[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 94 (Friday, May 14, 2004)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26790-26803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-11007]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 15
[ET Docket No. 04-151; ET Docket No. 02-380; and ET Docket No. 98-237;
FCC 04-100]
Unlicensed Operation of the 3650-3700 Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes to amend the Commission's rules to
maximize the efficient use of the 3650-3700 MHz band. The proposal
would allow unlicensed devices to operate in either all, or portions
of, this radiofrequency (RF) band under flexible technical limitations
with smart/cognitive features that should prevent interference to
licensed satellite services. This proposal fosters the introduction of
new and advanced services to the American public, especially in rural
areas.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 28, 2004, and reply
comments must be filed on or before August 27, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neal McNeil at (202) 418-2408,
[email protected], Gary Thayer at (202) 418-2290,
[email protected], or Ahmed Lahjouji, (202) 418-2061,
[email protected]--Office of Engineering and Technology; or Eli
Johnson at (202) 418-1395, [email protected], or Marty Liebman at
(202) 418-0633, [email protected]--Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau, TTY (202) 418-2989.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 04-151, ET Docket No. 02-380 and
ET Docket No. 98-237, FCC 04-100, adopted April 15, 2004, and released
April 23, 2004. The full text of this document is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center (Room CY-A257), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC
20554. The complete text of this document also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International, 445 12th
Street, SW., Room, CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554. The full text may
also be downloaded at: http://www.fcc.gov. Alternate formats are
available to persons with disabilities by contacting Brian Millin at
(202) 418-7426 or TTY (202) 418-7365.
[[Page 26791]]
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 on or before
July 28, 2004, and reply comments on or before August 27, 2004.
Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing
System (ECFS) or by filing paper copies. See Electronic Filing of
Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121, May 1, 1998. Comments
filed through the ECFS can be sent as an electronic file via the
Internet to http://www.fcc.gov/e-file/ecfs.html. Although this
proceeding is captioned under multiple dockets, only one copy of an
electronic submission, captioned to ET Docket No. 04-151, should be
filed. In completing the transmittal screen, commenters should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket or rulemaking number. Parties may also submit an
electronic comment by Internet e-mail. To get filing instructions for
e-mail comments, commenters should send an e-mail to [email protected], and
should include the following words in the body of the message, ``get
form .'' A sample form and directions will be sent
in reply. Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and
four copies of each filing.
All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office
of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Filings can be
sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or
by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (although we
continue to experience delays in receiving U.S. Postal Service mail).
The Commission's contractor, Natek, Inc., will receive hand-delivered
or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary at
236 Massachusetts Avenue, NE., Suite 110, Washington, DC 20002. The
filing hours at this location are 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. All hand deliveries
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes
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 9300 East Hampton Drive, Capitol Heights, MD 20743.
U.S. Postal Service first-class mail, Express mail, and Priority Mail
should be addressed to 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
1. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the Commission
proposed to amend its rules to maximize the efficient use of the 3650-
3700 MHz band (``3650 MHz band'') and foster the introduction of new
and advanced services. In broad terms, the central proposal of this
NPRM would allow unlicensed devices to operate in either all, or
portions of, this radiofrequency (RF) band under flexible technical
limitations with smart/cognitive features that should prevent
interference to licensed satellite services. Specifically, we propose
to allow these devices to operate with higher power than currently
authorized under part 15 of the rules subject to cognitive technology
safeguards. In order to foster the development of the unlicensed use
that was proposed in the NPRM, we seek comment on whether to restore a
uniform primary allocation for all Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) earth
stations in the band regardless of the date the earth stations were
authorized, and whether to delete the existing co-primary allocations
for the Fixed Service (FS) and Mobile Service (MS) in this band. We
also seek comment on other options that could also allow for the
provision of licensed terrestrial service in this band. On a related
matter, we defer action on the petitions for reconsideration of the
First Report and Order (3650 MHz Allocation Report & Order) in ET
Docket No. 98-237, 65 FR 69451, November 11, 2000, that challenge the
Commission's previous allocation decisions in the 3650-3700 MHz band
pending adoption of final rules regarding the allocation changes
proposed in this proceeding.
2. We tentatively conclude that permitting unlicensed operation in
the 3650 MHz band would foster the introduction of new and advanced
services to the American public, especially in rural areas, and will
result in a more efficient use of spectrum. This band appears
particularly well suited to respond to the needs expressed by the
growing number of entrepreneurial wireless internet service providers
(WISPs) who are today bringing broadband services to consumers in rural
areas of the United States who have many fewer choices for such
services than consumers in more populated areas. WISPs have been asking
the Commission for additional spectrum for unlicensed uses to provide
both backhaul service and broadband service to their customers. Among
the various alternatives we are considering, this spectrum is
particularly promising in part because the incumbents--FSS earth
stations that are limited to international intercontinental traffic--
are concentrated primarily on the coasts, leaving available the rural
areas targeted by these providers. In addition, unlicensed use in this
band would complement existing unlicensed operations in the 2.4 GHz
band and new operations in the 5 GHz band by enabling the proposals
should provide substantial opportunities for future, high-power,
unlicensed devices and achieve efficient use of this 50 megahertz block
of spectrum. As a result, these proposals should facilitate the rapid
deployment of advanced telecommunications services and technologies to
all Americans, especially in rural areas of the United States, thus
promoting the objectives of Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act
of 1996.
3. In addition, in order to ensure that we can consider other
possible approaches to achieve our goals for this 50 megahertz block of
spectrum, we also are seeking comment here on alternative options that
could potentially provide a combination of unlicensed and licensed
terrestrial services in this band. For example, we could include both
FSS and FS licensed operations sharing the band while still allowing
for unlicensed devices in the band, or split the band to allow separate
spectrum for unlicensed and terrestrial licensed use, all in
conjunction with FSS operations. Ultimately, our goal is to maximize
the efficient use of this band and foster the introduction of new and
advanced services.
4. We believe that the 3650 MHz band is well-suited for the
provision of new and advanced services to the American public,
particularly in rural areas. Because incumbent FSS earth stations do
not exist in much of the continental United States, this band appears
particularly well suited to satisfy the demands of existing service
providers using unlicensed devices for spectrum with which to enhance
service to rural areas through high power unlicensed operation.
Furthermore, as we observed in the Unlicensed Spectrum NOI, 68 FR 2730,
January 21, 2003, the rules for unlicensed operation of RF devices have
been very successful in providing consumers and businesses with a wide
variety of additional choices to obtain and use information. Today, for
example, a growing number of WISPs are emerging with the intention of
providing an alternative to DSL and cable for high-speed connections
into the home or office. The use of unlicensed RF devices appears to
have proven to be ideally suited to bridge the gap, especially in rural
areas, where cable or DSL services have been slow to arrive. Small
entities with limited resources have stepped in to provide such service
in areas that other service providers have not prioritized. In
[[Page 26792]]
numerous fora, these providers have expressed a desire for additional
spectrum that could be used on an unlicensed basis, especially on a
higher-power basis. These providers have stated that existing spectrum
available for unlicensed operation is not adequate to accommodate
Wireless Metropolitan Area Networks (MANs) or broadband access in all
rural areas. In short, we see that there is a growing demand for
higher-powered unlicensed devices operating at lower frequencies where
the combination of propagation characteristics and higher power are
more conducive to longer-range communications.
5. Consequently, we tentatively conclude that allowing unlicensed
operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band would hold great promise for
addressing those needs. This contiguous 50 megahertz block of spectrum
is sufficiently wide to permit wide bandwidth applications such as
high-speed data transmissions which, for example, could serve to better
encourage its use for Internet service or backhaul by WISPs due to the
relatively low entry barriers posed by unlicensed operation as compared
with licensed operations. Also, the 3650-3700 MHz band could be used to
enhance the utility of existing unlicensed operations by creating the
potential for additional synergies. This band is situated between the
2.4 GHz (2400-2483.5 MHz) and 5.8 GHz (5.15-5.825 GHz) bands which are
commonly used on an unlicensed basis. In addition, our proposals here
would appear to facilitate the development and deployment of devices
and systems capable of identifying and using the optimal band at any
given time, such as under the newly adopted IEEE 802.16a (``WiMax'')
standard. We envision multi-band systems which can analyze the
operating environment and automatically select from the 2.4 GHz, 3650
MHz, or 5.8 GHz bands. Systems of this type would be able to more
effectively support applications such as broadband connectivity,
distance learning, and telemedicine in many rural or underserved
communities as well as on Native American Tribal lands.
6. While our central proposal is for the use of unlicensed devices
with cognitive radio techniques, we also wish to ensure that we can
consider other possible approaches to achieve our goals; and thus we
are seeking comment on various options that involve the use of licensed
terrestrial services, such as those that may operate with lower power
levels than those normally associated with licensed use. Specifically,
we seek comments on various technical and operational issues associated
with such options, and seek comment on whether some portion of the 3650
MHz band should be designated for licensed terrestrial use.
Allocation Issues
7. In broad terms, we believe that widespread use of the unlicensed
devices proposed in the NPRM could be more readily encouraged if such
devices were to coexist with only FSS operations in the 3650 MHz band.
