’’ under the
Small Business Act. A small business
concern is one that: (1) Is independently
owned and operated; (2) is not
dominant in its field of operation; and
(3) satisfies any additional criteria
established by the SBA.
170. Small Businesses, Small
Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission’s action
may, over time, affect small entities that
are not easily categorized at present.
The Commission therefore describes
here, at the outset, three broad groups of
small entities that could be directly
affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for
small businesses that are used in the
regulatory flexibility analysis, according
to data from the SBA’s Office of
Advocacy, in general a small business is
an independent business having fewer
than 500 employees. These types of
small businesses represent 99.9 percent
of all businesses in the United States,
which translates to 28.8 million
businesses.
171. Next, the type of small entity
described as a ‘‘small organization’’ is
generally ‘‘any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and
operated and is not dominant in its
field.’’ Nationwide, as of August 2016,
there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and
tax data filed by nonprofits with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
172. Finally, the small entity
described as a ‘‘small governmental
jurisdiction’’ is defined generally as
‘‘governments of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts, with a population of
less than fifty thousand.’’ U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of
Governments indicate that there were
90,056 local governmental jurisdictions
consisting of general purpose
governments and special purpose
governments in the United States. Of
this number there were 37,132 General
purpose governments (county,
municipal and town or township) with
populations of less than 50,000 and
12,184 Special purpose governments
(independent school districts and
special districts) with populations of
less than 50,000. The 2012 U.S. Census
Bureau data for most types of
governments in the local government
category show that the majority of these
governments have populations of less
than 50,000. Based on this data we
estimate that at least 49,316 local
government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ‘‘small governmental
jurisdictions.’’
173. Wireless Telecommunications
Carriers (except Satellite). This industry
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
comprises establishments engaged in
operating and maintaining switching
and transmission facilities to provide
communications via the airwaves.
Establishments in this industry have
spectrum licenses and provide services
using that spectrum, such as cellular
services, paging services, wireless
internet access, and wireless video
services. The appropriate size standard
under SBA rules is that such a business
is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there
were 967 firms that operated for the
entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had
employment of 999 or fewer employees
and 12 had employment of 1000
employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated size
standard, the Commission estimates that
the majority of wireless
telecommunications carriers (except
satellite) are small entities.
174. Satellite Telecommunications.
This category comprises firms
‘‘primarily engaged in providing
telecommunications services to other
establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting
industries by forwarding and receiving
communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite
telecommunications.’’ Satellite
telecommunications service providers
include satellite and earth station
operators. The category has a small
business size standard of $32.5 million
or less in average annual receipts, under
SBA rules. For this category, U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2012 show that
there were a total of 333 firms that
operated for the entire year. Of this
total, 299 firms had annual receipts of
less than $25 million. Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority
of satellite telecommunications
providers are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
175. The potential rule changes
proposed in this NPRM, if adopted,
could impose some new reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements on some small entities. In
addition to the proposed rule changes
associated with the proposed
mechanisms for expanding flexible use
in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, there could be
new service rule compliance
obligations. For new licensed flexible
uses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the NPRM
seeks comment on various service rules
that should apply, including
construction benchmarks and technical
operating requirements. In the event the
Commission adopts the proposed
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44155
service rules and issues licenses for
flexible use in the band, any small
entity licensee would be required to
satisfy construction requirements, and
comply with limits on power, out of
band emissions, field strength, antenna
height, and other existing coordination
requirements. Licensees would be
responsible for making certain
construction demonstrations with the
Commission through the Universal
Licensing System showing that they
have satisfied the relevant construction
benchmarks.
176. The projected reporting,
recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements proposed in the NPRM
will apply to all entities in the same
manner. The Commission believes that
applying the same rules equally to all
entities in this context promotes
fairness. The revisions the Commission
may ultimately adopt however, should
benefit small entities by giving them
more information about opportunities in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, more flexibility
to provide a wider range of services, and
more options for gaining access to
wireless spectrum.
177. Application/Petition Freeze &
Part 25 and 101 Modifications.
Applications for new or modified earth
stations, applications for new or
modified fixed microwave stations, and
applications for new space stations
operating in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band were
previously frozen by the International,
Wireless Telecommunications, and
Public Safety and Homeland Security
Bureaus.21 The Bureaus took these
actions to preserve the current
landscape of authorized operations
while the Commission proceeded with
an ongoing inquiry into the possibility
of permitting mobile broadband use and
more intensive fixed use of the band in
this proceeding. To reexamine the
existing full-band, full-arc coordination
policy, the NPRM proposes to revise the
Commission’s rules to bar new
applications for space station licenses
21 On April 19, 2018, the staff froze applications
for new or modified fixed microwave stations and
earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band to preserve
the current landscape of authorized operations
pending action as part of the Commission’s ongoing
inquiry into the possibility of permitting mobile
broadband use and more intensive fixed use of the
band through this proceeding. To provide the
Commission and commenters with more accurate
information about existing earth stations, however,
the International Bureau, as a limited exception to
the freeze, concurrently opened a 90-day window
during which entities that own or operate existing
FSS earth stations in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band could
file an application to register or license the earth
station, or file an application to modify an existing
registration or license. On June 21, 2018, the
International Bureau extended this filing-window
for an additional 90 days until October 17, 2018,
and also imposed a freeze on new space stations in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44156
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
and new petitions for market access
concerning space-to-Earth operations in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band. Additionally, the
NPRM seeks comment on modifying the
Commission’s part 25 rules to require
operators of licensed or registered FSS
earth stations receiving in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band to coordinate only the
specific combinations of frequency,
azimuth, and elevation angle that they
regularly use and that such technical
information be reflected on each earth
station application and authorization.
The NPRM seeks comment on whether
this information should form the basis
for protection from terrestrial stations.
178. The NPRM further proposes to
update IBFS to remove 3.7–4.2 GHz
band earth station licenses or
registrations for which the licensee or
registrant does not file the certifications
required in the Order (to the extent they
registered before April 19, 2018) and,
more specifically, proposes that an earth
station licensed or registered in IBFS be
automatically terminated unless the
licensee or registrant timely files the
certification required by the Order. The
NPRM seeks comment on revising the
part 25 rules to limit eligibility to file
applications for earth station licenses or
registrations to incumbent earth
stations, including comments on the
relative costs and benefits of such a
restriction.
179. The NPRM proposes to define
incumbent earth stations as only those
earth stations that (1) were operational
as of April 19, 2018, (2) are licensed or
registered in IBFS, or had a pending
application for license or registration as
of October 17, 2018, and (3) the
licensee/registrant timely filed the
certification required by the Order. The
Commission further proposes that
unregistered FSS earth stations lawfully
receiving transmissions could continue
to operate on an unprotected basis. The
Commission seeks comment on whether
incumbents that are small entities face
any special or unique issues with
respect to the transition such that they
should be defined differently or have
different obligations.
180. Because the Commission’s
consideration of some transition options
may benefit from additional, more
granular information on FSS earth
station and space station operations in
the band, the NPRM seeks comment on
whether to seek additional information
from FSS earth station or space station
operators,22 including information on
transponder use, satellite points of
22 In the Order, the Commission directed
temporary fixed or transportable FSS earth station
operators and FSS space station operators in the
3.7–4.2 GHz band to provide certain information on
their current operations.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
communication, and other technical and
operational data that would provide a
more detailed picture of the actual usage
of the band. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether small entities face
any special or unique issues with
respect to proposed information
collections such that they would require
certain accommodations or additional
time to comply. Commenters have been
asked to describe, with specificity, how
any additional information collection
would support a given transition
proposal and should provide a detailed
assessment of the costs and benefits of
such additional collections.
181. Comments have also been sought
by the Commission on amending
§ 101.101 of the Commission’s rules to
permit point-to-multipoint FS
broadband service in a portion of the
3.7–4.2 GHz band. In order to
accommodate point-to-multipoint
operations, the NPRM seeks comment
on several amendments that may be
necessary to part 25 and part 101 of the
Commission’s rules that currently apply
to FS. The part 25 and 101 rules that
would apply to point-to-multipoint FS
operators would include regulatory
requirements and restrictions including
power limits, frequency coordination,
and potential construction
requirements. The NPRM also seeks
comment on the appropriate channel
plan, power limits, service areas,
antenna standards, and construction
requirements for point-to-multipoint
operations in the band. Further, the
NPRM seeks comment on any necessary
technical requirements for frequency
coordination between point-tomultipoint FS applicants and licensees
and other operators in the band,
including equipment authorizations for
client devices that may be operated by
persons other than those duly
authorized by the licensee. The NPRM
also seeks comment on whether to
sunset the existing point-to-point FS
operations in the band.
182. Transitioning Mechanisms. The
transition to more intensive fixed and
flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
will require Commission action to clear
existing incumbent users from the band.
The NPRM discusses various
mechanisms for clearing incumbent
users from the band. Each of these
potential mechanisms for transitioning
the band to flexible use—(1) a marketbased mechanism, (2) auctions
mechanisms, (3) alternative
mechanisms—would require small
entities that are incumbent operators in
the band to participate in some sort of
negotiation and agreement (either
through the secondary market or
through a Commission-administered
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
auction) to reassign their spectrum
access rights. Incumbents operating in
the spectrum designated for new
licensed flexible use would further be
required to relocate their operations to
different bands, potentially requiring
reconfiguration or replacement of their
existing facilities. However, once
relocated, such operators and licensees
would remain subject to the same
Commission rules and obligations under
which they are already operating.
183. In light of the differing
approaches to transitioning the band to
flexible use and the obligations that
would result, the NPRM seeks comment
from the parties on each mechanism.
Specifically, for the market-based
mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment
on whether the Commission should
adopt rules that would enable a marketbased mechanism to the clearing of
incumbents from some or all of the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band, introducing flexible use
in the band or encouraging more
intensive fixed use while
simultaneously protecting critical
services offered by incumbents (i.e., FSS
space stations, FSS earth stations, FS
licensees). Under such an approach, the
Commission would seek to encourage
incumbent FSS operators to voluntarily
clear the spectrum. Satellite operators in
the band could choose to make some or
all of their spectrum available to
terrestrial operators on the secondary
market. In return, terrestrial operators
would compensate affected incumbents.
A secondary market approach could
make spectrum available more quickly
than other available mechanisms, such
as an auction, and thus could facilitate
rapid deployment of next generation
wireless broadband networks. Moreover,
such an approach could leverage the
technical and operational knowledge of
satellite space station operators while
relying on market incentives to promote
economic efficiency. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether a market-based
mechanism could effectively and
rapidly facilitate new terrestrial
deployments in the band.
184. More specifically, the NPRM
states that a transition under a marketbased mechanism could be undertaken
in a four-step process. The first step
would involve the industry voluntarily
forming a Transition Facilitator
composed of eligible C-band satellite
operators. In the second step, the
Transition Facilitator would negotiate
with any interested terrestrial operators
and incumbent users. In the third step,
the Commission would review the
Transition Facilitator’s plan and
conditionally authorize terrestrial
licenses in the band. And in step four,
the Transition Facilitator would clear
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
the negotiated-for spectrum, making it
available for flexible use while
protecting incumbent earth stations
through a variety of potential means.
The NPRM notes as well that a marketbased process need not be a one-time
event—a Transition Facilitator could
negotiate with parties for compensation
and protection, seek Commission review
and conditional authorization, and clear
new spectrum multiple times to ensure
the total spectrum dedicated to flexible
use meets market demands.
185. For auctions as a transition
mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment
on approaches using the Commission’s
general auction authority to introduce
flexible use in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
Incentive auctions provide the
Commission with new tools to make
additional spectrum available for
broadband. Incentive auctions are a
voluntary, market-based means of
repurposing spectrum by encouraging
licensees to compete to voluntarily
relinquish spectrum usage rights in
exchange for a share of the proceeds
from an auction of new licenses to use
the repurposed spectrum. The NPRM
therefore seeks comment on whether an
incentive auction could work in the
context of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band.
186. Recognizing that the band’s
incumbent structure presents unique
issues distinct from those present in the
broadcast incentive auction, the NPRM
seeks comment on possible approaches
to inducing satellite incumbents to
reveal the least amount they must be
paid to relinquish any given amount of
spectrum. The NPRM also seeks
comment on whether the Commission
should accept applications for overlay
licenses—assigned by competitive
bidding if mutually exclusive
applications for it were accepted—that
would permit the overlay licensees to
negotiate with incumbent licensees to
clear all or part of the band and then
transfer flexible use licenses in the
secondary market. An overlay license
authorizes operation for an entire
geographic area but requires the licensee
to protect existing incumbents from
interference indefinitely, i.e., until the
rights are relinquished. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether assigning overlay
licenses in the band would expedite
flexible use of more of the band
compared with other approaches. Under
this approach, the overlay licensee
would have the right to flexible use of
any spectrum that becomes available as
a result of incumbents’ relinquishing
their spectrum usage rights. The NPRM
seeks comment on how other parties
that would be affected by repurposing
3.7–4.2 GHz band spectrum should be
treated, and whether the overlay
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
licensee or the satellite incumbents
relinquishing spectrum should be
required to provide incumbent earth
station operators comparable
replacement facilities or media.
187. With the auctions mechanism,
the NPRM further seeks comment, as an
alternative to paying satellite
incumbents to relinquish spectrum
usage rights, on conducting a reverse
auction for satellite transponder
capacity that could be used to replace
lost C-band transponder capacity
resulting from reallocating C-band
spectrum to flexible use. Under this
approach, an individual bidder in the
reverse auction could contribute
towards clearing spectrum. Potential
bidders could be any FCC licensee that
could make transponder capacity
available in either C-band or Ku-band.
Satellite bidders could offer capacity
created by launching new satellites in
vacant orbital slots and by relinquishing
existing capacity. Satellite customers
can offer capacity made available by
substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill
their capacity needs, reducing the
amount or quality of programming
distributed, or using greater
compression to reduce the capacity
required to carry a given amount of
programming or data. C-band
transponder capacity that is lost due to
the reduced amount of available
spectrum and that was not relinquished
in the reverse auction by C-band
satellite operators, could be repacked
onto replacement capacity for the life of
those lost transponders. This would
compensate C-band licensees for their
lost capital investments, but not for the
loss of their spectrum. The NPRM seeks
comment on whether under this
approach such additional compensation
for the loss of spectrum should be
accomplished by extending the length of
time free replacement capacity is offered
or by some other means, e.g., a financial
payment.
188. As another possible transition
mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment
on approaches that combine various
elements of the mechanisms discussed
above, as well as other mechanisms for
transitioning all or part of the 3.7–4.2
GHz band for wireless broadband use.
For example, the NPRM seeks comment
on a hybrid approach under which the
Commission would auction a majority
of the band under traditional
mechanisms and grant FSS operators
flexible use authority (i.e., allowing
them to use a market-based approach)
for the rest of the band so long as they
timely clear the auctioned portion. The
NPRM asks whether the Commission
could use this approach or another
combination of approaches to strike a
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44157
balance between incumbent and new
entrant interests and, if so, how much
of the band should be cleared under a
traditional mechanism and how much
could be left for FSS space station
operators to clear under a market
approach. The NPRM seeks comment on
how the Commission can ensure the
band is transitioned in a timely manner
and whether a backstop mechanism
should be triggered by a FSS operator’s
failure to clear the band in a timely
manner. The NPRM asks commenters to
provide data on the costs and benefits
associated with any alternative
mechanism over other possible or
suggested methods.
189. Recognizing that the transition to
flexible use licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band will be complicated logistically
and needs to be carried out promptly in
order to get the repurposed spectrum
into the hands of flexible use licensees
to address spectrum needs, the NPRM
seeks comment on a range of transition
issues applicable to each of the
alternative mechanisms for expanding
flexible use discussed above. The NPRM
seeks comment on reasonable deadlines
for implementation of each mechanism,
or other approaches suggested by
commenters, including deadlines for
incumbents to cease transmitting on a
primary basis in the portion of the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band that becomes available for
flexible use. The NPRM seeks comment
on how to define the appropriate class
of incumbents for protection and
possible reimbursement purposes and
the relative obligations and/or rights
that each category of incumbents may
have under each mechanism. Further,
the NPRM seeks comment on what
requirements and safeguards the
Commission should adopt to ensure the
timely and complete transition of all
required incumbents pursuant to each
mechanism for expanding flexible use
in the band. Such requirements and
safeguards could include, among others:
Requiring all parties act in good faith;
adopting a definition of comparable
facilities; adopting financial or
regulatory protections that can ensure
that all transition obligations are
satisfied in the event of bankruptcy or
other events; and any technical rules
that the Commission needs to adopt to
apply specifically during the transition.
Finally, the NPRM seeks comment on
whether the Commission should seek
additional information from FSS earth
station and space station operators in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band that would
provide additional clarity on the actual
usage and availability of spectrum in the
band.
190. Assuming that the Commission
ultimately decides to add a mobile,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44158
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
except aeronautical mobile, allocation
and make some or all of the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band available for flexible use, the
NPRM proposes and seeks comment on
band plans, licensing and operating, and
technical rules for the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
spectrum that becomes available for
terrestrial mobile and fixed flexible use.
The NPRM proposes to license this
spectrum under the Commission’s
flexible use, part 27 rules that permit
licensees to provide any fixed or mobile
service consistent with the allocations
for this spectrum, subject to rules
necessary to prevent or minimize
harmful interference.
191. Band Plan(s). The NPRM seeks
comment on whether to license
according to part 27 nationwide or only
in the contiguous 48 states and whether
there are issues unique to any of the
areas outside of the contiguous 48 that
would make it impractical to transition
all or part of the band to flexible use.
The NPRM seeks comment on
appropriate block size(s) to promote
efficient and robust use of the band for
next generation wireless technologies,
including 5G. Recognizing that the 3.7–
4.2 GHz spectrum that becomes
available for flexible use could be
configured in any number of paired or
unpaired modes, the NPRM seeks
comment on a range of options for
paired and/or unpaired blocks and the
costs and benefits of particular
approaches. Finally, consistent with the
Commission’s approach in several other
bands used to provide fixed and mobile
services, the NPRM proposes to license
the 3.7–4.2 GHz Mid-Band Flexible Use
(MBX) spectrum on an exclusive,
geographic area basis. The NPRM seeks
comment on an appropriate geographic
license area size(s) for this band and
asks commenters to discuss and
quantify the economic, technical, and
other public interest considerations of
licensing on a PEA, county, nationwide,
or other basis.
192. Licensing and Operating Rules.
In order to afford licensees the
flexibility to align licenses in the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band with licenses in other
spectrum bands governed by part 27 of
the Commission’s rules, the NPRM
proposes that licensees in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band comply with licensing and
operating rules that are applicable to all
part 27 services, including assignment
of licenses by competitive bidding,
flexible use, regulatory status, foreign
ownership reporting, compliance with
construction requirements, renewal
criteria, permanent discontinuance of
operations, partitioning and
disaggregation, and spectrum leasing,
and seeks comment on this approach.
The NPRM also proposes an open
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
eligibility standard for licenses in the
3.7–4.2 GHz band and seeks comments
on the proposal that should include a
discussion of the costs and benefits of
the open eligibility proposal on
competition, innovation, and
investment. The adoption of an open
eligibility approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally
applicable qualifications that may apply
under the Commission’s rules. The
NPRM further seeks comment on a 15year term for licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band. Finally, in the event that the
Commission assigns licenses for the
3.7–4.2 GHz band through competitive
bidding, the Commission proposes to
exclude from eligibility a person who
has been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the
Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or
receiving a grant.
193. Regarding mobile spectrum
holding policies, the Commission
proposes not to adopt a pre-auction
bright-line limit on the ability of any
entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.7–4.2
GHz band through competitive bidding
at auction similar to the Commission’s
approach in the 2017 Spectrum
Frontiers Order and FNPRM.
Additionally, if an auction is chosen as
the mechanism to transition to flexible
uses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the
Commission proposes to review
holdings on a case-by-case basis when
applications for initial licenses are filed
post-auction to ensure that the public
interest benefits of having a threshold
on spectrum applicable to secondary
market transactions are not rendered
ineffective.
194. Performance Requirements. The
NPRM seeks comment on requiring a
3.7–4.2 GHz band licensee, relying on
mobile or point-to-multipoint service in
accordance with the Commission’s part
27 rules, to provide reliable signal
coverage and offer service to at least
forty-five (45) percent of the population
in each of its license areas within six
years of the license issue date (first
performance benchmark), and to at least
eighty (80) percent of the population in
each of its license areas within 12 years
from the license issue date (second
performance benchmark). For licensees
relying on point-to-point service, the
NPRM seeks comment on requiring
them to demonstrate within six years of
the license issue date (first performance
benchmark) that they have four links
operating and providing service, either
to customers or for internal use, if the
population within the license area is
equal to or less than 268,000. If the
population within the license area is
greater than 268,000, the NPRM seeks
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
comment on requiring a licensee relying
on point-to-point service to demonstrate
it has at least one link in operation and
providing service per every 67,000
persons within a license area. Further,
the NPRM seeks comment on requiring
licensees relying on point-to-point
service to demonstrate within 12 years
of the license issue date (final
performance benchmark) that they have
eight links operating and providing
service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within
the license area is equal to or less than
268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the
NPRM seeks comment on requiring a
licensee relying on point-to-point
service to demonstrate it is providing
service and has at least two links in
operation per every 67,000 persons
within a license area.
195. While the NPRM seeks comment
on performance benchmarks based on
population coverage applicable for a
range of fixed and mobile services, the
NPRM recognizes that 3.7–4.2 GHz
licenses have flexibility to provide
services potentially less suited to a
population coverage metric. In
particular, licensees providing Internet
of Things-type fixed and mobile services
may benefit from an alternative
performance benchmark metric, and the
NPRM seeks comment on the
appropriate metric to accommodate
such service offerings.
196. Along with performance
benchmarks, the NPRM seeks comment
on which penalties will most effectively
ensure timely build-out. Specifically,
the NPRM states that, in the event a 3.7–
4.2 GHz licensee fails to meet the first
performance benchmark, the licensee’s
second benchmark and license term
would be reduced by two years, thereby
requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years
sooner (at 10 years into the license term)
and reducing its license term to 13
years. The NPRM proposes that, in the
event a 3.7–4.2 GHz licensee fails to
meet the second performance
benchmark for a particular license area,
its authorization for each license area in
which it fails to meet the performance
requirement shall terminate
automatically without Commission
action. Additionally, the Commission
also proposes that, in the event a
licensee’s authority to operate
terminates, the licensee’s spectrum
rights would become available for
reassignment pursuant to the
competitive bidding provisions of
§ 309(j). Further, consistent with the
Commission’s rules for other licenses,
including AWS–1, AWS–3, AWS–4, and
H Block, the NPRM proposes that any
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
3.7–4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits its
license for failure to meet its
performance requirements would be
precluded from regaining the license.
197. Compliance Procedures. In
addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all part 27 licensees,
including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting
documentation, the NPRM proposes that
such electronic coverage maps must
accurately depict the boundaries of each
license area in the licensee’s service
territory. If a licensee does not provide
reliable signal coverage to an entire
license area, the NPRM proposes that its
map must accurately depict the
boundaries of the area or areas within
each license area not being served.
Further, the NPRM proposes that each
licensee also must file supporting
documentation certifying the type of
service it is providing for each licensed
area within its service territory and the
type of technology used to provide such
service. Supporting documentation
must include the assumptions used to
create the coverage maps, including the
propagation model and the signal
strength necessary to provide reliable
service with the licensee’s technology.
The Commission seeks comment on
these proposals. The Commission also
seeks comment on whether small
entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the transition
such that they would require additional
time to comply.
198. Renewal Term Construction
Obligations. The WRS Renewal Reform
FNPRM proposed to apply rules
adopted in that proceeding to all
flexible geographic licenses. Given the
proposal to license this band on a
geographic basis for flexible use, any
additional renewal term construction
obligations proposed in the WRS
Renewal Reform FNPRM also would
apply to licenses in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band. Accordingly, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether there are unique
characteristics of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band
that might require a different approach
than the various proposals raised by the
WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM.
199. Competitive Bidding Procedures.
Consistent with the competitive bidding
procedures the Commission has used in
previous auctions, the NPRM proposes
that the Commission would conduct any
auction for licenses for spectrum in the
3.7–4.2 GHz band in conformity with
the general competitive bidding rules
set forth in part 1, Subpart Q, of the
Commission’s rules. Specifically, the
NPRM proposes to employ the part 1
rules governing competitive bidding
design, designated entity preferences,
unjust enrichment, application and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
certification procedures, payment
procedures, reporting requirements, and
the prohibition on certain
communications between auction
applicants. Under this proposal, such
rules would be subject to any
modifications that the Commission may
adopt for its part 1 general competitive
bidding rules in the future. The NPRM
seeks comment on whether any of the
Commission’s part 1 rules would be
inappropriate or should be modified for
an auction of licenses in this frequency
band. In particular, the NPRM seeks
comment on the following proposals for
bidding credits for designated entities in
this band. As with other flexible use
licenses in recent years, the NPRM
proposes to adopt in this band, bidding
credits for the two larger designated
entity business sizes provided in the
part 1 rules. The NPRM also proposes to
offer rural service providers a
designated entity bidding credit for
licenses in this band. The NPRM asks
commenters addressing these proposals
to consider what details of licenses in
the band may affect whether designated
entities will apply for them.
200. Technical Rules. Consistent with
existing rules for other advanced
wireless services, the NPRM proposes
power limits for fixed and base stations
of 1640 watts EIRP for emission
bandwidths less than one megahertz
and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for
emission bandwidths greater than one
megahertz. For mobiles and portables in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the NPRM
proposes to limit the power to 1 Watt
(30 dBm). The NPRM also proposes that
the power limit measurement
methodology be based on the average
power measurement and seeks comment
on this proposal. Additionally, the
NPRM proposes that mobile and
portable stations operating in the 3.7–
4.2 GHz band must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum
necessary for successful
communications.
201. For out-of-band-emissions, the
NPRM proposes that emissions be kept
to a level that will provide protection to
incumbent services in adjacent bands,
while allowing the full use of the new
band, and therefore proposes to apply
the longstanding limit on out-of-bandemission of ¥13 dBm/MHz at the
authorized channel edge as measured at
the antenna terminals. Further, the
NPRM seeks comment on whether
additional technical protection criteria,
beyond out-of-band-emission limits, are
necessary to ensure effective
coexistence with adjacent band FSS
operations.
202. To implement field strength limit
at market boundaries, the NPRM
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44159
proposes to adopt a ¥76 dBm/m2/MHz
power flux density limit at the service
area boundaries, and further proposes
that adjacent affected area licensees may
voluntarily agree upon higher field
strength boundary levels and to permit
such agreement. Regarding antenna
height, the NPRM proposes that the part
27 flexible antenna height rules that
apply to AWS–1 and AWS–3 should
generally also apply to MBX spectrum,
that no unique antenna height limits are
needed for MBX-spectrum facilities and
that no antenna height limits are needed
for fixed operation in the MBX
spectrum. The Commission seeks
comments on these proposals, including
cost and benefit information.
203. For new MBX spectrum, the
NPRM proposes to apply the limitations
to Canada and Mexico from § 27.57(c) of
the Commission’s rules that provide that
several AWS services, including WCS,
AWS–1, AWS–3, AWS–4 and H Block
are subject to international agreements
with Mexico and Canada. Lastly, the
NPRM proposes that several additional
technical rules applicable to all part 27
services, including §§ 27.51 Equipment
authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54
Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas
structures; air navigation safety, and
27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast
station antenna patterns should apply to
all MBX-spectrum licensees, including
licensees who acquire their licenses
through partitioning or disaggregation
(to the extent the rules permit such
aggregation). The Commission seeks
comment on this approach, including its
costs and benefits.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the
Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives
Considered
204. The RFA requires an agency to
describe any significant, specifically
small business, alternatives that it has
considered in reaching its proposed
approach, which may include the
following four alternatives (among
others): ‘‘(1) The establishment of
differing compliance or reporting
requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification,
consolidation, or simplification of
compliance and reporting requirements
under the rule for small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design
standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof
for small entities.’’
