# Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-31852 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Proposed Rule - **Published:** January 13, 2016 - **Citation:** 81 FR 1802 ## Text FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30, and 101 [GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos. 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 15-138] Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) have identified specific spectrum bands above 24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands occurs in the context of our efforts to develop a regulatory framework that will help facilitate so-called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services. DATES: Comments are due on or before January 26, 2016; reply comments are due on or before February 23, 2016. Written comments on the proposed information collection requirements, subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13, should be submitted on or before March 14, 2016. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by FCC 15-138, by any of the following methods: • Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/ or the Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Filers should follow the instructions provided on the Web site for submitting comments and transmit one electronic copy of the filing to FCC 15-138. For ECFS filers, in completing the transmittal screen, filers should include their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the applicable docket number. • Parties may also submit an electronic comment by Internet email. To get filing instructions, filers should send an email to ecfs@fcc.gov, and include the following words in the body of the message, “get form ”. A sample form and instructions will be sent in response. • Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and four copies of each filing. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. • All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12th St. SW., Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. All hand deliveries must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners. • Envelopes must be disposed of before entering the building. The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7 p.m. • Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9300 E. Hampton Dr., Capitol Heights, MD 20743. • U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority must be addressed to 445 12th St. SW., Washington DC 20554. In addition, document FCC 15-138 contains proposed information collection requirement subject to the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this document. PRA comments should be submitted to Cathy Williams via email at PRA@fcc.gov and/or Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha of the Office of Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or Michael.Ha@fcc.gov, or Howard Griboff of the International Bureau, Policy Division, at 202-418-0657 or Howard.Griboff@fcc.gov. For information regarding the PRA information collection requirements contained in this PRA, contact Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918, or via email at Cathy.Williams@fcc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ( NPRM ), GN Docket No. 14-177, IB Docket Nos 15-256 and 97-95, RM-11664, WT Docket No. 10-112; FCC 15-138, adopted and released on October 22, 2015. The complete text of this document is available for public inspection and copying from 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC 200554. The complete text is available on the Commission's Web site at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search function on the ECFS Web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/. To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or telephone the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 18-0432 (TTY). To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) Go to the Web page http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain; (2) find the section of the Web page called “Currently Under Review”; (3) click on the downward-pointing arrow in the “Select Agency” box below the “Currently Under Review” heading; (4) select “Federal Communications Commission” from the list of agencies presented in the “Select Agency” box; (5) click the “Submit” button to the right of the “Select Agency” box; and (6) when the list of FCC ICRs currently under review appears, look for the Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services and then click on the ICR Reference Number. Ex Parte Rules—Permit-But-Disclose Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this NPRM shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format ( e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), U.S.C. 603. The RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). The Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this NPRM. Written public comments are requested on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines specified in the NPRM for comments. Report to Small Business Administration The Commission will send a copy of this NPRM, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), 5 U.S.C. 603(a). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register , 5 U.S.C. 603(a). Paperwork Reduction Act The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and OMB to comment on the proposed information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the PRA. Public and agency comments are due March 14, 2016. Comments should address: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506 (c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it may “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” OMB Control Number: 3060-XXXX. Title: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services. Form No.: N/A. Type of Review: New collection. Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities; Not-for-profit Institutions; State, local or tribal governments. Number of Respondents and Responses: 35 respondents and 130 responses. Estimated Time Per Response: .5-10 hours. Frequency of Response: On occasion reporting requirements; Record keeping requirement; Third party disclosure requirement. Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this collection are contained in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, and 336 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 336, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 1302. Total Annual Burden: 5,015 hours. Total Annual Costs: None. Privacy Impact Assessment: This information collection does not affect individuals or households; thus, there are no impacts under the Privacy Act. Need for, and Objectives of, the NPRM: In the Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services NPRM, the Commission promotes a flexible regulatory environment for the next generation of wireless services. In this NPRM, the Commission identify specific spectrum bands above 24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands will help facilitate so-called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services. I. Introduction 1. Today we take further steps to promote a flexible regulatory environment for the next generation of wireless services. In this NPRM, we continue our examination of higher frequency bands for mobile and other uses. In that regard, we identify specific spectrum bands above 24 GHz that appear to be suitable for mobile service, and we seek comment on proposed service rules that would authorize mobile and other operations in those bands. This development of service rules for mobile use of the millimeter wave (mmW) bands occurs in the context of our efforts to develop a regulatory framework that will help facilitate so-called Fifth Generation (5G) mobile services. We note that we do not intend to define what qualifies as “5G”. Standard bodies like 3GPP and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) plan to develop the requirements by early 2017. 2. The framework we propose is built off of two decades of successful policies that stimulate and promote innovation and investment in wireless technologies and services. We propose rules that will enable flexibility in the uses and technologies that might be deployed in these bands in a way that also promotes coexistence between these different uses and technologies. We recognize that several of the bands we are examining are shared with satellite services, the Federal government, and fixed users. We believe it is possible to adopt a flexible and modern set of rules that can facilitate sharing among a wide variety of users and platforms. We propose to require flexible use commercial licensees to protect incumbent Federal operations consistent with Federal allocations in these bands, and expect that detailed sharing studies will be conducted as we consider development of the service rules for these bands to ensure that our proposed rules adequately protect Federal users. 3. In developing service rules for the mmW bands, we aim to facilitate access to spectrum, develop a flexible spectrum policy, and encourage wireless innovation. In order to ensure wide access to spectrum, we propose to use a variety of licensing mechanisms, including geographic area licenses, unlicensed operation under Part 15 of our rules, and authorizing indoor operating rights to property owners. In developing our technical rules, our goal is to develop flexible rules that will accommodate a wide variety of current and future technologies. Flexibility will also encourage innovation in the development of advanced wireless services using the mmW bands. II. Solicitation of Comments 4. In this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we seek comment on the following proposals: • 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands: We propose to authorize mobile operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band) and the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band) with county-sized geographic area licenses. These bands could be suitable for deployment of high-capacity, high-throughput small cells as part of mobile broadband deployments. At the same time, we propose rules that would provide licensees with the flexibility to conduct fixed and/or mobile operations. • 64-71 GHz band: We propose to authorize operations in the 64-71 GHz band under Part 15 of our rules based on the rules we recently adopted for the adjacent 57-64 GHz band. This action will provide more spectrum for unlicensed uses such as Wi-Fi-like “WiGig” operations. • 37 GHz band: In the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band), we propose a hybrid licensing scheme that would grant operating rights by rule to property owners, while establishing geographic area licenses based on counties for outdoor use. This licensing mechanism would facilitate the deployment of advanced enterprise and industrial applications not suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network services, while also providing additional spectrum for more traditional cellular deployments. • Other Rules • We propose to grant mobile operating rights to existing fixed Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and 39 GHz band licensees, and seek comment on utilizing an overlay auction as an alternative. • We propose to consider market-based rules that could facilitate greater satellite use of the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands without unduly limiting terrestrial use of those bands. • We seek comment on potential licensing approaches for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. In particular, we seek comment on revising the performance requirements applicable to those bands. • We seek comment on technical rules needed to facilitate licensed operation and mitigation methods to ensure protection of incumbent operations in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. • We propose to require mobile licensees to protect incumbent Federal operations, consistent with the Federal allocations in these bands. We seek detailed comment and analysis on ensuring compatibility between Federal uses and new mobile use of these bands, including comment on any rules that would be necessary to facilitate coexistence with Federal systems. • We seek comment on how to ensure that effective security features are built into key design principles for communications devices and networks that will use these bands. III. Background A. The Millimeter-Wave Mobile Opportunity 5. Millimeter-wave frequencies have historically been considered unsuitable for mobile applications because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to propagate around obstacles. Short transmission paths and high propagation losses can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of interference between adjacent cells. In addition, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly focused beams with enough gain to overcome propagation losses. The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough to fit into handsets. 6. While the discussion concerning a possible fifth generation of mobile wireless technology includes a wide variety of ideas and technological developments, the possible use of mmW bands for mobile use is a key concept within that discussion. Many commenters point to the increasing demand for data from consumers using an ever wider variety of devices. The mmW bands could be particularly useful in supporting very high capacity networks in areas that require such capacity. Several commenters also see the mmW bands being used for backhaul and machine-to-machine communication. Several commenters also highlighted that the low latency of 5G technology will enable various Internet of Things (IoT) applications including wearables, fitness and healthcare devices, autonomous driving cars, and home and office automation. In addition to the advanced antenna system, other enabling technologies for 5G include distributed network architecture, adaptive coding and modulation, multi-radio access technology, and advanced small cell technology. B. Notice of Inquiry 7. In October 2014, acting on advice from the Commission's Technological Advisory Council, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking comment on the prospects for provision of mobile radio services in the frequency bands above 24 GHz. The Commission foresaw “a potential coalescence of technologies that could lead to the emergence of a new and radically more capable generation of wireless mobile service that can capitalize on use of the millimeter wave region of the spectrum around the year 2020.” The Commission also noted that significant momentum was starting to build among diverse countries and regions around the idea of a fifth generation of mobile and fixed services, that some envision as accommodating an eventual 1000-fold increase in traffic demand for mobile services; high-bandwidth content with speeds in excess of 10 gigabits per second (GB/s); end-to-end transmission delays (latency) of less than one-thousandth of a second, and, in the same networks, sporadic, low-data-rate transmissions among an “Internet of things”—all of this to be accomplished with substantially improved spectral and energy efficiency. The Notice foresaw that achieving those objectives would likely require the development of new system architectures that, unlike current technologies, would necessarily include heterogeneous networks capable of delivering service through multiple, widely-spaced frequency bands and diverse types of radio access technologies, including macrocells, microcells, device-to-device communications, new component technologies, and unlicensed as well as licensed transceivers. 