David E. Horowitz Chief, Private Wireless Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, FCC Remarks Before The Land Mobile Communications Council Washington, D.C. March 31, 1997 PRIVATE WIRELESS THOUGHTS ON THE COMING YEAR Introduction Good afternoon. I am delighted to have the opportunity to address the Land Mobile Communications Council at your 1997 Annual Meeting. During the relatively short time that I've been associated with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, I've had the pleasure of meeting with a number of you on various matters, and I look forward to the continued dialogue, education and interaction. This forum -- my first public address since being named Chief of the Private Wireless Division -- gives me the chance to speak about a few of the major issues that we will be wrestling with, and how the Commission's philosophy and priorities may affect the debate. The first issue involves an evolving debate over what is private and what is commercial. As the differences and similarities between private and commercial operations are distilled, I believe that certain matters will come to a head -- the role for auctions and spectrum user fees; the role of specifically designated "private" spectrum; and the role of commercial providers in meeting the internal communications needs of various types of organizations. The second issue relates to public safety. The Division's focus on public safety matters reflects the high priority that the Bureau and the Commission are placing on addressing the land mobile -- and other -- communications needs of the public safety community. The third issue -- really, a topic -- that I will touch upon is our effort to improve the licensing service you receive. In this regard, I will discuss our progress toward increased automation in licensing (electronic filing, particularly), and the internal measures we intend to take to streamline the coordination between the folks on the processing front lines, and those in Washington. The Private vs. Commercial Debate Turning to the first issue -- the private vs. commercial debate -- I would begin by mentioning the Bureau's recent Staff White Paper on the Private Land Mobile Radio (PLMR) Services (from Dec. of 96). This document has served as an excellent educational tool for the uninitiated. Moreover, it reflects my Division's healthy regard for the unique needs served through the use of private spectrum. The White Paper painted a clear picture of the manner in which private radio systems are designed to meet the specialized needs and requirements of the private wireless community. It also highlighted the general view of PLMR users that their own internal communications systems often provide them with capabilities, features and efficiencies that commercial systems cannot. Indeed, when the private spectrum is used in this manner, there is little question about the difference between private and commercial operations. In today's world -- with the ever-quickening pace of technological development, the revolutionary, ongoing reexamination of spectrum management policies, and the growing congestion of the best frequencies -- there are pressures to test the boundaries of the private services. These pressures comes both from government and non-government quarters. For example, in moving toward increased flexibility, the FCC has relaxed restrictions designed to ensure internal- only use of private spectrum. More indirectly, perhaps, the FCC's flexible use approach toward commercial spectrum has the potential for changing what I would call the "unique needs" argument justifying separate allocations for private use spectrum. By way of example, depending on how disaggregation and partitioning practices evolve in the commercial sector, the nature of what a private user can "buy" from a commercial provider may change dramatically. The lines also have begun to blur as a result of advances in spectrum usage by licensees. Thus, increasingly efficient operations provide licensees with new opportunities to lease out excess spectrum, or to otherwise take advantage of such benefits. The result, however, is an increase in the types of private operations that begin to resemble commercial services. ** Let me stop right here and stress that there is a tremendous good that flows from challenging the boundaries between the private and commercial services. The regulatory distinctions should not impede efficiency; they should not deter innovation; they should not waste spectrum; and they certainly should not defy common sense. Rather, the point I'm making here is that as services converge, so must the regulatory requirements. I see at least two types of developments that may unfold . . . perhaps simultaneously. One, as a private system becomes commercial, it will eventually be regulated as commercial. Two, there will be a growing tension between a policy of removing restrictions on spectrum use (flexibility) and a policy of allocating spectrum for vital uses that the market won't offer. In the coming months and years, I expect to see this tension addressed in a variety of contexts. Most recently, in the Consolidation item in the Refarming proceeding, the Commission noted that a potential effect of consolidating the Industrial and Land Transportation Radio Services into one pool may be to change the regulatory classification of licensees in this pool -- that is, the possible conversion of a for- profit, interconnected licensee from the private mobile radio service to the commercial mobile radio service. We stated that we would address this issue in a future proceeding. I believe that one of the aspects of such a proceeding will be the question of whether it makes sense to limit the type of operations that can be performed using private spectrum. And, as the argument would unfold, the basis for such a limitation would be to preclude commercial operations in these bands so as to ensure that adequate spectrum is available to meet private needs. Public Safety The second topic I would like to address is the use of the spectrum for public safety purposes. The Private Wireless Division will continue to be heavily involved both in an ongoing dialogue with the public safety community, and with the development of appropriate regulatory improvements, designed to facilitate public safety communications. 