Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands

Federal RegisterJun 4, 2014

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 1, 2, and 27

[GN Docket No. 13-185; FCC 14-31]

Commercial Operations in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz Bands

AGENCY:

Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts rules governing use of spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that will make available significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services. This additional 65 megahertz of spectrum for commercial use will help ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation's wireless networks keeps pace with industry demands for wireless service. This is another step in implementing the Congressional directive in Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 to make more spectrum available for flexible uses.

DATES:

Effective July 7, 2014 except for the amendment to 47 CFR 2.106 adding Fixed and Mobile allocations for the 2025-2110 MHz band to the Federal Table of Frequency Allocations, which will become effective after the Commission publishes a document in the

Federal Register

announcing the relevant effective date, and except for 47 CFR 2.1033(c)(19)(i)-(ii); 27.14(k), (s); 27.17(c); 27.50(d)(3); 27.1131; 27.1132; 27.1134(c), (f), which contain new or modified information collection requirements that are not effective until approved by the Office of Management and Budget. The Commission will publish a document in the

Federal Register

announcing the effective date for those sections.

ADDRESSES:

Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. A copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to

PRA@fcc.gov

and to Cathy Williams, Federal Communications Commission, Room 1-C823, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554 or via the Internet at

Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ronald Repasi, Office of Engineering and Technology, at (202) 418-0768 or

Ronald.Repasi@fcc.gov

or Peter Daronco, Broadband Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-7235 or

Peter.Daronco@fcc.gov.

For additional information concerning the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection requirements contained in this document, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918, or via the Internet at

PRA@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This is a summary of the Commission's AWS-3

Report and Order,

FCC 14-31, adopted and released on March 31, 2014 (corrected by

Erratum,

released on May 6, 2014. The full text of this document is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street SW., Washington, DC 20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc. (BCPI), Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, (202) 488-5300, facsimile (202) 488-5563, or via email at

fcc@bcpiweb.com.

The complete text is also available on the Commission's Web site at

http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-14-31A1.docx.

Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette, and Braille) are available by contacting Brian Millin at (202) 418-7426, TTY (202) 418-7365, or via email to

bmillin@fcc.gov.

Summary

1. With the

Report and Order,

we adopt rules governing use of spectrum in the 1695-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, and 2155-2180 MHz bands that will make available significantly more commercial spectrum for Advanced Wireless Services (AWS). We refer to these bands as AWS-3. This action is another step in implementing the Congressional directive in Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012) (Spectrum Act) to make more spectrum available for flexible uses. It also represents a milestone in speeding commercial access to bands through spectrum-sharing arrangements with incumbent Federal users. In particular, 40 megahertz in the band is being made available for commercial use pursuant to collaboration among the wireless industry and Federal agencies facilitated by the Commerce Spectrum Management Advisory Committee (CSMAC) chartered to advise the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA).

2. We will license the AWS-3 spectrum in two sub-bands. We will pair the 2155-2180 MHz band for downlink/base station operations with the 1755-1780 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations. The 2155-2180 MHz band is already currently allocated for non-Federal, commercial use. The 1755-1780 MHz band is being made available on a shared basis with a limited number of Federal incumbents indefinitely, while many of the Federal systems will over time relocate out of the band. We also adopt rules to allocate and license the 1695-1710 MHz band for uplink/mobile operations on an unpaired shared basis with incumbent Federal meteorological-satellite (MetSat) data users. We will assign AWS-3 licenses by competitive bidding, offering 5 megahertz and 10 megahertz blocks that can be aggregated using Economic Areas (EAs) as the area for geographic licensing, except for 1755-1760/2155-2160 MHz, which will be licensed by Cellular Market Areas (CMAs).

I. Background

Section 6401 of the Spectrum Act.

In February 2012, Congress enacted the Spectrum Act. That Act includes several provisions designed to make more spectrum available for commercial use. It established, among other things, deadlines applicable to both the Secretary of Commerce and the Commission to identify, reallocate, auction, and license, subject to flexible use service rules, spectrum for commercial use. Specifically, the Spectrum Act requires the allocation of spectrum in the following bands for services that support commercial use: 25 megahertz at 2155-2180 MHz; an additional contiguous 15 megahertz to be identified by the Commission; 15 megahertz between 1675-1710 MHz, to be identified by NTIA by February 2013; and 10 megahertz at 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz, if the Commission finds no harmful interference to the neighboring Personal Communications Service (PCS) band. The Spectrum Act states that the Commission shall grant new initial licenses for all of these bands by February 2015. In June 2013 the FCC adopted service rules for the last of these four bands listed above (1915-1920 and 1995-2000 MHz, or the H Block) in a separate FCC proceeding and the Commission completed the H Block auction on February 27, 2014.

4. The Spectrum Act also amended the Commercial Spectrum Enhancement Act, Public Law 108-494, 118 Stat. 3986, 3991 (2004), codified at 47 U.S.C. 309(j), 923(g), 928 (CSEA). In 2004, the CSEA created the Spectrum Relocation

Fund (SRF) to streamline the process by which Federal incumbents can recover the costs associated with relocating their spectrum-dependent systems from spectrum bands authorized to be licensed under the Commission's competitive bidding authority.

See

47 U.S.C. 309(j), 928. The Spectrum Act extended the CSEA cost reimbursement mechanism for Federal incumbents to include sharing as well as relocation costs, and to facilitate Federal incumbents sharing of spectrum with commercial users by expanding the types of expenditures that can be funded or reimbursed from the SRF. These changes are intended to permit agencies to receive funds associated with planning for Commission auctions and relocations, spectrum sharing, the use of alternative technologies, the replacement of existing government-owned equipment with state-of-the-art systems, and the research, engineering studies, and economic analyses conducted in connection with spectrum sharing arrangements, including coordination with auction winners. The Spectrum Act also created a new category of allowable pre-auction costs that may, in certain circumstances, be funded before the start of a Commission auction of licenses for applicable eligible frequencies.

5. The conclusion of any auction of eligible frequencies reallocated from Federal use to non-Federal use or to shared use is contingent on obtaining from such auction cash proceeds amounting to at least 110 percent of the total estimated relocation or sharing costs provided to the Commission by NTIA. Proceeds attributable to the 2155-2180 MHz, 1915-1920 MHz, and 1995-2000 MHz non-Federal bands must also be deposited in the PSTF. The Spectrum Act establishes the priority for making payments or deposits from the PSTF as amounts are deposited into the Fund. Spectrum Act section 6413(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. 1457(b). Once the relocation and sharing costs of the Federal incumbents are covered, however, the remainder of the proceeds attributable to eligible Federal frequencies required to be auction under the Spectrum Act must be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund (PSTF) rather than the SRF.

CSEA Transition Planning Process.

The CSEA also requires the Commission to notify NTIA at least 18 months before the start of an auction of eligible frequencies and for NTIA to notify the Commission of estimated relocation and sharing costs associated therewith, and timelines for such relocation or sharing, at least 6 months before the start of the auction. On March 20, 2013, the Commission notified NTIA that it “plans to commence the auction of licenses in the 1695-1710 MHz band and the 1755-1780 MHz band as early as September 2014” in order to satisfy the Spectrum Act licensing deadline of February 2015. NTIA subsequently notified the affected agencies of their requirement to prepare transition plans.

7. As noted above, the Spectrum Act amended the CSEA to expand the types of costs for which Federal agencies can be reimbursed from the Spectrum Relocation Fund. It also required the Department of Commerce to adopt a common format for Transition Plans, create an expert Technical Panel to review the sufficiency of these transition plans, and adopt a process to resolve disputes regarding the execution, timing, or cost of transition plans. The Technical Panel consists of three members, one appointed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), one appointed by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, and one appointed by the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Each member must be a radio engineer or a technical expert. 47 U.S.C. 923(h)(3)(B);

see

47 CFR 301.100. The Technical Panel reviews each Federal entity's transition plan and reports on its sufficiency. 47 U.S.C. 923(h)(4);

see

47 CFR 301.120.

8. The Spectrum Act amendments to the CSEA require Federal agencies authorized to use eligible frequencies to submit a Transition Plan to NTIA and the Technical Panel no later than 240 days (

i.e.,

8 months) before the auction start date. The amendments further require the Technical Panel to submit to NTIA and the applying Federal agency a report on the sufficiency of the Transition Plan no later than 30 days after the submission of the plan (

i.e.,

7 months, or 210 days, before the auction start date). NTIA must make the Transition Plans available on its Web site with the exception of classified and other sensitive information, no later than 120 days (

i.e.,

4 months) before the auction start date. 47 U.S.C. 923(h)(5).

See also id.

sections 154(i), 303.

32.

Designation for AWS.

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission, noting NTIA's report on Federal government use of the 1755-1780 MHz band (as part of the larger 1755-1850 MHz band) and the band's potential as an extension to existing AWS spectrum, proposed uplink mobile use of the band under technical rules similar to AWS-1 uplinks in the adjacent 1710-1755 MHz band. Such use would be subject to Federal requirements, including coordination with incumbent Federal users, emerging from the CSMAC process, if transmitted by NTIA. The Commission sought comment on various methods of sharing the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the 1755-1850 MHz band, including the use of Protection Zones, Exclusion Zones, and other measures. In case the CSMAC and NTIA were unable to recommend clearly defined sharing parameters, the Commission also sought comment on whether to issue “overlay” licenses that would permit new licensees to gain access to the 1755-1780 MHz band only if they are able to reach coordination agreements with affected Federal users,

i.e.,

“operator-to-operator” coordination. The Commission also sought comment on two additional proposals that addressed commercial use of the 1755-1780 MHz band: The “Industry Roadmap” submitted by members of the wireless industry and the “DoD Proposal” submitted by DoD. In the “Industry Roadmap” the wireless industry assessed Federal operations in the band and proposed to provide industry early access to the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band. In the “DoD Proposal,” DoD also proposed to make the 1755-1780 MHz band available for auction in the near term, while protecting critical military capabilities. Specifically, DoD proposed to modify selected systems operating in the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band to operate at both 1780-1850 MHz and 2025-2110 MHz, including Small Unmanned Aerial Systems, Tactical Targeting Network Technology, Tactical Radio Relay, and High Resolution Video Systems. DoD also proposed that its Precision Guided Munitions systems would be modified to operate at 1435-1525 MHz; that its Point-to-Point Microwave Links would be modified to operate at 7125-8500 MHz; and that its DoD Video Surveillance/Robotics systems would be modified to operate at 4400-4940 MHz. DoD further proposed that specific systems, namely Satellite Operations (SATOPS), Electronic Warfare (EW), Air Combat Training System (ACTS) (where required), and Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS) at six sites, would continue to operate in the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the band, but would share that spectrum with commercial users. Finally, DoD proposed to compress its remaining operations into the 1780-1850 MHz portion of the band.

33. Apart from the statutory issue described above concerning the “additional 15 megahertz of spectrum to be identified by the Commission,” most commenters strongly favored the Commission's proposal to designate the 1755-1780 MHz band for commercial use. Commenters oppose the use of an overlay license approach to licensing the 1755-1780 MHz band, arguing that the use of such a licensing regime is premature until it is determined that clearing the spectrum for commercial users by relocation is not feasible and that mutual sharing mechanisms cannot be adopted. Issuing overlay licenses, the commenters further argued, would amount to consigning commercial mobile operations to secondary status, would create uncertainty about the nature of rights the licensee would obtain, and would be inconsistent with the Spectrum Act's preference to relocate Federal users to the maximum extent feasible. On the other hand, commenters were generally supportive of the Industry Roadmap and DoD's Proposal and urged the Commission to coordinate with NTIA to clear Federal operations from the 1755-1780 MHz portion of the 1755-1850 MHz band. CTIA argues, however, that DoD has not adequately explained or justified the need for the use of the 2025-2110 MHz band and asks why DoD needs to replace access to 25 megahertz of spectrum with access to 85 megahertz of spectrum.

