WPC 2BJZ Courier3|m]Kx6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) Room 650HPLA4MPC.PRSx  @\qYX@26 F H ZR3|m]HP LaserJet 4M (PCL) Room 650HPLA4MPC.PRS&m P7\qY&P2vpTkk/a8DocumentgDocument Style StyleXX` `  ` a4DocumentgDocument Style Style . a6DocumentgDocument Style Style GX  a5DocumentgDocument Style Style }X(# 2vqt[a2DocumentgDocument Style Style<o   ?  A.  a7DocumentgDocument Style StyleyXX` ` (#` BibliogrphyBibliography:X (# a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# 2 '  q a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# 24    [ a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h a6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p 2f +2 ]]a1DocumentgDocument Style StyleXqq   l ^) I. ׃  Doc InitInitialize Document Style  0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgTech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technicala5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . 2Ka6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   2a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paperP@n   $] X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:</9=~9>i@;?^<reference<;#FxX  Pg9CXP#itemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# 2wD@O9> K?YA K,Bfooter!@!!#d\  PCP#"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHvppDXd<"dxtldpxxdCG TimesUnivers BoldCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicTimes New RomanTimes New Roman Bold"i~'^#)0<WjjjjjjjIjjjjjjjAjjjjAjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjj1jjj1jjj1jjj1jjjjjjjjjjjjjjZ\QZQbA\9_AmIjA1)gAbQQmAbIjAjZTIZII\AjAbZjQrZZZj\m1IjjjZAZZZZl11IIIIjmIIIjjjZ1TIA1ƄCӡggRXUuddOO{{{a{axmmjgurmmCmUOO/C/CuurrrrxxxrrrrF8^r2 f cof tF",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^/5JPP|555P5555PPPPPPPPPP55Gtenve_tv5>qevt\tkVevttth555PP5GPGPG5PP,,P,|PPPP;>,PPtPPGGPGP*PPPPP5PPPPPPPPP,tGtGtGtGtGknGeGeGeGeG5,5,5,5,vPtPtPtPtPvPvPvPvPtPtGvPtPtPtPvP\PtFtPtFmFmFnPnPv`cFePePcFtPtPtPtPtPvPvP5,PPPP5PuYPPqPc-c:ePf0c-vP]vPvPsPtPtj:j:kPV=V=V=VPc:c-ePvPvPvPvPvPvPttPfFfFfFvPePvPVPePtP`5PP555WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNtttPPP5GAAPPPPPP8PPPP855SSP))PPbbyPPtP_YY5SP8"ttPtSttP厎.P55tbtttttttttt5PtPYPtkP5PtGP\t|httttttttttJttttttkb|tD_tttttttPtttttttGttttGtttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt5ttt5ttt5ttt5ttttttttttttttbeYbYkGe>hGvPtG5,qGkYYvGkPtGtb\PbPPeGtGkbtY|bbbtev5PtttbGbbbbu55PPPPtvPPPtttb5\PG5ؐJppZ`]mmVVjjvvsp}vvJv]VV3J3Jʀ}}}}}}}}M=f}",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxBwgwgcccccc@XKKgg;;c\\\{I\waaIZQQOMXacccujygggpeyuVrQjQcccc3Qlc@uuccc;;ccccccccccccccccccccccnnnnnnnn#3#cccccj3cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccrrrrnnnnnnnnnnXXccccccllccVVVVuuccaaaaccZZuZVVVV5*FVcc",tB^ f ^6=X\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\nnzni=Qzfznn\fnnff===\\=\\Q\Q3\\33Q3\\\\FF3\QzQQFQ\Q\0\\\\\=\\\\\\\\\3n\n\n\n\n\zzQnQnQnQnQ=3=3=3=3z\\\\\\\\\fQn\\\\fQ\n\n\n\n\yQyQz\z\nnQn\n\nQ\\\\\\\>3\\\\=\\\\z\g3gBf\g3g3y\ny\z\\\znFnFn\\F\F\F\\gBg3f\\\\\\\zf\gFgFgF\f\z\\\f\f\n=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\UU\\\\\\@\\\\@==\\\33\\pp\\\b\\=\\@"\[\4\==p=\p\f\z\=\Q\iwUzpNm\QQ====pppfpfzQpGfQ\Q=3zQzffzQz\Qpp\p\\fQfQzppfppppp=\ffpQpppp==\\\\p\\\fffp=i\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^6=U\\===\====\\\\\\\\\\==\zznGXznfzz===\\=\fQfQ@\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\Q\\\\0\\\\\=\\\\\\\\f3\\\\\QzQzQzQzQG3G3G3G3f\\\\ffff\\g\\\\nf\\\QQ\\}yQz\z\yQ\\\\\ffF3\f\\Gfi\\fy3yIz\zGz3ggf\\QQ\gFfGgFf\yIy>z\fgffgf\yQzQyQfz\ff\z\\}=\\===WxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN\\\=\NN\\\\\\@\\\\@==ii\00\\pp\\\sff=i\@"\i\4\==p=\\f\z\=\Q\i~XzpNm\\\====pzfpfzQzGzQQQG3QzffQz\Qpp\p\\zQQzpfpppzG\pQpppp==\\\\\\\p=p\Q=Tgnj}}ccyyTjcc;T;TXFu2 d`(FZ"i~'K2^$(8<3m=6,E &m PE37&P $ ?.t==, ŋ&tps7&@j)W1+,W PE37PB8wC;,=Xw PE37XP As-_5/,_ PE37PDC7zC;,bXz_ pi7XDV"G($,hG PE37hP EOA%!,JA PE37JPF1k=6,$O&k&_ x7&XG6uC;,$^Xu&_ x7XXDH2p=6,y&p_ pi7&I7jC:,4 Xj\  P6G;XP JW!@(#,49h@\  P6G;hPDKW!I($,hI_ pi7h7nC:,DXn4  pG;XQ@\f3=f3f\ffQG=f\\\Q\\\\0\\\\\= sN-j T-7#&tp?7ŋ&#Page ؃jЊ#Xw P7=XP# de FOR RECORD ONLY $// New Personal Communications Services, GEN Docket No. 90 de 314, FCC 94265, October 19, 1994 //$  sN- $/ 15.323 Specific requirements for isoch de ronous devices operating in the 19201930 MHz subband /$ $/ 24.204 Cellular eligibility /$ $/ 24.238 Emission limits /$  Y-Xx(# 7@Before the Y-TPW  FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ă`&(#FCC 94265  Washington, D.C. 20554 T  Yh -X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: hb  T3 -ԍ SS}See 47 U.S.C.  309.P As such, arguments that our rules should be based wholly on the law of antitrust and corporate control are misplaced. Even if we agreed with the portrayal of antitrust law by Comcast, CTIA and their supporters (and we do not), antitrust and corporate control considerations are not the sole foundation of our rules. Rather, in accordance with our statutory mandate, those rules reflect a balance of many public interest considerations, including the need to provide parties other than existing cellular licensees an opportunity to participate in PCS. No party offers a persuasive rationale for rearranging those considerations to reflect a different balance.  YK-''i32.ؠMoreover, the petitioners' individual requests are flawed. We do not accept CTIA's unconditioned assertion that interests of 30to35 percent do not evidence control, which is not a uniformly supported position. For example, the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") explicitly states that an ownership interest above 20 percent presumptively  Y-demonstrates control unless evidence to the contrary is established.m?b  T-ԍSS}See FASB Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 18 (1970). m Comcast's claim that it is unreasonable to set the PCS ownership attribution standard at 5 percent when the cellular  Y-attribution is higher ignores the reasoned basis for existing distinctions.@b  T-ԍSS}As we explained in the Broadband PCS Reconsideration, the attribution standard for cellular interests other than designated entities is set at 20 percent to account for our policy in the early days of the cellular industry to encourage the formation of settlement groups a historic anomaly that has no counterpoint in the PCS context. Attributions levels are set higher for designated entities in  Tz!-accordance with our statutory mandate to promote opportunities in PCS for such entities. See  TR"-Broadband PCS Reconsideration at paras. 123132.  CTIA's request that we increase to 40 MHz the combined amount of attributable cellular/PCS spectrum an entity may hold immediately overlooks the fact that it is not possible, even if it were permitted, to acquire that spectrum combination given existing allocations and licensing"| @0*((|"  Y-mechanisms.sAb  Ty-ԍSS}Cellular spectrum is allocated in blocks of 25 MHz, while PCS spectrum is allocated in blocks of 10 and 30 MHz, so no combination of cellular and PCS spectrum totals 40 MHz. The opportunity to achieve that total will exist when licensees are permitted to disaggregate spectrum, a process for which we have not yet adopted rules, although we are committed to addressing the legal  T-and technical issues that must be resolved in order to adopt such rules. See Broadband PCS  T-Reconsideration at paras. 6671. s Arguments that raising the population overlap standard from 10 to 40 percent will not harm competition, and will actually increase competition in rural areas, are not well supported. Although CTIA submitted a study showing that smaller cellular carriers may benefit from increasing the overlap standard, the study also shows benefits flowing to very  Y-large carriers and covers fewer than 20% of total BTAs.^Bb  T -ԍSS}For example, CTIA's analysis states that in the 18 BTAs that comprise the Chicago MTA, increasing the overlap standard to 30% creates licensing opportunities for eleven carriers, two of  T -whom are Sprint and Southwestern Bell. See CTIA Exparte Filing, Aug. 2, 1994. ^ Such incomplete data and uneven results do not justify altering our rules.  Y_-''i 33.ؠWe agree, however, that is is appropriate to modify our cellular elegibility rule (47 C.F.R.  24.204) to create additional opportunities for entities with noncontrolling, attributable inmarket cellular interests to participate in PCS auctions, on condition that they  Y -divest prohibited cellular holdings within 90 days of PCS license grant. In the Broadband  Y -PCS Reconsideration, we limited the "bid but divest" option to entities with inmarket cellular interests that overlap the population of a PCS service by less than 20 percent, on the theory that entities with larger overlaps may have incentives to delay the rapid introduction  Y -of PCS.gC b  T_-ԍSS}Broadband PCS Reconsideration at paras. 