*Pages 1--81 from Microsoft Word - 7814.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698- 746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52- 59) ) ) ) ) GN Docket No. 01- 74 NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING Adopted: March 16, 2001 Released: March 28, 2001 Comment Date: May 14, 2001 Reply Comment Date: June 4, 2001 By the Commission: Commissioner Tristani approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a statement. TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................... 2 III. DISCUSSION ................................................................................................................................... 8 A. Allocation Proceeding .................................................................................................................. 9 1. Reallocation .......................................................................................................................... 9 a. Current Allocation ......................................................................................................... 12 b. Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcast Allocation ........................................................................ 14 c. Special Considerations for Broadcast Allocation ............................................................ 15 d. Low Power Television Service ....................................................................................... 17 e. Satellite Services ........................................................................................................... 19 2. Transition Issues .................................................................................................................. 20 a. Incumbent Broadcasters ................................................................................................. 20 (i) Analog Stations ....................................................................................................... 21 (ii) Digital Stations ....................................................................................................... 25 (iii) Low Power Stations ................................................................................................ 27 b. Interference Protection for Television Services ............................................................... 29 (i) Protection of Analog Stations .................................................................................. 30 (ii) Protection of Digital Stations ................................................................................... 31 c. Coordination with Canada and Mexico .......................................................................... 34 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 2 B. Service Rules ............................................................................................................................. 35 1. Scope of Licenses ................................................................................................................ 40 a. Permissible Licensed Services ........................................................................................ 40 b. Size of Spectrum Blocks for Each License ..................................................................... 46 c. Size of Service Areas for Geographic- Area Licensing ..................................................... 53 d. Paired or Unpaired Spectrum Bands .............................................................................. 60 2. Technical Rules ................................................................................................................... 65 a. General Technical Rules ................................................................................................ 65 b. Co- Channel Interference Control .................................................................................... 66 c. Out- of- Band and Spurious Emission Limits ................................................................... 76 d. Power Limits and RF Safety .......................................................................................... 78 3. Licensing Rules ................................................................................................................... 80 a. Regulatory Status .......................................................................................................... 81 b. Eligibility ...................................................................................................................... 89 c. Spectrum Aggregation Limits ........................................................................................ 91 d. Foreign Ownership Restrictions ..................................................................................... 94 e. License Term; Renewal Expectancy ............................................................................... 97 f. Performance Requirements .......................................................................................... 103 g. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Spectrum. .............................................................. 106 4. Operating Rules ................................................................................................................. 110 a. Forbearance ................................................................................................................ 112 b. Equal Employment Opportunity. .................................................................................. 114 5. Competitive Bidding Procedures ........................................................................................ 115 a. Incorporation by Reference of the Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules ........................... 116 b. Provisions for Designated Entities ................................................................................ 117 c. Public Notice of Initial Applications/ Petitions to Deny ................................................. 123 6. Possible Measures to Facilitate Clearing of 698- 746 MHz Band and Accelerate DTV Transition .......................................................................................................................... 125 a. Voluntary Transition Agreements ................................................................................ 128 b. Secondary Auctions ..................................................................................................... 131 c. Additional Proposals to Facilitate Band Clearing Accelerate the Digital Television Transition .................................................................................................................... 133 IV. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ......................................................................................................... 137 A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit- But- Disclose ...................................................................................... 137 B. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ...................................................................................... 138 C. Initial Paperwork Reduction Analysis ....................................................................................... 139 D. Comment Period and Procedures .............................................................................................. 141 E. Further Information .................................................................................................................. 146 V. ORDERING CLAUSES ................................................................................................................ 147 Appendix A: Proposed Rules Appendix B: Incumbent TV Operations Appendix C: Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 3 I. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action, we propose to reallocate the 698- 746 MHz spectrum band, currently comprising television (“ TV”) Channels 52- 59. We are reclaiming this spectrum for new commercial services as part of our transition of TV broadcasting from analog to digital transmission systems. Digital television (“ DTV”) technology is more spectrally efficient thus allowing the same amount of television service to operate in a reduced allocation, i. e., TV Channels 2- 51, after the transition. We propose a co- primary allocation for the fixed, mobile, and broadcasting services for this 48 megahertz band. This flexible allocation will enable service providers to select the technology they wish to use to provide new broadband services in order to make the best use of this spectrum. We also examine possible licensing, operating, and competitive bidding rules for wireless and other services in this spectrum band. We anticipate that licenses will be assigned by competitive bidding consistent with statutory requirements. 1 We also consider measures to protect the incumbent analog and digital broadcast television services from interference until the transition to digital television is complete. We believe these measures will enable an orderly transition for broadcasters while permitting the introduction of new services into the band. II. BACKGROUND 2. Section 309( j)( 14) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (“ Communications Act”) requires the Commission to assign spectrum recaptured from broadcast television as a result of the transition from analog to digital transmission systems by competitive bidding. 2 Section 309( j)( 14)( C)( ii) states that the Commission shall assign licenses and report to the Congress the total revenues from such competitive bidding by September 30, 2002. 3 The statute requires that analog broadcasters cease operation on the recaptured spectrum in 2006 unless certain service penetration criteria are met. 4 Specifically, the statute requires the 1 See Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105- 33, 111 Stat. 251 § 3003 (1997) (adding new Section 309( j)( 14) to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended) (“ BBA 97”); § 3007 (uncodified, reproduced at 47 U. S. C. § 309( j) note 3). 2 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14)( C)( ii). 3 Id. 4 See id. § 309( j)( 14)( A)-( B). The DTV transition will end December 31, 2006, but may be extended in some markets pursuant to Section 309( j)( 14)( B) as follows: The Commission shall extend the date [of the DTV transition period] for any station that requests such extension in any television market if the Commission finds that – (i) one or more of the stations in such market that are licensed to or affiliated with one of the four largest national television networks are not broadcasting a digital television service signal, and the Commission finds that each such station has exercised due diligence and satisfies the conditions for an extension of the Commission’s applicable construction deadlines for digital television service in that market; (ii) digital- to- analog converter technology is not generally available in such market; or (iii) in any market in which an extension is not available under clause (i) or (ii), 15 percent or more of the television households in such market – (I) do not subscribe to a multichannel video programming distributor (as defined in section 602) that carries one of the digital television service programming channels (continued….) 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 4 Commission to extend the end of the transition on a market- by- market basis if one or more of the four largest network stations or affiliates are not broadcasting in digital, digital- to- analog converter technology is not generally available, or 15% or more television households are not receiving a digital signal. 5 Thus, while the end of the transition is targeted for 2006, and may extend beyond that date, the Commission must reallocate spectrum and assign commercial licenses in the encumbered television spectrum by September 30, 2002. 6 Therefore, auction of this spectrum for new services will occur a number of years in advance of the end of the digital transition, during which period, the incumbent broadcasters may continue to operate in the band. New licensees may operate in the band prior to the end of the transition to the extent they do not cause interference to existing analog and digital broadcasters. 7 3. Under Section 309( j)( 3) of the Communications Act, in developing a competitive bidding methodology and specifying the characteristics of licenses to be assigned by auction, we are required to promote a number of objectives, including the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services for the benefit of the public, the promotion of economic opportunity and competition, the recovery of a portion of the value of the spectrum made available for commercial use, and the efficient and intensive use of the spectrum, in a manner that provides adequate time for interested parties to develop their business plans. 8 Our regulations shall prescribe area designations and bandwidth assignments that promote (a) equitable distribution of licenses and services among geographic areas, (b) economic opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women, and (c) investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services. 9 4. Section 303( y)( 2) of the Communications Act authorizes the Commission to allocate spectrum to provide flexibility of use if certain conditions are met. 10 Specifically, the Commission must make affirmative findings that such flexibility: (1) is consistent with international agreements; (2) would be in the public interest; (3) would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and (4) (Continued from previous page) of each of the television stations broadcasting such a channel in such market; and (II) do not have either – (a) at least one television receiver capable of receiving the digital television service of the television stations licensed in such market; or (b) at least one television receiver of analog television service signals equipped with digital- to- analog converter technology capable of receiving the digital television service signals of the television stations licensed in such market. 