205. In this proceeding, the
Commission seeks to identify potential
opportunities for additional flexible
access—particularly for wireless
broadband services—in 500 megahertz
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44160
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
of mid-band spectrum between 3.7–4.2
GHz. While lacking specific data in
general, which includes data on small
entities, the Commission has taken steps
to enable it to minimize the economic
burden on small entities that could
occur if some of the rule changes or
approaches proposed in the NPRM are
adopted. Throughout the NPRM, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
small entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the information
collection such that they would require
certain accommodations or additional
time to comply. The Commission also
seeks comment on modifications that
could be made to the Commission’s
rules regarding administrative processes
that would reduce the economic
impacts of proposed rule changes on
small entities. Seeking comments
specifically targeting small entities
should provide the Commission with
the requisite data to consider the most
cost-effective approach to minimize the
economic impact for such entities while
achieving its statutory objectives.
206. With respect to the application
freeze and information collection for
incumbent earth stations operating in
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band, the Commission
has taken several steps to reduce the
economic burden of its actions. During
the freeze on new earth station
applications and filing window for
incumbent FSS earth station operators,
the International Bureau granted a
temporary waiver of the frequency
coordination requirement in the band.
To ensure that earth station data
contained in the Commission’s IBFS
remains accurate to facilitate frequency
coordination and maximize efficient use
of the spectrum, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether, for a constructed
and operational earth station, any
combination of frequency, azimuth, and
elevation listed in the license or
registration that is unused for more
than, e.g., 180 days, must be deleted
from the license or registration. By
proposing to delete data for earth
stations that are unused, the NPRM
seeks to minimize unnecessary
constraints on successful frequency
coordination of new operations, which
reduces the economic impact on small
entities, who often have more limited
resources to allocate towards such
regulatory compliance burdens. The
NPRM also proposes to adopt specific
definitions of each class of incumbents
that would require protection and be
entitled to possible reimbursement for
clearing the band. This proposal has the
dual benefit to small entities of creating
a means for compensating any
unexpected costs they may experience
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
as a result of transitioning the band to
flexible use, as well as providing a clear
definition of the class of operators that
requires interference protection and
coordination, thereby avoiding overly
burdensome and unnecessary
obligations.
207. The NPRM seeks comment on
several ways to facilitate more intensive
fixed use of the 3.7–4.2 GHz band by
allowing point-to-multipoint operations
in the band through rules that will
promote more efficient use of the
limited spectrum available. In doing so,
the NPRM makes several proposals to
reduce the burden of frequency
coordination for any new point-tomultipoint licensees, which would
benefit small entities, and seeks
comment on rules that are narrowly
tailored to the needs of point-tomultipoint operations in particular,
without the need for unnecessary
regulatory burdens. The NPRM seeks
comment on subjecting point-tomultipoint FS applicants to an
expedited coordination process with
mandatory electronic notification and
response, and on the possibility of
adopting an automated coordination
process for point-to-multipoint FS
applications. The NPRM asks
commenters to discuss specifically any
modifications that could be made to the
Commission’s coordination rules that
would reduce the economic impact on
small entities. In seeking comment on
the appropriate construction
requirements to apply to point-tomultipoint operations, the NPRM asks
commenters to consider the economic
impact on consumers and businesses in
rural communities and areas that are
unserved or underserved by current
broadband providers, as well as any
economic impact on small businesses.
208. The NPRM discusses various
proposals to reallocate and transition
the 3.7–4.2 GHz band to more intensive
fixed and flexible use, and seeks
comment on ways to minimize the
economic impact of any rule changes
specifically with respect to small
entities. For example, in seeking
comment on whether to seek additional
information from FSS earth station
registrants or space station licensees, the
NPRM asks whether small entities face
any special or unique issues with
respect to the information collection
such that they would require certain
accommodations or additional time to
comply.
209. Further, in its discussion of the
three potential mechanisms for
transitioning the band to flexible use—
(1) market-based mechanism, (2)
auctions mechanisms, (3) alternative
mechanisms—the Commission seeks
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
specific comment on the costs, benefits,
and potential economic impact on small
businesses, and asks commenters to
discuss any rules or procedures that
could be implemented to ensure that the
needs of these communities and
businesses are adequately addressed.
Each of these transition mechanisms
rely heavily on a competitive
marketplace to set the value of spectrum
and compensate incumbents for the
costs of relocating, reconfiguring, and
potentially lost opportunity cost.
Specifically, for small entities that may
be incumbent satellite or earth station
operators in the band, the Commission
is focused on facilitating competition in
the band and ensuring that all relevant
interests, not just those of the largest
companies, are represented. This will
help to reduce the potential economic
impact on small entities.
210. The NPRM also seeks comment
on applying 15-year license terms for
any licensees issued in the 3.7–4.2 GHz
band. Specifically for small entities who
must allocate resources carefully over
the length of their license term, and
have more limited funds should they be
required to compete at auction for a
particular license, the certainty of a
longer license term would provide
licensees with sufficient incentive to
make the long-term investments
necessary for compliance.
211. The Commission finds an
overriding public interest in
encouraging investment in wireless
networks, facilitating access to scarce
spectrum resources, and promoting the
rapid deployment of mobile services to
Americans. All licensees, including
small entities, play a crucial role in
achieving these goals. Thus while the
NPRM does not propose any exemption
for small entities, as mentioned above,
the Commission seeks comment on
alternative obligations, timing for
implementation, scope of subject
licenses, penalties for failure, and other
measures that could accommodate the
needs and resources of small entities.
The Commission will carefully consider
these matters as it relates to small
entities before adopting final rules in
this proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate,
Overlap, or Conflict With the Proposed
Rules
212. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
213. It is ordered, pursuant to the
authority found in sections 1, 2, 3, 4(i),
7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309,
and 310 of the Communications Act of
1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i),
157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
309, 310, and section 706 of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and 1.411 of
the Commission’s Rules, 47 CFR 1.411,
that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
is hereby adopted.
214. It is further ordered that notice is
hereby given of the proposed regulatory
changes described in this Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and that
comment is sought on these proposals.
215. It is further ordered that the
Petition for Rulemaking filed by the
Broadband Access Coalition on June 21,
2017, RM–11791, is granted to the
extent indicated herein and is otherwise
denied.
216. It is further ordered that the
Petition for Rulemaking filed by the
Fixed Wireless Communications
Coalition, Inc, on October 11, 2016,
RM–11778, is granted to the extent
indicated herein and is otherwise
denied.
217. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25
and 27
Practice and procedure,
Communications common carrier,
Communications equipment, Reporting
and recording requirements, Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
parts 1, 2, 25, and 27 as follows:
PART 1—PRACTICE AND
PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j),
155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332,
1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Amend § 1.907 by revising the
definition of ‘‘Covered Geographic
Licenses’’ to read as follows:
■
§ 1.907
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Covered Geographic Licenses.
Covered geographic licenses consist of
the following services: 1.4 GHz Service
(part 27, subpart I); 1.6 GHz Service
(part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and
Digital Electronic Message Services (part
101, subpart G); 218–219 MHz Service
(part 95, subpart F); 220–222 MHz
Service, excluding public safety licenses
(part 90, subpart T); 600 MHz Service
(part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz
Commercial Services (part 27, subpart F
and H); 700 MHz Guard Band Service
(part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz
Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part
90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized
Mobile Radio Service (part 90, subpart
S); Mid-Band Flexible Use Service (part
27, subpart O); Advanced Wireless
Services (part 27, subparts K and L);
Air-Ground Radiotelephone Service
(Commercial Aviation) (part 22, subpart
G); Broadband Personal
Communications Service (part 24,
subpart E); Broadband Radio Service
(part 27, subpart M); Cellular
Radiotelephone Service (part 22,
subpart H); Dedicated Short Range
Communications Service, excluding
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
44161
public safety licenses (part 90, subpart
M); H Block Service (part 27, subpart K);
Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(part 101, subpart L); Multichannel
Video Distribution and Data Service
(part 101, subpart P); Multilateration
Location and Monitoring Service (part
90, subpart M); Multiple Address
Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart O);
Narrowband Personal Communications
Service (part 24, subpart D); Paging and
Radiotelephone Service (part 22,
subpart E; part 90, subpart P); VHF
Public Coast Stations, including
Automated Maritime
Telecommunications Systems (part 80,
subpart J); Upper Microwave Flexible
Use Service (part 30); and Wireless
Communications Service (part 27,
subpart D).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 1.9005 by adding
paragraph (mm) to read as follows:
§ 1.9005
Included services.
*
*
*
*
*
(mm) The Mid-Band Flexible Use
Service in the 3700–4200 MHz band.
PART 2—FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS
AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS;
GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
4. The authority citation for part 2
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and
336, unless otherwise noted.
5. Amend § 2.106, the Table of
Frequency Allocations, by revising page
41 and, under ‘‘Non-Federal
Government (NG) Footnotes,’’ adding
footnote NG182 to read as follows:
■
§ 2.106
*
Table of Frequency Allocations.
*
*
*
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
*
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
44162
VerDate Sep<11>2014
3500-5460 MHz (SHF)
Table of Frequency Allocations
Page 41
United States Table
Region 2 Table
Region 3 Table
Federal Table
Non-Federal Table
(See previous page)
3500-3700
3500-3600
3500-3550
3500-3550
FIXED
FIXED
RADIOLOCATION G59
Radiolocation
FIXED-SATELLITE
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
(space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
(ground-based) G11 0
3550-3650
3550-3600
RADIOLOCATION G59
FIXED
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Jkt 244001
Region 1 Table
MOBILE except aeronaubcal
mobile
FCC Rule Part(s)
Pnvate Land Mobtle (90)
5.433A
C1t1zens Broadband (96)
Radiolocation 5.433
PO 00000
Radiolocat1on 5.433
(ground-based) G11 0
US105 US433
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
3600-4200
3600-3700
3600-3650
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
(space-to-Earth)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Sfmt 4725
Mobile
Commun1cat1ons (25)
Citizens Broadband (96)
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Radiolocation 5 433
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
US1 05 US107 US245 US433
US105 US433
3650-3700
3650-3700
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
NG169 NG185
29AUP2
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
5.435
3700-4200
US1 09 US349
US109 US349
3700-4200
3700-4200
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) NG180, NG182
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
EP29AU18.003</GPH>
US107 US245
Satellite
Satellite
Communications (25)
Wireless
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
International Table
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
VerDate Sep<11>2014
4200-4400
I
Communications (27]
Fixed Microwave (1 01)
4200-4400
Jkt 244001
5.439 5.440
5.440 US261
4400-4500
4400-4940
FIXED
MOBILE 5.440A
MOBILE
Av1ation (87)
4400-4500
FIXED
Frm 00037
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION
PO 00000
AERONAUTICAL RADIONAVIGATION 5 438
4500-4800
4500-4800
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
5.441 US245
FIXED-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth) 5 441
Fmt 4701
MOBILE 5 440A
4800-4990
4800-4940
Sfmt 4702
FIXED
MOBILE 5.440A 5.442
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
Radio astronomy
US113 US245 US342
US113 US342
4940-4990
4940-4990
FIXED
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
29AUP2
5.149 5.339 5.443
5.339 US342 US385 G122
4990-5000
4990-5000
FIXED
RADIO ASTRONOMY US74
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
Space research (passive)
RADIO ASTRONOMY
Space research (pass1ve)
5149
US246
5.339 US342 US385
PubliC Safety Land
Mobile (90Y)
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
MOBILE except aeronautical mobile
44163
EP29AU18.004</GPH>
44164
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
BILLING CODE 6712–01–C
PART 25—SATELLITE
COMMUNICATIONS
6. The authority citation for Part 25
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303,
307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, unless
otherwise noted.
7. Amend § 25.203 by adding
paragraph (n) to read as follows:
■
§ 25.203
Choice of sites and frequencies.
*
*
*
*
(n) Earth stations operating in the
3700–4200 MHz band shall receive
interference protection from terrestrial
stations only to the extent that (1) the
earth station was operational as of April
19, 2018, (2) the earth station was
licensed or registered (or had a pending
application for license or registration) in
the IBFS database as of October 17,
2018, and (3) the operator timely
certified the accuracy of information on
file with the Commission to the extent
required by the Order adopted in FCC
18–XXX. Earth stations failing to satisfy
any of the above may continue to
operate, but such operations shall be on
an unprotected basis.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS
WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS
SERVICES
8. The authority citation for part 27
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303,
307, 309, 332, 336, 337, 1403, 1404, 1451,
and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
9. Amend § 27.1 by adding paragraph
(b)(15) to read as follows:
■
Non-Federal Government (NG)
Footnotes
*
*
*
*
*
NG182 In the band 3700–4200 MHz,
the following provisions shall apply to
geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) fixedsatellite service (space-to-Earth)
operations:
(a) Space stations authorized prior to,
or authorized as a result of an
application filed prior to, June 21, 2018
may continue to operate on a primary
basis, but no applications for new space
station authorizations or new petitions
for market access shall be accepted for
filing after that date, other than
applications by existing operators in the
band seeking to make more efficient use
of the band. Applications for extension,
cancellation, replacement, or
modification of existing space station
authorizations in the band will continue
to be accepted and processed normally.
(b) Earth station operations shall not
claim protection from terrestrial
stations, unless the requirements of 47
CFR 25.203(n) are satisfied.
Jkt 244001
§ 27.1
Basis and purpose.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(15) 3700–4200 MHz.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 10. Amend § 27.13 by adding
paragraph (m) to read as follows:
§ 27.13
License period.
*
*
*
*
*
(m) 3700–4200 MHz band.
Authorizations for the 3700–4200 MHz
band will have a term not to exceed 15
years from the date of issuance or
renewal.
■ 11. Amend § 27.14 by revising the first
sentence of paragraphs (a) and (k), and
adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:
§ 27.14
Construction requirements.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the
exception of WCS licensees holding
authorizations for the 600 MHz band,
Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728–
734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710
MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E
in the 722–728 MHz band, Block C, C1
or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787
MHz bands, Block A in the 2305–2310
MHz and 2350–2355 MHz bands, Block
B in the 2310–2315 MHz and 2355–2360
MHz bands, Block C in the 2315–2320
MHz band, Block D in the 2345–2350
MHz band, and 3700–4200 MHz band,
and with the exception of licensees
holding AWS authorizations in the
1915–1920 MHz and 1995–2000 MHz
bands, the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–
2200 MHz bands, or 1695–1710 MHz,
1755–1780 MHz and 2155–2180 MHz
bands, must, as a performance
requirement, make a showing of
‘‘substantial service’’ in their license
area within the prescribed license term
set forth in § 27.13. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS
authorizations in the spectrum blocks
enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i),
(q), (r), (s), (t), and (u) of this section,
including any licensee that obtained its
license pursuant to the procedures set
forth in paragraph (j) of this section,
shall demonstrate compliance with
performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the
Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark,
in accordance with the provisions set
forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
*
*
*
*
*
(u) The following provisions apply to
any licensee holding an authorization in
the 3700–4200 MHz band:
(1) A licensee shall provide reliable
signal coverage and offer service within
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
six (6) years from the date of the initial
license to at least forty-five (45) percent
of the population in each of its license
areas (‘‘First Buildout Requirement’’).
(2) A licensee shall provide reliable
signal coverage and offer service within
twelve (12) years from the date of the
initial license to at least eighty (80)
percent of the population in each of its
license areas (‘‘Second Buildout
Requirement’’).
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that
it meets the First Buildout Requirement
for a particular license area, the
licensee’s Second Buildout Requirement
deadline and license term will be
reduced by two years.
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that
it meets the Second Buildout
Requirement for a particular license
area, its authorization for each license
area in which it fails to meet the Second
Buildout Requirement shall terminate
automatically without Commission
action, and the licensee will be
ineligible to regain it if the Commission
makes the license available at a later
date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with
these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently
available decennial U.S. Census Data at
the time of measurement and shall base
their measurements of population
served on areas no larger than the
Census Tract level. The population
within a specific Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) will be deemed
served by the licensee only if it provides
reliable signal coverage to and offers
service within the specific Census Tract
(or other acceptable identifier). To the
extent the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) extends beyond
the boundaries of a license area, a
licensee with authorizations for such
areas may include only the population
within the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) towards meeting
the performance requirement of a single,
individual license. For the Gulf of
Mexico license area, the licensee shall
demonstrate compliance with these
performance requirements, using offshore platforms, including production,
manifold, compression, pumping and
valving platforms as a proxy for
population in the Gulf of Mexico.
■ 12. Amend § 27.50 by revising the
introductory text to paragraphs (d),
(d)(1), and (d)(2) and paragraph (d)(4) to
read as follows:
§ 27.50
Power limits and duty cycle.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The following power and antenna
height requirements apply to stations
transmitting in the 1695–1710 MHz,
1710–1755 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz,
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 / Proposed Rules
1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz,
2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz,
2155–2180 MHz, 2180–2200 MHz, and
3700–4200 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base
station transmitting in the 1995–2000
MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz,
2180–2200 MHz band, or 3700–4200
MHz band and located in any county
with population density of 100 or fewer
persons per square mile, based upon the
most recently available population
statistics from the Bureau of the Census,
is limited to:
*
*
*
*
*
(2) The power of each fixed or base
station transmitting in the 1995–2000
MHz, the 2110–2155 MHz 2155–2180
MHz band, 2180–2200, or 3700–4200
MHz band and situated in any
geographic location other than that
described in paragraph (d)(1) of this
section is limited to:
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (handheld) stations operating in the 1710–
1755 MHz band and mobile and
portable stations operating in the 1695–
1710 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz, and 3700–
4200 MHz bands are limited to 1 watt
EIRP. Fixed stations operating in the
1710–1755 MHz band are limited to a
maximum antenna height of 10 meters
above ground. Mobile and portable
stations operating in these bands must
employ a means for limiting power to
the minimum necessary for successful
communications.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 13. Amend § 27.53 by revising
paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
§ 27.53
Emission limits.
*
*
*
*
(h) AWS emission limits—(1) General
protection levels. Except as otherwise
specified below, for operations in the
1695–1710 MHz, 1710–1755 MHz,
1755–1780 MHz, 1915–1920 MHz,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS2
*
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Aug 28, 2018
Jkt 244001
44165
1995–2000 MHz, 2000–2020 MHz,
2110–2155 MHz, 2155–2180 MHz,
2180–2200 MHz, and 3700–4200 MHz
bands, the power of any emission
outside a licensee’s frequency block
shall be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) in watts by at least
43 + 10 log10 (P) dB.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 14. Amend § 27.55 by adding
paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 27.1400 3700–4200 MHz band subject to
competitive bidding.
§ 27.55
(a) Eligibility for small business
provisions—(1) Definitions—(i) Small
business. A small business is an entity
that, together with its affiliates, its
controlling interests, and the affiliates of
its controlling interests, has average
gross revenues not exceeding $55
million for the preceding three (3) years.
(ii) Very small business. A very small
business is an entity that, together with
its affiliates, its controlling interests,
and the affiliates of its controlling
interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $20 million for the preceding
three (3) years.
(2) Bidding credits. A winning bidder
that qualifies as a small business, as
defined in this section, or a consortium
of small businesses may use the bidding
credit of 15 percent, as specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A
winning bidder that qualifies as a very
small business, as defined in this
section, or a consortium of very small
businesses may use the bidding credit of
25 percent, as specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(b) Eligibility for rural service provider
bidding credit. A rural service provider,
as defined in § 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this
chapter, that has not claimed a small
business bidding credit may use the
bidding credit of 15 percent specified in
§ 1.2110(f)(4) of this chapter.
Power strength limits.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) Power flux density for stations
operating in the 3700–4200 MHz band.
The predicted or measured Power Flux
Density from any Base Station operating
in the 3700–4200 MHz bands at any
location on the geographical border of a
licensee’s service area shall not exceed
¥76dBm/m2/MHz (measured at 1.5
meters above ground) unless the
adjacent affected service area licensee(s)
agree(s) to a different PFD.
■ 15. Amend § 27.57 by revising
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 27.57
International coordination.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Operation in the 1695–1710 MHz,
1710–1755 MHz, 1755–1780 MHz,
1915–1920 MHz, 1995–2000 MHz,
2000–2020 MHz, 2110–2155 MHz,
2155–2180 MHz, 2180–2200 MHz, and
3700–4200 MHz bands is subject to
international agreements with Mexico
and Canada.
■ 16. Add subpart O to read as follows:
Subpart O—3700–4200 MHz Band
Sec.
27.1400 3700–4200 MHz band subject to
competitive bidding.
27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700–
4200 MHz band.
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
Mutually exclusive initial
applications for 3700–4200 MHz band
licenses are subject to competitive
bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR
part 1, subpart Q of this chapter will
apply unless otherwise provided in this
subpart.
§ 27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700–
4200 MHz band.
[FR Doc. 2018–18288 Filed 8–28–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\29AUP2.SGM
29AUP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44128-44165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18288]
[[Page 44127]]
Vol. 83
Wednesday,
No. 168
August 29, 2018
Part II
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, et al.
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 83 , No. 168 / Wednesday, August 29, 2018 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 44128]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27
[GN Docket No. 18-122; GN Docket No. 17-183; RM-11791; RM-11778; FCC
18-91]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) adopts a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to
pursue the joint goals of making 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum available
for new wireless uses while balancing desired speed to the market,
efficiency of use, and effectively accommodating incumbent Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service (FS) operations in the band.
The Commission seeks comment on various proposals for transitioning all
or part of the band for flexible use, terrestrial mobile spectrum, with
clearing for flexible use beginning at 3.7 GHz and moving higher up in
the band as more spectrum is cleared. The Commission also seeks comment
on potential changes to its rules to promote more efficient and
intensive fixed use of the band on a shared basis starting in the top
segment of the band and moving down the band.
DATES: Comments are due on or before October 29, 2018; reply comments
are due on or before November 27, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 18-122,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected], phone: 202-418-0530
or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Diamond of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at (202) 418-2803 or
[email protected], Anna Gentry of the Wireless Telecommunication
Bureau, Mobility Division, at 202-418-7769 or [email protected], or
Christopher Bair of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at
202-418-0945 or [email protected]. For information regarding the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, contact Cathy Williams, Office of
Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the NPRM portion of the
Commission's Order and NPRM, GN Docket No. 18-122, FCC 18-91, adopted
on July 12, 2018 and released on July 13, 2018. The complete text of
this document, as well as comments, reply comments, and ex parte
submissions, is available for public inspection and copying from 8 a.m.
to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m.
to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center,
445 12th Street SW, Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete
text is available on the Commission's website at https://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS web page
at https://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. Alternative formats are available to
persons with disabilities by sending an email to [email protected] or by
calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
Comment Filing Procedures:
Pursuant to Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply
comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this
document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). See Electronic Filing of Documents in
Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/filings. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the website
for submitting comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers
should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address,
and the applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 18-122.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings
for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at
445 12th St. SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Dr.,
Annapolis Junction, Annapolis MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 888-
835-5322 (tty).
Ex Parte Rules--Permit-But-Disclose
Pursuant to Sec. 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this Order
and NPRM shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments
[[Page 44129]]
can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed
to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with
Sec. 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which
the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing,
written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Commission has prepared this present IRFA of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the attached FNPRM. Written
public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified
as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified
in the FNPRM for comments. The Commission will send a copy of this
FNPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA).
Paperwork Reduction Act
The NPRM may result in new or revised information collection
requirements. If the Commission adopts any new or revised information
collection requirements, the Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the public to comment on such requirements,
as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. In addition,
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law
107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific
comment on how it might further reduce the information collection
burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. In this proceeding, the Commission is pursuing the joint goals
of making spectrum available for new wireless uses while balancing
desired speed to the market, efficiency of use, and effectively
accommodating incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service
(FS) operations in the band. To gain a clearer understanding of the
operations of current users in the band, the Commission collects
information on current FSS uses. The Commission then seeks comment on
various proposals for transitioning all or part of the band for
flexible use, terrestrial mobile spectrum, with clearing for flexible
use beginning at 3.7 GHz and moving higher up in the band as more
spectrum is cleared. The Commission also seeks comment on potential
changes to the Commission's rules to promote more efficient and
intensive fixed use of the band on a shared basis starting in the top
segment of the band and moving down the band. To add a mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, allocation and to develop rules that would enable
the band to be transitioned for more intensive fixed and flexible uses,
the Commission encourages commenters to discuss and quantify the costs
and benefits associated with any proposed approach along with other
helpful technical or procedural details.
II. Background
A. 5G Leadership and Closing the Digital Divide
2. America's appetite for wireless broadband service is surging.
And while mobile traffic is surging in sections of the United States,
many communities still lack access to meaningful broadband
connectivity. More intensive use of spectrum can allow wireless
operators to fill in gaps in the current broadband landscape.
Additional spectrum must be identified, however, if the Commission is
to seize the 5G future and meet the connectivity needs of all
Americans.
3. Enabling next generation wireless networks and closing the
digital divide will require efficient utilization of the low-, mid-,
and high-bands. In recent years, the Commission has taken several steps
to use low-band spectrum below 3.7 GHz more efficiently and intensely,
and it has paved the way for new opportunities in high-band spectrum
above 24 GHz. Having identified additional spectrum in low- and high-
bands, the Commission now seeks to identify mid-band spectrum for
wireless broadband services. Mid-band spectrum is well-suited for next
generation wireless broadband services due to the combination of
favorable propagation characteristics (compared to high bands) and the
opportunity for additional channel re-use (as compared to low bands).
4. Congress recently addressed the pressing need for additional
spectrum for wireless broadband, including both mobile and fixed
services, in the FY 2018 omnibus spending bill, which includes the
MOBILE NOW Act under Title VI of RAY BAUM'S Act. The MOBILE NOW Act
directs that spectrum be made available for new technologies and to
maintain America's leadership in the future of communications
technology. Section 603(a)(1) of the MOBILE NOW Act requires that no
later than December 31, 2022, the Secretary of Commerce, working
through the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA), and the Commission ``shall identify a total of at least 255
megahertz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum for mobile and fixed
wireless broadband use.'' In making 255 megahertz available, 100
megahertz below 8000 MHz shall be identified for unlicensed use, 100
megahertz below 6000 MHz shall be identified for use on exclusive,
licensed basis for commercial mobile use, pursuant to the Commission's
authority to implement such licensing in a flexible manner, and 55
megahertz below 8000 MHz shall be identified for licensed, unlicensed,
or a combination of uses.
5. Additionally, Sec. 605(b) of the MOBILE NOW Act specifically
requires the Commission to evaluate ``the feasibility of allowing
commercial wireless services, licensed or unlicensed, to use or share
use of the frequencies between 3700 megahertz and 4200 megahertz,''
which the Commission sought comment on in May 1, 2018 Public Notice.
The Commission notes that there is no federal allocation for the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band. The Commission intends to consult with NTIA and the heads
of each affected Federal agency, as required by the Act, regarding the
Federal entities, stations, and operations in the band, and the
required issues and assessments for the report under Sec. 605(b). This
NPRM, in conjunction with the report under Sec. 605(b), furthers the
Commission's evaluation of mid-band spectrum to meet Sec. 603's
statutory mandate as well as to accommodate projected future demand.
B. 2017 Mid-Band Notice of Inquiry
6. In the 2017 Mid-Band NOI, the Commission began an evaluation of
whether spectrum in-between 3.7 GHz and 24 GHz can be made available
for flexible use--particularly for wireless broadband services. The
Mid-Band NOI sought comment in particular on three mid-range bands that
have garnered interest from stakeholders for expanded flexible use
(3.7-4.2 GHz, 5.925-6.425 GHz, and 6.425-7.125 GHz), and it asked
commenters to identify other mid-
[[Page 44130]]
range frequencies that may be suitable for expanded flexible use. In
the interest of clarity and expeditiously making spectrum available for
wireless broadband use, this NPRM will evaluate the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
individually, and the Commission may address other mid-band spectrum
bands, including the 5.925-6.425 and 6.425-7.125 GHz bands, in
subsequent item(s).
III. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
A. The Future of Incumbent Usage of 3.7-4.2 GHz
1. Protecting Incumbent Earth Stations
7. The Commission proposes to protect incumbent earth stations from
harmful interference as the Commission increases the intensity of
terrestrial use in the band. The Commission seeks comment on how to
define the appropriate class of incumbents for protection. For FSS
earth station licensees and registrants, the Commission proposes to
define incumbent stations as earth stations that: (1) Were operational
as of April 19, 2018; (2) are licensed or registered (or had a pending
application for license or registration) in the IBFS database as of
October 17, 2018; and (3) have timely certified the accuracy of
information on file with the Commission to the extent required by the
Order. Although earth stations that have not filed an exhibit
demonstrating coordination with terrestrial FS stations are unprotected
from interference by FS links, that requirement is of less relevance
today given the minimal FS usage in the band, as well as the fact that
the Commission proposes new terrestrial uses for which coordination
with existing FS users will have little value. Accordingly, the
Commission proposes to protect even such earth stations so long as they
meet the criteria described above.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Commission notes that the International Bureau waived
the coordination requirement for the duration of the freeze for
applications filed during the filing window (April 19, 2018 to
October 17, 2018). Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing Window
Public Notice at 3-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. The Commission proposes to exclude from the definition of
incumbents any earth stations that are not licensed or registered in
IBFS, or that are licensed or registered in IBFS, but for which the
licensee/registrant does not timely file the certification required in
the Order. The Commission further proposes that unregistered FSS earth
stations could continue to receive transmissions lawfully, but would
operate on an unprotected basis as to any licensed operations in the
band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether incumbents that are
small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to the
transition such that they should be defined differently or have
different obligations.
9. The Commission asks that commenters be specific in defining a
protected incumbent and in explaining the relative obligations and/or
rights that protected incumbents may have under each approach for more
intense terrestrial use of the band. Which categories of incumbents
must new flexible use licensees relocate under each approach, what
would be the standard for determining the need to relocate each
category of incumbents, and what are the terms or rules pursuant to
which these relocations will occur? The Commission seeks comment on
specific relief that should be provided to each class of incumbents.
For example, should incumbent earth station operators be provided with
filters to block transmissions from flexible use operations, should
they receive filters and the technical assistance necessary to install
them or repoint earth station antennas as necessary, or should earth
station operators be provided with a lump sum to be used at their own
discretion, either to upgrade existing facilities or to enable the
switch to other means of transmission? Who would be responsible for
reimbursing incumbent earth station operators and C-band customers for
costs incurred in any transition, and how would such cost reimbursement
be accomplished? How would disputes relating to cost reimbursement be
resolved? What would be the basis for establishing reasonable cost
reimbursements? For example, would it take into account any required
improvements or replacement to an existing antenna or its supporting
structure? Would it cover any required technological assistance? How
should satellite news gathering vehicles or other temporary-fixed earth
stations be addressed?
a. Limiting New Earth Stations
10. On April 19, 2018, the staff released the Freeze and 90-Day
Earth Station Filing Window Public Notice, which froze applications for
new or modified earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to preserve the
current landscape of authorized operations pending action as part of
the Commission's ongoing inquiry into the possibility of permitting
mobile broadband use and more intensive fixed use of the band through
this proceeding. The Commission now seeks comment on revising the Part
25 rules to permanently limit eligibility to file applications for
earth station licenses or registrations to incumbent earth stations.
This would mean that earth station operators that register or license
their existing stations by October 17, 2018, would be able to modify
these stations at the registered location but not add new stations in
new locations, and applications for new earth station registrations
would not be allowed. Limiting new earth stations in this manner would
provide a stable spectral environment for more intensive terrestrial
use.
b. Removing Uncertified Earth Stations
11. In response to the Mid-band NOI, the Commission received
comments from a variety of stakeholders, many of which addressed
whether the Commission's IBFS data about current operations in the band
is complete and up to date. Some commenters stressed the importance of
identifying existing unregistered earth stations before the Commission
makes any substantial changes to the operations permitted in the band,
while other commenters contend that there may be earth stations in the
database that are no longer in operation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Registrants are required to notify the Commission when a
receive-only earth station is no longer operational or when it has
not been used to provide any service during any 6-month period. 47
CFR 25.131(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Regarding the first concern, in the Freeze and 90-Day Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notice, the International Bureau announced
as an exception to the freeze, a 90-day window for earth stations to
register in IBFS. Also, to obtain the best information possible on
existing earth stations in this band in furtherance of the Commission's
ongoing inquiry without imposing a potentially unnecessary economic
burden on eligible FSS earth station applicants in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
filing within the 90-day window, the International Bureau granted a
temporary waiver of the frequency coordination requirement.
Subsequently, the International Bureau extended the filing window by 90
days until October 17, 2018, waived additional provisions of the rules,
clarified that multiple antennas located at the same address or
geographic location may be filed under a single registration
application and pay a single filing fee, and announced the availability
of an additional option to facilitate the registration of large numbers
of geographically diverse earth stations under a single ``network''
license and single fee.
13. Regarding the second concern, the staff noted that ``after the
90-day window closes, the Commission may determine to require all
licensees,
[[Page 44131]]
registrants, and operators with pending applications for license or
registration of FSS earth stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to file a
certification that the earth station was operational as of the start of
the freeze and remains operational at the time of the certification
along with additional technical details regarding their operations to
inform the Commission's resolution of issues raised in the inquiry.''
\3\ In the Order, the Commission requires operators of earth stations
licensed or registered in IBFS (except those that file new or modified
registrations between April 19, 2018, and October 17, 2018, under the
modified registration process outlined in the Freeze and 90-Day Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notice) to file certifications as to the
accuracy of all information in IBFS concerning their existing FSS earth
station operations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Freeze and 90-Day Earth Station Filing Window Public Notice
at 5. The staff also advised all potential applicants that ``the
Commission may, for purposes of further action following the NOI,
choose to take into consideration only those earth stations that are
licensed, registered, or have pending applications for license or
registration on file in IBFS as of [the close of the filing
window].'' Id at 5.
\4\ Above, the Commission proposes to limit the definition of
incumbent earth stations to licensed or registered stations for
which the operator timely files the required certification, or for
which the operators timely filed for new or modified registrations
between April 19, 2018 and October 17, 2018 pursuant to the Earth
Station Filing Window Public Notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. To ensure that the Commission has the best information possible
on existing earth stations in this band, the Commission proposes to
update IBFS to remove 3.7-4.2 GHz band earth station licenses or
registrations for which the licensee or registrant does not file the
certifications required in the Order (to the extent they were licensed
or registered before April 19, 2018). The Commission specifically
proposes that an earth station registered in IBFS be automatically
terminated unless the registrant timely files the certification
required by the Order (to the extent they were licensed or registered
before April 19, 2018). The Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
c. Maintenance of IBFS Data Accuracy
15. The Commission seeks comment on how--once the accuracy of 3.7-
4.2 GHz band earth station data has improved--to ensure that earth
station data remains accurate to facilitate frequency coordination and
maximize efficient use of the spectrum. How often do the frequencies
received by a given earth station change? The Commission seeks comment
on whether, for a constructed and operational earth station,\5\ any
combination of frequency, azimuth, and elevation listed in the license
or registration that is unused for more than, e.g., 180 days, should be
deleted from the license or registration to minimize unnecessary
constraints on successful frequency coordination of new operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Commission notes that under Part 25, a station
authorization shall be automatically terminated in whole or in part
without further notice to the licensee upon the removal or
modification of the facilities which renders the station not
operational for more than 90 days, unless specific authority is
requested. Id. Sec. 25.161(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In addition, the Commission asks for parties to comment on
whether to require an earth station licensee or registrant in the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band to certify periodically, e.g., annually, the continued
accuracy of the information on file with the Commission. Should any
requirements that the Commission adopts to help ensure that IBFS data
remains accurate become effective after a transition period?
d. Revising the Coordination Policy
17. Receive-only earth stations cannot cause interference, but
under the Commission's current rules they can be coordinated and
licensed or registered with the Commission to protect them from
terrestrial microwave stations in bands shared co-equally with the FS.
Section 25.203 requires FSS applicants to coordinate their proposed
frequency use prior to filing their license applications with the
Commission. Earth station applicants, to the extent practicable, must
select sites and frequencies in areas where the surrounding terrain and
existing frequency use will minimize the possibility of harmful
interference between the sharing services. An earth station applicant,
prior to filing an application to register or license with the
Commission, must coordinate its proposed frequency usage with existing
terrestrial users and with applicants that have filed for terrestrial
station authorizations. The purpose of this coordination requirement is
to establish the baseline level of interference that an earth station
must accept in frequency bands shared by the FS and FSS on a co-primary
basis. The coordination results entitle the FSS earth station to the
interference protection levels agreed to during coordination, including
against subsequent FS licensees. Currently, registered or licensed
earth stations in the C-band are generally coordinated and authorized
to use the entire band across the full geostationary arc, a policy
known as full-band, full-arc.
18. A reexamination of the full-band, full-arc coordination policy
is appropriate in light of the Commission's goal to maximize spectrum
efficiency and use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band including more intensive
terrestrial use of the band. Accordingly, the Commission proposes that
for purposes of interference protection, earth station operators will
be entitled to protection only for those frequencies, azimuths, and
elevation angles and other parameters reported as in regular use (i.e.,
at least daily) in response to future information collections, until
the incumbent starts the coordination process for an application to
modify its license or registration in IBFS for its earth station. The
Commission further proposes that such modification applications
identify and include a coordination report for the specific
combinations of frequency, azimuth, and elevation angle that the
incumbent intends to use and that such technical information be
reflected on the earth station application and authorization. The
Commission seeks comment on this proposal.
19. At the same time, the Commission acknowledges that the full-
band, full-arc policy has certain advantages, e.g., it affords FSS
operational flexibility, and the Commission seeks comment about the
consequences of eliminating the policy. Specifically, how would this
policy alter current business models and operations of C-band licensees
and registrants? Are there alternatives to eliminating this policy that
would have less of an impact on the current C-band business models and
operations without sacrificing the efficiency maximizing goals of the
Commission's proposal?
e. Information on Incumbent FSS Operations
20. In the Order, the Commission directs incumbent FSS earth
station operators to certify as to the accuracy of existing information
in IBFS, and require incumbent FSS space station operators to provide
additional information. To develop a more complete record on existing
FSS operations in this band, the Commission proposes to require earth
station operators to file additional information on their existing
facilities. To the extent that the information requested would
duplicate information already available in IBFS, the Commission will
direct the International Bureau to permit operators to certify that the
information in IBFS remains accurate in lieu of providing the
information again. Specifically, the Commission proposes and seeks
comment on requiring authorized earth station operators (including
operators
[[Page 44132]]
that file new or modified registrations between April 19, 2018, and
October 17, 2018) to provide the following information for each antenna
under each call sign: \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ To reduce the burden on FSS earth station operators and
ensure the accuracy of data obtained during the information
collection process, IB would release a public notice that will
provide guidance about how to obtain or calculate the information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Earth station call sign;
geographic location;
licensee and point of contact information;
antenna gain;
azimuth and elevation gain pattern;
antenna azimuth relative to true north;
antenna elevation angle;
satellite(s) at which the earth station is pointed;
transponder number(s) and how often each transponder is
used: Regularly (i.e., at least daily); infrequently; or backup
capacity;
antenna site elevation and height above ground.
21. The Commission's consideration of some transition options may
also benefit from additional, more granular information on FSS earth
station and space station operations in the band. For example,
information on the type of content (i.e., audio or video feeds), the
total bandwidth occupied by particular users or content feeds, and the
identity of the content provider could provide additional clarity on
the actual usage of the band. In addition, more granular information on
the nature of any periodic usage of transponder capacity (i.e., daily,
weekly or once a year) could provide additional clarity on the
availability of spectrum in the band. The Commission seeks comment on
whether to seek additional information from incumbent FSS earth station
or space station operators beyond what is included in the list above.
Should the Commission seek additional information on transponder
loading, content type, content provider information, periodic usage, or
other data that would provide a more detailed picture of the actual
usage of the band? Should the Commission collect other information to
more fully assess spectrum utilization in the band?
22. In the Order, the Commission requires operators of temporary
fixed or transportable earth stations to file information concerning
their existing operations, including the area within which the
equipment is typically used and the frequency and duration of such use.
Consistent with the Commission's proposal to collect additional
information from fixed FSS earth stations, the Commission seeks comment
on whether and to what extent the Commission should collect additional
information specifically with respect to temporary fixed or
transportable earth stations. The Commission also seeks comment on
whether the categories of information proposed above for fixed FSS
earth stations would need to be modified or supplemented with respect
to temporary fixed or transportable earth stations.\7\ For example,
would it be useful to further quantify the frequency or extent of use
for these operations and, if so, how should they be quantified?
Commenters should provide a clear rationale for any additional
information collection along with an analysis of the costs and benefits
of such additional collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ SES and Intelsat provided many questions that could be asked
about the nature of such earth stations and their patterns of use,
but it may be difficult to quantify deployments for these earth
stations other than typical capacity used when they are deployed and
perhaps the area or areas within which they are typically used.
Intelsat, SES July 3, 2018 Ex Parte Letter (GN Docket Nos. 17-183,
18-122).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
23. The Commission also seeks comment on whether to collect the
information described above on a nationwide basis or whether it may be
appropriate to conduct an initial information collection for an initial
sample of areas. For example, should the Commission collects
information from entities based on a representative sampling of
different types of areas, such as urban, suburban, and rural areas? If
so, how should the sample be determined? The Commission seeks comment
on this and any other methodology that will effectively balance the
potential burden that an information collection may impose against the
need to evaluate the feasibility of clearing more spectrum in this
band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities and
entities operating in rural areas face any special or unique issues
with respect to the information collection such that they would require
certain accommodations or additional time to comply. The Commission
also seeks comment on the costs and benefits of an additional
information collection on this band.
24. Commenters should describe, with specificity, how any
additional information collection would support a given transition
proposal and should provide a detailed assessment of the costs and
benefits of such additional collections. The Commission also encourages
commenters to submit any information that could inform the Commission's
consideration of specific transition proposals, including the types of
information described in this section.
2. Limiting New Space Station Operators
25. On June 21, 2018, the International Bureau released the Space
Station Freeze Public Notice, which froze the filing of certain space-
station applications in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. To limit speculative
applications for satellite usage of the band in light of this
proceeding, the Commission proposes to revise the rules to similarly
bar new applications for space station licenses and new petitions for
market access concerning space-to-Earth operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band. These revisions would not extend to applications for extension,
cancellation, replacement or modification of existing authorizations.
Additionally, the Commission proposes that this freeze would not bar
operators with existing space station authorizations in the band as of
June 21, 2018, from filing applications for additional space stations,
if authorization of such space stations would promote more efficient
use of the band. The Commission seeks comment on the Commission's
proposal.
3. Sunsetting Incumbent Point-to-Point Fixed Services
26. Due to the declining use of the band for fixed point-to-point
FS links as well as the availability of other spectrum options for
point-to-point links, the Commission proposes to sunset point-to-point
FS use in the band. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on
whether existing fixed links should be grandfathered or transitioned
out of the band over some time period, after which all licenses would
either be cancelled or modified to operate on a secondary, non-
interference basis. If the latter, how long would incumbent users have
to transition from the band? Three years? Five years? And should the
Commission differentiate in treatment between those with permanent
licenses and those with temporary licenses? Or those that have or are
willing to relocate to the upper portion of the band?
B. Increasing the Intensity of Terrestrial Use
27. The Commission describes several potential approaches for
repurposing the band and the Commission encourages commenters in
discussing their proposals to consider the economic tradeoffs described
herein. Figure 1 below demonstrates the current
[[Page 44133]]
and proposed future allocations and potential uses of the band.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.001
28. The Commission recognizes that co-channel sharing of spectrum
between the FSS and more intensive terrestrial wireless use in the same
geographic area may be difficult. For example, frequency coordination
allows FSS and terrestrial fixed microwave to share the band on a co-
primary basis, but coordination of mobile systems would be more
complicated because the movement of the devices would require analyses
and interference mitigation to FSS earth stations in this band spread
over many locations within any given geographic area. In addition,
because the C-band satellites are in geostationary orbit approximately
36,000 km above the equator, the signals received at the earth stations
are extremely weak. This means that terrestrial mobile operations could
cause harmful interference to the earth station receivers over large
distances absent adequate protection.
29. Geographic sharing may be similarly difficult. Current
Commission policy permits earth stations to coordinate reception across
the entire GSO arc and over the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band, which would
exclude mobile wireless operations from transmitting across the entire
band in a wide area around each earth station. For purposes of
illustration, Figure 2 below shows a hypothetical 20 km exclusion zone
around each earth station in the continental United States in the
International Bureau Filing System (IBFS) database as of early May
2018.\8\ These exclusion zones would cover 83.25% of the United States
population.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The Commission notes that commenters in this proceeding have
argued that IBFS significantly undercounts the number of existing,
but unregistered, earth stations. For purposes of this study the
Commission used earth stations currently licensed or registered in
IBFS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 44134]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.002
30. The Commission was able to establish the Citizens Broadband
Radio Service in the 3550-3700 MHz despite the presence of FSS
receivers because there are only FSS earth stations in 35 cities and
two MSS gateways in the 3600-3700 MHz band. This is unlike the current
incumbent earth station environment in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Therefore,
subject to confirming the landscape of existing earth stations through
the certifications required by the Order, co-channel sharing between
FSS and mobile wireless could exclude a majority of the population from
receiving flexible fixed and mobile broadband service in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band unless FSS use of the band is modified or FSS protection
criteria are significantly relaxed. The Commission recognizes that the
affected population would likely be less if the Commission was to only
protect the earth stations based on the transponder frequencies
received at each site and actual antenna azimuth and elevation, but the
overall assessment that mobile service would not be viable for much of
the population would remain the same. The Commission seeks comment on
this assessment.
31. Notably, the Commission believes that increased terrestrial use
of the band is ripe to meet the Commission's mandate under the MOBILE
NOW Act to identify (with NTIA) 255 megahertz of spectrum for mobile
and fixed wireless broadband use. For purposes of meeting Sec.
603(a)(1), Sec. 603(a)(3)(E) states ``[s]pectrum that the Commission
determines had more than de minimis mobile or fixed wireless broadband
operations within the band on the day before the date of enactment of
this Act'' is non-eligible for purposes of satisfying the 255 megahertz
requirement. The Commission believes that there was no more than a de
minimis amount of mobile or fixed wireless broadband operations in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band on March 22, 2018 (the day before the date of
enactment of the MOBILE NOW Act) for purposes of fulfilling Sec. 603.
Specifically, since FSS is neither an ``unlicensed use'' nor an
``exclusive, licensed basis for commercial mobile use,'' FSS services
are not included in the de minimis exception under Sec. 603(a)(3)(E).
Additionally, FSS in the band is predominantly used for the delivery of
video programming with only a de minimis portion of the satellite
capacity used to provide data services. The Commission notes that there
is no mobile allocation in the band and the Commission's licensing
database indicates that there are only 115 fixed point-to-point
licenses in the band. Thus, any portion of this band made available for
flexible terrestrial or more intensive fixed use would help satisfy the
requirement of Sec. 603(a)(1) to identify a total of at least 255
megahertz of spectrum for ``mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.''
The Commission seeks comment on these findings.
32. The Commission seeks comment on approaches for expanding
flexible and more intensive fixed use of the band without causing
harmful interference to incumbent operations. In discussing how much of
the band should be made available for flexible use, more intensive
fixed use, or maintained just for incumbent uses, the Commission asks
commenters to address the relative present and future economic value of
each of these services to individuals and businesses in the United
States. What are the tradeoffs in accommodating one type of use instead
of another? And what are the costs associated with accommodating new
uses? Commenters should provide a detailed cost-benefit analysis in
their proposal and address the relative economic values of alternative
uses and the implementation costs of their specific proposal vis-
[agrave]-vis other possible approaches to the band. The Commission also
asks commenters to address the economic impact of the implementation
time frame associated with their chosen approach.
33. The Commission proposes to add a non-federal mobile, except
aeronautical mobile, service allocation to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and
given the Commission's conclusion that co-channel sharing is not
feasible, seek comment on several proposals below to clear all or part
of the band for flexible use. In particular, the Commission seeks
comment on the economic benefits of introducing a new allocation for
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, and flexible use relative to the
introduction of point-to-multipoint FS, perhaps shared with FSS, in all
or part of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Commenters should consider the
economic value of current and future use cases for each type of
service, including benefits and opportunity costs to consumers and the
Nation's economy overall, as well as to unserved or underserved areas
and specialized market segments (e.g., education, telemedicine, and
manufacturing).
[[Page 44135]]
Commenters should also address the benefits of international
harmonization both in terms of devices and network deployments. In
addition, the Commission encourages commenters to consider the economic
impact on consumers and businesses in rural communities and areas that
are unserved or underserved by current broadband providers, as well as
any economic impact on small businesses. The Commission also asks
commenters to address how long it will take to transition various
amounts of this band to flexible use or to point-to-multipoint FS use,
how much such a transition will cost for each 100 megahertz that is
transitioned, and how expeditiously the transition can be completed.
34. The Commission also seeks comment on the current and future
economic value of FSS in the band. How intensively is this spectrum
used by existing FSS licensees and how intensely will it be utilized in
the future? Is spectrum in the band allocated to FSS currently being
used efficiently and are there technologies that may facilitate more
efficient use of spectrum in the band by FSS licensees without
significant disruption to consumers and businesses that rely on these
services? Are there alternative technologies available that could
wholly or partially replace the services provided by FSS without
significant disruption to existing customers? How long would it take
and how much would it cost to transition existing customers to these
alternative technologies? How may the cost-benefit analysis shift
depending on how much spectrum is transitioned at particular times? Are
there other considerations that the Commission should consider when
assessing the most economically efficient allocation of the band
between services? And would such considerations differ depending on
when and how much spectrum is ultimately transitioned to flexible use?
1. Mechanisms for Expanding Flexible Use
35. Repurposing of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum bands allocated to FSS
raises at least three economic problems, some of which have not arisen
in previous spectrum auctions. The first two problems are direct
consequences of the C-band licensing structure, while the last is
common to all spectrum reallocations. First, because all FSS licensees
have equal, nonexclusive rights to the entire band under part 25 of the
Commission's rules, they cannot compete in the same way that broadcast
television licensees did in the broadcast incentive auction. Second,
this nonexclusive licensing problem creates an incentive for an FSS
licensee to overstate the value it assigns to the spectrum in order to
increase the share of auction revenue it may receive. The Commission
will refer to this as the ``holdout'' problem. Third, repurposing some
of the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum band will reduce the amount of spectrum
available for FSS, which lowers industry capacity and could lead to
higher prices for downstream services, such as the transmission of
video to cable head ends. The Commission notes that the first and last
problems create opposite incentives for FSS licensees. The first
provides an incentive to repurpose less than the efficient amount of
spectrum while the last may create an incentive to repurpose more than
the efficient amount.
36. The broadcast incentive auction relied on competition among
licensees to induce broadcast incumbents to reveal the least amount
they must be paid to relinquish their spectrum rights. Many broadcast
licenses were substitutes because if one licensee bid to relinquish its
spectrum usage rights this could make spectrum available to repack
other broadcast stations and free spectrum for flexible use. In the
3.7-4.2 GHz FSS, all licensees must agree to relinquish their spectrum
rights in a given geographic area in order to reassign spectrum and
therefore licenses are not substitutes and competition is limited.
37. In addition to the problem that satellite licensees will not be
competing to supply spectrum in the same way that television licensees
did in the broadband incentive auction, there is an additional problem
concerning how the satellite licensees will split any revenues from
repurposing. In order to increase its share of auction revenues, a FSS
licensee may have an incentive to overstate the value it assigns to the
spectrum or to withhold its consent to repurpose. The holdout problem
is the inverse of a public goods problem. The 500 megahertz of spectrum
allocated for FSS is a public good, in that several distinct companies
make non-exclusive, non-rivalrous use of the spectrum within a
geographic area.\9\ Were the spectrum unallocated, the FSS providers
would face a classic public goods problem since the total value of the
spectrum is the sum of the values of the FSS operators. With property
rights assigned to FSS operators, the Commission faces a reverse public
goods problem: How to recover an efficient amount of a public good
which is no longer efficiently allocated? In the classic public goods
problem, if individuals are asked to pay for the public good based on
their valuation of that good, they will have an incentive to understate
their value for the public good to lower their payment. In the reverse
problem, however, each FSS licensee has an incentive to overstate its
value of the spectrum in order to increase its payment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The Commission notes, however, that orbital slots are
rivalrous.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
38. Several mechanisms have been developed to generate an efficient
allocation of public goods, including one proposed by Hal Varian. In
the standard public goods case, Varian proposed that individuals have
the opportunity to subsidize the contributions of others towards the
public good in a first-stage and then decide how much to contribute in
a second-stage. Can such mechanisms be adapted to solve the holdout
problem under consideration here? For example, in the first stage might
each party announce the share of the payment it receives that it will
give to each other party and in the second stage nominate how much
spectrum to clear? Can such a mechanism be modified to mitigate the
incentive to clear less than the efficient amount of spectrum? Some
commenters suggest having the FSS providers meet, privately negotiate,
and agree to put spectrum up for auction. The Commission seeks comment
on the relative merits of FSS provider cooperation versus a more
formal, non-cooperative mechanism, especially with regard to the three
economic problems.
39. FSS operators currently compete to provide communication
services (for example, to deliver programming content to rural cable
companies). For the efficient allocation of spectrum, the social value
of these services needs to be balanced against the social value of
alternative services that could be provided by that spectrum, such as
mobile data. Several commenters, such as the American Cable
Association, contend that earth stations can and do switch providers,
suggesting that competition currently exists in the C-band. Since a
reduction in industry capacity generally leads to higher prices,
reducing the spectrum associated with FSS may have the unintended
consequence of increasing the price of FSS services and consequently of
downstream services. Conversely, such a reduction should correspond
with an increase in industry capacity for high-speed wireless broadband
services, which would tend to lead to lower prices. How should the
Commission evaluate proposed mechanisms with regard to their effect on
downstream users of FSS and wireless broadband
[[Page 44136]]
services? How should the Commission take into account other
opportunities to deliver these services--such as other means of
transmitting programming data like alternative satellite bands \10\ or
fiber and other means of transmitting high-speed broadband like other
mid-band spectrum or fiber--in evaluating these effects?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The Commission recognizes that other transmission methods
may also compete against satellite transmission via C-band spectrum.
For example, in certain urban and suburban areas where fiber is
widely deployed, fiber may be a cost-effective alternative. And
there may be other radio spectrum that can deliver video
transmission, such as the Ku band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
40. In addition, the value of spectrum in alternative uses like
mobile data is likely highest in dense urban areas. When the Commission
has sold spectrum by geographic region, the prices obtained have been
positively correlated with population density. FSS substitutes,
particularly fiber, are most prevalent in urban areas while in rural
areas there are fewer FSS substitutes. Thus, in rural areas, typically
the value of the spectrum remaining in FSS is relatively high while the
opportunity cost of clearing less flexible-use spectrum is relatively
low, suggesting that the amount of spectrum repurposed should vary
across geographic areas. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
whether the Commission should repurpose a minimum amount of spectrum
nationwide, and make additional fully unencumbered spectrum available
in any areas where it is less costly to transition earth stations to
other forms of transmission. Under this approach, the Commission also
seeks comment on the appropriate size of such regions. If the regions
are too small, this could make mobile data use impractical because it
would not give wireless providers sufficient flexibility to scale their
networks using this band, while if the regions are too large, this
could threaten rural services because those regions would not be
attractive to small and rural wireless providers. Is it practical to
create regions based on the existence of alternatives to FSS like
fiber? The Commission seeks comment on whether any flexible use
licenses should also be overlay licenses, for which the terrestrial
licensee is obligated to protect licensed or registered earth stations
and can use any spectrum that becomes available by clearing earth
stations.
41. Another consideration in the geographical division of spectrum
involves the parties to compensate. Instead of paying FSS operators for
relinquishing spectrum usage rights nationwide or in specific
geographic regions a mechanism instead might pay earth stations for
relinquishing access to C-band spectrum in specific geographic areas.
Such earth stations might discontinue use in these areas by
discontinuing receiving content or by receiving it by alternative
transmission infrastructure like fiber, where the content might be
delivered to the fiber from C-band earth stations in rural areas. Would
such a mechanism present an alternative supplier of spectrum--with
either the FSS operators or the earth stations effectively releasing
spectrum rights? The Commission notes, however, that the holdout
problem for licensed earth stations is likely more severe because there
are more such earth stations that are independently owned than
satellite operators. The Commission seeks comment on the practicality
and social value of compensating licensed earth stations in exchange
for agreeing to no longer be licensed to receive in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band. In particular, would such a mechanism protect those earth
stations but not unlicensed earth stations? Also, how would satellite
operators be compensated for loss of revenues after the expiration of
their contracts with content providers serving the licensed earth
stations that discontinued their reliance on satellite delivery of
content?
a. A Market-Based Mechanism
42. The commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should
adopt rules that would facilitate a market-based approach to
transitioning incumbents from some or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
Under such an approach, the Commission would authorize incumbent FSS
operators to voluntarily clear all or part of the band. Satellite
operators in the band could choose to make some or all of their
spectrum available to terrestrial operators on the secondary market in
exchange for compensation. Under such an approach, satellite operators
could be responsible for clearing the portion of the band that would be
made available for flexible use, including notifying earth stations of
the need to modify their operations and compensating them for any costs
associated with that transition.