141146.g We are persuaded that the rule's exclusive emphasis on the degree of overlap is misplaced because the anticompetitive incentives the rule is designed to combat in the auction process are in principal part generated by the amount of the attributable cellular interest involved, and only secondarily by the degree of overlap. Indeed, our discussion of that rule at the time it was adopted explicitly recognized a link between the amount of the cellular  YK-interest involved and the possibility of anticompetitive abuse.rDK b  T-ԍSS}See Broadband PCS Reconsideration Order at para. 143.r We now conclude that entities holding controlling interests have greater incentives to act anticompetitively in the auction process than entities with noncontrolling interests, so we will retain the existing rule as it applies to attributable controlling interests. We will supplement Section 24.204, however, to permit noncontrolling interests to participate in the auction process without regard to the degree of overlap. We define a "noncontrolling" license interest to be one in which the holder has less than a 50 percent voting interest and there is an unaffiliated single holder of a 50 percent or greater interest.  Y|-''i!34.ؠFinally, we disagree with parties that claim our rules fail to provide an adequate postauction period for winning bidders to divest prohibited cellular interests in order to"e0 D0*((l"  Y-comply with our cellular/PCS crossownership rules.aEb  Ty-ԍSS} See, e.g., Comcast Petition at 9. a We note that this period is more than just 90 days, because the period between winning the auction and issuance of license also must be considered. In addition, our rule extends well beyond the 90 days from grant of  Y-license period, discussed supra, because parties who are unable to divest within that time may satisfy the requirement by conveying a prohibited cellular interest to an independent  Y-trustee for an interim period. See 47 C.F.R.  24.204(f)(3)(i). We take this opportunity to clarify that the trustee must divest that interest within six months from grant of license.  YH-B. Microwave Relocation Cost Sharing  Y -''i"35. In 1992 we established a proceeding, ET Docket No. 929, for the purpose  Y -identifying spectrum for emerging technologies such as PCS.  In the  First Report and Order  Y -and Third Report and Order in that proceeding we established a plan for relocating  Y -incumbent licensees in emerging technology bands to other frequencies or alternative media.+F hb  T-ԍ See First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, ET Docket No. 929,  T-7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992); Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order , ET Docket No. 929, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993).+ Pursuant to that plan, PCS licensees are required to avoid interference to incumbent pointtopoint microwave operations, and to fully compensate such licensees' relocation costs.  Yy-Positions of the Parties  YK-''i #36.ؠPCIA requests that we mandate participation by PCS licensees in the 18501990 MHz band in a plan to share the costs occasioned by relocating microwave licensees in that  Y-band.IGb  T-ԍ See PCIA Petition at 56.I Absent mandatory cost sharing, PCIA argues, the spectrumclearing efforts of early PCS market entrants will redound inequitably to the benefit of later entrants. PCIA asserts that we must establish cost sharing obligations prior to auctions so bidders can value spectrum accurately. According to PCIA, the three basic principles of a cost sharing plan should be: w''iFirst, a cost sharing obligation should be predicated on a finding that a PCS licensee's operations would have caused interference to a microwave system's link path but for the relocation of that system. Ʊ!' w''iSecond, when multiple PCS licensees benefit from relocation, individual PCS licensees should be required to pay a prorata share only of the documented, direct costs of relocation. These would be limited to the costs of supplying a microwave licensee with comparable facilities in a different band, and would not include any"XG0*(( " premium costs an early PCS entrant might pay to accelerate a microwave licensee's relocation.Ʊ!' w''iThird, a payment obligation should not arise until the time interference would be caused. Ʊ!'  Yv- ''i$37.ؠBellSouth, GTE, MCI, PacBell Mobile and UTAM support the principle of microwave relocation cost sharing. Although these parties offer mostly general statements of support, GTE echoes PCIA claim that establishing cost sharing obligations prior to auctions will enable bidders to value spectrum more accurately and, for this reason, the issue should  Y -be determined in this proceeding, rather than deferred to a future rulemaking.EH b  T -ԍ See GTE Reply at 23.E In expressing its support, UTAM contends that PCIA's plan is similar to a proposal by UTAM  Y -earlier in this proceeding concerning relocation efforts in unlicensed PCS bands.FI hb  T-ԍ See UTAM Reply at 13.F  Y -''i%38. UTC notes that while there is merit in the idea of establishing a cost sharing mechanism for microwave relocation in the 18501990 PCS band, the development of such a plan is beyond the scope of a petition for reconsideration in this proceeding, and is a subject more properly raised in a separate petition for rule making. UTC states that such a rulemaking could be instituted without delaying the rollout of PCS. Moreover, UTC cautions that the development of a costsharing plan must not be allowed to adversely impact the marketbased or individually negotiated aspects of the Commission's microwave transition  Y-plan.FJb  T-ԍ See UTC Comments at 7.F  Y-Discussion  Y-''i&39.ؠWe share UTC's reservations about the current undeveloped state of PCIA's proposal, and for that reason will deny PCIA's petition for reconsideration. We do so without prejudice to its cost sharing proposal, which PCIA and other interested parties are free to submit in a separate petition for rulemaking.  YN-''i'40.ؠWe take this action because while eliminating any "free rider" aspect of microwave relocation through mandatory cost sharing is an attractive idea in theory, PCIA's proposal simply is not sufficiently developed to warrant adoption at this time. Since the proposal's  Y -key terms are ambiguous, adopting it at this time likely would not assist potential bidders' efforts to value spectrum accurately. Indeed, such ambiguity may detract from those efforts. Moreover, such ambiguity increases the likelihood that this Commission will be called upon  Y -to adjudicate complex disputes that are almost wholly of a commercial nature (e.g., whether a particular PCS licensee actually "benefitted" from a relocation, and to what extent; the"!J0*(("" amount of the "direct" costs of that relocation, as opposed to the "premium" costs; and the appropriate basis for measuring each PCS licensee's "prorata" share of such costs). We find in this record no persuasive argument for deploying our limited resources in this manner.  Y-''i(41.ؠIt bears emphasis that relocation costs are expected to be a relatively small portion  Yv-of PCS licensees' total costs. Moreover, in the MO&O we significantly reduced microwave relocation cost burdens by revising the PCS band plan to provide for PCS operations in the comparatively less heavily loaded 18501990 MHz band, rather than in accordance with the  Y1-band plan initially adopted in the Second Report and Order. Finally, we note that we recently made available to the public a wealth of information on microwave cochannel and adjacent channel usage in the 18501990 MHz band, thereby increasing the public's ability to  Y -value that spectrum accurately prior to auctions.  Y -C. Service Areas  Y-''i)42. Point Communications Company (Point), the Association of Independent Designated Entities (AIDE), and Puerto Rico Telephone Company (PRTC) request modifications and/or clarifications of the service areas that we have adopted for PCS.  Y4-''i*43. Revised Service Areas. Point requests that we use the Department of Commerce's  Y-"BEA Economic Areas" (BEAs)PKb  T-ԍ In its comments to the Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Tentative Decision in this proceeding, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) proposed that PCS be licensed using the 183 "economic areas" defined by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). NTIA stated that each of these economic areas generally consists of a Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) or a similar area that serves as a center of economic activity and surrounding counties that are economically related to the center. P to delineate all PCS licenses, on the ground that designated entities licensed to serve BTAs cannot compete with large companies licensed to serve MTAs. According to Point, BEAs provide equal service areas, and are small enough to create meaningful opportunities for designated entities, while large enough to attract major spectrum bidders. Alternatively, if BEAs are not employed, then Point requests that the  Y-Commission subdivide some MTAs, particularly those on the West Coast.JLb  T-ԍ See Point Petition at 14.J Finally, Point requests that we vary the spectrum blocks designated for entrepreneurs from market to market. Point contends that if designated entities were to have larger corporations on their frequency blocks in other markets, the companies would ensure that the smaller ones do not  YN-lag in technological or service development.CMN@b  T?%-ԍ See id. at 5.C "7 M0*((="Ԍ Y-''i+44. In the PCS Second Report and Order, we based the service areas for broadband PCS on MTAs and BTAs. We concluded that a combination of MTA and BTA service areas would promote the rapid deployment and ubiquitous coverage of PCS and a variety of services and providers. We also stated our belief that a combination of MTA and BTA  Y-service areas would maximize the benefits of having both large and small service areas. qNb  T-ԍ PCS Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 772934 (paras. 