5 See id. § 309( j)( 14)( B) 6 See BBA 97, supra note 1, §§ 3003, 3007. 7 See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14588, 14626- 27, ¶ 80 (1997) (DTV Sixth Report and Order). 8 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 3)( A)-( E). 9 Id. § 309( j)( 4). We must also consider other factors, including payment schedules, performance requirements, the use of bidding preferences, and the use of a reserve price or minimum bid. 10 See id. § 303( y)( 2). 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 5 would not result in harmful interference among users. 11 5. Pursuant to legislative mandates, the Commission is requiring that the broadcast television service convert from the existing analog television transmission system to a new digital television system that will allow broadcasters the flexibility to provide a variety of new services, including high definition television service, multicasting of multiple programs, data services and other enhancements. 12 Broadcasters have been provided a second channel to operate their DTV service during the transition from analog to digital service. 13 At the end of this transition, analog service will cease and one of each broadcaster’s two channels will be recovered. 14 Because the DTV transmission system is more spectrally efficient than the analog system, less spectrum will be needed for broadcast television service after the transition. 15 A portion of the TV spectrum, i. e., Channels 52- 69, is therefore being recovered for new uses. Spectrum currently allocated to Channels 2- 51 will remain “core” television broadcast spectrum. Analog services on all TV Channels will cease operations at the end of the transition. Digital services on out- of- core stations will be relocated into the core spectrum (Channels 2- 51). 6. We are addressing the spectrum reclamation in two parts – Channels 60- 69 (“ Upper 700 MHz Band” or “746- 806 MHz band”) and Channels 52- 59 (“ Lower 700 MHz Band” or “698- 746 MHz band”) primarily as a result of unique statutory requirements and varying degrees of incumbency. When we adopted the DTV Table of Allotments in the DTV Sixth Report and Order, we differentiated between these two bands, remarking that: “[ t] he Table will also provide for early recovery of 60 MHz of spectrum (Channels 60- 69) 11 Id. 12 See generally Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders, 14 FCC Rcd 1348 (1998) (DTV Second MO& O of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders); Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Sixth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 7418 (1998) (DTV MO& O of the Sixth Report and Order); Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration of the Fifth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 6860 (1998) (DTV MO& O of the Fifth Report and Order); DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14588; Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 12809 (1997) (DTV Fifth Report and Order) (collectively DTV Proceeding). 13 See, e. g., DTV Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 12812- 13, ¶ 8. 14 See generally id. at 12848- 51, ¶¶ 94- 100; DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14590- 93, ¶¶ 1- 7. 15 The DTV transmission system is more spectrally efficient because it allows DTV stations to provide the same geographic coverage as an analog station, but with significantly less power, and because it precludes the use of the same and other channels at nearby locations to a lesser extent than for analog television transmissions. DTV- to-DTV protection requirements are limited to co- channel and first adjacent channel protection while analog- to- analog involves protection to stations operating on a number of other related channels as well. As a result, the DTV transmission system allows stations to be allotted with reduced related channel protection for UHF receivers. The UHF related channel protection requirements for analog service are set forth in Section 73.698 of the Commission’s rules. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.698. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 6 and recovery of [] additional … spectrum at the end of the [DTV] transition period.” 16 The Commission’s early recovery policies for Channels 60- 69 were predicated on the urgent need for additional spectrum by other services, particularly to meet the needs of public safety and other land mobile services. 17 Given the relatively light use for full service broadcasting and the proximity of existing land mobile communications systems to Channels 60- 69, the Commission concluded that equipment economies and enhanced interoperability between future public safety services and current systems operating in the 800 MHz band supported early recovery. 18 The DTV Table also, inter alia, facilitates the early recovery of Channels 60- 69 by minimizing the use of these channels for DTV purposes. 19 Subsequently, the BBA 97 was enacted which mandated that the Commission reallocate Channels 60- 69 to new public safety and commercial services by January 1998. 20 In ET Docket 97-157, the Commission reallocated the 746- 806 MHz (TV Channels 60- 69) band for new services. As required by statute, it reallocated 24 megahertz for public safety and 36 megahertz for new commercial services. 21 Assignment by competitive bidding for six megahertz of this spectrum has been completed 22 and auction of the remaining 30 megahertz is currently planned for later this year. 23 7. Recovery of additional spectrum beyond the 746- 806 MHz band (TV Channels 60- 69) was planned for the end of the digital transition. 24 Thus, early recovery of the 698- 746 MHz band (TV Channels 52- 59) was not contemplated in the DTV transition plan. This band is significantly more encumbered with TV operations. 25 Further, both the Congress and the Commission initially expected to license the Lower 700 MHz 16 DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14590, ¶ 1. See also id. at 14624- 25, ¶ 76 (“[ W] e believe that the public interest is best served by developing a Table of DTV Allotments that meets the DTV spectrum needs of broadcasters during the transition; facilitates the early recovery of spectrum from channels 60 to 69; and also facilitates the eventual recovery of 138 MHz of spectrum currently being used for analog broadcasting.”). 17 See id. at 14626, ¶ 79. 18 See Reallocation of Television Channels 60- 69, the 746- 806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97- 157, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 14141, 14142, ¶ 3 (1997) (Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Notice). 19 Id. 20 See BBA 97 supra note 1. 21 See generally Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Notice, 12 FCC Rcd 14141. 22 See 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, DA 00- 2154 (rel. Sep. 25, 2000); 700 MHz Guard Bands Auction Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, DA 01-178 (rel. Feb. 22, 2001). 23 Auction of Licenses for the 747- 762 and 777- 792 MHz Bands Postponed Until September 12, 2001, Public Notice, Report No. AUC- 01- 31- A, DA 01- 266 (rel. Jan. 31, 2001). 24 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14590, ¶ 1. 25 See id. at 14609, ¶ 37. The NTSC incumbents and pending applications on Channels 52- 59 include 89 licenses, 12 construction permits, and applications and allotment petitions for 57 new stations. The DTV incumbents and allotment petitions on Channels 52- 59 include 17 licenses, 95 construction permits, and 53 applications. The (continued….) 6 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 7 subsequent to the auction of the Upper 700 MHz Band. 26 Congress did not specify in the statute the amount of spectrum the Commission must reclaim beyond Channels 60- 69. The Commission determined that broadcasters could operate with digital transmission systems in Channels 2- 51 and therefore Channels 52- 59 could be reclaimed for new services. 27 III. DISCUSSION 8. Our framework for consideration of both allocation and service rules for the Lower 700 MHz Band is modeled on our approach in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding. 28 In this Notice, we address a number of issues similar to those we addressed in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding. We seek comment generally on whether the considerations that we found to be appropriate for the 746- 806 MHz bands are equally applicable to the Lower 700 MHz spectrum once it has been reallocated, or whether, given the differences in the two bands, we should apply other approaches. A. Allocation Proceeding 1. Reallocation 9. In recent years, there has been tremendous growth in new wireless services and demand for (Continued from previous page) LPTV incumbents and pending applications on Channels 52- 59 include 835 licensees, 244 construction permits, and 607 applications. 26 The BBA 97 directed the Commission to reallocate certain portions of the Upper 700 MHz spectrum from broadcast use to commercial use by December 31, 1997, see 47 U. S. C. § 337( a) (as added by § 3004 of the BBA 97), but not to commence competitive bidding for the commercial licenses on the reallocated spectrum before January 1, 2001, (see 47 U. S. C. § 337( b)( 2). That deadline was subsequently accelerated. See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. L. No. 106- 113, 113 Stat. 2502, app. E, § 213; 145 Cong. Rec. H12493- 94 (Nov. 17, 1999) (“ Consolidated Appropriations Act”). By contrast, the statutory deadline of September 30, 2002 has remained unchanged since it was first enacted in the BBA 97. See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14)( C)( ii); see also BBA 97 § 3007 (reproduced at 47 U. S. C. § 309( j) note 3). 27 See DTV MO& O of the Sixth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 7435- 36, ¶ 42. 28 See Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, Third Report and Order, FCC 01- 25 (rel. Jan. 23, 2001) (Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order); Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 01- 2 (rel. Jan. 12, 2001) (Upper 700 MHz Second MO& O); Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00- 224 (rel. June 30, 2000) (Upper 700 MHz MO& O and FNPRM); Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, Second Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 5299 (2000) (Upper 700 MHz Second Report and Order); Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000) (Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order); Service Rules for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 99- 168, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 11006 (1999) (collectively “Upper 700 MHz proceeding”). 7 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 8 spectrum. 29 Notwithstanding the introduction of more efficient digital technologies that increase the potential capacity of spectrum to provide communications services, continuing expectations regarding increased demand raise the concern that spectrum may be a limiting factor for new technology and services. In the United States, virtually all spectrum, particularly in the most sought after bands below 3 GHz, has been assigned to various services. Consequently, with the exception of several small bandwidth segments of only a few megahertz each that are not sufficient to support high volume operations, there is very little unencumbered spectrum available for new uses or users. In order to provide spectrum for new services, we now have to find ways for such services to share spectrum with existing services or to reallocate spectrum from existing services to new services and technologies. In the latter case, we have sometimes implemented plans that relocate incumbent operations to other, generally higher frequency bands, and other times simply reduced the amount of bandwidth available for a service. 30 10. The transition to digital television and resulting spectrum reclamation is a prime example of the types of activities the Commission has undertaken to make new spectrum available. As a result of more spectrally efficient digital technology, the Commission is able to reduce the amount of spectrum currently allocated to broadcasting by 108 megahertz. This transition is a significant undertaking. In order to facilitate the transition, we must balance the desire for new services with the significant investment and planning required by the broadcasters to build new digital facilities and relocate operations. 11. As previously noted, the Commission has anticipated, given the degree of incumbency, that this band likely would remain principally a television band until the end of the digital transition. However, given the statutory requirement to auction this spectrum several years in advance of the end of the transition, we seek comment generally on our reallocation plans and service rules necessary to license the spectrum consistent with the Congressional mandate. We also seek comment on whether we should consider ways to facilitate the DTV transition and the availability of this band to auction bidders sooner. In making proposals, commenters should address consistency with the statutory requirements of Section 309( j)( 14) and other relevant provisions of the Communications Act. a. Current Allocation 12. Domestically, the 698- 746 MHz band is currently allocated on a primary basis to non- government broadcasting, i. e., TV Channels 52- 59, each having a bandwidth of six megahertz. TV broadcast services are 29 See generally Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage the Development of Telecommunications Technologies for the New Millennium, Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd 19868 (1999) (Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement); Principles for Promoting the Efficient Use of Spectrum by Encouraging the Development of Secondary Markets, Policy Statement, FCC 00- 401 (rel. Dec. 1, 2000) (Secondary Markets Policy Statement). 