34. On November 25, 2013, NTIA filed a letter enclosing and endorsing CSMAC's final reports and stating that it fully supports the DoD Proposal submitted to the Commission in July 2013, including DoD's proposal to modify certain military systems to operate at both 1780-1850 MHz, which is currently allocated for Federal use, and at 2025-2110 MHz, which is currently allocated for non-Federal fixed and mobile use and used by operators in the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS), the Cable Television Relay Service (CARS), and the Local Television Transmission Service (LTTS).

35. We note at the outset that some of CSMAC's recommendations regarding sharing are overtaken by the DoD Proposal, under which DoD will relocate most of its operations out of the 1755-1780 MHz band. NTIA has fully endorsed the DoD Proposal and submitted additional details into the record. In light of these actions, we authorize the use of the 1755-1780 MHz band for commercial services in conformance with NTIA's endorsements, the DoD Proposal, and the Spectrum Act.

36. Regarding non-DoD Federal incumbents, NTIA endorsed the findings of WG2 that the two primary video surveillance systems operating in the 1755-1850 MHz band operate in all portions of the band at any time and at any location and thus cannot share the band with commercial operators. NTIA also endorsed WG2's recommendation that EAs to be transitioned should be ranked according to industry implementation priorities, but then clarified that the industry's prioritized list would serve as an input for consideration as agencies develop their transition plans.

37. NTIA responded to CTIA's claims that DoD has not explained the need for access to the 2025-2110 MHz band or why it needs to replace 25 megahertz of spectrum with access to 85 megahertz of spectrum. NTIA explained that because the military systems that are relocating from the 1755-1780 MHz band to the 2025-2110 MHz band must share the latter band with operators in the BAS, CARS, and LTTS services and must comply with the conditions in two new proposed footnotes to the Table of Frequency Allocations, DoD needs the additional spectrum to ensure that it can maintain comparable capability of current activities. Furthermore, according to NTIA, by having access to 85 megahertz of spectrum, the Federal operations will have the flexibility they need without limiting the existing non-Federal users. Under the two new footnotes that NTIA has proposed to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations, Federal operations would be limited to the military, and new military operations would be required to be coordinated, via a memorandum of understanding between the Federal and non-Federal fixed and mobile operators in the BAS, CARS, and LTTS.

38.

2155-2180 MHz.

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed downlink/base station use of the 2155-2180 MHz band. Because the 2155-2180 MHz band is immediately above the AWS-1 downlink band (2110-2155 MHz) and immediately below the AWS-4 downlink band (2180-2200 MHz), the Commission proposed to license the 2155-2180 MHz band under rules similar to those it adopted for AWS-1 and AWS-4. Commenters agreed with the Commission's proposal.

39. We adopt the proposal in the

AWS-3 NPRM

to authorize downlink/base station use of the 2155-2180 MHz band. Licensing the 2155-2180 MHz band under technical rules similar to those for the adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-4 spectrum efficiently manages the spectrum, will improve economies of scale for mobile device equipment manufacturing, and is consistent with global standards activity in this frequency range. Moreover, downlink operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band would be compatible with similar operations in the adjacent AWS-1 band (2110-2155 MHz) and AWS-4 band (2180-2200 MHz), thus avoiding the need for guard bands. It would also harmonize the rules applicable to 2155-2180 MHz with AWS-1 and AWS-4 downlink spectrum, thus efficiently managing the spectrum and improving economies of scale for mobile device equipment manufacturing. It would also permit stations already designed for AWS-1 to be easily modified to operate at 2155-2180 MHz band, thus allowing operators to quickly deploy this spectrum for consumer use.

40.

Band-Plan for 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz. Uplink/downlink designations and pairing.

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to allow base and fixed, but not mobile, operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band and to allow mobile transmit operations (but to prohibit high-power fixed and base station operations) in the 1755-1780 MHz band. The Commission sought comment on a range of options that included configuring any of the AWS-3 bands in any number of pairings or auctioning any of the AWS-3 bands on an unpaired basis. Commenters favored allowing base and fixed, but not mobile, operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band and to allow mobile transmit operation (but to prohibit high-power fixed and base stations operations) in the 1755-1780 MHz band. Commenters overwhelmingly favored pairing the 1755-1780 MHz band with the 2155-2180 MHz band. According to Verizon, 43 countries are using this spectrum for commercial purposes and 17 of the G-20 countries have allocated this spectrum for commercial use. International harmonization will enhance international roaming, create economies of scale that lowers device costs, speed deployment, and reduce interference potential near international borders.

41. We agree with commenters that we should allow base and fixed, but not mobile, operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band and to allow mobile transmit operations in the 1755-1780 MHz band. We will also prohibit higher-power fixed and base station operations in the 1755-1780 MHz band. Designating the 1755-1780 MHz band for uplink/mobile transmit operations under service rules similar to AWS-1 is consistent with international standards in this frequency range, while designating the 2155-2180 MHz band for downlink operations is compatible with similar downlink operations in the adjacent AWS-1 band at 2110-2155 MHz and the AWS-4 band at 2180-2200 MHz. Moreover, by designating new downlink spectrum adjacent to existing downlink, the industry avoids having to add guard bands or impose significant technical limits between adjacent services, thereby increasing the amount and utility of usable spectrum. As discussed more fully below, we conclude that to facilitate coordination, uplink/mobile devices in the 1755-1780 MHz band must be under the control of, or associated with, a base station as a means to facilitate shared use of the band and prevent interference to Federal operations.

42. We also agree with commenters that there are many advantages to pairing these two bands. Pairing the 1755-1780 MHz band with the 2155-2180 MHz band adds 50 megahertz of AWS-3 spectrum to the existing 90 megahertz of AWS-1 spectrum. Thus pairing would allow carriers to combine AWS-1 and the 1755-1780/2155-2180 MHz band in a single 140 megahertz band. The 1755-1780/2155-2180 MHz pair would use the same duplex spacing as the existing AWS-1 band, thus facilitating the availability of new devices that can use this band. Allocation of the 1755-1780 MHz band for commercial use with 2155-2180 MHz also harmonizes the U.S. spectrum allocation of this band with international spectrum allocations. In summary, the record reflects that “[t]he adjacency of these bands . . . will create efficiencies by allowing the same equipment to be used for AWS-1 and AWS-3. These benefits apply not only to network infrastructure, but also to end user equipment. This, in turn, will lower deployment costs and speed LTE buildout in this spectrum. As Motorola Mobility explained, `[t]here would be significant device design benefits to pursuing this pairing. Because the 1755-1780/2155-2180 MHz pairing is symmetrical to the AWS-1 band and has the same duplex spacing, this band could be supported by existing duplexers. . . [t]hese efficiencies mean that 1755-1780/2155-2180 MHz capabilities likely could be built into devices with minimal additional cost and without a significant impact on battery life, heat production, or other performance characteristics.'” CTIA Reply Comments at 5 quoting Motorola Mobility Comments at 11.

43. Despite these advantages, we note that the Commission is statutorily barred from concluding an auction for “eligible spectrum” such as the 1755-1780 MHz band if the total cash proceeds attributable to such spectrum

are less than 110 percent of total estimated relocation or sharing costs.

See

47 U.S.C. 309(j)(16)(B), 1451(b)(3) (FCC shall not conclude any auction of eligible frequencies if the total cash proceeds attributable to such spectrum are less than 110 percent of total estimated relocation or sharing cost).

44.

Geographic Area Licensing; Service-area size(s).

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to license all AWS-3 spectrum blocks by EAs and sought comment on alternative approaches. The Commission also sought comment on whether there are costs and benefits to adopting an EA licensing approach for bands to be shared with Federal users.

45. Commenters supported one of three different geographic licensing plans: The EA licensing approach proposed by the Commission; a licensing plan based on CMAs; and a hybrid licensing approach where some licenses are based on CMAs and some are based on EAs.

46. We find that there are benefits to adopting a hybrid licensing approach for this spectrum. We note that the Commission adopted a hybrid approach in licensing AWS-1 spectrum based on EAs, Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs), and CMAs. In this case, we adopt a hybrid approach and license the 1755-1780 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands on an EA and a CMA basis.

47. Adopting a hybrid licensing plan for this spectrum will enable us to achieve several statutory objectives and policy goals. Licensing some areas by CMA will encourage the dissemination of licenses among a variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women, as required by section 309(j) of the Act. Licensing the 1755-1780 and 2155-2180 MHz bands by EA and CMA we have struck the appropriate balance between the needs of large and small carriers. Licensing some areas by EAs will enable large carriers to minimize post-licensing aggregation costs. Also, because EAs are nested within MEAs and REAGs, large carriers will be able to aggregate their spectrum into even larger areas, with minimal aggregation costs. We also note that EA license areas are a useful and appropriate geographic unit that the Commission has used for similar bands. Notably, AWS-1 Blocks B and C are licensed on an EA basis. Licensing three spectrum blocks on an EA basis best balances the Commission's goals of encouraging the offering of broadband service both to broad geographic areas and to sizeable populations while licensing one block by CMAs will enable smaller carriers to serve smaller less dense population areas that more closely fit their smaller footprints. Thus, we further find that adopting this hybrid licensing plan will help us to meet other statutory goals, including providing for the efficient use of spectrum; encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers; and promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services. We designate the spectral blocks for CMAs and EAs in the next section on Block size(s).

48.

Block size(s).

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to license the 1755-1780 and 2155-2180 MHz bands on a geographical area basis in 5 megahertz blocks and sought comment on whether it should adopt a plan using different size blocks. Commenters favored one of two approaches: Licensing the band by 5 megahertz blocks or licensing the band using a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks. Commenters favoring the first approach argue that 5 megahertz blocks align well with a variety of wireless broadband technologies (such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (W-CDMA), and High-Speed Packet Access (HSPA)), would increase wireless providers' flexibility in auction bidding, and can be aggregated to enable better performance for LTE service and greater bandwidth capacity through wider channels. Commenters that supported a combination of 5x5 megahertz and 10x10 megahertz blocks argue that a combination of license sizes maximizes both utility and efficiency.

49. We conclude that licensing the 1755-1780 and 2155-2180 MHz bands in a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks will promote rapid deployment of new technologies and services for the reasons stated below. Thus we adopt the following licensing plan: Block G at 1755-1760/2155-2160; Block H at 1760-1765/2160-2165; Block I at 1765-1770/2165-2170 MHz; and Block J at 1770-1780/2170-2180 MHz. We further determine to license the 1755-1760/2155-2160 MHz bands by CMA, and to license the remaining paired blocks by EA.

50. Using a combination of 5 and 10 megahertz blocks and a combination of CMAs and EAs will permit licensees maximum flexibility. Such a combination enables both larger and smaller carriers to participate in an auction of licenses to use this spectrum. Moreover, as commenters note, 5 megahertz blocks align well with a variety of wireless broadband technologies, including LTE, W-CDMA, and HSPA. The larger 10 megahertz block will afford larger carriers the ability to offer higher-bandwidth services, as is common in the 10 megahertz AWS-1 blocks. Such a combination may also facilitate coordination with incumbent Federal agencies. For example, designating the 1755-1760 MHz/2155-2160 MHz as the first channel block avoids frequency overlaps and minimizes potential co-channel interference issues with the Space Ground Link System (SGLS), which operates from 1761-1842 MHz.

51.

2020-2025 MHz.

The 2020-2025 MHz band is already allocated for the non-Federal fixed and mobile services and is part of the 35 megahertz (1990-2025 MHz) that the Commission repurposed in 2000 from BAS to emerging technologies such as Personal Communications Services (PCS), AWS, and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). This repurposing was possible because BAS converted nationwide from seven analog channels (each 17-18 megahertz wide) to seven digital channels (each 12 megahertz wide). In 2004, the Commission proposed to license 2020-2025 MHz for uplink/mobile use paired with 2175-2180 MHz. The Commission did not adopt this proposal and, in 2008 it proposed instead to combine 2175-2180 MHz and 2155-2175 MHz, to make a larger unpaired block at 2155-2180 MHz. The Commission did not make a further proposal for the 2020-2025 MHz band immediately above the AWS-4 uplink band (2000-2020 MHz).

52. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed uplink/mobile use of 2020-2025 MHz under rules similar to the AWS-4 rules. Although the Commission did not propose to modify the allocation for this band in the

AWS-3 NPRM,

we proposed changes to several related footnotes in the Table of Frequency Allocations.

53. T-Mobile agrees that 2020-2025 MHz should be cleared to the maximum extent possible and auctioned on a paired basis. T-Mobile states that one option would be for the Commission to consider providing DoD with access to the 2020-2025 MHz band if doing so would allow the 15 megahertz at 2095-2110 MHz to be paired with 1695-1710 MHz. However, T-Mobile states that the most appropriate use of the 2020-2025 MHz band is contingent on the outcome of the then-pending waiver request sought by DISH for flexibility to use 2000-2020 MHz for terrestrial downlink. USCC strongly urges the Commission to focus on maximizing the amount of paired spectrum in deciding which bands to license under the AWS-3 service rules. It argues that

access to paired spectrum is particularly critical for small and regional carriers that typically lack sufficient spectrum holdings to pair with newly-acquired spectrum blocks on an asymmetric basis.

54. The 2020-2025 MHz band is adjacent to the AWS-4 uplink band at 2000-2020 MHz and BAS/CARS/NASA uses at 2025-2110 MHz band. These adjacent uses create challenges with respect to the allocation of this spectrum. EIBASS notes that the band may be at risk of interference from higher-power Electronic News Gathering (ENG) transmitters operating in the 2025-2110 MHz TV BAS band (up to 65 dBm EIRP for ENG platforms vs. 33 dBm EIRP for AWS handsets). This interference would come and go on a seemingly random basis as a mobile ENG transmitter is used near an AWS base station location. This could be a challenge to the AWS user as it appears cellular/AWS use is higher at or near locations of newsworthy events, the same events that ENG trucks would be transmitting from. EIBASS notes that DISH has raised the same concern but notes that broadcasters have dealt with high-power PCS/AWS, specialized filters have been developed, and TV BAS into AWS interference should be a manageable problem.

55. DISH states that designating mobile operation in the 2020-2025 MHz band would make this band vulnerable to significant interference from adjacent Federal government and BAS users above 2025 MHz. DISH states that EIBASS agrees that BAS operations would cause interference to 2020-2025 MHz uplink operations. Regarding EIBASS's view that such interference would be manageable based on PCS/AWS filtering solutions, DISH responds that the existing PCS/AWS to BAS scenario is not representative of the more problematic scenario of interference from BAS into base stations receiving low-power, mobile uplink transmissions in the 2020-2025 MHz band. On the other hand, if 2020-2025 MHz is used for downlinks, DISH agrees with EIBASS that coordination and filtering similar to that used for AWS-1 could be used to protect BAS. Referencing its then-pending waiver request to be able to elect to utilize the 2000-2020 MHz band for downlink operations,” DISH suggests that the Commission designate 2020-2025 MHz for downlink use if the adjacent AWS-4 band is also used for downlink. If adjacent AWS-4 band is used for uplink operations, DISH states that 2020-2025 MHz also should be designated for uplinks because downlink operations would cause interference to AWS-4 uplink operations, absent severe power and OOBE restrictions to protect AWS-4 uplink operations.

56. T-Mobile and other commenters believe that the Commission may wish to evaluate how best to use the 2020-2025 MHz band but the future use of the 2020-2025 MHz band is uncertain until DISH decides whether it will be using the adjacent AWS-4 spectrum at 2000-2020 MHz for uplink or downlink operations. Sprint supports the auction of 2020-2025 MHz, and recommends that the Commission postpone making a determination on whether the band should be uplink or downlink until after it resolves DISH's waiver petition and Dish makes its election. T-Mobile states that until that time, it is premature to consider whether it may be used to support commercial wireless operations.

57. On December 20, 2013, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted DISH's request, subject to certain conditions, for flexibility to elect to use 2000-2020 MHz for either uplink or downlink operations. One of the conditions requires DISH to file its uplink or downlink election, which shall apply to all AWS-4 licenses, as soon as commercially practicable but no later than 30 months after the December 20, 2013, release date of the Bureau's order. Auctioning and licensing of the 2020-2025 MHz band is not governed by the February 2015 deadline in the Spectrum Act. We agree with some commenters that the public interest is best served by deferring action on the 2020-2025 MHz band, without prejudice to the ultimate disposition of service rules for that band.

B. Technical Rules

58. In addition to protecting other operations that will remain in the AWS-3 bands, as discussed above, we noted in the

AWS-3 NPRM

that our AWS-3 rules must take into account the potential for AWS-3 operations to cause harmful interference to operations in other service areas, in other AWS-3 blocks and in adjacent frequency bands, including both Federal and non-Federal operations. The AWS-3 NPRM therefore sought comment on what technical and operational rules were needed to protect these various services from harmful interference. Where possible, we proposed to adopt for AWS-3 the same technical requirements as apply to AWS-1, where our experience indicates that the requirements have facilitated good service while minimizing undesirable interference, and to AWS-4. However, we recognized that specific AWS-3 spectrum considerations may warrant different requirements, and we asked commenters to address any specific technical rules that they believe necessary for specific AWS-3 bands.

59. With respect to adjacent bands, two predominant types of interference can occur. The first is caused by out-of-band emissions (OOBE) that fall directly within the passband of an adjacent-band receiver. Such emissions cannot be “filtered out,” and can only be mitigated through appropriate operation of the transmitter. The second type of interference is caused by “receiver overload.” Receiver overload interference occurs when a strong signal from an adjacent band transmission falls just outside the passband of a receiver, where the front-end filter of the receiver can provide only limited attenuation of the unwanted signal. Our rules generally limit the potential for both kinds of interference by specifying OOBE and power limits.

1. OOBE Limits

60. For situations where adjacent spectrum blocks are put to similar uses, our rules commonly require that out-of-band emissions be attenuated below the transmitter power in watts (P) by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log

(P) dB outside of the licensee's frequency block. Where stricter OOBE limits apply, it is typically because adjacent spectrum blocks are put to different uses—high-power downlink in one block and low-power uplink in the other, for example—or because other special protection requirements exist. Section 27.53(h)(1) of our rules applies this standard limit to AWS-1, and § 27.53(h)(3) specifies the measurement procedure required to determine compliance with the OOBE standard. The

AWS-3 NPRM

sought comment on extending these requirements to the AWS-3 bands.

61.

Interference Protection between Adjacent Block AWS-3 Licensees.

As the

AWS-3 NPRM

noted, we anticipate that the characteristics of the future AWS-3 band systems will be essentially identical to those of AWS-1. For this reason, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed that the typical OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB is appropriate to protect AWS-3 services operating in adjacent spectrum blocks. No commenter objected to this proposal, and the record does not suggest the presence of any circumstances requiring special OOBE protection for adjacent AWS-3 spectrum blocks. We therefore adopt an attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB for emissions outside of AWS-3 licensees' frequency blocks into other AWS-3 frequency blocks.

a. Interference Protection to Services in Other Bands—Uplink Stations Operating in 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz

62.

Interference protection to operations below 1695 MHz. Meteorological operations:

The 1695-1710 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to satellite downlink spectrum at 1675-1695 MHz, which is allocated for Federal and non-Federal satellite use. The rules for the AWS-1 uplink band at 1710-1755 MHz include an OOBE attenuation factor of our standard 43 + 10 log

(P) dB in order to protect satellite downlink spectrum currently below 1710 MHz. In addition, § 27.1134(c) of the rules provides that should AWS-1 operations in the 1710-1755 MHz band cause interference to Federal Government operations below 1710 MHz, the AWS-1 licensee must take steps to eliminate the interference. The

AWS-3 NPRM

stated that the services used in this AWS-3 band will be similar to those in the AWS-1 band, and that the repurposing of 1695-1710 MHz essentially just shifts the boundary between AWS uplink and satellite downlink services down from 1710 to 1695 MHz. Accordingly, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to specify the same OOBE attenuation factor for this AWS-3 uplink band as applies to the adjacent AWS-1 uplink band, the standard 43 + 10 log

(P) dB, and to extend the obligations of § 27.1134(c) to AWS-3 operations in the 1695-1710 MHz band.

63. One commenter expressed concern that the standard OOBE limit may not provide adequate protection for adjacent-band Meteorological Satellite operations. Raytheon argued that, “[b]efore the Commission adopts an OOBE limit applicable at the 1695 MHz band edge for AWS-3 systems, sufficient testing and/or analysis should be completed to support the Commission's determination in light of the [Emergency Managers Weather Information Network] and other operations below 1695 MHz.” Raytheon errs in focusing on just one part of the regime we are establishing to protect the 1675-1695 MHz band. The OOBE attenuation factor functions together with the interference-resolution provisions of § 27.1134(c). This combination has worked satisfactorily for the AWS-1 service, and we believe it will serve equally well for AWS-3.

64.

Global Positioning System operations:

GPS operates in the 1559-1610 MHz Radionavigation-Satellite band, (47 CFR 2.106) with a center frequency of 1575.42 MHz and a maximum bandwidth of 20.46 MHz, thus occupying the frequencies 1565.19-1585.65 MHz. The GPS Innovation Alliance (GPSIA) argued that the proposed OOBE limit for the 1695-1710 MHz band “is no longer effective [in preventing interference to the Global Positioning System (GPS)] given the dramatic increase in RF devices and the [RF] noise floor.” It recommended that the Commission defer adopting an OOBE limit, and instead participate in a multi-stakeholder task group to develop new GPS spectrum interference standards. CTIA countered that “these issues are best addressed in other fora, and [that] the Commission should not allow these speculative interference concerns to delay this critical spectrum auction.”

65. The Commission has long recognized the importance of GPS and our responsibility to ensure that it receives appropriate interference protection from other radiocommunication services. However, GPSIA's arguments that the proposed OOBE limit

may

present some risk of interference do not warrant deferring action on the proposed OOBE limit. GPSIA does not support its claims with technical studies and apparently makes worst-case assumptions regarding emissions from AWS-3 mobiles;

i.e.,

“if appropriate standards are not adopted, manufacturers could begin to produce devices designed with degraded OOBE performance. . . .” In fact, as GPSIA implicitly concedes, industry standards developed for each radio interface meet or exceed the Commission's OOBE limits, often by significant amounts, and thereby provide an additional margin of interference protection. In addition, parties are free to negotiate private agreements for additional protection, as was the case with the AWS-4 spectrum.

See AWS-4 Report and Order,

27 FCC Rcd at 16152-53 paras. 121-22. These standards are developed through open working groups, which GPSIA would be free to participate in. Most significantly, however, there is no evidence—in either the record here or our experience generally—that operations in the AWS-1 band have resulted in harmful interference to GPS. AWS-1 handsets and GPS receivers coexist satisfactorily, even when they reside on the same device. The technical operation in the AWS-1 band is virtually identical to what was proposed for this AWS-3 band: Both bands would be populated by low-power mobile devices, both would be governed by the standard 43 + 10 log

(P) dB OOBE attenuation factor, and both are similarly separated in frequency from the GPS band. In short, for all these reasons, we believe the possibility of harmful interference to GPS is extremely unlikely.

66. Further, suspending this proceeding to reexamine interference standards would likely make it impossible to meet the statutory requirement that this spectrum be licensed by February 2015. In light of our findings above, we believe that the better course is to proceed based on the record herein. Of course we will continue to explore new ways to maximize spectrum efficiency. For example, in ET Docket No. 13-101 we are considering recommendations of the Commission's Technological Advisory Council regarding the use of harm claim thresholds to improve the interference tolerance of wireless systems. Such proceedings provide a more appropriate vehicle to consider evolution of regulatory requirements, including how to transition incumbents to new standards, if that should be necessary.

67. We therefore adopt for the 1695-1710 MHz band an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB below 1695 MHz.

b. Interference Protection to Operations Above 1710 MHz

68. The 1695-1710 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS-1 uplink spectrum at 1710-1755 MHz. Because we anticipate that the services used in these adjacent bands will be similar, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to specify the same OOBE attenuation factor for this AWS-3 band as applies to the adjacent AWS-1 band, the standard 43 + 10 log

(P) dB. No commenter objected to this proposal, and the record does not suggest the presence of any circumstances requiring special OOBE protection for the adjacent AWS-1 band. We therefore adopt for this band an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB above 1710 MHz.