We reach this tentative conclusion because, the current FSS allocation,
which is limited to international intercontinental operations, results
in earth stations being sited primarily on the east and west coasts,
thus leaving much of the continental United States available for other
uses. Moreover, we believe that even a moderate presence of potentially
ubiquitous terrestrial services under a licensed allocation could
hamper or preclude the operation of unlicensed devices in large
geographic areas--including, especially, rural America where the need
is greatest. Therefore, our initial proposal to allow unlicensed
operation in either all, or portions of, the 3650 MHz band would also
entail retention of an FSS allocation that is limited to international
intercontinental use, and the deletion of the existing terrestrial FS/
MS allocations in any portions of the band in which unlicensed
operation would be allowed.
8. Of course, if we ultimately adopt an alternative approach that
authorizes licensed terrestrial services in the 3650 MHz band, we would
reflect that by adopting or maintaining a terrestrial allocation
enabling that approach. In our discussion of licensed alternatives, we
also discussed whether to modify the relative protection status of
future FSS earth stations if we retain a FS and MS allocation. We seek
comment on what allocation changes would maximize efficient use of this
spectrum.
FSS Allocation
9. In the 3650 MHz Allocation Order, the Commission determined to
grandfather existing FSS earth station operations on a primary basis
and to permit new FSS earth station operations on a secondary basis.
The Commission reasoned that allowing new FSS earth station operations
on an unrestrained co-primary basis would impede any potential
widespread use of the band for terrestrial services. Due to the weak
signals that are received in the FSS, it was determined that
coordination with the high-powered terrestrial operations would result
in potentially large geographic areas where terrestrial services could
not operate to avoid interference to FSS. The Commission stated that
the size and shape of these ``exclusion zones'' could be different for
each FSS earth station site because of factors associated with
shielding, antenna orientation and terrain elevation. The Commission
found that these coordination requirements and the presence of
exclusion zones would significantly increase transaction costs and
create a disincentive for deployment of new terrestrial operations.
Thus, the Commission found that unrestrained deployment of FSS earth
stations could hinder or greatly inhibit the opportunities for
terrestrial operations in the band.
10. Since the decision to allow new FSS earth station operations in
the 3650 MHz band only on a secondary basis, significant strides have
been made in the area of smart/cognitive radio technologies. By using
these features, we seek comment on whether we should revise the 3650
MHz band's existing allocations to permit new FSS operations in the
band on a co-primary basis with unlicensed devices. Note that the scope
of this NPRM does not contemplate any changes to the FSS earth station
operations grandfathered indefinitely on a primary basis in the band
pursuant to the 3650 MHz Allocation Order.
11. While we seek comment on the possibility of permitting new FSS
operations in the band on a primary or co-primary basis, we propose to
retain the application of footnote US245 to the Table of Frequency
Allocations. This footnote restricts FSS use of the 3650 MHz band to
international intercontinental operations. Although deletion of the
footnote could provide more flexibility for FSS operations in the band,
we also believe that more extensive FSS use could curtail the efficient
use of this band by terrestrial operations, whether licensed or
unlicensed; and, potentially, increase the costs associated with
coordinating other co-primary users of the band, thus inhibiting
opportunities for such operation. In contrast, retaining the
application of footnote US245 would make this band particularly
attractive for intensive use by a wide array of advanced wireless
technologies including higher-powered unlicensed devices. We seek
comment on our proposal to retain footnote US245. Alternatively, we
seek comment on whether we should recast footnote U.S. 245 as a new
footnote particularly for the 3650 MHz band (e.g., as footnote NGxxx),
without the requirement for case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility
analysis.
[[Page 26793]]
12. Four parties representing FSS interests filed Petitions for
Reconsideration of the decisions made in the 3650 MHz Allocation Order.
In addition, an Emergency Motion for Stay was filed. In broad terms,
these petitioners request that we reverse the Commission's decision to
make future FSS operations secondary in the 3650 MHz band. If we revise
the 3650 MHz band's allocations to include primary or co-primary status
for new FSS operations, this decision would substantially effect the
disposition of those petitions. Accordingly, we defer further action on
the Petitions for Reconsideration and the Emergency Motion for Stay of
the 3650 MHz Allocation Order pending our adoption of final rules
concerning the allocation proposals in the NPRM.
Fixed Service and Mobile Service Allocations
13. The 3650 MHz band's current primary allocation provides for
Fixed and Mobile (base station only) operations. While the range of
licensed services that might be implemented under such an allocation
could be limited, we believe that, with some modification to the
allocation, the band could accommodate various new and advanced
licensed services, including the services that could be provided by
unlicensed devices.
14. If we adopt our proposal for unlicensed use in any portion of
the 3650 MHz band, we propose to delete the FS and MS allocations for
the portion designated for unlicensed use. We believe that the
provision of ubiquitous licensed terrestrial services, in addition to
FSS operations, would hinder the successful deployment of unlicensed
devices in many areas. One alternative approach could involve
segmenting the 3650 MHz band into one portion that would allow only
unlicensed and FSS operations, and another portion that would allow
only licensed and FSS operations.
15. We seek comment on whether the 3650 MHz band's current Fixed
and Mobile (base station only) allocations should be maintained,
modified or deleted. In particular, we seek comment on whether there is
any need or interest for licensed terrestrial services.
Proposals for Part 15 Unlicensed Operations
16. The 3650-3700 MHz band can be used to enhance the utility of
existing unlicensed operations. As we stated above and in the
Unlicensed Spectrum NOI, the distribution of incumbent FSS earth
stations--primarily along the east and west coasts--makes this band
particularly suitable for high power unlicensed operation especially in
rural areas. Furthermore, since this band is situated between the 2.4
GHz (2400-2483.5 MHz) and 5.8 GHz (5.15-5.135 GHz and 5.47-5.825 GHz)
bands which are commonly used on an unlicensed basis, allowing
unlicensed operation in some, or all, of the 3650 MHz band could add
flexibility to current service offerings in all three bands.
17. We propose two general approaches for enabling both fixed and
non-fixed unlicensed devices to operate while protecting FSS earth
stations and Federal Government operations in the 3650 MHz band. The
first approach, which would apply to fixed unlicensed devices, requires
professional installation of each device to ensure that certain
criteria are met so that operation at a particular location and power
would not result in interference to any FSS earth station. The second
approach, which would apply to non-fixed unlicensed devices, requires
such devices to be capable of automatically adjusting the EIRP based
upon detection of the presence and strength of RF transmissions from
operating FSS earth stations. In practice, this latter approach would
employ methods similar in nature to dynamic frequency selection (DFS)
techniques used in other bands. In addition, we propose that both fixed
and non-fixed unlicensed devices be required to transmit a device
identification signal to facilitate determining the source of any
interference that might be caused by the operation of these devices.
Finally, part 15 of the Commission's rules governs the operation of
unlicensed radiofrequency devices. Therefore, as a general condition of
operation, the unlicensed devices proposed herein may not cause harmful
interference to authorized radio services and must accept any
interference that they receive.
18. We seek comment on whether both fixed and non-fixed unlicensed
devices should be permitted to operate in either all, or portions of,
this band. Commenters should discuss all the benefits and costs
associated with using all, or portions of, the 3650 MHz band for such
unlicensed use.
Fixed Unlicensed Operation
19. Because the location of an operating fixed unlicensed device
does not change, the development of criteria for ensuring that FSS
operations are protected from interference is greatly simplified. In
particular, once an appropriate location and operating parameters are
chosen for a fixed device (i.e., those where its operation will not
cause harmful interference to an FSS station), both the unlicensed
device and the FSS should be able to operate without mutual adverse
effect.
20. Professional Installation. To ensure that fixed unlicensed
devices are established and operated in a manner that will avoid
causing interference to FSS earth stations, we propose to require that
such devices be installed by a professional. The professional installer
would be held responsible to account for the presence of all FSS earth
stations and Federal Government operations in the vicinity of the
unlicensed device. Using appropriate knowledge of each earth station's
location and other relevant technical characteristics, the professional
installer would be required to ensure that the installation and
operational characteristics of the fixed unlicensed device complies
with the following criteria.
21. We expect that a primary use for fixed unlicensed devices in
this band would be to provide wireless broadband connectivity by WISPs
in rural areas. Therefore, we propose to allow fixed unlicensed devices
to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band with a maximum EIRP of 25 Watts
(14 dBW) in order to increase effective range. This EIRP should be
beneficial--particularly in rural areas--because, compared to current
Part 15 limits, an EIRP of 25 Watts would more than double the signal
range of an unlicensed device. We further believe that omnidirectional
antennas would typically be employed for this purpose in order to
achieve the most uniform coverage of a particular geographic area. To
promote flexibility in system design, we propose to permit any
combination of transmitter output power/antenna gain, so long as the 25
Watt EIRP limit is not exceeded. Because interference potential is
directly related to a device's EIRP, specifying this parameter rather
than separate output power and antenna gain limits would more directly
reflect the potential for interference in the band. We seek comment on
our proposal to set a maximum EIRP of 25 Watts (14 dBW) for unlicensed
RF devices in the 3650-3700 MHz band. Commenters who believe that it
would be beneficial to specify other limits, such as transmitter output
power and antenna gain, should provide details regarding the benefits
or costs of such an approach as compared to our proposal. We also seek
comment on our proposed equipment authorization requirements,
recognizing the fixed and non-fixed equipment would likely need to be
authorized separately because of the different rule requirements.
