A Publication of Motorola Inc. Government & Public Safety Global Spectrum Strategy Team Editor: Bette Rinehart, Gettysburg, PA July 31, 2010

Transcription

1 A Publication of Motorola Inc. Government & Public Safety Global Spectrum Strategy Team Editor: Bette Rinehart, Gettysburg, PA July 31, 2010 In This Issue: Changes to Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) Rules Proposed FCC Seeks Comment on Program to Expand Investment on Broadband Healthcare Technology Part 95 Changes Proposed Non-Substantive Rule Changes Released 800 MHz News Liberty Communications versus Sprint Nextel Nextel-Vacated Spectrum and Slow Growth 700 MHz News: Public Safety Alliance Hosts a Day on The Hill to Promote Allocation of D Block to Public Safety Regional Planning Update Changes to Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) Rules Proposed To provide additional spectrum for mobile broadband, the FCC is proposing to make changes to the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) regulations. The MSS spectrum targeted in the proposal are the 2 GHz band ( MHz and MHz), the Big LEO Band ( MHz and MHz) and the L-Band ( MHz and MHz). The Mobile Satellite Service is currently used for communications between mobile earth stations and one or more satellite stations. MSS is used in remote and/or rural areas where it is difficult or impossible to provide coverage using terrestrial base stations. MSS is also used when terrestrial coverage is unavailable such as during natural disasters. Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) operations may be used by MSS operators to enhance coverage in certain areas where the satellite signal is attenuated or unavailable. MSS operators may request blanket ATC authority as long as they meet certain criteria. Otherwise, terrestrial use of the MSS band is not permitted. In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and Notice of Inquiry (NOI) released on July 15, (ET Docket ), the FCC is seeking to make certain rule changes designed to:

2 Add co-primary fixed and mobile allocations to the 2 GHz Band o Existing MSS licensees would continue to operate under the terms of their licenses Should a 2 GHz license be returned or cancelled, it would not be assigned to the other 2 GHz licensee nor made available for a new MSS licensee o Best to keep options open until a decision is reached in this proceeding Subject spectrum leasing arrangements between an MSS licensee in any of the three bands and a third party to the general spectrum leasing policies applicable to terrestrial based services The NOI asks for comment on: Further steps the FCC would take to increase utilization, innovation and investment in all three of the MSS bands while ensuring mobile satellite capability o How could the FCC determine the current and future MSS spectrum needs? o Who uses MSS today? Where are they located? Is that location particularly suited to MSS? What services do MSS users rely on? Are those services suitable only to MSS or could they be provided by FSS? Are there ways to create opportunities for more stand-alone terrestrial uses in the 2 GHz band? o There are currently two 2 GHz MSS licensees. If given the authority, could a voluntary incentive auction (where the incumbents could relinquish spectrum in return for a portion of the auction proceeds) increase investment in the band? Comments are due 30 days after publication in the Federal Register; replies are due 45 days after Federal Register publication. The text of the News Release is available at: The text of the NPRM and NOI is available at: FCC Program to Expand Investment on Broadband Healthcare Technology This month, in another rulemaking resulting from recommendations made in the National Broadband Plan, the FCC introduced a health care connectivity program that would expand investment in broadband for medically underserved areas across the country. According to the News Release, the program would help reduce health care costs, improve medical care, and give patients in rural areas access to state-of-the-art medical tools normally available only in the largest, most sophisticated health care centers. The program proposes an annual $400 million investment to provide broadband connectivity that would allow hospitals and clinics to provide world-class health care to patients regardless of where they lived. The monies would come from the Universal Service Fund. In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the FCC is seeking comment on the following reforms: Creation of a health infrastructure program that would support up to 85% of the construction costs of new networks to provide service to health care providers in parts of the country where broadband is insufficient or unavailable Establishment of a health broadband services program that would subsidize 50% of the recurring monthly broadband access costs for eligible health care providers Expansion of the definition of eligible health care provider to include acute care facilities such as dialysis centers, skilled nursing facilities and administrative and data centers that support, but are not housed within the offices of a health care provider Clarification of record keeping procedures to prevent abuse, fraud and waste. Enhancement of the ongoing program evaluation and implementation measures Means to prioritize funding requests if demand exceeds the $400M cap