69.

Interference protection to operations below 1755 MHz.

Likewise, the 1755-1780 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is adjacent to AWS-1 uplink spectrum at 1710-1755 MHz, where we anticipate similar use. Thus the

AWS-3 NPRM

again proposed the same OOBE attenuation factor for this AWS-3 uplink band as applies to the adjacent AWS uplink band, 43 + 10 log

(P) dB. Again, no commenter objected to this proposal, and the record does not suggest the presence of any circumstances requiring special OOBE protection for the adjacent AWS-1 band. We therefore adopt for this band an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB below 1755 MHz.

70.

Interference protection to operations above 1780 MHz.

The 1755-1780 MHz AWS-3 uplink band is

adjacent to Federal operations at 1780-1850 MHz. The

AWS-3 NPRM

observed that the proposal to designate this band for AWS-3 use would merely shift the boundary between AWS and adjacent-band services, with no significant change in the uses on either side of the boundary. The

AWS-3 NPRM

therefore proposed to maintain the OOBE attenuation factor for the present boundary (

i.e.,

the AWS-1 limit) for this AWS-3 band, again the standard 43 + 10 log

(P) dB. No commenters dissented from this proposal, and the record does not suggest the presence of any circumstances requiring special OOBE protection for the adjacent Federal operations. We therefore adopt for this band an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB above 1780 MHz.

c. Interference Protection to Services in Other Bands—Base Stations Operating in 2155-2180 MHz

71. The 2155-2180 MHz AWS-3 downlink band lies between AWS-1 downlink spectrum at 2110-2155 MHz and AWS-4/MSS downlink spectrum at 2180-2200 MHz. Because we anticipate that operations in 2155-2180 MHz and in the adjacent downlink bands will be similar, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed that our standard OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB would be sufficient to protect AWS-1 and AWS-4/MSS receivers operating in the adjacent bands. No commenters objected to this proposal, and the record does not suggest the presence of any circumstances requiring special OOBE protection for the adjacent AWS-1 and AWS-4/MSS bands. Therefore, we adopt for this band an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log

(P) dB both below 2155 MHz and above 2180 MHz.

d. Measurement of OOBE

72. The Commission's rules generally specify how to measure the power of the emissions, such as the measurement bandwidth. For AWS-1, AWS-4 and PCS, the measurement bandwidth used to determine compliance with this limit for fixed, mobile, and base stations is generally 1 megahertz, with some modification within the first megahertz immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block. The

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to apply this same method to all transmissions in the AWS-3 bands, and sought comment on this proposal. The only party commenting on this proposal supported it. Since there is no opposition to our proposal, and in order to treat the AWS-3 bands in an equivalent manner to other similar bands, we therefore adopt the same requirement for AWS-3 emission limits.

2. Antenna Height Restrictions

73. The

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed that the flexible antenna height rules applicable to AWS-1 base stations should also govern AWS-3 base stations. In addition, since the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed not to authorize fixed operations in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands, it tentatively concluded that no special antenna height restrictions are needed for those bands.

74.

Base Stations (2155-2180 MHz).

Part 27 of the Commission's rules does not set out specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-1 base stations. However, pursuant to § 27.56, all services operating under part 27 are required to limit base station antenna heights to elevations that do not present a hazard to air navigation. Additionally, the limitations of field strength at the geographical boundary of the license discussed below effectively limit antenna heights. As a result, because of these inherent height limitations, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed that unique antenna height limits were not needed for AWS-3 facilities, and that the general height restrictions of part 27 would be sufficient.

75. The only comments addressing the issue supported this proposal. As the

AWS-3 NPRM

noted, two rules effectively limit base station antenna heights: § 27.56 regarding safety of air navigation and § 22.55(a) limiting the field strength of base station signals at the edge of a licensee's geographic service area. In addition, Motorola commented that “the need for spectral reuse” provides a third inhibitor of base station antenna height. For all these reasons, we find no need for a special restriction on the antenna height of AWS-3 base stations operating in the 2155-2180 MHz band.

76.

Fixed Stations (1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz).

The

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to prohibit fixed stations in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands, because in defining Protection Zones, CSMAC's assumptions did not consider the possibility of commercial fixed uplinks. A fixed station is “a station in the fixed service,” which consists of stations at specified fixed points that communicate with each other. 47 CFR 27.4. The

AWS-3 NPRM

therefore tentatively concluded that no antenna height limit would be necessary for these bands. Only one party specifically addressed this issue: Verizon stated that “the authorization of fixed high gain antennas in these bands could cause interference to government operations and thus the FCC should prohibit their use in these bands.” We believe that permitting fixed stations in these uplink bands would unduly complicate sharing with Government incumbents, and that the lack of comments asking us to provide for fixed station use in these bands indicates there is no significant demand for it. We therefore adopt the

AWS-3 NPRM's

proposal to prohibit fixed stations from operating in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands. And with no fixed stations in these bands, there is no need for an antenna height limit, so we will not adopt antenna height restrictions for the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands at this time.

3. Power Limits

77. We will apply the existing AWS-1 EIRP limits to the AWS-3 downlink band at 2155-2180 MHz, as proposed in the

AWS-3 NPRM.

The

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to depart from the AWS-1 EIRP limits for the AWS-3 uplink bands at 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz, because CSMAC and NTIA recommendations for sharing these bands with Federal incumbents were based on assumed baseline LTE uplink characteristics, which specify that lower EIRP levels would be used. These assumptions were set out in Appendix 3 of the WG1 Final Report. WG1 Final Report, App. 3 (Baseline LTE Uplink Characteristics). This document reflects the consensus of the LTE Technical Characteristics group of the CSMAC Working Groups. Participants included numerous Federal and non-Federal representatives. Consistent with our policy supporting flexible use where possible, we are not adopting technical rules requiring AWS-3 licensees to comply with LTE or any other particular industry standard. Nonetheless, we are adopting Protection Zones for Federal incumbents based on the power levels used for the CSMAC studies, while also requiring larger Protection Zones that would apply should AWS-3 licensees propose to operate uplink stations above 20 dBm EIRP.

78.

Base Stations (2155-2180 MHz).

The current AWS-1 rules limit base station power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than 1 megahertz and to 1640 watts per megahertz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than 1 megahertz, and double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or 3280 watts/MHz) in rural areas. The AWS-1 rules also require that licensees with base stations employing transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP coordinate with affected licensees authorized to operate within 120 kilometers (75 miles)

and with certain satellite entities. Parallel provisions apply to broadband PCS and AWS-4 stations.

79. The

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to apply similar requirements to AWS-3 base stations operating in the 2155-2180 MHz band because these rules have provided good service while avoiding harmful interference. Specifically, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to limit base station power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than 1 megahertz and to 1640 watts per megahertz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than 1 megahertz, and double these limits (3280 watts EIRP or 3280 watts/MHz) in rural areas. For AWS-3 base stations with transmit power above 1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to require coordination with the following licensees authorized to operate within 120 kilometers (75 miles) of the AWS-3 base or fixed station: All BRS licensees authorized in the 2150-2162 MHz band and all AWS licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the AWS-3 band, the 2110-2155 MHz band or the 2180-2200 MHz band. Because of the spectral separation between the 2155-2180 MHz band and the 2025-2110 MHz satellite band, however, the

AWS-3 NPRM

did not propose to require coordination with these operators.

80. Commenters generally supported the Commission's proposed technical rules, specifically advocating adoption of regulations consistent with those applicable to the AWS-1 spectrum; no commenter opposed the proposals for base station power limits. The Commission typically adopts the same rules for similar adjacent band services, and we see no compelling reason to do otherwise here. Accordingly we adopt the AWS-3 base station power limits proposed in the

AWS-3 NPRM

and described in the preceding paragraph.

81.

Mobile and Portable Stations (1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz).

For AWS uplink bands, our rules specify different power limits for different bands, depending on each band's particular circumstances. AWS-4 uplinks are generally limited to 2 watts EIRP, while AWS-1 uplinks are limited to 1 watt EIRP in order to simplify coordination with Government operations that remain in the AWS-1 uplink band, a situation that the AWS-4 band did not present. In this respect the two AWS-3 uplink bands under consideration here are similar to the AWS-1 uplink band in that they all contain Government operations, and this circumstance requires careful consideration of the power limit in order to assure satisfactory sharing of the bands with Government incumbents.

82. As described above, in conducting studies for coexistence of commercial and Federal systems in the AWS-3 uplink bands, CSMAC made assumptions about the power output of typical commercial user equipment for the purpose of defining Protection Zones. Specifically, CSMAC assumed that typical commercial user equipment will be LTE devices. The LTE standard sets a maximum transmitter power output (TPO) of 23 dBm. CSMAC's analysis indicates that such devices will have an actual EIRP varying between -40 dBm and 20 dBm, however, due to power control and typical antenna gains/losses. CSMAC used these EIRP values to assume a maximum power of 20 dBm EIRP (100 mW) for the purpose of defining the Protection Zones. For this reason, the Commission proposed to limit power to the 20 dBm EIRP for mobiles and portables operating in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands.

83. The Commission also noted its intent to adopt flexible-use service rules for the AWS-3 band supporting terrestrial wireless service and that it was not proposing to mandate the use of any industry standard. In this regard, the Commission observed that similar commercial mobile services such as PCS, AWS-1, and the 700 MHz band deploy handsets using a variety of technologies, including CDMA and UMTS, as well as LTE, whose devices most commonly operate at a maximum EIRP of 23 dBm (200 mW) regardless of higher FCC power limits such as the maximum EIRP limit of 1 watt (30 dBm) for the AWS-1 uplink band. Recognizing that the Commission's technical rules will govern all devices nationwide, rather than typical devices operating near Federal incumbents, the Commission sought comment on whether the benefits of a higher power limit would outweigh the increased burden of having to coordinate more commercial operations with Federal incumbents. The

AWS-3 NPRM

further proposed that mobile and portable stations operating in these bands must employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.

84. While the 20 dBm EIRP figure is a reasonable assumption from which to determine the area where the potential for interference requires coordination with incumbents, a power limit higher than proposed is feasible, so long as the size of the Protection Zones reflects whatever limit we adopt so that, if a licensee proposes to operate above 20 dBm EIRP, this higher power factors into the coordination analysis.

85. Wireless industry commenters nearly unanimously supported the benefits of a higher power limit over the increased burden of coordination. AT&T suggested that a 20 dBm EIRP limit “would effectively require the adoption of a separate 3GPP standard for AWS-3.” Motorola argued that the proposed 20 dBm limit is inherently flawed because it was based on the 23 dBm total power output limit set by the LTE standard, less 3 dB in assumed losses from issues such as negative antenna gain. Actual losses, it said, will be greater, which justifies a higher power limit in the Commission's rules. Further, Motorola notes the important role of automatic power control in mobile networks, citing a 3GPP simulation showing that “the average transmit power across all devices in a mobile network is below 1 dBm and that 95 percent of all devices transmit with a power below 7 dBm.” DISH makes a similar argument regarding automatic power control, and also notes that the Interference Power Spectral Density level can be controlled by limiting the number of simultaneously transmitting mobiles around Protection Zones, rather than restricting the mobile maximum power to 20 dBm, thus preserving the current Protection Zone boundaries. DISH adds that limiting the number of simultaneous mobile transmissions has an added advantage of providing protection while preserving wireless coverage footprints typical LTE devices can support. These commenters suggest a range of alternatives for the AWS-3 uplink power limit, including 23 dBm, 23 dBm +/−2 dB or 25 dBm (all based on the LTE standard), and 30 dBm (the AWS-1 limit).

86. On the other hand, Raytheon argued that “[f]ailure to mandate an LTE standard could impact directly the validity, already qualified, of the analysis determining the proposed contours of the Protection Zones. . . . [I]f the Commission chooses to forego mandating use of the LTE standard by auction winners, the Commission should establish

larger

Protection Zones to create an umbrella allowing for the use of other standards.”

87. Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the benefits of a higher EIRP limit outweigh the burden of additional coordination. Therefore, for the sake of uniformity among AWS-1 and AWS-3 equipment requirements and to facilitate industry standard setting in accordance with the basic interoperability requirement that we adopt herein for 1710-1780 MHz stations, we adopt an AWS-3 uplink

power limit of 30 dBm EIRP. We emphasize that this EIRP limit is largely a matter of equipment certification and that AWS-3 licensees are not authorized, as a matter of right, prior to successful coordination, to operate mobile and portable stations up to this EIRP limit. Additionally, we agree with Raytheon that the Protection Zones must be properly calibrated to account for any operations above 20 dBm EIRP. We also adopt the

AWS-3 NPRM's

uncontested proposal to require that mobile and portable stations operating in these bands employ a means for limiting power to the minimum necessary for successful communications.

88. Accordingly, the 27 Protection Zones for 1695-1710 MHz will be defined at two maximum protection distance scenarios: operations up to 20 dBm EIRP, as proposed in the

AWS-3 NPRM,

and operations above 20 dBm EIRP up to 30 dBm EIRP. The Protection Zones are the product of consultations between the Commission and NTIA. For base stations that enable mobiles to operate with a maximum EIRP greater than 20 dBm, up to a maximum EIRP of 30 dBm, nationwide coordination will be required. These requirements reflect the optimum scenarios for AWS-3/Federal sharing of these bands, and provide ample opportunity to ensure that incumbent Federal operations are fully protected. The real-time spectrum monitoring systems that Federal incumbents are planning will also, once deployed, help to maximize commercial use of the band while protecting Federal meteorological-satellite receive stations.

89. For the 1755-1780 MHz band, the default Protection Zone is nationwide. Therefore, all AWS-3 operations in this band, including proposals to operate above 20 dBm EIRP, will have to be successfully coordinated with all relevant Federal incumbents. In the coming months, the Commission and NTIA intend to jointly issue one or more public notices establishing coordination procedures and, if possible, more refined Protection Zones for operations up to 20 dBm EIRP. This forthcoming action will not affect operations above 20 dBm EIRP (and up to the 30 dBm EIRP limit) for which the nationwide Protection Zone will remain applicable.

90. We also recognize CSMAC's suggestion that the aggregate signal level from all licensees measured as a power flux density at the geostationary orbit (GSO) arc should not exceed −179 dBW/Hz/m

. CSMAC concluded that it is unlikely that the aggregate power flux density from user devices at the GSO arc will reach −179 dBW/Hz/m

and that AWS operations are unlikely to impact Federal Space Operations reception in the GSO arc, assuming user devices operate with a maximum EIRP of 20 dBm. Further, the

WG3 Final Report

indicated that there is a positive 7.6 dB margin at the −179 dBW/Hz/m

power flux density level, and AWS-3 mobile devices will typically operate with significantly lower EIRP levels than assumed in the

WG3 Final Report.

We nonetheless recognize the legitimate issue of aggregate power flux density possibly affecting incumbent operations and that Federal satellite operators will routinely monitor the aggregate power flux density level at the satellites. AWS-3 licensees are on notice that the Commission will revisit the matter and take appropriate action if it is demonstrated that the aggregate power flux density level from all mobile devices in a 10 megahertz bandwidth in the 1761-1780 MHz band could impact Federal Space Operations reception in the GSO arc,

i.e.,

is approaching −179 dBW/Hz/m

4. Co-Channel Interference Between AWS-3 Systems

91. As discussed above, we determine to license AWS-3 on an EA and CMA geographic license area basis. The Commission observed in the

AWS-3 NPRM

that should this spectrum be licensed on a less than nationwide basis, it would be necessary to ensure that licensees do not cause harmful interference to co-channel systems operating along their common geographic boundaries. To resolve any such interference, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed to adopt a boundary limit approach, with a boundary field strength limit of 47 dBμV/m, the same as applies to other services similar to AWS-3, including AWS-1 and AWS-4. The alternative would be to require prior coordination of base stations located near geographic boundaries. The

AWS-3 NPRM

noted that some commenters in other proceedings have suggested that the boundary limit be adjusted to accommodate varying channel bandwidths, and sought comment on these options. The

AWS-3 NPRM

also sought comment on its proposal that licensees operating in adjoining areas should be permitted to employ alternative, agreed-upon signal limits at their common borders. Except for T-Mobile, which argued that the field strength limit be adjusted to accommodate for varying channel bandwidths, commenters did not oppose the Commission's proposals to protect adjacent licensees from co-channel interference.

92. We adopt the proposed boundary limit approach for co-channel interference. As discussed above, the Commission will license AWS-3 on a geographic area basis that is less than nationwide,

i.e.,

an EA and CMA basis. To prevent licensees that operate systems along common geographic borders from causing harmful interference to one another, the Commission must provide operating limits to ensure such licensees do not cause interference to co-channel systems. Adopting a boundary limit approach establishes a default standard, which will enable licensees to deploy facilities in boundary areas without the need for prior coordination. (Licensees may use this operating limit as a starting point for negotiations to exceed the limits with agreement of adjacent area licensees.) Moreover, in other bands where spectrum has been allocated for fixed and mobile services, similar to AWS-3, the Commission has uniformly adopted the boundary limit method to minimize harmful co-channel interference. For instance, the PCS, AWS-1, AWS-4 and H-Block bands all use a boundary limit approach. In response to the Commission's proposal, no commenter supported a coordination requirement rather than the boundary limit approach. Consequently, we find that a boundary limit approach is the best method to address potential harmful co-channel interference between licensees operating in adjacent geographic regions.

93. We set the field strength limit at the boundary at 47 dBμV/m. As the Commission observed in the

AWS-3 NPRM,

in other bands where spectrum has been allocated for fixed and mobile services and licensed for flexible use, similar to AWS-3, the Commission has generally adopted a boundary field strength limit of 47 dBμV/m. For example, in the PCS, AWS-1, AWS-4 and H-Block bands, the Commission adopted a field strength limit of 47 dBμV/m at the boundary of licensed geographic areas. Because this limit has worked well in limiting co-channel interference in other bands, we find it appropriate to adopt it here for the similarly situated AWS-3.

94. In adopting this boundary limit, we decline to adopt the alternative limit proposed by T-Mobile. While supporting the boundary limit approach used in other bands, T-Mobile asserted that we should modify the boundary limit to set a reference measurement bandwidth, as proposed by Sprint in WT Docket No. 12-357. In making this recommendation, T-Mobile claimed that because today's LTE transmissions operate on wider channels than earlier legacy technologies, a 47 dBμV/m limit will effectively result in a comparatively

lower field strength limit. Specifically, T-Mobile proposed to adjust the field strength limit from 47 dBμV/m to 54 dBμV/m per megahertz “which is based on GSM technology and provides a 7 dB increase over today's rules.”

95. Although we agree with T-Mobile that a boundary limit that adjusts for large differences in channel bandwidths may be appropriate, we are not persuaded that either Sprint or T-Mobile's proposed limit represents the most appropriate solution. Sprint derived the value for the field strength based on a comparison against a 30 kHz Digital Amps signal, and T-Mobile did not explain how it derived its proposed limit. Other technologies may be a more appropriate reference upon which to base the value for the field strength. Also, there are other metrics that may be used to limit the signal at the boundary, such as power flux density. We observe that the Commission has already adopted a bandwidth-independent approach when setting boundary limits with Canada and Mexico. For example, certain international limits are expressed as a power flux density (

i.e.,

dBW/m

/MHz), a measure of power, whereas field strength is a measurement of voltage. As Sprint noted, other parties have proposed to set boundary limits in a bandwidth neutral manner, but there is no established consensus on what the value of the limit should be. With no consensus regarding an alternative boundary limit approach, we are not prepared to adopt any particular approach at this time. We intend to explore the issue of whether to apply a measurement bandwidth to co-channel boundary limits in future service rules proceedings, and we encourage all interested parties to explore this issue in such proceedings to develop a full record of the technical concerns and ramifications of such an approach.

96. Finally, we adopt the Commission's proposal that adjacent affected area licensees may voluntarily agree upon higher field strength boundary levels than the 47 dBμV/m we adopt above. This concept is already codified in the field strength rules for both PCS and AWS services. No party opposed extending this approach to AWS-3. Accordingly, to maintain consistency with the PCS and other AWS bands, we permit adjacent area licensees to agree to a higher field strength limit.

5. Co-Channel Interference to BRS Channels 1 and 2

97. The AWS-1 rules include provisions that protect BRS Channel 1 (2150-2156 MHz) and Channel 2/2A (2156-2160/62 MHz) while the band transitions from BRS to AWS use. 47 CFR 27.1132, 27.1250-27.1255. These BRS provisions will expire in 2021, 15 years after the first AWS license was issued in the band, at which time any remaining BRS licensees in the band will lose primary status.

Id.

§ 27.1253(a). The Commission's licensing records reflect that there are fewer than five BRS incumbents licensed on these channels and that most of the stations use Channels 1 and/or 2/2A for fixed broadband uplink. Because these BRS channels will be co-channel to some licenses in the AWS-3 downlink band at 2155-2180 MHz, the

AWS-3 NPRM

proposed that the same AWS-1 provisions in §§ 27.1132 and 27.1255 be applied to future AWS-3 licensees operating in the 2155-2180 MHz band. No parties commented on this proposal. Therefore, and in the absence of any compelling reason to do otherwise, we adopt the same provisions in §§ 27.1132 and 27.1255 for AWS-3 licensees operating in the 2155-2180 MHz band.

6. Base Station Control of Mobile or Portable Devices in 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz Bands

98. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

we proposed to require mobile or portable devices operating in bands shared with Federal incumbents to be under the control of a base station. T-Mobile did not oppose this requirement, but suggested allowing an exception “to allow devices to operate that are not under the control of a base station if that can be accomplished in a manner consistent with protection requirements to Federal operations.” Raytheon opposed codifying T-Mobile's proposed exception, stating that such flexibility might be considered pursuant to a specific coordination scenario as long as Federal agencies are not obligated to consent to such use.

99. T-Mobile also noted that any control requirement should be consistent with LTE mobile operations, which it described as follows:

Prior to transmitting, LTE user devices listen for system information being broadcast by the base station. Based on the system information, the user device will transmit a RACH (Random Access Channel), in order to get the cell to grant downlink/uplink radio resources. Because the mobile device does not transmit until receiving system information from the base station, the mobile device is clearly under the control of the base station. . . .

100. As discussed above, in order to facilitate Federal coordination, uplink/mobile devices in the 1695-1710 MHz and 1755-1780 MHz bands must be under the control of, or associated with, a base station as a means to facilitate shared use of the band and prevent interference to Federal operations. We agree with T-Mobile that LTE user devices operating as T-Mobile describes would meet this control requirement. However, we are not persuaded to codify the general exception that T-Mobile suggests, because the proposal lacks the specificity necessary to assure us that it would prevent interference to Federal incumbents.

7. Receiver Performance

101. The

AWS-3 NPRM

sought comment on the potential for AWS-3 operations to cause receiver overload or other interference to non-AWS operations below 1695 MHz, above 1780 MHz, above 2025 MHz, and above 2180 MHz. No commenter addressed this issue directly, and the only comments suggesting the possibility of interference to adjacent non-AWS services were those urging special OOBE protection below 1695 MHz. We have addressed these comments in connection with finalizing the AWS-3 OOBE limits, and no interference issues remain to be considered.