6478).q  Yv-''i,45. In the Broadband PCS Reconsideration, we further addressed the possibility of using BEAs as the PCS service areas. We acknowledged that identical geographic areas could impose more initial competitive parity, but stated that such a plan was likely to foreclose cellular providers and prove too large for many designated entities to finance. Congress has mandated that we provide areas that promote opportunity for a wide variety of  Y -applicants,PO hb  T-ԍ See 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(4)(C).P and we determined that the two tier system provided by the use of MTAs and  Y -BTAs best met this mandate.hP b  T-ԍ See Broadband PCS Reconsideration at paras. 7778.h  Y -''i-46. MCI Telecommunications Corporation (MCI) and PacBell address Point's petition. Both simply assert that Point's proposed BEA plan was proposed by NTIA in the prior  Y-reconsideration, discussed in the Broadband PCS Reconsideration and there rejected. Both  Yy-commenters state that this issue has been dealt with adequately._Qyb  T-ԍ See MCI Comments at 4; PacBell Comments at 23._ MCI adds that any reconsideration of service areas would inevitably delay the auction and licensing and  YK-inauguration of PCS.FRKHb  TD-ԍ See MCI Comments at 4.F No replies addressed this issue.  Y-''i.47. We have previously addressed Point's contentions respecting BEAdefined service  Y-areas in the PCS Second Report and Order  and PCS Broadband Reconsideration, and Point has here offered no new information or argument to justify a change in our decision. Nor can we accept Point's assertion that varying the entrepreneurs' blocks from market to market will create blocks where entrepreneurs will occupy the same frequencies as larger companies in other markets, which will promote cooperation and assistance to the entrepreneurs from  Y-the large companies.HSb  T,#-ԍ See Point Petition at 5.H We specifically changed the frequency allocation to PCS to minimize  Y|-the difficulty of switching frequencies within or between blocks. iT| b  T%-ԍ See Broadband PCS Reconsideration at paras. 33, 35.i Given the level of equipment technology available, we do not expect that sharing frequency blocks will provide any incentive to form the frequency block communities envisioned by Point. Rather, we"N( T0*((" believe that if a licensee had different blocks in different service areas, it would generally tend to switch frequencies rather than establish a relationship with counterpart licensee(s) using the same frequencies elsewhere. For this reason, we do not believe that varying the spectrum for the entrepreneurs' block from market to market will have a salutary effect, and we decline to make such a change.  Yv-''i/48. Permitted Use of MTAs/BTAs. AIDE requests that the Commission expand the rationale upon which we based PCS service areas on Rand McNally MTA/BTA definitions. AIDE suggests that we explicitly include Rand McNally's written clarification, as set forth in correspondence with AIDE's attorney, that a licensing agreement between Rand McNally and PCIA was intended to grant broad rights to potential users and repackagers of Rand McNally's MTAs and BTAs. No party addressed AIDE's request for clarification. ''i  Y -''i049. On February 10, 1994, PCIA and Rand McNally entered into a License  Y -Agreement.LU b  T7-ԍ See AIDE Petition at Attachment B.L Under this agreement, Rand McNally grants PCIA and all other interested parties "a nonexclusive license to reproduce, create derivative works from, publicly distribute and publicly display" the listing of counties that comprise Rand McNally's 487 BTAs and 47 MTAs, the BTA/MTA Map contained on pages 3839 of the 1992 version of Rand  Yb-McNally's Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, and derivative works created therefrom for the purpose of preparing documents in connection with PCS and other services, provided that the appropriate copyright legend is displayed.  Y-''i150. On February 25, 1994, AIDE requested clarification from Rand McNally  Y-concerning the scope of the Licensing Agreement. Vhb  T-ԍ See letter to Ms. Deborah Lipoff, Rand McNally, from William J. Franklin, AIDE Petition Attachment C. On March 10, 1994, Rand McNally stated that the License "Agreement was intended to grant broad rights to potential users and repackagers", regardless of whether "the use was carried out on a costrecovery basis or  Y-profitmaking basis". Wb  T;-ԍ See letter from Deborah Lipoff, Rand McNally, to William J. Franklin, AIDE Petition Attachment D.  Y|-''i251. We have reviewed the Licensing Agreement between PCIA and Rand McNally and the Clarification of the Agreement between AIDE and Rand McNally. It is not our practice in rulemaking proceedings to clarify the meaning of private commercial contracts and related correspondence, and we have not been provided any persuasive reason to depart from that  Y -practice here. Our reasons for using the MTA/BTA system, the licensing agreement between Rand McNally and PCIA, and the related correspondence filed with AIDE's petition are matters of public record. We will let that record speak for itself, absent a demonstration that clarification is needed to further the public interest. "XW0*(( "Ԍ Y-ԙ''i352. Local Service Areas in Puerto Rico. PRTC requests that the Commission reinstate the previously adopted unitary Puerto Rico BTA, arguing that Puerto Rico is in reality a single market. PRTC claims that the original BTA was appropriately tailored to the natural flow of commerce, arguing that the mountain range does not cause difficulties in travel nor separate the island into two areas. PRTC also states that the island is geographically one of  Y-the smaller BTAs. ?Xb  T-ԍ PRTC Petition at 39.? Finally, PRTC states that a single BTA would facilitate the provision of lower cost service to all of Puerto Rico, arguing that the costs to consumers of constructing and operating a PCS network would be lower if the costs are shared by end users across the island than if consumers in the new, smaller BTAs must support an  Y1-independent system serving the more thinly populated sectors of the island.<Y1hb  TJ -ԍ Id. at 911.<  Y -''i453. In the PCS Second Report and Order, we established Puerto Rico as a single, BTA Y -like service area. In a petition for reconsideration of that decision, Pegasus Communications, Inc. (Pegasus), requested that we divide the Puerto Rico service area into two local service areas. Pegasus argued that due to the size and mountainous terrain of the island, Puerto Rico essentially is split in half, comprising two commercial centers: San Juan and MayagGezPonce. Pegasus stated that these mountains make travel to San Juan difficult for Puerto Ricans located in the southern and western portions of the island, and therefore they must conduct essentially all commerce in the port cities of MayagGez, Aguadilla, or Ponce. Pegasus also stated that the population of its proposed MayagGez/AguadillaPonce service area is more than one million and this area would be larger in population than several of the existing BTAs. Pegasus provided a list of municipios that it suggests constitute the MayagGez/AguadillaPonce service area, and suggested that the San Juan service area consist  Y-of all municipios not listed for the MayagGez/AguadillaPonce BTAlike service area.Z`b  T-ԍ The primary political divisions of Puerto Rico are termed "municipios." See 1990 Census of  T-Population and Housing [,] Summary Population and Housing Characteristics [for] Puerto Rico, 1990 CPH153, Issued November 1991 by the Bureau of the Census, at page A5. In its petition, Pegasus translates "municipios" to be "counties." We use the term "municipios" to avoid confusion.  No  Y-party responded to this petition. Accordingly, we adopted Pegasus' suggestion and established two separate service areas in Puerto Rico, one for MayagGez/AguadillaPonce and one for San Juan. We stated that this change recognizes the difficulties created by the mountain range separating these two areas and that we found this adjustment to be in the  Y|-public interest. Z[|0b  T]#-ԍ Broadband PCS Reconsideration at para. 79.Z  YN-''i554. In response to PRTC's petition, Pegasus states initially that PRTC had ample opportunity to address the division of Puerto Rico into two BTAs in the previous reconsideration of the broadband PCS rules, and in failing to do so, lost the right to petition"  [0*((<"  Y-here for a reversal of that decision.L\b  Ty-ԍ See Pegasus Comments at 23.L Pegasus also asserts that PRTC presents no facts that  Y-justify its request to consolidate Puerto Rico into a single BTA,E]hb  T-ԍ See id. at 45.E and presents a number of geographical and economic factors which support the division of Puerto Rico into two  Y-BTAs.F^b  Tt-ԍ See id. at 610.F PRTC replies that its petition is timely and proper at this stage of the proceeding,  Y-and would benefit the public interest.F_b  T -ԍ See PRTC Reply at 36.F PRTC also reiterates the facts presented in its  Y-petition, and asserts that they support the need for Puerto Rico to be a single BTA.E`Hb  T -ԍ See id. at 69.E In a  Yv-latefiled response, Pegasus seeks to rebut several of PRTC's factual