1. The Dialogue The formation of the Public Safety Wireless Advisory Committee (or PSWAC) was a critical first step in opening a dialogue that will lead to improved public safety communications. Along with NTIA, the FCC chartered PSWAC to consider the operational, technical and spectrum requirements of Federal, state and local public safety entities through the year 2010. The Advisory Committee structure proved to be a wonderful vehicle for bringing together a vast array of practical communications experience -- throughout the United States -- from the local, state and federal levels. We helped facilitate the process by providing a Designated Federal Official, locations and ancillary materials for meetings, and other organizational support to publicize meetings and their results. Perhaps most importantly, the Commission has provided a notice and comment forum, the current Public Safety rulemaking proceeding, in which the Commission may consider changes to the Public Safety rules as a result of this process. The Commission initiated this proceeding -- identified as WT Docket No. 96-86 -- during the pendency of PSWAC's deliberations, to conduct an overall evaluation and assessment of public safety wireless communications. We have received comments and reply comments in this matter, including PSWAC's Final Report from September of 1996. The general goal of the proceeding is to address present deficiencies in public safety wireless communications, including lack of interoperability, minimal access to emerging technologies, limited service feature options, less than optimal transmission and reception quality, and scarce available spectrum. Upon completion and release of its Final Report, PSWAC fulfilled the requirements of its charter and was terminated. We are, however, taking steps to continue the local, state and federal dialogue concerning public safety issues. We are discussing ideas for outreach with key members of the public safety community, and we are in the process of organizing a one-day forum to update our understanding of the service requirements, technology developments and regulatory changes needed by the public safety community for wireless communications. This forum will draw from all sectors of this community, and will explore the best ways to keep the lines of communication open between the FCC and public safety entities. 2. Other Regulatory Actions In addition to our efforts to conduct an ongoing dialogue with members of the public safety community, our interest in addressing the wireless communications needs of this community is reflected in numerous rulemaking proceedings in addition to Docket 96-86. The most recent example in which the Division has been intimately involved is the Consolidation Order released earlier this month in the Refarming proceeding. In that decision, the Commission took significant steps to safeguard and facilitate public safety use of PLMR spectrum. Of the two consolidated pools of frequencies, one is devoted exclusively to public safety communications. We proceeded conservatively in crafting this pool, to ensure that our actions did not disrupt critical safety-based operations. Thus, with one minor exception (for the Local Government frequencies), we preserved the jurisdiction of the coordinators over the specific frequencies they have had experience coordinating. At the same time, we introduced a new measure of flexibility for public safety eligibles, who will be able to seek coordination of any of the frequencies in the Pool. This approach will facilitate interoperability among safety-related services, by eliminating the time, expense, and uncertainty associated with the interservice sharing process. With respect to the second Pool -- the Industrial/Business Pool -- we also took steps to ensure that the efficiencies of consolidation did not undermine the public safety. Thus, the Commission carved out certain exceptions for the Railroad, Power and Petroleum frequencies. These exceptions were made because the licensees of these services respond to emergencies that can be extremely dangerous to the public on a widespread basis, and it appeared prudent at this time to limit coordination of those frequencies to the coordinators with the most familiarity with the communications requirements of those industries. Specifically, the Commission held that only the coordinators of the pre- Consolidation Railroad, Power and Petroleum frequencies could coordinate these respective frequencies. Like the approach to the Public Safety Pool, however, any eligible in the Industrial/Business Pool can seek to use these frequencies, and the Commission expressly stated its expectation that "these coordinators will make every effort to accommodate all applicants on these frequencies, regardless of the type of business they conduct." (para. 42) Another proceeding that could have significant effects on land mobile use by the public safety community is the Digital Television (or DTV) rule making. As the Commission comes closer to adopting a Table of Allotments for DTV, there is a possibility that the revamping of the television spectrum will yield spare spectrum for land mobile use. There has been a good deal of public discussion that as much as 60 MHz of spectrum could or should be made available for such purposes, including a significant portion for public safety use. At this stage of the proceeding, the Division and Bureau have become actively engaged in the FCC's internal staff discussions and coordination processes. Improving Licensing Services The last topic I would like to address is the effort underway to improve the Commission's licensing processes. We're proceeding on a number of fronts. For example, there are plans in the works to restructure internally, to forge a closer relationship between those who process the private wireless applications in Gettysburg and my current staff here in Washington, who handles the rule makings and the more difficult applications-based cases. We will be implementing a more structured process for assigning responsibility for