8. Compliance With Industry Standard

102. In response to the Commission's request for comment on any other technical rules that may be required, some commenters encouraged us to mandate use of the LTE air interface standard in the AWS-3 spectrum, while some urged us to adopt an equipment interoperability requirement. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission acknowledged that CSMAC made technical assumptions about commercial operations that assumed baseline LTE uplink characteristics and that some technical rules must accommodate CSMAC's assumptions or the Protection Zones might have to be redrawn. But the Commission emphasized that it was not proposing rules to require AWS-3 licensees to comply with any particular industry standard such as LTE. Rather, in accordance with the Spectrum Act, the Commission intended to propose flexible use service rules for the AWS-3 band. The Commission also observed that similar commercial mobile services such as PCS, AWS-1, and the 700 MHz band deploy handsets using a variety of technologies, including CDMA and UMTS, as well as LTE. AIA expressed concern “[w]hether spectrum sharing and coordination rules can be established when there is currently no proposed requirement for AWS-3 licensees to comply with any particular industry standard such as LTE.” And as noted above, Raytheon argued that if the Commission did not

mandate use of the LTE standard, it should “establish

larger

Protection Zones to create an umbrella allowing for the use of other standards.” T-Mobile disagreed, stating that “While LTE is currently the favored standard, it may be supplanted in the future. An LTE mandate would hamstring innovation and development and be contrary to the Commission's policy to preserve technical flexibility and refrain from imposing technical standards.”

103. We agree with T-Mobile that locking licensees into a particular technology indefinitely is not warranted. Mandating a particular industry standard such as LTE would hamstring innovation and development and be contrary to the Commission's policy to preserve technical flexibility and refrain from imposing unnecessary technical standards. Instead, we seek to adopt those minimum requirements necessary to protect against interference or effectuate other compelling public interest objectives. As discussed above, the LTE standard was used to determine Protection Zones for the 1695-1710 MHz band, but that does not require its adoption for all purposes. Where the rules that we adopt today differ from proposed rules that reflected CSMAC's assumptions, we also adopt corresponding changes to the coordination zones. As discussed below, for the 1755-1780 MHz band, the coordination requirement applies nationwide, and not just to designated Protection Zones. If in the future a licensee decides to use a technology other than LTE, the licensee will still be subject to our technical rules. If the technology complies with our rules but nonetheless poses a greater risk of interference to incumbent Federal operations, this development can be addressed as part of the required coordination process. Accordingly, we see no reason to mandate use of LTE in the AWS-3 bands.

9. Canadian and Mexican Coordination

104. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission observed that § 27.57(c) of the rules provides that AWS-1 and AWS-4 operations are subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada, and proposed to apply the same limitation to the AWS-3 bands. No comments were submitted on this proposal. In order to ensure efficient use of the spectrum and interference-free operations in the border areas near Canada and Mexico, the Commission routinely works with the United States Department of State and Canadian and Mexican government officials. Until such time as any adjusted agreements, as needed, between the United States, Mexico and/or Canada can be agreed to, AWS-3 operations must not cause harmful interference across the border, consistent with the terms of the agreements currently in force. The list of agreements includes the “Protocol Concerning the Transmission and Reception of Signals from Satellites for the Provisions of Mobile-Satellite Services and Associated Feeder links in the United States of America and the United Mexican States.” We note that further modifications of the rules might be necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands.

10. Other Technical Issues

105. In addition to the specific technical issues addressed above, the Commission also noted several rules that apply to part 27 services generally, and proposed applying them to the AWS-3 bands as well. Specifically, the Commission proposed applying the following rule sections: 27.51 Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 Frequency stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns. The Commission reasoned that because AWS-3 will be a part 27 service, these rules should apply to all AWS-3 licensees, including those who acquire licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. No commenters opposed this proposal. Accordingly, because these rules generally apply to all part 27 services, and because, as we explain below, we find it appropriate to license the AWS-3 spectrum under our part 27 regulatory framework, we conclude that the potential benefits of our proposal would outweigh any potential costs and adopt the proposal to apply these additional part 27 rules to AWS-3 licensees. The Commission recently deleted § 27.63. Rules governing disturbance of AM broadcast station antenna patterns are now contained in subpart BB of part 1, 47 CFR 1.30000-1.30004.

C. Licensing and Operating Rules; Regulatory Issues

106. The licensing and operating rules we adopt below provide AWS-3 licensees with the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for this spectrum. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission sought comment on the appropriate license term, criteria for renewal, and other licensing and operating rules pertaining to the AWS-3 band. In addition, the Commission sought comment on the potential impact of all of our proposals on competition. Herein, we adopt a set of service rules that set forth the license term, performance requirements, and license renewal criteria and establish secondary market transaction and permanent discontinuance rules for all AWS-3 wireless licenses. We also affirm that other rule parts that pertain generally to wireless communication services will similarly apply to AWS-3 licensees.

107.

Assignment of Licenses.

The Spectrum Act states that the Commission shall grant new initial licenses for the 1695-1710 MHz and 2155-2180 MHz bands, and 15 additional megahertz of contiguous spectrum to be identified by the Commission, through a system of competitive bidding pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed for all AWS-3 bands, including 1755-1780 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz, to license on a geographic area basis, which would permit the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications. As such, the Commission proposed to resolve all AWS-3 applications and assign licenses through competitive bidding consistent with our statutory mandate.

108. We adopt the Commission's proposal to assign initial licenses for the AWS-3 bands through a system of competitive bidding. Further, we adopt the Commission's proposal to license AWS-3 spectrum bands on a geographic area basis and permit the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications. AT&T, for example, agrees that the “initial assignments, in accordance with Congress' mandate, should be through a system of competitive bidding.” Thus, as detailed below, we adopt rules to govern the use of a competitive bidding process for licensing all AWS-3 bands, including 1755-1780 MHz and 2020-2025 MHz.

109.

Flexible Use.

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

consistent with the Spectrum Act's mandate to license according to flexible use service rules, the Commission proposed and sought comment on service rules that permit a licensee to employ the spectrum for any non-Federal use permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations, subject to the Commission's part 27 flexible use and other applicable rules (including service rules to avoid harmful interference). Part 27 licensees must also comply with other Commission rules of general applicability.

See

47 CFR 27.3. In addition, flexible use in international border areas is subject to any existing or future international agreements. Thus, the Commission proposed that the spectrum may be used for any fixed or

mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for the band. The Commission sought comment on whether any restrictions are warranted and how such restrictions would comport with the statutory mandates of section 6401 of the Spectrum Act.

110. In accordance with the Spectrum Act's direction to license according to flexible use service rules, we will license the AWS-3 spectrum under part 27. We received no comments on this specific proposal but found general support in the record for permitting flexible use. The part 27 rules provide a broad and flexible regulatory framework for licensing spectrum, enabling the spectrum to be used for a wide variety of broadband services, thereby promoting innovation and efficient use of the spectrum.

111.

Regulatory Framework.

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

we proposed licensing AWS-3 spectrum in accordance with the flexible regulatory framework of part 27 of our rules. We sought comment on our proposal to license the AWS-3 band under part 27's service and licensing rules, and any associated costs or benefits of doing so. We believe that our part 27 rules are consistent with the Spectrum Act's requirement for “flexible-use service rules.”

112. We adopt the Commission's proposal to license AWS-3 spectrum in accordance with the flexible regulatory framework of part 27 of our rules. We received no comments on this issue. We note that unlike other rule parts applicable to specific services, part 27 does not prescribe a comprehensive set of licensing and operating rules for the spectrum to which it applies. Rather, for each frequency band under its umbrella, part 27 defines permissible uses and any limitations thereon, and specifies basic licensing requirements.

113.

Regulatory Status.

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to apply the regulatory status provisions of § 27.10 of the Commission's rules to licensees in the AWS-3 band. Specifically, § 27.10 requires license applicants to identify the regulatory status of the services they intend to provide, and permits applicants and licensees to request common carrier status, non-common carrier status, private internal communications status, or a combination of these options, for authorization in a single license (or to switch between them). The Commission also proposed that if a licensee changes the service or services it offers such that its regulatory status would change, it must notify the Commission within 30 days of the change.

114. We adopt the proposal to apply § 27.10 of our rules, 47 CFR 27.10, to AWS-3 licensees. Under this flexible regulatory approach, AWS-3 licensees may provide common carrier, non-common carrier, private internal communications or any combination of these services, so long as the provision of service otherwise complies with applicable service rules. We find that this broad licensing framework is likely to achieve efficiencies in the licensing and administrative process and will provide flexibility to the marketplace, thus encouraging licensees to develop new and innovative services. Moreover, by applying this requirement to AWS-3 licensees, we will treat them the same as other part 27 licensees, all of whom are subject to this rule. Although no commenters directly address this issue, commenters do support increased regulatory flexibility generally. We conclude that this approach is in the public interest and that its benefits likely outweigh any potential costs.

115. We remind potential applicants that an election to provide service on a common carrier basis requires that the elements of common carriage be present; otherwise the applicant must choose non-common carrier status.

See

47 U.S.C. 153(44) (“A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act”);

see also

47 CFR 27.12(b). In the

H Block R&O,

the Commission also adopted an amendment to its rules to implement section 6004 by adding a national security certification to the application to participate in competitive bidding.

See

47 CFR 1.2105(a)(2)(xii). The Commission noted that this revised restriction will govern most of the AWS-3 spectrum and that, until appropriate application forms are revised, applicants for spectrum subject to section 6004 will be required to include a certification as an attachment to the application and for applicants that are not individuals, the same attribution standards that were adopted for short-form applications will apply. One commenter, Mobile Future, addressed the larger issue of the open eligibility proposal by commenting that it supports such an approach.

122. We find that nothing in the record demonstrates that we should adopt restrictions on open eligibility. Therefore, we find that open eligibility for the AWS-3 band is consistent with our statutory mandate to promote the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services; economic opportunity and competition; and the efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.

See

47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(A), (B), & (D). We note, however, that applicants for AWS-3 licenses must comply with any licensing qualifications required by statute or rule. We conclude, based on the record before us, that the potential benefits of open eligibility for the AWS-3 band outweigh any potential costs.

123. Section 27.12(b) of the Commission's rules provides that “[a] person described in 47 U.S.C. 1404(c) is ineligible to hold a license that is required by 47 U.S.C. Chapter 13 (Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Public Law 112-96, 125 Stat. 156 (2012)) to be assigned by a system of competitive bidding under section 309(j) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. 309(j).” We conclude that this provision governs the 1695-1710 MHz band, the 1755-1780 MHz band and the 2155-2180 MHz band as explained in the

AWS-3 NPRM.

Because we are pairing 1755-1780 MHz (15 megahertz of which we have identified as the “additional fifteen megahertz of contiguous spectrum” under the Spectrum Act) with 2155-2180 MHz (all of which is subject to the Spectrum Act), we will treat all 50 megahertz as subject to the statutory restriction.

124.

Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies.

Spectrum is an essential input for the provision of mobile wireless services, and ensuring access to and the availability of sufficient spectrum is crucial to promoting the competition that drives innovation and investment. Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the Communications Act provides that, in designing systems of competitive bidding, the Commission shall “promot[e] economic opportunity and competition and ensur[e] that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible to the American people by avoiding excessive concentration of licenses.” Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act amends section 309(j) to bar the Commission from “prevent[ing] a person from participating in a system of competitive bidding” thereunder if such person satisfies specified qualifications criteria. However, that provision does not affect any authority the Commission has “to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including rules concerning spectrum aggregation that promote competition.” In September 2012, the Commission initiated a proceeding to review the mobile spectrum holdings policies that currently apply to both secondary market transactions and competitive bidding. The Commission indicated that, during the pendency of this proceeding, the Commission will continue to apply its current case-by-case approach to evaluate mobile spectrum holdings during its consideration of secondary market transactions and initial spectrum licensing after auctions.

125. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission sought comment on whether and how to address mobile spectrum holding issues to meet our statutory requirements pursuant to section 309(j)(3)(B) and Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act and our goals for the AWS-3 band. The Commission also asked whether the acquisition of each of the AWS-3 spectrum bands should be subject to the same general mobile spectrum holding policies applicable to frequency bands that the Commission has found to be suitable and available for the provision of mobile telephony/broadband services. Alternatively, it sought comment on whether there were any reasons to distinguish AWS-3 spectrum for purposes of evaluating mobile spectrum holdings. It asked commenters to discuss and quantify any costs and benefits associated with any proposals.