[[Page 26794]]
22. Antennas. In ET Docket No. 03-201, 68 FR 68823, December 10,
2003, we noted that sectorized and phased array antennas could be used
to create highly spectrum efficient networks by forming dynamic
communication links with mobile or fixed devices in any direction
around an antenna structure. This could enable an application like a
broadband local area network to serve a number of spatially separated
clients from a single fixed antenna site. Such antennas allow systems
to use spectrum more efficiently by making it possible to re-use a
given frequency to communicate with different devices along non-
overlapping paths. We seek to encourage both new and novel antenna
technologies that would foster more intensive spectrum use. Therefore,
we do not believe that fixed unlicensed devices should be prohibited
from using any particular type of antenna. However, we propose that
devices using sectorized, scanning spot-beam, or other antenna types
with multiple beam capability be required to limit the EIRP in any
direction to no more that 25 Watts. We seek comment on how compliance
with this requirement could be determined.
23. FSS Protection Zones. FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz
band use high gain antennas that are very susceptible to interference
from undesired signals directed toward the main beam. As a result,
operation of a fixed unlicensed device located within the earth
station's main beam, even with relatively low EIRP, could cause
interference at large distances. Conversely, an unlicensed device
located outside the earth station's main beam could operate with
relatively higher power and at closer separation distances without
causing interference.
24. It would be possible, using various propagation models, to
develop a continuum of permissible EIRPs as a function of both the
unlicensed device's azimuth with respect to the main beam of the FSS
earth station, and the separation distance between the two. However, we
believe that another approach could provide a greater safeguard for
protecting FSS earth stations, while simultaneously reducing and
simplifying the burden on professional installers to comply with the
standards proposed herein. In short, we propose to define protection
zones around each FSS earth station; within which, operation of a fixed
unlicensed device would be prohibited. Specifically, we propose that
installation of a fixed unlicensed device be prohibited within a plus-
or-minus 15 degree arc of any earth station's main antenna beam if the
separation distance between the fixed device and the earth station is
within 180 km. At azimuths outside this main beam protection arc, a
fixed unlicensed device would be prohibited if the separation distance
from the earth station is within 25 km. At all other locations outside
these zones, we propose that fixed unlicensed devices could be
installed and be permitted to transmit with a total maximum EIRP of 25
Watts. Based upon standard propagation models, we tentatively conclude
that these criteria should afford FSS earth stations more than adequate
protection from interference. We seek comment on this conclusion and
invite comment on whether other distance versus azimuth criteria would
be more appropriate.
25. The separation distance proposed for unlicensed fixed
operations, i.e., 180 km within 15 degrees of the FSS antenna main-beam
azimuth and 25 km otherwise, is a conservative approach derived from
the coordination zone that the Commission previously proposed as
appropriate for much higher powered licensed fixed operations to
protect FSS earth stations in the 3650 MHz band. In the 3650 MHz Second
NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded that within 200 kilometers
of a FSS site it would be necessary for a licensed fixed operation to
coordinate with the FSS operation. Outside of this coordination zone,
the licensed operation would not need to coordinate and could operate
with up to 1640 Watts EIRP. The 200 kilometer licensed coordination
zone was based on line of sight protection to FSS earth stations and
took into account elevation angle, and terrain shielding and over the
horizon distances from the FSS earth station sites. By way of
comparison, the 180 kilometer separation distance, or exclusion zone,
we are proposing herein is 20 kilometers less than the 200 kilometer
coordination zone proposed for licensed fixed point-to-point stations
in the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM. However, the EIRP of the
proposed unlicensed devices will be on the order of 18 dB lower than
that proposed earlier for licensed fixed point-to-point facilities.
Accordingly, we believe that the reduced separation distance of 180
kilometers within 15 degrees of the main beam is appropriate. Outside
of the main beam, the required separation distance (or exclusion zone)
of 25 kilometers assumes that a noise-to-interference ratio of 10 dB is
acceptable to the FSS operators and that the ITU-R large FSS antenna
roll-off gain pattern is appropriate. We believe that these separation
distances within which unlicensed fixed devices will not be allowed to
operate, in conjunction with the requirement for professional
installation will ensure that these fixed devices will not interfere
with FSS earth stations. We invite comment on whether the assumptions
used are sufficient to provide appropriate protection to the FSS earth
stations.
Non-Fixed Unlicensed Operation
26. With respect to non-fixed operation by unlicensed devices, the
challenge of protecting FSS is more complex because a non-fixed device
would not be limited to a single location, but may move around from one
site to another. We believe that the FSS earth stations can be afforded
adequate interference protection from non-fixed unlicensed devices.
27. Power Limits. As an initial matter, we propose lower power
limits for non-fixed unlicensed devices than the limits proposed above
for fixed unlicensed devices. We envision that non-fixed devices
operating in the 3650 MHz band will be used in similar fashion to non-
fixed unlicensed devices used in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands.
Operations in the 2.4 GHz band are limited to a maximum power of 1
Watt. Power levels for devices operating in the 5.8 GHz band range from
50 milliwatts (1 Watt EIRP) for devices in the 5.15-5.25 GHz sub-band
to 1 Watt (4 Watts EIRP) for devices in the 5.725-5.825 GHz sub-band.
In order to protect the FSS and Federal Government operations in the
3650 MHz band, we propose that non-fixed unlicensed devices in the
3650--3700 MHz band be limited to a peak EIRP of 1 Watt. We note that
handheld unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands normally
operate well below the maximum of 1 Watt due to battery power
limitations and human exposure to RF radiation limitations. Therefore,
we find that this proposed limit for the 3650 MHz band should allow for
most types of unlicensed use while, along with the other limitations
discussed in paragraphs 51 through 54 of the NPRM, protect FSS and
Federal Government operations. We seek comment on this proposal.
28. Listen-before-talk, Power Adjustment Capability. In order to
protect FSS earth stations from non-fixed unlicensed devices, we
propose that non-fixed devices be required to employ a DFS-like,
listen-before-talk mechanism. In operation, this mechanism would
automatically adjust the EIRP of the device based upon the received
strength of an FSS uplink signal which is transmitted (in another
frequency band) by the same earth station antenna being protected.
Detection of a stronger FSS signal by the
[[Page 26795]]
unlicensed device would indicate relatively closer proximity to an
earth station, thus requiring the unlicensed device to operate with
lower power; while a weaker received signal would, conversely, indicate
that a higher device power could be used. We believe that this approach
is desirable in its simplicity because it does not require an
unlicensed device to independently determine any other information;
such as, the separation from, or its azimuth with respect to the main
beam of, an FSS earth station.
29. The Commission tentatively conclude that existing uplink
transmissions from FSS earth stations in other bands could be used for
this purpose. We reach this conclusion because the FSS stations that we
seek to protect--whose operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band are used
for downlink purposes--are also used for uplink (earth-to-space
transmit) communications in the 5.85-5.925 GHz and 6.425-6.723 GHz
bands. Therefore, we propose to require that unlicensed devices be
designed with the ability to listen for an FSS uplink signal in these
other bands in order to enable automatic EIRP adjustment. We further
propose that, if the non-fixed device detects an uplink signal above a
minimum power-switching detection threshold of -76 dBm referenced to a
1-megahertz bandwidth (thus indicating close proximity to an earth
station), then the non-fixed device would be prohibited from
transmitting. For received uplink signals from -76 dBm to -79 dBm, the
device would be limited to a maximum EIRP of 250 mW. For received
uplink signals between -79 dBm and -82 dBm, the non-fixed device could
operate at an EIRP of up to 500 mW. Finally, for received uplink
signals at levels of -82 dBm or less, the non-fixed unlicensed devices
would be permitted to operate at 1 Watt, provided such operation
complies with applicable human exposure limits. We propose to define
the power-switching detection threshold as the received signal strength
(RSS) in dBm (or some other metric of received signal format),
referenced to the output of a 0 dBi receive antenna. These power limits
are captured in proposed Sec. 215.252(c)(2) in Appendix A.
30. The received power levels are based upon a number of technical
assumptions including that the maximum allowed EIRP of the unlicensed
device would be uniformly spread over a 50 megahertz bandwidth. All of
our assumptions are delineated in Appendix C of the NPRM. We seek
comment on this approach and invite comment on whether the assumptions
used in developing these power levels are appropriate to for providing
protection to the FSS earth stations. For example, if the maximum
allowed EIRP was assumed to be spread over less than a 50 megahertz
bandwidth, how would such an assumption affect the tentative results we
have obtained? We invite comment on the appropriateness and
practicality of implementing this approach for non-fixed unlicensed
devices.
31. With respect to the receive bandwidth of the unlicensed device,
we believe that no bandwidth correction factor would be required if the
receive bandwidth of the non-fixed device is greater than 1 MHz.