30 See, e. g., Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies, ET Docket No. 92- 9, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992) (relocation of 2 GHz fixed microwave services to available frequencies in higher bands or alternative media); Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile- Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95- 18, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 12315 (2000) (reducing spectrum allocation for Broadcast Auxiliary Service from 120 megahertz to a total of 85 megahertz at 2025- 2110 MHz). 8 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 9 also permitted to use TV subcarrier frequencies, and more generally the TV channel, on a secondary basis for other broadcast- related (e. g., datacasting) and non- broadcast purposes. 31 Further, the band is allocated to the fixed service for subscription television operations in accordance with Part 73 of our rules. 32 Internationally, the band is allocated worldwide on a primary basis to the broadcasting service. The band is also allocated to the fixed and mobile services in Region 2 (which includes the United States) on a secondary basis and in Region 3 on a co- primary basis. 33 A footnote to the International Table of Frequency Allocations elevates the allocation to the fixed and mobile services to primary status in the United States, Mexico, and several other Region 2 countries, but has not been implemented domestically. 34 13. In its 1999 Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, the Commission noted that it planned to consider reallocating the 698- 746 MHz band for Fixed, Mobile and new Broadcast services for commercial uses following the same approach it adopted for reallocating the 36 megahertz at 746- 764 MHz and 776- 794 MHz. 35 In the Commission’s recently adopted 3G Notice on Advanced Fixed and Mobile Services, the 698- 746 MHz band was identified as a possible candidate for third- generation (“ 3G”) mobile services. 36 Further, a resolution adopted at World Radiocommunication Conference (“ WRC”)- 2000 recognized that some administrations may use the 698- 746 MHz band for 3G services. 37 At WRC- 2000, the United States proposed that the 698- 746 MHz band be identified as one of several candidate bands for the terrestrial component of International Mobile Telecommunications (“ IMT”)- 2000 (3G) and other advanced communication applications. 38 b. Fixed, Mobile, and Broadcast Allocation 14. Consistent with our Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, the allocation for the 746- 806 MHz band, and U. S. positions taken at WRC, we propose to reallocate the entire 48 megahertz of spectrum in the 698- 746 MHz band to the fixed and mobile services, and retain the existing broadcast allocation. Consistent with this proposal, we also make editorial modifications to Footnote NG 159 to the Table of Allocations. 39 31 See 47 C. F. R. § 2.106 note NG128. 32 See id. § 2.106 note NG149. 33 Id. 34 Id. § 2.106 note S5. 293. 35 See Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd at 19879- 80, ¶ 25. 36 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00- 258, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00- 455 (rel. Jan. 5, 2001) app. D (3G Notice). 37 Id. at ¶ 38. 38 See International Telecommunications Union Final Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC- 2000), Istanbul, 2000. 39 Proposed rule changes to the Table of Frequency Allocations are set forth in Appendix A to this Notice. 9 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 10 This allocation will support a family of services, including next generation broadband operations, and permit the maximum diversity in service offerings and the broadest licensee discretion, consistent with international allocations. This spectrum is located near spectrum now used for cellular radio telephone and other land mobile services, and it could be used to expand the capacities of these services. Other possible applications for this spectrum include wireless local loop telephone service, video and multimedia applications, and industrial communications services. Additionally, under our proposal, parties would be able to obtain licenses in this spectrum to offer broadcasting services. We request comment on whether this broad allocation is appropriate, or whether some other allocation would better serve the public interest. We also seek comment with respect to each of the findings required under Section 303( y) with respect to our proposed allocation of the 698- 746 MHz band. 40 c. Special Considerations for Broadcast Allocation 15. The DTV transition plan anticipates that broadcasters will vacate this spectrum by the end of the DTV transition period. For this reason, we would distinguish between broadcasters authorized pursuant to the current allocation and service rules from new licensees who may provide broadcasting service. New licensees will be subject to the rules we will adopt for the regulation of the reallocated spectrum. Broadcasters authorized under the current rules are entitled to protection or accommodation from new licensees and will have to vacate this spectrum by the end of the transition period. We envision that new broadcast services that may find this band attractive could include two- way interactive, cellular, and mobile television broadcasting services. For example, a number of existing broadcasters and others have expressed interest in operating DTV services with a coded orthogonal frequency division multiplex (COFDM) modulation system that they believe would support mobile television services. This allocation could provide opportunities for these parties to operate such services. 16. At the end of the transition, television broadcasting will remain adjacent to the 698- 746 MHz band on channel 51. 41 While we will consider issues such as field strength limitations in our service rules, we seek comment on whether restrictions to the allocation are necessary to protect adjacent channel broadcast television operations. For example, should we consider a guard band or a separate allocation at the lower end of the band limited to low power services? Alternatively, would the 698- 746 MHz band be more useful for fixed services than mobile services in light of the high number of incumbent broadcasters that operate on the spectrum? In this regard, the comments should address whether fixed services may be more successful than mobile services in structuring their systems to avoid interference with incumbent broadcasters, and thus be able to use the spectrum more efficiently. We are also concerned about the effects of adjacent channel television broadcasting on low power mobile operations in the 698- 746 MHz band, for example mobile receive antennas. 42 We seek comment on whether we should adjust our allocation to perhaps minimize the presence of systems with low immunity to high- powered signals. 40 See, e. g., supra para. 4. 41 This will include both full power and Class A low power television stations. Class A is a subset of low power television defined by the Community Broadcast Protection Act of 1999. 42 See, e. g., Broadcast Corporation of Georgia (WVEU- TV) Atlanta, Georgia, for Authority to Resume Full Power Operations, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 55 Rad. Reg. 2d (P& F) 854 (Mar. 8, 1984). 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 11 d. Low Power Television Service 17. The low power television (“ LPTV”) service currently operates on a secondary basis in the 698- 746 MHz band. Thus, LPTV stations are allowed to operate to the extent they do not interfere with full power stations. In our DTV Proceeding, we determined that there is insufficient spectrum to preserve all existing LPTV and TV translator stations, and decided that LPTV and TV translator stations will retain their secondary allocation status. 43 In the 746- 806 MHz proceeding, we permitted continuing operations on a secondary basis for existing low power services in that band. At the end of the transition, low power television will be required to cease operations on these frequencies. In the DTV Proceeding, we amended our rules to permit all LPTV stations on Channels 60 to 69 to file displacement relief applications at any time requesting a channel below Channel 60, even where there is no predicted or actual interference conflict. 44 18. We subsequently extended the presumption of displacement to LPTV stations and TV translators authorized on Channels 52- 59. 45 Because we did not anticipate recovery of the 698- 746 MHz band prior to the end of the transition, we did not specifically address the status of LPTV vis- à- vis new service providers prior to the end of the transition. Nor did we address whether LPTV stations should be permitted to operate in this band after the end of the transition. Section 337( e)( 2) of the Communications Act states that after allocating the 746- 806 MHz band “the Commission shall seek to assure, consistent with the Commission’s plan for allotments for digital television service, that each qualifying low- power television station is assigned a frequency below 746 MHz to permit the continued operation of such station.” 46 As a result, we believe that low power television should be permitted to continue to operate on the 698- 746 MHz band on a secondary basis. Accordingly, we propose that LPTV and TV translator stations not be permitted to cause harmful interference to stations of primary services, including new licensees in Channels 52- 59, and cannot claim protection from harmful interference from stations of primary services, including new licensees in Channels 52- 59. However, as set forth in the DTV Sixth Report and Order, we propose that LPTV and TV translator operations will not be required to alter or cease their operations until they actually cause interference to a DTV station or new service provider’s operations in the 698- 746 MHz band. 47 Further, as we did in the 746- 806 MHz band, we propose that LPTV stations be permitted to negotiate interference agreements with new service providers. 48 We note that it may be possible for many low power stations operating on Channels 52- 59 to co- exist with new service operations on a non- interfering basis. For example, in certain regions of the country, such as rural areas and the western mountainous states, LPTV stations and TV translators may not be affected by new service operations, at least not in the near future. Although we recognize that LPTV and TV translator stations retain this secondary status, we 43 See, e. g., DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14595, 14627, 14652- 53, ¶¶ 11, 81, 141- 42. 44 See DTV MO& O of the Sixth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 7465- 66, ¶ 116. 45 See Establishment of a Class A Television Service, MM Docket No. 00- 10, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 6355, 6395- 96, ¶ 100 (2000). 46 47 U. S. C. § 337( e)( 2). 47 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14652- 53, ¶ 142. 48 See Reallocation of Television Channels 60- 69, The 746- 806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97- 157, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 22953, 22966, ¶ 27 (1998) (Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Order). 11 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 12 seek comment on these proposals and any additional considerations that might mitigate the impact on low power operations on Channels 52- 59 during the transition period. e. Satellite Services 19. While we are not making a specific proposal at this time concerning an allocation in this band for satellite services, we also seek comment on this issue. The 698- 746 MHz band could possibly be used for satellite uplink transmissions. 49 While there may be significant constraints on such uses because of the existing high- powered transmitters in this band, several satellite systems utilize technologies that may make satellite operations possible. We seek comment on whether satellite operations, including satellite feeder link operations, which typically involve a limited number of earth station locations, are technically feasible in this band. In addition, while the BBA 97 requires that we assign spectrum reclaimed from broadcasters as a result of the digital transition by competitive bidding, 50 subsequently- enacted legislation restricts the use of competitive bidding to license spectrum used for the provision of certain international satellite services. 51 We seek comment on whether these statutory provisions would affect our ability to allocate spectrum for flexible uses that would include the ability to deploy satellite services , subject to appropriate interference and other technical limitations. 52 2. Transition Issues a. Incumbent Broadcasters 20. As noted above, incumbent broadcasters may remain on the 698- 746 MHz band until the end of the digital transition targeted for 2006. The target date of 2006 may be extended for several years depending 49 The International Telecommunication Union (“ ITU”) is currently studying whether additional spectrum can be made available for use by systems in the mobile satellite service, and this matter is on the agenda for the WRC in 2003. See ITU Resolution 214 (Rev. WRC- 2000), “Sharing studies relating to consideration of the allocation of bands below 1 GHz to the non- geostationary mobile– satellite service” (urging studies on sharing between non-geostationary mobile satellite and other services in frequencies below 1 GHz); ITU Resolution 800 (WRC- 2000), “Agenda for the 2003 World Radiocommunication Conference,” resolves 1.20; cf. ITU Resolution 728 (Rev. WRC-2000), “Studies relating to consideration of allocations in the band 470- 862 MHz to non- geostationary mobile-satellite services.” See also ITU Radio Regulations S5. 