Wireless Spectrum Auctions

One of major themes of new technology developers and equipment makers in comments this week sought by FCC’s Spectrum Policy Task Force has been need for more spectrum for unlicensed devices and bands for rapid testing of new technology. “Cisco believes that these ‘unlicensed’ networks have the potential to create an entirely new broadband network for all Americans,” company said. It urged FCC to allocate spectrum specifically for unlicensed data networks and called for “spectrum etiquette rules” to mitigate interference and allow for more efficient use of those bands. Among task force questions concerning Part 15 was whether types of permissible unlicensed operations should be expanded, what rule changes would be needed to accomplish that and how to put that spectrum to its highest valued use as congestion of those bands increases. FCC Chmn. Powell created the task force earlier this year to explore far- reaching spectrum policy issues, ranging from Part 15 overcrowding to whether spectrum in rural areas should be regulated differently from that in urban markets.

When granting additional flexibility for spectrum use, several wireless carriers and equipment makers urged FCC this week not to change rules in “midstream” for incumbent licensees that already had paid billions for licenses. Wireless and satellite companies, new technology developers, broadcasters and public interest groups filed close to 200 comments on questions from agency’s Spectrum Policy Task Force. Relatively high number of comments poured into Commission despite Office of Engineering & Technology’s refusal of several requests to provide extension of July 8 deadline. Public notice last month raised policy questions ranging from potential need to redefine harmful interference to whether rural spectrum should be covered under policy different from urban areas (CD June 7 p1). Some developers of emerging technologies stressed need for FCC to provide clarity in its Part 15 rules for unlicensed devices and to furnish more spectrum as demands increased. Several large carriers, including Sprint and Cingular, urged FCC to keep intact auctions of exclusive allocations and said market- based tools such as auctions worked only if license-holders had clearly defined rights.

Lt. Gen. Harry Raduege, Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) dir., told Washington forum Mon. that military users were trying to move into higher spectrum where possible but were finding “more and more mobility that we are needing spectrum for” in much-coveted spectrum below 3 GHz. Raduege spoke at meeting of Center for Strategic & International Studies (CSIS) Commission on Spectrum Management, chaired by former Defense Secy. James Schlesinger and former Motorola Chmn. Robert Galvin. At time when NTIA is nearing completion of 3G viability assessment, which already has missed self- imposed deadline of June 30, defense speakers at meeting sent message of being willing to move when reimbursement and relocation were possible, but citing satellite spectrum as still particularly challenging for 3G.

Spectrum Holdings, one of largest bidders for upcoming lower 700 MHz band auction, petitioned FCC for reconsideration of decision to let bidders select licenses to pursue other than those identified in their original short- form applications. FCC Wireless Bureau plans to hold auction for C- and D-blocks of lower 700 MHz spectrum next month. Date was rescheduled after Congress delayed planned Jan. 14 start for upper 700 MHz auction and June 19 for all of lower band, including larger A, B and E-block licenses. Legislation instead postponed all of 700 MHz auctions except for smaller C- and D-block licenses on Aug. 27.

Terrestrial carriers’ comments on integrated MSS-ATC systems were “riddled with factual and legal errors and distortions”, Globalstar said in ex parte filing. Globalstar said separate filings by AT&T wireless on April 1 and joint filing by Cingular Wireless and Sprint on proposed integration of ATC-MSS systems in 2 GHz band, L-band and 1.6- 2.4 GHz band needed to be corrected. Globalstar supports ICO proposal for flexible use by ATC and MSS licensees in all available MSS bands (CD June 17 p6). Wireless opponents have accused ICO of shrewd spectrum grab (CD May 31 p3) and asked that Commission auction spectrum sought by company. Satellite official said issue could be decided within 60 days.