assertions. Pa`vb  T-ԍ See Pegasus Response to Reply of PRTC. This response was late filed, and could have been dismissed for that reason, despite Pegasus' assertion that it reserved the right to rebut factual assertions by PRTC. For the sake of completeness of the record, however, we consider this response.P  YH-''i655. We continue to believe that the division of Puerto Rico into two BTAlike service areas is appropriate for this service. We note that the 1990 census for Puerto Rico is  Y -3,522,037.jb  b  X-#Xj\  P6G; XP#э See id. at 1.j The population of the new MayagGez/AguadillaPonce service area is 1,048,473 and the population of the new San Juan service area is 2,473,564. Only 49 of the 493 BTAs have a population greater than 1,048,473 and only 18 BTAs have a population  Y -greater than 2,473,564.c b  TG-ԍ See Rand McNally 1992 Commercial Atlas & Marketing Guide, "Population, Income and Sales Data for the 150 Largest Basic Trading Areas," at page 44, Census 4/1/90 column. We find that the population of each of these service areas is  Y -sufficient to support broadband PCS services.d 9b  T-ԍ We note that Puerto Rico is licensed as five MSAs and seven Rural Service Areas (RSAs) in the Domestic Public Cellular Radio Telecommunications Service. Additionally, we conclude that the patterns of local trade make the proposed division economically and geographically desirable. If PRTC is correct, and Puerto Rico is better served by a single, island wide BTA, this can be effected by networking the two BTAs into what amounts to a single structure. The two BTA plan allows for this, while at the same time allowing the two BTAs to be served separately if that is the best method. Hence, the current plan offers more choices, and allows the marketplace to decide which is the better choice. Nor do PRTC's arguments persuade us to"4d0*((G"  Y-reinstate a unitary local service area for Puerto Rico.6eb  Ty-ԍ PRTC provides cellular telephone throughout Puerto Rico. Thus PRTC, like all inmarket cellular operators, is initially limited to one 10 MHz BTA license in any geographic area of Puerto Rico. We note however that, under the current rules, PRTC can purchase a 10 MHz license in both BTAs and thus serve the entire island. We do not believe that the adopted licensing scheme greatly affects PRTC. However, we believe that a single BTA potentially could preclude many individuals and companies from competing against PRTC.6 Accordingly, we will maintain two BTAlike service areas in Puerto Rico for broadband PCS services.  Y- D. Technical Issues  Y-  Yv-''i756. Licensed Service, Power Limits. In the  Broadband PCS Reconsideration, we increased the maximum base station transmission limit from 100 to 1640 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) with an antenna height up to 300 meters height above  Y1-average terrain (HAAT).f`1b  T-ԍ Broadband PCS Reconsideration at paras. 172174. Base station antennas may exceed 300 meters with a corresponding reduction in power. Mobile/portable stations are limited to 2 watts EIRP  T2-and must limit power to the minimum necessary for successful communications. See  24.232 of the Commission's Rules.  We adopted this amendment in order to improve PCS licensees' ability to configure their systems to best serve the needs of their customers and to compete with other mobile services such as cellular and widearea SMR. Spatial Communications, Inc. and ArrayComm, Inc. (SCI/ArrayComm) make two, related requests. First, they ask that the rules governing limitations on transmitted power be redefined in units of power per unit bandwidth, rather than expressed as limits on individual transmitters (regardless of  Y -bandwidth). !g b  T -ԍ SCI/ArrayComm are developers of Spatial Division Multiple Access (SDMA) technology, which uses patented algorithms to implement "smart antennas" that assign specific antenna elements to track mobile users and selectively direct RF energy to them.! SCI/ArrayComm argues that the current rules define transmitter power limits in a manner that favors the use of narrowband over wideband transmissions.  Yb-''i857. Second, however power limits are defined, SCI/ArrayComm states that by maintaining a power limit of 100 watts per transmitter the Commission may have inadvertently discouraged the use of smart antenna technology. SCI/ArrayComm asserts that applying low transmitter power limits to use of highly directional antenna technology will preclude larger and more economic cell sizes by restricting the effective range of "broadcast"  Y-control channels that determine the ultimate size of the coverage area.Fhb  T$-ԍ SCI/ArrayComm Petition at 6.F SCI/ArrayComm requests the transmitter power limit of 100 watts apply to individual base station transmitters without regard to the number of such transmitters employed at each base station, the antenna element or elements to which each transmitter is connected, or the channels in which each"h0*((" transmitter is allowed to transmit. SCI/ArrayComm argues that this clarification is needed to ensure that the power limits do not unfairly disadvantage new technologies, such as smart  Y-antennas.i`b  TK-ԍ For clarity, SCI/ArrayComm adds that it should be acceptable for more than one base station transmitter to transmit 100 watts of power in the same RF channel at the same time as long as  T-different antenna elements are used for each transmitter, i.e., power level as measured at the input to an antenna element. SCI/Arraycomm Petition at 67.   Y-''i958. Five comments address SCI/ArrayComm's request for clarification.jb  TE -ԍ Comments on this issue were filed by MCI, Motorola, Northern Telecom, APC and Sprint Corporation (Sprint). MCI,  Y-Motorola and Northern Telecom support the petition in part.khb  T -ԍ See Motorola Comments at 11; MCI Comments at 5; Northern Telecom Comments at 67. As to the definition of power limits, MCI recommends that the Commission, while maintaining the overall base station power limit of 1640 watts EIRP, give careful consideration to the proposed bandwidthbased method of defining power suggested by SCI/ArrayComm. MCI states that the Commission may wish to authorize the use of the SCI/ArrayComm formula as an alternative method, at the carrier's option. Motorola states that it is still analyzing the ramifications of adopting a "watts per hertz" standard. Northern Telecom states that it is concerned that, while the SCI/ArrayComm proposal to redefine the power limits does lead to an acceptable power level, the formulation of the new limits is unduly complicated and likely to lead to confusion. Sprint states that SCI/ArrayComm's complaint that expressing power limits in watts per channel favors narrowband channelization is inconsistent with its previous statement that its  Y-technology is compatible with all modulations.Kl b  TI-ԍ See Sprint Comments at 23.K  Yb-''i :59.ؠ As to the "per transmitter" provision, Motorola states that it believes the current rules can be reasonably interpreted as indicating that the adopted power limits apply to individual base station transmitters without regard to the number of cochannel transmitters employed at each base station, but does not object to clarification of the rule. Northern Telecom supports clarification that the power limits apply to individual transmitters. APC  Y-asserts that our rules are clear on power limits and require no clarification.Fm b  TH!-ԍ See APC Comments at 5.F  Y-''i;60. With respect to the redefinition issue, SCI/ArrayComm replies that, contrary to Sprint's statement, SCI/ArrayComm's concern is not about competitive advantages, but is  Y-intended to maximize flexibility in PCS system design.WnH b  T&-ԍSS}See SCI/ArrayComm Reply at 25. W Motorola indicates that, upon further analysis, it is convinced that the existing rule of 100 watts maximum transmitter"| n0*((" power with a limit of 1640 watts maximum EIRP is adequate to provide design flexibility  Y-and excellent system performance.Oob  Tb-ԍSS}See Motorola Reply at 4.O Motorola supports the connection of multiple transmitters to an antenna array, provided the total EIRP does not exceed 1640 watts as  Y-averaged over a defined time interval so as not to exceed established interference criteria.phb  T-ԍSS}Motorola does not provide technical details as to how this averaging should occur or the time interval that should be employed. In response to SCI/ArrayComm's statement that the existing rules favor narrowband technologies, Motorola notes that many factors determine overall system design and performance capability and that this issue alone will not affect the introduction and use of wideband PCS technologies. It cites the number of wideband systems currently under development as evidence that the rules are flexible and technologyneutral. No reply comments address the "per transmitter" clarification.  