126. USCC supports adopting a 25 percent limit on the amount of AWS-3 spectrum any one auction participant may acquire in a single market to promote competition and diversity of license holders in the band, which USCC asserts would encourage interoperability and roaming opportunities. Mobile Future and

Verizon Wireless oppose any auction-specific limits for the AWS-3 band. In particular, Verizon Wireless opposes USCC's proposal, claiming that USCC's proposed spectrum limit is unnecessary to prevent a lack of interoperability. CCA, RWA, Mobile Future, T-Mobile, Sprint, and Verizon Wireless encourage the Commission to conclude its

Mobile Spectrum Holdings

rulemaking prior to making a determination on mobile spectrum holdings policies with regard to the AWS-3 bands.

127. We observe that parties commenting on spectrum holdings issues in the AWS-3 rulemaking have raised issues with broader applicability to the

Mobile Spectrum Holdings

rulemaking, in addition to issues that relate to the characteristics of the AWS-3 bands. Given that we anticipate taking action in the

Mobile Spectrum Holdings

rulemaking well in advance of the AWS-3 auction, we find that rulemaking to be the most appropriate context in which to resolve whether any mobile spectrum holdings policies should apply to the upcoming AWS-3 auction and whether the AWS-3 bands should be included in the input market for spectrum used in the Commission's competitive review of transactions.

128.

License Term, Performance Requirements, Renewal Criteria, Permanent Discontinuance of Operations. License Term:

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to establish a 10-year term for licenses for the AWS-3 band. The Commission noted that the Communications Act does not specify a term limit for AWS band licenses and that it has adopted 10-year license terms for most wireless radio services licenses. To maintain this consistency among wireless services, in the

H Block R&O

and the

AWS-4 Service Rules R&O,

the Commission adopted 10-year license terms. In addition, the Commission proposed that, if an AWS-3 license is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. “Partitioning” is the assignment of geographic portions of a license along geopolitical or other boundaries. “Disaggregation” is the assignment of discrete portions of “blocks” of spectrum licensed to a geographic licensee or qualifying entity. Disaggregation allows for multiple transmitters in the same geographic area operated by different companies on adjacent frequencies (thus increasing the possibility of harmful interference). The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including the associated costs and benefits.

129. We adopt an initial license term for AWS-3 spectrum rights of 12 years and subsequent renewal terms of 10 years and we modify § 27.13 of the Commission's rules to reflect these determinations. The Communications Act does not require a specific term for non-broadcast spectrum licenses. The Commission has typically adopted 10-year license terms for part 27 services, but has also found, as in the case of AWS-1 licenses, a longer initial term to be in the public interest. We find that this approach is in the public interest and find that its benefits outweigh any potential costs. Further, commenters generally support at least a 10-year license term. Given the complexities and timing of clearing government operations in the AWS-3 bands, we agree with AT&T and USCC that a longer initial license term is appropriate.

130. We decline, however, to adopt proposals by AT&T and USCC that the Commission consider 15-year initial license term. We believe instead that a 12-year initial term adequately compensates for the transition of government operations, and a 15-year initial term would be unnecessarily long. Further, wireless licensees receive their licenses not at auction completion, but after a period of time following the close of the auction to allow for license applications to be filed, processed, and reviewed to ensure the applicant meets the applicable qualifications to hold a wireless license. Nevertheless, we direct the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to solicit comment in the third year following the initial licensing of AWS-3 spectrum for the purpose of making a recommendation to the Commission about whether an extension of the initial license term (and associated build-out deadlines) by up to 3 years is warranted in light of the status of government relocation. We agree with AT&T that the initial license term should match any adjustments extending the final build-out benchmarks.

131. We adopt the Commission's proposal that, if an AWS-3 license is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. No commenter addressed this proposal. We note, however, that this approach is similar to the partitioning and disaggregation provisions that the Commission adopted for BRS, for broadband PCS, for the 700 MHz band, and for AWS-1 licenses at 1710-1755 MHz and 2110-2155 MHz, and AWS-4. We emphasize that nothing in our action is intended to enable a licensee, by partitioning or disaggregating the license, to confer greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant. Similarly, nothing in this action is intended to enable any partitionee or disaggregatee to obtain rights in excess of those previously possessed by the underlying licensee.

132.

Performance Requirements:

In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to adopt specific, quantifiable performance requirements for AWS-3 licensees to ensure that licensees begin providing service to consumers in a timely manner. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to measure build-out progress using a population-based benchmark within each license area, and sought comment on whether it should adopt an interim benchmark, an end-of-term benchmark, or other requirements. In addition, in the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission sought comment on appropriate performance benchmarks for any AWS-3 uplink spectrum paired with downlink spectrum in a band other than AWS-3 and for areas where Federal use limits or prohibits AWS-3 use. Further, the Commission sought comment on whether performance requirements are necessary for service areas within the Gulf of Mexico. Along with performance benchmarks, the Commission noted that there must be meaningful and enforceable consequences, or penalties, for failing to meet construction requirements. Toward that end, the Commission also sought comment on a number of different penalties, seeking input on which set of incentives would most effectively ensure timely build-out in this band.

133. We establish performance requirements to promote the productive use of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide service to customers in a timely manner, and to promote the provision of innovative services in unserved areas, particularly rural ones. Over the years, the Commission has tailored performance and construction requirements with an eye to the unique characteristics of individual frequency bands and the types of services expected, among other factors. Our goal is to ensure that timely and robust build-out occurs in these bands and, for the reasons discussed below, we believe that concrete interim and final build-out benchmarks will best facilitate meeting this goal. The performance requirements we establish for the AWS-3 band are consistent with those the Commission has adopted in recent items for other spectrum bands, while taking into account certain exceptional circumstances related to the timing for

the transition of this spectrum from government use to wireless use. As noted below in the Partitioning and Disaggregation section, the performance requirements we adopt also apply to disaggregated spectrum or partitioned geographic service areas. These requirements will ensure that the AWS-3 spectrum is put to use expeditiously while providing licensees with flexibility to deploy services according to their business plans. Specifically, we require:

•

AWS-3 Interim Build-out Requirement:

Within six (6) years of an initial grant, licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least forty (40) percent of the population in each of its license areas.

•

AWS-3 Final Build-out Requirement:

By the end of the initial license term,

i.e.,

within twelve (12) years, a licensee shall provide reliable signal coverage and offer service to at least seventy-five (75) percent of the population in each of its license areas.

134. Additionally, we adopt the following penalties for failing to meet the build-out benchmarks:

•

Failure to meet AWS-3 band interim build-out requirement:

In the event a licensee fails to meet the AWS-3 Interim Build-out Requirement in its license area, the final build-out requirement and initial license term shall be accelerated by 2 years (from 12 to 10).

•

Failure to meet AWS-3 band final build-out requirement:

In the event a licensee fails to meet the AWS-3 Final Build-out Requirement for any licensed area, the license for each licensed area in which it fails to meet the build-out requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action.

135. Based on the record before us, we find that these performance requirements are in the public interest and that the benefits of these requirements outweigh any potential costs. We explain below the rationale for these performance requirements, and the attendant penalties for failure to comply. We also discuss below how we will measure build-out in the Gulf of Mexico.

136.

Population-based benchmark, [per license area].

Supported by a number of comments in the record, we adopt the proposal to use objective, population-based interim and final construction benchmarks, which will be measured per license area. Requiring AWS-3 licensees to meet these performance benchmarks will promote rapid deployment of new broadband services to the American public, and at the same time provide licensees with certainty regarding their construction obligations. We agree with Verizon that, for this spectrum band, measuring build-out by percentage of population served “will ensure that licensees provide wireless broadband services where customers actually will use them and need them.” Further, Blooston Rural Carriers argues that population-based AWS-3 construction requirements are appropriate for CMA license areas.

137. We are not persuaded by arguments that our build-out requirements must be geography-based, or include a geographic component, in order to ensure that less densely populated, often rural, communities have timely access to the most advanced mobile broadband services. We agree that it is important to promote rapid broadband deployment in rural areas. In fact, section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Act requires that the Commission “include performance requirements, such as appropriate deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to ensure prompt delivery of service to rural areas.” We find that adopting relatively small, CMA and EA-based license areas, and requiring licensees to meet challenging population-based benchmarks in each individual license area separately, strikes an appropriate balance between providing flexibility to AWS-3 band licensees to deploy their networks in a cost-effective manner and assertively promoting deployment of service to less densely populated areas. We note that nothing about our decision to require population-based benchmarks in this band would foreclose our ability to impose geographic-based benchmarks in other spectrum bands that may warrant different considerations. For example, we observe that the Commission established geographic-based performance requirements for the 700 MHz B Block in light of technical characteristics and the CMA geographic license area size specific to that band.

138. Further, we reject Verizon's request that we measure compliance with the interim benchmark in the aggregate,

i.e.,

by summing the population of all of a licensees' authorizations for AWS-3 spectrum. Creating benchmarks on a per-license basis, rather than in the aggregate, is consistent with our build-out requirements in other, similar spectrum bands. Further, this approach allows for more flexibility and certainty in licensing. In addition, measuring benchmarks on a per-license basis is consistent with our determination to license service on a geographic basis and hold a licensee accountable for meeting performance obligations for all of the licenses (including partitioned licenses) that it holds. For example, should a licensee partition some of its AWS-3 spectrum, a percentage-based approach would apply to each partitioned license. In contrast, it is not clear how the responsibility for meeting benchmarks for partitioned and disaggregated licenses would be handled under Verizon's proposal.

139.

Areas unavailable due to Federal relocation and coordination requirements.

A number of commenters argue that the population of an area in which AWS-3 operations are prohibited to protect government operations should be excluded when determining whether a licensee has met its build-out requirements. We find that this scenario is best addressed by the extended interim and final construction benchmarks because we believe that applying the same performance requirements to all AWS-3 licensees will help ensure that licensees build out their entire licensed service areas. We also generally agree that if a licensee demonstrates that it is unable to meet a coverage requirement due to circumstances beyond its control, an extension of the coverage period might be warranted.

140.

Interim Benchmark.

We find that requiring an interim milestone is supported by the record, serves the public interest, and is similar to our approach in other, similar spectrum bands. A 40 percent build-out per license area benchmark is consistent with the interim benchmarks established in other bands and with various proposals suggested by commenters. For instance, Verizon proposes adopting a build-out requirement of 40 percent of the population within 4 years. Blooston Rural Carriers also supports the Commission's proposed interim benchmark, but only if the Commission licenses the AWS-3 spectrum according to CMAs.

141. Several commenters argue that the FCC should start the build-out period on a date certain that is after the final transition date for government operations. We decline to do so. Instead, we set the interim build-out benchmark 6 years from the grant of the license, which should adequately account for the period of time it will take for Federal users to relocate out of the bands being reallocated for commercial use. Further, setting a date certain that is tied to initial grant of the AWS-3 band license will provide greater certainty to AWS-3 band licensees, their investors, and other interested parties. This does not mean, however, that an AWS-3 band licensee must wait

for the all Federal users to relocate; an AWS-3 licensee can begin operating in a specific license area after successful coordination and as soon as it is confirmed that the Federal users have fully relocated out of that particular license area based on their projected transition timelines.

142. We reject the proposal of commenters who advocate a “substantial service” standard as the only gauge of performance. Our purpose is to ensure that timely and robust build-out occurs in this band and for the reasons enumerated above, we believe that concrete interim and final build-out benchmarks best advance this goal. Further, we note that in recent Commission decisions, the Commission has replaced the substantial service standard with specific interim and final build-out requirements.

143.

Evaluation of reliable signal coverage and service offering for unpaired, uplink only licenses at 1695-1710 MHz.