43. A secondary market approach might make spectrum available more
quickly than other available mechanisms, such as an FCC auction, and
thus could facilitate rapid deployment of next generation wireless
broadband networks. In addition, such an approach could leverage the
technical and operational knowledge of satellite space station
operators while relying on market incentives to promote economic
efficiency. The Commission seeks comment on whether a market-based
approach could effectively and rapidly facilitate new terrestrial
deployments in the band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether a
market-based approach that allows FSS licensees to coordinate their
capacity would raise any antitrust concerns.
44. The Commission seeks comment on the efficacy of using a market-
based approach to transition some or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to
flexible terrestrial use. The Commission observes, and some commenters
in the record maintain, that a significant benefit of a market-based
approach may be a more rapid introduction of C-band spectrum to the
market. For example, Intel, Intelsat, and SES claim that their
consortium approach would result in licensed mobile services within 18-
36 months of a Commission order. Commenters also should address the
costs and benefits of this approach vis-[agrave]-vis the alternative
proposals set forth in this section.
45. The Commission seeks comment on using a market-based approach
through a Transition Facilitator, a cooperative entity created by
relevant satellite operators to coordinate negotiations, clearing, and
repacking the band. The Commission notes that because of the holdout
problem, a market-based approach in which FSS licensees act
independently is unlikely to succeed. Consequently, should the
Commission allow, encourage, or require satellite operators to
cooperate in negotiating with potential terrestrial mobile licensees
and in clearing an agreed amount of spectrum? A market-based approach
that uses a Transition Facilitator would enable the satellite operators
to use private negotiations to obtain participation and agreement from
the relevant satellite operators, rather than requiring the Commission
to address holdouts using more regulatory mechanisms.
46. The Commission seeks comment on whether using a market-based
approach in which FSS operators form a Transition Facilitator would
produce an economically efficient outcome. Specifically, would allowing
all potential sellers to agree on the amount and price of the spectrum
that will be repurposed result in a situation in which those sellers
offer a lower quantity than is socially efficient? Is that concern
mitigated by the fact that the market for spectrum for high-speed
broadband services is much broader than just the 3.7-4.2 GHz band? The
Commission seeks comment regarding some of these concerns about the
potential effects of allowing collective
[[Page 44137]]
action by C-band satellite operators below. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether a Transition Facilitator raises any particular
antitrust concerns.
47. A transition under a market-based approach could be undertaken
in a four-step process. The first step would involve the industry
voluntarily forming a Transition Facilitator composed of eligible C-
band satellite operators.\11\ In the second step, the Transition
Facilitator would negotiate with any interested terrestrial operators
and incumbent users. In the third step, the Commission would review the
Transition Facilitator's plan and conditionally authorize terrestrial
licenses in the band. And in step four, the Transition Facilitator
would clear the negotiated-for spectrum, making it available for
flexible use while protecting incumbent earth stations through a
variety of potential means. The Commission notes as well that a market-
based process need not be a one-time event--a Transition Facilitator
could negotiate with parties for compensation and protection, seek
Commission review and conditional authorization, and clear new spectrum
multiple times to ensure the total spectrum dedicated to flexible use
meets market demands. The Commission seeks comment on the effectiveness
of such a four-step process. In addition, the Commission invites
commenters supporting a market-based approach to suggest additional
details to the steps described below or other specific approaches for
implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ In this context, clearing refers to relinquishing
interference protection. Satellite transmissions that do not cause
interference to terrestrial operations would not necessarily have to
be cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. Step 1: Formation of a Transition Facilitator.--The first step
in the process would be for the industry to form a Transition
Facilitator. Once the Transition Facilitator is formed and ready to
begin negotiations with potential licensees, the Transition Facilitator
would notify the Commission of its membership, its charter, i.e., its
structure, objectives, and planned operation, and its compliance with
any rules adopted as a result of this proceeding. Once the Transition
Facilitator has filed its notification, the Commission would have 60
days to review the filing and formally object to its creation through
an order. The Commission seeks comment on this process. What additional
information might the Commission need to conduct such a review? Should
any parties have the opportunity to formally object? Should the
Commission be required to affirmatively approve or reject the formation
of a Transition Facilitator, and if so on what timeline?
49. There is record support for a centralized facilitator. Intelsat
and SES--the two largest incumbent satellite operators in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band--support a consortium-based facilitator. While Eutelsat raises
concerns regarding how satellite operators eligible to participate in a
market-based approach would be defined it has stated publicly that it
wants to participate. In considering such an approach, the Commission
thus asks commenters to address how to define eligibility to
participate in the Transition Facilitator. The Commission seeks comment
on opening eligibility to participate in the Transition Facilitator to
all C-band satellite operators providing service to any part of the
United States pursuant to an FCC-issued license or grant of market
access. Should the Commission limit eligibility in any way, such as
requiring service throughout the lower 48 states?
50. Given the holdout problem, the Commission does not propose to
require that all eligible satellite operators agree to a Transition
Facilitator before it can take effect. Instead, the Commission seeks
comment on the appropriate number of satellite spectrum interests in
the band--a majority? all but one?--that should be represented by the
Transition Facilitator to effectuate a successful transition. Are a
minimum number of operators required to participate in the Transition
Facilitator for this approach to work? If this number is not met,
should the Transition Facilitator be approved by the Commission?
51. The Commission also seeks comment on what the Transition
Facilitator should do if one or more eligible C-band satellite
operators choose not to participate in the Transition Facilitator. Are
any Commission actions necessary if one or more eligible C-band
satellite operators do not join the Transition Facilitator? The
Commission notes that Intelsat and SES propose that eligible C-band
satellite operators that do not join a centralized facilitator would
nonetheless have their ``reconfiguration and relocation costs
covered.'' How would such a process work? Should the Transition
Facilitator, or members of the Transition Facilitator, negotiate with
non-participating satellite companies to ensure the spectrum is
successfully repurposed? Or should non-participating satellite
companies be bound by the decisions of the Transition Facilitator? If
the latter, would a non-participating satellite company be limited to
recouping its costs? Or would it be even eligible to recoup costs so
long as the Transition Facilitator adequately protects its associated
incumbent earth stations?
52. If there are earth station registrants or licensees that have
no contractual relationship with any of the members of the Transition
Facilitator or any FSS space station operators, will that create
difficulties in clearing the band during later steps in the process? If
so, how can those difficulties be addressed? Is there any reason that
the Transition Facilitator would not able to negotiate with earth
stations that don't have contractual relationships with any of the
Transition Facilitator's members? Should there be a requirement that
the C-band operators participating in the Transition Facilitator have
contractual relationships with a minimum percentage of protected
incumbent earth stations to avoid these potential difficulties? Should
the Transition Facilitator be required to work with non-participating
satellite companies to protect incumbent earth stations, or should the
Transition Facilitator be free to work directly with those entities?
53. To ensure that the transition process proceeds expeditiously,
should the Commission establish a benchmark for the Transition
Facilitator filing of six months after Federal Register publication of
an order in this proceeding? \12\ What if a Transition Facilitator is
not created within the specified timeframe? Should the Commission have
in place other means of reassigning the spectrum? Finally, the
Commission also seeks comment on what form of supervisory authority the
Commission should maintain over the Transition Facilitator, if any.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Commission will release a Public Notice announcing the
start of the transition period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
54. Step 2: Negotiation Period.--The next step in the process would
be to undertake negotiations for spectrum rights in the band. The
Commission anticipates that the Transition Facilitator would engage in
a multi-step process to negotiate with prospective licensees and
protected incumbent earth stations in the band. The result of these
negotiations would be a Transition Facilitation Plan that would lay out
what spectrum would be made available for flexible use (and where) as
well as the steps the Transition Facilitator plans to take to ensure
that protected incumbent earth stations continue to have access to the
content or bandwidth they currently receive using C-band earth
stations.
55. For example, the negotiation process could include the
following steps. First, the Transition Facilitator
[[Page 44138]]
would identify the profit-maximizing feasible amount of spectrum to
make available by soliciting inquiries from all interested terrestrial
wireless parties and negotiating for specific spectrum blocks and
markets. This amount of spectrum demanded might adjust during the
course of negotiations. The Transition Facilitator would then conclude
private agreements to protect incumbent earth stations and determine
the total available supply. Next, having balanced the supply and the
demand, the Transition Facilitator would provide each prospective
licensee with a certification of the specific spectrum block(s) and
market(s) negotiated for in the associated private agreement. Finally,
the Transition Facilitator would file its Transition Facilitation Plan
with the Commission. The Commission seeks detailed comment on this
possible approach, including what, if any, Commission oversight is
warranted. The Commission also seeks comment on this approach's costs
and benefits as well as any alternative approaches.
56. Given the high demand for and high-value of mid-band spectrum,
the Commission should strive to adopt a mechanism that will repurpose a
socially efficient amount of spectrum in the band. Intelsat-SES-Intel
believe that consortium members could make approximately 100 megahertz
of spectrum available for licensed terrestrial service via privately
negotiated agreements between consortium members and prospective
terrestrial licensees. In addition, under that proposal, consortium
members would clear an additional 40 to 60 megahertz above this
spectrum to act as an internal band to protect against harmful
interference from transmissions in the adjacent spectrum. Intel
maintains that, if the demand for terrestrial mobile spectrum is as
robust as commonly believed by 5G supporters, this market-based
approach could clear additional spectrum beyond the 100 megahertz
proposed by Intelsat and SES in the same timeframe. The Commission
notes that T-Mobile asserts that a market-based approach ``creates
tremendous uncertainty regarding the availability of this spectrum for
mobile broadband services and will likely result in inefficient
reallocation of spectrum.'' To address this concern, the Commission
seeks comment on whether to require that an Initial Minimum Spectrum
Benchmark--a socially efficient amount of spectrum--be repurposed in
the band in order to use a market-based approach, and what this amount
should be. Should the Commission set the Initial Minimum Spectrum
Benchmark to be 100 megahertz, given the comments of Intelsat and SES?
Would a higher or lower benchmark be appropriate? Should the Commission
require the Transition Facilitation Plan to require the clearing of at
least the Initial Minimum Spectrum Benchmark for approval? In addition,
the Commission seeks comment on whether an internal protection band is
necessary both above and below (i.e., below 3.7 GHz) the repurposed
spectrum. What benchmarks should be set for clearing an internal
protection band? Commenters should describe the appropriate amount of
spectrum to be repurposed, taking into account economic considerations
and the expected time and costs associated with repurposing the
spectrum.
57. To ensure a timely transition process, should the Commission
set specific benchmarks for the completion of initial negotiations with
potential terrestrial licensees as well as protected incumbent earth
stations? Intel, Intelsat, and SES maintain that such negotiations
could be completed within three to eight months. The Commission asks
commenters to consider whether eight months is an appropriate benchmark
for completion of Transition Facilitator negotiations and submission of
the Transition Facilitation Plan. What should be the effect of a
failure to meet such a benchmark?
58. The Commission seeks comment on how to ensure that the market-
based approach's negotiation process will facilitate a competitive and
open market. For example, should the Commission require that all
parties act in good faith? What other rules could the Commission adopt
to ensure competition in the marketplace? The Commission notes that T-
Mobile raises concerns that satellite operators could choose to limit
the amount of spectrum available for flexible use in order to increase
their profits, while others claim it will not take into sufficient
account the interests of protected incumbent earth stations. How can
the Commission ensure the negotiation process accounts for the
interests of all stakeholders that have interests in the band--from new
wireless entrants to existing satellite operators to protected
incumbent earth stations, from those living in rural America to those
living in cities? Would Commission oversight of this market-based
approach--or over the Transition Facilitator--benefit in any way from
insights from antitrust law?
59. The Commission also seeks comment on what role, if any, the
Commission should play to facilitate or oversee these private market
negotiations. For example, should the Commission allow some flexibility
for the negotiators to make more spectrum available in some markets
than others, potentially allowing a limited number of earth stations to
continue to operate using wider bandwidths in certain areas where
wireless operators are less interested in deploying (e.g., remote rural
areas)? Should the Commission have some input on the FSS frequencies to
be made available for private-market negotiations? How should these
determinations be made? A market-based approach would not likely result
in mutually exclusive applications for the Commission to consider if,
for example, a negotiated agreement with the Transition Facilitator is
a prerequisite for applying for a license in this band. Would this
negotiation satisfy the Commission's obligation in the public interest
to use negotiation to avoid mutual exclusivity pursuant to Sec.
309(j)(6)(E) of the Communications Act?
60. The Commission also asks commenters to discuss the requirements
and safeguards that the Commission should adopt, if any, to ensure that
these privately negotiated agreements result in a timely and complete
transition. The Commission will expect parties to negotiate a full
range of transition commitments and penalties for failure to meet
transition benchmarks. Nonetheless, does the Commission need to adopt
baseline requirements, such as defining comparable facilities,
including the relocation of incumbent operations to another band, to
fiber, and/or to more efficient technologies? What would be the
relative costs and benefits associated with adopting such requirements?
Would such definitions or rules minimize disruption to existing
operations during the transition? Are there mechanisms the Commission
can adopt to ensure that all or specific categories of incumbents are
not adversely affected by repacking of this band? For example, should
the Commission require FSS space station licensees that are going to
cease transmitting on a primary basis to notify earth stations
receiving those signals? Could the parties determine that the
transitioning of facilities should be undertaken by the terrestrial
licensee instead of the Transition Facilitator? If so, would the
parties or the FCC establish a benchmark for completing such a
transition? Should the Transition Facilitator be required to have a
mechanism for receiving reports from incumbents that experience
disruptions, and should the Transition Facilitator also be required to
notify the
[[Page 44139]]
Commission when it receives such reports? The Commission invites
commenters to address the specific form of notification required, the
time period for providing each notification, and the costs and benefits
of each notification requirement.
61. If the Commission's role were more limited, what level of
transparency, if any, should be required during the negotiation
process? For example, should satellite operators be required to notify
the Commission regarding the status of on-going negotiations? What
types of information should be included in such a notice? Further,
should the Commission require the filing of periodic reports (e.g.,
quarterly, bi-annually, annually) to ensure that the overall transition
of this band will be completed in a timely manner? What should such
reports include? The Commission encourages interested parties to
provide detailed comments regarding the level of Commission oversight
envisioned for this process including how such oversight comports with
the Commission's obligation to assign spectrum in the public interest.
62. Step 3: Conditional Authorization of Mobile Licensees.--Upon
the submission of a Transition Facilitation Plan, the next step would
be Commission review and approval of the plan, followed by applications
for terrestrial license authorizations filed pursuant to the plan. The
Commission seeks comment on this process. To facilitate a streamlined
review, the Commission seeks comment on allowing applications for new
terrestrial authorizations to be filed at the same time as a Transition
Facilitation Plan, or while the Commission reviews that plan. And to
avoid undue delay in commencing the band clearing process, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate timing, criteria, and
conditions that should apply to new license authorizations.
63. The Commission seeks comment on conducting the review of the
Transition Facilitation Plan. Most specifically, how should the
Commission ensure that protected incumbent earth stations are indeed
protected? What types of certifications should be required to ensure
that the Commission can take all appropriate actions to ensure that the
Transition Facilitator and its members carry out the Transition
Facilitation Plan and appropriately protect, compensate, and ensure
adequate access for relevant stakeholder? Should the Commission make
the plan available to comment, and what confidential information is
likely to be included? How should the Commission evaluate the various
methods suggested for protecting incumbent earth stations, such as
installing filters, extending fiber, offering service on new satellites
or in new satellite bands, offering service over microwave links, and
creating geographic separation from harmful interference (likely only
in rural areas)? What level of granularity should the Commission
require the steps of the Transition Facilitation Plan to meet? And how
long should the Commission have to review and approve or reject a
Transition Facilitation Plan?
64. The Commission seeks comment on how to address initial
licensing applications. First, the Commission seeks comment on
establishing a 30-day filing window for new terrestrial license
applications. Prospective licensees would file an application for any
new licenses they have agreed to acquire through their negotiations
with the Transition Facilitator, along with a certification from the
Transition Facilitator to clear that portion of the band for the
terrestrial operator's use. Should the Commission require any other
specific information to be submitted as part of the application
process? Applications would be accepted and reviewed pursuant to the
requirements and procedures set forth in part 1 of the Commission's
rules, including, among other things, the filing of certain FCC forms,
release of a public notice listing the application as accepted for
filing, and the opportunity for third parties to file petitions to deny
the application. Upon the Commission's review and confirmation that the
applicant has complied with all other Commission filing and
qualification requirements, the Commission would grant a license
subject to certain conditions discussed below. Second, the Commission
could treat the Transition Facilitation Plan as an application for all
the flexible use licenses that would be made available as a result of
it being carried out, and then allow the Transition Facilitator and
prospective licensees to file separate applications to transfer those
licenses as the parties saw fit. Under this approach, the Transition
Facilitation Plan would also have to comport with the requirements and
procedures set forth in Part 1 of the Commission's rules and would be
conditioned as discussed below.
65. The Commission will condition authorizations for licensed
terrestrial operations on the licensee not commencing operations until
the Transition Facilitation Plan's protections for incumbent earth
stations have been carried out in that area (and subject to those
conditions to the extent the plan requires geographic or other
sharing). The provisions of any private agreement to transition
designated spectrum to licensed terrestrial operations would therefore
need to comply with the service rules the Commission may ultimately
adopt in this proceeding. For example, under this approach, the
deadlines for a licensee's regulatory obligations, including
construction benchmarks, would begin running on the date of license
issuance. The Commission therefore anticipates that private agreements
would take construction deadlines into account when negotiating the
date by which the Transition Facilitator must clear the relevant
spectrum such that the licensee may commence operations. However, the
Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should consider the
individually negotiated time periods for band clearing when setting the
deadlines for each licensee's satisfaction of its construction
benchmarks. The Commission seeks comment on these and any other
conditions on new license authorizations that would facilitate
efficient implementation of the market-based approach.
66. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on what, if any,
conditions should be placed on the license with respect to the
protection or relocation of the approximately 115 incumbent microwave
links in the band that would sunset under out proposal. For example,
should the Commission require as a condition of the license that new
licensees either protect or relocate incumbent users under the same
part 27 and part 101 rules used for incumbent microwave links in the
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) bands or under some other protection
and/or relocation mechanism?
67. To ensure a timely transition process, should the Commission
set specific benchmarks for the completion of its review of the
Transition Facilitation Plan and the processing of conditional
authorizations? Intel, Intelsat, and SES expect the review process
would take two to seven months, and propose the license grant would
trigger certain obligations under private agreements, including the
clearing of the band within 12-20 months. The Commission seeks comment
on a process whereby the Commission would take action on all unopposed
applications found acceptable for filing within four months from the
commencement of the filing window discussed above (i.e., a 30-day
filing window plus three months of review). Upon completion of the
four-month application and review process,
[[Page 44140]]
the Commission would notify the Transition Facilitator that it may
begin clearing the designated spectrum in the band. The Commission
seeks comment on this approach to triggering the commencement of the
band-clearing process. Should the process instead be triggered only
upon the Commission's grant of all licenses negotiated by the
Transition Facilitator? Or is a certain critical mass of license grants
sufficient to begin clearing incumbent users from the band? For
example, to avoid undue delay of licensed operations in the band, would
it be appropriate to begin clearing the band upon issuance of licenses
authorized for operation in a certain portion of contiguous spectrum in
the band? The Commission seeks comment on these and any other
benchmarks that may be appropriate.
68. The Commission also recognizes that the Transition Facilitator
may find it necessary and beneficial to modify certain aspects of its
Transition Facilitation Plan. The Commission therefore seeks comment on
allowing the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to approve minor
amendments to the Transition Facilitation Plan that would not increase
harmful interference to protected incumbent earth stations.
69. The Commission notes that the ultimate assignment of any
license is subject to FCC approval under Sec. 310(d) of the
Communications Act. The Commission therefore seeks comment on the
application process described above and any other application criteria
that may be appropriate to fulfill the Commission's statutory
obligations to license spectrum in the public interest and ensure that
spectrum is put to its highest and best use.
70. Step 4--Band Clearing. Following approval of the Transition
Facilitation Plan and grant of new terrestrial licenses in the band,
the final step would be clearing certain incumbent users as needed from
the designated spectrum and giving new terrestrial licensees access to
their licensed spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on the best way
to effectuate this process.
71. The Commission seeks comment on reasonable benchmarks for
incumbents to cease transmitting on a primary basis in the portion of
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that becomes available for flexible use, a process
Intel, Intelsat, and SES expect to take 12-20 months. The Commission
seeks comment on providing the Transition Facilitator with 20 months to
clear incumbent users from the designated spectrum in the band. Under
this approach, the Transition Facilitator would be responsible for
enforcing the various private agreements between new terrestrial
licensees and incumbent users to clear the band. As spectrum becomes
available for licensed use, the Transition Facilitator would notify
licensees that they may begin operating in particular areas covered by
their licenses where the spectrum has been cleared.\13\ In light of the
Commission's expectation that spectrum will be cleared incrementally
over the course of the 20-month band-clearing process, the Commission
proposes to require the Transition Facilitator to provide periodic
updates notifying the Commission of the specific spectrum that has been
cleared. Should the Commission require the Transition Facilitator to
file status reports at various benchmarks (e.g., every four months)?
The Commission seeks comment on these and any other benchmarks that may
be appropriate to promote timely completion of the band-clearing
process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The entire area covered by a new license would not need to
be cleared in order for licensees to begin operating. Instead,
subject to their individual agreements, the Transition Facilitator
could begin notifying licensees of their ability to begin operations
once certain portions of the area covered by the license (e.g.,
counties) have been cleared.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
72. Finally, in light of our goal to promote the rapid deployment
of new licensed terrestrial operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, the
Commission seeks comment on any further safeguards that should apply
during the band-clearing process to ensure the transition is completed
within a reasonable period of time. The Commission expects that the
private agreements between new terrestrial licensees and incumbent
users would contain provisions and penalties sufficient to address
either party's failure to satisfy their respective contractual
obligations in a timely manner. In addition to, and independent of,
those private agreements, the Commission seeks comment on any
appropriate penalties that should apply in the event that the
Transition Facilitator is unable to clear the designated spectrum
within the 20-month time period discussed above. What, if any,
opportunities to cure should the Commission provide? For example,
should the Commission allow new terrestrial licensees and incumbent
users that default on their private agreements to re-enter the process
beginning with Step 2 negotiations? If so, should the Commission apply
more abbreviated time periods for the completion of each step? The
Commission seeks comment on these and any other actions that may be
appropriate to provide adequate opportunity for successful completion
of a market-based approach, while also ensuring a rapid and efficient
transition to flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
b. Auction Mechanisms
73. The Commission seeks comment on various auction approaches to
expand flexible use of the band. Specifically, the Commission asks
commenters to consider whether an overlay auction, incentive auction,
capacity auction or other auction mechanism could be used to create
opportunities for flexible use of the band.
74. Overlay Auction.--An overlay license authorizes operations for
an entire geographic area but requires the licensee to protect existing
incumbents from interference indefinitely, i.e., until the rights are
relinquished. The Commission notes that the Commission has used overlay
licensing to transition several bands from site-based to geographic-
area licensing.
75. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission shall
accept applications for one or more overlay licenses--assigned by
competitive bidding if mutually exclusive applications for it were
accepted--that would permit an overlay licensee to negotiate with both
incumbent space station licensees and earth station owners and
operators to clear all or part of the band. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether the Commission shall require the overlay licensee(s)
to transfer flexible use licenses in the secondary market (i.e., limit
an individual licensee from holding more than a certain amount of
spectrum in each market). Under this approach, the overlay licensee(s)
would have the right to flexible use of any spectrum that becomes
available as a result of incumbents' relinquishing their spectrum usage
rights. If this approach were adopted, the Commission's presumption
would be that incumbent space station licensees could bid individually,
but not as a consortium. Allowing incumbents to bid collectively would
eliminate the possibility of competition among them for the overlay
license, and would discourage other potential bidders from
participating in the auction. To encourage participation in the
auction, are there rules the Commission can adopt to share the risk
(between bidders and the U.S. Treasury) of a less profitable repurpose
than anticipated? The Commission also seeks comment on whether, if no
voluntary agreement is reached between an overlay licensee and earth
station operators after some number of years, the earth station
operators should be
[[Page 44141]]
required to discontinue operation in some portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band if requested by the overlay licensee and if the overlay licensee
delivers equivalent quality service to the locations of the earth
stations that would no longer be protected. The Commission seeks
comment on how equivalent quality service should be defined, especially
with respect to reliability. The Commission also seeks comment on how
many years incumbent earth station operators should have before they
would no longer receive protection in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and whether
this deadline should apply to all areas or only to high-population-
density areas. If the latter, how should such areas be defined?
76. Would assigning an overlay license or licenses for all of the
band expedite flexible use of more of the band compared to other
approaches? Compared to the market-based proposal, the overlay license
approach potentially would allow non-incumbent bidders to develop
innovative ways to clear the spectrum and clear more spectrum or
varying amounts of spectrum depending on the relative costs and
benefits of such repurposing. On the other hand, an overlay licensee
may take longer to clear spectrum because the two largest FSS space
station operators appear to already have an agreement on how to clear
at least 100 megahertz for flexible use.
77. The Commission also seeks comment on how all parties that would
be affected by repurposing 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum should be treated.
In particular, should the space station operators relinquishing
spectrum or the overlay licensee be required to provide incumbent earth
station operators comparable replacement facilities or media? Would an
overlay auction expedite the provision of terrestrial mobile services
in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band or facilitate making more than 100 megahertz of
the band available for flexible use? Commenters should also address the
potential costs and benefits of an overlay approach for consumers and
businesses in rural and underserved communities, as well as any
economic impact on small businesses, and discuss any rules or
procedures that could be implemented to ensure that the needs of these
communities and businesses are adequately addressed. The Commission
invites comment on these issues and on other matters that it may need
to address to conduct an overlay auction in this band.
78. Incentive Auction.--The Commission also seeks comment on
approaches using the Commission's general incentive auction authority
to introduce flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. One commenter
suggests that ``[FSS incumbent] satellite operators, earth station
licensees, and microwave licensees all could participate in a reverse
auction and choose from among several options including, for example,
vacating the band for another or a fiber alternative; limiting
operations to a smaller swath of spectrum; or moving to a more remote
location.'' A forward auction would then generate the revenues from new
entrants to support the reverse auction results, and repack incumbents
into the remaining portion of the band for FSS and/or move earth
stations to more remote locations.
79. The Commission seeks comment on whether a variation of the
incentive auction could work in the context of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
The Commission notes that in the case of the Commission's incentive
auction authority, there is a legal aspect to the problem of FSS
satellite operators' incentives to reduce the amount of spectrum for
repurposing discussed above. Specifically, the Commission's legal
authority to use that mechanism depends on having ``at least two
competing licensees participate in the reverse auction.'' Would the
Varian approach, discussed above, satisfy the statutory requirement
that an incentive auction have at least two competing bidders take part
in the reverse auction? The Commission seeks comment on means of
inducing supply competition, such as by bringing in alternative bands
as substitutes, both to insure a more competitive and efficient
outcome, and to meet the legal requirement of having competing
licensees participate in the reverse auction. The Commission also seeks
comment on whether provision of supply by licensed earth stations can
substitute for provision by FSS operators.
80. Capacity Auction.--As an alternative to paying satellite
incumbents to directly relinquish their rights to operate on specified
frequencies, the Commission seeks comment on a reverse auction for
satellite transponder capacity that could be used to compensate the
satellite incumbents for giving up C-band transponder capacity in order
to enable the Commission to reallocate C-band spectrum to flexible use.
Under this approach, an individual bidder in the reverse auction would
help to clear spectrum by bidding to relinquish some (or all) of the
bundle of rights they hold under their licenses and the Commission's
rules to lease capacity to other parties, so as to allow alternative
use of the bands of spectrum associated with specific transponders.
Potential bidders could be any FCC licensee that could make transponder
capacity available in, for example, either the C-band or Ku-band, as
discussed further below. Satellite operators could offer capacity
created by launching new satellites in vacant orbital slots and/or by
relinquishing some or all of their existing capacity.