311. 50 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14)( C). 51 See Open- Market Reorganization for the Betterment of International Telecommunications Act, Pub. L. No. 106- 180, 114 Stat. 48 (2000) (“ ORBIT Act”). Specifically, Section 647 of the ORBIT Act provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Commission shall not have the authority to assign by competitive bidding orbital locations or spectrum used for the provision of international or global satellite communications services. The President shall oppose in the International Telecommunication Union and in other bilateral and multilateral fora any assignment by competitive bidding of orbital locations and or spectrum used for provision of such services. 52 Cf. Amendment of the Commission’s Rules with Regard to the 3650- 3700 MHz Government Transfer Band, ET Docket No. 98- 237, First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 00- 363 (rel. Oct. 24, 2000) (3650- 3700 MHz First Report and Order). 12 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 13 on DTV consumer penetration levels. 53 Upon completion of the transition, analog service will cease and the digital incumbents will be relocated into the “core” spectrum (Channels 2- 51). The significant degree of incumbency will pose considerable challenges to the provision of viable new commercial services prior to the end of the transition. 54 We seek comment generally on how we can further the viability of auction of this spectrum consistent with our statutory obligations and sound principles of spectrum management. (i) Analog Stations 21. Currently, there are 89 licensed full service NTSC analog stations and 12 approved analog construction permits on the 698- 746 MHz band. For the 746- 806 MHz band, we concluded that stations for which a construction permit has been granted are sufficiently far enough along the licensing process that they should be treated the same as operating TV stations and receive protection from new service providers during the DTV transition period. 55 The Commission has established a three- year construction requirement to ensure that holders of construction permits, both for new facilities and modification of existing facilities, progress in construction. 56 We propose to treat construction permits in the 698- 746 MHz band in the same manner we adopted in the 746- 806 MHz band and seek comment on this proposal. 22. In the DTV Sixth Further Notice, in order to accommodate parties who were in the process of preparing applications, we established a final opportunity for the filing of new applications for analog stations for vacant allotments. 57 This filing period closed on September 20, 1996. Subsequently, the Commission established a second filing period to allow persons with certain pending requests for new analog stations to modify their requests, if possible, to eliminate technical conflicts with DTV stations and to move from Channels 60- 69. 58 This second filing period opened on November 22, 1999 and closed on July 17, 2000. 59 53 See supra para. 2. 54 Maps showing the Grade B contours of all co- channel and adjacent channel TV stations on Channels 52-59 in the United States are set forth in Appendix B to this Notice. 55 See Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22969, ¶ 35. 56 47 C. F. R. § 73.3598. 57 See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87- 268, Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 10968 (1996) (DTV Sixth Further Notice). The adoption date of this Notice (July 25, 1996) was the last opportunity to file petitions to add analog channels to the TV Table of Allotments. The application filing deadline (September 20, 1996) was established as 30 days after publication of the Notice in the Federal Register. Regarding these applications, we decided to continue our “cut- off” process for accepting competing applications. We also decided to continue the policy of considering requests for waiver of the 1987 freeze Order on a case- by- case basis. See Order, RM 5811, Mimeo No. 4074 (rel. July 17, 1987). 58 See Mass Media Bureau Announces Window Filing Opportunity for Certain Pending Applications and Allotment Petitions for New Analog TV Stations, Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 19559 (1999) (Analog TV Filing PN). 59 See Window Filing Opportunity for Certain Pending Applications and Allotment Petitions for New Analog TV Stations Extended to July 15, 2000, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 4974 (2000). 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 14 Applications could be submitted during this filing window for (1) amendments (other than channel changes) to pending applications for new full- service NTSC television stations on Channel 2- 59, (2) petitions for rule making seeking a new channel below Channel 60 for those applicants with pending applications for new full-service NTSC television stations on Channels 60- 69, (3) petitions for rule making seeking a new channel below channel 60 for those applicants with pending applications for new full- service NTSC television stations on Channels 2- 59 at locations inside of the “TV Freeze Areas” and (4) amendments to pending rule making petitions to amend the TV Table of Allotments to add NTSC television allotments. 60 23. There are pending requests for approximately 57 new NTSC stations in this band, either with applications or allotment petitions originally filed during the filing windows established by the Commission. Some of the requests have been pending on these channels since they were filed, while others were amended to specify a channel in this band under procedures announced in Public Notice DA 99- 2605. Previously, those new station proposals had been for stations on Channels 2 through 59 at locations where they would have conflicted with one or more DTV allotments or for use of TV Channels 60 through 69. The Commission recognized that those persons with pending applications and/ or petitions for new full- service NTSC television stations on those channels had already invested time, money and effort into their applications and petitions. 61 Therefore, the Commission stated that it would not summarily terminate the pending applications and petitions, and it would, at a later date, provide applicants and petitioners an opportunity to amend their applications and petitions, if possible, to a channel below Channel 60. 62 24. We recognize that continuing to process these applications could result in greater incumbency on the 698- 746 MHz band, which may make new service operations more difficult. This band was originally intended to remain principally a television band until the end of the transition and we recognize that it may be inequitable not to process these applications, or a subset of them. 63 In addition, given the significant number of analog and DTV incumbents that already exist on this band, the impact on the provision of new services may be marginal. Therefore, while we do not direct the Mass Media Bureau to suspend processing of applications (with the exception of stations on Channel 59) for new analog stations, we seek comment on our ultimate treatment of the remaining pending applications. For example, we seek comment on whether there are stronger equities for continuing to process any particular subcategory of these pending applications. 64 In addition, if 60 See Analog TV Filing PN, 14 FCC Rcd 19559. 61 Id.; DTV Second MO& O of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders, 14 FCC Rcd at 1367- 68, 1369, ¶¶ 40- 42, 45; Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22971- 72, ¶ 40. 62 See Analog TV Filing PN, 14 FCC Rcd 19559; DTV Second MO& O of the Fifth and Sixth Report and Orders, 14 FCC Rcd at 1367- 68, 1369, ¶¶ 40- 42, 45; Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22971- 72, ¶ 40. 63 DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14590, ¶ 1. 64 If granted, a new station would be grandfathered under the existing broadcast allocation and service rules and would be afforded the same protection as existing NTSC stations, i. e., new services would have to protect the TV broadcast station until the end of the transition. Any of the pending applications granted would have no paired allotment for a DTV channel and would be required to cease analog operations at the end of the DTV transition period. These NTSC stations could also initially operate as digital stations or convert to DTV service during the transition. In either case, the Commission would need to identify in- core relocation channels for their continued (continued….) 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 15 such applications are granted, we seek comment on whether we could require these stations to transition to available frequencies below 698 MHz by a date certain, i. e., 2006, to ensure that these stations do not encumber the provision of new services. We particularly seek comment on whether such a requirement would be consistent with our statutory requirements in Section 309( j)( 14) of the Communications Act. 65 We also seek comment on whether these applicants (or a particular subset thereof) should be allowed to amend their pending applications through a channel allotment rule making petition to specify a new digital channel in the core that may become available later. With regard to applications pending for stations on Channel 59, we believe that granting more analog station licenses could impact the licensing of new services in the Upper 700 MHz Band due to adjacent channel interference problems. 66 Therefore, for the pendency of this rulemaking proceeding, we direct the Mass Media Bureau to suspend processing of applications and channel allotment petitions for new analog stations on Channel 59, but to allow limited amendments to specify another channel, if available. (ii) Digital Stations 25. Because the Commission was unable to accommodate a second digital channel for all broadcasters within the “core” broadcast spectrum, there are a substantial number of digital channels on Channels 52- 59 as well. While the planning for the DTV Table of Allotments sought to minimize use of out- of- core channels, it was necessary to make allotments outside this range, particularly in the most congested areas of the country. Thus, there are 165 DTV assignments on Channels 52- 59 (includes licenses, construction permits, and pending applications). Also pending, are four DTV allotment petitions filed by entities that originally proposed NTSC operations. 26. While there are roughly the same number of analog stations on Channels 52- 59 as there are on Channels 60- 69, there are significantly more digital television incumbents. In particular, there are only 20 digital assignments 67 on Channels 60- 69 compared to the 165 assignments on Channels 52- 59 and this number may increase. As a result, it will be far more difficult for new services to operate on this band, particularly in major metropolitan markets, prior to the end of the transition. In the recently adopted DTV Periodic Review Order in the first DTV periodic review, the Commission took steps to try and facilitate the transition so that these incumbents can be relocated. 68 Specifically, the Commission adopted a requirement for broadcasters with both their analog and digital assignments within the “core” to declare the channels they plan to ultimately use (Continued from previous page) operation with DTV service after the transition. See DTV MO& O of the Fifth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 6864- 66, ¶¶ 10- 16. Any grant made during the pendency of this proceeding will, however, be conditioned on the outcome of this proceeding. 65 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14). 66 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 532- 33, ¶ 141; see also Upper 700 MHz MO& O and FNPRM at ¶ 57 n. 111. 67 Fourteen stations are located in the continental United States and six stations are located in Puerto Rico. 68 See Review of the Commission’s Rules and Policies Affecting the Conversion to Digital Television, MM Docket No. 00- 39, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01- 24 (rel. Jan. 19, 2001) (establishing election date of December 31, 2004 for commercial stations and December 31, 2005 for non-commercial stations) (DTV Periodic Review Order). 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 16 after the transition. 69 This will more readily enable the Commission to identify in- core channels for the out- of-core digital assignments currently in Channels 52- 69 so that the Commission can clear this spectrum. (iii) Low Power Stations 27. There are currently 835 licenses and 244 construction permits for low power television operations on Channels 52- 59. In addition, there are 607 applications pending for new low power stations. Many of these pending applications involve requests for replacement channels by low power stations displaced by DTV stations or seeking to vacate the use of TV Channels 60- 69 (746- 806 MHz). Section 3004 of the BBA 97 states that anyone holding a television broadcast license in the 746- 806 MHz band “may not operate at that frequency after the date on which the digital television transition period terminates, as determined by the Commission.” 