However, if the RSS is to be measured correctly by a non-fixed device
having a receive bandwidth less than 1 MHz, then we propose that a
bandwidth correction factor be taken into account. We seek comment on
whether 10*Log (BW/1MHz) (where BW is the non-fixed device's bandwidth)
should be used as the appropriate correction factor for non-fixed
devices that have a bandwidth less than 1 MHz. Finally, we seek comment
on what equipment authorization procedures should be required to verify
compliance with these proposals. This proposal is most easily
implemented if satellite uplinks in readily identified bands are
operational at times where the FSS earth station is also in receive
mode. We recognize that there may be no correlation between the
transmit and receive frequencies of the earth stations and that some
earth stations may be operating in a receive-only mode. We seek comment
on the extent to which this scenario may exist, and possible approaches
to apply in those cases.
32. For systems, where multiple devices operate under a central
controller, we propose that only the central controller be required to
have the capability just described to detect the power-switching
threshold and to convey appropriate commands to all devices under its
control. We recognize that there may be devices or architectures
developed, whereby remote devices are not under the control of a master
device. We seek comment on requiring such devices to have power-
switching threshold detection capability. We also invite comment on how
to identify remote units that operate only under the control of a
central controller. If a device is to operate under the control of a
central controller we invite comment on the maximum distance the
unlicensed device should be allowed to be separated from the central
controller and how to ensure that the remote device ceases
transmissions when it exceed this maximum distance.
Issues Applicable to Fixed and Non-Fixed Operations
33. Federal Government Facilities. We seek comment on whether the
methods described for both fixed and non-fixed unlicensed devices would
provide an effective means of protecting the three Federal Government
radiolocation stations that operate in the 3650-3700 MHz on a primary
basis. These stations, located at St. Inigoes, MD, Pascagoula, MS, and
Pensacola, FL, were grandfathered as a condition of the transfer of the
3650 MHz band to a mixed-use status. The rules require that FS and FSS
stations located within 80 kilometers of each site coordinate with the
Federal Government, but there is no coordination requirement for
unlicensed devices. We observe that an unlicensed device could be
designed to listen for transmissions from these facilities and to
activate the capabilities of the device to modify its operations.
34. Operation in Proximity to U.S. Borders. To provide sufficient
protection to Canadian and Mexican stations operating in the 3650-3700
MHz band that are located near the U.S. borders, we propose to require
that fixed devices be located at least 8 kilometers from the U.S./
Canada or U.S./Mexico border if the antenna of the device looks within
the 160[deg] sector away from the border and be located at least 56
kilometers from each border if the device looks within the 200[deg]
sector towards the border. This proposal is consistent with the
treatment of licensed fixed stations in bands above 470 MHz along the
U.S./Canada border. In addition, we point out that, even under these
guidelines, operators of unlicensed devices may need to further reduce
their power to protect FSS earth stations in Canada or Mexico. We
believe that treating devices along the border in this manner would
strike a balance between providing sufficient flexibility for
unlicensed operations and the need to protect foreign stations. We seek
comment on this proposal. We also invite suggestions for alternative
approaches for treating unlicensed devices in the 3650-3700 MHz band
along the U.S. borders.
35. We tentatively conclude that no additional requirements are
needed for non-fixed unlicensed devices to protect FSS earth stations
that may be located in Mexico or Canada. The listen-before-talk,
automatic power adjustment mechanism we have proposed for these devices
should be sufficient to ensure that no Canadian or Mexican FSS earth
stations licensed pursuant to the current
[[Page 26796]]
regulations will encounter interference. However, we seek comment on
whether any special circumstances exist that might require non-fixed
devices to incorporate other mechanisms to protect foreign FSS
installations.
36. Removal of Restriction on Unlicensed Operation in the 3650-3700
MHz band. Unlicensed devices are currently restricted from operating in
the 3650-3700 MHz band. Consequently, unlicensed devices are limited to
only spurious emissions in this band. Historically, restricted bands
were established to protect sensitive Federal Government and Non-
Federal Government operations, such as radio-astronomy, which rely on
reception of extremely weak signals. However, as noted, the change in
the allocation status of the 3650 MHz band from shared to mixed use
provides an opportunity to reexamine that prohibition in this band.
Because the proposed allocation changes set forth in the NPRM would
limit licensed use of the 3650-3700 MHz band to relatively few FSS and
Federal Government users and because no new Federal Government
operations will be assigned in this band, we no longer believe that
this band needs to remain restricted. In its comments, SIA states that
it is opposed to permitting unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-
3700 MHz band regardless of power level. It takes this position for
several reasons, including lack of technical parameters for unlicensed
devices and lack of knowledge of the potential number of unlicensed
devices and their geographic orientation to FSS earth stations. We are
not persuaded by SIA's argument because, as explained, it is feasible
to develop operating rules for unlicensed devices in a manner that
should address the in-band interference concerns raised by SIA.
Accordingly, in order to accommodate new unlicensed use, we propose to
revise Sec. 15.205(a) by removing the restricted designation from the
3650-3700 MHz portion of the currently restricted 3600-4400 MHz band.
37. Adjacent Band Emissions. In proposing to remove the restricted
status of the 3650-3700 MHz band, we also recognize that it would be
adjacent to frequency bands that will continue to be restricted.
Therefore, in order to maintain the same degree of protection for
adjacent band licensed operations that currently exist under the rules,
we propose to require that new unlicensed operations in the 3650 MHz
band limit emissions into the adjacent 3600-3650 MHz and 3700-4400 MHz
bands to spurious emissions only (i.e., emissions with a maximum field
strength of 500 microvolts/meter measured at 3 meters). A similar
situation currently exists in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band which lies
between the restricted bands 2310-2390 MHz below and 2483.5-2500 MHz
above. Using spectrum-efficient system design and filtering, however,
unlicensed devices are nevertheless capable of operating in this band
at higher power levels than all other unlicensed devices. In a similar
fashion, we believe that transmitters can be designed for the 3650-3700
MHz band with sufficient filtering at the band edges to satisfy the
emission limits in our rules. We seek comment on this proposal to limit
emissions in the adjacent restricted bands.
38. Device Identification Signaling. While we believe that the
technical requirements proposed above for fixed and non-fixed
unlicensed devices should be more than adequate to avoid interference
to FSS earth stations in the first instance, we must also guard against
any unforeseen instances when interference might nevertheless occur
(e.g., when a new FSS earth station is installed, or when an existing
earth station relocates). As an initial matter, we again emphasize
that, pursuant to Sec. 15.5 of the rules, unlicensed devices are
required to cease operation if found to be causing interference to any
licensed service. In the event that interference might be caused, it
could be difficult for the operator of a licensed station to identify
and locate an unlicensed device that may be causing interference.
Therefore, as a means of facilitating this identification, we propose
to require all unlicensed devices to broadcast identification
information at regular intervals.
39. At a minimum, the transmitted data should consist of the
contact information of the owner/operator of the device. In addition,
information about the location of a fixed device could be included.
Will this information be useful to FSS licensees? Commenters advocating
an identification requirement should also provide detail regarding how
often the identification signaling should be done and what other
information would be useful. Would information such as the FCC ID
number and transmitter serial number be helpful? We also seek comment
on the need for, and effective methods to update the contact
information when an unlicensed non-fixed device is sold or otherwise
transferred to a new owner/operator after the initial sale of the
device.
40. We seek to ensure that any identification information embedded
within the transmission of an unlicensed device can be easily
extracted. Therefore, we seek comment on whether it is necessary to
define an identification channel in which to place the data. Initially
we propose to require the identification information to be confined to
the 1 MHz portion of the band between 3650 MHz--3651 MHz segment of the
band. We note that the proposed band segment for the identification
lies adjacent to the newly re-designated 3600-3650 MHz restricted band.
We reiterate that only spurious emissions are permitted in the
restricted bands. Will unlicensed devices be able to effectively use
the 3650-3651 MHz segment for identification purposes without
transmitting unauthorized energy into the restricted band?
Alternatively, the identification information can be transmitted as
data packets interspersed among the unlicensed device communication
data. Will FSS licensees be able to make use of such information and
how often should it be transmitted? Finally, regardless of the method
used to embed the identification data, we seek comment on whether there
is a need to specify a modulation scheme and standardized data format
so that the information may be successfully decoded.
Other Methodologies for Protecting FSS Earth Stations
41. Finally, although we believe that the technical approach could
be an effective approach for fostering efficient use of the 3650-3700
MHz band by unlicensed devices, we seek comment on two other specific
approaches, as well as on other approaches commenters may propose.
Either of these approaches could be required, if we ultimately decide
that our proposed approach is not practical, or potentially could be
alternatives available to manufacturers of unlicensed devices for
protecting FSS earth stations.
42. Geo-location Option. A first alternative approach for
protecting FSS earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz band would be to use
cognitive/smart unlicensed devices that know their current location and
the location of nearby earth stations. We sought comment on that
approach in the Unlicensed NOI, and a number of parties supported that
approach. This approach would be based on a determination of reasonable
distance separation standards for the operation of low-power non-fixed
unlicensed devices in this band. For example, using known protection
criteria for an FSS earth station, an unlicensed device could adjust
its power based on its location relative to nearby FSS earth stations.