81. At the time of any incentive auction, could satellite customers
or earth stations in their own right be eligible to offer capacity? For
example, could they make available capacity through mechanisms such as
substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill their capacity needs,
reducing the amount or quality of programming distributed, or using
greater compression to reduce the capacity required to carry a given
amount of programming or data? C-band capacity lost due to the reduced
amount of available spectrum and that was not relinquished in the
reverse auction by C-band satellite operators, could be repacked onto
replacement capacity for the remaining lives of those lost
transponders. This would compensate C-band licensees for their lost
capital investments, but not for the loss of their spectrum. The amount
of C-band spectrum reallocated could be determined by the reverse
auction in combination with a forward auction for cleared spectrum.
Adapting the approach of the broadcast incentive auction, the amount
cleared could be the largest amount for which forward auction revenues
exceed the cost of repacking the remaining C-band services plus any
other compensation, e.g., for the loss of spectrum, and the cost of
running the auction. The Commission seeks comment on a capacity auction
and whether such a mechanism could be used to create flexible use in
the band.
82. Several commenters propose that Ku-band capacity could be
utilized for C-band services. Other commenters raise the concern that
Ku-band capacity is not a reliable replacement spectrum for C-band
services. The Commission seeks comment on Ku-band capacity as a
replacement for C-band, including as an alternative for infrequent,
portable, or more temporary uses such as for breaking news or live
sporting events. The Commission also seeks comment on how to define
capacity for purpose of this approach. What capacity definition meets
the needs of such an auction? Depending on the band, what adjustments
would be appropriate to ensure a unit of capacity in the band is
comparable with a C-band unit of capacity? Would comparable
communication capacity be defined in
[[Page 44142]]
terms of throughput, reliability, and operating costs?
83. Advocates for a capacity auction should specifically discuss
the Commission's legal authority as well as implementation details and
options. For example, could the Commission use its general incentive
auction authority to hold a capacity auction? Which parties should be
allowed to participate in the reverse auction? Is there a way for end
users to participate and, if so, how would their costs be compensated?
Would this approach incentivize bidders to make the appropriate
tradeoffs among inputs such as compression technology and bandwidth in
producing capacity? How could a capacity auction be designed to
allocate capacity efficiently over time? Would this require the reverse
auction to establish separate prices for capacity in each year? Would
capacity need to be defined as packages of capacity at specified dates,
and would a combinatorial auction be needed to determine auction
winners and prices?
84. The Commission seeks comment on the applicability of Sec. 647
of the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act (ORBIT Act) to a capacity or other auction
mechanism. The Commission tentatively concludes that the prohibition is
not applicable here, as any auctioned spectrum would be used for a new
domestic terrestrial service, and the spectrum capacity auction does
not propose to assign by competitive bidding orbital locations or
spectrum used for the provision of international or global satellite
communications services. The Commission also tentatively concludes that
the participation in an incentive auction by Ku-band operators to
provide spectrum capacity to C-band operators would not violate the
ORBIT Act, because this would not constitute an ``assignment'' of
satellite spectrum, because the Ku-band operators would only be giving
up some of their licensed spectrum capacity, rather than ceding their
actual licenses. The Commission seeks comment on this tentative
conclusion and invite commenters to discuss the ORBIT Act's application
to any proposed auction mechanism.
85. The Commission also invites comment on other novel incentive
auction mechanisms under the Commission's general incentive auction
authority. Commenters should provide data on the costs and benefits
associated with any proposed approach along with other helpful
technical or procedural details. Commenters should also address the
potential costs and benefits of an incentive-auction approach for
consumers and businesses in rural and underserved communities, as well
as any economic impact on small businesses, and they should discuss any
rules or procedures that could be implemented to ensure that the needs
of these communities and businesses are adequately addressed.
c. Alternative Mechanisms
86. The Commission also seeks comment on approaches that combine
various elements of the mechanisms discussed above, as well as other
mechanisms for transitioning all or part of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band for
wireless broadband use. Commenters offering sequential alternatives
should address the circumstances under which one method of
transitioning the band would end and a subsequent one would begin. Are
any conditions necessary to prevent one approach from precluding later
alternatives?
87. In response to the Mid-Band NOI, T-Mobile proposed a hybrid
approach that would combine elements of an incentive auction and the
market-based approach. Under this proposal, a consortium of satellite
operators (similar to the Transition Facilitator discussed above) and
potential wireless bidders would participate in a phased auction
process with both forward and reverse auction components. First, the
Commission would conduct a simultaneous or near simultaneous auction of
the band on a geographic basis to establish the initial price per area.
Second, in those areas where satellite operators were all willing to
clear all 500 megahertz at the prices established in the initial phase,
the spectrum would be sold and these areas would be deemed ``cleared''
for flexible terrestrial wireless use. The Commission would then
determine an appropriate amount of the remaining spectrum to reserve
for satellite use and the forward and reverse auction processes would
repeat until a Commission-determined amount of spectrum has been
cleared. Although T-Mobile proposes that auction revenues would be
split between the federal government and the satellite operators, with
the latter responsible for end-user relocation costs as applicable, the
Commission tentatively concludes there could be statutory barriers to
this aspect of the proposal, and seek comment.
88. The Commission seeks comment on whether T-Mobile's proposal, or
a variant of this proposal, would solve or ameliorate the three
economic problems discussed above. As discussed, there is a legal
aspect to the problem of FSS satellite operators' incentives to reduce
the amount of spectrum for repurposing because the Commission's
incentive auction authority requires at least two competing
participants in the reverse auction. Would T-Mobile's proposal, or a
variant of that proposal, comply with the requirement that an incentive
auction have two competing licensees in the reverse auction, as well as
other requirements associated with the Commission's general incentive
auction authority?
89. The Commission seeks comment on whether a hybrid approach that
combines elements of the approaches discussed above would strike a
balance between incumbent and new entrant interests. If the Commission
decides to clear and auction the entire band, but reserve some of the
band for satellite use in certain areas, what is the minimum amount
that should be cleared for flexible wireless use? Would the minimum
amount differ based on geographic area? Should the Commission consider
auctioning a majority of the band, versus the entire band, and if so,
what would be the appropriate amount of spectrum to be cleared under
such an approach? How can the Commission ensure that the band is
transitioned in a timely manner? Should a backstop approach be
triggered by a FSS operator's failure to clear the band in a timely
manner? Is this the right balance, or is there a better way that
traditional relocation could be used as a backstop approach to any
hybrid mechanism? Additionally, would this approach allow the
Commission to meet its statutory requirements under its general
incentive auction authority?
90. The Commission asks commenters to provide data on the costs and
benefits associated with any hybrid approach over other possible or
suggested methods. If the Commission adopted a split-revenue approach,
under which revenue would be split between the federal government and
the satellite operators, how would those funds be distributed? Are
there are legal obstacles to such an approach? Commenters should also
address the potential costs and benefits of any hybrid or alternative
approach for consumers and businesses in rural and underserved
communities, as well as any economic impact on small businesses, and
discuss any rules or procedures that could be implemented to ensure
that the needs of these communities and businesses are adequately
addressed. Commenters should provide complete proposals to the extent
technically and economically feasible.
[[Page 44143]]
2. More Intensive Point-to-Multipoint Fixed Use
91. In connection with the Commission's proposals above to reform
the full-band, full-arc earth station coordination policy, the
Commission seeks comment on rule changes to Part 101 to allow point-to-
multipoint FS use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band and invite parties to offer
alternative rules or requirements that will allow for the more
intensive point-to-multipoint FS use of the band. In doing so, the
Commission seeks comment on how permitting fixed wireless would affect
the possible future clearing of the band for flexible use and the use
of the band for satellite operations. The Commission seeks to protect
incumbent FSS earth stations from harmful interference and avoid
disruption to existing operations in the band. Accordingly, the
Commission seeks comment on the impact that point-to-multipoint use
would have on the flexibility of FSS earth stations to modify their
operations in response to technical and business needs. The Commission
emphasizes that--under the proposals in this NPRM--point-to-multipoint
would operate on a secondary basis vis-[agrave]-vis FSS in any part of
the band in which FSS continues to operate during a transition period
to accommodate repacking and, thereafter, on a frequency-coordinated
basis to protect actual FSS operations.
92. Channel Plan.--The Commission seeks comment on amending Sec.
101.101 to permit point-to-multipoint FS in some portion of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band. The Commission seeks further comment on amending the existing
channel plan for FS in the band (paired 20 megahertz channels for
frequency division duplex (FDD)) to allow time division duplex (TDD) on
unpaired 20 megahertz channels. The Commission asks commenters to
address interference concerns between FDD and TDD, explain how, or if,
they could coexist in the portion of the band not being used for
flexible use, and discuss coordination and interference rules that must
apply if both were to be permitted. Should the Commission allow
licensees to aggregate contiguous 20 megahertz channels up to a maximum
of 160 megahertz of bandwidth? To the extent a licensee has 40
megahertz of unconstructed spectrum in a licensed service area, should
the Commission require construction before allowing the licensee to
acquire additional spectrum in the licensed service area? The
Commission invites alternative proposals with specific discussion of
the costs and benefits as to each. The Commission also seeks comment
generally on the technical improvements to allow for better band
utilization.
93. The Commission seeks comment on authorizing point-to-multipoint
FS service, on a primary basis, in some portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
that does not become available for flexible use. The Commission
proposes that flexible use licensees would operate in the lower segment
of the band (starting at 3.7 GHz) and, if additional spectrum is
cleared in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, it would be relatively easy and cost-
effective to expeditiously deploy more flexible use in the lower
segment of this band that has been cleared and is contiguous to the
spectrum for which flexible use is already licensed. The Commission
also seeks comment as to whether, regardless of how much spectrum
becomes available for flexible use in the near term, to make available
for licensed point-to-multipoint use up to 160 megahertz (e.g., 4.04-
4.2 GHz) to accommodate a transition from FSS to flexible use working-
up from 3.7 GHz. Alternatively, the Commission seeks comment on making
available for point-to-multipoint use 40 megahertz, 100 megahertz or up
to 320 megahertz.
94. Service Area of Each Point-to-Multipoint FS Access Point.--The
Commission seeks comment on the best approach to define a point-to-
multipoint FS access point service area. The Broadband Access Coalition
requests frequency coordinated, site-specific license areas, defined as
a circle designated by a specified radial distance from a center point.
Should the Commission define a service area based on a specified
geographic access point location and maximum radius? As an alternative,
should the Commission consider coverage arc sector(s) (e.g., 0[deg]N to
30[deg]) around the access point location and specified radii, and what
should such coverage arcs be based on (e.g., antenna beamwidth)? If a
maximum radius around an access point is specified, should the
Commission adopt a single value for all access points or values
relative to whether the access point is in densely populated or rural
areas? For example, the Broadband Access Coalition proposes 10
kilometers for densely populated areas and 18 kilometers for rural
areas. If the Commission allows different radii based on area
population density, what threshold should the Commission use to
differentiate between densely populated, rural, and other areas? Should
the definition of ``rural'' for these purposes be the definition used
for the E-Rate program? If based on a population density, should the
population be based on residents or businesses, or perhaps some
combination of both? Should this information be based on the most
current available U.S. Census database at the time of the license
application? Is there some other metric that would be better suited to
determining the appropriate maximum radius limit? The Commission seeks
comment on variations of these approaches, as well as those of
alternatives that might not necessarily be limited to circles, arcs, or
population density.
95. Frequency Coordination and Interference Protection.--The
Commission seeks comment on technical requirements for frequency
coordination between point-to-multipoint FS applicants and licensees
and FSS under Part 25 and point-to-point FS, if they are grandfathered
or otherwise remain in the band, under part 101. Under the Commission's
current rules, the technical aspects of coordination between FSS and
terrestrial operations are based on Appendix 7 of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) Radio Regulations and certain
recommendations of the ITU Radiocommunication Sector and the technical
aspects of coordination between terrestrial licensees are based on
Telecommunications Industry Association's Telecommunications System
Bulletin (TSB) 10-F or other procedures generally following acceptable
good engineering practices. The Commission asks parties to comment on
how either of the above or other standards, such as those developed by
the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) or another
organization, may be applicable or adaptable to point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission also seeks comment
on whether there are interference protection criteria set forth in
other parts of the Commission's rules that may be adapted to protect
FSS earth stations from interference by point-to-multipoint operations
in the portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that does not become available
for flexible use. Are there technical operating characteristics of
point-to-multipoint equipment, such as power levels, that would require
us to adopt different values to protect FSS earth stations from
interference by point-to-multipoint operations? The Commission asks
that commenters be specific in addressing the technical requirements
for coordination.
96. The Commission seeks comment on allowing a point-to-multipoint
FS applicant to coordinate each access point by sector based on the
radius
[[Page 44144]]
around the geographic coordinates of the site, the antenna
characteristics (e.g., beamwidth), and a maximum number of client
devices to be deployed within a specific distance from the access
point. Should point-to-multipoint FS applicants be required to submit
frequency coordination for each access point, including geographic
coordinates of the access point, frequency range, power and antenna
characteristics, service area limits, maximum number of future
authorized client devices, and the power and antenna characteristics of
individual client devices? How will prior coordination be achieved for
point-to-multipoint access points when the location, height, and
technical characteristics of the client devices in the access point
service area are not available at the time of access point
coordination? If some probability of location/height is assigned for
the maximum number of client locations in order to develop an
interference profile for purposes of coordination, the resulting
interference predictions will have some associated probability of
interference occurrence; in that case should point-to-multipoint
licensees be able to add up to the maximum number of client devices
without independently coordinating each client device? Should client
devices be subject to additional technical limitations, such as minimum
directional antenna requirements, EIRP limits, or other criteria to
limit their interference potential? Should the maximum number of client
devices be specified for each channel? The Commission seeks comment on
the above proposals and, whether, if a point-to-multipoint FS applicant
cannot successfully coordinate a geographic service area, it should be
permitted to coordinate client devices on a path-to-path basis. Parties
should address the technical requirements of the above, offer
alternatives, and specifically detail the costs and benefits of each
proposal.
97. The Commission also seeks comment on the administrative process
that should apply to the coordination of point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the band. Under the current rules, the administrative
aspects of the coordination process are set forth in Sec. 101.103(d)
in the case of coordination of terrestrial stations with earth stations
and in Sec. 25.203 in the case of coordination of earth stations with
terrestrial stations. What modifications to Sec. Sec. 101.103(d),
25.203, or to another rule must be made to govern the administrative
process that will apply to the coordination of point-to-multipoint FS
operations with FSS and point-to-point FS, if grandfathered or remain
in the band, and the coordination of FSS and point-to-point FS, if
grandfathered or remain in the band, with point-to-multipoint FS
operations in the band? The Commission seeks comment on subjecting
point-to-multipoint FS applicants to an expedited coordination process
with mandatory electronic notification and response. Should an
expedited process, if adopted, govern coordination that occurs
beginning 90 days after the adoption of final rules published in the
Federal Register? The Commission also seeks comment on any other
modifications to the Commission's rules with respect to the
coordination administrative process that would reduce the economic
impact of the proposed rule changes on small entities.
98. Additionally, the Commission seeks comment on the possibility
of adopting an automated coordination process for point-to-multipoint
FS applications. There is a lack of a consensus in the record as to
when, or if, the Commission will be in a position to propose and adopt
rules for automated coordination of point-to-multipoint FS applications
in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Broadband Access Coalition contends that
automated coordination should not be the same as the Spectrum
Allocation Server (SAS) system for licensing in the 3.5 GHz band.
However, the Broadband Access Coalition believes that the existing
process can be modified and automated over time to incorporate real-
time, real-world FSS protection criteria and enable coordination
between and among point-to-point FS, if grandfathered or remain in the
band, and point-to-multipoint FS based on FSS, point-to-point FS and
point-to-multipoint FS industry standards of protection criteria to be
developed by affected stake-holders. Several commenters including IEE
DySPAN, OTI &PK, and Federated, support using a spectrum access
database similar to the sharing system used below 3.7 GHz for the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service. Google offers another variant
contending that a lightweight database supported authorization
framework would enable the efficient deployment of fixed broadband
access (FBA) systems. However, the satellite industry and content
providers have strong objections to more intensive use of the 3.7-4.2
GHz by FS and have raised very specific concerns over the lack of
proven methods for spectrum sharing with more intensive fixed use in
this band. Satellite operators also raise concern about the ability of
point-to-multipoint systems to quickly remedy interference when it is
identified or to accommodate FSS earth stations when they change
frequencies. The Commission seeks comment on the above. The Commission
also asks that, given the lack of consensus, parties continue to work
together to offer a more widely supported proposal for the Commission
to consider.
99. Power Limits.--The Commission seeks comment on adopting power
limits for point-to-multipoint FS operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
The Commission existing rules for FS provide power limits based on the
link length. With point-to-multipoint FS service areas, individual
links between access points and client devices will vary in length.
Should the Commission apply a rule to point-to-multipoint FS links
specifying a minimum path length, similar to those specified for point-
to-point FS links in Sec. 101.143 or is some other variation of this
rule more applicable to point-to-multipoint FS operations? What should
the Commission's power limits be for point-to-multipoint FS service?
The Broadband Access Coalition has proposed a 50 dBm EIRP limit and a
maximum conducted power of 1 Watt. Should the access point EIRP be
scalable with bandwidth? Likewise, should client devices be limited to
50 dBm EIRP regardless of bandwidth? If not scalable, how do changes in
bandwidth impact frequency coordination? Should the Commission apply
the emission limits set forth in Sec. 101.111 to point-to-multipoint
FS operations in this band, or would some other limits be more
appropriate to protect adjacent-band operations? The Broadband Access
Coalition anticipates that point-to-multipoint FS systems would be able
to meet existing Part 101 out-of-band emission limits, without
modification, but the Commission seeks comment as to this issue. The
Commission also invites comment on other proposals. The Commission
notes that the adjacent 4.2-4.4 GHz band is allocated to the
aeronautical radionavigation service on a primary basis and that, at
WRC-15, the 4.2-4.4 GHz band was also allocated to the aeronautical
mobile (R) service on a primary basis in all ITU Regions with use
reserved for WAIC systems. WAIC systems are onboard short range
wireless systems that will replace substantial portions of aircraft
wiring. These systems increase aircraft safety by providing dissimilar
redundancy in communications links between aircraft systems. The
Commission solicits comment on the needed out-of-band emission limit
required to protect the
[[Page 44145]]
aeronautical radionavigation service in the 4.2-4.4 GHz band.
100. Antenna Standards.--The Commission asks parties to provide
detailed technical comments as to antenna standards that should apply
to point-to-multipoint FS operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Section
101.115 of the Commission's rules specifies the maximum beamwidth,
minimum antenna gain and radiation suppression envelope for FS antennas
in this band. How should these antenna standards be modified to
accommodate the range of antennas typically used in point-to-multipoint
applications? The Broadband Access Coalition Petition proposes that,
unlike point-to-point FS licensees subject to Sec. 101.115, point-to-
multipoint FS licensees be permitted to use any antenna in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band that meets the minimum performance requirements for access
points and client devices. Specifically, the Broadband Access Coalition
Petition proposes that a point-to-multipoint FS licensee would be
required to specify the gain; azimuth; polarization; height; azimuth
and elevation half-power beamwidths; and tilt (e.g., -10 degrees) for
sectorized antennas and gain, height and any electrical tilt for omni-
directional antennas. Should the Commission specify a minimum radiation
suppression at some angle from the edge of the main beam for sectorized
antennas? The Commission seeks comment on the above and invite parties
to offer alternative proposals. What are the relative costs and
benefits for each proposal? How would each proposal affect other users
in the band or provide mechanisms to address interference?
101. Client Devices.--The Commission seeks comment on whether the
Commission should require directional antennas on outdoor point-to-
multipoint client devices and if so what should those antenna standards
be? Would antenna standards for client devices make coordination
easier? The Commission asks that commenters address the minimum antenna
gain and minimum suppression from main beam centerline. Should client
devices be limited to outdoor antennas only and permanently affixed at
the client location? Should the Commission allow portable indoor client
devices, and should such devices be allowed under point-to-multipoint
or flexible use rules? If the Commission permits portable client
devices with non-directional antennas, how will this impact the access
point service area frequency coordination with incumbent licensees?
102. Frequency Agility and Radio Capabilities.--The Commission
seeks comment on whether the Commission should require point-to-
multipoint FS radios (both access points and client devices) to be
frequency agile and thus capable of operating across the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band or allow radios to be agile over 3.7-4.2 GHz so long as the
flexible use portion of the band is locked out and be able to
accommodate any 20 megahertz channel assignment? The Broadband Access
Coalition requests that licensed point-to-multipoint radios (both
access points and client devices) be frequency agile and thus capable
of operating across the entire 3.7-4.2 GHz band, and accommodate any 20
megahertz channel assignment. Additionally, should the Commission
require that client devices be capable of modifying channel and
bandwidth assignment when prompted by the associated access point?
Should access points be software upgradable to communicate with future
automated database and client devices to be capable of following
instructions from associated access point to change channels and
bandwidth, as necessary? The Commission seeks comment on how such
requirements might be implemented in regulations, or whether any such
features may instead be developed by manufacturer technical standards
and/or multi-stakeholder interest groups.
103. Construction.--The Commission seeks comment on the
construction deadlines and notifications that should apply to point-to-
multipoint FS licensees in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Should the Commission
require point-to-multipoint FS licensees to build out, within 12
months, and operate at least one access point and at least five client
radios in licensed areas or lose protection for the service area? If a
point-to-multipoint FS licensee fails to meet the above requirements,
should the Commission allow links already in service from that access
point to maintain coordinated protection on an individual, path-by-path
basis to protect existing customers served by those links? In addition,
the Commission encourages commenters to consider the economic impact on
consumers and businesses in rural communities and areas that are
unserved or underserved by current broadband providers, as well as any
economic impact on small businesses. The Commission asks parties to
comment on this proposal, offer alternative proposals, and discuss the
relative costs and benefits for each proposal.
104. Additionally, Sec. 101.141(a)(3)(ii) requires that ``traffic
loading payload shall exceed 50 percent of payload capacity within 30
months of licensing.'' The Commission recognizes that the minimum
traffic loading payload requirement in Sec. 101.141(a)(3)(ii) was
designed for symmetrical traffic and that IP traffic is often
asymmetrical. Should the Commission therefore not adopt a requirement
for point-to-multipoint FS licensees or do parties have alternative
proposals for us to consider?
105. Equipment Access/RF Exposure.--Section 101.131(a) requires
that ``[t]he equipment at the operating and transmitting positions must
be so installed and protected that it is not accessible to, or capable
of being operated by, persons other than those duly authorized by the
licensee.'' The Broadband Access Coalition states that client radios
providing low power point-to-multipoint services will operate from
residential premises and will not present a radiofrequency (RF) hazard
because, when operated at full power, the RF exposure keep-out zone for
point-to-multipoint client radios operating at the proposed maximum
EIRP level is less than 0.6 meters (2 feet). The Commission anticipates
that client devices would likely be mounted in such a way as to provide
a good connection back to the access point, free from obstructions
within the transmission path, and so while such an installation may not
strictly comply with the access restriction requirement in the
Commission's rules, it is possible that other regulatory examples or
analogies may apply to point-to-multipoint situations where home
subscriber devices are involved. For example, fixed wireless licensees
with home-installed consumer equipment are generally required to attach
a label to transceiver antennas that: (1) Provides adequate notice
regarding potential radiofrequency safety hazards, e.g., information
regarding the safe minimum separation distance required between users
and transceiver antennas; and (2) references the applicable FCC-adopted
limits for radiofrequency exposure specified in Sec. 1.1310. The
Commission seeks comment on whether a similar requirement for point-to-
multipoint client devices may be a preferred alternative to Sec.
101.1310 of the Commission's rules. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on the possibility that there may be any other potential use
cases, such as wireless routers or other types of devices, that may
require separate consideration for the purposes of equipment
authorization and RF exposure compliance. The Commission notes that
[[Page 44146]]
all transmitters must comply with the Commission's exposure limits and
requirements of Sec. Sec. 1.1307(b), 1.1310, 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the
Commission's rules, as applicable.
106. ULS Requirements.--What technical data should point-to-
multipoint FS licensees be required to provide in ULS? The Commission
notes that the Broadband Access Coalition requests in its petition that
the applicant's frequency coordination should correspond to the
specific equipment and antenna orientation the applicant selects, and
so the Commission seeks comment on whether at least that same
information used for frequency coordination should be entered into the
Commission's licensing database. At a minimum should licensees be
required to provide the antenna gain, azimuth, polarization, height,
half-power beamwidth (azimuth and elevation), and tilt (e.g. -10[deg])
for each access point by sector?
3. Service Rules for Flexible Use
107. The scope of the service rules adopted herein will vary
depending on the mechanism ultimately adopted by the Commission to
expand flexible use in the band. For convenience, the Commission refers
to this indeterminate amount of spectrum as the Mid-Band Flexible Use
or ``MBX'' spectrum. Assuming that the Commission ultimately decides to
add a mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation and to make some
or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for flexible use, in this
section the Commission proposes or seeks comment on band plan,
licensing and operating and technical rules for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band
spectrum that becomes available for terrestrial mobile and fixed
flexible-use. The Commission proposes to license this spectrum under
the Commission's flexible-use, part-27 rules that permit licensees to
provide any fixed or mobile service consistent with the allocations for
this spectrum, subject to rules necessary to prevent or minimize
harmful interference. The Commission seeks comment on this approach.
The Commission also seeks comment, however, on whether there are any
services, e.g., Internet of Things, that would not qualify under Sec.
603(a)(2)(B) of the MOBILE NOW Act, which requires the Commission to
identify 100 megahertz below 6000 MHz for use on exclusive, licensed
basis for commercial mobile use, pursuant to the Commission's authority
to implement such licensing in a flexible manner?
a. Band Plan
108. Block Sizes.--The Commission seeks comment on appropriate
block size to promote efficient and robust use of the band for next
generation wireless technologies, including 5G. Currently, the 3.7-4.2
GHz band is licensed terrestrially by 20 megahertz channels for fixed
use. However, the current channelization of the band should not affect
the Commission's consideration of alternate band plans. Therefore, the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate block size(s) to best
accommodate the fullest range of terrestrial wireless services.\14\
Would 20 megahertz blocks be appropriate for the wireless technologies
that are likely to be deployed in this band? Should the Commission
allow blocks to be aggregated to provide greater capacity where needed?
Or, would licensing the 3.7-4.2 GHz band in larger block sizes (e.g.,
50-100 megahertz) better support 5G services while promoting
competition? Would a mix of channel sizes improve efficiency and
flexibility for a wider variety of users in the band?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The use of 20 megahertz blocks will enable transmission
efficiencies achieved by 5G voluntary standards, including Long-Term
Evolution (``LTE'') derivatives. Vivint Wireless Comments at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
109. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the appropriate
block sizes should be affected by the specific transition mechanism
adopted by the Commission. For example, if the Commission adopts a
market-based approach, the Commission seeks comment on allowing parties
to define block sizes in their agreements. In this regard, would a
default block size that could be aggregated and disaggregated help
facilitate a market-based process? Commenters should discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of their proposals.
110. Spectrum Block Configuration.--The Commission generally has
licensed bands that support mobile broadband services on a paired basis
but specified the downlink and uplink bands only when necessary to
avoid harmful interference, e.g., to Federal incumbents. The Commission
recognizes that the 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum that becomes available for
flexible use could be configured in any number of paired or unpaired
modes. The Commission therefore seeks comment on a range of options. If
the Commission adopts an unpaired approach, are any administrative
measures necessary to keep track of how spectrum blocks are being used?
The Commission invites comment on what approach to take, and the costs
and benefits of particular approaches. Above, the Commission discusses
various mechanisms for expanding flexible use in all or part of the
band. The Commission asks proponents of the various approaches
described whether there are issues specific to this section and their
preferred approach.
111. Use of Geographic Licensing.--Consistent with the Commission's
approach in several other bands used to provide fixed and mobile
services, the Commission proposes to license the 3.7-4.2 GHz MBX
spectrum on an exclusive, geographic area basis. Geographic area
licensing provides flexibility to licensees, promotes efficient
spectrum use, and helps facilitate rapid assignment of licenses,
utilizing competitive bidding when necessary. The Commission seeks
comment on this approach, including the costs and benefits of adopting
a geographic area licensing scheme. In the event that a party does not
support using geographic licensing, it should explain its position,
describe what type of licensing scheme it supports and identify the
costs and benefits associated with its alternative licensing proposal.