70 The Conference Report confirms the plain language of the statute: “The conferees recognize that in clearing this band, the Commission will displace not only full- power licensees but also secondary broadcast services, including low- power licensees and television translator licensees.” 71 In our reallocation proceeding for Channels 60- 69, we found that this provision leaves us no latitude in clearing LPTV and TV translator stations from the band at the end of the DTV transition period. 72 Section 3004 of the BBA 97 requires the Commission to “seek to assure” that qualifying LPTV stations are assigned a frequency below 746 MHz (TV Channel 60) to permit their continued operation. 73 28. Throughout the DTV and related proceedings, we have recognized that the DTV transition and the reallocation of spectrum to other services will have a significant impact on LPTV and TV translators. Further, we have recognized that LPTV operators offer important services to specialized and minority audiences, foreign language communities, and rural areas. In this regard, we adopted a number of rule changes in the DTV Proceeding to mitigate the impact on these stations. 74 These rule changes included allowing LPTV stations displaced by new DTV stations to apply for suitable replacement channels; considering such applications on a first- come, first- served basis without subjecting them to competing applications; and technical rule changes to provide additional operating flexibility for low power stations. 75 We also stated that any industry negotiation and coordination efforts must be open to all parties, including LPTV stations. 76 While we are committed in this proceeding to take reasonable additional steps to reduce the impact on such operations, we are obligated to facilitate the DTV transition and to reallocate this spectrum as directed under the BBA 97. We seek comment on whether there are additional measures we should consider for LPTV in the 69 Id. 70 See BBA 97 § 3004 (adding new § 337( e)( 1) of the Communications Act). 71 See H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 105- 217, 105 th Cong., 1 st Sess. at 580; 143 Cong. Rec. H6029 (daily ed. July 29, 1997). 72 See Upper 700 MHz Reallocation Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 22967, ¶ 29. 73 See BBA 97 § 3004 (adding new § 337( e)( 2) to the Communications Act). 74 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14652- 57, ¶¶ 141- 47. 75 Id. 76 Id. at 14671, ¶ 182. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 17 698- 746 MHz band. Summary of Channels 52- 59 Incumbents Licenses Construction Permits Applications & Allotment Petitions Total New 77 NTSC 89 12 57 158 Not Permitted DTV 17 95 53 165 Not Permitted LPTV 835 244 607 1,686 Permitted b. Interference Protection for Television Services 29. In the DTV Proceeding, we stated that all existing analog TV and new DTV stations in the 698- 746 MHz band would be fully protected during the DTV transition period. 78 Thus, it will be necessary for licensees in the reallocated spectrum to protect both analog TV and DTV stations in the 698- 746 MHz band from interference. If any additional NTSC licenses or construction permits or DTV full service allotments are made as a result of pending petitions, they would be afforded full protection during the DTV transition period. (i) Protection of Analog Stations 30. For the 746- 806 MHz (Channels 60- 69) band, we adopted a methodology that specifies minimum separation distances based on the various heights and powers of land mobile stations to prevent harmful interference to incumbent analog television operations from new service providers. This methodology has been successfully used in existing land mobile- broadcasting sharing arrangements in the 470- 512 MHz band. We used a 40 dB desired- to- undesired (D/ U) signal ratio for calculating the co- channel geographic separation requirements. 79 We found this to be a reasonable value that will provide sufficient protection for TV stations, as prescribed by the BBA 97. 80 Co- channel land mobile base station transmitters will be limited to a maximum signal strength at the assumed TV Grade B contour that is 40 dB below the 64 dBu Grade B contour signal 77 The Commission ended filing opportunities for new NTSC stations effective September 20, 1996. See supra para. 22. Amendments to certain of these applications and allotment petitions to change channels, filed prior to the freeze were accepted until July 15, 2000. All requests for new DTV allotments must be filed for in- core channels. However, initially eligible DTV broadcasters are permitted to seek modified allotments, including Channels 52- 59. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.622( a). Not included in the counts above are four petitions for NTSC assignments, which have requested to convert their station proposals. 78 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14626- 27, ¶ 80. 79 See Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 14 FCC Rcd 152, 221, ¶ 152 (1998) (Public Safety Service Rule Order). 80 Id. 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 18 strength value, or 24 dBu. 81 We adopted a 0 dB D/ U signal ratio for adjacent channel operations. 82 Adjacent channel land mobile transmitters are thus limited to a maximum signal which can equal the TV Grade B signal of 64 dBu at the TV station assumed Grade B contour of 88. 5 km (55 miles). A typical TV receiver’s adjacent channel rejection is at least 10- 20 dB, which will further safeguard TV from land mobile interference. The analog TV protections adopted in the 746- 806 MHz reallocation proceeding were based on the need to balance protection for existing broadcasting services, while making this spectrum viable for new services, including public safety. We seek comment on whether we should employ the same method for protecting analog TV stations in the 698- 746 MHz band. (ii) Protection of Digital Stations 31. In our public safety proceeding, we determined that the same signal strength limits for land mobile operation criteria used for protection of analog stations, i. e., 24 dBP co- channel and 64 dBP adjacent channel, should also apply for digital stations. 83 These field strength values correspond to co- channel and adjacent channel protection ratios for a DTV station at its 41 dBP field strength service contour of 17 dB and - 23 dB, respectively. 84 We note that these determinations are consistent with the DTV Sixth Report and Order. 85 There, the Commission specified a minimum geographic separation of 250 km (155 miles) for co- channel operations between DTV stations and the city- center in the areas where there are existing land mobile operations. 86 Section 90.305( a) of our rules provides that full power land mobile base stations can be located up to 80. 5 km (50 miles) from the city- center of one of the specified cities. 87 Consequently, under the geographic separation standards adopted in the DTV Sixth Report and Order, a land mobile base station could choose to locate its station as close as 169.5 km (250 km - 80.5 km), or 105 miles to a neighboring DTV station. At this distance, a typical land mobile base station would produce an interfering signal at the DTV station’s 88. 5 km (55 miles) equivalent Grade B contour corresponding to the 17 dB D/ U protection ratio specified in the Public Safety Service Rule Order to a DTV receiver. Thus, our decision to require land mobile systems to provide signal ratios for DTV stations which will afford approximately the same separation distance as we did for analog TV stations, was considered to represent a reasonable balance between the needs of both DTV stations and new services. 81 In terms of miles, if everything else is the same, a 40 dB D/ U ratio rather than a 50 dB D/ U ratio allows base stations to be located approximately 48.3 km (30 miles) closer to a co- channel TV station. See 47 C. F. R. § 90.309 tbls. A & B. 82 See Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements For Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96- 86, Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 17706, 17801- 805, ¶¶ 230- 40. 83 See Public Safety Service Rule Order, 14 FCC Rcd 152. 84 See id. at 222- 23, ¶ 155. 85 See DTV Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 14663- 65, ¶¶ 163- 65. 86 See id.; see also 47 C. F. R. § 90.303( a) (for the areas where TV/ land mobile sharing is currently permitted). 87 See 47 C. F. R. § 90.305( a). 18 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 19 32. With regard to this new allocation of the 698- 746 MHz band, we seek comment on whether we should adopt the same criteria for protection of DTV stations as we use for protection of analog stations. We are particularly interested in comments addressing the provisions for transmissions that may have the characteristics of a wide band- noise like emission. As demonstrated by the table in Section 73.623( c)( 3)( ii), DTV receivers treat co- channel DTV signals as an increase in the noise floor of the desired signal. This increase in noise floor is proportional to the power received from the undesired station. Therefore, in order to maintain the minimum necessary signal- to- noise (S/ N) ratio of 15. 19 dB, the desired signal level must be increased. Section 73.623( c)( 2) of the rules sets forth a value of 15 dB for co- channel interference for DTV into DTV which are only valid at receiving locations where the S/ N ratio for the desired DTV signal is 28 dB or greater. 88 At the edge of the DTV noise- limited service area, where the S/ N ratio is 16 dB, the value of D/ U is 23 dB for interference protection from another DTV station. New land mobile systems operating in this band employing wide band noise like signals may need to provide DTV stations the same increases in protection as indicated in Section 73.623( c)( 3)( ii) of the rules. 89 33. Since we do not know the characteristics (bandwidth and power spectrum shape) of the co- channel threat to DTV in the re- allocated Channels 52- 59, we seek comment on whether digital, wide- band emissions from these services in this band could cause interference to possible co- channel DTV operations, and may require the imposition of more restrictive criteria than those provided for under Section 90.545 of the Commission’s rules. In particular, we seek comment on the adequacy of 17 dB for co- channel protection of DTV from wide band transmissions or whether we should consider more conservative protection levels. c. Coordination with Canada and Mexico 34. The United States has bilateral agreements with both Canada and Mexico setting forth allotment and assignment plans for TV broadcast stations covering the 698- 746 MHz band (Channels 52- 59). While the U. S. has identified this band for reallocation to new services, neither Canada nor Mexico has done so to date. 90 Pursuant to these agreements, the U. S. must protect the signals of Canadian and Mexican TV broadcast stations located in the border areas, and such operations will therefore affect U. S. non- broadcast use and services in this band. Accordingly, we tentatively conclude that licenses issued for this band will be subject to whatever future agreements the United States develops with these two countries. We further tentatively conclude that, until such time as existing agreements are replaced or modified to reflect the new uses, licenses in this band will be subject to existing agreements and the condition that harmful interference not be caused to, and must be accepted from, TV operations originating in Canada and Mexico. We seek comment on our tentative conclusions. 88 See id. § 73.623( c)( 2). 89 See id. § 73.623( c)( 3)( iii). 90 A recently- signed Letter of Understanding (“ LOU”) with Canada recognizes U. S. plans to use this band for other than broadcasting services, and notes that Canada is independently considering a reduction of the spectrum in this band allocated to television. This LOU also specifically provides for non- broadcast allocations and services in the 746- 806 MHz bands (Channels 60- 69) by establishing criteria to protect DTV stations and analog TV stations established in accordance with the existing TV Agreement (Nov. 3, 1993 – Jan. 5, 1994). 19 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 20 B. Service Rules 35. One of our primary goals in this proceeding is to establish service rules that will promote innovative services and encourage the flexible and efficient use of this spectrum. 91 In recent years the Commission has implemented our statutory directives under Section 309( j) of the Communications Act by addressing the growing complexities of spectrum management using approaches consistent with general market- based principles. For example, in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, we were guided by our conclusion in our Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement that a flexible, market- based approach is the most appropriate method for establishing service rules for this band. 92 Similarly, in our recent Secondary Markets Policy Statement, we stated that for competition to bring consumers the highest valued services in the most efficient manner, competing users of spectrum need flexibility to respond to market forces and demand. 93 Consistent with the principles underlying the Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement and the Secondary Markets Policy Statement, we tentatively conclude that our service rules for this band should implement flexible use for the full range of proposed allocated services, consistent with necessary interference requirements. 