[[Page 26797]]
43. This technical approach appears to be feasible. For example,
IEEE 802.18 states that embedding GPS in unlicensed devices is
technically feasible and could be used to limit the device so that it
does not transmit when located in an area where interference to a
satellite receive earth station is likely. We also recently noted that
one of the benefits of cognitive radio would be the ability to
determine its location and the location of other transmitters, and then
select the appropriate operating parameters such as the power and
frequency allowed at its location.
44. One of the requirements of this approach is that we specify
distance separations for protecting FSS earth stations. In its comments
on the Unlicensed NOI, SIA submits a technical annex proposing
calculated exclusion zones where unlicensed devices would not be able
to operate. It argues that its analysis indicates a worst case
exclusion zone of 416 km is needed for a 1 Watt EIRP unlicensed device
to protect a satellite earth station. We find that SIA's methodology,
while clearly deriving distances that would protect FSS earth stations,
is overly conservative for the 1-Watt devices we are considering here.
We also believe that the current guidelines in our rules for
identifying when coordination is necessary are overly conservative for
purposes of the NPRM. For instance, in comments filed in the 3650 MHz
Service Rules Second NPRM, Comsearch stated that it has been able to
coordinate stations at distances much less than otherwise thought
necessary, and that in certain cases, earth stations have actually been
located near the base of fixed service sites in the same band.
45. We therefore seek comment on alternative methods for
determining more accurate minimum separation distances for these low
EIRP levels. Under the simplest approach, an unlicensed device need
only estimate its distance from the earth station. While overprotecting
the earth station when a device is behind the station's main lobe, it
still would appear to allow operation over significant geographic areas
of the United States. If a device could also estimate its orientation
relative to the main lobe of the FSS antenna, we might reasonably
determine lower distance separation requirements when a device is
offset from the main lobe, thus granting additional operational
flexibility in terms of geographic areas, but at the cost of added
complexity. Ultimately, if there are no better methodologies for
determining distance separation than those currently in the record, we
could permit those approaches even though, compared with our preferred
technical method, we believe that they overprotect FSS earth stations
and thus needlessly limit the operational flexibility of unlicensed
devices in this band.
46. Unlicensed devices would need to protect not only existing FSS
earth stations, but also any future earth stations in the 3650-3700 MHz
band. Thus, devices relying on geo-location must have a means to
identify new FSS earth station locations, which should not occur very
frequently. We seek comment regarding methods by which an unlicensed
device would access a database of earth station sites and by which an
updated database would be maintained. In addition, we seek comment on
how often devices would need to update their databases in order to
continue to be able to operate, as well as on the type of information
that could or should be made available.
47. We also note that it could be possible for an unlicensed device
to lose contact with its geo-location reference signals under various
circumstances. We seek comment on the protocols that should be followed
when an unlicensed device using the geo-location option loses its
location detecting capability, such as the period of time that the
device could continue to operate before ceasing to transmit. It would
appear to make sense to treat an unlicensed device 500 km away from the
nearest earth when it lost its geo-location differently from one, for
example, only 75 km away.
48. Finally, we seek comment on whether a geo-location approach
would be an effective means of protecting the three Federal Government
radiolocation stations that operate in the 3659-3700 MHz band on a
primary basis, as well as earth stations located in Canada and Mexico.
As previously noted, the rules require that FS and FSS stations located
within 80 kilometers of each site coordinate with the Federal
Government. The locations of Canadian and Mexican earth stations
presumably can be made readily available for use with a geo-location
approach. Using the techniques described above, it would appear to be
possible for unlicensed devices to maintain appropriate separation
distances.
49. Dedicated RF beacon signal. We also seek comment, although we
see various difficulties spelled out, on whether an unlicensed device
could make use of dedicated RF beacon signals emanating either directly
from an FSS earth station or from another transmitter located in close
proximity to an FSS earth station. Under this approach, unlicensed
devices would be designed with cognitive capabilities to detect the
absence, presence, or relative strength of the FSS pilot beacon at the
location of the unlicensed device and make decisions about whether to
transmit or what power levels would be appropriate to protect licensed
FSS earth stations. In its simplest form, transmission by the
unlicensed device would be enabled at permitted power levels only if no
pilot beacon were detected. With a more sophisticated capability, an
unlicensed device could detect not only the presence of a pilot beacon,
but also the relative strength of the received pilot beacon or
information in the data stream of the signal about the earth station's
receive antenna type and/or orientation. A relatively weak, or absent,
beacon signal would indicate that a higher EIRP could be used by the
unlicensed device while, conversely, a relatively higher pilot beacon
strength would require a corresponding reduction in EIRP.
50. This approach would appear to require adoption of various
standardized technical requirements to ensure that unlicensed devices
could readily detect a beacon signal. Our analysis does indicate that a
separate pilot beacon EIRP of between 1.5 Watts and 26.5 Watts would be
sufficient to ensure that non-fixed unlicensed devices would be able to
receive the beacon under any foreseeable circumstances where
interference to FSS earth station could be a concern. We also think
that a standard beacon EIRP might have to be specified, perhaps as well
as standard format or information content, so that every earth station
would present the same reference beacon signal strength at a given
distance. We seek comment on any necessary technical parameters.
51. We also seek comment on the important issue of a standardized
frequency or frequencies for such beacon signals. Using a frequency
within the 3650-3700 MHz band for a transmission emanating from a
location at or close to an FSS earth station raises very significant
technical questions about interference to FSS earth stations--
especially because this band is in the middle of a broader satellite
receive band. If not a frequency within this band, what other
frequencies might potentially be available that could provide the
needed functionality without causing interference to existing
licensees? If no such frequencies are available, it is not clear how
this approach could be implemented.
52. Also, especially compared with the previous two approaches,
namely, professional installation of fixed devices and automatic EIRP
adjustment for non-fixed unlicensed devices, this
[[Page 26798]]
methodology also raises questions about the costs and responsibilities
for implementation. For example, with respect to responsibility for the
operation of a beacon signal, it is not clear how the safeguard could
be implemented by unlicensed device operators, so the burden would
appear to fall on the FSS earth station licensee. The potentially
significant costs raise questions about the equities of imposing them
on existing licensees. There are also significant issues regarding
whether and how those costs might be paid by unlicensed device
operations.
53. To allow FSS earth stations operating in this band, or other
entities, to implement a separate beacon, we might need to modify
footnote US348 of the Table of Allocations to include a secondary
radiolocation allocation for this purpose. We also seek comment on such
modification as well as on any necessary modifications to part 25 of
the Commission's rules if we take this approach. Finally, we seek
comment on how, under this approach, we should protect the three
Federal Government radiolocation stations that operate in the 3650-3700
MHz on a primary basis, as well as earth stations located in Canada or
Mexico.
Options for Licensed Operations
54. In order to ensure that we can consider all possible approaches
for achieving our goals of maximizing efficient use of the 3650 MHz
band and the provision of new and advanced service, we are also seeking
comment on whether spectrum in this band should be designated for
licensed use. If we decide to permit licensed use of the band, we will
have to adopt appropriate allocation, technical and operational rules
to govern such operations. Initially, however, we seek comment on the
types of licensed services that might be implemented in the band, what
kinds of technologies could be utilized to develop these services, how
quickly these services could be developed, and where in the country
these services might be implemented. Commenters should also discuss any
technical, legal or economic advantages and costs associated with these
service options.
55. Fixed Service and Mobile Service Allocations. In addition to
seeking comment on whether to maintain the band's current primary Fixed
and Mobile allocations, we seek comment on whether to remove the mobile
station restriction in the current Mobile allocation in this band.
Since the Commission adopted the 3650 MHz Allocation Report & Order,
great strides have been made in the development of smart/cognitive
radio features that potentially could be used with licensed mobile
handset operations to prevent interference with FSS operations. As a
result, we seek comment on whether, if we adopt technical rules
requiring use of smart/cognitive features, we should revise the
existing Fixed and Mobile allocations to permit mobile stations to
operate in the 3650 MHz band.
56. We also seek comment on whether we should modify the FSS
allocation if we retain the FS and MS allocations in the band. In the
3650 MHz Allocation Report & Order, the Commission found that spectrum
sharing between licensed terrestrial services and FSS operations on an
unrestrained co-primary basis would not be feasible. As a result, the
Commission decided to grandfather existing FSS earth station operations
on a primary basis and to allow new FSS earth station operations only
on a secondary basis to any FS/MS terrestrial stations. We seek comment
on whether the use of smart/cognitive technologies by licensed services
would make it technically feasible for new FSS operations to coexist
with FS/MS services. Assuming such uses of the spectrum are found to be
technically feasible, we request comment on whether FSS could be co-
primary with FS/MS and, if so, how this might be accomplished.