112. Service Areas.--The Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate service areas for any flexible use licenses. In determining
the appropriate geographic license size, the Commission must consider
several factors, including: (1) Facilitating access to spectrum by both
small and large providers; (2) providing for the efficient use of
spectrum; (3) encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to
consumers, especially those in rural areas and Tribal lands; and (4)
promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and
services. In light of these statutory considerations, the Commission
asks commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and
other public interest considerations of licensing on a PEA, county,
nationwide, or other basis. The Commission asks commenters to address
the costs and benefits of their recommended licensing approach.
113. The Commission also seeks comment on a licensing approach for
the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for the Gulf of Mexico. In the
Upper 700 MHz band, however, the Commission included the Gulf of Mexico
in larger service areas. Commenters who advocate a separate service
area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what
boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection
criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique
radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that
exist for Gulf licensees.
[[Page 44147]]
114. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the service areas
should be affected by the specific transition mechanism adopted by the
Commission. For example, if the Commission adopts a market-based
approach, the Commission seeks comment on allowing parties to define
service areas in their agreements. In this regard, would a default
service-area size smaller than the contiguous 48 states that could be
aggregated and disaggregated help facilitate a market-based process? If
the Commission adopts an overlay auction, the Commission seeks comment
on issuing a single nationwide license, or alternatively issuing
licenses for five regions: (1) The contiguous 48 states and the Gulf of
Mexico, (2) Alaska, (3) Hawaii, (4) Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and (5) Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American
Samoa. Commenters should discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of
their proposals.
115. The Commission also seeks comment on a licensing approach for
the Gulf of Mexico. In AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4, and the H Block, the
Commission issued separate licenses for the Gulf of Mexico. In the
Upper 700 MHz band, however, the Commission included the Gulf of Mexico
in larger service areas. Commenters who advocate a separate service
area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what
boundaries should be used, and whether special interference protection
criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique
radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that
exist for Gulf licensees.
b. Licensing and Operating Rules
116. The Commission seeks to afford licensees the flexibility to
align licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band with licenses in other spectrum
bands governed by Part 27 of the Commission's rules. The Commission
therefore proposes that licensees in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band comply with
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all Part 27
services, including assignment of licenses by competitive bidding,
flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting,
compliance with construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent
discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and
spectrum leasing. The Commission seeks comment on this approach and ask
commenters to identify any aspects of the Commission's general Part 27
service rules that should be modified to accommodate the particular
characteristics of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission asks proponents
of the various mechanisms described above whether there are issues
specific to this section and their preferred approach.
117. In addition, the Commission seeks comment on service-specific
rules for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, including eligibility, mobile spectrum
holdings policies, license term, performance requirements, renewal term
construction obligations, and other licensing and operating rules. In
addressing these issues, commenters should discuss the costs and
benefits associated with these proposals and any alternatives that
commenters propose.
118. Eligibility.--Consistent with established Commission practice,
the Commission proposes to adopt an open eligibility standard for
licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on this
approach. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether
adopting an open eligibility standard for the licensing of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band would encourage efforts to develop new technologies, products,
and services, while helping to ensure efficient use of this spectrum.
The Commission notes that an open eligibility approach would not affect
citizenship, character, or other generally applicable qualifications
that may apply under the Commission's rules. Commenters should discuss
the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal on competition,
innovation, and investment. Above, the Commission discusses various
mechanisms for expanding flexible use in all or part of the band. The
Commission asks proponents of the various approaches described above
whether there are issues specific to this section and their preferred
approach. Finally, a person who has been, for reasons of national
security, barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding
on a contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant is
ineligible to hold a license that is required by 47 U.S.C. Chapter 13
(the Spectrum Act) to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding
under Sec. 309(j) of the Communications Act. In the event that the
Commission assigns licenses through competitive bidding, the Commission
proposes to apply this ineligibility provision to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
119. Mobile Spectrum Holdings.--Spectrum is an essential input for
the provision of mobile wireless services, and to implement provisions
of the Communications Act, the Commission has developed policies to
ensure that spectrum is assigned in a manner that promotes competition,
innovation, and efficient use.
120. The Commission seeks comment generally on whether and how to
address any mobile spectrum holdings issues involving 3.7-4.2 GHz
spectrum to meet the Commission's statutory requirements and ensure
competitive access to the band. Similar to the Commission's approach in
the 2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, the Commission proposes
not to adopt a pre-auction bright-line limit on the ability of any
entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band through competitive
bidding at auction. Since such pre-auction limits may unnecessarily
restrict the ability of entities to participate in and acquire spectrum
in an auction, the Commission is not inclined to adopt such limits
absent a clear indication that they are necessary to address a specific
competitive concern, and the Commission seeks comment on any specific
concerns of this type.
121. The Commission also seeks comment on whether this band should
be included in the Commission's spectrum screen, which helps to
identify markets that may warrant further competitive analysis, for
evaluating proposed secondary market transactions. If the Commission
does determine that an auction is appropriate, the Commission seeks
comment on reviewing holdings on a case-by-case basis when applications
for initial licenses are filed post-auction to ensure that the public
interest benefits of having a threshold on spectrum applicable to
secondary market transactions are not rendered ineffective. The
Commission seeks comment on whether and how the similarity of this
spectrum to spectrum currently included in the screen should be
factored into the Commission's analysis, including the suitability of
3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum for use in the provision of mobile telephony or
broadband services. Commenters should discuss and quantify any costs
and benefits associated with any proposals on the applicability of
mobile spectrum holdings policies to 3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum. The
Commission discusses above various mechanisms for expanding flexible
use in all or part of the band. The Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described above whether there are issues specific to
this section and their preferred approach. For example, should the
Commission impose limits on the amount of spectrum acquired by one
party through a market-based mechanism?
[[Page 44148]]
122. License term.--The Commission seeks comment on a 15-year term
for licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.\15\ The Commission believes that
15 years will afford licensees sufficient time to achieve this
significant buildout obligation. The Commission seeks comment on the
costs and benefits of this proposal. In addition, the Commission
invites commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate
license term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs
and benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ The Communications Act does not specify a term limit for
wireless radio services licenses. The only statutory limit on
license terms is eight years for licenses in the broadcast services.
See 47 U.S.C. 307(c)(1); see also 47 CFR 73.1020(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
123. Performance requirements.--The Commission establishes
performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is intensely and
efficiently utilized. The Commission has applied different performance
and construction requirements to different spectrum bands based on
considerations relevant to those bands. The Commission continues to
believe that performance requirements play a critical role in ensuring
that licensed spectrum does not lie fallow.
124. Accordingly, considering the unique characteristics of this
band, and to ensure that licensees begin providing service to consumers
in a timely manner, the Commission seeks comment on adopting specific
quantifiable benchmarks as an important component of its performance
requirements. The Commission seeks comment on requiring a 3.7-4.2 GHz
band licensee, relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service in
accordance with the Commission's part 27 rules, to provide reliable
signal coverage and offer service to at least forty-five (45) percent
of the population in each of its license areas within six years of the
license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at least
eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its license areas
within 12 years from the license issue date (second performance
benchmark). For licensees relying on point-to-point service, the
Commission seeks comment on requiring them to demonstrate within six
years of the license issue date (first performance benchmark) that they
have four links operating and providing service, either to customers or
for internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to
or less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is
greater than 268,000, the Commission seeks comment on requiring a
licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate it has at
least one link in operation and providing service per every 67,000
persons within a license area. The Commission seeks comment on
requiring licensees relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate
within 12 years of the license issue date (final performance benchmark)
that they have eight links operating and providing service, either to
customers or for internal use, if the population within the license
area is equal to or less than 268,000. If the population within the
license area is greater than 268,000, the Commission seeks comment on
requiring a licensee relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate
it is providing service and has at least two links in operation per
every 67,000 persons within a license area. The Commission seeks
comment on whether in order to be eligible to be counted under the
point-to-point buildout standard, a point-to-point link must operate
with a transmit power greater than + 43 dBm.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission defined a ``fixed
point-to-point link'' as ``a radio transmission between point-to-
point stations (as already defined in part 30), where transmit power
exceeds + 43 dBm.'' Under this definition, stations or devices
transmitting using lower power levels will not count towards the
number of fixed links required under the performance metric.
Licensees whose networks include such low-power connections may rely
on another part of their network to demonstrate buildout (e.g.,
mobile area coverage or higher-power fixed backhaul links). See 2017
Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM, 32 FCC Rcd at 11008-09,
paragraph 66 through 68.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
125. The Commission believes that 12 years will provide sufficient
time for any 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee to meet the proposed coverage
requirements. The Commission anticipates that after satisfying the 12-
year second performance benchmark, a licensee will continue to provide
reliable signal coverage, or point-to-point links, as applicable, and
offer service at or above that level for the remaining three years in
the proposed 15-year license term prior to renewal. Establishing
benchmarks before the end of the license term will ensure continuity of
service over the license term, which is essential to the Commission's
evaluation under the Commission's renewal standards.
126. The Commission also seeks comment on whether the proposals
discussed above represent the appropriate balance between license-term
length and a significant final buildout requirement. The Commission
seeks comment on the proposed buildout requirements and any potential
alternatives. The Commission, for example, seeks comment on alternative
methodologies for measuring population coverage requirements in the
Gulf of Mexico. Above, the Commission discusses various mechanisms for
expanding flexible use in all or part of the band. The Commission asks
proponents of the various approaches described above whether there are
issues specific to this section and their preferred approach. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities face any
special or unique issues with respect to buildout requirements such
that they would require certain accommodations or additional time to
comply. Finally, commenters should discuss and quantify how any
supported buildout requirements will affect investment and innovation,
as well as discuss and quantify other costs and benefits associated
with the proposal.
127. Internet of Things (IoT) Performance Requirements.--While the
Commission proposes performance benchmarks based on population coverage
applicable for a range of fixed and mobile services, the Commission
recognizes that 3.7-4.2 GHz licenses have flexibility to provide
services potentially less suited to a population coverage metric. In
particular, licensees providing IoT-type fixed and mobile services may
benefit from an alternative performance benchmark metric, and the
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate metric to accommodate such
service offerings. As the Commission did in Spectrum Frontiers, the
Commission acknowledges that some IoT-type services may have difficulty
meeting the population-based metrics that the Commission proposes for
fixed and mobile services. In Spectrum Frontiers, the Commission
modified its existing part 30 rules to adopt a specific definition of
``fixed point-to-point link,'' which includes the use of point-to-point
stations as already defined in part 30 and is based on power level.
This definition is intended to separate ``traditional'' point-to-point
links from the sensor and device connections the Commission anticipates
will be part of new Internet of Things networks in these bands. This
definition applies to a network of fixed sensors or smart devices
operating at low power over short distances. The Commission seeks
comment on applying the same framework here and invite commenters to
suggest new metrics that will accommodate innovative services in mid-
band spectrum. The Commission also seeks comment on how relatively
lower power point-to-point operations at or below a transmit power of +
43 dBm should be required to meet the buildout rules for 3.7-4.2 GHz
licensees.
[[Page 44149]]
128. The Commission seeks additional comment on what metric it
should adopt to accommodate IoT services, while recognizing the
difficulty of crafting an IoT-specific metric, especially while the
relevant technologies and use cases are still being developed. For
example, a performance metric based on geographic area coverage (or
presence) could allow for networks that provide meaningful service but
deploy along lines other than residential population. Consistent with
the Commission's approach above seeking comment on a first and second
performance benchmark, the Commission seeks comment on the following
metrics as an option for MBX-spectrum licensees to fulfill their
buildout requirements: geographic area coverage of 35 percent of the
license area at the first (six-year) performance benchmark, and
geographic area coverage of 65 percent of the license area at the
second (12-year) performance benchmark. The Commission also seeks
comment on an alternative requirement of presence in 35 percent of
subset units of the license area, such as census tracts, counties, or
some other area at the first performance benchmark, and presence in 65
percent of subset units at the second benchmark. A standard requiring
presence in subset units of a license area could accommodate
deployments, such as sensor networks, that are not designed to provide
mobile or point-to-multipoint area coverage, and for whom calculating
``coverage of 65 percent of the area'' would therefore not be a
meaningful standard. Licensees would demonstrate compliance with this
metric through a showing of the equipment or deployments that are part
of a network that is actually providing service, either to external
customers or for internal uses.
129. The Commission suggests these levels of geographic coverage as
an attempt to maintain parity between the requirements in these metrics
and the requirements of its earlier proposal based on population
coverage.\17\ The Commission seeks comment on these coverage levels,
including any suggestions of alternative levels of coverage that might
be more appropriate. The Commission also emphasizes that any metric it
adopts to accommodate IoT services would, like the population coverage
and fixed link metrics ultimately adopted, be available to any MBX-
spectrum licensee. While the Commission suggests an additional metric
in order to facilitate the deployment of IoT and other innovative
services, there would be no requirement that a licensee build a
particular type of network or provide a particular type of service in
order to use whatever metric the Commission ultimately adopts. Above,
the Commission discusses various mechanisms for expanding flexible use
in all or part of the band. The Commission asks proponents of the
various approaches described above whether there are issues specific to
this section and their preferred approach. The Commission strongly
encourages stakeholders to fully develop a record on this issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ In most license areas, the residential population is
unevenly distributed. In those areas, building a network covering
65% of the geographic area would require more intensive deployment
than one covering 65% of the population, suggesting that a lower
percent coverage requirement for geographic area could be
appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
130. Penalty for Failure to Meet Performance Requirements.--Along
with performance benchmarks, the Commission seeks to adopt meaningful
and enforceable penalties for failing to meet the benchmarks. The
Commission seeks comment on which penalties will most effectively
ensure timely build-out. Specifically, the Commission proposes that, in
the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz MHz licensee fails to meet the first
performance benchmark, the licensee's second benchmark and license term
would be reduced by two years, thereby requiring it to meet the second
performance benchmark two years sooner (at 10 years into the license
term) and reducing its license term to 13 years. The Commission further
proposes that, in the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee fails to meet the
second performance benchmark for a particular license area, its
authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet the
performance requirement shall terminate automatically without
Commission action.
131. The Commission proposes that, in the event a licensee's
authority to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would
become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding
provisions of Sec. 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's
rules for other licenses, including AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4 and H Block,
the Commission proposes that any 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits its
license for failure to meet its performance requirements would be
precluded from regaining the license.
132. Compliance Procedures.--In addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all Part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting documentation, the Commission proposes
that such electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the
boundaries of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If
a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire
license area, the Commission proposes that its map must accurately
depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each license area not
being served. Further, the Commission proposes that each licensee also
must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is
providing for each licensed area within its service territory and the
type of technology used to provide such service. Supporting
documentation must include the assumptions used to create the coverage
maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary
to provide reliable service with the licensee's technology. The
Commission seeks comment on the Commission's proposal. The Commission
also seeks comment on whether small entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the transition such that they would require
additional time to comply.
133. Renewal Term Construction Obligation.--In addition to, and
independent of, the general renewal requirements contained in Sec.
1.949 of the Commission's rules, which apply to all Wireless Radio
Services (WRS) licensees, the Commission also seeks comment on
application of specific renewal term construction obligations to 3.7-
4.2 GHz licensees.
134. The WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM proposed to apply rules adopted
in that proceeding to all flexible geographic licenses. Given the
Commission's proposal to license this band on a geographic basis for
flexible use, any additional renewal term construction obligations
proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also would apply to licenses
in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. The Commission seeks comment on whether there
are unique characteristics of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that might require a
different approach than the various proposals raised by the WRS Renewal
Reform FNPRM. For example, while the vast majority of existing wireless
radio services have 10-year license terms, here the Commission seeks
comment on a 15-year license term for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Do any of
the Commission's proposals for this band, such as potentially longer
license terms, necessitate a more tailored approach than the rules of
general applicability proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM? For
instance, should the Commission requires buildout to 85 percent of the
population by the end of second license term? Commenters advocating
rules specific to the 3.7-4.2 GHz band should address the costs and
benefits of their proposed
[[Page 44150]]
rules and discuss how a given proposal will encourage investment and
deployment in areas that might not otherwise benefit from significant
wireless coverage. Above, the Commission discusses various mechanisms
for expanding flexible use in all or part of the band. The Commission
asks proponents of the various approaches described above whether there
are issues specific to this section and their preferred approach. The
Commission seeks comment on whether to require an applicant deploying
IoT applications in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to exceed its original
construction metric by an additional five percent in its next full
renewal term.
135. Competitive Bidding Procedures.-- The Commission seeks comment
above on the types of licenses for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that would best
serve the public interest. In the event that the Commission accepts
mutually exclusive applications for licenses in the band, the
Commission will grant the licenses through a system of competitive
bidding, consistent with the Commission's statutory mandate.
Accordingly, the Commission seeks comment on a number of proposals
relating to competitive bidding for licenses for spectrum in this band,
including the costs and benefits of those proposals.
136. Consistent with the competitive bidding procedures the
Commission has used in previous auctions, the Commission proposes that
the Commission would conduct any auction for licenses for spectrum in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band in conformity with the general competitive bidding
rules set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of the Commission's rules.
Specifically, the Commission proposes to employ the part 1 rules
governing competitive bidding design, designated entity preferences,
unjust enrichment, application and certification procedures, payment
procedures, reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain
communications between auction applicants. Under this proposal, such
rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may
adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future.
In this NPRM, the Commission seeks comment on general application of
the part 1 competitive bidding rules to any auction of 3.7-4.2 GHz
licenses. The Commission also seeks comment on whether any of the
Commission's part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified
for an auction of licenses in this frequency band. In particular, the
Commission seeks comment on the following proposals for bidding credits
for designated entities in this band. As with other flexible use
licenses in recent years, the Commission proposes in this band to adopt
bidding credits for the two larger designated entity business sizes
provided in the part 1 rules. The Commission also proposes to offer
rural service providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses
in this band. Commenters addressing these proposals should consider
what details of licenses in the band may affect whether designated
entities will apply for them. The Commission seeks comment on new or
revised rules that would be necessary to implement an incentive auction
if the Commission adopted that approach. Would a tailored version of
the rules adopted for the reverse auction portion of the broadcast
incentive auction be appropriate?
c. Technical Rules
137. Power Limits for Fixed and Base Stations.--The current rules
for AWS-1, AWS-3 and AWS-4 limit base station power in non-rural areas
to 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than one megahertz and
to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than one
megahertz and they double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or 3280 watts/
MHz) in rural areas. The same limits apply to broadband PCS stations.
There are a few services that have a power limit of 2000 Watts per MHz,
most notably, the recent 600 MHz band. In the Commission's experience
the AWS limits have provided good service while avoiding harmful
interference. Further, the higher power limit for rural areas may
promote the Commission's goals of furthering rural deployment of
broadband services. Therefore, the Commission proposes to extend Sec.
27.50(d)(1)-(2) to apply to both fixed and base stations in the 3.7-4.2
GHz MBX-spectrum. Thus, the power limits are proposed to be 1640 watts
EIRP for emission bandwidths less than one megahertz and to 1640 watts
per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than one megahertz. For
operation in rural areas, defined as any county with population density
of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, the
power limits are proposed to be 3280 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths
less than one megahertz and to 3280 watts per MHz EIRP for emission
bandwidths greater than one megahertz. These power limits apply to the
sum of the power of all antenna elements of the fixed or base station.
The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Are the power levels the
Commission proposes sufficient to provide robust mobile broadband
service as well as being practical and realistic in this particular
spectrum? Alternatively, would the proposed power levels need to be
reduced to avoid the blocking of receivers operating in the adjacent
Citizen's Broadband Radio Service at 3.5-3.7 GHz? The Commission
invites commenters who propose alternative solutions to provide
specific technical details and thorough analysis to support their
proposals.
138. It is anticipated that this new band may be able to
accommodate much wider channel bandwidths than in the past. Current
plans for 5G deployments are capable of channel bandwidths of as much
as 100 MHz at frequencies below 6 GHz. There is some concern regarding
the total power of a wide bandwidth channel when the power limit is
specified as a power density level. Should the Commission propose a
limit on the total power of a base station in order to relieve
potential blocking? One possible solution is that the total power of a
base station should be limited to 75 dBm EIRP, summed over all antenna
elements, for fixed and base stations. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal.
139. The Commission notes that the power limit for most AWS
services is specified based on an RMS-equivalent or average power
measurement. This power measurement methodology is preferred for
advanced digital modulation schemes that could create very short
duration power spikes, while the overall power remains low. There are a
few services whose power limit is specified based on a peak power
measurement. The Commission proposes that the power limit be based on
the average power measurement and seek comment on this proposal.
140. Power Limits for Mobiles and Portables.--The Commission
proposes to limit the power of mobiles and portables in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
MBX spectrum to 1 Watt (30 dBm). While power limits for flexible use
mobile services vary in the Commission's rules (e.g., 50 milliwatts per
MHz EIRP for WCS, 2 Watts EIRP for PCS, 3 Watts ERP in the 600 MHz
band, 1 Watt EIRP for the AWS-1 and AWS-3 uplink bands, and 2 Watts
EIRP for the AWS-4 uplink band); most device operate at levels under 1
Watt to preserve battery life, meet exposure limits and meet power
control requirements. The limit the Commission proposes falls within a
range of values typically seen in AWS services, and should provide
adequate power for the 5G mobile applications envisioned for the MBX
spectrum
[[Page 44151]]
considering the similarity in propagation characteristics for the MBX-
spectrum band and AWS bands. Indeed, most commercial services,
including LTE, CDMA and UMTS, commonly deploy mobile devices which
operate at a maximum output power of 23 dBm (200 milliwatts),
regardless of higher FCC power limits. However, there are a few new
power class II LTE devices being developed with slightly higher output
power of 26 dBm. Similar devices are expected for the new 5G standard
as well. This development warrants continued flexibility in the rules
to allow for a wider range of devices types. The Commission seeks
comment on this proposal. The Commission further proposes that mobile
and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
141. Out of Band Emissions Limits.--The limits the Commission sets
on out of band emissions are important to protecting services in
adjacent bands. This band is adjacent to the 3.5 GHz Citizens Broadband
Radio Service and will also be adjacent to any service that remains in
a portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz FSS band after the Commission adopts and
completes a transition plan. The Commission proposes that out of band
emissions be kept to a level that will provide protection to incumbent
services in adjacent bands, while allowing the full use of the new
band. The Commission proposes to apply the longstanding limit on out of
band emissions of -13 dBm/MHz at the authorized channel edge as
measured at the antenna terminals. This out of band emission level has
been used successfully to protect adjacent operations from harmful
interference in several AWS bands. The Commission seeks comment on this
proposal and whether to apply more stringent out of band emission
limits beyond the band edge, as described below.
142. The out of band emission limits that the Commission adopts for
the MBX spectrum will depend on the characteristics of the services
likely to be deployed in the MBX spectrum and the coexistence needs of
services in the adjacent bands. Notably, to ensure effective
coexistence with adjacent band services, it may be necessary to adopt
more stringent out of band emission limits beyond the edges of the
band. For example, in the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the
Commission limits out of band emission to -25 dBm/MHz at or beyond 10
megahertz outside of the band edge and -40 dBm/MHz at or beyond 20
megahertz outside of the band edge. The Commission seeks comment on the
out of band emission limits that will be needed to facilitate
widespread deployment of next generation wireless services in the MBX
spectrum while ensuring effective coexistence with the services
operating in the adjacent bands. Commenters should analyze the costs
and benefits of different options and provide detailed technical
analysis in support of their proposals.
143. To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission's rules
generally specify details on how to measure the power of the emissions,
such as the resolution bandwidth. For most AWS bands, the resolution
bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for base
stations is one megahertz or greater, except that within one megahertz
of the channel edge where a resolution bandwidth of at least one
percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the
transmitter may be employed. Rather than allow use of a bandwidth
dependent resolution bandwidth near the channel edge, the Upper
Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) rules under Part 30 instead
specify use of a one megahertz resolution bandwidth but allow an out of
band emission limit of -5 dBm per megahertz from the channel edge out
to 10 percent of the channel. Considering that the MBX spectrum, like
UMFUS, will likely employ much larger signal bandwidths than AWS,
should the MBX spectrum rules adopt the AWS approach to defining the
resolution bandwidth or follow the UMFUS approach?
144. Finally, should the same out of band emission limits apply to
both base stations and mobile handsets? While the Commission finds that
mobile handsets can meet the out of band emission limit the Commission
has proposed, they also operate at lower power levels and their size
could restrict the implementation of more stringent emission limits
that would require nonstandard filtering. However, base station
equipment may have more flexibility to implement more stringent filters
if necessary to protect adjacent services. The Commission seeks comment
on all aspects of the emission limits for mobile and portable devices
as part of the discussion above.
145. Coexistence with FSS Operations Above the MBX Spectrum.--The
Commission seeks comment on whether additional technical protection
criteria, beyond out of band emission limits, are necessary to ensure
effective coexistence with adjacent band FSS operations. As discussed
above, several of the transition mechanisms under consideration could
make available a portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band available for flexible
use, while allowing continued widespread FSS operations in adjacent
portions of the band. For example, under the proposal submitted by
Intelsat and SES, the 3700-3800 MHz portion of the band would be
initially cleared for flexible use along with an additional 40 to 60
megahertz of guard band adjacent to and above it. As part of the
clearing process, Intelsat and SES have proposed to install a filter or
replace the Low Noise Block converter (LNB) in every earth station so
as to prevent 5G transmission in the 3700-3800 MHz from saturating the
LNB of the earth stations. Intelsat and SES state that they are working
with manufacturers to define the desired filter characteristics such as
the rejection, roll-off, and insertion loss, but have not provided any
specific numbers. The Commission seeks comment on whether such
additional requirements are necessary to ensure coexistence with
adjacent band operations.
146. In general, the width of the guard band and roll-off of the
filter determine the amount of out-of-band rejection provided to a
receiver. The Commission seeks comment on the earth station receiver
protection criteria, necessary rejection performance from the external
filter, and amount of spectrum it requires for the filter roll off.
Should the protection limit of the FSS earth stations be based solely
on interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) regardless of the actual FSS
carrier power and/or earth station configuration? Should the Commission
establish a baseline FSS earth station configuration (antenna, LNB,
receiver) for any interference and protection assumptions? Given the
signal strength differential between the terrestrial and satellite
systems, can terrestrial wireless base or mobile stations cause
saturation of the LNB of FSS earth stations? Could an external filter
be tunable across 3700-4200 MHz band? Will there be a minimum distance
separation required between MBX transmitters and earth station
receivers? What are the tradeoffs among filter performance, required
guard band, level of protection, and cost of such filter? The
Commission requests commenters to provide details of assumptions and
analysis including MBX transmit power level, earth station protection
limit, propagation model, antenna aperture and off-axis isolation.
147. Alternatively, should the Commission define the MBX transmit
power limit, out of band emission limits, and guard band and allow the
satellite service providers to determine how to protect the earth
station receivers? The Commission typically
[[Page 44152]]
does not specify receiver performance, and there are many variables
that contribute to the receiver blocking performance from strong
transmit signals in an adjacent band, including external filter, low-
noise amplifier (LNA), mixer and other RF components, and digital
signal processing in the baseband. Given the current design and
operation of the earth stations, each earth station receiver may be
impacted differently for a given MBX transmit power. Therefore, it may
be more practical for satellite service providers to determine how to
protect the earth station receivers given the allowed transmit power
level and out of band emission limits. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal.
148. The guard band used for receiver filter rejection can also be
used to enhance the out of band emission performance of MBX
transmitters. The Commission seeks comment on the out of band emission
limit necessary at the upper end of guard band in order to ensure
coexistence with earth station receivers. Does this out of band
emission limit allow ubiquitous operation of base stations and mobile
stations or does it require a minimum distance separation from earth
station receivers? The Commission requests commenters to include
proposed out of band emission at the upper end of guard band,
propagation model, antenna gains and off-axis isolation between MBX
transmitters and earth station receivers in their analysis. The
Commission also seeks comment on whether this guard band could be used
for other purposes such as coordinated fixed point-to-multipoint
operations, a low power wireless broadband system, indoor-only system,
or unlicensed use.