36. In seeking to achieve the above objectives, we recognize that our service rules must also take into account the presence of incumbent broadcasters on the Lower 700 MHz Band and the processes we have established in our DTV proceeding for relocating incumbent broadcasters into the DTV core spectrum. The 698- 746 MHz band is currently used as Channels 52- 59 by a significant number of existing full service analog stations, LPTV stations, TV translator and booster stations, and by new DTV stations. These incumbent broadcasters, both analog and digital, may continue to operate on channel allotments in this band until at least December 31, 2006, 94 or the relevant statutory conditions are met that allow incumbents to be relocated to channels in the DTV core spectrum of Channels 2- 51. 95 Therefore, the service rules for any new services on the Lower 700 MHz Band must provide for the protection of incumbent television stations during the DTV transition period. 96 37. We also seek to establish rules that will facilitate, rather than hinder, the clearing of incumbent broadcasters from this spectrum in a manner consistent with our policy goal of locating all television channels in the DTV core spectrum, thus making the band available for a wide range of advanced services. In the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, we considered the use of several voluntary “band clearing” mechanisms, such as the use of secondary auctions to determine the price that would be paid by Upper 700 MHz licensees to TV 91 See, e. g., 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 3)( D) (Commission to promote efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum). 92 See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order at ¶ 3 (citing Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd 19868). 93 See Secondary Markets Policy Statement at ¶ 8. 94 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14)( A). 95 See Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd at 19879- 80, ¶ 25; see also DTV MO& O of the Fifth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 6887- 88, ¶ 79; DTV MO& O of the Sixth Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 7435- 37, ¶¶ 42- 45. 96 See Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd at 19879- 80, ¶ 25. 20 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 21 incumbents who agreed to clear their channels in that band. 97 While we recognize that different circumstances apply to the Lower 700 MHz Band, we are seeking comment in this Notice on potential mechanisms, with the focus on voluntary mechanisms, to encourage the smooth transition from incumbent broadcast services to new services due to the particular circumstances relating to the Lower 700 MHz Band. 98 38. In this section, we request comment on a number of issues, such as the appropriate relationship between potential uses of the spectrum, the optimal size of the spectrum blocks available for auction, the appropriate size of geographic service areas, any channelization plan, and other characteristics that we should use to define licenses in the Lower 700 MHz Band. Comments should address whether particular characteristics would encourage a variety of technologies and entrants, foster overall licensee flexibility, provide licensees with the maximum number of options to provide service, and promote the other objectives of the Communications Act. 99 In addition, if we were to adopt allocations other than those proposed in this Notice, we seek comment on whether our service rules should provide for all allocated services including, for example, satellite service. 100 39. While we seek comment from the public in general concerning the matters set forth in this Notice, we specifically seek comment from Indian Tribal governments on the matters contained herein. As detailed in the Tribal Government Policy Statement, adopted in June 2000, the Commission is committed to (1) working with Indian tribes on a government- to- government basis to ensure that Indian tribes have adequate access to communications services, and (2) consulting with Tribal governments prior to implementing any regulatory action or policy that will significantly affect Tribal governments, their land, and resources. 101 We believe the matters set forth in this Notice have the potential to foster the development and, ultimately, the deployment of new technologies and services to many communities, including tribal communities. In keeping with the principles of the Tribal Government Policy Statement, we welcome the opportunity to consult with Tribal governments on the issues raised by this Notice and we seek comment both from Tribal governments and other interested parties on the potential for the spectrum considerations set forth herein to serve the communications needs of tribal communities. 1. Scope of Licenses a. Permissible Licensed Services 40. In November 1999, this Commission issued its Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement that sets forth principles to guide our spectrum management activities. 102 We noted that demand has increased 97 See Upper 700 MHz Third Report and Order at ¶ 37. 98 See infra Part III. B. 6. 99 See, e. g., 47 U. S. C. §§ 157, 309( j)( 3)-( 4). 100 Although we do not make a specific proposal in this Notice concerning an allocation in this band for satellite services, we do seek comment on the issue. See supra Part III. A. 1.e. 101 See Statement of Policy on Establishing a Government- to- Government Relationship with Indian Tribes, Policy Statement, FCC 00- 207 (rel. June 23, 2000) (Tribal Government Policy Statement). 102 See generally Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement, 14 FCC Rcd 19868. 21 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 22 dramatically as a result of explosive growth in wireless communications, and that the Commission must focus on allowing markets to become more efficient in increasing the amount of spectrum available for use. 103 We observed that flexibility could be permitted through the use of relaxed service rules, which would allow licensees greater freedom in determining the specific services to be offered. 104 We further stated that the 698- 746 MHz spectrum could be used to make a variety of technologies and services available to the American public. 105 We also note that the BBA 97 grants the Commission the authority to allocate spectrum for flexible use, provided that the Commission makes certain findings. 106 In providing for competitive bidding, we shall seek to promote the development and rapid deployment of new technologies without delay, encourage the efficient and effective use of the spectrum, promote competition, and ensure that new and innovative technologies are readily accessible. 107 In this Notice, we seek comment on the scope of services that should be licensed under the service rules that we adopt for the Lower 700 MHz Band. Comments that are submitted in response to this Notice should address whether our service rules would encourage the active and efficient use of the Lower 700 MHz Band and enable new technologies and services. 41. In this Notice, we emphasize our continued interest in the development of a variety of mechanisms to make spectrum markets more flexible and efficient in the choice of service to be offered by licensees and in the applicable service rules. We seek comment on whether to reallocate this spectrum in the 698- 746 MHz band to permit fixed, mobile, and broadcast services on the 698- 746 MHz band. We seek to develop service rules that are not based on a Commission prediction of how these bands will ultimately be used, but instead enables us to establish maximum practicable flexibility. Accordingly, we request comment on how innovative service rules and assignment mechanisms can maximize the use of this spectrum. We also seek comment on how new technologies may affect the extent to which service rules effectively provide for flexible, efficient, and intensive use of the spectrum. 108 42. In the Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, we decided not to adopt service rules that would permit both full power television and wireless services to operate on the Upper 700 MHz Band. 109 We found that the contrasting technical characteristics of full power television broadcasting, using power levels authorized by Part 73, 110 and wireless services effectively preclude the development of interference rules that would enable the practicable provision of both sets of services on the spectrum under consideration in that proceeding. 111 We determined that if there is a disparity between the two services’ characteristic power levels 103 Id. at 19868, ¶ 2. 104 Id. at 19870, ¶ 9. 105 Id. at 19879- 80, ¶ 25. 106 See 47 U. S. C. §303( y). This Notice seeks comment on the flexible use considerations in Section 303( y). 107 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 3)( A)-( B), (D). 108 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 3)( D). 109 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 483- 87, ¶¶ 15- 25. 110 See 47 C. F. R. Part 73 (Broadcast Radio Services). 111 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 484- 85, ¶17. 22 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 23 and between their transmitter heights, these factors would have an impact on the ability of either of the services to provide adequate service. 112 We further found that any substantial disproportion between the power levels of services sharing a spectrum band creates much greater interference difficulties for the lower- power service than when sharing or adjacent- band services operate at comparable power levels. 113 As a result, we adopted service rules primarily directed toward fulfilling the need for a variety of new wireless services. The service rules we adopted provided flexibility to licensees to make determinations respecting the services provided and technologies to be used, including the provision of new broadcast- type service on the band, provided those services comply with the applicable technical rules. 43. We solicit comment in this Notice on the extent to which our service rules can permit both new full power broadcasting, in particular DTV and other digital broadcast operations, and wireless services to operate on the Lower 700 MHz Band. Commenters should consider the interference concerns that we addressed in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, as well as any other relevant factors. We seek comment on whether the possible technology or technologies used to provide digital broadcast services, such as those using a cellular architecture, would be compatible with wireless services operating on the spectrum. In that regard, we seek comment on whether a 50 kW limit for full power broadcasting would permit both broadcasting operations and wireless services to use this spectrum, yet still allow flexible use of the spectrum consistent with technical and interference requirements. We also request comment on whether service rules that allow licensing of full power broadcasting on the band would affect the efficient use of the spectrum. To what extent would efforts to manage interference between such dissimilar transmissions as full power television and wireless services increase the possibility of substantial spectrum inefficiencies in the band? We also seek comment on whether the licensing of full power broadcasters on this band would impose disproportionate, offsetting burdens on wireless services, both fixed and mobile, and whether full power broadcasting would have a substantial impact on the technical effectiveness and economic practicability of wireless service providers operating on this band. In addition, we seek comment on whether any differences between the Part 27 and Part 73 rules that may affect our determination as to whether the service rules for the 698- 746 MHz band should permit both full power television and wireless providers to operate on this band. We note that Sections 309( j)( 14)( C) and (D) of the Act, which apply to all spectrum reclaimed as part of the DTV transition, prevents the Commission from declaring any party ineligible, for “any license that may be used for any digital television service” in certain cities, on the basis of our duopoly rule and newspaper cross- ownership rule. 114 We seek comment on the impact of these provisions on our determination of whether and how our service rules can and should permit broadcast and wireless providers to operate on the Lower 700 MHz Band. 44. In the Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, we adopted service rules that addressed the need for a range of wireless applications and recast the Part 27 rules to reflect their revised scope. The Commission decided to allow any new broadcast- type services consistent with the Table of Allocations, provided that such services satisfied our technical and service rules. 115 Such services, to the extent they may be offered, would not 112 Id. 113 Id. 114 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14)( C)-( D); 47 C. F. R. § 73.3555( b), (d). Because we did not permit the use of the spectrum by full power broadcasting in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, we had no occasion to consider imposing any eligibility restrictions based on our broadcasting rules. 115 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 485- 86, ¶ 19. 23 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 24 necessarily resemble current radio and television broadcast services subject to Part 73 and 74 of our rules, but could still meet the statutory definition of “broadcasting.” 116 Because such new broadcast- type services would necessarily use lower power levels than even existing low- power television service, and may differ significantly in both technical and public policy respects from full power broadcasting, we did not seek to anticipate or develop a regulatory framework beyond the technical and operational rules that were adopted in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding or that already applied to broadcast services in general. However, we did remind potential applicants for such new broadcast- type services that compliance with Part 27 technical standards did not alter the underlying nature of such services, or the licensees’ related regulatory and statutory obligations. 