8. The Notice sought comment on the technologies underlying the development of mmW mobile services using bands above 24 GHz, the frequency bands that would be suitable for advanced mobile services, and the best ways to manage interference among operators and other licensees operating in the same or adjacent bands. Finally, the Commission sought comment on licensing and authorization schemes for mobile operations above 24 GHz. In its discussion of frequency bands above 24 GHz that would be most suitable for advanced mobile services, the Notice sought comment on the relative importance of access to large blocks of contiguous spectrum for successful implementation of advanced mobile technologies. After reviewing the salient characteristics of several candidate bands, the Notice invited comment on the suitability of the three Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) bands between 27.5 and 31.3 GHz, the 38.6-40 GHz band, the 37-38.6 and 42-42.5 GHz bands, the 57-64 and 64-71 GHz band, the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands, and the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz bands for advanced mobile services. The Commission also invited comment on any other bands above 24 GHz that might be appropriate, including any bands above 95 GHz that could be suitable candidates for mobile services. 9. Regarding licensing mechanisms, the Commission noted that, except for the 24 GHz band, all of the candidate bands mentioned above have existing mobile allocations, and that the Commission has already established geographic service areas and conducted spectrum auctions for three of the bands—LMDS, 39 GHz, and 24 GHz. The NOI inquired whether the Commission should upgrade the existing fixed service licenses for those bands to include authorization to provide mobile service. C. Recent Technological Developments 10. Since the release of the Commission's NOI in October 2014, there has been increased momentum behind the development of 5G technologies. Several manufacturers have showcased their prototype 5G equipment operating in centimeter and millimeter wave bands. In the United States, NYU Wireless Center has been leading the research in mmW technology, including the propagation measurements and models, radiation and biological health effects, mmW MAC layer design and other component technology development. In July 2015, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) initiated the 5G Millimeter Wave Channel Model Alliance with companies, academia, and government organizations to support the development of more accurate, consistent, and predictive channel models. Intel has introduced several laptop models with the 60GHz WiGig technology and continues to develop the mmW mobile broadband system in 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands. This is but some of the current and ongoing work on 5G technologies across the world. D. World Radio Conference 11. The International Telecommunication Union's World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC) 2015 (WRC-15) is scheduled to take place from November 2-27, 2015 in Geneva, Switzerland. One of the tasks of that conference is to set the agenda for the next WRC, which is expected to take place in 2019 (WRC-19). At WRC-15, the United States will support the study of spectrum requirements and potential identification of harmonized spectrum for mobile broadband below 6 GHz and will encourage the adoption of a plan for identifying spectrum for mobile technologies in higher frequency bands. At WRC-15, the United States is supporting the Inter-American Telecommunications Commission (CITEL) proposal to consider spectrum requirements and identification of bands for the terrestrial component of International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) to facilitate mobile broadband applications, with the aim of reaching decisions regarding possible spectrum for mobile use at WRC-19. The proposals resolve to conduct sharing and compatibility studies, including adjacent band studies as appropriate, within the frequency ranges: 10-10.45 GHz, 23.15-23.6 GHz, 24.25-27.5 GHz, 27.5-29.5 GHz, 31.8-33 GHz, 37-40.5 GHz, 45.5-47 GHz, 47.2-50.2 GHz, 50.4-52.6 GHz and 59.3-76 GHz. 12. We recognize that other countries have proposed or will propose the identification of other bands for consideration for mobile broadband. We are committed to working with both domestic and international partners in examining additional spectrum and on conducting the necessary technical sharing and compatibility studies. To the extent it becomes appropriate to consider additional bands for mmW mobile use in light of international developments, we will work with relevant stakeholders to examine the suitability of those bands for mobile and other uses. IV. Discussion A. Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Use 1. Criteria for Examining Bands for Mobile and Other Uses 13. Background. In the NOI, we specifically sought comment on the suitability of the following bands for mobile use: The Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) band (27.5-28.35 GHz, 29.1-29.25 GHz, and 31.0-31.3 GHz), the 39 GHz band, the 37 GHz band and 42-42.5 GHz, 57-64 GHz and 64-71 GHz bands, the 70/80 GHz bands (71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz), and the 24 GHz bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz). We also invited comment on any other band that might be appropriate for mobile services, including bands above 95 GHz. 14. Commenters highlight several characteristics that they believe are important elements of defining a band as suitable for mobile use. Several commenters discuss the need for a substantial amount of contiguous bandwidth in order to enable 5G services. Equipment manufacturers and others also highlight the benefits of having internationally harmonized spectrum. 15. In the NOI, we sought “to advance our understanding of the means by which mobile services can avoid interfering with each other and with incumbent services and users that may share the same frequency bands as well as the impact on adjacent band radio services.” Commenters agree that the Commission must consider existing incumbent uses in determining whether a particular band is a good candidate for mobile use. 16. There were four categories of incumbents (or organizations representing incumbent interests) that commented in this proceeding. Many incumbent geographic area licensees with fixed operating rights expressed support for authorizing mobile use in their bands, especially if the incumbent licensees were given the mobile operating rights. Satellite interests highlighted their interest in protecting current and future use of the Ka-Band and V-Band. Commenters that use the mmW bands for fixed uses ask the Commission to prioritize, or, at a minimum, allow for continued fixed use of these bands. Finally, the Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) asked the Commission to keep protection of adjacent-channel operations in mind when selecting mmW bands for mobile use. 17. Discussion. We believe there are four main criteria we should use in evaluating the suitability of mmW bands for mobile use in this NPRM. First, for purposes of this NPRM, we will focus on bands with at least 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum. While commenters have offered a variety of minimum bandwidths that will be needed to accommodate mmW mobile use, virtually all commenters agree that it will be easier to accommodate mobile use in wider bands. Given the nascent state of mmW mobile technology, we believe our initial efforts should be focused on the band where the most spectrum is potentially available. Specifically, we will consider the 27.5-28.35 GHz band (28 GHz band), the 38.6-40 GHz band (39 GHz band), the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band), and the 64-71 GHz band. We note that we may consider additional bands in the future, and the fact that a particular band or bands are not considered in this NPRM does not foreclose future Commission action on the band or bands. 18. Second, to the extent practical, we propose bands that are being considered internationally for mmW mobile service. While uniform international harmonization will not be possible because different countries have different spectrum frameworks and needs, substantial international harmonization would help promote development of mmW mobile service by reducing development and equipment costs and promoting a unified world market. For purposes of this NPRM, we will focus on those bands that have existing mobile allocations. We will also work with other countries through the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), in particular the World Radio Conference (WRC), and other processes to promote harmonized spectrum assignments for mmW mobile use. 19. Third, mobile use in mmW bands should be compatible with existing incumbent license assignments and uses. Current licensees that choose to continue their existing, authorized services should be able to do so. In applying that criterion, we do not mean to suggest that incumbents are entitled to maintain the status quo indefinitely. Specifically, many of the bands under discussion have shared allocations with satellite. As part of this NPRM, we will examine possible means of allowing enhanced satellite use of shared bands. We must also take into account the use of these bands for backhaul and other point-to-point purposes. These frequencies are well suited for backhaul and other fixed point-to-point uses because it is possible to have small, highly directional antennas in these bands which, together with the shorter propagation ranges, facilitate extensive reuse microwave frequencies in the same geographic area. The Commission has noted that “[i]n certain rural and remote locations, microwave is the only practical high-capacity backhaul solution available.” 20. Finally, it is important to establish a flexible regulatory framework that accommodates as wide a variety of services as possible. We recognize that there is much that is unknown about all future uses of the mmW bands. Equipment manufacturers, including Ericsson, Alcatel-Lucent and Huawei all claim that substantial further research and development is required, and that the mmW bands may always present substantial challenges to the provision of mobile service. Thus, even among telecommunications equipment manufacturers, there is not an overwhelming consensus on the record that terrestrial mobile services will rapidly proliferate in the mmW bands in the near future. Similarly, particularly with respect to V-Band, satellite interests do not point to any firm commitments or plans to use that band. 21. We believe the appropriate response to the uncertainties is to establish a regulatory framework that maximizes flexibility and enables the widest possible variety of services, consistent with the state of technology and the characteristics of the mmW bands. A variety of commenters support expeditious issuance of an NPRM to help advance consideration of mobile technologies as part of the WRC process. We observe that certain satellite and terrestrial interests argue that we should not consider steps to facilitate the other type of service because it is speculative whether the other service will develop or premature to know how or when the other service will develop. We reject that approach. Waiting to develop a regulatory framework would have several disadvantages. First, given the rapid pace of technological development in these bands, waiting to develop service rules could result in delays in service if we are unable to finalize rules in a timely fashion. Such delays could affect the United States' leadership in mobile communications and hurt consumers. Second, establishing a regulatory framework now will provide equipment manufacturers and service providers with specific guidance as they design equipment and service offerings. In contrast, doing nothing will make it more difficult to plan for any type of service in the mmW bands. Third, creating a flexible regulatory framework would be consistent with the Commission's general policy of technological neutrality, which has wide support among commenters. Accordingly, we are attempting to develop rules that will accommodate the widest possible variety of services. In choosing bands for mmW mobile use, we will prioritize bands where it is possible to develop a flexible framework that accommodates the widest possible variety of services. The graphic below summarizes our consideration of various bands in this item: 2. Bands Proposed for Mobile Use a. 27.5-28.35 GHz Band 22. Background. In 1997, the Commission developed a band plan making 1,300 megahertz of LMDS spectrum in each basic trading area (BTA) across the United States. Specifically, the Commission allocated two LMDS licenses per BTA—an “A Block” and a “B Block” in each. The A Block license is comprised of 1,150 megahertz of total bandwidth, and the B Block license is comprised of 150 megahertz of total bandwidth. The A Block consists of the sub bands 27.50-28.35 GHz (the A1 Band); 29.10-29.25 GHz (the A2 Band); and 31.075-31.225 GHz (the A3 Band). The B Block consists of the sub bands 31.00-31.075 (the B1 Band) and 31.225-31.30 GHz (the B2 Band). Of the 986 designated license areas (493 BTAs times two licenses per BTA), 416 areas have active licenses, which cover about 75 percent of the U.S. population. 