149. Coexistence with FSS Operations in the MBX Spectrum. There may
be some FSS earth stations operating co-channel with MBX, depending on
the mechanisms of expanding flexible use as described above. The
Commission seeks comment on the coexistence challenges between
terrestrial mobile services and the FSS earth stations that may remain
in the cleared spectrum and on any specific rules that should be
adopted to ensure effective coexistence between these services. In
other bands, the Commission has adopted exclusion or coordination zones
to protect co-channel FSS earth stations from harmful interference.
Would exclusion zones or coordination zones be appropriate to protect
any existing FSS earth stations in the MBX spectrum? If so, how should
the size of the exclusion zone or coordination zone be determined?
Should the Commission instead specify interference protection limits
that the terrestrial systems must meet to protect the earth stations?
Such protection limits could take the form, for example, of an
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N), carrier to interference-plus-noise
ratio (C/I+N),\18\ or a power density at the FSS receiver. If so, how
would such a protection limit be modeled and enforced? In applying a
protection limit, exclusion zone, or coordination zone, how should the
aggregate interference from multiple base stations and associated
mobile devices from the different MBX licensees be taken into account?
Should the Commission require that earth stations remaining in the band
be moved to less populated areas or can RF shielding of earth stations
be employed to reduce the size of exclusion or coordination zones?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ The carrier power is the power received by the earth
station from the satellite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
150. Coexistence with FSS Operation Below 3700 MHz.--There are 120
FSS earth stations that are authorized in the 3600-3700 MHz band. Yet,
unlike FSS earth stations operating above 3800 MHz, Intelsat and SES
have not proposed any particular means of protecting these earth
stations against interference. Given that there will be no guard band
to help prevent interference in this band, should operators of these
stations be included in any transition mechanisms, including possible
relocation to transponders above the MBX spectrum? How should these
earth stations be treated during any transition process that is adopted
for the MBX spectrum? If an earth station continues to receive signals
below 3700 MHz, could the receiver be modified to protect the LNB from
the MBX transmitters (e.g., by adding a filter)? The Commission seeks
comment on alternative means for mitigating interference to protect any
continued FSS downlink operation below 3700 MHz.
151. The Commission seeks comment and quantitative analysis to
demonstrate if the proposed MBX spectrum power and emission limits are
sufficient, without additional mitigation methods, to protect any FSS
earth station operation below 3700 MHz. The Commission expects that a
minimum propagation loss plus additional attenuation would be required
to protect FSS earth stations below 3700 MHz, depending on the
separation distance between FSS and MBX-spectrum transmitters, the RF
propagation environment, and FSS antenna (gain) orientation. Would
exclusion zones or coordination zones be required around the earth
stations?
152. The Commission seeks comment on the achievable RF shielding
around the FSS earth stations and the cost thereof. Would using RF
shielding be sufficient to protect FSS earth stations below 3700 MHz?
In addition, or alternatively, would it be possible for the MBX
spectrum licensees to engineer around the FSS antenna sites, such that
the predicted propagation loss and additional attenuation of base/
mobile emissions (fundamental power and out of band emission) would be
sufficient to ensure that co-channel/out of band emission and blocking
FSS thresholds were not exceeded?
153. Coexistence with Telemetry, Tracking, and Command.--FSS Earth
stations that are used for telemetry, tracking and command of
satellites have assignments near 3700 MHz, 3950 MHz, and 4200 MHz.
These telemetry, tracking and command licenses may list widely varying
bandwidths in IBFS. Most assignments are no more than 1-2 megahertz
wide; however, others are less specific, and are recorded across the
entire passband of the earth station receiver (i.e., 3625-4200 MHz).
Since there are a limited number of telemetry, tracking and command
earth stations, should the Commission consider protection on a case-by-
case basis through coordination between MBX-spectrum licensees and FSS
earth station operators? What are the appropriate coexistence criteria
for telemetry, tracking and command receivers \19\ and do they differ
from other earth station receivers? What interference mitigation
techniques could be used to protect telemetry, tracking and command
earth stations? For example, could RF shielding effectively reduce the
interference to the telemetry, tracking and command earth stations? The
Commission also seeks comment on whether telemetry, tracking and
command earth stations located in or near densely populated areas could
be relocated to more remote locations and, if so, how much such
relocations would cost. Because telemetry, tracking and command
transmissions are a function of satellite design and cannot be changed
following launch, the Commission recognizes that earth stations
receiving telemetry, tracking and command transmissions in the
[[Page 44153]]
MBX spectrum will require protection for the lifetime of the satellite.
The Commission seeks comment on if protection of these operations would
require a different approach depending on whether telemetry, tracking
and command earth stations are within or outside of the MBX spectrum.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ The Commission has adopted specific rules to protect TT&C
earth stations that operate in in and adjacent to the 3.55-3.7 GHz
band. These rules require that the aggregate passband RF power
spectral density at the output of a reference RF filter and antenna
at the location of a TT&C FSS earth station produced by all Citizens
Broadband Service Devices within 40km of the earth station shall not
exceed a median RMS value of -129 dBm/MHz. See 47 CFR 96.17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
154. Coexistence with Citizens Broadband Radio Service Operations
in the 3550-3700 MHz Band.--The Commission seeks comment on the
compatibility between Citizens Broadband Radio Service and MBX systems,
including the suitability of the out of band emission limit proposed
above.\20\ One concern about deploying a robust mobile broadband
service adjacent to the Citizens Broadband Radio Service arises from
the relatively higher power limits proposed above. One possibility for
preventing interference between the services would be to impose
adjacent channel power limits that could limit the differential between
power levels for adjacent stations operating in the same area. Such a
limit would be specified as a ratio between the total power in the
channels immediately adjacent to an MBX-spectrum station to the total
power in the MBX-spectrum station's emission bandwidth. Should the
Commission specify such a ratio for MBX-spectrum devices, and if so,
what limit would be appropriate?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ In the Citizens Broadband Radio Service, the Commission has
adopted out-of-channel emission limits of -13 dBm/MHz starting at
the channel edges and -25 dBm/MHz beyond 10 megahertz of the channel
edges. Additionally, the Commission adopted an out of band emission
limit of -40 dBm/MHz beyond 20 megahertz of the 3.5 GHz band edges.
47 CFR 96.41(e). The Commission is currently considering proposals
to change the emission limits based on claims that more relaxed
limits are necessary to facilitate wider channels in the 3.5 GHz
band. See Promoting Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order Terminating Petitions, 32 FCC Rcd
8071, 8089-8092 paragraph. 50 through 58 (2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
155. Field Strength Limit and Market Boundaries.--If the Commission
ultimately decide to license the MBX spectrum based on geographic
service areas that are less than nationwide, the Commission will have
to ensure that such licensees do not cause interference to co-channel
systems operating along common geographic borders. The current rules
for AWS-1, AWS-3 and AWS-4 address the possibility of harmful co-
channel interference between geographically adjacent licenses by
setting a field strength limit from base stations of 47 dB[mu]V/m at
the edge of the license area. In the 600 MHz band, the Commission
adopted a field strength limit of 40 dB[mu]V/m. In the UMFUS rules, the
Commission adopted a limit of -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz at a height of 1.5
meters above ground at the border of a licensee's service area.
156. The 47 dB[micro]V/m limit that has been used in the AWS rules
was developed at a time when signal bandwidths were much smaller than
are likely to be used in the MBX spectrum. Furthermore, the 47
dB[micro]V/m limit did not have an associated bandwidth. In the H Block
proceeding, Sprint requested that the Commission modify the boundary
limit to set a reference measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz, with the aim
of limiting boundary power density to the equivalent of that first
applied to PCS systems in 1993. At that time, operators were deploying
mostly Digital AMPS, PCS1900 and CDMA technologies, which had channel
bandwidths of 30 kHz, 200 kHz and 1.25 MHz, respectively. Sprint claims
that because today's LTE transmissions operate on much wider bandwidths
up to 20 MHz, a 47 dB[micro]V/m limit measured over the full channel
bandwidth will effectively result in a comparatively lower power level.
Sprint proposed to adjust the field strength limit from 47 dB[micro]V/m
to 62 dB[micro]V/m per MHz. Verizon has made a similar claim in the
Incentive Auctions proceeding, proposing a field strength limit of 50
dB[micro]V/m per MHz.
157. The Commission agrees with Sprint and Verizon that the market
boundary limit should be related to the signal bandwidth. The
Commission proposes to adopt the same -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz power flux
density limit at the service area boundaries as is used for the UMFUS
rules. This UMFUS limit was calculated based on an interference
criterion of 0 dB I/N and made assumptions about a typical antenna
gain. The Commission seeks comment on whether the interference
criterion and technical assumptions are appropriate
158. Finally, the Commission proposes that adjacent affected area
licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field strength boundary
levels. This concept is already codified in the field strength rules
for both PCS and AWS services, as Sprint acknowledges. Accordingly, to
maintain consistency with the PCS and other AWS bands, the Commission
proposes to permit adjacent area licensees to agree to a higher field
strength limit
159. Antenna Height Limits.--The Commission proposes, as discussed
below, that the flexible antenna height rules that apply to AWS-1 and
AWS-3 should generally also apply to MBX spectrum. Specific antenna
height restrictions for AWS-1 and AWS-3 base stations are not set forth
in part 27 of the Commission rules. However, all part 27 services are
subject to Sec. 27.56, which bans antenna heights that would be a
hazard to air navigation. Furthermore, the limitations of field
strength at the geographical boundary of the license discussed above
also effectively limit antenna heights. The Commission similarly
proposes that no unique antenna height limits are needed for MBX-
spectrum facilities; rather, the Commission believes that the general
height restrictions are sufficient. The Commission seeks comment on
this proposal, including the costs and benefits of the proposal and any
alternatives. The Commission does not propose a height limit for fixed
stations in the MBX spectrum. Although fixed stations were limited to
10 meters above ground in the AWS-1 band and were prohibited in the
AWS-3 band. There are no antenna height limits for fixed stations in
the AWS-4 band, since, unlike the former, it is not directly adjacent
to certain Federal incumbents. Using this same reasoning, the
Commission proposes no antenna height limits for fixed operation in the
MBX spectrum. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal and request
technical support for any alternative proposals.
160. Canadian and Mexican Coordination.--Section 27.57(c) of the
Commission's rules provide that several AWS services, including WCS,
AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4 and the H Block, are subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. The Commission proposes to apply the
same limitation to the new MBX spectrum. Until such time as any
adjusted agreements between the United States, Mexico, and/or Canada
can be agreed to, operations must not cause harmful interference across
the border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in
force. The Commission notes that further modification (of the proposed
or final rules) might be necessary in order to comply with any future
agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. The
Commission seeks comment on this issue, including the costs and
benefits of alternative approaches to this issue.
161. General Part 27 Rules--There are several additional technical
rules applicable to all Part 27 services, including Sec. Sec. 27.51
Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 Frequency stability,
27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation safety, and 27.63 Disturbance
of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. As operations in the MBX
spectrum will be a Part 27 service, the Commission proposes that all of
these general Part 27 rules should
[[Page 44154]]
apply to all MBX-spectrum licensees, including licensees who acquire
their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the extent
the rules permit such aggregation). The Commission seeks comment on
this approach, including its costs and benefits.
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
162. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules
proposed in this NPRM. The text of the IRFA is set forth in Appendix B
of the NPRM. Written comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must
be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of
the NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
163. The NPRM seeks comment and makes proposals on a range of
potential opportunities for more intensive fixed or flexible uses--
particularly for wireless broadband services--in 500 megahertz of mid-
band spectrum between 3.7-4.2 GHz (the band). In doing so, the NPRM
proposes to add a mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation to the
band and seeks comment on transitioning all or part of the band to
terrestrial wireless broadband services. The actions are another step
in the Commissions efforts to close the digital divide by providing
wireless broadband connectivity across the nation and to secure U.S.
leadership in the next generation of wireless services, including
fifth-generation (5G) wireless, Internet of Things (IoT), and other
advanced spectrum-based services.
164. In this proceeding, the Commission is pursuing the joint goals
of making spectrum available for new wireless uses while effectively
accommodating incumbent Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) and Fixed Service
(FS) operations in the band. The NPRM seeks comment on various
proposals for transitioning all or part of the band for flexible use.
The NPRM also proposes and seeks comment on revisions to Parts 25 and
101 of the Commission's rules to promote more intensive fixed use of
the band. Additionally, as part of the Commission's proposal to add a
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, allocation, and to develop rules
that would enable the band to be transitioned for more intensive fixed
and flexible uses, the Commission encourages commenters to discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits associated with any proposed approach
along with other helpful technical or procedural details.
165. The 3.7-4.2 GHz band is currently allocated in the United
States exclusively for non-federal use on a primary basis for the FSS
(space-to-Earth) and the FS. For FSS, the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (space-to-
Earth or downlink) is paired with the 5.925-6.425 GHz band (Earth-to-
space or uplink), and collectively these bands are known as the
``conventional C-band.'' Domestically, satellite operators use this
band to provide downlink signals of various bandwidths to licensed
transmit receive, registered receive-only, and unregistered receive-
only earth stations throughout the United States. Geostationary orbit
(GSO) FSS satellites operating in the C-band typically have 24
transponders, each with a bandwidth of 36 megahertz received by one or
more earth stations. Predominant GSO FSS uses include delivery of
programming content to television and radio broadcasters, including
transportable antennas used to cover live news and sports events, cable
television and small master antenna systems, as well as the backhaul of
telephone and data traffic. The band is also used for reception of
telemetry signals transmitted by satellites, typically near 3.7 or 4.2
GHz.
166. Mid-band spectrum, in conjunction with lower and higher bands,
is well suited for next generation wireless broadband services due to
the combination of favorable propagation characteristics (as comparted
to bands above 24 GHz) and the opportunity for additional channel re-
use (as compared to bands below 3.7 GHz). With the ever-increasing
demand for more data on mobile networks, wireless network operators
have increasingly focused on providing more data capacity rather than
providing coverage over large areas from individual base stations. One
technique for providing increased capacity is to use smaller cell
sizes--i.e., have each base station provide coverage over a smaller
area. Using higher frequencies can be advantageous for deploying a
higher density of base stations. The decreased propagation distances at
higher frequencies reduces the interference between base stations using
the same frequency, thereby allowing base stations to be more densely
packed and increasing the overall system capacity. Therefore, mid-band
spectrum presents wireless providers with the opportunity to deploy
base stations using smaller cells to get higher spectrum reuse than the
lower frequency bands while still providing indoor coverage. Relative
to higher bands, mid-band spectrum also offers favorable propagation
characteristics for fixed wireless broadband services in less densely
populated areas.
167. In the NPRM the Commission proposes to add a non-federal
mobile, except aeronautical mobile, service allocation to the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, and based on the Commission's conclusion that co-channel
sharing is not feasible, the Commission seeks comment on several
proposals to clear all or part of the band for flexible use. Because
the NPRM seeks comment on several alternate approaches for making
portions of the band available for flexible use, the appropriate
operational and technical restrictions on terrestrial and FSS use of
the band will depend on the selected mechanism for expanding flexible
use in the band. Specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on three
potential mechanisms for expanding flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band: (1) A market-based mechanism, (2) auctions mechanisms, and (3)
alternative mechanisms. In pursuing the Commission's goal of creating
additional opportunities for wireless broadband in mid-band spectrum,
under each approach, the Commission seeks to balance incumbent
interests, speed to market, and efficiency of use.
B. Legal Basis
168. The proposed action is taken pursuant to sections 1, 2, 3,
4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153,
154(i), 157, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, 310, and section
706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
169. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of--and
where feasible, an estimate of--the number of small entities that may
be affected by the rules, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small governmental
jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business'' has the same
meaning as the term
[[Page 44155]]
``small business concern'' under the Small Business Act. A small
business concern is one that: (1) Is independently owned and operated;
(2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the SBA.
170. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental
Jurisdictions. The Commission's action may, over time, affect small
entities that are not easily categorized at present. The Commission
therefore describes here, at the outset, three broad groups of small
entities that could be directly affected herein. First, while there are
industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in
the regulatory flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA's
Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is an independent
business having fewer than 500 employees. These types of small
businesses represent 99.9 percent of all businesses in the United
States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
171. Next, the type of small entity described as a ``small
organization'' is generally ``any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.''
Nationwide, as of August 2016, there were approximately 356,494 small
organizations based on registration and tax data filed by nonprofits
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
172. Finally, the small entity described as a ``small governmental
jurisdiction'' is defined generally as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' U.S. Census
Bureau data from the 2012 Census of Governments indicate that there
were 90,056 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general
purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United
States. Of this number there were 37,132 General purpose governments
(county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than
50,000 and 12,184 Special purpose governments (independent school
districts and special districts) with populations of less than 50,000.
The 2012 U.S. Census Bureau data for most types of governments in the
local government category show that the majority of these governments
have populations of less than 50,000. Based on this data we estimate
that at least 49,316 local government jurisdictions fall in the
category of ``small governmental jurisdictions.''
173. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite). This
industry comprises establishments engaged in operating and maintaining
switching and transmission facilities to provide communications via the
airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and
provide services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging
services, wireless internet access, and wireless video services. The
appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is
small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees. For this industry, U.S.
Census data for 2012 show that there were 967 firms that operated for
the entire year. Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1000 employees or more. Thus
under this category and the associated size standard, the Commission
estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications carriers
(except satellite) are small entities.
174. Satellite Telecommunications. This category comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The category has a small business size standard of
$32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules. For
this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there were a
total of 333 firms that operated for the entire year. Of this total,
299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million. Consequently,
the Commission estimates that the majority of satellite
telecommunications providers are small entities.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
175. The potential rule changes proposed in this NPRM, if adopted,
could impose some new reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance
requirements on some small entities. In addition to the proposed rule
changes associated with the proposed mechanisms for expanding flexible
use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, there could be new service rule compliance
obligations. For new licensed flexible uses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band,
the NPRM seeks comment on various service rules that should apply,
including construction benchmarks and technical operating requirements.
In the event the Commission adopts the proposed service rules and
issues licenses for flexible use in the band, any small entity licensee
would be required to satisfy construction requirements, and comply with
limits on power, out of band emissions, field strength, antenna height,
and other existing coordination requirements. Licensees would be
responsible for making certain construction demonstrations with the
Commission through the Universal Licensing System showing that they
have satisfied the relevant construction benchmarks.
176. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance
requirements proposed in the NPRM will apply to all entities in the
same manner. The Commission believes that applying the same rules
equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness. The
revisions the Commission may ultimately adopt however, should benefit
small entities by giving them more information about opportunities in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, more flexibility to provide a wider range of
services, and more options for gaining access to wireless spectrum.
177. Application/Petition Freeze & Part 25 and 101 Modifications.
Applications for new or modified earth stations, applications for new
or modified fixed microwave stations, and applications for new space
stations operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band were previously frozen by
the International, Wireless Telecommunications, and Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureaus.\21\ The Bureaus took these actions to
preserve the current landscape of authorized operations while the
Commission proceeded with an ongoing inquiry into the possibility of
permitting mobile broadband use and more intensive fixed use of the
band in this proceeding. To reexamine the existing full-band, full-arc
coordination policy, the NPRM proposes to revise the Commission's rules
to bar new applications for space station licenses
[[Page 44156]]
and new petitions for market access concerning space-to-Earth
operations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Additionally, the NPRM seeks
comment on modifying the Commission's part 25 rules to require
operators of licensed or registered FSS earth stations receiving in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band to coordinate only the specific combinations of
frequency, azimuth, and elevation angle that they regularly use and
that such technical information be reflected on each earth station
application and authorization. The NPRM seeks comment on whether this
information should form the basis for protection from terrestrial
stations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ On April 19, 2018, the staff froze applications for new or
modified fixed microwave stations and earth stations in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band to preserve the current landscape of authorized operations
pending action as part of the Commission's ongoing inquiry into the
possibility of permitting mobile broadband use and more intensive
fixed use of the band through this proceeding. To provide the
Commission and commenters with more accurate information about
existing earth stations, however, the International Bureau, as a
limited exception to the freeze, concurrently opened a 90-day window
during which entities that own or operate existing FSS earth
stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band could file an application to
register or license the earth station, or file an application to
modify an existing registration or license. On June 21, 2018, the
International Bureau extended this filing-window for an additional
90 days until October 17, 2018, and also imposed a freeze on new
space stations in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
178. The NPRM further proposes to update IBFS to remove 3.7-4.2 GHz
band earth station licenses or registrations for which the licensee or
registrant does not file the certifications required in the Order (to
the extent they registered before April 19, 2018) and, more
specifically, proposes that an earth station licensed or registered in
IBFS be automatically terminated unless the licensee or registrant
timely files the certification required by the Order. The NPRM seeks
comment on revising the part 25 rules to limit eligibility to file
applications for earth station licenses or registrations to incumbent
earth stations, including comments on the relative costs and benefits
of such a restriction.
179. The NPRM proposes to define incumbent earth stations as only
those earth stations that (1) were operational as of April 19, 2018,
(2) are licensed or registered in IBFS, or had a pending application
for license or registration as of October 17, 2018, and (3) the
licensee/registrant timely filed the certification required by the
Order. The Commission further proposes that unregistered FSS earth
stations lawfully receiving transmissions could continue to operate on
an unprotected basis. The Commission seeks comment on whether
incumbents that are small entities face any special or unique issues
with respect to the transition such that they should be defined
differently or have different obligations.
180. Because the Commission's consideration of some transition
options may benefit from additional, more granular information on FSS
earth station and space station operations in the band, the NPRM seeks
comment on whether to seek additional information from FSS earth
station or space station operators,\22\ including information on
transponder use, satellite points of communication, and other technical
and operational data that would provide a more detailed picture of the
actual usage of the band. The Commission also seeks comment on whether
small entities face any special or unique issues with respect to
proposed information collections such that they would require certain
accommodations or additional time to comply. Commenters have been asked
to describe, with specificity, how any additional information
collection would support a given transition proposal and should provide
a detailed assessment of the costs and benefits of such additional
collections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ In the Order, the Commission directed temporary fixed or
transportable FSS earth station operators and FSS space station
operators in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to provide certain information on
their current operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
181. Comments have also been sought by the Commission on amending
Sec. 101.101 of the Commission's rules to permit point-to-multipoint
FS broadband service in a portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. In order to
accommodate point-to-multipoint operations, the NPRM seeks comment on
several amendments that may be necessary to part 25 and part 101 of the
Commission's rules that currently apply to FS. The part 25 and 101
rules that would apply to point-to-multipoint FS operators would
include regulatory requirements and restrictions including power
limits, frequency coordination, and potential construction
requirements. The NPRM also seeks comment on the appropriate channel
plan, power limits, service areas, antenna standards, and construction
requirements for point-to-multipoint operations in the band. Further,
the NPRM seeks comment on any necessary technical requirements for
frequency coordination between point-to-multipoint FS applicants and
licensees and other operators in the band, including equipment
authorizations for client devices that may be operated by persons other
than those duly authorized by the licensee. The NPRM also seeks comment
on whether to sunset the existing point-to-point FS operations in the
band.
182. Transitioning Mechanisms. The transition to more intensive
fixed and flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band will require Commission
action to clear existing incumbent users from the band. The NPRM
discusses various mechanisms for clearing incumbent users from the
band. Each of these potential mechanisms for transitioning the band to
flexible use--(1) a market-based mechanism, (2) auctions mechanisms,
(3) alternative mechanisms--would require small entities that are
incumbent operators in the band to participate in some sort of
negotiation and agreement (either through the secondary market or
through a Commission-administered auction) to reassign their spectrum
access rights. Incumbents operating in the spectrum designated for new
licensed flexible use would further be required to relocate their
operations to different bands, potentially requiring reconfiguration or
replacement of their existing facilities. However, once relocated, such
operators and licensees would remain subject to the same Commission
rules and obligations under which they are already operating.
183. In light of the differing approaches to transitioning the band
to flexible use and the obligations that would result, the NPRM seeks
comment from the parties on each mechanism. Specifically, for the
market-based mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment on whether the
Commission should adopt rules that would enable a market-based
mechanism to the clearing of incumbents from some or all of the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, introducing flexible use in the band or encouraging more
intensive fixed use while simultaneously protecting critical services
offered by incumbents (i.e., FSS space stations, FSS earth stations, FS
licensees). Under such an approach, the Commission would seek to
encourage incumbent FSS operators to voluntarily clear the spectrum.
Satellite operators in the band could choose to make some or all of
their spectrum available to terrestrial operators on the secondary
market. In return, terrestrial operators would compensate affected
incumbents. A secondary market approach could make spectrum available
more quickly than other available mechanisms, such as an auction, and
thus could facilitate rapid deployment of next generation wireless
broadband networks. Moreover, such an approach could leverage the
technical and operational knowledge of satellite space station
operators while relying on market incentives to promote economic
efficiency. The NPRM seeks comment on whether a market-based mechanism
could effectively and rapidly facilitate new terrestrial deployments in
the band.
184. More specifically, the NPRM states that a transition under a
market-based mechanism could be undertaken in a four-step process. The
first step would involve the industry voluntarily forming a Transition
Facilitator composed of eligible C-band satellite operators. In the
second step, the Transition Facilitator would negotiate with any
interested terrestrial operators and incumbent users. In the third
step, the Commission would review the Transition Facilitator's plan and
conditionally authorize terrestrial licenses in the band. And in step
four, the Transition Facilitator would clear
[[Page 44157]]
the negotiated-for spectrum, making it available for flexible use while
protecting incumbent earth stations through a variety of potential
means. The NPRM notes as well that a market-based process need not be a
one-time event--a Transition Facilitator could negotiate with parties
for compensation and protection, seek Commission review and conditional
authorization, and clear new spectrum multiple times to ensure the
total spectrum dedicated to flexible use meets market demands.
185. For auctions as a transition mechanism, the NPRM seeks comment
on approaches using the Commission's general auction authority to
introduce flexible use in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Incentive auctions
provide the Commission with new tools to make additional spectrum
available for broadband. Incentive auctions are a voluntary, market-
based means of repurposing spectrum by encouraging licensees to compete
to voluntarily relinquish spectrum usage rights in exchange for a share
of the proceeds from an auction of new licenses to use the repurposed
spectrum. The NPRM therefore seeks comment on whether an incentive
auction could work in the context of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band.
186. Recognizing that the band's incumbent structure presents
unique issues distinct from those present in the broadcast incentive
auction, the NPRM seeks comment on possible approaches to inducing
satellite incumbents to reveal the least amount they must be paid to
relinquish any given amount of spectrum. The NPRM also seeks comment on
whether the Commission should accept applications for overlay
licenses--assigned by competitive bidding if mutually exclusive
applications for it were accepted--that would permit the overlay
licensees to negotiate with incumbent licensees to clear all or part of
the band and then transfer flexible use licenses in the secondary
market. An overlay license authorizes operation for an entire
geographic area but requires the licensee to protect existing
incumbents from interference indefinitely, i.e., until the rights are
relinquished. The NPRM seeks comment on whether assigning overlay
licenses in the band would expedite flexible use of more of the band
compared with other approaches. Under this approach, the overlay
licensee would have the right to flexible use of any spectrum that
becomes available as a result of incumbents' relinquishing their
spectrum usage rights. The NPRM seeks comment on how other parties that
would be affected by repurposing 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum should be
treated, and whether the overlay licensee or the satellite incumbents
relinquishing spectrum should be required to provide incumbent earth
station operators comparable replacement facilities or media.
187. With the auctions mechanism, the NPRM further seeks comment,
as an alternative to paying satellite incumbents to relinquish spectrum
usage rights, on conducting a reverse auction for satellite transponder
capacity that could be used to replace lost C-band transponder capacity
resulting from reallocating C-band spectrum to flexible use. Under this
approach, an individual bidder in the reverse auction could contribute
towards clearing spectrum. Potential bidders could be any FCC licensee
that could make transponder capacity available in either C-band or Ku-
band. Satellite bidders could offer capacity created by launching new
satellites in vacant orbital slots and by relinquishing existing
capacity. Satellite customers can offer capacity made available by
substituting services (e.g. fiber) to fulfill their capacity needs,
reducing the amount or quality of programming distributed, or using
greater compression to reduce the capacity required to carry a given
amount of programming or data. C-band transponder capacity that is lost
due to the reduced amount of available spectrum and that was not
relinquished in the reverse auction by C-band satellite operators,
could be repacked onto replacement capacity for the life of those lost
transponders. This would compensate C-band licensees for their lost
capital investments, but not for the loss of their spectrum. The NPRM
seeks comment on whether under this approach such additional
compensation for the loss of spectrum should be accomplished by
extending the length of time free replacement capacity is offered or by
some other means, e.g., a financial payment.