57. Band Segmentation Between Licensed and Unlicensed Use and Band
Pairing. If we adopt an option that permits terrestrial licensed
operations, one way of allowing licensed fixed and mobile services,
higher-powered unlicensed devices, and FSS earth stations to each have
access to the 3650 MHz band would be to segment the band. For example,
one segmentation option could be to divide the band into two 15-
megahertz segments and a 20-megahertz segment. The two 15-megahertz
segments could be located at the bottom and the top of the band (i.e.,
3650-3665 MHz and 3685-3700 MHz), with the 20-megahertz segment
situated in the middle of the band (i.e., 3665-3685 MHz). Under this
option, higher-powered unlicensed operations would be restricted to the
two 15-megahertz segments and fixed and mobile licensed operations to
the 20-megahertz segment, and FSS earth station operations would have
access to the entire band on a co-primary or secondary basis with
licensed fixed and mobile operations. Licensed fixed and mobile
operations would only have to coordinate with FSS earth stations
operating on co-channel spectrum, and, because unlicensed devices
operate on a non-interference basis, any FSS earth station would be
protected from interference potentially caused by unlicensed devices.
58. We seek comment on this segmentation option, as well as splits
between unlicensed and licensed terrestrial users in other proportions.
Another option, for instance, would be to establish a paired 20
megahertz allocation of 3650-3660 MHz and 3690-3700 MHz for licensed
terrestrial services while retaining 30 megahertz in the 3660-3690 MHz
portion of the band for unlicensed operation. In addressing different
band segmentation scenarios, commenters should discuss whether such
scenarios would provide sufficient bandwidth to enable broadband voice
or data services--on both the licensed and unlicensed segments.
Commenters should also discuss the types of licensed services that
might be provided if the licensed spectrum in the band is unpaired,
e.g., TDD operations, and the amount of spectrum needed for such
services.
59. Alternatively, we seek comment on whether spectrum at 3650-3700
MHz that is made available for licensed terrestrial operations could be
paired with spectrum in other frequency bands, e.g., in the 2 GHz to 4
GHz range, and if so, what kinds of services could be provided under
this type of licensing scenario. We invite commenters to suggest
possible band pairing options. Commenters should address whether, if
the frequency bands suggested are relatively far from the 3650-3700 MHz
band, it would be technically feasible to produce equipment (e.g.,
handsets) that could operate on both spectrum bands.
60. Power Limits. If, under a licensing approach, we remove the
current allocation restriction on the use of licensed mobile devices in
the 3650 MHz band (i.e., base station only), licensed and unlicensed
operations in the band could take on similar operational
characteristics. We thus could require that licensed devices operating
in the 3650 MHz band employ the same power limits as proposed above for
unlicensed devices. Specifically, we could require that licensed non-
fixed devices operate at a maximum power level of 1 watt EIRP, and that
licensed fixed devices operate at a maximum power level of 25 watts
EIRP. By adopting the same power limit for licensed devices as proposed
for unlicensed devices, we should not introduce any interference
conditions, with respect to FSS operations, that would not be caused by
unlicensed devices alone.
61. We also seek comment on allowing higher power limits for
licensed fixed stations operating in 3650 MHz band to enable greater
coverage areas and transmission distances for such stations. Along with
greater power
[[Page 26799]]
levels, of course, comes the concern about increased potential
interference to FSS earth stations operating both within and above the
3650-3700 MHz band. However, as discussed in the 3650 MHz Service Rules
Second NPRM, we could adopt coordination zones surrounding co-channel
FSS stations, within which any terrestrial station operator would have
to coordinate with the FSS licensee. Because the size of a coordination
zone would be a function of the power level of the fixed station,
protection of co-channel FSS stations by high-powered licensed fixed
stations would be accomplished simply by requiring larger coordination
zones for such stations. In the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM, the
Commission proposed a 1000-Watt EIRP limit for base and fixed stations.
Such a power limit would create relatively large coordination zones,
but would provide greater flexibility for licensees operating in the
band. We therefore seek comment on the appropriate EIRP limit--e.g., 25
Watts, 1000 Watts--for licensed base and fixed stations operating in
the 3650-3700 MHz band.
62. Adjacent Band Emissions. If we decide to permit licensed
systems to operate in the 3650 MHz band, we would also have to decide
how such systems would protect services operating in adjacent bands. In
the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM, we proposed that, in order to
protect FSS operations in the 3700-4200 MHz band from interference,
terrestrial stations operating in the 3650-3700 MHz band would have to
comply with the part 101 emission limits already in place to protect
such FSS systems from licensed fixed stations operating in the 3700-
4200 MHz band. With our proposal to provide for unlicensed use of the
3650 MHz band, we seek updated comment on what interference criteria
might be used to protect adjacent band services from licensed systems
operating in the 3650 MHz band. For example, should we require that
licensed non-fixed devices comply with the field strength limit
described above for unlicensed devices; should we require that licensed
fixed stations comply with a particular field strength limit or satisfy
the adjacent band protection criteria proposed in the 3650 MHz Service
Rules Second NPRM?
63. Protection of FSS Operations. If we ultimately adopt a
regulatory approach that permits licensed operations in this band, we
believe that it would be appropriate to require that licensed devices
employ the same measures to protect FSS operations as proposed above
for unlicensed devices. We seek comment on whether these measures (or
any of the additional measures proposed above to enable unlicensed
devices to protect FSS stations--e.g., the geo-location method, the RF
beacon method) could or should be applied to licensed devices as a
means of protecting Government radiolocation stations, non-Government
FSS stations, and Canadian and Mexican stations operating near U.S.
borders, or whether, for any reason, other measures (such as applying
our present interservice coordination rules) might be more appropriate.
64. Geographic Area Licensing. If we ultimately decide to permit
licensed operations in this band, we would need to adopt a licensing
approach for such operations. In the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second
NPRM, the Commission tentatively concluded to license the 3650 MHz band
using geographic area licensing and sought comment on what sized
licensing area or areas should be utilized to license this spectrum and
whether nationwide licensing would be appropriate. Similarly, the
Commission sought comment on spectrum block size or sizes and whether
the band should be licensed using a 50-megahertz license. The
Commission also sought comment on a range of issues concerning possible
competitive bidding procedures. We seek updated comment from interested
parties in all these areas.
65. We thus ask interested parties to refresh the record on whether
we should license this band using geographic licensing, as well as on
particular geographic licensing approaches. As opposed to site-by-site
licensing, geographic licensing may permit licensees more flexibility
to respond to market demand and may result in significant improvements
in spectrum utilization. In particular, geographic licensing allows
licensees to coordinate usage across an entire geographic area to
maximize the use of spectrum in areas of highest demand. Geographic
licenses also provide the flexibility to dynamically adjust spectrum
usage depending upon market demands. We note that one option for this
band would be one nationwide license. Under this approach, there would
only be one fixed and mobile services license available for this band
which would give the terrestrial licensee greater flexibility in
building-out its services. We seek comment on whether it would be
appropriate to have one nationwide fixed and mobile services license
for this band. We also seek comment on the competitive bidding
procedures that should be used in the event that mutually exclusive
applications are accepted, and whether the procedures proposed in the
3650 Service Rules Second NPRM would be appropriate for the services
that are contemplated to be introduced in this band.
66. Spectrum Leasing. Additionally, we seek comment on whether
fixed and mobile service licensees in the 3650 MHz band should be able
to lease their spectrum through the policies established in the
Secondary Markets Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (Secondary Markets Report and Order and Secondary Markets
Further NPRM, respectively). In the Secondary Markets Report and Order,
we took action to remove unnecessary regulatory barriers to the
development of secondary markets to permit third parties to access
spectrum through spectrum leasing arrangements. We adopted new policies
and procedures that enable most wireless licensees to lease some or all
of their spectrum usage rights to third-party spectrum lessees. Under
these rules, the Commission is notified of the spectrum leasing
arrangements (either through a spectrum manager lease notification or a
de facto transfer lease application). We tentatively conclude that if
we adopt licensing rules for this band, our spectrum leasing adopted in
the Secondary Markets Order would apply. In addition, the Secondary
Market Further NPRM proposed additional ways to facilitate third party
access to spectrum through spectrum leasing arrangements, including
further streamlining of the notification requirements, and creating
leasing mechanisms to facilitate access by opportunistic devices with
cognitive radio capability. We seek comment on whether adoption of some
of the proposals in the Secondary Markets Further NPRM, or other
revisions in the spectrum leasing policies would help optimize the use
of the 3650 MHz band.
67. Third-Party Access to Licensed Spectrum Under A ``Band
Manager'' Approach. We also wish parties to update the record on
whether, if we adopt licensing rules for this band, we should allow
third parties access to spectrum in the 3650 MHz band through a ``band
manager'' licensing model, either as a complement or alternative to the
spectrum leasing approach adopted under the Secondary Markets Report
and Order. In the 3650 MHz Service Rules Second NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether the use of band manager licensing would be
appropriate for the 3650 MHz band. As envisioned by that Commission,
the band manager would be a Commission licensee that could engage in
the business of making spectrum available to third-party spectrum users
through private, written contracts. The
[[Page 26800]]
Commission specifically sought comment on whether the fixed and mobile
services licensee should have the option of electing to operate as a
band manager, a traditional licensee (with the right to enter into
spectrum leasing arrangements), or both to the extent they serve to
complement each other.