and tracking the cases, and we will be working more hand-in-glove with the processing side of the staff during rule makings, to ensure that the nuts-and-bolts rules not only comport with policy, but will work smoothly on a day-to-day basis. In connection with the closer relationship that we are establishing with the Gettysburg staff, I have begun reviewing the processes and record-keeping there, to ensure that the service you receive is consistent and responsive, and that the information you obtain is accurate and complete. We are also making substantial progress along the automation front, which should result in significant benefits to you, our customers. On the macro level, we are pioneering a Universal Licensing System: one coordinated system, designed to move licensing from the passive receipt of data to an interactive, information management tool. This system will permit all of us to stop thinking in terms of forms and begin thinking in terms of information. In the future, when you prepare applications for filing with the Commission, you will select the service and the purpose of your application, and the system will dynamically create a screen that will only ask you for the information that is required. Rather than organize the system service-by-service, we will organize it by user, and then by use. You will no longer need to submit redundant data each time you seek to do something new. In the future, when you need to make an administrative change in our licensing database, or you are required to submit a filing on a specific call sign, you will be able to access your records with a password and immediately make the changes. This eliminates the FCC as the data-processing middle-man. In addition, the System is being designed to permit seamless public access to Wireless Bureau data and to provide enhanced querying capabilities that will allow anyone to visualize the results of those queries on a map, with the contours of individual licenses clearly displayed. The creation of the Universal Licensing System is, of course, an enormous undertaking, particularly in view of the fact that we have about ten different licensing systems in place now, each one of which is different than the next. Moreover, these systems operate under different regulatory regimes -- different rules affecting both substance and procedure. Thus, a move to a truly universal licensing system will require a rulemaking of some complexity and scope. As we continue to work on this larger project, we have already implemented a number of advances in electronic filing in the land mobile area. Private land mobile applicants have two current capabilities for filing electronically. First, they have the option of using software we have made availiable via the Internet or the FCC bulletin board, which enables electronic, application-by-application filing -- that is, the ability to file applications interactively, albeit one at a time, with the Commission. In the land mobile context, this capacity can be used for all new and modification requests that are currently filed on FCC Form 600. Other features include 24-hour per day remote access, system acknowlegment of receipt, immediate assignment of a file number, and the generation of fee remittance advice. On the last feature, the system allows the user to print out Form 159 (the application fee form), which would then have to be sent to Mellon Bank non- electronically. The second electronic filing capability is the option of filing via the "Electronic Data Interchange" or EDI methodology. This is a batch file of electronic data that uses a standard set of data elements approved through a national standards group (ANSI), and is the method that most institutions use for handling of electronic data. This method of electronic filing is most useful for those who file large numbers of applications at a time. Rather than sending applications electronically one at a time, this methodology allows numerous applications to be transmitted as one electronic data transfer. Like the single application electronic filing approach, however, EDI filings cannot currently include filings of Form 159 or the associated fee. At present, one entity -- APCO - - is using the EDI methodology for filing, another coordinator is nearing the end of testing, and a third is in the beginning stages. In addition to these electronic filing options, the "FCC Application Review" has been implemented. This service provides the public with on-line access to the electronic filed applications. The viewer can access any application -- regardless of how it was entered or whether it was submitted on paper -- for all services for which applications can be filed electronically. The cost of this service is $2.30 per minute. For the near future, the Commission is working on a consolidated renewal form, slated to be called Form 900, which will be available to users over the Internet. This form will allow data manipulation and query functions. In other words, it's not just a screen version of a paper form. Also, it is being designed to generate a Form 159 and to allow payment of fees via credit card. We expect that "Beta" testing (i.e., testing on mock applications) of Form 900 (without the fee payment dimension) will begin in about a month. A final initiative concerns the electronic filing of public comments in our rulemaking proceedings. You will soon be able to file over the Internet and receive an immediate confirmation of receipt. You will also be able to view comments that are filed. The Wireless Bureau has been working with the Office of Public Affairs and will be conducting a pilot test of Internet filing for comments in an auctions rulemaking. We encourage you to use this program to file and review comments on-line. Conclusion This is an extremely exciting and dynamic time for private land mobile radio. When I first arrived in the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, my Division was just beginning to reel under the dizzying changes that were unfolding. As I've discussed today, the issues associated with these changes are coming into focus, and we are ready to tackle the tasks at hand. I look forward to working with all of you. Thank you.