Y -''i<61. Discussion. As an initial matter, we decline SCI/ArrayComm's request to redefine transmitter limits in power per hertz or power per unit bandwidth. While SCI/ArrayComm states that the current power per channel specification favors narrowband over wideband systems, the existing approach simply leaves to the licensee the determination how to balance the multiple design considerations in its system, from transmitter power and configuration to the gain achieved by receivers, without placing any overall limit on system power so long as its individual transmitters and field strength data comply with our rules. As Motorola observes, system design partakes of many considerations other than the power tradeoffs  YK-inherent in narrowband and wideband systems. +qKb  T-ԍ For example, the material contained in the SCI/ArrayComm ex parte filing suggests that changing the regulations to specify power limits in terms of watts per hertz could significantly increase the transmission range of a PCS base station. This could have the further effect of increasing the potential for interference to existing microwave users, or possibly reducing interference compared to covering the same area with multiple, smaller sized cells employing omnidirectional systems. The implications of the proposed redefinition for coordination requirements of PCS licensees, including the potential for delays in providing service to the public, are not sufficiently developed on this record to support such a fundamental change as SCI/ArrayComm proposes.+ We find that our current definition of power limitations does not constrain licensees considering such choices; nor does it significantly favor one technology over another. Moreover, SCI/ArrayComm has not explained its contention that the rules discourage highly directional antenna technology in its petition or comments. For these reasons, we deny SCI/ArrayComm's request to redefine the  Y-transmitter power limits. rj b  T#-ԍ We stress that our denial is without prejudice to a subsequent petition for rule making, should SCI/ArrayComm or other parties wish to pursue these issues on a more fully developed record.  Y-''i=62. As regards power levels per transmitter, antenna or antenna element, it was always our intent that the 100 watts per channel and 1640 watts EIRP requirements apply to these"r0*((" individual components and not to the sum of all components at the entire base station, provided the maximum EIRP radiated by the base station in any given direction on any given channel does not exceed 1640 watts. This interpretation is consistent with our application of similar rules in the cellular service. We believe that this statement is of itself sufficient interpretation of this provision of the rules, and no amendment to the rules is needed.  Yv-''i>63. Licensed Service, Outofband Emission Levels. Omnipoint Corporation (Omnipoint) requests that an emission mask, similar to the one specified for isochronous unlicensed PCS devices, be adopted for licensed PCS outofband emissions using a resolution bandwidth on the measurement instrument approximately equal to one percent of  Y -the emission bandwidth of the device under test.s` b  T -ԍ Omnipoint Petition at p. 68 and Figures 1,2. An outofband emission is an emission on a frequency or frequencies immediately outside the necessary bandwidth which results from the  TC -modulation process, excluding spurious emissions. See 47 C.F.R.  2.1. See also  15.323(d) of the Commission's Rules for the isochronous devices' modulation mask. Omnipoint states that the Commission  Y -should specify outofband emissions separately from spurious emissions, arguing that outofband emissions are dependent on the PCS system's modulation techniques and modulation rates. Omnipoint also states that the Commission's ability to measure and monitor outofband emissions would be greatly simplified by the use of a modulation mask. Omnipoint states that a modulation mask, which permits constant envelope digital modulations to operate in the band, would ensure that low cost equipment could be deployed in both the licensed and  Yy-unlicensed bands. Finally, Omnipoint suggests that the current rule for emission limitsZtyb  T-ԍ See  24.238 of the Commission's Rules.Z  Yb-applies only to spurious emissions.ubb  T-ԍ A spurious emission is an emission 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 outofband emissions. Necessary bandwidth is, for a given class of emission, the width of the frequency band which is just sufficient to ensure the transmission of information at the rate and with the quality required under  T-specified conditions. See 47 C.F.R.  2.1.   Y4-''i?64. Celeritek Incorporated (Celeritek) strongly supports adoption of an outofband emission mask that allows the use of constant envelope modulation formats. MCI, however, opposes these limits stating that Omnipoint's proposed rule contains a series of definitions that have the effect of allowing Omnipoint, or another operator using a similar wideband signal, to cause harmful interference to the users of adjacent frequency blocks. Accordingly, MCI recommends that the Commission not adopt these limits prior to a thorough industry review, such as through a Joint Technical Committee. MCI agrees that the Commission might authorize Omnipoint to use these limits on a waiver basis, subject to the submission of evidence that it has obtained the prior written consent of all potentially affected parties,"|@ u0*((m" including those operating, or requesting authorization to operate, in adjacent frequency  Y-bands. Motorola notes that the Errata to the MO&O Kvb  Tb-ԍ See n.1, supra.K provides additional clarification and flexibility and may already accommodate Omnipoint's concerns by allowing use of alternative resolution bandwidths for measuring outofband emissions. Motorola adds that the clarification requested by Omnipoint may eliminate any uncertainties with respect to the proper measurement standards and that this matter is being addressed in ANSI/IEEE C63SC7 and the WINTest group of WINForum.  YH-''i@65. Reply comments on this portion of the Omnipoint petition were filed by AT&T  Y1-Corp. (AT&T), Motorola, and Omnipoint.pw1jb  TL -ԍ See Replies of AT&T at 6, Motorola at 45, and Omnipoint at 1-5.p Omnipoint states that it has modified its proposals for the measurement of outofband and spurious emissions in order to directly  Y -address MCI's concerns with adjacent channel interference. Jx c T-ԍ In its petition for reconsideration, Omnipoint proposed use of the unlicensed PCS isochronous outofband emission mask, which calls for 30 DB suppression for signals up to 1.25 MHz from the band edge, 50 dB suppression between 1.25 MHz and 2.5 MHz from the band edge, and 60 dB suppression beyond. In responding to MCI's concerns, Omnipoint proposed a linear rolloff between 30 dB at the band edge and 50 dB at 1.25 MHz beyond the band edge, and between 50 dB at 1.25  T-MHz and 60 dB at 2.50 MHz from the band edge. J It argues that industry can not wait to have this rule clarified at some later date since no PCS technology can pass the existing rule within the 5MHz bands associated with the 10MHz licenses. Omnipoint adds that its proposal attempts to enable all PCS technologies by including a realistic spectrum  Y -emissions mask and a realistic resolution bandwidth measurement.cy b  T<-ԍ The changes recommended by Omnipoint to the regulations on emission limits retain the existing standards as applied to spurious emissions. See Omnipoint Reply at 45. Omnipoint further  T-described its proposed changes in its ex parte presentation to the Commission on September 30, 1994.c AT&T agrees with Omnipoint's position, and Motorola's comments in support of that position, regarding the procedures for measuring out-of-band emissions and supports the efforts of WINForum and ANSI/IEEE C63SC7 in addressing this matter. Motorola, while supporting the intent of the Omnipoint proposal in its comments, now expresses concern that it is premature to adopt specific testing language in the rules. Instead, Motorola supports continued consultation with industry groups such as TIA, T1, ANSI/IEEE C63SC7, and the WINTest group of WINForum before specific testing requirements are detailed. Motorola and Omnipoint  Y-subsequently made ex parte presentations proposing specific measurement methods for"5 y0*(("  Y-out-of-band emissions.zpb  Ty-ԍ See letters dated September 30, 1994, from Mr. David E. Hilliard of Wiley, Rein & Fielding to Mr. Julius Knapp, Chief, Authorization and Evaluation Division, OET, and to Mr. William F. Caton, Acting Secretary, FCC. In these letters, Motorola proposes that outofband emissions be measured using a resolution bandwidth of approximately one percent of the emission bandwidth of the device under test and integrating the energy over a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz. Motorola also requests that, during emission measurements, the center of the PCS transmission be displaced from the edge of the channel block by an amount equal to its occupied bandwidth. Omnipoint submitted an  Ta-ex parte filing, dated October 4, 1994, from Mr. Mark J. O'Connor of Piper & Marbury to Mr. William F. Caton, responding to Motorola's proposals. Omnipoint objects to the complexity of the Motorola procedure. Omnipoint asserts that the current limits are effectively more severe than the levels permitted for outofband emissions for unlicensed PCS devices.  