68. Under this band manager approach, the fixed and mobile services
licensee would essentially act as a ``spectrum broker'' and as spectrum
use coordinator. As a spectrum broker, the licensee would have the
ability to lease discrete spectrum usage rights to different third
party spectrum users through private, contractual agreements, without
having to secure prior approval by the Commission and without having to
notify the Commission of every lease. As a spectrum use coordinator,
the licensee would have the flexibility to lease and coordinate
different spectrum rights, including different power levels and other
technical parameters, to various spectrum users. We seek comment on
whether a licensing framework utilizing the concept of band manager
would optimize use of the 3650 MHz band by providing continued
protection for incumbents as well as maximum flexibility for the
potential fixed and mobile services licensee and for the creation of
new and advanced services. Under this approach, the licensee, subject
to the technical rules that we adopt, would decide how to maximize
efficient use of the spectrum and coordination issues would be managed
by the licensee through private contracts. In addition, the licensee
would be directly responsible to the Commission for preventing harmful
interference among the different users in the band, including the FSS
licensees, as well as licensees in other bands. We also seek comment on
any potential disadvantages of this type of a band manager approach,
especially related to the interference risks of any particular features
of the spectrum in question.
69. If we choose to allow the fixed and mobile services licensee to
act as a band manager, the licensee would be subject to any band
manager service rules that we adopt. We seek comment on whether our
spectrum management policies would be enhanced by permitting the
licensee the flexibility to use its spectrum internally or provide
telecommunications services, in addition to leasing it. If we were to
permit such flexibility, should we also implement safeguards to ensure
that a band manager's core function remains focused on leasing to
other, third party spectrum users; and if so, how? Also, if the fixed
and mobile services licensee choices to be a band manager, should the
licensee have the ability to use the spectrum directly and construct
its own facilities? In other words, should we limit the concept of a
band manager to non-facilities-based operations so the licensee would
only be engaged in the business of leasing spectrum? We also seek
comment on whether it is necessary to provide additional safeguards to
prevent a band manager from discriminating among spectrum users.
70. We also request comment on the type of information to be
included in agreements between a band manager and spectrum users if we
adopt band manager licensing. We seek comment on whether the
requirements the Commission established for agreements between Guard
Band Managers and spectrum users in part 27 of our rules would be
appropriate. For example, under part 27 of our rules, agreements
between the Guard Band Manager and spectrum user(s) in the 700 MHz band
must specify in detail the operating parameters of the proposed systems
including power, antenna height, frequency(s) of operation, base
station locations and area of operations.
71. We also seek comment on whether we should require the fixed and
mobile services licensee if it choose to be a band manager to file
annual reports on its spectrum usage with the Commission. We seek
comment on whether such agreements should ensure that the licensee is
responsible for violations of rules by users of the spectrum assigned
to them, and whether the licensee must provide the Commission with
information on users to allow the Commission to limit interference and
enforce our rules.
72. Site-By-Site Licensing. If we license fixed and mobile services
in the 3650 MHz band, another licensing approach would be to use site-
by-site licensing. One advantage to a site-by-site licensing option,
might be that this licensing scheme allows access to the spectrum and
entry into the market at a relatively low upfront cost. Under this
licensing scheme, we could employ several methods. One method would be
an exclusive use approach. Under this approach the first licensee to
acquire a license is guaranteed to have its operations protected from
interference from other later in time licensees. However, if the
licensee wished to add more sites, it would have to acquire a new
license for each additional site. We could also use frequency
coordinators similar to those for certain microwave services. Under
this approach, a frequency coordinator would decide whether
interference will be caused by another entity's facilities being
located near an existing licensee's facilities. If the frequency
coordinator determines that the second entity's facilities will not
cause interference to an existing licensee's operations, then the
second entity would be able to acquire a license for its facilities.
73. Another method would be a coordinated shared use approach. This
approach would utilize a frequency coordinator similar to those for the
shared private land mobile radio (PLMR) frequencies to determine where
licensees can locate their facilities. These coordinators do not seek
to achieve interference-free operations. By definition, with a
coordinated shared use approach, we can have multiple licensees
operating on the same frequencies in the same geographic areas without
having exclusive spectrum usage rights and interference protections.
Coordinators could perform the function, for an applicant, of choosing
the best frequency(s) available in the service for which the applicant
is applying at a particular site. They can do this by trying to match
compatible operations, both in terms of the nature of the operations
and the number of base stations and associated mobiles already on
frequencies in the area, as well as proposed.
74. Other Issues. Finally, we seek comment on any other issues that
might arise in the event that fixed and mobile services are allowed in
the 3650-3700 MHz band along with unlicensed devices and FSS
operations.
75. In sum, we seek comment on our proposal to allow unlicensed
operations in the 3650-3700 MHz band as well as comment on the specific
technical options described above. We request that commenters provide
detailed information regarding the potential benefits and problems that
might result from the use of these technical options--either alone, in
tandem, or in combination with the other approaches on which we are
seeking comment.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
76. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as
amended (RFA),\1\ the Commission has prepared this present 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 Notice of Proposed Rule Making
[[Page 26801]]
(NPRM). Written public 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 provided in paragraph 62 of 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).\2\ In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be
published in the Federal Register.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 5 U.S.C. 603. The RFA, See 5 U.S.C. 601 has been amended
by the Contract With America Advancement Act of 1996, ), Public Law
104-112, 110 Stat. 847 (1996)(CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
\2\ See 5 U.S.C. 603(a).
\3\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
77. The 3650-3700 MHz band is a ``transfer'' band that the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reallocated
from Government/non-Government shared use status to mixed use status
effective 1993.\4\ Prior to the transfer, the non-government use of the
band was limited to international, intercontinental Fixed Satellite
Service (FSS) receive stations.\5\ A condition of the transfer allows
Government radiolocation stations to continue to operate indefinitely
in the 3650--3700 MHz band at three locations with a ``radius of
operation'' of 80 kilometers (49.7 miles).\6\ In reallocating this
spectrum, we sought to maximize the use of the band, and particularly
to facilitate the provision of a broad range of traditional voice and
broadband high-speed services, and to foster the introduction of such
service to rural areas of the country.\7\ We expected this allocation
to encourage new and more effective competition to existing wireline
local exchange carriers by providing for an economical means to offer
competitive ``local loop'' or ``last mile'' facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, Response to Title
VI--Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, NTIA Special
Publication 95-312, released February 1995. Shared use means that a
band of frequencies is generally available for both government and
non-government use. See 47 CFR 2.105(b). Mixed use means that
government use is limited by geographic area, by time or by other
means so as to guarantee that the potential use by government
stations is substantially less than the potential use to be made by
non-government stations. See 113(b)(2)(B) of OBRA-93. See 47 U.S.C.
923(b)(2)(B).
\5\ See Second Report and Order in Gen. Docket No. 80-739
(Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules Regarding
Implementation of the Final Acts of the World Administrative Radio
Conference, Geneva, 1979), 49 FR 2357 (January 19, 1984).
\6\ The three locations are Pascagoula, Mississippi; Pensacola,
Florida; and Saint Inigoes, Maryland. Any unlicensed operations in
the 3650-3700 MHz band would be required to protect Federal
Government operations at these locations.
\7\ We also noted and here reiterate our statutory mandate to
provide for the deployment of advanced telecommunications services
and technologies to all Americans. See Public Law 104-104, Title
VII, 706, Feb. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 153 (Section 706); 47 U.S.C. 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
78. On December 20, 2002, the Commission released a Notice of
Inquiry (NOI) in ET Docket No. 02-380 seeking comment from the public
on the possibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in
additional frequency bands.\8\ Specifically, the NOI sought comment
with regard to the feasibility of allowing unlicensed devices to
operate in TV broadcast spectrum and the technical requirements that
would permit unlicensed devices to operate in that spectrum such that
the devices do not cause interference to authorized services.
Additionally, the NOI sought comment on the feasibility of permitting
unlicensed devices to operate in the 3650-3700 MHz band at power levels
higher than those permitted for unlicensed devices in other bands.
Seventy-five parties filed comments and twenty-six parties filed reply
comments in response to the NOI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 03-280, 17 FCC Rcd
25632 (2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
79. These proposals, if adopted, will prove beneficial to
manufacturers and users of unlicensed technology, including those who
provide services to rural communities. Specifically, we note that a
growing number of service providers are using unlicensed devices within
wireless networks to serve the varied needs of industry, government,
and general consumers alike. One of the more interesting developments
is the emergence of wireless Internet service providers or ``WISPs.''
Using unlicensed devices, WISPs around the country are providing an
alternative high-speed connection in areas where cable or DSL services
have been slow to arrive. We believe that the increased flexibility
proposed herein will help to foster a viable last mile solution for
delivering Internet services, other data applications, or even video
and voice services to underserved, rural, or isolated communities.
B. Legal Basis
80. The proposed action is authorized under sections 4(i), 301,
302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r), 304 and 307 of the Communications Act of
1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 301, 302, 303(e), 303(f), 303(r),
304 and 307.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
81. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and,
where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules, if adopted.\9\ The RFA defines the term
``small entity'' as having the same meaning as the terms ``small
business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small business concern''
under Section 3 of the Small Business Act.\10\ 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 operations; and
(3) meets any additional criteria established by the Small Business
Administration (SBA).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ See U.S.C. 603(b)(3).