Both Dennis Johnson, pres. of ground-penetrating radar (GPR) developer Geophysical Survey Systems, and FCC official defended that ultra-wideband technology as not having caused interference problems in past. At Precursor Group panel discussion here late Wed., Michael Marcus, assoc. chief of FCC’s Office of Engineering & Technology, said that during UWB rulemaking, “virtually nobody was worried about GPR except for the FAA… GPRs have been around forever and haven’t caused problems to anybody forever.” Marcus said many GPR devices had GPS systems mounted on same box but hadn’t caused reported interference to GPS operations. “I'm not convinced FAA has done the technical analysis correctly,” he said. Johnson said: “We've been in business for 32 years and the FCC has never recorded a single incident of GPR interfering with another receiver. Our equipment is operated at virtually every airport in the country and on most military bases.” GPR manufacturers and service providers filed petitions at FCC recently seeking reconsideration of portions of UWB rules they contended were too restrictive to allow their systems to continue operating for most applications. Ground Penetrating Radar Industry Coalition (GPRIC) filed petition for limited stay of enforcement of UWB rules, contending that changes were adopted in contravention of Administrative Procedure Act. Earlier this week, U.S. GPS Industry Council filed opposition to petition at FCC, saying stay request should be rejected even if Commission was procedurally obligated to issue further notice before adopting some provisions of final rules. “Because no FCC rules authorizing ground penetrating radars are currently in effect, a stay in the effectiveness of the new rules about which GPRIC complains would have the consequence of removing any basis for lawful operation of GPRs, leaving GPRIC’s members in a worse position than they would have be with the new rules in effect,” opposition filing said. Marcus also countered some descriptions of UWB as potential last-mile, broadband solution and technology for similar longer range advanced wireless services. Because FCC order earlier this year on UWB used very conservative power limits, “ultra- wideband isn’t going to be used for any of these things,” he said. Manufacturers instead are talking about short-range transmission ranges of 10 m and initial data ranges of 100 Mbps, he said. Marcus also addressed concerns raised by some licensees that FCC had no right to authorize technologies such as UWB in bands for which they have paid at auction. “People who have that point of view might want to read” Part 15 rule that Commission issued in 1989, he said. “Up until that point, every class of unlicensed device had very specific bands in which they were allowed to operate,” Marcus said. Decision in 1989 said that besides those rules, “in most parts of the spectrum but not all,” unlicensed devices would have freedom to operate as they wished as long as they met certain power and interference requirements, he said. Officials of UWB developers XtremeSpectrum and Time Domain said first commercial markets for that technology would involve high bandwidth, personal area networks. Those operations will connect consumer electronic devices in the home and office “at very high data rates,” said Jeff Ross, vp-corporate development & strategy for Time Domain. He and Veronica Haggart of XtremeSpectrum emphasized that UWB was likely to complement rather than compete with Bluetooth and 802.11 systems. “We believe that ultra-wideband fills in the gaps,” Ross said. Bluetooth offers low data rates at ranges of 10 m and 802.11 offers higher data rates. “What’s unserved today is the market for multimedia,” he said. At very low power levels, UWB will offer 100 Mbps at 10 m with ability to scale up to 400 Mbps, he said.

FCC is expected to release within days notice of proposed rulemaking approved earlier this month that would open 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz to commercial uses for first time, said Michael Marcus, assoc. dir. of FCC Office of Engineering & Technology. Potential uses for spectrum include high-speed wireless local area networks, broadband access systems for Internet and point-to-point and point-to-multipoint solutions. NPRM explores various options for allowing first nongovt. use of that spectrum: (1) Traditional Part 101 point-to-point licensing. (2) Area licenses with band manager, which would be subject to auction. (3) Unlicensed approach under Part 15. Item as adopted by Commission is neutral about which of those items was best and it was seeking comment from industry on preferred plans. Part 101 licensing probably would involve annual FCC fee and coordinator fee, Marcus said. In that scenario, coordinator would make decisions on whether proposed use would cause interference with other existing users, he said. “The coordinator in doing that would have to do that in the context of specific technical criteria that are in the FCC rules,” he said. FCC will seek comment on whether situation in which operators must rely on rule changes to keep pace with new technology would work in environment in which technology is changing so rapidly, Marcus said. Several developers made clear Wed. that they would prefer to see service rules that didn’t involve auctions. John Lovberg, chief technology officer of Loea Communications, which petitioned FCC for rule change, raised concern that auctions could “encourage artificial spectrum scarcity.” He said point-to-point licensing under Part 101 was solution that had appeared most amenable to NTIA and Interagency Radio Advisory Council. -- MG

FCC Wireless Bureau will hold auction for C- and D- blocks of lower 700 MHz spectrum on Aug. 27, bureau announced Wed. While other blocks of lower band of 700 MHz spectrum auction were ordered delayed last week by Congress through Auction Reform Act, bill ordered C- and D-blocks auctions be conducted between Aug. 19 and Sept. 19.

Tension between FCC Chmn. Powell and Comr. Martin is “extraordinary” and often complicates decision-making process at agency, according to lobbyists and others familiar with workings of agency’s 8th floor. Opinions vary on why 2 Republicans disagree fairly frequently. In interviews over last several weeks, some sources said it was because their regulatory philosophies varied greatly on many issues. Some called it personality conflict. Handful accused Martin of trying to grab power, view disputed by many other sources. Almost no one wanted to be quoted by name. “The problem is worse under the surface,” said source who described himself as “very informed.” He said “the problem is in the process. Even the routine becomes difficult with Martin’s office.” It won’t continue, he said, particularly since it has become public. “It’s one thing to squabble behind the scenes,” source said. “It’s unacceptable to do it in public.”

NextWave told U.S. Supreme Court in brief filed Fri. that FCC’s revocation of its PCS licenses for missed payment was “obvious violation” of Bankruptcy Code. Friend-of-court briefs included one by 7 members of Congress, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chmn. Leahy (D-Vt.) and ranking Republican member Hatch (R-Utah). In lengthy filing, bankrupt C-block bidder disputed arguments by Commission in its appeal of U.S. Appeals Court, D.C., ruling last year. FCC argued to high court earlier this year that nothing in Bankruptcy Code was at stake in D.C. Circuit’s NextWave ruling that barred agency from enforcing regulatory conditions on disputed wireless licenses. Sec. 525 of Bankruptcy Code bars govt. agencies from revoking licenses of debtor or bankrupt entity solely because they haven’t paid dischargeable debt. “The FCC’s only answer to the plain text of Sec. 525 is to spend page after page restating, in many guises, the single point that Sec. 525 should not apply because NextWave’s licenses were revoked for regulatory rather than pecuniary reasons,” NextWave said. “But Sec. 525 contains no regulatory exception for the FCC, express or implied, and creating one would be at odds with Sec. 525 and the code generally.”