23. LMDS occupies portions of two spectrum bands that the Commission has allocated on a co-primary basis for Fixed and Mobile services, as reflected in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations. While the Commission has not, to date, authorized any specific service (including LMDS) to provide mobile service in those bands, it previously expressed an expectation that it would expand the LMDS authorization for Fixed Service to include Mobile Service if proposed and supported by the resulting record. In the Second LMDS Report & Order, the Commission stated: To ensure the flexibility in LMDS service offerings that commenters seek and we proposed, we will permit any fixed terrestrial uses that can be provided within the technical parameters for LMDS. We conclude that, for now, our significant allocation of spectrum under such a broad and flexible service definition should permit licensees to satisfy a broad array of their customers' communications needs, whether through one or multiple service offerings. Although LMDS is allocated as a fixed service, we know of no reason why we would not allow mobile operations if they are proposed and we obtain a record in support of such an allocation. We believe this would be consistent with our goal of providing LMDS licensees with maximum flexibility in designing their systems. We have authorized other wireless services to include mobile and fixed services, depending on whether developments in the service and related equipment demonstrate a need for changing the rules and a capability for mobile and fixed services to coexist in these bands. 24. There are no primary Federal allocations in the 28 GHz band. For the 28 GHz band, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations includes a co-primary Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) Earth-to-space allocation, but section 25.202 of the Commission's rules provides that FSS is secondary to LMDS in that band. Twenty stations are licensed for Earth-to-space transmissions on a secondary basis in the 28 GHz band, and there are nineteen pending applications for operation in this band. 25. Ericsson, Motorola, Samsung, Straight Path, and XO support allowing mobile use in the LMDS bands. Most satellite interests, including Avanti, ESOA, the FSS Operators, Inmarsat, and O3b argue that mobile use of the 28 GHz band is incompatible with existing use of the Ka-Band by satellite systems. They argue that satellite operators need regulatory certainty that they will have spectrum available in order to make the large investments needed to construct and deploy satellites. SES, Intelsat, O3b, and Inmarsat argue that the operation of certain types of FSS earth stations, such as gateway earth stations, in the 28 GHz band (Earth-to-space) should have primary status. EchoStar, Hughes Network Systems and Alta Wireless also suggest that consideration be given to granting co-primary status to the operation of gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band. Some parties argue that the 28 GHz band is not a good candidate for mobile use because the U.S. LMDS band plan does not align with international use of the band. Inmarsat states that it lacks sufficient information to determine whether contemplated mobile systems would be compatible with existing satellite use. 26. Not all satellite operators oppose consideration of the 28 GHz bands for mobile use. EchoStar supports giving existing LMDS licensees the flexibility to provide mobile services along with upgrading the status of gateway earth stations in the band to co-primary. ViaSat “urges the Commission to refrain from defaulting to outdated paradigms for sharing between satellite and terrestrial systems” and urges the Commission to expand the ability of satellite operators to make “opportunistic” use of bands such as the 28 GHz band. 27. Discussion. We propose to authorize mobile operation in the 28 GHz band. The research conducted by Samsung, NYU Wireless, and others demonstrates that mobile technologies can theoretically work in this band. Furthermore, the availability of 850 megahertz of contiguous spectrum makes this band particularly attractive for potential mobile use. Mobile use would be consistent with existing fixed uses in this band. Indeed, XO and Straight Path, which are LMDS licensees, support authorizing mobile use in this band. 28. We have carefully considered the opposition from certain satellite interests to allowing mobile use in this band, but tentatively conclude that those parties have not presented a valid basis for rejecting mobile use in this band. While those parties argue that they need regulatory certainty in order to invest in their systems, authorizing mobile use would not deprive FSS operators of any reasonable expectations they had of access to spectrum. Under our current rules, FSS use of this band is secondary to LMDS. Furthermore, this band has a co-primary mobile allocation throughout the world. The investments satellite operators have made in Ka-band operations were made with knowledge of their secondary status. The primary reason there has been little discussion of mobile use in this band is that there has not been any technology that would allow for mobile use of the millimeter wave bands such as this one. As that technology develops, it is unreasonable for us to preclude mobile use of this band solely because of pre-existing secondary use. Finally, we note that the satellite operators that oppose use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz band do not propose a comparable alternative band for mobile use. 29. We also reject the argument that the 28 GHz band should not be considered for mobile use because the U.S. band plan has not been replicated in other countries. While we recognize the benefits of international harmonization, we also understand that not every country will be able to designate exactly the same bands for similar uses because they will have a different needs and incumbent uses. We note that international equipment vendors such as Samsung, Huawei, and Alcatel-Lucent are looking at this frequency range for mobile use. Furthermore, the worldwide co-primary mobile allocation for this band is also an important factor that supports mobile use of this band. 30. Most importantly, we do not view mobile use of this band as necessarily being inconsistent with continued satellite use of the band. Our goal in this proceeding is to establish a flexible regulatory framework that accommodates as wide a variety of uses as possible. The Commission has recognized that satellite technology “is particularly important for communication in remote areas that are unserved or underserved by terrestrial communication facilities” and can provide vital connectivity for first responders in emergencies and natural disasters. Satellites are being used to provide communications services such as satellite television to homes and two-way voice and data networks (including broadband services). In light of these important services, we agree with ViaSat that it is time to reexamine “outdated paradigms” and closely examine potential opportunities for sharing. Satellite operators agree that they have been able to coordinate use with existing fixed LMDS licensees. While mobile use presents additional challenges in terms of coexistence, we offer proposals and ask questions about our ability to expand non-federal, secondary satellite use of this band by granting them, through a market-based mechanism, the right to greater flexibility in their use of the band. As discussed below, this proposed market-based mechanism would enable non-Federal satellite users to obtain the terrestrial licenses in the band, by either participating in a Commission auction or through the secondary market, in order to achieve co-primary status and thereby obtaining greater flexibility in their use of the band. 31. At a minimum, we anticipate that satellite operators will continue to be able to place gateway earth stations in the band. Under those circumstances, we believe the existence of FSS earth stations should not preclude our consideration of this band for mobile use. b. 38.6-40 GHz Band 32. Background. The band is licensed by Economic Area (EAs). There are 176 EAs. There are fourteen paired blocks of 50 by 50 megahertz channels. The populations in areas covered by active licenses (both EA and Rectangular Service Area (RSA) licenses) vary by channel, but in aggregate they cover about 49 percent of the U.S. population. Out of 2,464 possible EA licenses (14 channel pairs for each of 176 EAs), 859 are currently licensed. Other licenses previously issued were voluntarily cancelled or terminated for failure to meet substantial service requirements. In addition, there are currently 229 active RSA licenses that predate the creation of the EA licenses and where the licensees self-defined their service area. Those RSA licensees retain the exclusive right to operate within their RSAs. 33. This band has a co-primary allocation for Fixed and Mobile services. The Commission provided licensees the flexibility to provide mobile services and stated the belief that “the issue of technical compatibility of fixed and mobile operations within a service area is one that can and should be resolved by the licensee.” The Commission declined to permit mobile operations, however, until it conducted a separate proceeding to resolve inter-licensee and inter-service interference issues. 34. There are no Federal allocations in the 38.6-39.5 GHz band. There is an adjacent Federal allocation for FSS (space-to-Earth) and Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) (space-to-Earth) in the 39.5-40 GHz band. Federal government earth stations in the MSS in the 39.5-40 GHz band are prohibited from claiming protection from non-Federal stations in the fixed and mobile services in this band, but are not required to protect non-Federal fixed and mobile services in the band ( i.e., 5.43A of the ITU Radio regulations does not apply). This prohibition does not apply to Federal government earth stations in the FSS. When the 39 GHz Order was adopted, Federal government use of the band was limited to military systems in the 39.5-40 GHz band segment, but the Department of Defense stated that it had plans to implement satellite downlinks at 39.5-40 GHz in the future, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) identified 39.5-40 GHz as a possible space research band to accommodate future Earth-to-space wideband data requirements. The 39 GHz Report and Order expressed optimism that such plans would not affect the continued development of the 39 GHz band for non-government use, but the Commission said that it intended to address those interference issues in a future, separate proceeding that would focus on developing inter-licensee and inter-service standards and criteria. At present, the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides that Federal satellite services in the 39.5-40 GHz band are limited to military systems. 35. Non-Federal government FSS (space-to-Earth) is co-primary throughout the entire 39 GHz band, but under a “soft segmentation” band plan adopted by the Commission in 2003, FSS is subject to lower power flux density limits in the 37.5-40 GHz band to accommodate high-density fixed terrestrial systems. Those power limits act to favor implementation of fixed systems over FSS systems. There are currently no non-Federal FSS authorizations or pending applications in this band. 36. Akbar Sayeed, FiberTower, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, NYU Wireless, Qualcomm, Samsung, Straight Path, and XO support allowing mobile use in the 39 GHz band. EchoStar, Inmarsat, SIA, and ViaSat argue that the Commission should take into account their interest in using both the 39 GHz band and the 37.5-38.6 GHz band for satellite broadband services as demand for those services increases. O3b asks the Commission to consider the open V-Band Third FNPRM in parallel with this proceeding. In contrast, Straight Path argues that the Commission should delete the FSS allocation from this band and terminate action on the V-Band Third FNPRM because it believes FSS use of the band would be inconsistent with terrestrial use. Straight Path also requested a freeze on V-Band satellite licensing pending resolution of this proceeding. 37. Bluwan S.A. believes that the 39 GHz band is best suited for non-mobile uses, such as backhaul or fixed wireless access. Vivint Wireless, a fixed wireless broadband provider that relies on the 39 GHz band for backhaul, argues that mobile operating rights should be secondary to existing fixed operations in order to protect existing fixed operations. It asks the Commission to avoid awarding mobile operating rights separately from the existing fixed rights. 38. Discussion. We propose to authorize mobile operation in the 39 GHz band. The availability of up to 1.4 gigahertz of spectrum could support ultra-high data rates. Equipment manufacturers and licensees agree that the band is suitable for mobile use, and no commenter identified any reason why this band would be technically unsuitable for mobile use. Furthermore, this band has a worldwide mobile allocation. We seek detailed comment and analysis on the compatibility of mobile use with current and future Federal operations, including any technical rules necessary to ensure coexistence between Federal and non-Federal operations in this band. 39. We believe mobile use would be consistent with existing fixed uses in this band. Indeed, Straight Path, FiberTower, and XO, which are 39 GHz licensees, support authorizing mobile use in this band. As we will discuss in further detail below, we propose to grant existing 39 GHz licensees mobile rights and to issue new licenses containing both fixed and mobile operating rights. We believe this action will alleviate Vivint Wireless' concerns about compatibility between fixed and mobile uses because a single licensee will be able to coordinate fixed and mobile operations while avoiding interference. 