\10\ Id. 601(3).
\11\ Id. 632.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
82. A small organization is generally ``any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.'' \12\ Nationwide, as of 1992, there were
approximately 275,801 small organizations.\13\ The term ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' is defined as ``governments of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.'' \14\ As of
1997, there were approximately 87,453 governmental jurisdictions in the
United States.\15\ This number includes 39,044 counties, municipal
governments, and townships, of which 27,546 have populations of fewer
than 50,000 and 11,498 counties, municipal governments, and townships
have populations of 50,000 or more. Thus, we estimate that the number
of small governmental jurisdictions is approximately 75,955 or fewer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(4).
\13\ See 1992 Economic Census, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table
6 (special tabulation of data under contract to Office of Advocacy
of the U.S. Small Business Administration).
\14\ See 5 U.S.C. 601(5).
\15\ See 1995 Census of Governments, U.S. Census Bureau, United
States Department of Commerce, Statistical Abstract of the United
States (2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
83. The Commission has not developed a definition of small entities
applicable to unlicensed communications devices manufacturers.
Therefore, we will utilize the SBA definition application to
manufacturers of Radio and Television Broadcasting and Communications
Equipment. Under the SBA's regulations, a radio and television
broadcasting and wireless communications equipment manufacturer must
have 750 or fewer employees in order to qualify as a small business
concern.\16\ Census Bureau data indicates that there are 1,215 U.S.
establishments that manufacture radio and television broadcasting and
wireless communications equipment, and that
[[Page 26802]]
1,150 of these establishments have fewer than 500 employees and would
be classified as small entities.\17\ The remaining 65 establishments
have 500 or more employees; however, we are unable to determine how
many of those have fewer than 750 employees and therefore, also qualify
as small entities under the SBA definition. We therefore conclude that
there are no more than 1,150 small manufacturers of radio and
television broadcasting and wireless communications equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
\17\ See Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of
Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1997 Economic Census, Industry
Series--Manufacturing, Radio and Television Broadcasting and
Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, Table 4 at 9
(1999). The amount of 500 employees was used to estimate the number
of small business firms because the relevant Census categories
stopped at 499 employees and began at 500 employees. No category for
750 employees existed. Thus, the number is as accurate as it is
possible to calculate with the available information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other
Compliance Requirements
84. Part 15 transmitters are already required to be authorized
under the Commission's certification procedure as a prerequisite to
marketing and importation. See 47 CFR 15.101, 15.201, 15.305, and
15.405. The changes proposed in this proceeding would not change any of
the current reporting or recordkeeping requirements. Further, the
proposed regulations add permissible operating frequencies. The
proposals would not require the modification of any existing
procedures.
E. Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small
Entities, and Significant Alternatives Considered
85. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant
alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach,
which may include the following four alternatives: (1) The
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or
timetables that take into account the resources available to small
entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of
compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities;
(3) the use of performance, rather than design standards; and (4) an
exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small
entities.
86. At this time, the Commission does not believe the proposals
contained in this NPRM will have a significant economic impact on small
entities. The NPRM does not propose new device design standards.
Instead, it relaxes the rules with respect to the types of devices
which are allowed to operate pursuant to the Commission's regulations.
There is no burden of compliance with the proposed changes.
Manufacturers may continue to produce devices which comply with the
former rules and, if desired, design devices to comply with the new
regulations. The proposed rules will apply equally to large and small
entities. Therefore, there is no inequitable impact on small entities.
Finally, this NPRM does not recommend a deadline for implementation. We
believe that the proposals are relatively simple and do not require a
transition period to implement. An entity desiring to take advantage of
the relaxed regulations may do so at any time.
87. Unless our views are altered by comments, we find that the
proposed rule changes contained in this Notice will not present a
significant economic burden to small entities. Therefore it is not
necessary at this time to propose alternative rules. Notwithstanding
our finding, we request comment on alternatives that might minimize the
amount of adverse economic impact, if any, on small entities.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rule
88. None.
Ordering Clauses
89. Pursuant to the authority contained in sections 4(i), 302,
303(c), 303(f), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. sections 154(i), 302, 303(c), 303(f), and 303(r)
this Notice of Proposed Rule Making is adopted.
90. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau,
Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of this NPRM, including
the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 15
Communications equipment, Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
Proposed Rule Changes
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal
Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR parts 15 as follows:
PART 15--RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
1. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, and 544a.
2. Section 15.205 is amended by revising the table in paragraph (a)
to read as follows:
Sec. 15.205 Restricted bands of operation.
(a) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MHz MHz MHz GHz
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.090-0.110 16.42-16.423 399.9-410 4.5-5.15
\1\ 0.495-0.505 16.69475-16.69525 608-614 5.35-5.46
2.1735-2.1905 16.80425-16.80475 960-1240 7.25-7.75
4.125-4.128 25.5-25.67 1300-1427 8.025-8.5
4.17725-4.17775 37.5-38.25 1435-1626.5 9.0-9.2
4.20725-4.20775 73-74.6 1645.5-1646.5 9.3-9.5
6.215-6.218 74.8-75.2 1660-1710 10.6-12.7
6.26775-6.26825 108-121.94 1718.8-1722.2 13.25-13.4
6.31175-6.31225 123-138 2200-2300 14.47-14.5
8.291-8.294 149.9-150.05 2310-2390 15.35-16.2
8.362-8.366 156.52475- 2483.5-2500 17.7-21.4
8.37625-8.38675 156.52525 2655-2900 22.01-23.12
8.41425-8.41475 156.7-156.9 3260-3267 23.6-24.0
12.29-12.293 162.0125-167.17 3332-3339 31.2-31.8
12.51975-12.52025 167.72-173.2 3345.8-3358 36.43-36.5
12.57675-12.57725 240-285 3600-3650 (\2\)
[[Page 26803]]
13.36-13.41 322-335.4 3700-4400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Until February 1, 1999, this restricted band shall be 0.490-0.510 MHz.
\2\ Above 38.6.
* * * * *
3. Section 15.252 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 15.252 Operation within the band 3.65-3.70 GHz.
(a) Fixed and non-fixed unlicensed devices in this band must be
operated in a manner so as not to cause harmful interference to
licensed fixed satellite service (FSS) earth stations authorized to
receive signals in the 3650-3700 MHz band.
(b) Fixed devices. Fixed devices must be installed by a recognized
professional installer. The installer shall ensure that the operation
of the fixed device complies with the following requirements.
(1) The maximum peak effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)
shall not exceed 25 Watts. The fixed device may employ an advanced
antenna system capable of dynamically modifying the system radiation
pattern. The EIRP of the fixed device must be reduced to levels which
will not cause interference to existing licensed FSS earth stations.
(2) No fixed unlicensed device shall operate within the sector of a
circle around a licensed FSS earth station defined by an arc 15[deg] on either side of the FSS earth station antenna
boresight and a 180 km radius. Outside of this sector, no fixed device
shall operate within 25 km of a licensed FSS earth station.
(c) Non-fixed devices. The maximum peak EIRP of non-fixed devices
shall not exceed 1 Watt.
(1) The non-fixed device shall employ active interference avoidance
mechanisms to detect FSS earth station uplink signals in the bands
5.85-5.925 GHz and 6.425-6.723 GHz.
(2) The non-fixed device shall reduce peak EIRP below 1 Watt in
accordance with the receive signal level (RSS) as shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlicensed device receive signal strength
(RSS) Maximum allowed EIRP
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RSS > -76 dBm............................ (not allowed)
-76 dBm >= RSS > -79 dBm................. 250 mW
-79 dBm >= RSS > -82 dBm................. 500 mW
-82 dBm >= RSS........................... 1 Watt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) For systems having multiple devices operating under a central
controller, only the central controller is required to detect FSS earth
station uplink signals. The central controller must instruct all
devices under its control to reduce transmit EIRP in accordance with
the RSS and paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(d) No device in this band shall be operated within 80 kilometers
of the three authorized Government radiolocation stations. See Sec.
2.106, Footnote US348, of this chapter.
(e) Operation in Border areas. Fixed devices must be located at
least 8 kilometers from the U.S./Canada or U.S./Mexico border if the
antenna of that device looks within the 160[deg] sector away for the
border. The devices must be located at least 56 kilometers from each
border if the antenna looks within the 200[deg] sector towards the
border.
(f) Within any one second interval of signal transmission, each
unlicensed device must transmit a transmitter identification at least
once. The identification must be confined to the 3650-3651 MHz portion
of the band. Each application for equipment authorization must declare
that the equipment contains the required transmitter identification
feature and must specify a method whereby interested parties can obtain
sufficient information, at no cost, to enable them to fully detect and
decode this transmitter identification information. Upon the completion
of decoding, the transmitter identification data block must provide the
following fields.
(1) User/owner contact information.
(2) Current physical location of the unlicensed device.
The grantee must implement a method that makes it possible for
users to specify and update this data.
[FR Doc. 04-11007 Filed 5-13-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P