As discussed above, the 1695-1710 MHz band is low-power, uplink-only spectrum and must be paired with base stations. For the Commission to determine whether the 1695-1710 MHz band licensee is meeting its performance benchmarks, the 1695-1710 MHz band licensee must pair this uplink spectrum with downlink spectrum. Once the licensee's base stations are built or modified to control and receive 1695-1710 MHz uplinks, the reliable signal coverage of such base stations (in bands paired with 1695-1710 MHz) will determine the percentage of the population served in the licensed area of the 1695-1710 MHz uplinks, assuming that the licensee is offering service that includes UE that transmits in the 1695-1710 MHz band. Any base station to be built or modified that is located in a Protection Zone must be successfully coordinated with Federal incumbents prior to enabling/serving uplink devices that transmit in the 1695-1710 MHz. The 1695-1710 MHz licensee must show that it is complying with the build-out requirements applicable to all AWS-3 licensees, in addition to separately meeting the performance obligations for any spectrum bands paired with the 1695-1710 MHz spectrum. If the 1695-1700 MHz licensee fails to meet a benchmark, it will be subject to penalties discussed herein. However, failure to meet an AWS-3 band benchmark would not affect the downlink side of the pair, assuming that the licensee was complying with the performance obligations for that downlink spectrum.

144.

Penalty for failure to meet the interim benchmark.

Commenters generally support the Commission's proposal to assess a penalty on licensees that fail to meet the interim construction benchmark. Therefore, like similar spectrum bands, we accelerate by 2 years the time frame to complete build-out and the length of the license term. Because the initial license term is 12 years, if a licensee fails to meet the interim benchmark, it must complete its final build-out requirement within 10 years, when its license term also expires.

145.

Final Benchmark.

Within 12 years of the initial grant (or 10 years if the interim benchmark is not met), a licensee shall provide reliable coverage and offer wireless service to at least 75 percent of the population in each of its license areas. Commenters generally support the Commission's approach. Establishing a final build-out benchmark that coincides with the end of the initial license term is consistent with how the Commission has formulated performance requirements in other spectrum bands. Because we have set the interim benchmark at 6 years and we have created a 12-year initial license term, we find Verizon's suggestion that we establish a 7-year final build-out requirement to be unduly accelerated and we therefore decline to adopt it. Under the circumstances, a 12-year construction milestone provides a reasonable timeframe for a licensee to deploy its network and offer widespread service, provided it meets its interim benchmark. Licensees that do not meet the 6-year interim benchmark must accelerate their final build out by 2 years to meet the final benchmark by the end of their shortened, 10-year license term.

146.

Penalty for failure to meet the final benchmark.

Where a licensee fails to meet the final build-out requirement in any EA or CMA, its authorization for each EA or CMA in which it fails to meet the requirement shall terminate automatically without further Commission action. Automatic termination is a common remedy for failure to build part 27 flexible use licenses and is the approach adopted by the Commission in the

AWS-4 Report and Order

and the

H Block Report and Order.

By terminating only the specific licenses where a licensee fails to meet the final benchmark, we will not directly affect a licensee's customers in other license areas. We decline to adopt “keep-what-you-use” as a penalty for failure to meet construction requirements as some commenters suggest, because these proposals may encourage less robust build-out by a licensee that decides not to fully build out to the final benchmark.

147. As a general matter, we expect that AWS-3 band licensees will meet the performance requirements because of the serious consequences associated with non-compliance, including automatic license cancellation. Further, we expect that licensees' deployment will generally exceed the levels set forth in the benchmarks, and that these build-out requirements generally represent a floor—not a ceiling. As for USCC's assertion that automatic termination is too punitive, the Commission has explained in the past that we do not consider automatic termination to be overly punitive or unfair, particularly given that the Commission has applied this approach to nearly all geographically-licensed wireless services. Further, the Commission has rejected the argument, and we do so again here, that an automatic termination penalty would deter capital investment, observing that the wireless industry has invested billions of dollars and has flourished under this paradigm in other spectrum bands. For the same reason, we believe that an automatic termination penalty will have little effect on auction participation, as suggested by USCC. Finally, we do not agree with USCC that automatic termination harms the public because, even if a customer loses service from a provider when it loses spectrum rights for a particular EA or CMA, alternative providers may be available. We also expect that a future licensee for that EA or CMA may ultimately be able to serve more customers.

148. In the event a licensee's authority to operate terminates, the licensee's spectrum rights would become available for reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding provisions of section 309(j). Further, consistent with the Commission's rules for other part 27 spectrum bands, including AWS-1, AWS-4, and H Block, any AWS-3 licensee who forfeits its license for failure to meet its performance requirements would be precluded from regaining the license. Therefore, we reject Verizon's “new applicant” proposal that would effectively provide a mechanism for a licensee who failed to meet the final build-out requirement to continue to hold onto its fallow spectrum unless a competing bidder emerged.

149.

Gulf of Mexico.

Having received no comments on the Gulf of Mexico performance requirements, and recognizing that we are licensing wireless service in the Gulf (as EA 176), we adopt the same coverage requirements as set forth above. We note one exception, however: we will calculate “population” pursuant to the

approach taken in

Small Ventures Memorandum Opinion and Order.

In that order, the Wireless Bureau recognized that using the conventional Census tract methodology for determining population in the Gulf of Mexico would be infeasible because the EAs in the Gulf consist of a body of water with non-permanent, mobile residents. Consistent with that order, we allow a Gulf of Mexico licensee to use all off-shore platforms, including production, manifold, compression, pumping and valving platforms as a proxy for population in the Gulf of Mexico for purposes of meeting build-out obligations. Thus, in lieu of measuring its build-out obligations based on population, a licensee serving the Gulf of Mexico shall within six (6) years provide reliable coverage and offer wireless service to at least forty (40) percent of all off-shore platforms in its license areas and within 12 years (or at the end of the license term), provide reliable coverage and offer wireless service to at least 75 percent of all off-shore platforms in its license area in the Gulf of Mexico. If a licensee fails to meet the interim benchmark, the final benchmark and initial license term are accelerated by 2 years—from 12 to 10 years. All penalties and other compliance procedures adopted herein, excluding those in paragraph 152 below discussing the methodology for meeting population-based build-out requirements shall apply to a Gulf of Mexico licensee.

150.

Compliance Procedures.

Finding the proposed compliance procedures to be in the public interest and having received no comments on the issue, we adopt the proposal in the

AWS-3 NPRM

to require AWS-3 licensees to comply with § 1.946(d) of our rules. Specifically, this rule requires that licensees must demonstrate compliance with their performance requirements by filing a construction notification within 15 days of the relevant milestone certifying that they have met the applicable performance benchmark. Additionally, consistent with the

AWS-4 Report & Order

and the

H Block R&O,

we require that each construction notification include electronic coverage maps and supporting documentation, which must be truthful and accurate and must not omit material information that is necessary for the Commission to determine compliance with its performance requirements.

151. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each license area in the licensee's service territory. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire CMA or EA, as applicable, its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each CMA or EA, as applicable, not being served. Each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each licensed area within its service territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee's technology.

152. The licensee must use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement to meet the population-based build out requirements. Specifically, a licensee must base its claims of population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The Census Bureau defines Census Tracts as “small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county delineated by local participants as part of the U.S. Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program . . . [T]he entire United States is covered by census tracts.” This requirement tracks the Commission's action requiring broadband service providers to report “snapshots” of broadband service at the Census Tract level twice each year by completing FCC Form 477.

153.

Renewal Criteria:

Section 308(b) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to require renewal applicants to “set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications of the applicant to operate the station[,]” as well as “such other information as it may require.” In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission proposed to adopt license renewal requirements consistent with those adopted in the

700 MHz First Report and Order,

the

AWS-4 Report and Order,

and the

H Block R&O.

Under those requirements, renewal applicants must file a “renewal showing,” in which they demonstrate that they have been and are continuing to provide service to the public, and are compliant with the Communications Act and with the Commission's rules and policies. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

we proposed to apply to AWS-3 licensees the same renewal showing requirement recently adopted in the

H Block R&O.

154. In the

AWS-3 NPRM,

the Commission sought comment on whether AWS-3 band licensees should be awarded renewal expectancies if they meet their performance obligations and otherwise comply with the Commission's rules and policies and the Communications Act throughout their license term. The Commission also inquired whether licensees should receive a renewal expectancy for subsequent license terms if they continue to provide at least the level of service demonstrated at the final performance benchmark through the end of any subsequent license terms. Finally, the Commission proposed that, consistent with its 700 MHz licensing paradigm, it would prohibit the filing of competing license renewal applications, and that if a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum would be returned to the Commission for assignment.

155. Pursuant to section 308(b) of the Communications Act, we will require AWS-3 band licensees seeking license renewal to file renewal applications; below, we specify the information that renewal applicants must provide to enable the Commission to assess whether renewal is warranted and in the public interest. Where a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum will be returned to the Commission and made available for assignment. We will not permit the filing of competing applications against license renewal applications.

156. We apply to AWS-3 band licensees the same renewal showing requirements we recently adopted for the H Block. Specifically, an AWS-3 band licensee's renewal showing must provide a detailed description of its provision of service during the entire license period and discuss: (1) The level and quality of service provided (including the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers, and the services offered); (2) the date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service is provided to rural areas; (4) the extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of the Commission's rules; and (5) any other factors associated with the level of service to the public. Accordingly, we hereby modify § 27.14 of the Commission's rules to apply these renewal showing criteria to the AWS-3 bands. Nothing in our decision today prejudges or forecloses the Commission's future consideration of the policies and proposed rules, and related record, for the

WRS Renewals NPRM,

which remains pending. In addition, we emphasize that licensees seeking renewal bear the risk of future changes to our rules that may alter this renewal expectancy.

157. Based on the record before us and our analysis below, we find that the renewal requirements we establish for

AWS-3 band licensees are in the public interest and that their benefits outweigh any likely costs. In recent years, the Commission has refined its license renewal policies—beginning with the

700 MHz First Report and Order

in 2007, later in the

AWS-4 Report and Order,

and more recently in the

H Block Report and Order.

Through these actions, we have established that licensees must demonstrate that they are providing adequate levels of service over the course of their license terms, and here we act consistently with that policy. Consequently, we adopt renewal criteria for the AWS-3 band that are based on those criteria adopted in the

700 MHz First Report and Order

and that were similarly followed in the

AWS-4 Report and Order

and the

H Block Report and Order.

We believe these renewal requirements will provide licensees certainty regarding the factors that the Commission will consider during the renewal process, thereby facilitating investment decisions regarding broadband rollout. We also find that these requirements address commenters' concerns that the renewal process not unnecessarily burden licensees or deter investment.

158. In adopting these criteria, we decline to adopt at this time AT&T's proposal to categorically provide a renewal expectancy to all licensees that meet their performance requirements and comply with the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. USCC claims that renewal expectancies, based solely on performance requirements, would provide certainty to licensees and investors. As the Commission has consistently stated, performance and renewal showings are distinct; they serve different purposes and, if not met, the Commission may apply different penalties. A performance showing provides a snapshot in time of the level of a licensee's service, whereas a renewal showing provides information regarding the level and types of service provided over the course of a license term. We disagree, therefore, with AT&T's contention that there is “no identifiable benefit” to requiring licensees to make a renewal showing. We emphasize that where a licensee meets the applicable performance requirements, but fails to provide continuity of service (by, for example, repeatedly discontinuing operations between required performance showings for periods of less than 180 days), the Commission could find that renewal would be contrary to the public interest. We note that, in addressing broadcast license renewal proceedings, Congress has specifically established a standard that takes into consideration not only compliance with Commission rules but also whether “the station has served the public interest, convenience, and necessity.” Where a licensee fails to meet its interim performance requirement and becomes subject to a 2-year acceleration of both its final performance requirement and its license term, its final performance showing might merely reflect a snapshot in time of compliance with the performance requirement. By contrast, its renewal application must provide a timeline of its provision of service, the percentage of the license-area population covered, and types of service provided over the course of the license term, including any efforts to meet the interim performance requirement.

159. For subsequent license terms, licensees are likely—absent extraordinary circumstances—to obtain license renewal if they submit satisfactory showings demonstrating that they have maintained or exceeded the level of coverage and service required at the final performance benchmark (during the initial license term), and otherwise comply with the Commission's rules and policies and the Communications Act. We decline, however, to “codify” a renewal expectancy as USCC proposes, at this time.

160. Finally, we reject USCC's proposal that we permit competing renewal applications or, in their absence, process unopposed applications in the same

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.