40. The concerns raised by certain satellite operators do not provide a valid basis for rejecting the possibility of mobile service in the 39 GHz band. Unlike in 28 GHz, there are no current commercial satellite operations in the 39 GHz band, but there are federal operations. Furthermore, while several commenters express interest in using V-band to provide satellite service, no commenter expresses any concrete intention to provide such service. Declining to consider mobile use in this band because of possible future satellite use would be inconsistent with our duty to make available “[n]ationwide, and world-wide . . . radio communication service.” Our intent is not to favor mobile service over fixed or satellite service. Instead, our goal is to develop a flexible regulatory framework that will accommodate the widest possible variety of compatible services and will allow the market to determine the best possible uses of the mmW bands. 41. We deny Straight Path's request that we consider deleting the satellite allocation in this band. We can readily envision that the mmW bands will be used for a variety of both satellite and terrestrial services. It appears that terrestrial mobile use of the mmW bands may initially be concentrated in large urban areas. Foreclosing use of the 39 GHz band for satellite could result in underutilization of the band. 42. We recognize that the 39.5-40 GHz portion of the band is allocated for Federal military satellite systems. Commenters that address this issue believe that mobile use would be compatible with those systems. We seek comment below on whether any limitations or special rules on mobile use would be necessary in order to protect Federal military FSS use of the 39.5-40 GHz band. We also seek comment on the technical characteristics for the mobile applications envisioned for the band in order to enable federal agencies to conduct the necessary compatibility analysis. c. 37-38.6 GHz Band 43. Background. The Commission has not adopted terrestrial service rules for non-Federal operations in this band. In 2004, the Commission sought comment on establishing fixed and point-to-point multipoint service rules in the 37 GHz and 42 GHz bands, as well as allowing “mobile use in the future, if and when the technology develops.” There are co-primary allocations for terrestrial mobile service in these bands, but the Commission has not yet adopted service rules to authorize such services. 44. In 2004, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) sent a letter to the Commission identifying the following NASA receiving earth stations in the Space Research Service (SRS) in the 37-38 GHz band: Goldstone, California; Guam, Pacific Ocean; Merritt Island, Florida; Wallops Island, Virginia; and White Sands, New Mexico. NTIA has subsequently identified the NASA receiving earth station at Blossom Point, Maryland. NTIA also identified Green Bank, Virginia; and Socorro, New Mexico National Science Foundation (NSF), which NSF cites as supporting their Very Long Baseline Interferometry (VLBI) earth station operations. NTIA noted the importance of the band 37-38 GHz to support U.S. goals to provide a permanent manned presence in earth orbit (on or near the moon) and to initiate manned exploration of the planet Mars, and to support VLBI by satellite. There is also a co-primary allocation for Federal space research, fixed, and mobile service operations in the 37-38.6 GHz band. NTIA identified 14 military sites in the 37-38.6 GHz band that required protection. In the 2004 letter NTIA recommended that coordination with the Federal operations be performed within the Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (IRAC) process. In 2006, NTIA sent a follow-up letter to the FCC reaffirming the need to protect NASA, NSF, and military operations from non-Federal terrestrial and FSS operations in the 37-38 GHz band. NTIA requested that the protection of Federal operations be accomplished by establishing a footnote to the U.S. table of Frequency Allocations specifying the Federal sites and the coordination areas. NTIA also recommended that because of the potential for interference from airborne systems, the aeronautical mobile service allocation should be deleted from the 37-38 GHz band. In the NOI, we terminated action on the 2004 proceeding and stated we would resume consideration of potential uses of the 37 GHz band in this proceeding. 45. In addition to Fixed and Mobile allocations, there is a co-primary non-Federal FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation. As described above, the soft segmentation plan adopted in the V-Band Second Report and Order favors terrestrial services in the 37 GHz band. Akbar Sayeed, Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Samsung support considering mobile use of this band. Straight Path believes that this band may be appropriate for examining novel sharing techniques. 46. As with the 39 GHz band, EchoStar, Inmarsat, SIA, and ViaSat oppose mobile use of this band, or ask the Commission to take into account their interest in using this band for satellite broadband services as demand for those services increases. 47. Discussion. We propose to develop service rules for mobile operation in the 37 GHz band. The band consists of 1.6 GHz of contiguous spectrum that could potentially support high data-rate transmissions. Furthermore, it is contiguous to the 39 GHz band, so there could be opportunities to aggregate up to 3 gigahertz of spectrum. The 37 GHz band also has a worldwide co-primary mobile allocation. 48. As with the 39 GHz band, we do not believe the concerns of the satellite operators should preclude consideration of mobile use of this band. There are no non-Federal incumbent satellite operations in this band and no concrete announced plans to use this band for satellite use. Our intent is to establish a flexible rules framework that enables as wide a range of services as possible. Our proposals and questions concerning facilitating satellite use—through a market-based mechanism—that is compatible with terrestrial use will include the 37 GHz band. 49. We recognize that this band is a shared Federal-non-Federal band. We will work together with NTIA to ensure that Federal operations are protected while maximizing the use of the 37 GHz band for commercial operations. In particular, we recognize that we will need to work with NTIA to develop appropriate protections for SRS facilities in the 37-38 GHz band. Another issue we will need to address is ensuring protection of Earth Exploration Satellite Service (EESS) passive observations below 37 GHz. We seek comment on these issues below. d. 64-71 GHz Band 50. Background. There are no authorized non-Federal operations in this band. Unlicensed operations within the adjacent 57-64 GHz band are permitted under Part 15 of our rules. Non-Federal government operators of outdoor radio equipment in the 57-64 GHz band segment are not required to obtain individual licenses or seek coordination with the NTIA if they limit average EIRP to 82 dBm minus 2 dB for every dB that their antenna gain is less than 51 dBi. In 2013, the Commission allowed longer communication distances for outdoor point-to-point systems in the 57-64 GHz band by allowing higher powers, specified emission limits as an EIRP power level to provide uniformity and consistency in the rules, and eliminated the requirement for certain devices in the 57-64 GHz band to transmit identification information. Frequencies from 64-71 GHz are not among those listed in our rules as available for licenses issued in the terrestrial Fixed Service or for any satellite services except for Inter-Satellite service (ISS). Our rules list 65-71 GHz as available for ISS licenses, but there are no current ISS licenses. 51. The 64-71 GHz band has a co-primary mobile allocation. In the 64-66 GHz band, aeronautical mobile operation is prohibited. The 65-71 GHz band is authorized for ISS links. There are currently no active satellite licenses in that band. There are also a series of co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, Radiolocation, Radionavigation-Satellite, EESS, and ISS operations throughout these bands. International and domestic rules also indicate that any use of the 66-71 GHz band by the land mobile service is subject to not causing interference to, and accepting interference from, the space radiocommunication services in this band. 52. Ericsson, IEEE 802, InterDigital, Qualcomm, SiBeam, and Wi-Fi Alliance support authorizing operations in the 64-71 GHz band under Part 15 of the Commission's rules. Samsung believes that this band could be used in connection with the adjacent 57-64 GHz band to increase flexibility for users, lower the potential for interference, and support higher data rates for a number of applications, including wireless backhaul. Samsung supports licensing the 64-71 GHz band and provides a recommended band plan. SiBeam believes authorizing use of the 64-71 GHz band could facilitate “multigigabit, large scale, dynamically switches wireless network equivalent to current fiber metro networks.” Interdigital believes there will be no interference to any future ISS licensees because the primary network architecture will be a low height above ground terrestrial network for both small cells and backhaul. 53. SIA noted the allocation for ISS links and “urge the Commission to preserve flexibility for future satellite access.” Nokia supports authorizing operations in the 64-71 GHz band on a licensed, geographic area basis because there are no current licensed operations in that band. 54. Discussion. We note Nokia's preference for geographic area licensing and Samsung's interest in licensing the 64-71 GHz band, but tentatively conclude that authorizing operation under Part 15 of the Commission's rules is the better approach in this band. As discussed elsewhere, we propose geographic area licensing in other bands. We believe that a balanced approach utilizing licensed, unlicensed, and hybrid mechanisms for authorizing service in the mmW bands will best accommodate a wide variety of services, providing multiple opportunities to put the spectrum to use, and encourage the development of different technologies and business models in these bands. We agree with commenters that authorizing Part 15 operations in the 64-71 GHz band will allow this band to be used in conjunction with the existing 57-64 GHz band to double the spectrum available for the next generation of unlicensed wireless broadband technologies such as ultra-high-speed audiovisual content streaming and WiGig connectivity that will offer low latency and security-protected connectivity between devices. This will help meet the demand for access for unlicensed spectrum for lower-power end-user applications that continues to grow along with the demand for licensed radio spectrum for greater-distance, higher-power operations. 55. We believe authorizing Part 15 operation would be compatible with the allocation for ISS. Because of the high atmospheric absorption in this frequency range, it is highly unlikely that signals at the power levels contemplated would be able to reach satellites using ISS links. Are the technical considerations in the 57-64 GHz band fully applicable to deployment of unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band recognizing that unlicensed devices must protect allocated services including future systems? What additional technical and operational characteristics as well as interference mitigation techniques of the anticipated unlicensed use for this band need to be considered in assessing sharing with in-band and adjacent band incumbent services? 3. Other Bands 56. In this section, we discuss bands raised by commenters where we are not proposing service rules at this time. As noted below, with respect to certain of these bands, we seek comment on our analysis of these bands and ask interested parties to provide additional information concerning possible mobile uses of these bands. As we develop a further record in this proceeding, as technology develops, and as we develop a further record on compatibility issues with other allocated Federal and non-Federal services, we reserve the right to give further consideration to some of these bands. Given the early stage of the development of technologies for mobile mmW band, and the complex sharing issues raised in these bands, we believe the best approach is to initially focus our efforts on the strongest candidate bands, discussed above, which we believe are better positioned for more immediate use in the marketplace. a. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 25.05-25.25 GHz) 57. Background. There are two types of fixed licenses in this band. The 24 GHz Service has a total of 176 EA or EA-like service areas. In 2004, the Commission held Auction 56, in which it made 890 24 GHz licenses available. Only seven of the 890 licenses were sold. In addition, FiberTower and Puerto Rico Telephone Company hold a total of 49 pre-auction Digital Electronic Messaging Service licenses in this band. 58. The 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for non-Federal government Fixed Service and FSS (Earth-to-space) services, and a footnote to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides that the use of the 25.05-25.25 GHz band by the FSS (Earth-to-space) is limited to feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite Service (BSS). Section 25.203(l) of the Commission's rules provides that applicants for feeder link earth station facilities operating in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band may be licensed only in EAs where no existing Fixed Service licensee has been authorized, and shall coordinate their operations with 24 GHz Fixed Service operations if the power flux density of their transmitted signal at the boundary of the Fixed Service license area is equal to or greater than −114 dBW/m2 in any 1 MHz. The 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service Report and Order determined that future Fixed Service systems locating near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth station may not claim protection from interference from the feeder link earth station's transmissions, provided that those transmissions are compliant with the Commission's rules, and that future 24 GHz Fixed Service applicants would be required to take into account the transmissions from the previously authorized earth station when considering system designs, including their choices of locations for their license areas. There are three active licenses for feeder link earth stations in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band segment, all of them held by DIRECTV. 