117 We seek comment on whether to license new broadcast- type service on the Lower 700 MHz Band. 45. In this Notice, we do not make a specific proposal concerning an allocation in the Lower 700 MHz Band for satellite service, but request comment on the matter. In the event that an allocation is made in this band for satellite service, we seek comment on whether auction winners should be afforded the flexibility to deploy satellite services, either themselves or by agreement with a satellite operator, within their licenses’ geographic area, provided that such operations do not cause unacceptable interference to services operating in adjacent geographic areas. 118 Further, if an allocation is made in this band for satellite service, we seek comment on the service rules that would apply to such service. b. Size of Spectrum Blocks for Each License 46. We seek comment on the appropriate amount of spectrum for each license in the 698- 746 MHz band. Should we license, for example, the spectrum as a single 48 megahertz block or should it be licensed as two or more smaller blocks? 47. We seek comment first on whether the utility, and therefore value, of the spectrum would be enhanced by providing for the auction of a single block. A spectrum block of such size would seem to minimize the potential for third- party interference and thereby minimize the needed scope of our interference rules. In this regard, given the difficult incumbency issues associated with this band, we seek comment on whether economics associated with being a licensee of a large block of spectrum would make it easier for the licensee to develop services around existing incumbents, clear the band of incumbents, and generally deal with interference issues in the band. We also request comment on whether a single licensee, as opposed to numerous licensees, would be more likely to successfully negotiate the clearing of incumbent broadcasters from the spectrum. Would it be in the public interest to leave the determination of the internal framework of the 698- 746 MHz band to one licensee? Comments should address both the possible and expected scope of use by a single 48 megahertz licensee. Commenters should identify the range of services that could be offered if we employ a license of this size. In addition, we seek comment on what spectrum block size would best facilitate 116 See id. at 483 n. 37. We noted that under the Act, the term “broadcasting” means the dissemination of radio communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations. See 47 U. S. C. § 153( 6). 117 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 494, ¶ 43 n. 95, 509, ¶ 81 n. 188. 118 Cf. 3650- 3700 MHz First Report and Order, supra note 52. 24 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 25 the “reasonable and timely” 119 deployment of broadband applications which may be spectrum- intensive. 48. We seek comment, alternatively, on whether we should establish two or more blocks to license this spectrum, and what should be their size. We seek comment, for instance, on whether the spectrum should be licensed in two blocks of 24 megahertz each. Commenters also should address whether a block of 12 megahertz or more is required to provide access to a wide range of advanced telecommunications services. In addition, they should explain whether a block of six megahertz is necessary to enable wireless telecommunications services, or a viable digital television service. Licensing based on smaller spectrum blocks may be preferable for rural and small carriers. Parties who prefer smaller spectrum block sizes to larger blocks should identify the advantages that licensing based on smaller spectrum blocks would have on potential auction participants. If commenters support licensing based on spectrum blocks other than those we discuss herein, they should state why other size spectrum blocks are more appropriate. The comments also should address the impact that the size of the spectrum blocks will have on the services that may be provided on this band, especially given the difficult incumbency issues. 49. Comments are invited on whether we should adopt a licensing plan for this band that provides for different sized blocks. The comments should address whether this approach could improve spectrum efficiency, offer greater flexibility in the use of spectrum, increase the diversity of services offered to consumers, and facilitate the development of advanced telecommunications services. 50. We also seek comment generally on the minimum size of spectrum blocks needed to enable competitive commercial services. In this regard, we note that our simultaneous multiple round and combinatorial (or “package”) auction design generally offers bidders substantial flexibility to aggregate blocks of spectrum for their particular uses. 120 We seek comment on whether in light of the auction designs that may be available, we should define spectrum block sizes that would require bidders to aggregate spectrum at auction to achieve the most efficient result. Such an approach may provide bidders with greater flexibility to implement their plans, as compared with the Commission’s traditional approach toward defining spectrum blocks, which attempts to define optimal block size and allows adjustments through secondary market mechanisms, such as disaggregation, if such fine- tuning is necessary. 51. Commenters should consider the relationship between the amount of spectrum per license and the ability to protect existing broadcast operations in this band during the transition to DTV. The comments should address how the size of the spectrum blocks will affect the licensees’ ability to deploy new, innovative services 119 See Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104- 104, 110 Stat. 153 § 706 (set forth at 47 U. S. C. § 157 nt.) 120 Package bidding may take many forms. Under the design that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau has developed for the upcoming 700 MHz band auction (Auction No. 31), bidders are not restricted to placing bids on individual licenses, but may also place all- or- nothing bids on packages of licenses. See Auction of Licenses in the 747- 762 and 777- 792 MHz Bands Scheduled for September 6, 2000; Procedures Implementing Package Bidding For Auction No 31, Public Notice, 15 FCC Rcd 11526 (2000) (describing package bidding procedures for 700 MHz band auction). Under this approach, for example, a bidder desiring to inaugurate a nationwide service could bid on a package of licenses that covers the entire nation and not face the risk of winning only some of the desired licenses and paying more than the bidder values those licenses by themselves (without the other licenses needed to provide nationwide coverage). 25 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 26 and the impact that the size of the spectrum blocks may have on the ability of licensees to compete with existing fixed and mobile service providers. The comments also should consider the need to preserve licensee flexibility in technical and service application choices. 52. In light of the presence of incumbent broadcasters on this band, we seek comment on whether spectrum blocks of six megahertz could be aligned in the 698- 746 MHz band plan to correspond with individual six megahertz television channels. We request comment on whether our adoption of six megahertz blocks as an appropriately- sized spectrum block would facilitate clearing of the band by incumbent broadcasters or otherwise enhance the value of the spectrum. In addition, in this Notice, we seek comment on the possibility of a guard band or some other form of protection for services provided below this 698- 746 MHz band, on television Channel 51. We request comments on the impact of the adoption of service rules in this proceeding on the incumbent use of Channel 51. c. Size of Service Areas for Geographic- Area Licensing 53. We tentatively conclude that we should adopt a geographic area licensing approach to assign licenses in the 698- 746 MHz band. In contrast to station- defined licensing (i. e., site- by- site licensing), our experience has been that geographic area licensing affords licensees substantial flexibility to respond to market demand and may result in significant improvements in spectrum utilization. Geographic licensing provides licensees with flexibility to dynamically adjust spectrum usage depending upon market conditions, and thus maximize the use of spectrum in areas of highest demand. These same adjustments may be significantly more difficult under a site- by- site licensing regime where prior Commission approval is needed before a licensee can modify its service and coverage. Geographic area licensing schemes have been employed in a number of services with which licensees in the 698- 746 MHz band may potentially compete. 121 In addition, consistent with Part 27, we adopted a geographic licensing approach for the 746- 764 and 776- 794 MHz bands in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding. 54. Assuming that we utilize a geographic area approach for the 698- 746 MHz band, we seek comment on the appropriate size of service areas on which licenses should be based. Should we license, for example, all or part of the 48 megahertz of reallocated spectrum on a nationwide basis, or would smaller geographic license sizes be more appropriate for this spectrum? 55. We seek comment, first, on a possible nationwide license. Nationwide licenses have the advantage of providing carriers with more flexibility in the buildout of their services, as well as in coordinating with incumbents. In this regard, we seek comment on whether any problems associated with the operation of the many incumbent TV stations in this band may be better addressed by licensing this spectrum in larger areas where there may be less of a need for complicated protection agreements. Does the presence of a large number of broadcasters in the 698- 746 MHz band make nationwide licenses more desirable than regional or other license sizes? We also seek comment on the extent to which nationwide licenses maximize the opportunity to provide the widest array of services and business plans. Do nationwide geographic licensing areas, especially in light of our proposal to permit partitioning 122 and our seeking comment about spectrum leasing, 123 provide 121 See, e. g., infra paras. 55- 57 (describing geographic license areas for various broadband Commercial Mobile Radio Services (“ CMRS”)). 122 In light of the variety of potential services that we envision will use this reallocated band, including emerging technologies or next- generation applications, the most desirable or efficient scale of service area may vary (continued….) 26 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 27 the necessary incentives for fostering the growth of existing technologies while encouraging the development of new applications? Would the adoption of nationwide geographic licensing areas provide potential savings to the time and cost of developing applications and manufacturing equipment to operate in the 698- 746 MHz band? 56. In the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, the Commission chose six large, regional Economic Area Groupings (“ EAGs”) for the 747- 762 MHz and 777- 792 MHz bands. 124 The use of regional licenses may permit licensees to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by licensing spectrum on a wide regional basis. Accordingly, we request comments that address the possibility of issuing large, regional licenses in the 698- 746 MHz band. Are the six EAGs the appropriate license size for this reallocated band? 125 Are EAGs (or other regional licenses) preferable to nationwide licenses because they may more easily allow partitioning to serve the needs of smaller users and regional communities? If we adopt six regional EAGs, we seek comment on what would be the optimal spectrum block size. Commenters should address whether blocks of 48 megahertz, 24 megahertz, or smaller sizes would be appropriate for regional EAGs. We note that our simultaneous multiple round and combinatorial or package bidding auction designs generally offer bidders flexibility to aggregate multiple licenses to cover larger geographic areas for their particular uses. Would the opportunity to aggregate a small number of regional licenses be sufficient for those seeking to build a nationwide footprint? We invite comment on how to define an appropriate geographic service area in light of the various types of bidding procedures that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau now has at its disposal. 57. Commenters should also address whether smaller geographic license sizes are appropriate for all or a subset of this spectrum. For example, the Commission has licensed spectrum using smaller territories defined by the 306 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (“ MSAs”) and 428 Rural Statistical Areas (“ RSAs”), and the 172 EAs and three EA- like areas. When combined, the MSA and RSA service areas create the 734 geographic areas that were originally used to license cellular service. 126 Rural and smaller carriers may prefer licensing based on small geographic areas. 127 If so, which license sizes are preferable to the larger, regional (Continued from previous page) according to the business plan of the potential licensee. Therefore, some licensees may need smaller service areas. We tentatively conclude below to allow post- auction partitioning of licenses for bidders whose business plans require different size geographic areas than are adopted here. See infra Part III. B. 3.g. 123 See infra Part III. B. 3.a. 124 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 500, ¶ 56. The six EAGs are based on Economic Areas (“ EAs”). 