188. As another possible transition mechanism, the NPRM seeks
comment on approaches that combine various elements of the mechanisms
discussed above, as well as other mechanisms for transitioning all or
part of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band for wireless broadband use. For example,
the NPRM seeks comment on a hybrid approach under which the Commission
would auction a majority of the band under traditional mechanisms and
grant FSS operators flexible use authority (i.e., allowing them to use
a market-based approach) for the rest of the band so long as they
timely clear the auctioned portion. The NPRM asks whether the
Commission could use this approach or another combination of approaches
to strike a balance between incumbent and new entrant interests and, if
so, how much of the band should be cleared under a traditional
mechanism and how much could be left for FSS space station operators to
clear under a market approach. The NPRM seeks comment on how the
Commission can ensure the band is transitioned in a timely manner and
whether a backstop mechanism should be triggered by a FSS operator's
failure to clear the band in a timely manner. The NPRM asks commenters
to provide data on the costs and benefits associated with any
alternative mechanism over other possible or suggested methods.
189. Recognizing that the transition to flexible use licenses in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band will be complicated logistically and needs to be
carried out promptly in order to get the repurposed spectrum into the
hands of flexible use licensees to address spectrum needs, the NPRM
seeks comment on a range of transition issues applicable to each of the
alternative mechanisms for expanding flexible use discussed above. The
NPRM seeks comment on reasonable deadlines for implementation of each
mechanism, or other approaches suggested by commenters, including
deadlines for incumbents to cease transmitting on a primary basis in
the portion of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band that becomes available for flexible
use. The NPRM seeks comment on how to define the appropriate class of
incumbents for protection and possible reimbursement purposes and the
relative obligations and/or rights that each category of incumbents may
have under each mechanism. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on what
requirements and safeguards the Commission should adopt to ensure the
timely and complete transition of all required incumbents pursuant to
each mechanism for expanding flexible use in the band. Such
requirements and safeguards could include, among others: Requiring all
parties act in good faith; adopting a definition of comparable
facilities; adopting financial or regulatory protections that can
ensure that all transition obligations are satisfied in the event of
bankruptcy or other events; and any technical rules that the Commission
needs to adopt to apply specifically during the transition. Finally,
the NPRM seeks comment on whether the Commission should seek additional
information from FSS earth station and space station operators in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band that would provide additional clarity on the actual
usage and availability of spectrum in the band.
190. Assuming that the Commission ultimately decides to add a
mobile,
[[Page 44158]]
except aeronautical mobile, allocation and make some or all of the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band available for flexible use, the NPRM proposes and seeks
comment on band plans, licensing and operating, and technical rules for
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum that becomes available for terrestrial
mobile and fixed flexible use. The NPRM proposes to license this
spectrum under the Commission's flexible use, part 27 rules that permit
licensees to provide any fixed or mobile service consistent with the
allocations for this spectrum, subject to rules necessary to prevent or
minimize harmful interference.
191. Band Plan(s). The NPRM seeks comment on whether to license
according to part 27 nationwide or only in the contiguous 48 states and
whether there are issues unique to any of the areas outside of the
contiguous 48 that would make it impractical to transition all or part
of the band to flexible use. The NPRM seeks comment on appropriate
block size(s) to promote efficient and robust use of the band for next
generation wireless technologies, including 5G. Recognizing that the
3.7-4.2 GHz spectrum that becomes available for flexible use could be
configured in any number of paired or unpaired modes, the NPRM seeks
comment on a range of options for paired and/or unpaired blocks and the
costs and benefits of particular approaches. Finally, consistent with
the Commission's approach in several other bands used to provide fixed
and mobile services, the NPRM proposes to license the 3.7-4.2 GHz Mid-
Band Flexible Use (MBX) spectrum on an exclusive, geographic area
basis. The NPRM seeks comment on an appropriate geographic license area
size(s) for this band and asks commenters to discuss and quantify the
economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of
licensing on a PEA, county, nationwide, or other basis.
192. Licensing and Operating Rules. In order to afford licensees
the flexibility to align licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band with licenses
in other spectrum bands governed by part 27 of the Commission's rules,
the NPRM proposes that licensees in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band comply with
licensing and operating rules that are applicable to all part 27
services, including assignment of licenses by competitive bidding,
flexible use, regulatory status, foreign ownership reporting,
compliance with construction requirements, renewal criteria, permanent
discontinuance of operations, partitioning and disaggregation, and
spectrum leasing, and seeks comment on this approach. The NPRM also
proposes an open eligibility standard for licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band and seeks comments on the proposal that should include a
discussion of the costs and benefits of the open eligibility proposal
on competition, innovation, and investment. The adoption of an open
eligibility approach would not affect citizenship, character, or other
generally applicable qualifications that may apply under the
Commission's rules. The NPRM further seeks comment on a 15-year term
for licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Finally, in the event that the
Commission assigns licenses for the 3.7-4.2 GHz band through
competitive bidding, the Commission proposes to exclude from
eligibility a person who has been, for reasons of national security,
barred by any agency of the Federal Government from bidding on a
contract, participating in an auction, or receiving a grant.
193. Regarding mobile spectrum holding policies, the Commission
proposes not to adopt a pre-auction bright-line limit on the ability of
any entity to acquire spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band through
competitive bidding at auction similar to the Commission's approach in
the 2017 Spectrum Frontiers Order and FNPRM. Additionally, if an
auction is chosen as the mechanism to transition to flexible uses in
the 3.7-4.2 GHz band, the Commission proposes to review holdings on a
case-by-case basis when applications for initial licenses are filed
post-auction to ensure that the public interest benefits of having a
threshold on spectrum applicable to secondary market transactions are
not rendered ineffective.
194. Performance Requirements. The NPRM seeks comment on requiring
a 3.7-4.2 GHz band licensee, relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint
service in accordance with the Commission's part 27 rules, to provide
reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least forty-five (45)
percent of the population in each of its license areas within six years
of the license issue date (first performance benchmark), and to at
least eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its license
areas within 12 years from the license issue date (second performance
benchmark). For licensees relying on point-to-point service, the NPRM
seeks comment on requiring them to demonstrate within six years of the
license issue date (first performance benchmark) that they have four
links operating and providing service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or
less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater
than 268,000, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring a licensee relying on
point-to-point service to demonstrate it has at least one link in
operation and providing service per every 67,000 persons within a
license area. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring licensees
relying on point-to-point service to demonstrate within 12 years of the
license issue date (final performance benchmark) that they have eight
links operating and providing service, either to customers or for
internal use, if the population within the license area is equal to or
less than 268,000. If the population within the license area is greater
than 268,000, the NPRM seeks comment on requiring a licensee relying on
point-to-point service to demonstrate it is providing service and has
at least two links in operation per every 67,000 persons within a
license area.
195. While the NPRM seeks comment on performance benchmarks based
on population coverage applicable for a range of fixed and mobile
services, the NPRM recognizes that 3.7-4.2 GHz licenses have
flexibility to provide services potentially less suited to a population
coverage metric. In particular, licensees providing Internet of Things-
type fixed and mobile services may benefit from an alternative
performance benchmark metric, and the NPRM seeks comment on the
appropriate metric to accommodate such service offerings.
196. Along with performance benchmarks, the NPRM seeks comment on
which penalties will most effectively ensure timely build-out.
Specifically, the NPRM states that, in the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee
fails to meet the first performance benchmark, the licensee's second
benchmark and license term would be reduced by two years, thereby
requiring it to meet the second performance benchmark two years sooner
(at 10 years into the license term) and reducing its license term to 13
years. The NPRM proposes that, in the event a 3.7-4.2 GHz licensee
fails to meet the second performance benchmark for a particular license
area, its authorization for each license area in which it fails to meet
the performance requirement shall terminate automatically without
Commission action. Additionally, the Commission also proposes that, in
the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates, the licensee's
spectrum rights would become available for reassignment pursuant to the
competitive bidding provisions of Sec. 309(j). Further, consistent
with the Commission's rules for other licenses, including AWS-1, AWS-3,
AWS-4, and H Block, the NPRM proposes that any
[[Page 44159]]
3.7-4.2 GHz licensee who forfeits its license for failure to meet its
performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the license.
197. Compliance Procedures. In addition to compliance procedures
applicable to all part 27 licensees, including the filing of electronic
coverage maps and supporting documentation, the NPRM proposes that such
electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each
license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee does
not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, the
NPRM proposes that its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the
area or areas within each license area not being served. Further, the
NPRM proposes that each licensee also must file supporting
documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each
licensed area within its service territory and the type of technology
used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the
assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation
model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service
with the licensee's technology. The Commission seeks comment on these
proposals. The Commission also seeks comment on whether small entities
face any special or unique issues with respect to the transition such
that they would require additional time to comply.
198. Renewal Term Construction Obligations. The WRS Renewal Reform
FNPRM proposed to apply rules adopted in that proceeding to all
flexible geographic licenses. Given the proposal to license this band
on a geographic basis for flexible use, any additional renewal term
construction obligations proposed in the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM also
would apply to licenses in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Accordingly, the NPRM
seeks comment on whether there are unique characteristics of the 3.7-
4.2 GHz band that might require a different approach than the various
proposals raised by the WRS Renewal Reform FNPRM.
199. Competitive Bidding Procedures. Consistent with the
competitive bidding procedures the Commission has used in previous
auctions, the NPRM proposes that the Commission would conduct any
auction for licenses for spectrum in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band in conformity
with the general competitive bidding rules set forth in part 1, Subpart
Q, of the Commission's rules. Specifically, the NPRM proposes to employ
the part 1 rules governing competitive bidding design, designated
entity preferences, unjust enrichment, application and certification
procedures, payment procedures, reporting requirements, and the
prohibition on certain communications between auction applicants. Under
this proposal, such rules would be subject to any modifications that
the Commission may adopt for its part 1 general competitive bidding
rules in the future. The NPRM seeks comment on whether any of the
Commission's part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified
for an auction of licenses in this frequency band. In particular, the
NPRM seeks comment on the following proposals for bidding credits for
designated entities in this band. As with other flexible use licenses
in recent years, the NPRM proposes to adopt in this band, bidding
credits for the two larger designated entity business sizes provided in
the part 1 rules. The NPRM also proposes to offer rural service
providers a designated entity bidding credit for licenses in this band.
The NPRM asks commenters addressing these proposals to consider what
details of licenses in the band may affect whether designated entities
will apply for them.
200. Technical Rules. Consistent with existing rules for other
advanced wireless services, the NPRM proposes power limits for fixed
and base stations of 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than
one megahertz and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths
greater than one megahertz. For mobiles and portables in the 3.7-4.2
GHz band, the NPRM proposes to limit the power to 1 Watt (30 dBm). The
NPRM also proposes that the power limit measurement methodology be
based on the average power measurement and seeks comment on this
proposal. Additionally, the NPRM proposes that mobile and portable
stations operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
201. For out-of-band-emissions, the NPRM proposes that emissions be
kept to a level that will provide protection to incumbent services in
adjacent bands, while allowing the full use of the new band, and
therefore proposes to apply the longstanding limit on out-of-band-
emission of -13 dBm/MHz at the authorized channel edge as measured at
the antenna terminals. Further, the NPRM seeks comment on whether
additional technical protection criteria, beyond out-of-band-emission
limits, are necessary to ensure effective coexistence with adjacent
band FSS operations.
202. To implement field strength limit at market boundaries, the
NPRM proposes to adopt a -76 dBm/m\2\/MHz power flux density limit at
the service area boundaries, and further proposes that adjacent
affected area licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field
strength boundary levels and to permit such agreement. Regarding
antenna height, the NPRM proposes that the part 27 flexible antenna
height rules that apply to AWS-1 and AWS-3 should generally also apply
to MBX spectrum, that no unique antenna height limits are needed for
MBX-spectrum facilities and that no antenna height limits are needed
for fixed operation in the MBX spectrum. The Commission seeks comments
on these proposals, including cost and benefit information.
203. For new MBX spectrum, the NPRM proposes to apply the
limitations to Canada and Mexico from Sec. 27.57(c) of the
Commission's rules that provide that several AWS services, including
WCS, AWS-1, AWS-3, AWS-4 and H Block are subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada. Lastly, the NPRM proposes that
several additional technical rules applicable to all part 27 services,
including Sec. Sec. 27.51 Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety,
27.54 Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation
safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns
should apply to all MBX-spectrum licensees, including licensees who
acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation (to the
extent the rules permit such aggregation). The Commission seeks comment
on this approach, including its costs and benefits.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
204. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant,
specifically small business, alternatives that it has considered in
reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four
alternatives (among others): ``(1) The establishment of differing
compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into
account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use
of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from
coverage of the rule, or any part thereof for small entities.''
205. In this proceeding, the Commission seeks to identify potential
opportunities for additional flexible access--particularly for wireless
broadband services--in 500 megahertz
[[Page 44160]]
of mid-band spectrum between 3.7-4.2 GHz. While lacking specific data
in general, which includes data on small entities, the Commission has
taken steps to enable it to minimize the economic burden on small
entities that could occur if some of the rule changes or approaches
proposed in the NPRM are adopted. Throughout the NPRM, the Commission
seeks comment on whether small entities face any special or unique
issues with respect to the information collection such that they would
require certain accommodations or additional time to comply. The
Commission also seeks comment on modifications that could be made to
the Commission's rules regarding administrative processes that would
reduce the economic impacts of proposed rule changes on small entities.
Seeking comments specifically targeting small entities should provide
the Commission with the requisite data to consider the most cost-
effective approach to minimize the economic impact for such entities
while achieving its statutory objectives.
206. With respect to the application freeze and information
collection for incumbent earth stations operating in the 3.7-4.2 GHz
band, the Commission has taken several steps to reduce the economic
burden of its actions. During the freeze on new earth station
applications and filing window for incumbent FSS earth station
operators, the International Bureau granted a temporary waiver of the
frequency coordination requirement in the band. To ensure that earth
station data contained in the Commission's IBFS remains accurate to
facilitate frequency coordination and maximize efficient use of the
spectrum, the NPRM seeks comment on whether, for a constructed and
operational earth station, any combination of frequency, azimuth, and
elevation listed in the license or registration that is unused for more
than, e.g., 180 days, must be deleted from the license or registration.
By proposing to delete data for earth stations that are unused, the
NPRM seeks to minimize unnecessary constraints on successful frequency
coordination of new operations, which reduces the economic impact on
small entities, who often have more limited resources to allocate
towards such regulatory compliance burdens. The NPRM also proposes to
adopt specific definitions of each class of incumbents that would
require protection and be entitled to possible reimbursement for
clearing the band. This proposal has the dual benefit to small entities
of creating a means for compensating any unexpected costs they may
experience as a result of transitioning the band to flexible use, as
well as providing a clear definition of the class of operators that
requires interference protection and coordination, thereby avoiding
overly burdensome and unnecessary obligations.
207. The NPRM seeks comment on several ways to facilitate more
intensive fixed use of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band by allowing point-to-
multipoint operations in the band through rules that will promote more
efficient use of the limited spectrum available. In doing so, the NPRM
makes several proposals to reduce the burden of frequency coordination
for any new point-to-multipoint licensees, which would benefit small
entities, and seeks comment on rules that are narrowly tailored to the
needs of point-to-multipoint operations in particular, without the need
for unnecessary regulatory burdens. The NPRM seeks comment on
subjecting point-to-multipoint FS applicants to an expedited
coordination process with mandatory electronic notification and
response, and on the possibility of adopting an automated coordination
process for point-to-multipoint FS applications. The NPRM asks
commenters to discuss specifically any modifications that could be made
to the Commission's coordination rules that would reduce the economic
impact on small entities. In seeking comment on the appropriate
construction requirements to apply to point-to-multipoint operations,
the NPRM asks commenters to consider the economic impact on consumers
and businesses in rural communities and areas that are unserved or
underserved by current broadband providers, as well as any economic
impact on small businesses.
208. The NPRM discusses various proposals to reallocate and
transition the 3.7-4.2 GHz band to more intensive fixed and flexible
use, and seeks comment on ways to minimize the economic impact of any
rule changes specifically with respect to small entities. For example,
in seeking comment on whether to seek additional information from FSS
earth station registrants or space station licensees, the NPRM asks
whether small entities face any special or unique issues with respect
to the information collection such that they would require certain
accommodations or additional time to comply.
209. Further, in its discussion of the three potential mechanisms
for transitioning the band to flexible use--(1) market-based mechanism,
(2) auctions mechanisms, (3) alternative mechanisms--the Commission
seeks specific comment on the costs, benefits, and potential economic
impact on small businesses, and asks commenters to discuss any rules or
procedures that could be implemented to ensure that the needs of these
communities and businesses are adequately addressed. Each of these
transition mechanisms rely heavily on a competitive marketplace to set
the value of spectrum and compensate incumbents for the costs of
relocating, reconfiguring, and potentially lost opportunity cost.
Specifically, for small entities that may be incumbent satellite or
earth station operators in the band, the Commission is focused on
facilitating competition in the band and ensuring that all relevant
interests, not just those of the largest companies, are represented.
This will help to reduce the potential economic impact on small
entities.
210. The NPRM also seeks comment on applying 15-year license terms
for any licensees issued in the 3.7-4.2 GHz band. Specifically for
small entities who must allocate resources carefully over the length of
their license term, and have more limited funds should they be required
to compete at auction for a particular license, the certainty of a
longer license term would provide licensees with sufficient incentive
to make the long-term investments necessary for compliance.
211. The Commission finds an overriding public interest in
encouraging investment in wireless networks, facilitating access to
scarce spectrum resources, and promoting the rapid deployment of mobile
services to Americans. All licensees, including small entities, play a
crucial role in achieving these goals. Thus while the NPRM does not
propose any exemption for small entities, as mentioned above, the
Commission seeks comment on alternative obligations, timing for
implementation, scope of subject licenses, penalties for failure, and
other measures that could accommodate the needs and resources of small
entities. The Commission will carefully consider these matters as it
relates to small entities before adopting final rules in this
proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
212. None.
V. Ordering Clauses
213. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1,
2, 3, 4(i), 7, 201, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308, 309, and 310 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154(i), 157, 201,
301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 308,
[[Page 44161]]
309, 310, and section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302, and 1.411 of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR
1.411, that this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is hereby adopted.
214. It is further ordered that notice is hereby given of the
proposed regulatory changes described in this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, and that comment is sought on these proposals.
215. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the Broadband Access Coalition on June 21, 2017, RM-11791, is
granted to the extent indicated herein and is otherwise denied.
216. It is further ordered that the Petition for Rulemaking filed
by the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc, on October 11,
2016, RM-11778, is granted to the extent indicated herein and is
otherwise denied.
217. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including the Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27
Practice and procedure, Communications common carrier,
Communications equipment, Reporting and recording requirements,
Satellites.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 1, 2, 25, and
27 as follows:
PART 1--PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
0
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201,
225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 1452, and 1455, unless
otherwise noted.
0
2. Amend Sec. 1.907 by revising the definition of ``Covered Geographic
Licenses'' to read as follows:
Sec. 1.907 Definitions.
* * * * *
Covered Geographic Licenses. Covered geographic licenses consist of
the following services: 1.4 GHz Service (part 27, subpart I); 1.6 GHz
Service (part 27, subpart J); 24 GHz Service and Digital Electronic
Message Services (part 101, subpart G); 218-219 MHz Service (part 95,
subpart F); 220-222 MHz Service, excluding public safety licenses (part
90, subpart T); 600 MHz Service (part 27, subpart N); 700 MHz
Commercial Services (part 27, subpart F and H); 700 MHz Guard Band
Service (part 27, subpart G); 800 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service
(part 90, subpart S); 900 MHz Specialized Mobile Radio Service (part
90, subpart S); Mid-Band Flexible Use Service (part 27, subpart O);
Advanced Wireless Services (part 27, subparts K and L); Air-Ground
Radiotelephone Service (Commercial Aviation) (part 22, subpart G);
Broadband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart E);
Broadband Radio Service (part 27, subpart M); Cellular Radiotelephone
Service (part 22, subpart H); Dedicated Short Range Communications
Service, excluding public safety licenses (part 90, subpart M); H Block
Service (part 27, subpart K); Local Multipoint Distribution Service
(part 101, subpart L); Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service
(part 101, subpart P); Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service
(part 90, subpart M); Multiple Address Systems (EAs) (part 101, subpart
O); Narrowband Personal Communications Service (part 24, subpart D);
Paging and Radiotelephone Service (part 22, subpart E; part 90, subpart
P); VHF Public Coast Stations, including Automated Maritime
Telecommunications Systems (part 80, subpart J); Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service (part 30); and Wireless Communications Service
(part 27, subpart D).
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 1.9005 by adding paragraph (mm) to read as follows:
Sec. 1.9005 Included services.
* * * * *
(mm) The Mid-Band Flexible Use Service in the 3700-4200 MHz band.
PART 2--FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL
RULES AND REGULATIONS
0
4. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise
noted.
0
5. Amend Sec. 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, by revising
page 41 and, under ``Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes,'' adding
footnote NG182 to read as follows:
Sec. 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
[[Page 44162]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.003
[[Page 44163]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29AU18.004
[[Page 44164]]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-C
Non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes
* * * * *
NG182 In the band 3700-4200 MHz, the following provisions shall
apply to geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) fixed-satellite service
(space-to-Earth) operations:
(a) Space stations authorized prior to, or authorized as a result
of an application filed prior to, June 21, 2018 may continue to operate
on a primary basis, but no applications for new space station
authorizations or new petitions for market access shall be accepted for
filing after that date, other than applications by existing operators
in the band seeking to make more efficient use of the band.
Applications for extension, cancellation, replacement, or modification
of existing space station authorizations in the band will continue to
be accepted and processed normally.
(b) Earth station operations shall not claim protection from
terrestrial stations, unless the requirements of 47 CFR 25.203(n) are
satisfied.
PART 25--SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
0
6. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319,
332, 605, and 721, unless otherwise noted.
0
7. Amend Sec. 25.203 by adding paragraph (n) to read as follows:
Sec. 25.203 Choice of sites and frequencies.
* * * * *
(n) Earth stations operating in the 3700-4200 MHz band shall
receive interference protection from terrestrial stations only to the
extent that (1) the earth station was operational as of April 19, 2018,
(2) the earth station was licensed or registered (or had a pending
application for license or registration) in the IBFS database as of
October 17, 2018, and (3) the operator timely certified the accuracy of
information on file with the Commission to the extent required by the
Order adopted in FCC 18-XXX. Earth stations failing to satisfy any of
the above may continue to operate, but such operations shall be on an
unprotected basis.
PART 27--MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
0
8. The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336,
337, 1403, 1404, 1451, and 1452, unless otherwise noted.
0
9. Amend Sec. 27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(15) 3700-4200 MHz.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec. 27.13 by adding paragraph (m) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.13 License period.
* * * * *
(m) 3700-4200 MHz band. Authorizations for the 3700-4200 MHz band
will have a term not to exceed 15 years from the date of issuance or
renewal.
0
11. Amend Sec. 27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a)
and (k), and adding paragraph (u) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.14 Construction requirements.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees
holding authorizations for the 600 MHz band, Block A in the 698-704 MHz
and 728-734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704-710 MHz and 734-740 MHz
bands, Block E in the 722-728 MHz band, Block C, C1 or C2 in the 746-
757 MHz and 776-787 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-
2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands,
Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band,
and 3700-4200 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, or 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz and
2155-2180 MHz bands, must, as a performance requirement, make a showing
of ``substantial service'' in their license area within the prescribed
license term set forth in Sec. 27.13. * * *
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum
blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g), (h), (i), (q), (r), (s), (t), and
(u) of this section, including any licensee that obtained its license
pursuant to the procedures set forth in paragraph (j) of this section,
shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the
expiration of the applicable benchmark, in accordance with the
provisions set forth in Sec. 1.946(d) of this chapter. * * *
* * * * *
(u) The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an
authorization in the 3700-4200 MHz band:
(1) A licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer
service within six (6) years from the date of the initial license to at
least forty-five (45) percent of the population in each of its license
areas (``First Buildout Requirement'').
(2) A licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer
service within twelve (12) years from the date of the initial license
to at least eighty (80) percent of the population in each of its
license areas (``Second Buildout Requirement'').
(3) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the First
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, the licensee's
Second Buildout Requirement deadline and license term will be reduced
by two years.
(4) If a licensee fails to establish that it meets the Second
Buildout Requirement for a particular license area, its authorization
for each license area in which it fails to meet the Second Buildout
Requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action,
and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it if the Commission
makes the license available at a later date.
(5) To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements,
licensees shall use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census
Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of
population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The
population within a specific Census Tract (or other acceptable
identifier) will be deemed served by the licensee only if it provides
reliable signal coverage to and offers service within the specific
Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier). To the extent the Census
Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of
a license area, a licensee with authorizations for such areas may
include only the population within the Census Tract (or other
acceptable identifier) towards meeting the performance requirement of a
single, individual license. For the Gulf of Mexico license area, the
licensee shall demonstrate compliance with these performance
requirements, using off-shore platforms, including production,
manifold, compression, pumping and valving platforms as a proxy for
population in the Gulf of Mexico.
0
12. Amend Sec. 27.50 by revising the introductory text to paragraphs
(d), (d)(1), and (d)(2) and paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
* * * * *
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to
stations transmitting in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780
MHz,
[[Page 44165]]
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz band, or
3700-4200 MHz band and located in any county with population density of
100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon the most recently
available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is
limited to:
* * * * *
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the
1995-2000 MHz, the 2110-2155 MHz 2155-2180 MHz band, 2180-2200, or
3700-4200 MHz band and situated in any geographic location other than
that described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is limited to:
* * * * *
(4) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in
the 1710-1755 MHz band and mobile and portable stations operating in
the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands are limited
to 1 watt EIRP. Fixed stations operating in the 1710-1755 MHz band are
limited to a maximum antenna height of 10 meters above ground. Mobile
and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for
limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.
* * * * *
0
13. Amend Sec. 27.53 by revising paragraph (h)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.53 Emission limits.
* * * * *
(h) AWS emission limits--(1) General protection levels. Except as
otherwise specified below, for operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-
1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz,
2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180 MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands,
the power of any emission outside a licensee's frequency block shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 43 + 10
log10 (P) dB.
* * * * *
0
14. Amend Sec. 27.55 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.55 Power strength limits.
* * * * *
(d) Power flux density for stations operating in the 3700-4200 MHz
band. The predicted or measured Power Flux Density from any Base
Station operating in the 3700-4200 MHz bands at any location on the
geographical border of a licensee's service area shall not exceed -
76dBm/m\2\/MHz (measured at 1.5 meters above ground) unless the
adjacent affected service area licensee(s) agree(s) to a different PFD.
0
15. Amend Sec. 27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 27.57 International coordination.
* * * * *
(c) Operation in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1710-1755 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz,
1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2155-2180
MHz, 2180-2200 MHz, and 3700-4200 MHz bands is subject to international
agreements with Mexico and Canada.
0
16. Add subpart O to read as follows:
Subpart O--3700-4200 MHz Band
Sec.
27.1400 3700-4200 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700-4200 MHz band.
Sec. 27.1400 3700-4200 MHz band subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 3700-4200 MHz band
licenses are subject to competitive bidding. The general competitive
bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q of this
chapter will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
Sec. 27.1401 Designated entities in the 3700-4200 MHz band.
(a) Eligibility for small business provisions--(1) Definitions--(i)
Small business. A small business is an entity that, together with its
affiliates, its controlling interests, and the affiliates of its
controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $55
million for the preceding three (3) years.
(ii) Very small business. A very small business is an entity that,
together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, and the
affiliates of its controlling interests, has average gross revenues not
exceeding $20 million for the preceding three (3) years.
(2) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small
business, as defined in this section, or a consortium of small
businesses may use the bidding credit of 15 percent, as specified in
Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(C) of this chapter. A winning bidder that
qualifies as a very small business, as defined in this section, or a
consortium of very small businesses may use the bidding credit of 25
percent, as specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(2)(i)(B) of this chapter.
(b) Eligibility for rural service provider bidding credit. A rural
service provider, as defined in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4)(i) of this chapter,
that has not claimed a small business bidding credit may use the
bidding credit of 15 percent specified in Sec. 1.2110(f)(4) of this
chapter.
[FR Doc. 2018-18288 Filed 8-28-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