59. There is no mobile allocation in either of the 24 GHz band segments. In the 24 GHz Report & Order, the Commission found that it would be premature to allow mobile operations in the 24 GHz bands but reserved the discretion to revisit that issue if it is presented with technical information demonstrating that such operations would be technically feasible without generating interference to fixed operations and BSS feeder links in 24 GHz band segments. 60. FiberTower and Nokia support authorizing mobile use in the 24 GHz bands. Ericsson states that the 24 GHz bands may be suitable for backhaul use if sufficient spectrum can be aggregated. The FSS Operators ask for FSS access to 25.05-25.25 GHz. 61. Discussion. Commenters expressed a lower level of interest in the 24 GHz band than in other bands. We note that this band presents several challenges with respect to possible mobile use. Significantly, the amount of contiguous spectrum (two 200 megahertz blocks) available in these bands is less than many commenters currently recommend as the minimum amount of spectrum available for mobile use. This band also lacks an international mobile allocation; although we recognize that this could change in the future. We note that BSS feeder links in the upper part of the band are entitled to interference protection, and while not necessarily an insurmountable problem this would likely require complex analyses of the potential for aggregate interference from terrestrial wireless systems. 62. We do not wish, however, to preclude consideration of this band. We invite parties who are interested in mobile use of the 24 GHz band to comment on our analysis. Are there circumstances under which this band could be successfully used for the type of mobile systems, or other systems, contemplated for the mmW bands? Are there ways of allowing widespread deployments while protecting BSS feeder links? We ask commenters who support further consideration of this band to provide specific suggestions for addressing the issues we have identified above. Interested parties should also comment on the services that would likely be deployed in this band given the issues implicated and the possible viable business models. In those areas where there are incumbent fixed licenses, should we grant mobile rights to the incumbent fixed licensees? Would licensed or unlicensed rights be best for making this spectrum available and for facilitating coexistence? Are there rule changes that can be made to promote backhaul or other fixed uses? b. 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz 63. Background. These bands are part of the LMDS. For the 29.1-29.25 GHz band segment, section 25.202 of the Commission's rules provides that 29.1-29.25 GHz is co-primary for MSS feeder links and LMDS, and section 101.1001 of the Commission's rules limits LMDS to hub-to-subscriber transmissions in this band segment. Section 25.257 of the Commission's rules allows as many as ten MSS feeder link earth station complexes to be deployed in the 29.1-29.25 GHz band segment, but there are currently only five active licenses for feeder link and telemetry, tracking, and command earth stations in those frequencies. The 31-31.3 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile services, with a secondary Federal and non-Federal allocation for space-to-Earth standard frequency and time signal operations. 64. Iridium, which operates feeder links in the 29.1-29.25 GHz band, notes that its feeder links are co-primary and asks the Commission to “keep the Iridium system and the critical services it provides in mind even in the early stages of research into emerging terrestrial broadband technologies.” While Straight Path generally favors making the LMDS band available for mobile use, it states that the presence of co-primary feeder links “may make mobile wireless use of the band more complicated and require further analysis.” NCTA identifies the 29.1-29.25 GHz band as a band that may be suitable for unlicensed use and argues that unlicensed operation could facilitate sharing with incumbent users. 65. We received little comment specifically directed to the 31-31.3 GHz band. Straight Path notes that Federal satellite uses in this band are secondary and do not require protection. CORF notes that the 31-31.3 GHz band is immediately adjacent to a passive EESS sensing band in which all transmissions are prohibited, and it urges that the Commission protect EESS through guard bands. 66. Discussion. We decline to propose authorizing mobile operation at this time, primarily because the bands offer considerably less than 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum as commenters have suggested is necessary for mobile operations. Unlike in 27.5-28.35 GHz, the satellite facilities in 29.1-29.25 GHz have co-primary status. While it could be possible to develop a sharing regime between the feeder links and mobile operations, given the relatively small amount of spectrum at issue, we believe our efforts are better directed towards bands that offer more contiguous spectrum, such as 27.5-28.35 GHz. We also note that 31-31.3 GHz is shared between the A and B block licensees, so there may be instances where it may be difficult to aggregate even 300 megahertz of spectrum. c. 31.8-33 GHz 67. Background. There are international allocations for Fixed and Radionavigation services throughout this entire band, although administrations should take practical measures to minimize potential interference between those services, taking into account the operational needs of airborne radar systems. The Radionavigation allocation is Federal throughout the entire band and non-Federal in the 32.3-33.4 GHz band. In the United States, ground-based radionavigation aids are not permitted except when they operate in cooperation with airborne or shipborne radionavigation devices. There is also a co-primary Space Research (deep space) (space-to-earth) allocation in the 31.8-32.3 GHz band, and an ISS allocation in the 32.3-33 GHz band. In addition, this band is adjacent to the 31.3-31.8 GHz bands, where no transmissions are authorized in order to protect radio astronomy observations. 68. Samsung supports adding this band to the Commission's consideration of mmW bands for mobile service in light of European and Asian regional support for consideration of this band. ESOA generally supports examination of bands above 31 GHz. 69. Discussion. This band presents particularly difficult challenges for mobile use. The need to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz passive band, existing Federal systems, and deep-space research appears to severely limit the availability of useable spectrum in this band. Furthermore, there currently is no mobile allocation in this band, whereas there are existing mobile allocations for other bands under consideration. 70. In the interests of developing a complete record, we invite commenters who support further consideration of this band to comment on our analysis. In particular, we seek a detailed technical analysis of the out-of-band emission limits required to protect the 31.3-31.8 GHz band to help determine how much of this band could potentially be available for mobile use. We also seek comment on the compatibility of mobile use with the existing aeronautical and shipborne radar use of this band, future radionavigation and other federal services, as well as the deep space research in the 31.8-32.3 GHz band. Given the important incumbent uses of this band and the adjacent band, interested parties should comment on how sharing would work between mobile and existing incumbent uses. d. 42-42.5 GHz 71. Background. There are currently no terrestrial service rules in place for this band. On May 9, 2012, FWCC filed a petition for rulemaking seeking the establishment of service rules for fixed point-to-point use of the 42-43.5 GHz band under Part 101 of the Commission's rules. There are Federal and non-Federal co-primary allocations for terrestrial mobile service in different segments of these bands, but the Commission has not yet adopted service rules to authorize such services. A footnote in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations urges all operations in the 42-42.5 GHz band to take all practicable steps to protect radio astronomy observations in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band from interference. 72. In addition to Fixed and Mobile allocations, there are Broadcasting and BSS allocations in this band. The Commission has proposed eliminating those BSS allocations and adding an FSS (space-to-Earth) allocation in order to protect adjacent channel radio astronomy in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band. 73. Motorola Mobility, Nokia, Qualcomm, and Samsung include this band in the list of bands that should be examined for possible mobile use. On the other hand, Ericsson describes this band as being of “no current interest” because it is only a single 500 megahertz block. 74. CORF describes the adjacent 42.5-43.5 GHz band as being one of the most important bands for radio astronomy because it is used to observe silicon monoxide, which yields important information on stellar temperatures, density, and wind velocities. Under our current rules, all practicable steps must be taken to protect the radio astronomy service from interference in the 42.5-43.5 GHz service. FWCC contends that the 42-43.5 GHz band is more suitable for fixed point-to-point service. 75. Discussion. While this band could possibly be used for mobile, it is not as desirable as the bands for which we are proposing service rules at this time. The band has 500 megahertz of contiguous spectrum, but the need to protect the adjacent radio astronomy band at 42.5-43.5 GHz may require limits on the use of the band. Interest in this band among commenters was somewhat lower than in bands where we are proposing rules authorizing mobile service. The band also is not part of the United States or CITEL proposals for bands to be considered for further study for mobile use. Finally, we note that there are competing proposals to make this band available for FSS or fixed use. While it may be possible to work through those issues, authorizing mobile service in this band would be more complicated than in bands such as 28 GHz and 39 GHz. 76. In light of the competing proposals for use of this band, we seek comment on the relative merits of using this band for FSS, fixed, or mobile use, or the ability to share among these different uses. What sort of services would be offered using this band? We also ask commenters to analyze how the need to protect radio astronomy in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band affects the viability of this band for the services they support. We also seek comment on the extent to which different services could share in this band, and what sharing mechanisms, if any, would be appropriate. e. 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz 77. Background. In 2003, the Commission established service rules to promote non-Federal fixed development and use of spectrum in the 71-76 GHz, 81 86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz bands. Based on its determination that systems in these bands can readily be engineered to produce highly directional, “pencil-beam” signals that can co-exist in the same vicinity without causing interference to one another, the Commission adopted a flexible and innovative regulatory framework for the bands. Specifically, the framework permits the issuance of an unlimited number of non-exclusive, nationwide licenses to non-Federal government entities for all of these bands. Under this licensing scheme, a license serves as a prerequisite for registering individual point-to-point links; licensees may operate a link only after the link is registered with a third-party database. 78. As of September 22, 2015, there were 408 active non-exclusive nationwide licenses covering the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands. Based upon information available from the third-party database managers that are responsible for registering links in those bands, as of September 22, 2015 there were approximately 12,687 registered fixed links in the 71-76 GHz and 81-86 GHz bands. 79. Non-Federal operations may not cause harmful interference to, nor claim protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations located at 28 military bases. In addition, in the 80 GHz band, licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy observatories must coordinate their proposed links with those observatories. Third-party database managers are responsible for recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database link system and coordinating with NTIA's automated “green light/yellow light” mechanism to determine the potential for harmful interference to Federal operations and radio observatories. 80. The 71-74 GHz band segment also has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, FSS, Mobile, and MSS (space-to-Earth) operations. The 74-76 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal government Fixed, FSS (space-to-Earth), Mobile, and SRS operations. In addition, there are non-Federal allocations in that band segment for Broadcasting and BSS operations. The 81-86 GHz band has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal government Fixed, FSS (Earth-to-space), and Mobile, and within that band the 81-84 GHz band segment also has a Federal and non-Federal government allocation for MSS (Earth-to-space). The 76-77 GHz band is currently used for unlicensed vehicular radars under Part 15 of the rules. The Commission has proposed to authorize non-Federal radar applications in the 76-81 GHz band on a licensed basis under Part 95. This proposal would shift vehicular radars away from the existing Part 15 unlicensed model. 81. Akbar Sayeed and Nokia identify these bands as appropriate candidates for mobile use. Nokia believes these bands would be particularly appropriate because the wide amount of bandwidth available would support 10 Gbps peak rate with relatively simple equipment. Ericsson argues that these bands might support mobile service “but would not be the industry's primary choice.” IEEE802, NCTA, and Wi-Fi Alliance ask that a Part 15 authorizations be added to these bands. FWCC and McKay Brothers highlight the existing uses of these bands for fixed backhaul and specialized telecommunications services, and urge that these existing services be protected. FWCC, McKay Brothers, and SiBeam also note or propose changes to the existing fixed rules for 70 GHz and 80 GHz. 82. Discussion. The interest among commenters in using this band for mobile operations is rather limited. Furthermore, the coordination process between fixed and mobile operations would be considerably more complicated in these bands because there are multiple fixed licensees in a given area (as opposed to 28 GHz or 39 GHz, where there is one licensee in a given area and band). The need to protect Federal earth stations and radio astronomy locations would also require limits on mobile operations in these bands. 