125 In addition to the six EAGs, the Commission has used regional approaches to license spectrum in the 12 Regional Economic Areas (“ REAs”) and the 52 Major Economic Areas (“ MEAs”). See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Services (“ WCS”), GN Docket No. 96- 228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785, 10814- 16, ¶¶ 54- 60 (1997). REAs and MEAs are based on the 172 EAs, as modified by the Commission. 126 The 172 EAs are defined by the U. S. Department of Commerce, while the three additional EA- like areas are defined by the Commission. The Commission has issued certain Specialized Mobile Radio (“ SMR”) licenses based on EAs. 127 See, e. g., Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 499, ¶55. 27 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 28 license sizes? Should we license part of the 48 megahertz of spectrum on a large regional (or national) basis and the remaining part of the band in geographic areas of a medium or smaller scale? If commenters support licensing based on service territories other than those discussed above, they should discuss why other types of service areas are more appropriate. In addition, we seek comment on the impact that the size of the service area will have on the participation in the auction by parties that may be eligible for the Commission’s designated entities provisions. 128 58. We also seek comment on whether we should license the Gulf of Mexico as part of larger service areas, as we did for the Upper 700 MHz Band, or whether we should separately license a service area or service areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico. Commenters who advocate a separate service area or areas to cover the Gulf of Mexico should discuss what boundaries should be used and whether special interference protection criteria or performance requirements are necessary due to the unique radio propagation characteristics and antenna siting challenges that exist for Gulf licensees. 59. We seek comment on the possible impact that broadcast use of this spectrum would have on the determination of the appropriate geographic service area. We seek comment elsewhere in this Notice on service rules that may permit the 698- 746 MHz band to be used by both full power broadcasting and wireless services. 129 Parties who believe that such combined use should be permitted should first comment on the various choices we are considering in this proceeding for Part 27 geographic license areas and spectrum blocks and the impact that this scheme would have on the concept of a station’s serving the needs and interests of its community of license pursuant to Part 73. 130 Those parties should also comment on any relation between our geographic service area and spectrum block decisions and the combined use of these bands by CMRS and full power broadcast services, which operate using significantly different power levels. We seek comment on how any decisions regarding spectrum channelization and power levels, if combined use were to be permitted, would affect the appropriate size of geographic licenses, in contrast to limiting or precluding broadcast use of the spectrum. We also seek comment on alternatives that would rely on licensing by geographic area, by community of license, or by some combination of these approaches. d. Paired or Unpaired Spectrum Bands 60. In the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, we determined that spectrum blocks be established and licenses be assigned on the basis of paired bands. 131 We configured the 30 megahertz of spectrum in two paired bands: a 10 megahertz band, designated Block C, and a 20 megahertz band, designated Block D. Each paired band constituted a spectrum block on which auction bids would be based in an EAG. Our decision to adopt this paired band architecture reflected an assessment that the most commonly- used transmission procedure for Personal Communications Services (“ PCS”), cellular, and other established mobile and fixed wireless 128 See infra Part III. B. 5.b. 129 See supra Part III. B. 1.a. 130 See also supra Part III. B. 1.b. 131 See Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 493- 94, ¶¶ 40- 42; Upper 700 MHz MO& O and FNPRM at ¶ 12. 28 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 29 applications, Frequency Division Duplex (“ FDD”), requires paired spectrum. 132 As discussed below, on reconsideration in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, we revised our rules to enable Time Division Duplex (“ TDD”) based technologies to use unpaired bands, or both bands. 133 61. If we decide that the spectrum in the 698- 746 MHz band should be licensed in two or more blocks, should the spectrum be offered as contiguous or paired blocks and, if paired blocks, should the blocks be symmetric or asymmetric in size? We seek comment on the extent to which the spectrum should be paired or unpaired to enable viable commercial wireless services. Given bidders’ opportunities to aggregate licenses under our simultaneous multiple round, combinatorial, and package auction designs, how would the adoption of either a paired or unpaired band structure impact the Commission’s ability to achieve its spectrum management goals, including flexible and efficient spectrum use. 134 We request comment on the degree to which paired or unpaired bands are suited to new technologies, particularly such technologies that would enhance the offering of advanced wireless telecommunications services. Comments should address the particular requirements of the various services and their technologies, including transmission procedures such as FDD or TDD, that would use this spectrum, and the impact on such services and technologies of our adopting either a paired or unpaired band architecture. 62. We seek comment on the extent to which the power limits that are to be established in this rulemaking should affect our adoption of a paired or unpaired band structure. In the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, we allowed 1000 watt effective radiated power (“ ERP”) base and fixed stations in both the lower and upper bands, and 30 watt ERP mobile and control station, as well as 3 Watts ERP portables, in both the upper and lower bands. 135 We found that such power limits would enable both base and mobile transmitters on both the upper and lower bands, and thus permitted TDD- based technologies to use either the upper or lower bands, or both, as circumstances warrant. If we decide to adopt a paired band architecture for the 698- 746 MHz band, should we enable the use of both base and mobile transmitters on both bands? Furthermore, should we use the same power limits as we adopted in the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, or should some other power limits be authorized instead? To what extent should we adopt power limits or out- of- band emission limits for the 698- 746 MHz spectrum that are aimed at enabling TDD operations, or operations that are based on some other form of technology? Comments should address both the methodology to be used, e. g., whether the power limits should be the same or different for the two bands, and the specific power levels to be adopted. 63. We request comment on the impact that our decisions on the size of spectrum blocks and of the service area should have on our decision on whether to adopt paired or unpaired spectrum bands. For example, would the adoption of smaller spectrum blocks be more or less appropriate in a paired band structure than in an unpaired band structure? Would a decision to license blocks that are large enough for full power broadcast service and to permit sharing of the spectrum by wireless and full power broadcast providers have an impact on our decision to license spectrum on a paired or unpaired basis? 132 Upper 700 MHz First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 494, ¶ 42. 133 Upper 700 MHz MO& O and FNPRM at ¶ 10. 134 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 3)( D). 135 Upper 700 MHz MO& O and FNPRM at ¶ 10. 29 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 30 64. We also solicit comment on whether and to what extent the use of paired or unpaired spectrum bands would accommodate entities seeking to negotiate voluntary transition agreements with incumbent television licensees that could enable the clearing of such incumbent licensees from the 698- 746 MHz band. Comments should address whether such efforts to facilitate transition agreements are consistent with our objectives of seeking to promote the rapid development of new technologies and the efficient and effective use of the spectrum. 136 2. Technical Rules a. General Technical Rules 65. We seek comment on whether the general provisions of Part 27 of the rules should be applied to the 698- 746 MHz band, and specifically on any rules that would be affected by our proposal to apply elements of the Part 27 framework, whether separately or in conjunction with Part 73 requirements, to full power broadcast services, or to any other parts of our rules. We solicit comment concerning the appropriate rules to adopt for co- channel interference control, out- of- band 137 and spurious emission 138 limits, and power limits and radiofrequency (RF) safety requirements. The comments also should address whether all of these technical rules would apply to all licensees in the 698- 746 MHz band, including licensees who acquire their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. b. Co- Channel Interference Control 66. Historically, the Commission has issued rules governing the technical and operating parameters of radio transmitters in order to reduce to a pre- determined level the interference between licensees using the same spectrum assignment in adjacent geographical locations. 139 This methodology of interference control generally is most successful where the type of service provided and technology used by geographically adjacent licensees are established by rule and reasonable assumptions can be made about the technical characteristics of receivers that will be used. 67. Recently, the Commission has established new broadband wireless services 140 wherein licensees 136 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 3)( A), (D). 137 An “out- of- band emission” is an “[ e] mission on a frequency or frequencies immediately outside the necessary bandwidth which results from the modulation process, but excluding spurious emissions.” 47 C. F. R. § 2.1( c). 138 A “spurious emission” is an “[ e] mission on a frequency or frequencies which are outside the necessary bandwidth and the level of which may be reduced without affecting the corresponding transmission of information. Spurious emissions include harmonic emissions, parasitic emissions, intermodulation products and frequency conversion products, but exclude out- of- band emissions.” Id. § 2.1( c). 139 The objective of most of the Commission’s traditional interference control rules is to maintain, within a high probability, the ratios of the strength of the desired signal to the strength of the undesired or interfering signals (i. e., D/ U ratio) at any location on the outer boundary of a service area above pre- determined minimums. 140 See, e. g., 47 C. F. R. Part 24 (Personal Communications Services); 47 C. F. R. Part 27 (Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Service). 30 Federal Communications Commission FCC 01- 91 31 are authorized to utilize any technology satisfying basic technical rules 141 to provide any type of fixed or mobile service. For these flexible use services, substantially different services and technologies could be utilized in close proximity by geographically adjacent licensees. The multiplicity of existing and future technologies and services that could be deployed side- by- side in a flexible use service may increase the possibility for interference, thus raising the question of whether it is practical to devise rules intended to limit interference in the traditional sense (i. e. to a pre- determined level) for all potential interference. 142 This Notice seeks comment on a wide range of uses in the Allocation Table. Accordingly, we are potentially allowing a broad range of technologies and services for possible co- existence within this spectrum, and the nature of the services and technologies can affect the potential for interference between licensees using the same spectrum in adjacent service areas. We are particularly interested in receiving comments on potential interference issues that could arise in the event that we decide to reallocate the 698- 746 MHz band for use by fixed, mobile, and broadcast services or any combination of these services. 68. The Commission has adopted rules employing one or the other of two methods for broadband fixed and mobile services in regard to addressing the issue of co- channel interference between adjacent systems. In the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, the Commission has mandated that adjacent users coordinate spectrum usage by facilities within 121 kilometers (75 miles) of each other and to resolve technical problems that may inhibit effective and efficient use of the spectrum. 143 This method is a coordination requirement. 144 In the Personal Communications Service and the Wireless Communications Service, the Commission has instead adopted rules requiring that the licensees limit the strength of their signals (“ field strength”) to some prescribed value at the boundary of their geographical license area. 145 Provided that the specified field strength limit is met, licensees may unilaterally deploy facilities in the boundary area without coordinating with adjacent licensees. 146 This latter method is the field strength limit. 69. In the Upper 700 MHz proceeding, the Commission adopted a field strength limit rather