3 Comments are due September 8; Replies are due September 23, 2010 The text of the News Release is available at: The text of the NPRM is available at: Changes Proposed to Part 95 The FCC is seeking comment on proposed changes to the Part 95 service rules. Part 95 regulates General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS), Family Radio Service (FRS), Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS), Radio Control, CB Radio, Wireless Medical Telemetry Service (WMTS), Medical Device Radio Communications Service (MedRadio) and other personal radio services. Part 95 also regulates the MHz Service which can be a commercial radio service. The NPRM aims to review and revise the existing rules to more closely reflect current technology and provide additional flexibility. Specifically, the NPRM proposes the following major changes: License GMRS by rule (no individual license required) Relax GMRS eligibility to include businesses Implement 12.5 khz channelization for GMRS Allow transmission of GPS information and text messages on certain GMRS frequencies Prohibit authorization of radios that combine FRS and safety-related services Transfer of MHz Service from Part 95 to Part 27 Review CB radio regulations to determine which are still needed; permit use of hands-free microphones Comment is sought on these proposals and on the Part 95 radio service regulations in general. Comments are due September 3; Replies are due September 20. Text of NPRM is available at: FCC Order Updates Miscellaneous Rule Parts The FCC released an Order making several non-substantive changes to the Frequency Allocation Table in Part 2 as well as changes to regulations in Parts 1, 15, 25, 73 and 90 to correct, clarify and update certain rules in those Parts. The text of the Order is available at: MHz News Liberty Communications vs. Sprint Nextel The Commission based a recent decision in a rebanding case on three principles: Licensees are responsible for the accuracy of the information provided to the Commission in their license applications and on their license authorizations Comparable facilities means that a licensee will receive interference protection in accordance with the FCC s rules licensees are not protected from adjacent channel interference and Extra-FRA expenses may be incurred only when authorized The Transition Administrator referred the following case to the Commission for review. Liberty Communications, an SMR operator in the Florida panhandle argued that Sprint had not provided it with

4 comparable facilities when it provided replacement frequencies in the rebanding process. Liberty indicated that it was receiving interference at two co-channel transmitter sites and had been improperly short-spaced. Because of the interference, Liberty asked Sprint Nextel to provide a different frequency at those sites. A Change Order was filed and a consultant hired to investigate the interference. Upon investigation, the FCC noted that Liberty was operating at 118 meters antenna height while licensed for 18 meters antenna height. The TA used the licensed parameters of the system when recommending a replacement frequency and could not be expected to realize that Liberty was operating at a much higher antenna height. Liberty was given 15 days to either bring its operations in compliance with its license or file an application to show the true operating parameters. Liberty also argued that Sprint had not provided it with comparable facilities because the frequencies were not adequately spaced from each other (less than 100 khz apart) and worried about adjacent channel interference in a near/far situation. Until the matter was resolved, Liberty wanted to remain on its prerebanding frequencies. The FCC concluded the potential for adjacent channel interference, post-rebanding is no greater than that which existed pre-rebanding. Liberty was vulnerable to interference from the mobiles of any other licensee operating on an adjacent channel, either pre- or post- rebanding, because the Commission s rules do not protect licensees against adjacent channel interference. SMR licensees are protected only against co-channel interference. Since it had been provided with comparable facilities, Liberty was given 15 days to discontinue operation on the pre-rebanding frequencies. Liberty also sought reimbursement of costs incurred because of the dispute. Sprint Nextel argued that it had provided comparable facilities ; had agreed to pay a portion of the additional costs but that many of the costs were incurred without prior review or approval of Sprint Nextel or the TA as required by the FCC; argued that Liberty had to relinquish its pre-rebanding frequencies so that a public safety agency in the area could proceed rebanding of its facilities. Liberty has filed an Application For Review of the FCC s decision. The text of the decision is available at: Nextel Vacated Spectrum City and County of San Francisco Petition for Reconsideration of Dismissal Granted In March of this year, the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) had filed applications to add slow growth to two licenses it had received in 2009 for Nextel-vacated spectrum. In Public Notices related to filing procedures for the Nextel-vacated spectrum, the FCC had cautioned that while slow growth was not prohibited on these frequencies, any such requests would be closely scrutinized. The FCC dismissed the slow growth applications because, during the first year of grant, San Francisco had rolled the new authorizations into an existing project rather than putting them into operation immediately. In its Petition for Reconsideration, San Francisco pointed out that its applications were in compliance with the slow growth rules, the spectrum in question was needed for an on-going, fully funded and on-schedule project essential for the public transportation system. After further review, the FCC agreed with the petitioner noting that San Francisco has provided detailed schedules for each milestone, demonstrated that the project is fully funded and spectrum warehousing is not being attempted. The applications were restored to pending status. The text of the decision is available at:

5 700 MHz News The Public Safety Alliance Hosts a Day on the Hill Significant strides in the campaign to convince Congress to reallocate the 700 MHz D Block to public safety were made during a Day on the Hill sponsored by the Public Safety Alliance (PSA) on July 21. Representatives of the PSA visited with lawmakers to solicit support for legislation to transfer the D Block from commercial radio service (and a requirement that the spectrum be auctioned) and allocate it instead to public safety to be combined with the previously allocated 10 MHz (5+5) public safety broadband in the 700 MHz band. Since July 21, many Congressional representatives have indicated support either by introducing or cosponsoring legislation to transfer the D Block to public safety. As of the end of July, three bills had either been introduced or were being crafted. While each bill promotes the main goal, language contained in the subtext must be carefully scrutinized to ensure that public safety s overall spectrum allocations remain intact. Funding of a nationwide public safety broadband network remains a major consideration. Is there a viable funding alternative if the D Block is not auctioned? Talking points, sample letters to Congressional representatives, information on conducting legislative meetings, writing or ing elected officials are available on the PSA website at: MHz REGIONAL PLANNING UPDATE Until the Regions have developed their plans and had those plans approved by the FCC, no licenses (other than state-wide licenses on the 2.4 MHz state allocation at 700 MHz) can be granted at 700 MHz. The NCC Implementation Subcommittee Regional Planning documents can be found on the NPSTC website at Fifty-four of the fifty-five Regions have either held or set the date for their first meeting. One Region has selected a convener but not yet set a date for the first planning meeting. Thirty-four Regional Plans have been approved; three Regional Plans are now pending. Each month, The Communicator will list the status of the 700 MHz Regional planning process. If you have any information about 700 MHz RPC planning activities that are not on this list, or have a customer who is interested in getting his or her 700 MHz Region started, please contact the editor Bette Rinehart at Assistance is available for initiation of the Regional Planning process including presentation of an educational piece about the 700 MHz band and details about broadcast incumbency in the Region. The Regions in bold type are new to the report. Regions in italics and highlighted in pink have a Plan pending with the FCC. Regions highlighted in green have Plans approved by the FCC. Region Status Next Meeting Chair/Convener 1 (Alabama) Plan Approved 1/14/2009 TBD Eric Linsley, Chair 2 (Alaska) Plan Approved October 20, 2008 TBD Dean Strid, Chair 3 (Arizona) Plan Approved November 7, 2008 TBD Mark Schroeder, Chair 4 (Arkansas) Plan Submitted to FCC 1/27/2010 TBD J M Rowe, Acting Chair 5 (Southern California) Plan Approved June 6, 2008 TBD Dave Buchanan, Chair 6 (N. California) Plan approved 10/22/2009 TBD George Lowry, Chair 7 (Colorado) Plan Approved December 3, 2008 July 9, 2010 Emery Reynolds, Chair 8 (Metro New York) Plan Approved 5/4/09 TBD Anthony Melia, Chair 9 (Florida) Plan Approved 4/20/09 August 31, 2010 Ray Carlson, Chair 10 (Georgia) Plan Approved 8/25/2009 TBD Jim Mollohan, Chair 11 (Hawaii) First Meeting 9/18/02 TBD Robert Hlivak, Chair