83. We do not offer a specific proposal at this time to amend our rules relating to the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. Based on the current record, it is not clear how mobile units would be controlled to avoid interference to fixed links. None of the proponents of unlicensed use in these bands has made a detailed showing that unlicensed devices would be compatible with the fixed equipment being deployed in these bands. Furthermore, we are proposing to make seven gigahertz of additional spectrum available for unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band. We seek comment, however, on whether the Commission should revisit its 2003 decision not to allow Part 15 operations in these bands, and if so, what specific bands we should consider for Part 15 operations (or for licensed use) and how such operations in those bands would be compatible with existing fixed operations, as well as Federal earth stations and radio astronomy operations. If we authorized sharing between fixed and mobile systems, what would the sharing mechanism look like and how should it be administered? What type of mechanisms would we need to establish to ensure there is no harmful interference? 84. With respect to the proposals to change the current Part 101 rules governing fixed operations in these bands, we believe these proposals are better addressed in our Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-153. In that proceeding, we have under consideration a variety of proposed rule changes to our Part 101 Fixed Service rules. We note that FWCC originally filed its proposal for changes to the antenna standards in that proceeding. f. Above 86 GHz 85. Background. IEEE802, Marcus Spectrum, NYU Wireless, Wi-Fi Alliance, and Wireless Innovation Forum expressed support for consideration of some combination of bands above 86 GHz for use. Marcus Spectrum pointed to a petition for rulemaking filed by Battelle Memorial Corporation seeking service rules for licensed use of the 102-109.5 GHz band. NYU Wireless described the frequencies above 100 GHz as a “technical playground” that could lead to new technical innovations. Marcus Spectrum urges that the presence of co-primary passive allocations should not preclude use of the frequencies above 95 GHz. 86. In the 92-95 GHz band, unlicensed operation is allowed only for devices that are capable of operating only indoors. In 2003, there was considerable interest in using the band more generally for unlicensed use, but the Commission declined to authorize outdoor or airborne use because of possible harmful interference to radio astronomy from unlicensed outdoor devices. 87. Discussion. We are encouraged by commenters' expressions of interest in frequencies above 86 GHz. At the same time, as Marcus Spectrum points out, there are a wide variety of combinations of allocations in the frequencies above 86 GHz. We believe the most appropriate means of proceeding is to consider proposals for use of specific frequency bands. The specific proposal we have before us is Battelle's proposal to establish licensed service rules for the 102-109.5 GHz band. We will consider that proposal in the Wireless Backhaul proceeding, WT Docket No. 10-153. We invite other interested parties to submit other proposals, including proposals for authorizing use under our Part 15 rules. We also note that, unlike in 2003, there has been no advocacy for further unlicensed use in the 92-95 GHz band. B. Rules for Licensed Operations in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz Bands—Creation of the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 88. In this section, we set forth our proposal for licensing rules for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands. These proposals are built off of the Commission's significant experience crafting licensing rules that promote the widespread deployment of spectrum. These proposals strike a balance between more traditional geographic-area licensing and innovative licensing schemes aimed at meeting needs of different users for different uses. In the 28 GHz and 39 GHz band, we propose a traditional geographic area licensing scheme that is flexible to provide access and protection for fixed, mobile, and FSS uses. In the 37 GHz band, we propose a licensing model that attempts to maximize the use of spectrum by creating rights for both local area networks and wide area networks. We seek comment on these proposed licensing mechanisms, and alternatives. 1. 28 GHz and 39 GHz Bands—Geographic Area Licensing 89. We propose to create a new service for the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands—the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service—and propose to establish rules to allow an Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensee to provide any form of fixed or mobile service (including aeronautical mobile, where consistent with the allocation). For current 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees, we propose to grant new licenses that provide new flexible rights to operate in the licensed geographic area and include the same spectrum, with authorization for both fixed and mobile operations. For geographic license areas with no existing LMDS or 39 GHz licensees, we would assign these new Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licenses via competitive bidding. Finally, as described in further detail below, we propose to allow FSS providers to acquire these licenses through auction or the secondary market, thereby allowing them to continue to operate or expand in these bands. 90. We believe there are several advantages to using a geographic area licensing approach in these bands. Issuing a single license including both fixed and mobile service rights would allow the licensee to coordinate fixed and mobile uses within its geographic area. Such an approach would be consistent with the Commission's prior decision to use geographic area licensing for fixed and point-to-multipoint service in these bands. In addition, geographic licensing is consistent with the Commission's licensing approach for flexible use bands, such as bands licensed under Part 27 of the Commission's rules. We also note that a wide variety of commenters supported geographic area licensing in these bands. We seek comment on this proposal. 91. We propose to permit existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees to exercise the full extent of these rights—including mobile rights—for geographic areas and bands in which they currently hold licenses. There are several likely advantages to this proposal. First, this approach will minimize transaction costs and provide the fastest transition to expanded use of the band, which would be to the benefit of consumers. Second, traditional fixed operation in these bands consists of tightly focused beams between two points. Third, and related to the difficulty in distinguishing between fixed and mobile services in this band, the existence of separate licenses for fixed and mobile operation might create unusually large challenges related to interference. 92. Further, the Commission previously contemplated that LMDS and 39 GHz licensees would have the opportunity to engage in mobile operations if the associated technical issues could be resolved. Such a policy also would be consistent with the Commission's decision to grant existing MDS and ITFS licensees blanket authority to engage in mobile operations when the Commission instituted geographic area licensing for those services in the 2.5 GHz band. A variety of commenters support this approach. We accordingly seek comment on the proposal to award mobile operating rights to existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees, and the costs and benefits of so doing. 93. We recognize, however, that alternative approaches exist to assign flexible use rights in geographic areas and bands with existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. In particular, we seek comment on the costs and benefits of establishing an overlay right that would allow new licensees flexibility in use, subject to noninterference with the incumbent licensees. While our principal proposal is to directly assign flexible use rights to existing licensees in lieu of establishing an overlay right, we acknowledge certain benefits to assigning such rights using competitive bidding and seek comment on whether to award overlay rights for these bands through auction. First, an auction would assign these rights to the user that values the set of rights most highly, whether it be an incumbent licensee or a new potential user. Second, the use of an auction, rather than a direct grant of additional rights to existing licensees, ensures that a portion of the value associated with these additional rights will accrue to the United States Treasury. Third, the Commission has relevant experience in the application of overlay rights in other bands. 94. We invite commenters to address these and related other issues that will help us identify the most efficient means for assigning these new, flexible use rights consistent with our obligations under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act, especially in geographic areas and in spectrum that currently has incumbent licensees. We ask commenters to provide data on the costs and benefits associated with each approach. 2. 37 GHz—Hybrid Authorizations 95. As we noted in the NOI, “we aim to develop a framework that will accommodate as wide a variety of services and uses as possible.” We also noted two primary models of wireless network deployments—service provider models, and decentralized Wi-Fi—like deployment deployed by end users. Our proposed licensing model for the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands will ensure that extensive spectrum is available for service provider deployments of 5G small cells or other fixed or mobile technologies that service providers may deem appropriate. Similarly, our proposal for 64-71 GHz would extend the existing 57-64 MHz band, making 14 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum available for short-range unlicensed uses. 96. We propose to establish service rules for the 37 GHz band that would enable flexibility to facilitate a third type of network deployment: privately deployed networks that can provide 5G communications for advanced enterprise and industrial applications not suited to unlicensed spectrum or public network services. These applications might require licensed spectrum rights tailored to physical facility boundaries. The inherent short-range characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum make it well-suited to serve this need, and might also facilitate natural coexistence between a private, local area network, and a more traditional commercial wide area network. Unlike in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, there are no incumbent non-Federal terrestrial authorizations in the 37 GHz band. This lack of incumbents gives us additional flexibility in designing a licensing mechanism for this band. We therefore seek comment on a hybrid licensing scheme that would convey licensed “local area” operating rights to premises occupants by rule, and separately, geographic area licenses for wide area use. We also seek comment on variations on this proposal as discussed below. Because this mode of licensing would not exhaustively license all geography, we seek comment on ways to establish geographic area licenses for wide area use. We also seek comment on the proper regulatory relationship between the two categories of licenses. 97. We believe several facts support making 37 GHz band spectrum available for licensed local area networks. First, radio signals in this band propagate over short distances (due to atmospheric absorption) and signals are heavily attenuated by exterior walls and windows. With those characteristics, it could be possible to separate local-area deployments from each other and also from wide-area deployments by simply leveraging the physical properties of the spectrum. Second, as a practical matter, local-area millimeter wave deployments will require permission of the property owner for siting, installation, backhaul, etc. Or alternatively, a property owner will need the permission of the licensee to use the spectrum within their own property, and the licensee may not have an incentive to bargain with the property owner even if the property owner has a strong need for the spectrum. Therefore, it may be highly efficient to convey the initial spectrum assignment for these environments directly to the owner or user of the local area rather than a third-party entity. 98. We propose that local area operating rights in the 37 GHz band be awarded by rule, pursuant to Section 307(e) of the Communications Act. We seek comment on how to define “local area” for these purposes. If we limit operations to indoor only, what applications would be precluded by limiting devices to indoor use only? What consideration should be given to the tradeoffs between these factors? Should the rule convey rights to property owners? If so, should the rights apply equally to private and public property? Should we explicitly exclude outdoor “public spaces” ( e.g., streets, parks)? Should we allow those rights to be conveyed through standard instrumentalities of state law ( e.g., as part of a standard property lease) or should we establish special rules governing conveyance of these operating rights? Alternatively, should the usage rights automatically attach to the current lawful occupant of a property ( i.e., tenants)? Should the rights be conveyed only for indoor uses or should outdoor uses ( e.g., courtyards, campus environments) also be authorized? Should the rule relate to the deployment of network facilities ( e.g., a right to deploy base stations or access points in the local area) or more broadly to RF protections ( e.g., a right to quietude in the local area)? Should the local area operating rights only apply to facilities exceeding some minimum size? How do we ensure that equipment is used in a manner consistent with any restrictions we place on local area operations? 