Y-''iA66. Discussion In adopting standards for wideband licensed PCS systems, the Commission declined to specify a modulation or channelization scheme within a licensee's frequency block. Further, the Commission attempted to adopt technical standards that did not intentionally favor one technology overanother. We continue to believe that this flexible approach encourages and facilitates the broadest range of PCS services and devices by permitting licensees to determine the most economic and effective methods of using the spectrum. We also indicated that most parties recognize that PCS is at a nascent stage in its development and that imposition of a rigid technical framework at this time could stifle the  Y -introduction of important new technology. { b  T-ԍ See PCS Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd at 775556 (paras. 135137). Our concern regarding technical standards was to ensure that PCS licensees did not cause harmful interference to existing microwave facilities or to each other.  Y -''iB67. The Commission specified that all emissions appearing outside of the licensee's  Y-frequency block must be attenuated by 43 + 10 log (P) dB below the transmitter power. | b  T-ԍ See 47 CFR Section 24.238; see also Broadband PCS Reconsideration at paras. 194201. This requirement must be met by licensees and is not specifically aimed at the design of radio equipment. We did so because we sought to provide maximum flexibility to both licensees and equipment manufacturers as to how they might control emissions outside the licensee's frequency block. For example, a licensee could choose to use equipment that is not designed to meet a stringent outofband emissions mask, yet still ensure compliance with  Y-our emissions limits by leaving a guard band near the edge of the frequency block..H}@ b  T"-ԍ Equipment manufacturers would need to locate fundamental emissions, based on whatever method of channelization is employed, a sufficient distance within a licensee's frequency block to ensure that only spurious emissions, meeting this limit, appear outside of the frequency block.H With regard to Omnipoint's assertion that equipment will be made unnecessarily costly by the current requirement, we observe that this is not necessarily the case. The equipment can be designed so that it does not operate right up to the edge of a frequency block. We believe"}0*((" that any reduction in capacity of the spectrum by avoiding close proximity to the band edges will be negligible. With regard to Omnipoint's assertion that the unlicensed PCS rules are not as stringent with regard to spurious emissions, and the implicit suggestion that emissions standards for outofband emissions by licensed services should be correspondingly eased, we note that standards for unlicensed PCS are only 3.5 dB less stringent within 1.25 MHz of the band edge, an insignificant difference. We find that our basic standard of 43 + 10 log(P)  Yv-dB is necessary and appropriate to control interference between licensees.V~`vb  T-ԍ We note that several industry technical and standards groups are addressing matters relating to technical standards for PCS both domestically and internationally. At such time as these groups agree upon standards, we may consider appropriate limits on outofband emissions also could be considered.V Accordingly, we are retaining the current emissions standard. To this extent, Omnipoint's petition is denied.  Y -''iC68.ؠ We are persuaded that further clarification is needed with regard to the measurement of emissions immediately outside the necessary bandwidth of the transmitted signal. The current rule states that measurement instrumentation employing a 1 MHz resolution bandwidth shall be employed; however, where emissions within the licensee's frequency block influence the levels of the signals measured outside this block in such a manner to make it appear that these emissions are not in compliance with the standards, alternative measurement techniques may be employed. The commenting parties generally agree that the use of a resolution bandwidth of approximately one percent of the bandwidth of the device under test is appropriate for measuring emissions immediately outside of the frequency block. We are specifically noting this as an appropriate test procedure in the rules. To this extent, Omnipoint's petition is granted. We believe that this action should satisfactorily resolve much of Omnipoint's and the commenters' concerns. The Commission's staff may provide further guidance on this and other measurement matters that may arise, consistent with our current practice.  Y-''iD69. Unlicensed Devices. Omnipoint requests that the unlicensed isochronousb  Tb-ԍ Isochronous devices transmit at a regular interval, typified by timedivision voice systems. frame  Y-period8b  T-ԍ Frame period is a set of consecutive time slots in which the position of each time slot can be identified by reference to a synchronizing source. Currently, our rules provide that the frame period of an intentional radiator operating in the 19201930 MHz subband will be  Ts"-10 ms/X where X is a positive whole number. See  15.323(e) of the Commission's Rules. be changed from 10 milliseconds/X to 20 milliseconds/X where X is a whole  Y-number.N b  T%-ԍ See Omnipoint Petition at 36.N They argue that this will allow for use of advanced vocoders and promote interoperability between licensed and unlicensed PCS systems that are expected to use advanced vocoder technology. Omnipoint states that the latest generation of vocoders require"e0 0*((l" a 20 millisecond frame period in order to significantly improve throughput and slot time efficiency. Omnipoint states more specifically that in these respects, its 8 kbps codebook excited linear predictive (CELP) type of vocoder meets or exceeds the performance of 32 kbps adaptive pulse code modulation (ADPCM) types that have commonly been promoted for unlicensed equipment. Omnipoint claims their vocoder technology provides a 4:1 improvement over the 32 kbps vocoder ADPCM technology in throughput efficiency.  Y_-''iE70. Comments. Motorola opposes Omnipoint's request to change the frame period from 10 milliseconds/X to 20 milliseconds/X and argues that this change would disadvantage  Y1-narrow band technologies.x1b  T -ԍ See Comments of Motorola at 1315. In an ex parte filing dated September 30, 1994, Motorola suggested that we clarify the rules regarding the random interval waiting period as it applies to isochronous transmissions. Specifically, Motorola requests that we clarify that any interruption in transmission require application of the uniform random distribution waiting interval before the same time and spectrum window may be reaccessed. We believe this issue can be handled as an interpretation of the rules and no change is necessary in the wording of the requirements. x Motorola contends this disadvantage arises from the relationship between the current "listen before talk" monitoring period of 10 milliseconds and the current frame period definition of 10 milliseconds/X that were chosen to accommodate different technologies and promote spectrum efficiency. Increasing the frame period to 20 milliseconds/X and the monitoring period to 20 milliseconds would double the time required to monitor each frequency/time window. Motorola asserts that performance would be degraded significantly when systems must search a large number of channels. Battery life of portable units would also be reduced. Motorola also asserts that the current frame period will support vocoders that utilize analysis intervals longer than 10 milliseconds. Motorola provides an example of current technology (GSM) that utilizes a vocoder analysis interval longer than its frame period interval.  Y-''iF71. Replies. Omnipoint replies that extending the frame period and monitoring period from 10 to 20 milliseconds would result in an additional delay of only one hundredth of a  Y-second when accessing a time and spectrum window.^b  TB-ԍ See Reply of Omnipoint at p. 58 and Figure 1.^ They also disagree that extending the frame period and monitoring period will greatly and adversely affect the time required to find an open frequency slot or reduce battery life. AT&T opposes extending the frame period  Y-and monitoring period to 20 milliseconds and supports Motorola's arguments.LBb  T!-ԍ See Reply of AT&T at p. 16.L AT&T, however, presents a compromise approach that it believes addresses the concerns of all parties. AT&T proposes that we delete the requirement for systems with 40 or more defined channels to monitor all channels at an access level of 30 dB above thermal noise power. This would relieve large systems of the requirement that they perform repetitive listen before talk monitoring to determine if a clear channel is available, thereby negating the increased access time and battery life issues for larger systems. "  0*((-"Ԍ Y-ԙ''iG72. Extending the maximum frame period of isochronous devices from 10 to 20  Y-milliseconds was addressed in the Broadband PCS Reconsideration.eb  Tb-ԍ See Broadband PCS Reconsideration at para. 238.e Proponents argued at that time that this change would permit the widest range of present and future technologies to operate in the unlicensed band in the most equitable manner, and so would improve the potential for equipment capable of operating in both the licensed and unlicensed spectrum. Opponents argued that lengthening the frame period would necessitate longer channel setup and access times and decrease battery life in portable units. In making our decision to retain 10 milliseconds as the maximum frame period, we stated that a longer frame period could potentially reduce spectrum efficiency and that we were unconvinced that an increase in the frame period would improve the likelihood of compatibility with future technical standards for licensed PCS equipment.  