6 12 (Idaho) Plan Approved 8/25/20009 TBD Mike Sanders, Chair 13 (Illinois) Plan Approved 9/22/2009 August 18, 2010 Gary Cochran, Chair 14 (Indiana) Plan Approved 11/12/2009 TBD Anthony Stantz. Chair 15 (Iowa) First Meeting 5/29/02 TBD Les Fish, Chair 16 (Kansas) Plan Approved 4/21/09 TBD Jason Moses, Chair 17 (Kentucky) First Meeting 2/15/02 TBD Bob Stevens, Chair 18 (Louisiana) Plan Approved 4/21/09 August 10, 2010 Ken Hughes, Chair 19 (New England) Plan Approved 4/21/09 September 14, 2010 Jerry Zarwanski, Chair 20 (Maryland) Plan Approved 7/24/08 TBD Ed Ryan, Chair 21 (Michigan) Plan Approved 10/10/08 TBD Keith Bradshaw, Chair 22 (Minnesota) Plan Approved June 2, 2008 TBD Scott Wiggins, Chair 23 (Mississippi) First Meeting 1/09/02 Don Loper, Chair 24 (Missouri) Plan Approved November 7, 2008 September 2, 2010 Steve Devine, Chair 25 (Montana) First Meeting 7/17/02 August 31, 2010 Kevin Bruski, Chair 26 (Nebraska) First Meeting 8/8/02 TBD Mike Jeffres, Chair 27 (Nevada) Plan Approved June 2, 2009 TBD Jeffrey Yeagley, Chair 28 (Eastern PA) Plan Approved 9/22/2009 September 14, 2010 Mark Grubb, Chair 29 (New Mexico) First Meeting 3/21/05 TBD Don Cooper, Chair 30 (Eastern NY) Plan Approved 8/6/2009 July 15, 2010 David Cook, Chair 31 (North Carolina) First Meeting 11/18/03 TBD Michael Hodgson, Chair 32 (North Dakota) First Meeting 12/17/2009 TBD Mike Lynk, Chair 33 (Ohio) Plan Approved 9/11/2009 September 14, 2010 Paul Mayer, Chair 34 (Oklahoma) Plan Approved 5/17/2010 TBD Stephen Williamson, Chair 35 (Oregon) Plan Submitted to FCC 5/11/2010 TBD Joe Kuran, Chair 36 (W. PA) Plan Approved 1/5/2010 TBD Randy Brozenick, Chair 37 (South Carolina) First Meeting 7/17/02 TBD William Winn, Chair 38 (South Dakota) First Meeting Set TBD Todd Dravlund (Conv.) 39 (Tennessee) Plan Approved June 6, 2008 TBD John Johnson, Chair 40 (Central & NE TX) Plan Approved 6/3/09 TBD Gerard Eads, Chair 41 (Utah) Plan Approved 10/2/2009 TBD Steve Proctor, Chair 42 (Virginia) Plan Approved June 24, 2010 November 2, 2010 Robert DeLauney, Chair 43 (Washington) Plan Approved June 2, 2008 July, 2010 Jon Wiswell, Chair 44 (West Virginia) First Meeting 6/16/05 TBD Dave Saffel, Chair 45 (Wisconsin) Plan Approved October 20, 2008 TBD Russell Schreiner, Chair 46 (Wyoming) First Meeting 2/15/01 TBD Mark Joiner, Chair 47 (Puerto Rico) First Meeting TBD Ferdinand Cedeno, Chair 48 Virgin Islands Appointed Convener First Meeting TBD Albert Harrigan, Chair 49 (Central Texas) Plan Submitted to FCC 7/21/10 TBD Ron Mayworm, Chair 50 (W. Texas) First Meeting 7/15/04 TBD Bonnie Guinn, Chair 51 (Houston) Plan Approved 1/14/2009 July 7, 2010 Doug Frankhouser, Chair 52 (NW Texas) First Meeting 7/30/03 TBD Bob Sanders, Chair 53 (South Texas) First Meeting 12/6/01 TBD Victor Perez, Chair 54 (Chicago) Plan Approved 9/30/2009 July 28, 2010 Bill Carter, Chair 55 (New York-Buffalo) Plan Approved 6/2/2009 August 12, 2010 Steven Sharpe, Chair