99. We further propose that wide area rights in the 37 GHz band be defined as area licenses assigned through auction. Holders of these licenses would be entitled to deploy service in any and all areas not awarded through the rule-based licensing approach described above. For example, if we were to determine that the local area rights attach to indoor deployment of the 37 GHz band, the wide area rights would authorize outdoor deployment. We presume that those licenses would otherwise be similar in character to traditional geographic licenses. We seek comment on this proposal. We seek comment below on the appropriate license area size. 100. We seek comment on the RF coexistence of local area and wide area deployments, and how the coexistence should affect the definition of and relationship between the two classes of rights. Specifically, we seek technical comment on the propagation of this spectrum through typical building materials, and to what extent modern building materials used in energy-efficient construction affect attenuation outside of the building. We seek comment on whether, to distinguish the rights between the use cases and facilitate coexistence through licensing rights, one of the two categories of licensees should have the right to assert claims of harmful interference against the other? Or should it be presumed that any licensee operating within the rules will be on equal footing with any other and every user would have a duty to coordinate with its neighbors? Could relatively lower authorized power limits for local area users minimize the interference risks to wide area users? Conversely, could “self-help” remedies ( e.g., RF shielding) protect local area users from higher power wide area network transmissions? 101. Alternative Proposal. As an alternative to the foregoing proposal, we could divide the 37 GHz Band into several blocks and assign some of these blocks by rule for local area uses (as described above). For example, the 1600 MHz bandwidth could be divided into three 533 megahertz or four 400 megahertz blocks. One or two of these blocks could be assigned by rule to local area uses and the others could be licensed on a geographical area basis and assigned through an auction process. A band-wide interoperability rule would ensure that equipment would be available for all users in the band. Dividing the band spectrally in this way may not be as efficient, from a local network standpoint, as dividing it geographically, as proposed above, because it may result in local area networks not being to access the full frequency range in the band. On the other hand, it may be easier to implement procedurally and would eliminate any concerns about co-channel interference between local area and wide area networks sharing the same frequencies. We seek comment on this alternative proposal. 102. A second alternative would be to use geographic area licensing of all rights, but use geographic areas small enough to accommodate local area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses. This alternative will be discussed in further detail in the License Area Size section, supra. 3. License Area Size for the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz Bands 103. In the NOI, after noting that 28 GHz had already been licensed by BTA and 39 GHz had already been licensed by EA, we sought comment on ways in which geographic area licensing could be tailored to ensure greater utilization of spectrum for mobile services in the millimeter wave bands, including by selecting the optimal geographic area size. We also observed that, in determining the appropriate service area size, larger license sizes can make it difficult to generalize across different licenses in different areas, while smaller license sizes can raise the burden of administering the licensing scheme, including verifying build out. 104. Many commenters addressed the issue of license area size. Six commenters supported license areas that are consistent with the current fixed terrestrial regime at 28 GHz and 39 GHz, including four incumbent fixed licensees. Several commenters pointed out that the characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum suggest that large service areas would not be advisable. Finally, two commenters stated that development of millimeter wave technology is too nascent to make informed determinations about license area, and one criticized large license area sizes as being inappropriate for millimeter wave technology. 105. Discussion. If we adopt a geographic area approach for licensing these bands as we proposed above, then we must determine the appropriate size(s) of service areas on which licenses should be based. We seek to adopt service areas for all bands that meets several statutory goals. These include facilitating access to spectrum by both small and large providers, providing for the efficient use of the spectrum, encouraging deployment of wireless broadband services to consumers, including those in rural areas and tribal lands, and promoting investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services consistent with our obligations under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act. In order to accomplish these goals, we must take into account the unique characteristics and circumstances in each specific band. We agree with CEA that the characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum must be taken into account in determining “both the geographic scope of licenses and performance requirements,” including the fact that licensees may not initially want or need to serve an entire BTA to meet its or its customers' needs. 106. We propose to use counties as the base geographic area unit for licenses in the 28 GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands. Counties are significantly smaller than traditional license areas, such as BTAs and EAs, but are generally larger than the other non-traditional license area the Commission has elsewhere adopted, including census tracts. There are currently 3,143 counties, in comparison to 176 EAs, 493 BTAs, and more than 74,000 census tracts. 107. We believe there may be several advantages to county-based licenses. First, we believe county licenses best fit the localized types of services we expect to be offered in the mmW bands. Second, establishing smaller licenses could provide licensees with additional flexibility to target their deployments to those areas where they need the capacity. Third, smaller license areas reduce the potential for warehousing spectrum; again, licensees will be more likely to acquire and hold only the licenses they need to meet their customers' demand. Fourth, county based licenses could equally facilitate access by both small carriers and large carriers. 108. We believe that, in accomplishing our statutory objectives, it is advantageous that counties greatly vary in size, population, and demographics. We expect that there will be prospective providers who wish to serve areas in more than one county, as well as prospective providers with more limited business plans seeking to serve a single, small county or a partitioned county. And finally, as discussed below, we propose to allow FSS operators to acquire licenses in these bands, which will confer on the FSS operator the right to exclude other users. We believe counties are an appropriate size to allow FSS operators to seek the protection they might desire through the license without over or under excluding other uses or users. 109. We seek comment on alternative geographic area sizes that could be used as the basis for licensing spectrum in these bands. For 28 GHz and 39 GHz, should we maintain the existing larger license areas of BTAs or EAs, respectively? Would maintaining the existing license areas provide any advantages in facilitating deployment of those bands? We also seek comment on license areas historically used by the Commission such as PEAs, census blocks, or block groups. If we do not license local area rights in the 37 GHz band by rule, using a geographic area approach might allow for a greater mix of local area and wide area licensed uses in the same band. In that case, we may wish to adopt geographic license areas small enough to accommodate local area users without extensive partitioning of large licenses. For example, we could define license areas based on census blocks or block groups. This might allow for a greater mix of local area and wide area licensed uses in the same band compared to traditional license areas, which typically encompass an entire metropolitan region and its surrounding area. We also seek input from FSS operators on the appropriate license area size that would accommodate their participation in the market-based mechanism described below to accommodate potential further FSS use of these bands. Balancing the need for sufficient geographic separation and license areas that are not unnecessarily large, are counties an appropriate license size for potential FSS use, or would smaller or larger license areas be more appropriate? We ask commenters to discuss and quantify the economic, technical, and other public interest considerations of licensing these bands using the particular geographic area they advocate. 110. Treatment of Existing 28 GHz and 39 GHz Licenses. We recognize that there are existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses that are licensed on a BTA or EA basis, respectively. In 1997, the Commission initially determined that the 39 GHz band would be licensed on a BTA basis. This decision was based on our expectation at the time that the Commission would execute licensing agreements similar to those it had in other services. By 1999, subsequent developments led the Commission to conclude that adopting BTAs for 39 GHz could unnecessarily delay the licensing process. Thus, on its own motion, the Commission reconsidered its license area determination and, based on the record in the proceeding, decided to license all channel blocks in the 39 GHz band using Economic Areas. 111. We propose to subdivide existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses on a county basis, consistent with our proposal to offer licenses on a county basis for spectrum currently held in inventory. This ensures that both the existing and future licenses are uniform in their size and rights, and will facilitate a multiplicity of uses and users. In addition, because counties nest into both BTAs and EAs, incumbent licensees retain the exact same coverage, and increase their flexibility to tailor the license holdings to meet their business needs. Under our proposal, if a licensee holds a BTA or EA license consisting of eight counties, it would receive a separate license for each county in the BTA or EA, for a total of eight licenses. Existing licensees will otherwise keep the full package of license rights they currently hold (with the addition of new mobile rights). While we could keep the existing BTA or EA licenses as is, subdividing the licenses would create a uniform nationwide license structure. We seek comment on this proposal. We do not believe that subdividing the existing LMDS and 39 GHz licenses would constitute a modification of license within the meaning of Section 316 of the Communications Act because the change would not affect the substantive operating rights of the existing licensee. Moreover, to the extent the change modifies existing licenses, the Commission may effectuate such a change on a licensee-wide basis pursuant its rulemaking authority, without triggering the procedural requirements of Section 316. 4. Band Plan for the 28 GHz, 27 GHz, and 39 GHz Bands 112. We seek comment on our proposed band plans for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. For the 28 GHz band, we propose to use the existing band plans in place for LMDS. Specifically, the 27.5-28.35 GHz band is currently licensed as a single block (LMDS Channel A1). We believe that continuing to license this band as a single block would be in the public interest because it would provide a wide band (850 megahertz) of contiguous spectrum that could be used to provide high-speed service. Samsung supports this proposal. In contrast, Straight Path supports subdividing the band into a 500 megahertz block and a 350 megahertz block, although its proposal is dependent on the availability of the 29.1-29.25 GHz and 31-31.3 GHz bands. Should we consider subdividing this band into multiple channels, and if so, how? Proponents of subdividing the band should provide analyses showing that multiple operators could provide service in the band. 113. We also propose to continue using the existing 39 GHz band plan. The 39 GHz band is subdivided into 14 channel pairs. Each channel pair has 50 megahertz by 50 megahertz of spectrum (totaling 1.4 gigahertz). We recognize that Samsung and Straight Path recommend that the band be reconfigured for wider channels. On balance, we believe that keeping the existing band plan would promote expeditious deployment, consistent with our proposal to grant rights to current licensees, and provide a uniform nationwide band plan. We seek comment on this proposal, as well as proposals for larger channels. What is the cost of adopting a channel scheme that might vary between the current licenses and new initial licenses issued by competitive bidding ( i.e., if the current licenses continue to follow the current band plan, but the newly created licenses subject to auction have a different band plan)? We also seek comment on Straight Path's proposal to allow incumbent licensees to exchange licenses within a market so that incumbents can obtain contiguous spectrum. 114. We also seek comment on a band plan for the 37 GHz band. One possibility would be to subdivide the band into three equal blocks of approximately 533 megahertz each. Another possibility would be to have four blocks of 400 megahertz each. Those plans would potentially provide multiple channels, each capable of supporting high-rate communications. If we chose to have separate bands for local area uses and outdoor deployments, we could have separate band segments for each use. We seek comment on alternative band plans. Commenters should address how their preferred plans would support a wide variety of services while maximizing access to spectrum. 5. License Term 115. Background. License terms generally vary based upon the type of service authorized and the purpose for which a service was created. Under existing rules, fixed licensees in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands licensed under Part 101 will have a license term not to exceed 10 years. When the Commission adopted its Part 101 Report and Order, it determined that both private and common carrier licenses granted on or after August 1, 1996, would have a license term not to exceed ten years. Finally, terrestrial service rules currently do not exist for the 37 GHz band, so no license term has been specified for that band. 116. We did not seek comment specifically on the issue of license terms in the NOI. Only one commenter, Qualcomm, directly addressed this issue by stating that the FCC should adopt a 10-year license term in conjunction with reasonable performance requirements. 117. Discussion. We propose to establish a 10-year term for all licenses in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands. We believe this length of license term will help to maintain consistency within these bands. Many of the fixed licenses in these bands are already subject to 10-year license terms, including fixed licensees in the LMDS band and fixed licensees in the 39 GHz band that were licensed after August 1, 1996. As discussed above, we propose to grant mobile operating rights to existing LMDS and 39 GHz licensees. If we adopt that proposal, we believe the most seamless, consistent, and expedient path for license terms would be to also adopt 10-year terms for all licensees in these bands. 118. We seek comment on our proposal to adopt a 10-year license term, including any costs and benefits of the proposal. We also seek comment on whether licensees should receive a renewal expectancy for subsequent license terms if they continue to provide at least the level of service required at the end of their initial license terms through the end of any subsequent license terms. In addition, we invite commenters to submit alternate proposals for the appropriate license term, which should similarly include a discussion on the costs and benefits. For instance, we note that in the 3.5 GHz R&O the Commission adopted three year license terms on the theory that the band will be used in a flexible manner that supports myriad uses, providing spectrum to users where and when they need it. Would a five year term for these bands be appropriate under a similar rationale? 119. Under our 10-year license term proposal, if a license in these bands is partitioned or disaggregated (as discussed in further detail below), we propose that any partitionee or disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner's or disaggregator's original license term. This approach is similar to the partitioning provisions the Commission adopted for other services. We emphasize that nothing in our proposal 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 our proposal is intended to enable any partitionee or disaggregatee to obtain rights in excess of those previously possessed by the underlying licensee. C. Facilitating Satellite Use of the 27.5-28.35 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands 1. Background (Current Framework) 120. Nineteen years ago, in the 28 GHz First Report and Order, the Commission found that co-frequency sharing between LMDS and ubiquitously deployed satellite earth stations was not yet feasible, but said that it would consider revisiting that conclusion if future technology became available to facilitate that type of sharing. Among other band segments, the Commission designated 850 megahertz at 27.5-28.35 GHz for LMDS on a primary basis, and permitted geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service (GSO/FSS) or non-geostationary Fixed-Satellite Service (NGSO/FSS) systems to provide links in that band segment on a non-interference basis to LMDS systems, but only for the purpose of providing limited Earth-to-space gateway-type services. The Commission rejected a proposal to offer limited protection to FSS gateways operating in the 27.5-28.35 band segment, concluding that, if proponents of FSS systems were to implement gateways in that part of the LMDS band, these gateway links would operate on a non- interference-non-protected basis with respect to LMDS operators. 121. With regard to the 37.5-40 GHz band, in 2003 the Commission preserved the co-primary status of FSS for space-to-Earth transmissions, but implemented a “soft segmentation” plan that favored terrestrial Fixed Service and terrestrial Mobile Service, which also have co-primary allocations in that band. The soft segmentation plan limited FSS to gateway-type earth station operations in the 37.5-40 GHz band, and it prohibited the ubiquitous deployment of satellite earth stations designed to serve individual consumers. The plan also established clear-sky power flux density (PFD) limits for satellite transmissions in the 37.5-40 GHz band that are 12 dB lower than the level allowed for satellite transmissions in the 40-42.5 GHz band. However, in the subsequent V-Band Third FNPRM in 2010, the Commission proposed to allow satellite operators to increase their PFDs during heavy rain storms to overcome signal attenuation under those conditions. 122. For the reasons discussed below, we believe that it is appropriate to review both sets of decisions in light of evolutions in technology, the introduction of mobile, and the possibility of leveraging market-based mechanisms to coordinate coexistence issues and future FSS expansion in these bands. 2. Ka-Band Gateway Earth Stations a. Request for Upgraded Status in 28 GHz Band 123. EchoStar and the FSS Operators ask the Commission to upgrade gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band from secondary status to co-primary status. They argue that the secondary status has hindered satellite investment and that satellite operators “must have regulatory certainty about their continued access to this spectrum for existing, as well as new, gateway earth stations.” They also argue that experience has shown that gateway earth stations have been able to successfully co-exist with fixed LMDS licensees. XO, which holds 91 LMDS licenses, argues that granting satellite operators' co-primary status in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band “could encumber existing LMDS licensees' spectrum and potentially frustrate their efforts to build out fixed wireless and 5G systems.” 124. ViaSat recommends a different approach: That the Commission review past decisions that constrained opportunities for spectrum sharing and evaluate them in the light of contemporary technologies and techniques. ViaSat acknowledges that the industry committee that was formed in 1996 to develop negotiated proposed rules for the LMDS in the Ka-band identified a number of techniques that could enable sharing of widely deployed FSS transmitters and LMDS receivers, including cognitive radio technologies and mitigation techniques, such as FSS monitoring of LMDS transmissions before transmitting and requiring that a database of LMDS subscribers be maintained, but did not come to an agreement about those techniques, in part because of concerns about the commercial viability of those approaches in 1996. Regardless of whether those types of sharing techniques were mature when plans for the Ka-band and the V-band were adopted, says ViaSat, the fact remains that those techniques are readily available today, and in fact have been endorsed by the Commission in other proceedings as essential means of making more intensive use of spectrum. 125. Discussion. We believe there should be a mechanism under which satellite earth stations could acquire co-primary status where their owners believe that such a level of protection is necessary. Accordingly, we seek comment on establishing a market-based mechanism for allowing proposed gateway earth stations to acquire co-primary status by acquiring flexible use terrestrial licenses. Specifically, we propose that a Part 25 FSS earth station would have co-primary status if its licensee also holds the corresponding terrestrial license for the location of that earth station. 126. We believe it is not in the public interest to automatically grant co-primary status for FSS operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band at this time. The main disadvantage of designating FSS gateway earth stations as co-primary at this time is that it could be inconsistent with the development of terrestrial Mobile Service in the band. While there should be a mechanism for accommodating gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band, that mechanism should also be consistent with terrestrial use of the band. 127. At the same time, we agree with EchoStar, the FSS Operators, and ViaSat that there should be additional mechanisms for accommodating gateway earth stations in the 28 GHz band. In particular, we agree with ViaSat that it might be feasible to allow satellite operators to make greater opportunistic use of the LMDS band for gateway earth stations. We note that FSS Operators, O3B, and ViaSat agree that they have been able to coexist with LMDS operations through planning and coordination. Recognizing the balance we are proposing to strike between incumbent operations and new flexibility in this band, we seek comment on the ability of mobile and FSS operations to coexist, and ways to facilitate coexistence that are mutually effective for both FSS and future mobile operators. 128. One way to protect gateways from being superseded by subsequent terrestrial deployments would be for FSS operators to obtain the terrestrial licensees, either by participating in Commission auctions or by purchasing them from existing Upper Microwave Flexible Use licensees. Since there are no proposed eligibility restrictions on Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses that would specifically limit the ability of FSS providers to acquire these licenses, there is no legal impediment to FSS operators acquiring a terrestrial license. In this case, the license right that an FSS provider may benefit from and value the most is the right to exclude other users from the geographic area of the license. That right in effect allows them to achieve co-primary status and would provide the protection the FSS providers' seek. 129. Allowing non-Federal FSS operators to acquire flexible use licenses to obtain co-primary status would have several advantages. First, it would establish a market-based mechanism for determining the highest and best use of the spectrum in a given area. On the other hand, this mechanism need not unduly burden the development of terrestrial mobile or fixed service, especially where FSS operators opt only to obtain partitioned portions of licenses, because FSS operators will have little incentive to buy territorial rights any larger than they will need to ensure the continued operation of their gateways. Since these are transmitting earth stations, the area needs only be large enough to ensure that no constraints are imposed on terrestrial operations outside that area. Second, this approach would allow licensees to use the 28 GHz band to provide a wide variety of services to consumers and businesses. Third, both satellite and terrestrial operators would obtain additional flexibility to adjust their operations to meet consumer demand. That flexibility would help ensure that spectrum ends up in the hands of someone who is willing and able to use the spectrum to provide service. 130. By obtaining Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses—or portions thereof—FSS operators would be able to prevent incursions by terrestrial operators that might otherwise require them to shut down their FSS gateways. We emphasize, however, that an Upper Microwave Flexible Use license would not authorize operations of the FSS earth stations. The licensing of earth stations would continue to be governed by our Part 25 licensing rules. We further emphasize that, by auctioning Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses or allowing the transfer of partitioned portions of those licenses to companies that operate FSS systems, we would not be auctioning orbital slots or the right to operate a satellite system. Any such authorization would require a separate license issued pursuant to Part 25 of the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, the fact that the Upper Microwave Flexible Use licenses would be subject to auction would not be contrary to Section 647 of the Open-market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act. 131. In proposing the alternative discussed above, we do not intend to limit the ability of FSS operators to continue availing themselves of other, existing alternatives. We also emphasize that we would not require FSS operators to acquire an Upper Microwave Flexible Use authorization to operate in this band. In particular, FSS operators would continue to have the option of applying for earth station authorizations on a secondary basis under our existing rules. They would also remain free to negotiate private interference agreements with Upper Microwave Flexible Use licensees. 132. Treatment of Existing 28 GHz FSS Earth Stations. There are currently 21 FSS earth stations licensed in the 28 GHz band on a secondary basis, and 17 pending applications. About half of those earth stations (or proposed earth stations) are located within the service area of an active LMDS license authorized to operate in the 28 GHz band. The other half are located in areas where there is no active LMDS license in the 28 GHz band. We seek comment on the proposals described below for future treatment of those earth stations, as well as alternatives. 133. We propose that earth stations located within the service area of an active LMDS license maintain their secondary status. Those FSS operators constructed their facilities knowing that their operations would be on a secondary basis. LMDS licensees purchased their licenses at auction with the understanding that their fixed and point-to-multipoint operations would have priority over FSS operations. These LMDS licensees have also successfully demonstrated substantial service. Under those circumstances, we propose not to upgrade FSS operations at the expense of LMDS licensees. To the extent that FSS operators and LMDS licensees have private agreements concerning protection of their facilities, those agreements would continue in force and effect. We also note that depending on the terms of those agreements, the FSS op [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2015-31852. Public record. Not legal advice.