Y -''iH73. Discussion. Throughout this proceeding the Commission has continued to support the concept that regulatory impact on present and future potential technologies should be minimized wherever possible in order to provide maximum flexibility for technological innovation. This is especially true when minor adjustments in technical requirements would permit additional technological innovation or alternatives without compromising other implementations. From this perspective, the compromise proposed by AT&T is flawed because it could potentially lead to greatly increased interference between systems competing for limited spectrum. However, analysis by Commission staff of isochronous device operation under the current unlicensed technical requirements has developed a compromise regarding the frame period that will provide for additional technical innovation in the unlicensed spectrum, while not affecting the operation of systems with a 10 millisecond or  Y-shorter frame period.  0 ''iSS}  Y-''iI74. This additional flexibility can be achieved by modifying the appropriate rules to permit devices with frame periods of 20 milliseconds to access unlicensed spectrum, and also requiring systems with a 20 millisecond frame period to extend the listen before talk monitoring time to 20 milliseconds. There is little, if any, foreseeable adverse impact on systems that use a 10 millisecond or shorter frame period from systems using a 20 millisecond frame period. By continuing to permit systems with a 10 millisecond or shorter frame period to utilize a monitoring period of 10 milliseconds, they will be unaffected by this rule change. This addresses the concerns raised about channel access times and battery life by continuing to permit system operation consistent with the current rule requirements. Systems with a frame period of 20 milliseconds may be somewhat disadvantaged relative to systems with a shorter frame period because they will have longer channel setup and access times. The changes in the rules, however, will afford relief to technologies that, because of choice or design constraints, use a frame period of 20 milliseconds and permits those technologies access to the unlicensed spectrum. We are, therefore, revising Sections 15.323(c)(1), 15.323(c)(5) and 15.323(e), that prescribe the channel access requirements, to accommodate systems that use a frame period of up to 20 milliseconds."h$h0*((%"Ԍ Y- ę  Y-E. PCS Interference to the Broadcast Auxiliary Service.  Y-''iJ75. The Joint Broadcast Parties request that we clarify that we will, inter alia, address the potential for interference to the Broadcast Auxiliary Service in the 19902110 MHz band  Y-by high power PCS base stations in the subjacent 19701990 MHz band.Zb  T-ԍ See Joint Broadcast Parties Petition at 5.Z Specifically, the Joint Broadcast Parties request that we establish a guard band in the 19701990 MHz range,  Y_-within which only low power mobile units would be allowed to operate.O_hb  Tx -ԍ See id., Attachment at 1.O In the alternative, the Joint Broadcast Parties request that we establish a minimum separation distance of two  Y1-kilometers between PCS base stations and broadcast auxiliary receive sites.1b  T -ԍ The remainder of the Joint Broadcast Parties' petition addresses issues of spectrum allocation  T-and service relocation that do not bear on this proceeding. See id., Attachment at 1.  Y -''iK76. Comments. Five commenters addressed the Joint Broadcast Parties' petition. Commenters argue that the Joint Broadcast Parties' analysis of the likelihood of interference is premised upon worst case conditions, especially in assuming that a PCS base station will be directly between the broadcast auxiliary transmitter and receiver, that the PCS station will necessarily be operating at the maximum allowable power, and that a distance of up to two  Y-kilometers represents immediate proximity.b  T-ԍ See APC Comments, Exhibit 2 at 23; Motorola Comments at 57; Northern Telecom Comments at 56. Further, they state that the suggested guard band would have the effect of imposing use restrictions on PCS Blocks C and F that would decrease the value of those blocks, and necessitate design of PCS handsets more complex and expensive than are necessary under the current plan. Commenters also claim that the proposed restrictions work against general design principles, which indicate that the lower power transmitter should operate on the lower frequency. Commenters also argue that the proposed guard band would create "technological islands" that would interfere with the interoperability of PCS, to the especial detriment of designated entities and entrepreneurial  Y-licensees.b  T -ԍ See APC Comments, Exhibit 2 at 12; Northern Telecom Comments at 45; PCIA Opposition at 2. Finally, our current rules on interference and outofband emissions are  Y-sufficient to protect broadcast auxiliary operations, according to commenters.p b  T#-ԍ See Comsat Comments at 3; Motorola Comments at 78; Northern Telecom Comments at 6.  Y-''iL77. Replies. The Joint Broadcast Parties state that those opposing its initial petition for stricter interference protections make no serious effort to quantify the actual risk of interference, and reassert that the BAS needs more protection from potential interference by"e  0*(("  Y-PCS.Yb  Ty-ԍ See Joint Broadcast Parties Reply at 35.Y Motorola Inc. (Motorola) reiterates its opposition to the establishment of a guard  Y-band.Jhb  T-ԍ See Motorola Reply at 13.J  Y-''iM78. Discussion. MSTV's concerns arise from two actions in the PCS Broadband  Y-Reconsideration: the increased maximum permissible power approved for PCS base stations, and the allocation to PCS of a portion of spectrum that is internationally designated for MSS. The increased power limit, MSTV asserts, carries with it an increased potential for interference to BAS users in the adjacent band, while the revised allocation plan renews BAS users' concern that their operations on the 19902110 MHz band not be compromised by subsequent MSS allocation decisions.  Y -''iN79. As to the potential for increased interference to BAS users, including ENG applications, the record does not persuade us that protective action beyond the measures  Y -adopted in the PCS Broadband Reconsideration is necessary. There, we amended our rules to indicate that spurious emission limits apply to all frequencies outside the block employed  Y -by a PCS licensee, and clarified compliance testing procedures.` b  T`-ԍ PCS Broadband Reconsideration at paras. 197199.` We also amended our rules to specify the resolution bandwidth of measuring instruments. These rules apply both to the transmitter and the operating system, as installed by the licensee, and the Commission retains the authority to require additional attenuation when emissions cause harmful  YK-interference to other users of the RF spectrum. |Kb  T-ԍ See id. at para. 200; Appendix A at Sec. 24.238(b).|  Y-''iO80. To support its argument for measures more extensive than these existing provisions, MSTV submits an engineering exhibit premised on worst case assumptions, which provides a wholly insufficient basis from which to conclude that present interference protection measures are so inadequate as to require substantial additional safeguards. We are not persuaded that the worst case scenario MSTV presents should be the appropriate overall standard for evaluating interference protection. In this case, in addition to MSTV's failure to demonstrate more than the merest possibility of interference, commenters have identified, and MSTV does not dispute, significant technical and competitive burdens that would be imposed on PCS licensees in the 19701990 MHz band if use of that band were constrained as MSTV proposes. MSTV does not dispute that limiting PCS licensees in that band to mobile use would result in a system configured at odds with customary engineering practice, and so would require distinctive handsets that, moreover, would not be compatible for use with more conventionally configured PCS systems. We view such targeted constraints on licensee's flexibility to use a particular PCS spectrum block as measures to be considered only in extreme circumstances, which MSTV has not demonstrated here. We are confident"!H0*(( !" that the standards already established in this proceeding will serve to protect the broadcast  Y-auxiliary service from possible PCS base station outofband emissions. b  Tb-ԍ We note that the standard for attenuation of outofband emissions to which PCS base stations  T:-must adhere is currently stricter than the standard for microwave licensees in the same band. See 47 C.F.R.  94.71.  We note that, apart from specific attenuation standards, we have authority under Section 24.238(b) of our rules to require any PCS base station which causes interference to other radio services to attenuate its outofband emissions substantially. For these reasons, we deny MSTV's petition.  Y_-''iP81. As to the revised allocation plan, and possible allocation actions in the MSS proceeding, MSTV asks that in future proceedings the Commission place priority on a spectrum solution for MSS that does not involve relocation or impairment of BAS operations, and that if relocation is required, various measures be implemented toward a reasonable transition period and compensation to broadcasters for relocation costs. These concerns will be fully considered as part of the Commission's impending review of MSS allocation alternatives, but need not be reviewed in this further reconsideration context.  Y-F. Secondary Allocation for MSS   Yy-  Yb-''iQ82. CELSAT, INC. (Celsat) petitions for review on spectrum allocation issues. Celsat requests that the 19701990 MHz band be allocated on a secondary basis and that the 21602180 MHz band be allocated on a primary basis for domestic MobileSatellite Service (MSS) use, arguing that its technology would allow it to share these bands with both fixed  Y-microwave systems and new terrestrial PCS systems.8b  T-ԍ See Celsat Petition at 14. Because the MSS system would be transmitting to its mobiles in the 21602180 MHz band, there would be no interference to the PCS mobiles from MSS satellite transmissions. Celsat claims that the potential interference from MSS mobile transmissions received at PCS base stations would be prohibited by not assigning a potentially interfering frequency to a mobile user whenever it is within range of a microwave or PCS system.   Y-''iR83. Celsat proposes a domestic MSS or hybrid satellite system that would be licensed to provide spacebased PCS services nationwide as long as it did not interfere with the operation  Y-of any terrestrial PCS system licensed in either PCS Frequency Blocks F or C. b  Ts"-ԍ PCS Block F is 18901895 and 19701975 MHz; PCS Block C is 18951910 and 19751990 MHz. Celsat states that its proposal would be spectrum efficient, and that a single handset could access both terrestrial PCS service in served areas and MSS service in areas not served by"|" 0*((m"  Y-terrestrial PCS.b  Ty-ԍ This ability to use a single handset to access both PCS and MSS systems assumes that PCS licensees would employ a handset using a CDMA multiplexing scheme compatible with Celsat's design. Celsat states that participating PCS licensees would attain nationwide coverage upon the launch of a single MSS satellite and that this coverage would provide  Y-these licensees an immediate competitive advantage over other PCS and cellular licensees.Ib  T-ԍ See Celsat Petition at 6.I It states that these bands are the only spectrum that is earmarked both domestically and internationally for both ground and space mobile services and thus are ideal for a hybrid  Y-space/ground PCS system.Cb  T -ԍ See id. at 2.C Celsat further states that its proposal would cause no interference if licensees in Blocks C and F use the 19701990 MHz band for mobile unit transmission. It therefore requests a secondary MSS allocation of this band, and urges PCS licensees in this band to choose the CDMA multiplexing scheme so that MSS and PCS  Y1-services can efficiently share the band.E1Xb  T:-ԍ See id. at 56.E Celsat's proposal requires not only the secondary  Y -MSS allocation at 19701990 MHz, but also a primary MSS allocation at 21602180 MHz.C b  T-ԍ See id. at 7.C  Y -''iS84. The 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC92) adopted the following allocations for MSS: Region 2 19701980 and 21602170 MHz primary, 19301970 and 21202160 MHz secondary; Worldwide 19802010 and 21702200 MHz primary.  Y -In the Second Report and Order in the instant proceeding, we allocated the 18501970 MHz, 21302150 MHz and 21802200 MHz bands to terrestrial PCS and reserved the 19701990 and 21602180 MHz bands for possible MSS use. On reconsideration, we decided to allocate 18501990 MHz for PCS, and to reserve 21102150 MHz and 21602180 MHz for emerging technologies, including MSS.  Y-''iT85. Comments. Two commenters addressed the issues raised by Celsat and the Joint  Y-Broadcast Parties, generally opposing any change to our current rules.s b  TO -ԍ Commenters on Celsat's petition were APC and COMSAT Corporation (Comsat).s As an initial matter, COMSAT Corporation (Comsat) argues that the petition of Celsat is not within the scope of this proceeding, because we have indicated that we will address this issues in an  Y-upcoming MSS allocation proceeding.I8 b  T$-ԍ See Comsat Comments at 2.I  Y-''iU86. With regard to Celsat's proposed allocations for MSS, commenters assert that this proposal would add uncertainty to the quality of PCS services in this band, to the"|# 0*(("  Y-disadvantage of designated entities and entrepreneurial licensees,Sb  Ty-ԍ See APC Comments, Exhibit 2 at 45.S and would interfere with  Y-the ongoing international negotiations regarding MSS issues.Khb  T-ԍ See Comsat Comments at 56.K Commenters state that the  Y-place to consider this issue is the upcoming MSS proceeding.gb  T-ԍ See APC Comments, Exhibit 2 at 5; Comsat Comments at 8.g  Y-''iV87. Replies. American Mobile Satellite Corporation (AMSC) joins Comsat in urging the Commission to address spectrum issues in an upcoming MSS proceeding, and urged us to  Yv-begin this proceeding as soon as possible.?vb  T -ԍ See AMSC Reply.?  YH-''iW88. Discussion. We agree with commenters who state that this proceeding is not the appropriate place to consider the multiple implications of spectrum allocations for MSS. The Commission is scheduled to release a Notice of Proposed Rule Making in a separate MSS proceeding prior to the December 1994 broadband PCS auction, and that order will consider the issue of authorizing satellite operations in conjunction with broadband PCS.  Y -G. ONA Implementation for PCS  Y-''iX89.ؠPoint asks that the Commission require PCS networks to utilize Open Network Architecture, asserting this would guarantee competition among equipment suppliers and  Yb-reduce the cost of constructing networks. JbHb  T[-ԍ See Point Petition at 56.J MCI in its comments characterizes Point's request as a plea for the Commission to assert authority over equipment manufacturers, and asserts that the marketplace can best determine the desirability of ONA or other network  Y-architecture schemes. Hb  T-ԍ See MCI Comments at 45.H No reply comments were filed.  Y-''iY90.ؠThe elements of an Open Network Architecture regulatory system necessarily reflect the characteristics of the network environment in which those elements are applied. Apart from Point's very general request and a few sentences of MCI's response, the record in this proceeding is nearly devoid of any discussion of the complex technical and operational issues involved. Such a record provides a wholly inadequate basis for assessing the merits of ONA in the wireless telecommunications marketplace. We will therefore deny Point's request, but this action does not preclude Point or other interested parties from filing a more specific and well developed ONA proposal in the form of a petition for rulemaking. "7$ 0*((j"Ԍ Y-t IV. CONCLUSION ă  Y-''iZ91. The adoption of a Memorandum Opinion and Order in the Emerging Technology  Y-proceeding a month ago advanced our consideration of transition issues.b  T5-ԍ See Memorandum Opinion and Order, ET Docket No. 929, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994). Ċ Today we have amended our service rules in this order to better facilitate the introduction of broadband PCS services to the public. Additionally, we are conducting ongoing consultations with foreign governments to ensure that international coordination requirements for this service will be completed as rapidly as possible. As previously announced, we intend to begin auctioning  YI-broadband PCS licenses on December 5, 1994.HIhb  Tb -ԍ See Public Notice, Commercial Mobile Radio Service Information: Auction Notice and Filing Requirements for 99 MTA Licenses Located on the A and B Blocks for Personal Communications Service in the 2 GHz Band, Report No. AUC9404, Auction No. 4, released September 19, 1994.H  X -  V. ORDERING CLAUSES T  Y -TP''i[92.  ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED, that the petitions for reconsideration addressed in this order ARE GRANTED to the extent described above, and DENIED in all other respects.  Y-''i\93.ؠIT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that Parts 2, 15, and 24 of the Commission's Rules ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, except that amendments to 47 C.F.R. Section 24.204 as specified in Appendix A SHALL BE EFFECTIVE immediately upon publication in the Federal  Y5-Register.5b  T-ԍSS}Amendments to Section 24.204 ease existing regulatory restrictions on entities with noncontrolling, attributable cellular interests by providing them an opportunity to participate in broadband PCS auctions from which they previously were barred, and provides all parties with greater certainty about the postauction divestiture requirements of our cellular/PCS crossownership rules. These benefits will be compromised unless the Section 24.204 amendments become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, as the deadline for filing applications to participate in the initial broadband PCS auction is October 28, 1994, less than two weeks from the adoption date of the instant order. Thus, there is good cause to order the amendments to take effect upon Federal  T^ -Register publication. See 5 U.S.C.  553(d)(1), (d)(3). This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 302, 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r).  Y-X'S (#%'0*,.8135@8: