AWS in 2000-2020/2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4), Order Adopted

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of
)

)

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
)
WT Docket No. 12-70
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands
)

)

Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite
)
ET Docket No. 10-142
Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-
)

1660.5 MHz, 1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500
)

MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz
)

)

Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
)
WT Docket No. 04-356
the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025
)

MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands
)

REPORT AND ORDER AND ORDER OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION

Adopted: December 11, 2012 Released: December 17, 2012

By the Commission:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Heading
Paragraph #
I.  INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
II.  BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................... 3
A.  The Growing Spectrum Demands of Mobile Broadband Services .................................................. 3
B.  The Spectrum Act ............................................................................................................................ 5
C.  MSS and Terrestrial Use in the 2 GHz Band ................................................................................... 6
III.  REPORT AND ORDER: AWS-4 ........................................................................................................ 17
A.  AWS-4 Band Plan .......................................................................................................................... 26
1.  AWS-4 Frequencies and Paired Spectrum (uplink/downlink) ................................................ 28
2.  Spectrum Block Size and Duplex Spacing .............................................................................. 40
3.  Geographic Area Licensing ..................................................................................................... 47
B.  Technical Issues ............................................................................................................................. 52
1.  OOBE Limits ........................................................................................................................... 56
2.  Co-Channel Interference Among AWS-4 Systems ............................................................... 125
3.  Receiver Performance ........................................................................................................... 126
4.  Power Limits ......................................................................................................................... 129
5.  Acceptance of Interference into the AWS-4 Uplink Band. ................................................... 149
6.  Antenna Height Restrictions ................................................................................................. 152
7.  Canadian and Mexican Coordination .................................................................................... 157
8.  Other Technical Issues .......................................................................................................... 158

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

C.  Protection of MSS Operations ..................................................................................................... 159
D.  Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority ............................................................................... 161
1.  Background ........................................................................................................................... 164
2.  Discussion—Section 316 License Modification ................................................................... 169
3.  Proposed Modification .......................................................................................................... 186
E.  Performance Requirements .......................................................................................................... 187
1.  Background ........................................................................................................................... 189
2.  Discussion ............................................................................................................................. 193
F.  Applications for Any AWS-4 Spectrum Returned to the Commission ....................................... 209
1.  Procedures for Any AWS-4 Licenses Subject to Assignment by Competitive Bidding ....... 210
G.  Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules ..................................................................... 219
1.  Flexible Use, Regulatory Framework, and Regulatory Status .............................................. 220
2.  Ownership Restrictions ......................................................................................................... 235
3.  Secondary Markets ................................................................................................................ 244
4.  License Term, Renewal Criteria, and Permanent Discontinuance of Operations ................. 260
5.  Other Operating Requirements .............................................................................................. 277
6.  Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands .................... 279
7.  Other Matters—Proposed Party Conditions .......................................................................... 281
H.  Relocation and Cost Sharing ........................................................................................................ 289
1.  Emerging Technologies Policies ........................................................................................... 289
2.  Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2000-2020 MHz ................................................................ 290
3.  Relocation and Cost Sharing for 1915-1920 MHz. ............................................................... 295
4.  Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2180-2200 MHz ................................................................ 296
IV.  ANCILLARY TERRESTRIAL COMPONENT IN THE 2 GHZ MSS BAND ................................ 317
V.  ORDER OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION ..................................................................................... 319
VI.  NOTICE OF INQUIRY: 2 GHZ EXTENSION BAND CONCEPT ................................................. 323
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS ............................................................................................................. 324
A.  Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis .......................................................................................... 324
B.  Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis ............................................................................................. 325
C.  Further Information ...................................................................................................................... 327
VIII.
ORDERING CLAUSES .............................................................................................................. 328
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX C – List of Commenters to AWS-4 NRPM and NOI

INTRODUCTION

1.
With this Report and Order, we increase the Nation’s supply of spectrum for mobile
broadband by adopting flexible use rules for 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band (2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz), which we term the AWS-4 band. In so doing, we carry out a
recommendation in the National Broadband Plan that the Commission enable the provision of stand-
alone terrestrial services in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) spectrum band, thus dramatically
increasing the value of this spectrum to the public.1  Specifically, we remove regulatory barriers to mobile
broadband use of this spectrum, and adopt service, technical, and licensing rules that will encourage
innovation and investment in mobile broadband and provide certainty and a stable regulatory regime in
which broadband deployment can rapidly occur.

1 See infra ¶ 4.

2

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

2.
To create a solid and lasting foundation for the provision of terrestrial services in this
spectrum and to make this spectrum available efficiently and quickly for flexible, terrestrial use, such as
mobile broadband, we will assign the spectrum to the incumbent MSS operators. Thus, together with this
Report and Order, we issue an Order of Proposed Modification, proposing to replace the incumbent MSS
operators’ Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) authority with full flexible use terrestrial authority.
Additionally, we decline to adopt the alternative band plan proposals presented in the AWS-4 NPRM and
NOI, including shifting the AWS-4 uplink spectrum up five or ten megahertz or further exploring the
larger and more complex 2 GHz Extension Band Concept.2

II.

BACKGROUND

The Growing Spectrum Demands of Mobile Broadband Services

3.
Demand for wireless broadband services and the network capacity associated with those
services is surging, resulting in a growing demand for spectrum to support these services. Adoption of
smartphones increased at a 50 percent annual growth rate in 2011, from 27 percent of U.S. mobile
subscribers in December 2010 to nearly 42 percent in December 2011.3 Further, consumers have rapidly
adopted the use of tablets, which were first introduced in January of 2010.4 By the end of 2012, it is
estimated that one in five Americans—almost 70 million people—will use a tablet.5 Between 2011 and
2017, mobile data traffic generated by tablets is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of
100 percent.6  New mobile applications and services, such as high resolution video communications, are
also using more bandwidth.  For example, a single smartphone can generate as much traffic as thirty-five
basic-feature mobile phones,7 while tablets connected to 3G and 4G networks use three times more data
than smartphones over the cellular network.8 All of these trends, in combination, are creating an urgent
need for more network capacity and, in turn, for suitable spectrum.

2 See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket
Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 27 FCC Rcd
3561, 3570-3571, 3577, 3607-3611 ¶¶ 21, 42-43, 137-147 (2012) (AWS-4 NPRM and AWS-4 NOI, respectively);
infra Sections III.A.1. (AWS-4 Frequencies and Paired Spectrum (uplink/downlink), VI. (Notice of Inquiry: 2 GHz
Extension Band Concept).
3 comScore 2012 Mobile Future in Focus (2012) at 16
http://www.comscore.com/Press Events/Presentations Whitepapers/2012/2012 Mobile Future in Focus (last
visited Nov. 30, 2012).
4 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial Mobile
Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9754 ¶ 145 (Fifteenth Mobile Wireless
Competition Report).
5 Press Release, eMarketer, Tablet Shopping Growing, but Retailers Must Keep Up (June 15, 2012), available at
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1009120&ecid=a6506033675d47f881651943c21c5ed4 (last visited
Nov. 30, 2012).
6 Ericsson, Traffic and Market Report: On the Pulse of the Networked Society (June 2012), available at
http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2012/traffic and market report june 2012.pdf (last visited Nov. 30, 2012).
7 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2011-2016 (February 2012),
available at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white paper c11-
520862.html (last visited Nov. 30, 2012).
8 Kevin Fitchard, 3G/4G tablets suck up 3x more data than smartphones, GIGAOM, May 15, 2012, available at
http://gigaom.com/mobile/study-3g4g-tablets-suck-up-3x-more-data-than-smartphones/ (last visited Nov. 30, 2012).

3

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

4.
The widely-acknowledged need for more broadband spectrum has spurred several
initiatives across the U.S. government. The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended the
Commission undertake to make 500 megahertz of spectrum available for broadband use within ten years,
including 300 megahertz within five years.9  The Commission has taken numerous steps to achieve these
goals, including recently adopting a notice of proposed rulemaking on conducting the world’s first
incentive auction to repurpose broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband use,10 and updating the
Commission’s rules for the 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band to permit the use of
the most advanced wireless technologies in that band.11 Similarly, the Administration has recognized the
need to make more spectrum available for broadband.  In 2010, the President directed the National
Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to collaborate with the Commission to
“make available a total of 500 MHz of Federal and non-Federal spectrum over the next ten years, suitable
for both mobile and fixed wireless broadband use.”12 NTIA undertook a “fast-track” review of several
bands that could be reallocated to mobile use13 and proposed exploring Federal / non-Federal sharing of
the 1755-1850 MHz band.14

The Spectrum Act

5.
In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (the “Spectrum Act”).15  The Spectrum Act includes several provisions to make
more spectrum available for commercial use, including through auctions, and to improve public safety
communications.16  Among other things, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission, by February 23,
2015, to allocate the 1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz band (collectively, the “H Block”)
for commercial use, and to auction and grant new initial licenses for the use of each spectrum band,
subject to flexible use service rules.17 Congress provided, however, that if the Commission determined

9 Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8 at 84-85 (2010) (National Broadband
Plan), available at http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs public/attachmatch/DOC-296935A1.pdf (last visited Nov. 30,
2012)
10 See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Docket No.
12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 12357 (2012) (Incentive Auction NPRM); National
Broadband Plan at 81-82.
11 See Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications
Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No. 95-91, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC
Rcd 13651 (2012) (2012 WCS Order); see also, Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the
Operation of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No. 95-
91, GEN Docket No. 90-357, RM-8610, Report and Order and Second Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710
(2010) (2010 WCS Order).
12 Memorandum of June 28, 2010—Unleashing the Wireless Broadband Revolution, 75 Fed. Reg. 38387 (July 1,
2010).
13 See U.S. Department of Commerce, An Assessment of the Near-Term Viability of Accommodating Wireless
Broadband Systems in the 1675-1710 MHz, 1755-1780 MHz, 3500-3650 MHz, and 4200-4220 MHz, 4380-4400
MHz Bands (Oct. 2010), available at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/reports/2010/FastTrackEvaluation 11152010.pdf
(“NTIA Fast Track Report”) (last visited Nov. 30, 2012).
14 See NTIA Fast Track Report at pp. 2-3-2-5.
15 See generally Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012)
(Spectrum Act).
16 Spectrum Act §§ 6001-6703.
17 See Spectrum Act § 6401(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1451(b).

4

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

that either of the bands could not be used without causing harmful interference to commercial licensees in
1930-1995 MHz (PCS downlink), then the Commission was prohibited from allocating that specific band
for commercial use or licensing it.18  Additionally, Sections 6401(f) and 6413 of the Spectrum Act specify
that the proceeds from an auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band and in the 1915-1920 MHz
band shall be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund and then used to fund the Nationwide Public
Safety Broadband Network (“FirstNet”).19  The H block spectrum could be the first spectrum specified by
the Spectrum Act to be licensed by auction, and thus could represent the first inflow of revenues toward
this statutory goal.20

MSS and Terrestrial Use in the 2 GHz Band

6.
As the Commission explained in the AWS-4 NPRM, in 1997 the Commission reallocated
70 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band from a terrestrial Fixed and Mobile allocation to a Mobile
Satellite allocation.21  MSS is a radiocommunication service involving transmission between mobile earth
stations and one or more space stations.22  The Commission intended for MSS to provide communications
in areas where it is difficult or impossible to provide communications coverage via terrestrial base
stations and at times when coverage may be unavailable from terrestrial-based networks.23  The
Commission adopted MSS rules for the 2 GHz band in 2000,24 and in 2001 the International Bureau
authorized eight satellite operators to provide MSS in this band.25  By February 2003, the International
Bureau cancelled three MSS authorizations for failure to meet their system implementation milestones.26

18 See Spectrum Act § 6401(b)(4), codified at 47 USC § 1451(b)(4).
19 Spectrum Act §§ 6401(f), 6413, codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(8)(D)(ii), 1457. Amounts remaining in the Public
Safety Trust Fund after fiscal year 2022 are required to be deposited into the Treasury’s general fund for the purpose
of deficit reduction.
20 Concurrently with the issuance of this Report and Order, the Commission is issuing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that proposes service, technical, and licensing rules for the H block.  See generally, Service Rules for
the Advanced Wireless Services H Block—Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, WT Docket No. 12-357, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-152 (rel. Dec. 17, 2012) (H Block NPRM).
21 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3563-64 ¶ 3 (citing Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to
Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, First Report and Order
and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Rcd 7388 at 7391, 7395 ¶¶ 5-6, 14 (1997)).
22 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.1(c).
23 See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-
Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 01-185, ET Docket No. 95-18, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 16
FCC Rcd 15532 ¶ 1 (2001).
24 Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite Service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket No.
99-81, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16127 (2000).
25 Third Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and International Satellite
Communications Services, Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions with Respect to Domestic and
International Satellite Communications Services, IB Docket Nos. 09-16, IB Docket No. 10-99, Third Report, 26
FCC Rcd 17284, 17310 ¶ 56 (2011) (Third Satellite Competition Report).
26 Mobile Communications Holdings, Inc. and ICO Global Communications (Holdings) Limited for Transfer of
Control, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1094, 1099-1103 ¶¶15-24 (2003); Application of
Globalstar, L.P. for Modification of License for a Mobile-Satellite Service System in the 2 GHz Band,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1249, 1251-55 ¶¶ 6-15 (2003).

5

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

7.
At the same time, the Commission took two actions in this band to respond to the growth
in terrestrial wireless services. First, the Commission reallocated 30 megahertz of MSS spectrum for
terrestrial Fixed and Mobile use, reducing the spectrum allocated to MSS to 40 megahertz.27  Second, the
Commission established ATC rules, which allowed authorized MSS operators to augment their satellite
services with terrestrial facilities.28  ATC consists of terrestrial base stations and mobile terminals that re-
use frequencies assigned for MSS operations.29  To ensure that ATC would be ancillary to the provision
of MSS, the Commission determined that ATC authority would be limited to MSS operators who met
specific “gating” criteria.30
8.
Significantly, in establishing ATC, the Commission determined that only existing MSS
operators would be permitted to receive ATC authority. The Commission found that:
[S]haring between MSS and terrestrial mobile services is neither advisable, nor practical.
Revocation of the authority of operational MSS systems and those MSS licenses that
have met their implementation milestones in good faith is unreasonable and unwarranted.
And our detailed technical analyses demonstrate that a third party cannot operate in the
licensed MSS spectrum without compromising the operations of existing and future MSS
licensees.31
Further, “based on the record and our detailed technical analysis, . . . granting shared usage of the same
MSS frequency band to separate MSS and terrestrial operators would likely compromise the effectiveness
of both systems.”32  Therefore, the Commission decided against adopting a licensing framework that
would allow the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications that would be resolved by auction and
instead concluded that ATC authority would be granted through a license modification.33
9.
Three additional MSS operators surrendered their licenses in 2005.34  This left only two
MSS operators in the 2 GHz band, DBSD (then known as ICO) and TerreStar (then known as TMI), each
of which had the right to use 20 megahertz of 2 GHz band spectrum to provide MSS.35

27 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed
Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless
Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No. 99-81 RM-9911, RM-9498, RM-10024, Third Report and Order,
Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2223, 2238-40 ¶¶
28-32 (2003) (AWS Third Report and Order).
28 See Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-
Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket Nos. 01-185, 02-364, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking; 18 FCC Rcd 1962, 1964 ¶ 1 (2003) (ATC Report and Order).
29 See Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz,
1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, ET Docket No. 10-142,
Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5710, 5711-12 ¶ 5 (2011) (2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order).
30 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(b); ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1990-95, 2068-71 ¶¶ 47-55, 221-26; see ATC
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1999-2011 ¶¶ 66-93 (gating criteria); Flexibility for Delivery of Communications
by Mobile Satellite Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB Docket No.
01-185, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 4616, 4625-26 ¶¶
24-27 (2005) (ATC Second Reconsideration Order).
31 ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1999 ¶ 65.
32 Id. at 1965 ¶ 2; see also id. at 1993 ¶ 52.
33 See id. at 2068-69 ¶ 221.
34 Third Satellite Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 17310 ¶ 56.

6

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

10.
DBSD and TerreStar launched their satellites in April 2008 and July 2009, respectively,
and met their operational milestones in May 2008 and August 2009, respectively.36  DBSD and TerreStar
received ATC authority in 2009 and 2010, respectively.37  Despite having MSS and ATC authority and an
orbiting satellite, DBSD never offered either commercial satellite or terrestrial service and TerreStar
offered only minimal satellite service (partnering with AT&T to offer a non-ATC satellite/terrestrial
service using AT&T terrestrial spectrum and TerreStar satellite spectrum).38  To date, there remains little
commercial use of this spectrum for MSS and none for terrestrial (ATC) service.39
11.
The National Broadband Plan in 2010 recommended that the FCC “accelerate terrestrial
deployment in 90 megahertz” of MSS spectrum.40  The National Broadband Plan proposed different
approaches to expanding terrestrial services in different MSS bands.41  For the 2 GHz MSS band, the Plan
recommended that the “FCC should add a primary ‘mobile’ (terrestrial) allocation to the S-Band,
consistent with the international table of allocations, which will provide the option of flexibility to
licensees to provide stand-alone terrestrial services using the spectrum.”42 Additionally, the Plan
recommended that “[e]xercise of this option should be conditioned on construction benchmarks,
participation in an incentive auction, or other conditions designed to ensure timely utilization of the
spectrum for broadband and appropriate consideration for the step-up in the value of the affected
spectrum.”43
12.
In July 2010, the Commission issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking proposing to add
Fixed and Mobile allocations to the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.44  The Commission
adopted this proposal in April 2011, thereby establishing the predicate for more flexible use of the band
(Continued from previous page)
35 See Use of Returned Spectrum in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service Frequency Bands, IB Docket Nos. 05-220,
05-221, Order, 20 FCC Rcd 19696 at 19707 ¶ 26 (2005).  Prior to this action, DBSD and TerreStar shared this
spectrum allocation equally with the other MSS operators.
36 See Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket No. 00-
258, ET Docket No. 95-18, Fifth Report and Order, Eleventh Report and Order, Sixth Report and Order, and
Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd 13874, 13877 ¶ 7 (2010) (2010 BAS Ruling).
37 New ICO Satellite Services G.P., Application for Blanket Authority to Operate Ancillary Terrestrial Component
Base Stations and Dual-mode MSS/ATC Mobile Terminals in the 2 GHz MSS Bands, Order and Authorization, 24
FCC Rcd 171 (2009) (ICO Waiver Order); TerreStar Networks Inc., Application for Blanket Authority to Operate
Ancillary Terrestrial Component Base Stations and Dual-Mode MSS/ATC Mobile Terminals in the 2 GHz MSS
Bands, Order and Authorization, 25 FCC Rcd 228 (2010) (TerreStar Waiver Order).
38 Fifteenth Mobile Wireless Competition Report, 26 FCC Rcd at 9701 ¶ 38 n.98.
39 See Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz,
1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, ET Docket No. 10-142,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 9481, 9483 ¶ 6 (2010) (MSS Fixed and Mobile
Allocation NPRM) (“The deployment of MSS and ATC in the 2 GHz band has been a slow process.”).
40 National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8.4 at 87-88.
41 Id. at 88.
42 Id. at 87-88.
43 Id. at 87-88.
44 Fixed and Mobile Services in the Mobile Satellite Service Bands at 1525-1559 MHz and 1626.5-1660.5 MHz,
1610-1626.5 MHz and 2483.5-2500 MHz, and 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, ET Docket No. 10-142,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry, 25 FCC Rcd 9481 (2010) (2 GHz Band Co-Allocation NPRM
and 2010 MSS NOI, respectively).

7

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

for terrestrial mobile broadband services.45  The Commission also declared its intent to initiate a service
rules rulemaking proceeding, stating that “having added co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the 2
GHz band, we anticipate issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking on subjects raised in the 2010 MSS
NOI, including possible service rule changes that could increase investment and utilization of the band in
a manner that further serves the public interest.”46  The Commission expected that this rulemaking would
include an examination of the relationship of the 2 GHz band with neighboring bands.47
13.
In May 2011, the Commission’s Spectrum Task Force issued a public notice requesting
technical input on approaches to encourage the growth of terrestrial mobile broadband services in the 2
GHz spectrum range that is allocated for fixed and mobile use. Specifically, the Spectrum Task Force
sought information on “developing a cohesive approach that maximizes the terrestrial mobile broadband
potential of this spectrum.”48 The public notice specifically focused on the 2 GHz MSS band and
neighboring Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) blocks, including the AWS-2 Upper “H” block
spectrum at 1995-2000 MHz; the AWS-2 paired “J” block spectrum at 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180
MHz; and the AWS-3 spectrum at 2155-2175 MHz.49  In response, several parties offered comments on
potential changes to the existing 2 GHz MSS band plan.50
14.
In 2011, DISH Network Corporation (DISH) acquired both TerreStar and DBSD out of
bankruptcy, paying approximately $1.4 billion for each company.51  DISH filed applications with the
Commission for approval to transfer control of the MSS licenses, including ATC authority, of each of
TerreStar and DBSD to two separate subsidiary companies of DISH.52  At the same time, DBSD and
TerreStar filed requests to modify their respective ATC authorities, including for a waiver of certain non-
technical ATC rules, such as the integrated service and spare satellite rules, and of certain ATC technical
rules.53 On March 2, 2012, the International Bureau granted the applications for transfer of control of the
MSS licenses, including ATC authority, of DBSD and TerreStar to DISH. As a result, in New DBSD

45 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5710 ¶ 2.
46 Id. at 5716 ¶ 13.
47 Id. at 5716 ¶ 13.
48 Spectrum Task Force Invites Technical Input on Approaches to Maximize Broadband Use of Fixed/Mobile
Spectrum Allocations in the 2 GHz Range, ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 07-195, Public Notice,
26 FCC Rcd 7587 (2011) (2 GHz Public Notice).
49 See generally, 2 GHz Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 7587.
50 See, e.g., Comments of TerreStar Networks Inc., ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 07-195 (July 8,
2011); Comments of T-Mobile USA, Inc., ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 07-195 (July 8, 2011);
Comments of Ericsson, ET Docket No. 10-142, WT Docket Nos. 04-356, 07-195 (July 8, 2011).
51 See DISH Network Corporation Files to Acquire Control of Licenses and Authorizations Held By New DBSD
Satellite Services G.P, Debtor-in-Possession and TerreStar License Inc., Debtor-in-Possession, IB Docket No. 11-
150, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 13018 (2011) (DBSD and TerreStar Transfer of Control Public Notice);
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1001082/000110465911061256/a11-25886 110q htm#TableOfContents
(last visited Dec. 10, 2012).
52 See DISH Network Corporation Files to Acquire Control of Licenses and Authorizations Held By New DBSD
Satellite Services G.P, Debtor-in-Possession and TerreStar License Inc., Debtor-in-Possession, IB Docket No. 11-
150, Public Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 13018, 13020-1 (2011) (DBSD and TerreStar Transfer of Control Public Notice).
53 New DBSD Satellite Service G.P., Debtor-in-Possession, and TerreStar Licensee Inc., Debtor-In-Possession,
Request For Rule Waivers And Modified Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, IB Docket No. 11-149, Public
Notice, 26 FCC Rcd 13011 (2011); see 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.149(b)(2), (4), 25.252.

8

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Satellite Services G.P., a wholly owned subsidiary of DISH, obtained control of the former DBSD MSS
license, including ATC authority, and Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., also a wholly owned subsidiary of
DISH, obtaining control of the former TerreStar MSS license, including ATC authority.54  In granting
these applications, the International Bureau denied the non-technical rule waiver requests and deferred to
the technical rule waivers to a rulemaking proceeding, stating that “[s]ince the release of the National
Broadband Plan . . . the Commission has been clear about its intent to remove regulatory barriers in this
band through a rulemaking to unleash more spectrum for mobile broadband.”55
15.
In March 2012, the Commission adopted the AWS-4 NPRM, which consisted of a Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Inquiry.56  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to
increase the Nation’s supply of spectrum for mobile broadband by removing barriers to flexible use of
spectrum currently assigned to the MSS.57  The Commission proposed terrestrial service rules for the 2
GHz band that would generally follow the Commission’s Part 27 flexible use rules, modified as necessary
to account for issues unique to the particular spectrum bands.58  The proposed rules were designed to
provide for flexible use of this spectrum, to encourage innovation and investment in mobile broadband,
and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which broadband deployment could develop.59  The
proposed rules also included aggressive build-out requirements and concomitant penalties for failure to
build out designed to ensure timely deployment of wireless, terrestrial broadband in the band.60
Additionally, in the Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on potential ways to free up
additional valuable spectrum to address the Nation’s growing demand for mobile broadband spectrum,
including through examination of alternative band plans incorporating the Federal 1695-1710 MHz
band.61
16.
Comments on the AWS-4 NPRM were due by May 17, 2012 and reply comments were
due by June 1, 2012. Thirty-four comments and twenty-one reply comments were filed in response to the
AWS-4 NPRM. A list of commenters and reply commenters can be found in Appendix C. In addition, as
permitted under our rules, there have been ex parte presentations.62

III.

REPORT AND ORDER: AWS-4

17.
In this AWS-4 Report and Order, we build on the Commission’s recent actions to
increase the availability of spectrum by enabling terrestrial mobile broadband service in 40 megahertz of
spectrum in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum bands.63  As explained below, we adopt

54 New DBSD Satellite Service G.P., Debtor-in-Possession, and TerreStar Licensee Inc., Debtor-In-Possession,
Request for Rule Waivers and Modified Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, IB Docket Nos. 11-149, 11-
150, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2250, 2251, 2255, 2262 ¶¶ 1, 13, 31, 33 (2012) (DISH Transfer Order).
55 DISH Transfer Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 2261-62 ¶¶ 29, 34.
56 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 3561.
57 Id. at 3563 ¶ 1.
58 Id. at 3594 ¶ 103.
59 Id. at 3563 ¶ 1.
60 Id. at 3589-3592 ¶¶ 90-98.
61 Id. at 3607-3611 ¶¶ 138-147.
62 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1415(d); 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1200-1.1216.
63 The 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are the fourth spectrum bands that the Commission has sought to
make available for Advanced Wireless Service (AWS) use. The Commission assigned licenses for the 1710-1755
(continued….)

9

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

AWS-4 terrestrial service, technical, and licensing rules that generally follow the Commission’s Part 27
flexible use rules, modified as necessary to account for issues unique to the AWS-4 bands. First, we
establish 2000-2020 MHz paired with 2180-2200 MHz as the AWS-4 band plan.
18.
Second, we adopt appropriate technical rules for operations in the AWS-4 band. This
includes rules governing the relationship of the AWS-4 band to other bands. For example, as explained
below, we require the licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to accept some limited interference from
operations in the adjacent upper H block at 1995-2000 MHz, and impose more stringent out-of-band
emission (OOBE) limits and power limits on these licensees to protect future operations in 1995-2000
MHz. With respect to adjacent operations at 2200 MHz, we permit operator-to-operator agreements to
address concerns regarding interference and also establish default rules to protect against harmful
interference. Further, we require licensees of AWS-4 authority to comply with the OOBE limits
contained in a private agreement entered into with the Global Positioning Systems (GPS) industry.
19.
Third, mindful that AWS-4 spectrum is now allocated on a co-primary basis for Mobile
Satellite and for terrestrial Fixed and Mobile services and that MSS licensees already have authorizations
to provide service in the band,64 we determine that the AWS-4 rules must provide for the protection of 2
GHz MSS systems from harmful interference caused by AWS-4 systems.65  In addition, consistent with
our determination below to grant AWS-4 terrestrial operating authority to the incumbent 2 GHz MSS
licensees, we propose to assign terrestrial rights by modifying the MSS operators’ licenses pursuant to
Section 316 of the Communications Act.
20.
Fourth, we adopt performance requirements for the AWS-4 spectrum. Specifically,
licensees of AWS-4 operating authority will be subject to build-out requirements that require a licensee to
provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least 40 percent of its total terrestrial
license areas’ population within four years, and to at least 70 percent of the population in each of its
license areas within seven years, and will be subject to appropriate penalties if these benchmarks are not
met.
21.
Fifth, we adopt a variety of regulatory, licensing, operating, and relocation and cost
sharing requirements for licensees of AWS-4 operating authority.
(Continued from previous page)
MHz and 2110-2155 MHz bands (AWS-1) in 2003. Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz
and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162 (2003) (AWS-1 Report and
Order); modified by Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket
No. 02-353, Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14058 (2005).  The Commission proposed licensing as AWS
spectrum the following bands: AWS-2 (H blocks: 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz; and J blocks: 2020-2025
MHz and 2175-2180 MHz) in 2004; AWS-3 (2155-2180 MHz) in 2007 and 2008, Service Rules for Advanced
Wireless Services in the 1915-1920 MHz, 1995-2000 MHz, 2020-2025 MHz and 2175-2180 MHz Bands, WT
Docket No. 04-356, Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket
No. 02-353, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 19263 (2004) (AWS-2 NPRM); Service Rules for
Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155-2175 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-195, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
22 FCC Rcd 17035 (2007) (AWS-3 NPRM), and Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2155-2175
MHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-195, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9859 (2008) (2008
Further Notice), respectively. The Commission has yet to adopt service rules or assign licenses for the AWS-2 and
AWS-3 bands, but is issuing a rulemaking to adopt service rules for and subsequently assign the AWS-2 H block
spectrum concurrently with this Report and Order.  See H Block NPRM.
64 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5714-16 ¶¶ 8-13.
65 See infra Section III.C. (Protection of MSS Operations). Unless otherwise indicated, the term “AWS-4” refers to
terrestrial service and the term “2 GHz MSS” refers to satellite service in the 2 GHz frequencies discussed in this
item.

10

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

22.
Sixth, we eliminate the ATC rules for the 2 GHz MSS band and propose to modify the 2
GHz MSS operators’ licenses to eliminate their ATC authority.
23.
Seventh, consistent with the scope of the AWS-4 NPRM, we take no action on the
Commission’s ATC rules for other MSS bands.66
24.
In reaching these conclusions below, we consider other possible outcomes for this
spectrum, proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM or by commenters in response thereto, but ultimately decline to
adopt them. For example, we decline to adopt any of the proposed alternative band plans, including
shifting the AWS-4 uplink spectrum or pursuing the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept that was set forth in
the AWS-4 NOI. Similarly, we reject calls to reduce or take back spectrum allocated to the 2 GHz MSS
licensees and decline to assign AWS-4 terrestrial rights through an auction.  We also decline to adopt the
interim build-out benchmarks and their associated penalties as proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM. Further,
we decline to impose restrictions on transferring or assigning AWS-4 spectrum beyond the general
requirements applicable to Wireless Radio Service spectrum generally. Nor do we impose any roaming
or wholesale obligations beyond those contained in the Commission’s rules, or “use it or share it”
obligations. Rather, the rules we adopt today represent the Commission’s efforts to make more spectrum
available for terrestrial flexible use, including for mobile broadband, in the public interest, without
imposing undue restrictions on the use of the spectrum.
25.
We emphasize that we find the rules we adopt and the actions we take and propose to
take today to be in the public interest based on the totality of the facts and circumstances before us
considered as a whole.

AWS-4 Band Plan

26.
Band plans establish parameters and provide licensees with certainty as to the spectrum
they are authorized to use.  Here, the band plan relates to the use of the spectrum by any licensee of
AWS-4 terrestrial authority, including the existing 2 GHz MSS licensees, or by any other future
licensee.67  In establishing the band plan, the Commission defines the frequency range(s), as well as
specific block(s), block sizes, and geographic areas to enable licensees to optimize their individual service
needs and business plans. As discussed below, the Commission in the AWS-4 NPRM proposed that the
AWS-4 band plan follow the existing 2 GHz MSS band plan, and that AWS-4 spectrum be licensed in
paired, 10 + 10 megahertz blocks on an Economic Area (EA) geographic-area basis.68  The Commission
sought comment on these proposals, as well as on possible alternatives, notably including proposals that
would shift the lower AWS-4 band up five megahertz to 2005-2025 MHz or shift the band up ten
megahertz while compressing the band to 2010-2025 MHz. The Commission also sought comment on
the potential costs and benefits associated with the band plan. Finally, in the AWS-4 NOI, the
Commission sought comment on an alternative band plan that would include the 1695-1710 MHz Federal
band, which NTIA has indicated could be reallocated to non-Federal use.69
27.
As explained below, based on the record before us, we adopt as the AWS-4 band plan
2000-2020 MHz paired with 2180-2200 MHz, configured in two consistently-spaced 10 megahertz
blocks. (See Figure 1, below.) Further, we will license the blocks on an EA basis.


66 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3563, 3607 ¶¶ 2, 136.
67 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570 ¶ 19.
68 Id. at 3570-73 ¶¶ 19-27.
69 Id. at 3607-3611 ¶¶ 137-147.

11

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Figure 1 – AWS-4 Band Plan

1.

AWS-4 Frequencies and Paired Spectrum (uplink/downlink)

Background

28.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed and sought comment on establishing the
AWS-4 bands at 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz, consistent with the existing frequencies for the 2
GHz MSS band.70  The Commission also proposed pairing the AWS-4 spectrum in a manner that is
consistent with the existing 2 GHz MSS band plan.71  The spectrum is currently licensed as paired
spectrum for mobile satellite use, with the 2000-2020 MHz band serving as the MSS uplink band and the
2180-2200 MHz band serving as the MSS downlink band.72  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission
proposed adopting the same uplink and downlink pairing designations for providing terrestrial service as
the 2 GHz MSS bands.73
29.
The Spectrum Act directs the Commission to make available for commercial use through
a system of competitive bidding several spectrum blocks, including 1995-2000 MHz (the AWS-2 upper H
block), unless doing so would cause interference with operations at 1930-1995 MHz (the broadband PCS
downlink band).74  Concerned about whether use of the 1995-2000 MHz band would conflict with use of
the 2000-2020 MHz for AWS-4 uplink, the Commission sought comment on alternative band plan
proposals wherein the uplink band would be shifted up 5 megahertz to 2005-2025 MHz or up 10
megahertz and compressed to 2010-2025 MHz.75  For both of these alternative proposals, the Commission
proposed that the spectrum shift would apply to both terrestrial and satellite service, which would result in
a modified 2 GHz MSS uplink band at 2005-2020 MHz or 2010-2020 MHz, respectively. Because the

70 Id. at 3577 ¶ 43.
71 Id. at 3570-73 ¶¶ 19-27.
72 The Commission allocated the uplink and downlink bands for the 2 GHz MSS spectrum in a companion item to
the Commission’s decision to permit MSS providers with the flexibility to integrate ATC into their MSS networks.
See ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1964 ¶ 1 n.1 (2003); see also 2 GHz Public Notice (seeking comment on
whether to pair this spectrum and, if so, the appropriate designation of uplink and downlink bands for possible
wireless terrestrial use in this spectrum, including on whether to adopt uplink and downlink designations opposite of
those currently specified for 2 GHz MSS).
73 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570-71 ¶ 21.
74 Spectrum Act § 6401(b)(4), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1451(b)(4).
75 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570-71 ¶ 21.

12

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

2020-2025 MHz block is allocated for terrestrial service, but not for satellite service, the Commission did
not propose to add this five megahertz to the 2 GHz MSS band in either of these proposals.76
30.
Some commenters supported the proposal to establish the AWS-4 bands at 2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz.77  For example, DISH states that the Commission’s proposed band plan would
enable the quickest road to the deployment of service in the band, would promote competition, is
consistent with international harmonization, and accords with its existing authorization to provide MSS.78
DISH opposes the alternative band plan proposals on the grounds that they are generally less likely to
yield such benefits, would complicate and delay deployment of the band, and would reduce DISH’s MSS
spectrum rights.79  Alcatel argues that shifting the lower band of the AWS-4 spectrum is unnecessary and
unwarranted.   Alcatel anticipates that the H Block would remain lightly used and effectively serve as a
guard band.80  Further, Alcatel states that setting the AWS-4 band plan to mirror the existing MSS band
plan would allow for the most efficient use of the spectrum, whereas dividing the spectrum for use by
separate MSS and terrestrial licenses would restrict data rates and capacity of each,  and would render part
of the MSS spectrum unusable.81  The Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA), in
support of the Commission’s proposed band plan, states that the Commission should “reach an equitable
solution” between protecting future 1995-2000 MHz operations and AWS-4 deployment.82
31.
A number of other commenters argued in favor of shifting the uplink spectrum 5
megahertz.  These commenters generally claim that five or ten megahertz of frequency separation
between AWS-4 and PCS or the 1995-2000 MHz band is necessary to avoid harmful interference.83  For
example, AT&T, Greenwood and Motorola recommended a shift of 5 megahertz.84 Sprint noted that the 5
MHz shift warranted serious consideration as it could protect PCS with a minimal disruption to nearby
licensees.85  Sprint also commended the shift as a good way to put the lower J Block to productive use.86
US Cellular supported the 10 megahertz shift, suggesting that 10 megahertz of separation may be needed
between AWS-4 spectrum and the 1995-2000 MHz band.87  Additionally, various parties argue that,
while frequency separation is one way to protect future use of 1995-2000 MHz, there may be other
technical solutions, as well. For instance, Sprint argues that the Commission should take steps to ensure

76 Id. at 3577 ¶ 43.
77 See, e.g., Alcatel Comments at 5, DISH Comments at 33; Globalstar Comments at 5-6, NRTC at 1, 3 (generally
supporting the expeditious adoption of proposals).
78 DISH Reply Comments at 3; Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket
Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Aug. 28, 2012).
79 DISH Comments at 34.
80 Alcatel Comments at 9, 12
81 Id. at 5, 7, 9, 12-13.
82 Letter from Catherine R. Sloan, Vice President, Government Relations, Computer & Communications Industry
Association, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356,
ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Sep. 10, 2012).
83 AT&T Comments at 7; Motorola Comments at 4.
84 AT&T Comments at 7; Motorola Comments at 3.

85 Sprint Comments at 11.
86 Id. at 11.
87 USCC Comments at 5.

13

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

that AWS-4 spectrum will not cause interference with future use of the 1995-2000 MHz band, either
though frequency separation or through the adoption of other technical rules that will protect the 1995-
2000 MHz band.88
32.
Other parties argued for more fundamental changes to the band plans identified in the
AWS-4 NPRM. For example, T-Mobile argues that DISH should be given the opportunity to relinquish
20 MHz of MSS spectrum in return for full terrestrial rights on the remaining 20 megahertz.89  This would
provide 20 megahertz of valuable terrestrial spectrum to be awarded through competitive bidding, and
would offer benefits such as preventing windfalls and promoting competition and a diversity of
ownership.90  MetroPCS advocates a “fresh start” for the 2 GHz band, offering two proposals which, it
argues, could allow benefits to the public by obtaining due compensation for the increased value that a
grant to DISH of terrestrial rights would provide.91  The first proposal would have DISH relinquish 20
megahertz of MSS spectrum and the Commission grant DISH terrestrial rights to the remaining 20
megahertz of spectrum, with the released spectrum being made available through a competitive bidding
process.92  MetroPCS’s other proposal would allow DISH to retain all 40 megahertz of spectrum for
coexisting MSS and terrestrial service outside the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs).93  Within
the top 100 markets, DISH would be allowed to retain only 10 megahertz for either MSS or terrestrial
use.94  The remaining 30 megahertz could be made available for terrestrial-only service through a
competitive bidding process.95  In addition, AT&T, while supporting the proposal to provide two 10 + 10
megahertz terrestrial licenses to the incumbent MSS licensees, argues that the MSS allocation should be
reduced to a single 10 + 10 megahertz frequency pair.96  This would allow for one of the new AWS-4
blocks to operate free from the coordination and interference challenges stemming from sharing by MSS
and terrestrial systems.97  AT&T further claims that MSS has not succeeded in the 2 GHz band and that
any unmet MSS demand could be served by a single 10 + 10 megahertz allocation.98  TIA similarly offers
support to encourage licensees to relinquish a certain amount of spectrum in exchange for a portion of the
proceeds of an auction for new terrestrial-only licenses.99  One party, CCIA, counters the proposals to cut
back on the amount of spectrum as impractical and would make it difficult to be an effective national
competitor with only 20 megahertz of spectrum.100

88 Sprint Reply Comments at 8-10; Letter from Lawrence R. Krevor – Vice President, Legal and Government
Affairs –Spectrum, Sprint, and Rafi Martina –Counsel, Legal and Government Affairs, Sprint, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 5-6 (filed Oct. 22, 2012).
89 T-Mobile Comments at 17.
90 Id. at 17-23.
91 MetroPCS Comments at 5, 29-35.
92 Id. at 30-31.
93 Id. at 31-33
94 Id. at 5, 31-33.
95 Id. at 5, 31-33.
96 AT&T Comments at 2-4.
97 Id. at 2
98 See id. at 2-3.
99 TIA Comments at 12
100 CCIA Reply comments at 8

14

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Discussion

33.
We adopt the Commission’s proposed band plan and spectrum pairing, and establish the
AWS-4 spectrum band as 2000-2020 MHz uplink band paired with 2180-2200 MHz downlink band.101
(i)

AWS-4 Frequencies

34.
We establish the AWS-4 band as 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz. After
considerable analysis of the facts and the record before us, we conclude that this band plan will result in
the most efficient use of spectrum for mobile broadband and, when paired with appropriate technical
rules,102 will not impair the future use of the 1995-2000 MHz band, thereby enabling us to best fulfill our
obligations under the Spectrum Act and our general obligation to maximize the benefits of the spectrum
for the public interest.103
35.
Establishing these frequencies for AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum is the culmination of
several years of Commission effort exploring this path. As discussed above, in July 2010, the
Commission adopted the MSS NPRM and NOI in which it proposed to add co-primary Fixed and Mobile
allocations for this spectrum. In April 2011, the Commission added these terrestrial allocations, thereby
“lay[ing] the foundation for more flexible use of the band . . . [and] promoting investment in the
development of new services and additional innovative technologies.”104  In that order, the Commission
also stated its intent to initiate a rulemaking—this proceeding—to explore “service rule changes that
could increase investment and utilization of the band in a manner that serves the public interest . . .
[including examining] potential synergies with neighboring bands.”105  The record before us demonstrates
nearly unanimous support to add terrestrial rights to the 2 GHz MSS band generally.106
36.
We adopt this band plan because, of the options available to us, it should enable the use
of the spectrum for mobile broadband in the most expeditious and efficient manner. Setting the AWS-4
band as 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz mirrors the existing 2 GHz MSS band.107  Because the
existing 2 GHz MSS licensees will have AWS-4 operating authority, under this band plan they will be
able to offer both terrestrial and satellite service using the same spectrum.108  In contrast, because the

101 See supra Figure 1.
102 See infra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).
103 See Spectrum Act § 6401(b); 47 USC § 309.
104 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5716 ¶ 13.
105 Id.
106 Alcatel Comments at 2; CCIA Comments at 4; CEA Comments at 3; COMPTEL Comments at 1; CTIA
Comments at 8; DISH Comments at 4; Globalstar Comments at 3; ITI Comments at 1; Motorola Comments at 7;
Nokia Comments at 1; NRTC Comments at 2; USGIC Comments at 2; US Cellular Comments at 2; Verizon
Wireless Comments at 4; but see AT&T Comments at 2 (arguing to reduce the MSS authorization to 20 megahertz);
MetroPCS Comments at 5, 20 (arguing to reduce MSS authorization and that sharing of terrestrial and satellite
spectrum is technically feasible); T-Mobile Comments at 6 (supporting terrestrial flexibility in the band, but
opposing some of the specific proposals contained in the AWS-4 NPRM such as stricter build-out requirements,
reassigning at least 20 megahertz through competitive bidding, and FCC approval of wholesale agreements).
107 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570 ¶ 20, citing Flexibility for Delivery of Communications by Mobile Satellite
Service Providers in the 2 GHz Band, the L-Band, and the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands and Review of the Spectrum Sharing
Plan Among Non-Geostationary Satellite orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, IB
Docket Nos. 01-185, 02-364, Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd 11030 (2003).
108 See infra Section III.D. (Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority).

15

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

2020-2025 MHz band is not allocated for MSS, shifting the AWS-4 band up to include this spectrum
would necessarily create a mismatch between the spectrum available to provide terrestrial service and the
spectrum available to provide satellite service.109
37.
We decline to adopt our alternative proposals to shift the spectrum in the lower portion of
the AWS-4 band plan. We acknowledge that setting the lower AWS-4 band at 2000-2020 MHz gives rise
to potential interference issues between the AWS-4 band and the 1995-2000 MHz band (AWS-2 upper H
block).  This raises particular concerns because, as discussed below, Congress has directed the
Commission to assign licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band through a system of competitive bidding—a
system that, among other things, promotes efficient and intensive use of that spectrum and recovers a
portion of the value of the spectrum resource.110  Regulatory actions that might compromise the utility of
the 1995-2000 MHz band cannot easily be reconciled with the purposes of the Spectrum Act’s mandate
that this band be licensed through a system of competitive bidding. We find, however, that the tension
between this mandate and the public interest benefits of the band plan we are adopting can be resolved by
promulgating appropriate technical rules for the AWS-4 band, as described below.111
38.
Because we resolve these interference issues through technical rules, we decline to adopt
any of the three alternative band plans proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM: (1) 2005-2025 MHz paired with
2180-2200 MHz; (2) 2010-2025 MHz paired with 2180-2200 MHz;112 and (3) the alternative NOI
proposal, as well as any of the alternative band plan proposals presented by commenters.113  We decline
to shift the band because we find that the technical rules we adopt below offer a better solution than
shifting the band. Further, nothing in the record has convinced us that the 2020-2025 MHz band cannot
be put to productive use in the future. We decline to pursue the alternative NOI proposal for the reasons
discussed in section VI. below.114  Finally, we decline at this time to adopt more aggressive proposals that
would reduce the amount of MSS spectrum or return licenses to the Commission, because we believe the
approach adopted herein will lead to faster and more efficient terrestrial deployment in the AWS-4 band.
(ii)

Paired Spectrum

39.
For the AWS-4 band plan, we adopt the same uplink and downlink pairing designations
as those currently used in the 2 GHz MSS band. Specifically, for AWS-4 spectrum, the lower band
(2000-2020 MHz) will be the uplink band and the upper band (2180-2200 MHz) will be the downlink
band. As we noted in the AWS-4 NPRM, “[a]dopting the same uplink/downlink pairing approach for
AWS-4 as for 2 GHz MSS may facilitate the continued use of existing satellites for MSS.”115  Thus, it is
consistent with our determination, infra, to require AWS-4 operators to protect 2 GHz MSS operations
from harmful interference.116  Stated otherwise, having the AWS-4 band parallel the spectrum pairing of
the 2 GHz MSS band, in terms of their uplink and downlink designations, will minimize the possibility
that AWS-4 operations could interfere with 2 GHz MSS operations and will offer the greatest opportunity
for synergies between the two mobile services.  Our finding is supported by the record. For example,

109 DISH Comments at 34.
110 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(3)(C)-(D).
111 See infra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).
112 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570-71 ¶¶ 20-21.
113 Id. at 3607-11 ¶¶ 137-147.
114 See infra Section VI. (Notice of Inquiry: 2 GHz Extension Band Concept).
115 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570-71 ¶ 21.
116 See infra Section III.C. (Protection of MSS Operations).

16

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Alcatel states that adoption of this proposal will contribute to making the AWS-4 spectrum quickly
available for terrestrial broadband use.117  No commenter objected to this pairing of uplink and downlink
spectrum.
2.

Spectrum Block Size and Duplex Spacing

Background

40.
The 2 GHz MSS spectrum is currently assigned as two paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks,
in an A-B/B-A duplex configuration:  Block A pairs 2000-2010 MHz with 2190-2200 MHz and Block B
pairs 2010-2020 MHz with 2180-2190 MHz. To define AWS-4 licenses, the Commission proposed
licensing the AWS-4 spectrum in paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks because the MSS band is currently
licensed as paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks.118  In proposing these spectrum block sizes, however, the
Commission noted that the 3GPP standards organization was in the process of examining whether to
change the duplex spacing for this spectrum to remove the variable duplex spacing (i.e., to change from
an A-B/B-A configuration to an A-B/A-B configuration).119  The Commission also noted that issuing
AWS-4 licenses with equivalent bandwidth would facilitate coordination between MSS and AWS
services.120  Finally, the Commission proposed a flexible paired single block option that, in the event a
single licensee holds both the A and B blocks, that licensee would be allowed to combine the blocks into
one paired 20 + 20 megahertz block.121
b.

Discussion

41.
We adopt our proposal to license the AWS-4 spectrum in two paired 10 + 10 megahertz
blocks, but, in doing so, we adopt a consistent (i.e., non-variable) duplex spacing. The AWS-4 band will
therefore consist of two paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks as follows: Block A pairs 2000-2010 MHz with
2180-2190 MHz and Block B pairs 2010-2020 MHz with 2190-2200 MHz.
42.
Block Size.  We adopt 10 megahertz blocks as the block size for the AWS-4 band.  This
block size has several advantages.  First, it mirrors the current MSS/ATC block size. Second, spectrum
bands of this size will encourage technologies that utilize wider bandwidth, and will encourage the
adoption of and use of next generation technologies.  This is particularly the case in a band, such as this
one, where large contiguous blocks are readily configurable.122  We expect that use of wide, contiguous
blocks of spectrum will support continued innovation and deployment of mobile broadband technologies,
such as Long Term Evolution (“LTE”), to meet higher data rates and wider bandwidths.123  Additionally,
10 + 10 megahertz blocks allow for the possibility that multiple providers may make use of the spectrum
(including through the operation of secondary markets), but can also be used as a single 20 + 20
megahertz block if a single operator controls both blocks in a market.124  The record supports both the 10
+ 10 MHz blocks and the ability for a single operator to combine both blocks into a 20 + 20 MHz

117 Alcatel Comments at 5-6.
118 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3571-72 ¶ 22.
119 Id. at 3571-72 ¶ 22.
120 Id. at 3572 ¶ 23.
121 Id. at 3572 ¶ 24.
122 TIA Comments at 8; Nokia Comments at 4.
123 AT&T Comments at 10 (“10 megahertz pairs will be more useful in support of LTE and other mobile broadband
technologies than smaller blocks.”).
124 TIA Comments at 8.

17

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

block.125  For example, Nokia argued that the allocation must allow channel sizes of at least 20 MHz of
spectrum (10 MHz in each direction) for the effective content delivery today and will need to be even
wider in the near future. No one submitted comments in opposition to the 10 + 10 block size for AWS-4
terrestrial licenses.126  Thus, to support the continued innovation of mobile broadband technologies by
providing wide, contiguous channels, we adopt our proposal to license the AWS-4 spectrum in paired 10
+ 10 megahertz blocks.
43.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed that, in the event that a single licensee
holds both the A and the B Blocks, that licensee should be permitted to combine the blocks into one
paired 20 + 20 megahertz block.127  We adopt this proposal.  We find it consistent with the record,128 with
our decision to permit flexible use of AWS-4 spectrum, and with our technical findings below.  The rules
adopted herein will allow a licensee holding all paired 20 + 20 megahertz of AWS-4 spectrum to make
use of that spectrum as it sees fit, so long as such use otherwise complies with the Commission’s rules,
including the technical and interference rules established herein.129  Thus, we will provide a licensee
holding AWS-4 terrestrial authority with the opportunity to design its network in a manner that enables it
to best respond to its business and technical needs.130  For example, combining these blocks may enable a
licensee to benefit from establishing larger channel bandwidths, such as paired 15 + 15 megahertz or 20 +
20 megahertz blocks, which can result in greater spectral efficiency and network capacity and,
consequently, improved customer experiences.131
44.
Duplex Spacing.  We find that the paired 10 megahertz blocks should operate with a
consistent duplex spacing. Thus, block A will pair 2000-2010 MHz with 2180-2190 MHz and Block B
will pair 2010-2020 MHz with 2190-2200 MHz. We license the AWS-4 spectrum such that duplex
spacing of the spectrum blocks will be uniform. Although some commenters support using the existing 2
GHz MSS duplex spacing for AWS-4,132 we concur with other parties, such as AT&T, that to “facilitate
the deployment of terrestrial AWS-4 service, the Commission should adopt an A-B/A-B configuration,
similar to the consistent duplex spacing used in other AWS and 3GPP standards.”133  Further, this is

125 Alcatel Comments at 5; AT&T Comments at 10; DISH Comments at 32; Nokia Comments at 4; TIA Comments
at 8; NRTC Comments at 7-8
126 However, AT&T argued that the MSS allocation be reduced to one single 10 + 10 MHz block. AT&T
Comments at 2-4. DISH opposed AT&T’s alternative plan. DISH Reply at 18-22. We decline to pursue AT&T’s
request that we reallocate part of the 2 GHz band. As the Commission stated in 2011 when adding the co-primary
fixed and mobile allocations to the band, “MSS remains co-primary in the 2 GHz MSS band…Both of the MSS
licensees in the band will continue to operate under the terms of their existing licenses.”  2 GHz Band Co-Allocation
Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5714-15 ¶ 110.
127 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3572 ¶ 24.
128 See, e.g., DISH Comments at 32; Alcatel Comments at 6; NRTC Comments at 7-8.
129 See infra Section III.B.1. (Interference Between Adjacent Block AWS-4 Licensees), Section III.B.2. (Co-
Channel Interference Among AWS-4 Systems)
130 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3572 ¶ 24.
131 NRTC Comments at 7-8.
132 See, e.g., Motorola Comments at 2-3; Alcatel Comments at 7 (Alcatel comments that the AWS-4 licensee should
have the choice of keeping the 2 GHz MSS allocation of A-B/B-A or changing the allocation to A-B/A-B.) The 2
GHz MSS band is currently assigned in two blocks: Block A pairs 2000-2010 MHz with 2190-2200 MHz; Block B
pairs 2010-2020 MHz with 2180-2190 MHz.
133 AT&T Comments at 5.

18

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

consistent with the recent change by 3GPP in band class 23 to shift from an A-B/B-A pairing to an
A-B/A-B pairing.134 Thus, to promote uniformity among mobile wireless bands and to maintain
consistency with standards setting bodies, we find it appropriate to license AWS-4 spectrum bands in
A-B/A-B paired blocks.
45.
Changes to MSS Duplex Spacing.  Currently, the two MSS licenses in the band are
arranged with one license authorized to use of 2000-2010 MHz as uplink paired with 2190-2200 MHz as
downlink, and the other authorized to use 2010-2020 MHz uplink paired with 2180-2190 MHz downlink.
That is, there are effectively two blocks, each 10 + 10 megahertz, paired A-B/B-A. In the AWS-4 NPRM,
we suggested mirroring this approach for the AWS-4 license, in part to facilitate coordination between
MSS and AWS-4 services.135  However, as discussed above, we are establishing the AWS-4 blocks in an
A-B/A-B pairing, rather than an A-B/B-A pairing. There remains, however, a need to coordinate between
MSS and AWS-4 operations. In fact, as discussed below, we have found that the assignment of AWS-4
terrestrial use rights must be made to the existing MSS authorization holders to allow coordination and
prevention of harmful interference.136  Therefore, we determine to also align the MSS blocks with the
AWS-4 blocks.137  Because, as AT&T states, the MSS satellites should be “capable of providing service
under a modified A-B/A-B configuration,” this rearrangement should be feasible and not present a
significant burden on the MSS licensees. 138 Consequently, we adopt a rearrangement of the 2 GHz MSS
blocks as follows: the first block shall be 2000-2010 MHz uplink paired with 2180-2190 MHz downlink,
and the second block shall be 2010-2020 MHz paired with 2190-2200 MHz. This rearrangement results
in the first MSS block aligning with the AWS-4 A block, and the second MSS block aligning with the
AWS-4 B block.139
46.
Interoperability.  The AWS-4 NPRM also sought comment on whether the Commission
should take action to ensure that equipment for the AWS-4 band is interoperable across both paired
blocks.140  No commenters discussed this issue.  As the AWS-4 spectrum will be licensed to the existing 2
GHz MSS licensees,141 and the commenter controlling both licensees has stated its desire to operate
across the entire band,142 we anticipate that its operations would result in devices that operate across the
entire AWS-4 band. We therefore take no action at this time on this issue.  We observe, however, that the

134 Compare Older LTE RF standard for user equipment, 3GPP TS 36.101 R10.5.0, at 26, available at
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/36 series/36.101/36101-a50.zip (last visited Nov. 30, 2012) (Older LTE RF
standard for UE) with 3GPP Specification TS 36.101 v10.8.0 available at
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/Specs/archive/36 series/36.101/36101-a80.zip at 28. (LTE RF Standard for UEs) (last
visited Dec. 4, 2012).    While the 3GPP standard shows evidence of the utility of consistent duplex spacing, we
emphasize that we are not making our decision based on the determination of a third party standards body.  See also
AT&T Comments at 5.

135 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570 ¶ 20.
136 See infra Section III.D. (Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority)
137 See supra Section III.A.1.b.ii. (Paired Spectrum).
138 See AT&T Comments at 5-6.
139 We address the assignment of the A and B blocks below.  See infra Section III.D. (Assignment of AWS-4
Operating Authority).
140 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3570 ¶ 20.
141 See infra Section III.D. (Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority)
142 DISH Comments at 31-32.

19

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Commission is investigating interoperability issues in other contexts.143  We continue to believe that
interoperability is an important aspect of future deployment of mobile broadband services. We will
closely examine any actions taken that have the potential to undermine the development of
interoperability in the AWS-4 band and may take action on this issue if it is warranted in the future.
3.

Geographic Area Licensing

Background

47.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to license the AWS-4 spectrum using a
geographic area approach.144  The Commission made this proposal, in part, to be consistent with other
AWS bands.145  The Commission also proposed licensing AWS-4 spectrum on a geographic area basis
because such an approach is well suited for the types of fixed and mobile services likely to be deployed in
the band.146  The Commission then proposed that the geographic areas should be Economic Areas
(EAs).147  No commenters opposed the proposal to adopt geographic-area licensing, as compared to other
approaches, such as site-based licensing. Comments were varied regarding the proposal to use EAs as
basis for geographic licensing.
b.

Discussion

48.
We will assign terrestrial spectrum use rights in the AWS-4 band on a geographic-area
basis.  A geographic-area licensing approach is well suited for the types of fixed and mobile services we
expect to be deployed in this band. Further, geographic-area licensing will maintain consistency between
the AWS-4 band and the AWS-1 band.
49.
We will award terrestrial rights for the AWS-4 spectrum on an EA basis.  In doing so, we
observe that the record is mixed on this issue. Some commenters argue that an EA based licensing
approach establishes geographic areas that are too small for nationwide service. For example, DISH
comments that AWS-4 should be licensed on a nationwide basis because EAs are more difficult to
administer than nationwide licenses and do not serve the demand for broad geographic service
coverage.148  SIA argues that it is not practical to constrain MSS and AWS licensees in the same
frequency bands by limited geographic areas.149  Additionally, AT&T asserts that EAs are too small and
that AWS-4 license areas should be based on the 52 Major Economic Areas (MEAs), rather than the 176
EAs.150  Conversely, several parties assert that EAs are the proper size and that they enable the proper

143 See, Promoting Interoperability in the 700 MHz Commercial Spectrum, WT Docket No. 12-69, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 27 FCC Rcd 3521 (2012).
144 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3572-73 ¶¶ 25-27.
145 Id. at 3572-73 ¶¶ 25-27. (AWS-1 is licensed on a geographic basis, and geographic licensing schemes have been
proposed for both AWS-2 and AWS-3. See AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25162; AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC
Rcd 25162; AWS-3 NPRM, 22 FCC Rcd 17035.
146 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3572 ¶ 25.
147 Id. at 3572-73 ¶ 26.
148 DISH Comments at 32.
149 SIA Comments at 4.
150 AT&T Comments at 10.

20

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

balancing between encouraging wide-spread geographic build-out and providing licensees with sufficient
flexibility in developing individual business plans.151
50.
Having examined the record, we adopt an EA licensing area scheme. We do so for four
reasons. First, addressing the concerns of those seeking larger license areas, EA license areas are a useful
and appropriate geographic unit that Commission has used for similar bands. Notably, AWS-1 Blocks B
and C spectrum is licensed on an EA basis. EA licenses can be aggregated up to larger license areas,
including into MEAs or larger units, including nationwide.152  Second, EA-based licensing is consistent
with the other requirements adopted herein, most notably the performance requirements discussed below,
which establish EA-based build-out requirements.153  Third, licensing AWS-4 on an EA basis best
balances the Commission’s goals of encouraging the offering of broadband service both to broad
geographic areas and to sizeable populations.154  For example, as one commenter notes, licensing in
smaller geographic blocks averts the phenomenon of huge tracts of licensed territory being left
unserved.155  Finally, contrary to DISH’s unsubstantiated claim that “[s]mall EA licenses are more
difficult to administer and do not serve the demand for broad geographic coverage”156 we do not believe
that licensing on an EA basis impairs nationwide operations. Indeed, other than the PCS G block, all
other major terrestrial spectrum bands are licensed in discrete geographic areas, including AWS-1, several
blocks of which are licensed on an EA-basis.157  These bands have not proven unduly difficult for
licensees to administer.  Consequently, because EAs allow licensees to build their geographic coverage as
needed, are consistent with the other requirements established for this band, and promote the
Commission’s goal of widespread broadband service, we adopt the proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM to
assign AWS-4 spectrum rights on an EA basis.
51.
Gulf of Mexico. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on how to
include the Gulf of Mexico in its licensing scheme.158  The Commission questioned if the Gulf should be
licensed in a similar fashion as the Upper 700 MHz band, where the Gulf was included as part of larger
service areas, or whether the Gulf should be licensed separately.159  The Commission has addressed the
issue of licensing the Gulf of Mexico in other proceedings and we will follow the established policy on
this issue.160  Therefore, because we are adopting an EA-based licensing scheme,161 and the Commission
received no comments directly addressing this issue, we will license the Gulf of Mexico as EA licensing

151 NTCH Comments at 10-11; NRTC Comments at 6; see also U.S. Cellular Comments at 6-7 (suggesting EAs
should be used “at a minimum,” but “smaller CMAs would better serve the public interest.”).
152 Any such aggregation, however, would not relieve a licensee from obligations that are based on the original EA
license area, such as, importantly, build-out requirements.  See infra Section III.E. (Performance Requirements)
(discussing build-out requirements).
153 See Section III.E. (Performance Requirements).
154 NRTC Comments at 6.
155 NTCH Comments at 10; USCC Reply Comments at 7.
156 DISH Comments at 32.
157 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(h)(2).
158 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3573 ¶ 27.
159 Id. at 3573 ¶ 27.
160 See, e.g., AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25177 ¶ 40.
161 See supra ¶¶ 49-50.

21

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

area 176.162  As we did in licensing other Part 27 services, the Gulf of Mexico service area is comprised
of the water area of the Gulf of Mexico starting 12 nautical miles from the U.S. Gulf coast and extending
outward.163

Technical Issues

52.
Pursuant to its statutory direction in the Communications Act, the Commission adopts
rules for commercial spectrum in a manner that furthers and maximizes the public interest. For example,
allowing spectrum to be repurposed for its highest and best use serves this end as more efficient spectrum
use, among other things, spurs investment and benefits consumers through better performance and lower
prices.164  Deciding how best to further and maximize the public interest, moreover, is not an assessment
that is made in a vacuum. Notably, when developing policies for a particular band, the Commission looks
at other bands that might be affected, particularly the adjacent bands. In revising its rules, therefore, the
Commission often must strike a balance among competing interests of adjacent bands, and between
sometimes competing public interest considerations.
53.
The rules for one band, particularly the interference protection rules, affect the use and
value of other bands and thus the public interest benefits that can be realized through the use of those
adjacent bands.  Moreover, the public interest analysis, and the balancing of interests across bands, does
not necessarily reduce to an inquiry about the amount of spectrum that is or could be made available in
the relevant bands. Not all spectrum use has equal value or leads to the same public interest benefits. For
example, as explained below, wireless providers tend to use more downlink than uplink spectrum.165
Therefore, it is not clear that the loss of some uplink spectrum would diminish the value of, or the
public’s interest in, a large paired band when compared to the value that would be created in enabling a
smaller full power downlink band. Indeed, the public interest benefits of a fully usable new downlink
spectrum band likely are substantially greater than a fully usable equal sized addition of uplink spectrum
that is a part of a larger band.166  The balancing between adjacent bands may be weighted further if one
band will enable the combination of spectrum bands, including the aggregation of smaller bands, while
the other band does not.
54.
When the Commission adopted the MSS/ATC regime in 2003, it addressed intra-service
and adjacent-band interference concerns, and enacted unique MSS/ATC technical rules in Part 25 of the
Commission’s rules. These rules did not fully align with the technical rules for similar terrestrial
operations in other bands.167  Subsequently, in 2009 and 2010, in addressing requests for ATC authority
by the two 2 GHz MSS authorization holders, ICO and TerreStar, the Commission granted waivers of
several of the Part 25 ATC interference rules.168  These waivers resulted in better aligning the terrestrial

162 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(a)(1).
163 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.6(a)(2), (c)(2)(ii).
164 See, e.g., Incentive Auction NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 12357 ¶ 4 (discussing that additional spectrum will “promote
economic growth and enhance America’s global competitiveness, increase the speed, capacity and ubiquity of
mobile broadband service, such as 4G LTE and Wi-Fi like networks, and accelerate the smartphone- and tablet-led
mobile revolution, benefitting consumers and businesses throughout the country”).
165 See infra ¶ 80.
166 See infra ¶¶ 66, 68, 80.
167 The ATC interference rules for the 2 GHz MSS band are contained in rule 25.252.  See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252; ATC
Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 2020-2030 ¶¶ 109-127.
168 See ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd 171, 183-197 ¶¶ 35-64, 68-69; TerreStar Waiver Order, 25 FCC Rcd 228,
235-237, 239-240 ¶¶ 20-27, 33-34.

22

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

requirements for the 2 GHz MSS band operators with the Part 27 technical rules that apply to AWS-1
license holders. Earlier this year, the International Bureau denied requests to waive additional technical
rules, deferring those issues to this proceeding, as contemplated in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report
and Order.169
55.
In this section, we adopt the technical operating rules (e.g., interference rules) that will
govern AWS-4 operations and licensees. In general, our aim in establishing technical rules is to
maximize the flexible use of spectrum while appropriately protecting operations in neighboring bands.170
We also specifically consider here our statutory obligations set forth in the Spectrum Act with respect to
the 1995-2000 MHz band. We base the technical rules we adopt below on the rules for AWS-1 spectrum,
with specific additions or modifications designed to protect operations in adjacent bands from harmful
interference.  These bands include (1) the existing 1930-1995 MHz broadband PCS service; (2) future
services operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band; and (3) Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
1.

OOBE Limits

56.
In this section we adopt interference rules for operations between AWS-4 blocks within
the AWS-4 band and between AWS-4 blocks and adjacent and nearby bands. In the event that, once
individual systems are deployed and operational, it is determined that these limitations do not prevent an
AWS-4 fixed or mobile transmitter from causing harmful interference, we shall, at our discretion, require
the licensee of that transmitter to provide greater emission attenuation consistent with the typical
treatment of Part 27 services.171
a.

Interference Between Services in Adjacent AWS-4 Blocks

(i)

Background

57.
To minimize harmful interference between adjacent spectrum blocks, the Commission’s
rules generally limit the amount of radio frequency (RF) power that may be emitted outside of the
assigned block of an RF transmission. The Commission has previously concluded that attenuating OOBE
by 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at the edge of an assigned block, where P is the transmit power in watts, is
appropriate to minimize harmful electromagnetic interference between terrestrial base station operations
in the 2180-2190 MHz and 2190-2200 MHz blocks172 and between terrestrial mobile emissions in the
2000-2010 MHz 2010-2020 MHz blocks.173 Further, when establishing AWS-1 service rules, the
Commission concluded that such a level of attenuation was appropriate for protecting terrestrial wireless
systems that will operate in the AWS bands.174  This level of attenuation is now codified in the
Commission’s rules for the AWS-1 band, for both mobile station and base station emissions.175
58.
To fully define an emissions limit, the Commission’s rules generally specify details of the
measurement procedure to determine the power of the emissions, such as the measurement bandwidth.

169 See New DBSD Satellite Services G.P., Debtor-in-Possession; TerreStar Licensee Inc., Debtor-in-Possession;
Requests for Rule Waivers and Modified Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 2250
(2012); 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5716 ¶ 13.
170 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3573 ¶ 29.
171 See 47 C.F.R. § 27. 53(n).
172 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3574 ¶ 32; see also ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 187 ¶ 44.
173 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3574 ¶ 32; see also ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 194 ¶ 62.
174 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3574 ¶ 32; see also AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25198 ¶ 92.
175 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(h).  This OOBE limit also applies in the broadband PCS band. See 47 C.F.R. § 24.238.

23

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

The Part 25 ATC rules determine mobile station compliance with the OOBE limit based on a
measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater.176  For AWS-1, the measurement bandwidth used to
determine compliance with this limit for both mobile stations and base stations is generally 1 MHz, with
some modification within the first 1 MHz.177  Previously, the Commission concluded the AWS-1
measurement procedure was also appropriate for mobile stations operating in 2000-2020 MHz.178  At that
time the Commission did not address the measurement procedure for base stations operating in 2180-
2200 MHz.179  For these reasons, the Commission believed it was similarly reasonable to apply the AWS-
1 procedure to both mobile and base transmissions in the AWS-4 band.180  Therefore, in the AWS-4
NPRM, the Commission proposed that Section 27.53(h) of the Commission’s rules, which includes
OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB and the associated measurement procedure, be expanded to
apply to AWS-4 operations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.181
(ii)

Discussion

59.
We adopt the above proposals regarding interference between adjacent AWS-4 blocks
and the corresponding measurement procedures. Specifically, we require fixed and mobile transmitters
operating in 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands to attenuate emissions outside the licensed
channels in these bands by 43 + 10 log10(P) dB, unless all affected parties agree otherwise.  This limit of
43 + 10 log10(P) dB is consistent with other CMRS bands, including the AWS-1 band that forms the basis
for many of the technical rules we adopt herein.  This specific emission limit, as well as the principle of
adopting the same limits across multiple CMRS bands, is supported by the record.  For example, AT&T,
NRTC, and SIA comment that OOBE limits in AWS-4 should be consistent with rules for other CMRS
services.182  Further, we disagree with DISH’s assertion that its intent to operate unified operations in the
band makes it unnecessary for us to establish emissions levels between adjacent block AWS-4
operations.183  We observe, however, that to the extent a service provider establishes unified operations
across the AWS-4 blocks, that operator may choose not to observe this emission level strictly between its
adjacent block AWS-4 licenses in a geographic area, so long as it complies with other Commission rules
and is not adversely affecting the operations of other parties by virtue of exceeding the emission limit.
60.
Additionally, we adopt the proposed measurement procedures. The record supports
applying the proposed measurement procedures found in Section 27.53(h) to AWS-4 mobile and base
stations.184 Specifically, we require a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater, with an exception
allowing a smaller measurement bandwidth within the first megahertz outside the channel. In sum, after

176 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(c)(4).
177 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(h)(1).
178 See ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 194-195 ¶¶ 63-64.
179 This has been noted by DBSD and TerreStar, both of whom suggested that the mobile measurement procedure be
used for base stations as well.  See New DBSD Satellite Services G.P., Debtor-in-Possession, Application for
Modification of Ancillary Terrestrial Component Authority, IB Docket No. 11–149, at 8-9 (Aug. 22, 2011);
TerreStar License Inc., Debtor-in-Possession, Application for Modification of Ancillary Terrestrial Component
Authority, IB Docket No. 11–149, at 12 n.23 (Aug. 22, 2011) (TerreStar Waiver Request).
180 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3574 ¶ 32.
181 Id. at 3574-75 ¶ 33
182 AT&T Comments at 4, 9; NRTC Comments at 9; SIA Comments at 2.
183 DISH Comments at 29.
184 See DISH Comments at 29-30. No party opposed the proposal.

24

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

reviewing the record and finding it supports the Commission’s proposals, we conclude that the potential
benefits of our proposals would outweigh any potential costs and adopt the proposed OOBE limit and
measurement procedures.
b.

Interference with Services in Adjacent and Other Bands

61.
Having established interference rules for operations between adjacent AWS-4 blocks, we
next set rules for AWS-4 operations relative to operations in adjacent and nearby spectrum bands. In so
doing, wherever possible, we establish rules that permit flexible use of the AWS-4 band, while effectively
protecting adjacent and nearby bands from harmful interference resulting from AWS-4 emissions. As a
preliminary matter, we observe that the Commission frequently applies a minimum attenuation level of
43 + 10 log10(P) dB to protect operations in adjacent frequency bands.185
(i)

Interference with operations below 1995 MHz

62.
Background: The AWS-4 uplink band is proximate to the broadband Personal
Communications Service (PCS) downlink band at 1930-1995 MHz.  To protect PCS mobile receivers
from harmful electromagnetic interference from mobile stations transmitting in 2000-2020 MHz, the ATC
rules specify an attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB below 1995 MHz.186  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the
Commission proposed that this emission limit should continue to apply to terrestrial operations in the
2000-2020 MHz band, and that a rule should be added to Part 27 that fixed and mobile transmitters
operating in 2000-2020 MHz must attenuate emissions below 1995 MHz by 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.187  We
also proposed that this attenuation should be measured using the existing measurement procedure per
Section 27.53(h).188
63.
Discussion:  We conclude that fixed and mobile transmitters operating in the 2000-2020
MHz AWS-4 uplink band must attenuate emissions below 1995 MHz by 70 + 10 log10(P) dB. We also
apply the existing measurement procedure contained in Section 27.53(h) of our rules, whereby a
measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater is required, with an exception allowing a smaller
measurement bandwidth in the first megahertz outside the channel. This emission level is supported by
the record.  AT&T, CTIA, Sprint, and T-Mobile all support the need to protect PCS operations below
1995 MHz.189  DISH, Greenwood, Motorola, Nokia, and Sprint all support our proposed OOBE limit of
70 + 10 log10(P) dB below 1995 MHz for AWS-4 emissions.190  No commenters opposed this OOBE
limit.191  Given the record before us, we therefore conclude that the potential benefits of our proposals

185 See e.g., AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25198 ¶ 92; 47 C.F.R. § 24.238.
186 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(c)(2). This value was not waived or requested to be waived during any of the ATC
designation or other MSS/ATC related procedures.
187 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3575 ¶ 35.
188 Id. See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(h).
189 AT&T Comments at 6-7; CTIA Comments at 2-3, 10-11 and CTIA Reply at 6-8; Sprint Comments at 8-9 and
Sprint Reply at 5; T-Mobile Comments at 7-8, 24-25.
190 DISH Comments at 26; Greenwood Comments at 15; Motorola Comments at 6; Nokia Reply Comments at 4;
Sprint Comments at 10-11.
191 We observe that DISH and Sprint have disagreed as to the technical standards that the 3rd Generation Partnership
Project (3GPP) had established to protect operations in 1990-1995 MHz from interference from 2 GHz MSS/ATC
operators.  This disagreement was resolved on Nov. 13, 2012 in 3GPP as -40 dBm/MHz, equivalent to 70 + 10
log10(P) dB, although DISH has expressed concern that Sprint might reopen this issue. We decline to insert
ourselves into this dispute before an external standards organization.  See e.g., Letter from Lawrence R. Krevor,
Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs - Spectrum, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket
(continued….)

25

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

would outweigh any potential costs and adopt this out-of-band emission limit below 1995 MHz for all
fixed and mobile transmitters operating in the AWS-4 uplink band.
(ii)

Interference with operations in 1995-2000 MHz

64.
General Considerations. As explained above, in considering the rules that should govern
potential interference between the spectrum being repurposed—here, AWS-4 spectrum—and the adjacent
bands, to maximize the public interest, the Commission must consider the value of potential uses in both
bands.  We are thus generally disinclined to treat an adjacent band as a permanent guard band, which, by
definition, would preclude most use of that spectrum for the provision of full flexible use service to the
public, or as a limited use band, which would have considerably less economic value than would a full
flexible use band.
65.
Here, one of the adjacent bands—the 1995-2000 MHz portion of the H block—is not in
use today, but Congress has directed that it be licensed via a system of competitive bidding by February
2015.192  As explained below, this adjacent band raises particularly difficult technical issues because it
may result in an uplink band (2000-2020 MHz) adjacent to a downlink band (1995-2000 MHz).193  The
technical rules we adopt today, therefore, are designed to protect future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz
band from harmful interference by future operations in the repurposed AWS-4 band.194  Moreover,
enabling full flexible use of the 1995-2000 MHz band may lead to the pairing of this band with the 1915-
1920 MHz band, which would thereby maximize the public interest benefit of both of these five
megahertz bands.195  Furthermore, we recognize that in establishing rules that allow the 1995-2000 MHz
(Continued from previous page)
Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Sep. 17, 2012) (Sprint Sep. 17 Letter); Letter from Jeffrey H.
Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket
Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142 at Appendix 2-4 (filed Sep. 24, 2012) (DISH Sep. 24 Letter); Letter
from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y,
FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142 at 2 (filed Nov. 14, 2012) (DISH Nov. 14 Letter);
Letter from Marc S. Martin, Counsel for Sprint Nextel Corporation, K&L Gates LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y,
FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Nov. 14, 2012) (Sprint Nov. 14 Letter);
Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142 at Appendix 2-4 (filed Nov. 26, 2012).
192 See infra ¶ 81 (discussing the H block provisions of the Spectrum Act). This requirement is subject to one
exception, that the operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band not interfere with operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band.
There is no technical information in the record to indicate that such interference would occur.
193 In 2004, the Commission determined to pair the 1915-1920 MHz band with the 1995-2000 MHz band, and
contemplated that the lower band would be used for mobile transmissions. Amendment of Part 2 of the
Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction
of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, RM-
9498, RM-10024, 19 FCC Rcd 20720, 20739-20740 ¶ 38-41 (2004) (AWS Sixth Report and Order). In particular,
the Commission determined that these bands were comparable to the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz PCS
bands, which are used as uplink and downlink bands, respectively.  Id., 19 FCC Rcd at 20740 ¶ 39 (“We also find
that due to similar characteristics and proximity to Broadband PCS, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band
pairing is comparable to the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz band pairing”); see also 2008 Further Notice, 23
FCC Rcd at 9860-61 ¶ 4 (2008) (proposing that the 1995-2000 MHz band be used for downlink and that mobile
transmissions be prohibited in the band).
194 See infra Section III.B.1.b.ii (Interference with operations in 1995-2000 MHz), Section III.B.4.b. (Mobile
Stations); see supra Section III.A.1. (AWS-4 Frequencies and Paired Spectrum (uplink/downlink)) (defining the
frequencies being repurposed here).
195 The Spectrum Act also requires the Commission to make available the 1915-1920 MHz band unless its use
would cause interference with operations in the 1930-1995 MHz band.  See Spectrum Act § 6401(b); see supra
Section II.B (The Spectrum Act).

26

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

spectrum band to be put to its highest and best use, we also further Congress’s objectives related to the
use of public safety broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The Spectrum Act directs that the
proceeds from the auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band be deposited into the Public Safety
Trust Fund, which will be used to fund FirstNet.196
66.
In considering the rules that should govern potential interference between the 1995-2000
MHz band, which the Commission envisions as a downlink band,197 and the adjacent AWS-4 uplink
band, the Commission must consider the public interest benefits associated with potential uses in both
bands, including, but not limited to, the net effect on the economic values of these bands, and adopt
technical rules accordingly. The public interest in the 1995-2000 MHz band is almost certainly
maximized if the band is used as an additional PCS band.198  DISH, conversely, argued first that the
Commission should effectively treat the 1995-2000 MHz band as a guard band, which would eliminate
most of its value.199  DISH then argued that the H block should not be made available for full power
use,200 and instead could be auctioned for air-to-ground or small cell use,201 although both of these uses
would, in our assessment, have considerably less economic value and other public interest benefits than
an additional PCS downlink band.202  Limiting the use of the band to air-to-ground operations would be

196 See Spectrum Act §§ 6401(f), 6413.
197 H Block NPRM, at  ¶ 23-25 (proposing the 1995-2000 MHz band be made available as a downlink band). In
addition, in 2008, the Commission specifically proposed that the 1995-2000 MHz band be made available for
downlink transmissions only.  2008 Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9860-61 ¶ 4 (“Prohibit mobile transmissions in
the 1995-2000 MHz band); see also AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20739 ¶ 39 (“We also find that
due to similar characteristics and proximity to broadband PCS, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band
pairings is comparable to the 1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz band pairing.”).
198 See H Block NPRM, at ¶¶ 1, 8.
199 See, e.g., DISH Comments at 28 (arguing for strict emissions and power limits on 1995-2000 MHz).
200 Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 2 (filed Oct. 11, 2012) (DISH Oct. 11
Letter).
201 See e.g., Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Oct. 3, 2012) (DISH Oct. 3
Letter); Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 5-6 (filed Oct. 17, 2012) DISH Oct.
17 Letter).
202 See Letter from Marc S. Martin, Counsel for Sprint Nextel Corporation, K&L Gates LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1-2 (filed Nov. 2, 2012) (Sprint Nov. 2
Letter); Letter from Marc S. Martin, Counsel for Sprint Nextel Corporation, K&L Gates LLP, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1-2 (filed Oct. 31, 2012) (Sprint Oct. 31
Letter). DISH argues that limiting the band to small cells would not reduce its value. See Letter from Jeffrey H.
Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket
Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142 at 2 (filed Nov. 6, 2012) (DISH Nov. 6 Letter). However, DISH bases
its argument, in part, on the inappropriate assumption that the 1995-2000 MHz band will be limited to low power in
any case, arguing that this band will need to parallel power limitations DISH presumes will be adopted in the 1915-
1920 MHz band.  See id. at 2.  First, although commenters have suggested power limitations in the 1915-1920 MHz
band, (See e.g., Joint Reply Comments of Sprint Corporation, Verizon Wireless and Nextel Communications, WT
Docket Nos. 04-356, 02-353 at 2-3 (filed Feb. 8, 2005) (Joint Reply Comments on H Block)) we have not yet
adopted H block rules. Second, and more importantly, even if such power limits are adopted, parallel limits will not
necessarily be needed for 1995-2000 MHz in the event the band is paired. Rather, with data technologies, more
power can be used to increase data speeds, and higher speeds are needed on the downlink than on the uplink [see
(continued….)

27

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

inconsistent with the Spectrum Act’s direction to license the 1995-2000 MHz band for flexible use.
Additionally, both the air-to-ground and small cell proposals, by precluding the possibility of full power
cellular operations, would restrict the value of the band in a way that we believe does not promote the
public interest in this particular instance given specific characteristics of the band and the available
alternative of higher power use. All four nationwide wireless providers have broadband PCS spectrum, as
do regional and rural providers, and any of these providers could use additional PCS spectrum to expand
capacity. One analyst projected that the value of the paired H block would be $2-3 billion, which implies
a price of at least $0.67-$1.00 per MHz POP, or $1-$1.5 billion for the downlink band.203  We note that
economists frequently consider it a rule of thumb that the public benefit of a licensed spectrum band
typically equates to about ten times its value at auction.204  Although as a matter of practice the
Commission does not predict auction prices, we reference these figures as an indicator of the economic
value or public benefit that could be derived from the spectrum, if it is usable for high power commercial
services.205  Indeed, Sprint suggests that auctioning the H block will produce “enormous public
benefits,”206 that the H block will be highly valued because it is cleared and ready for deployment,207 and
that it will help carriers meet needs for throughput, peak speeds, and capacity.208
67.
The public interest benefits of the AWS-4 spectrum, including its economic value,209 will
also increase significantly once it is available for terrestrial use.  The largest increase in value would
occur if AWS-4 operations did not need to protect any adjacent bands. But that is not the case here. For
example, DISH has acknowledged the need for AWS-4 operations to comply with technical rules
designed to prevent harmful interference below 2180 MHz and above 2200 MHz.210  However, DISH
argues that, while licensees of AWS-4 authority should also be subject to technical rules for operations
(Continued from previous page)
infra ¶ 80, so there is no need to balance the uplink and downlink as suggested by DISH.  See DISH Nov. 6 Letter at
3 (indicating downlink power will be “wasted”).
203 Jonathan Chaplin, Spencer Kurn, Sprint/Softbank Details Emerge; Positive For Sprint And Other Carriers;
Mixed For Towers, Credit Suisse, Equity Research - Wireless Telecommunication Services, at 3 (Oct. 15, 2012); see
also Philip Cusick, CFA, Eric Pan CFA, Richard Choe, Derya Erdemli, CFA, DISH Network, Wireless Business
Update: We Estimate $5.5b NPV of Business Based on Shared Network Buildout, at 2, 4 (Nov. 26, 2012)
(estimating the value of the paired H block at $1-2 billion).
204 See e.g., Gregory L. Rosston, The Long and Winding Road: The FCC Paves the Path with Good Intentions, 27
Telecomms. Pol’y 501 (2003).
205 Thus, contrary to DISH’s suggestion, auction revenues are not dictating our public interest determination.  See
Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President & Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y,
Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3-4 (filed Nov.
26, 2012) (DISH Nov. 26 Ex Parte Letter).
206 Letter from Rafi Martina, Staff Attorney, Government Affairs, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT
Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Jul. 2, 2012) (Sprint Jul. 2 Letter).
207 See e.g., Letter from Trey Hanbury, Director, Government Affairs, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC,
WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Jul. 24, 2012) (Sprint Jul. 24 Letter).
208 Letter from Rafi Martina, Staff Attorney, Government Affairs, Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT
Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Sep. 17, 2012) (Sprint Second Sep. 17 Letter).
209 See Stifel Nicolaus, FCC Staff Eyes Limits on Dish MSS/AWS-4 Spectrum Lower Edge to Shield H Block, at 1,
Nov. 13, 2012 (“But even with added limitations on the lower end, we still expect FCC approval of broad terrestrial
wireless rights would make the MSS spectrum worth much more than the roughly $3 billion Dish paid for it.”); see
also Wells Fargo Securities, DISH: The Spectrum Story Just Got A LOT MORE Interesting!, at 6, Nov. 19, 2012.
210 See e.g., DISH Comments at 29.

28

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

below 2000 MHz, these rules should not restrict AWS-4 operations even if they limit the efficient use of
the spectrum below 2000 MHz.211  DISH identifies certain costs associated with such technical rules,
including the claimed loss of the ability to use 5 MHz of uplink spectrum.212  Sprint suggests that this
impact can be mitigated through base station receive filters, co-location of base stations, and LTE
interference mitigations.213  DISH counters that filters would require 5 megahertz of transition band, co-
location is not possible in all cases, and the LTE features mentioned by Sprint are more effective for UE-
to-UE interference than base-to-base interference.214  DISH has not attempted to quantify the economic
value of its possible loss of some of the use of this 5 MHz to society, but simply argues that there is no
net gain in spectrum because the Commission would be trading 5 MHz of AWS-4 uplink spectrum for 5
MHz of H block downlink spectrum.215  This argument ignores the possibility of the Commission pairing
1995-2000 MHz with 1915-1920 MHz, as previously proposed216 and proposed again in the H Block
NPRM,217 in which case making the 1995-2000 MHz band available may enable a total of 10 megahertz
of spectrum by completing the pairing. Moreover, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands could
be used by PCS operators to expand, for example, from 5 + 5 megahertz blocks to 10 + 10 megahertz
blocks, or to otherwise aggregate PCS blocks. Also, as explained below, the technical rules we adopt do
not prevent the use of 5 megahertz of spectrum; rather, they merely limit its use, and make provisions for
improving its usability.218
68.
More importantly, as explained above, the amount of spectrum is not the only question
that the Commission must consider as we evaluate the rules that will govern the AWS-4 band. Rather, we
must evaluate how best to serve and maximize the public interest with respect to all relevant bands.
Because, as explained below, companies tend to use more downlink than uplink spectrum today,219 it is
not clear that the loss of some uplink spectrum would significantly diminish the utility (and economic
value) of the paired AWS-4 spectrum. At a minimum, it appears that the public interest benefit (including
economic value) of a fully usable 1995-2000 MHz band, which the Commission envisions as a downlink
PCS band, is substantially greater than that of a fully usable additional 5 MHz of AWS-4 uplink—perhaps
an order of magnitude greater.  This may be particularly so if the 1995-2000 MHz band is ultimately
paired with the 1915-1920 MHz band and the paired band is combined with other PCS spectrum to create,
for example, 10+10 megahertz of PCS spectrum.

211 DISH Sep. 24 Letter at 4-5; DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 5.
212 See DISH Oct. 17 Letter, at 3.
213 Sprint Nov. 2 Letter, at 2-3.
214 DISH Nov. 6 Letter, at 7-8.
215 See e.g., DISH Oct. 17 Letter, at 4. Similarly, DISH states that impacting 5 megahertz of AWS-4 uplink to
enable full power H block may be against the public interest; see DISH Nov. 6 Letter, at 7. In addition to this
argument, DISH also argues that the network build costs for AWS-4 will be increased by 15-30%.  DISH Oct. 17
Letter, at 4). See infra ¶ 84.
216 AWS Sixth Report and Order at 20739 ¶ 39 (“We also find that due to similar characteristics and proximity to
broadband PCS, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band pairings is comparable to the 1910-1915 MHz and
1990-1995 MHz band pairing.”)
217 See H Block NPRM, ¶ 25.
218 See infra ¶¶ 89, 90, 91, 96.
219 See infra ¶ 80.

29

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

69.
Further, DISH incorrectly argues that the Spectrum Act precludes auctioning the 1995-
2000 MHz band.220  DISH reaches this conclusion by claiming the record shows that 1915-1920 MHz
will interfere with the 1930-1995 MHz band, that the Commission has paired 1915-1920 MHz with 1995-
2000 MHz, and therefore that the 1995-2000 MHz band is precluded from auction.221  DISH similarly
states that engineering analysis showing that interference to the 1930-1995 MHz band has not been done,
and may preclude auction of the 1995-2000 MHz band when completed.222  Conversely, Sprint argues
that the Spectrum Act requires the auction of the 1995-2000 MHz band,223 that the record shows that
interference from 1915-1920 MHz is avoidable,224 and that the deployment of LTE technology will
further mitigate any potential interference.225  DISH responds that is premature to reach any conclusions
on the use of the 1995-2000 MHz band, and that its future is uncertain. 226  We do not reach any
conclusions on the specific future use of the 1995-2000 MHz band in this proceeding; such
determinations are outside its scope.227  However, in our role as spectrum managers we do establish rules
for AWS-4 that do not preclude uses of the 1995-2000 MHz band, or prejudge it to be unusable. And,
although we do not make a final determination on the use of 1995-2000 MHz, we note that DISH’s
arguments have several flaws. First, many commenters on the H block proceeding have suggested that
with appropriate technical limitations, the 1915-1920 MHz band will not interfere with the 1930-1995
MHz band.228  Thus, such interference may not present a problem, or, if it does, the problem may be
partially overcome. Second, although the Commission has proposed pairing 1915-1920 MHz with 1995-
2000 MHz, the Spectrum Act does not require this, and a finding that 1915-1920 MHz cannot be
auctioned due to interference with 1930-1995 MHz does not, in and of itself, release us from our
obligation to auction the 1995-2000 MHz band.
70.
DISH has put forward a technical proposal that it feels balances the usability of the 1995-
2000 MHz band with the usability of the AWS-4 uplink band, while also speeding deployment in AWS-4
by minimizing the impact of our rulemaking on the 3GPP standards body.229  This proposal includes

220 DISH Sep. 24 Letter at 4-5; DISH Oct. 3 Letter at n.3.
221 DISH Sep. 24 Letter at 4-5.
222 DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 4.
223 See e.g., Sprint Jul. 2 Letter at 1; Sprint Jul. 24 Letter at 1.
224 See e.g., Sprint Jul. 2 Letter at 2; Sprint Jul. 24 Letter at 2.
225 Sprint Jul. 2 Letter at 2.
226 DISH Oct. 11 Letter at 2; Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 5 (filed Oct.
10, 2012) (DISH Oct. 10  Letter); Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Oct.
15, 2012) (DISH Oct. 15 Letter); DISH Nov. 26 Ex Parte Letter at 1-2; but see Letter from Lawrence R. Krevor,
Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs - Spectrum, Rafi Martina, Staff Attorney, Government Affairs,
Sprint, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Oct.
22, 2012) (Sprint Oct. 22 Letter) (arguing that DISH is effectively urging that consequences of AWS-4 rules for H
block be ignored.).
227 See H Block NPRM.
228 Joint Reply Comments on H Block at 2.
229 Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 2 (filed Dec. 3, 2012) (DISH Dec. 3 Letter);
Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 2 (filed Dec. 7, 2012) (DISH Dec. 7 Letter).

30

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

DISH voluntarily designating 2000-2005 MHz as a terrestrial guard band, proposing the Commission set
an emissions limit of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB for AWS-4 emissions into the 1995-2000 MHz band, and
asking the Commission to limit any emissions from the 1995-2000 MHz band by 79 + 10 log10(P) dB
above 2005 MHz. As discussed further below, we decline to adopt this proposal because we find that it
will not speed deployment of the AWS-4 band or allow for full flexible use of the 1995-2000 MHz
band.230  Moreover, DISH’s request that we establish OOBE limits for the 1995-2000 MHz band is not
within the scope of this proceeding. Rather these limits will be addressed in our companion H Block
NPRM.231
71.
Consequently, while the Commission has not adopted rules for the 1995-2000 MHz band,
we are adopting technical rules for the AWS-4 uplink band that we predict will, in light of the record and
of our assessment of the nature and characteristics of both bands, ensure efficient use of the AWS-4 band
while preserving our ability to auction licenses for operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. Moreover, we
find that the approach and the technical rules we adopt will best serve the public interest by striking an
appropriate balance that will enable both the AWS-4 band and the 1995-2000 MHz band that is adjacent
to the AWS-4 uplink band (2000-2020 MHz) to be used for providing flexible use services in the most
efficient manner possible.232  In this way, we further and fully comply with our statutory mandates,
including our responsibilities under the Communications Act to manage the spectrum in the public
interest and Congress’s specific direction regarding the 1995-2000 MHz band in the Spectrum Act.
Furthermore, we recognize that in establishing rules that will enable the 1995-2000 MHz spectrum to be
put to its highest and best use, we also further Congress’s objectives related to the use of public safety
broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz band. The Spectrum Act directs that the proceeds from the auction
of licenses in the H Block, including 1995-2000 MHz, be deposited into the Public Safety Trust Fund,
which will be used to fund FirstNet.233
72.
Therefore, as explained below, we establish carefully calibrated, limited technical
restrictions on AWS-4 operations in 2000-2005 MHz, the lowest five megahertz of the AWS-4 uplink
band. In particular, as explained below, we are imposing (1) increased OOBE limits at and below 2000
MHz, (2) reduced power limits for mobile terrestrial operations in 2000-2005 MHz, and (3) requirements
that a licensee of AWS-4 terrestrial rights or of 2 GHz MSS rights must accept harmful OOBE
interference, if any occurs, from future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band into the 2000-2005 MHz
portion of the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS uplink bands and harmful overload interference, if any occurs,
from operators in the 1995-2000 MHz band into the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS uplink bands.234  We do this
to protect future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band from harmful interference; to ensure the
possibility of flexible commercial use of that band, consistent with Congressional direction; and to strike
a balance in ensuring the efficient use of both the AWS-4 and the 1995-2000 MHz bands.  The
Communications Act established “that the Commission’s powers are not limited to the engineering and
technical aspects of radio communications.”235  Rather, the Communications Act directs the Commission

230 See infra ¶¶ 86, 87, 95, 147.
231 See H Block NPRM, at ¶ 37.
232 We disagree with DISH’s assertion that the Commission has a “first-in-time” policy that requires us to grant
DISH “full rights” to use AWS-4 spectrum and, only thereafter, begin to examine the rules for the 1995-2000 MHz
band.  See DISH Nov. 26 Ex Parte Letter at 3.  We are aware of no Commission rule requiring the application of a
generic first-in-time priority between adjacent spectrum bands.
233 Spectrum Act.
234 See infra Section III.B.5. (Acceptance of Interference into the AWS-4 Uplink Band).
235 National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 215 (1943) (NBC).

31

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

to “encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest” and to adopt “such rules
and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions . . . as may be necessary to carry out the
provisions of this Act.”236  As explained below, we deem it necessary to set these technical limits to best
maximize AWS-4 and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum for flexible terrestrial use by minimizing harmful
interference between the bands. We believe that the technical rules we adopt today to protect against
harmful interference will promote more effective and efficient use of the 1995-2000 MHz band and the
AWS-4 band and we believe that the benefits of these rules will outweigh any restrictions on the use of a
portion of the AWS-4 uplink band. Moreover, any restrictions on the use of a portion of the AWS-4 band
would be more than offset by the considerable increase in flexibility that the authorization holders will
receive in obtaining overall terrestrial use rights under the Commission’s Part 27 flexible use rules instead
of under the existing ATC rules.
73.
Finally, we adopt rules that allow for the restrictions specified above to be modified by
private agreement, thereby providing a licensee of AWS-4 operating authority with the ability to utilize
this five megahertz of spectrum through deployment of higher performance technologies, commercial
agreements with future 1995-2000 MHz band licensees, or other means.   This will also provide greater
flexibility to any operators that obtain licenses for both the AWS-4 A block and the 1995-2000 MHz
band, as could be the case for a licensee of AWS-4 authority who bids on the 1995-2000 MHz band.
74.
Background: In the AWS-4 NPRM, we sought comment on how licensees of AWS-4
operating authority should protect future adjacent channel H block operations at 1995-2000 MHz.237  The
AWS-4 NPRM discussed how current ATC rules, which establish a linear interpolation of OOBE
attenuation between 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at 1995 MHz and 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz, do not allow
for full use of the 1995-2000 MHz band by future licensees.238  Against this backdrop, and recognizing
that any future H block service rules may contemplate downlink (base-to-mobile) transmissions in the
1995-2000 MHz band, the Commission sought comment on three alternative OOBE limits to address
potential OOBE interference from the AWS-4 uplink band into the 1995-2000 MHz band.239
75.
First, the Commission sought comment on maintaining the existing ATC rule, which sets
an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at 1995 MHz and an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000
MHz with a linear interpolation between these two frequencies.240  Second, the Commission sought
comment on requiring fixed and mobile transmitters operating in 2000-2020 MHz to attenuate emissions
below 2000 MHz by 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, consistent with the emissions limit below 1995 MHz.241  Third,
the Commission sought comment on requiring fixed and mobile transmitters operating in 2000-2020 MHz
to attenuate emissions below 2000 MHz by 43 + 10 log10(P) dB, symmetric with existing limits for PCS
emissions outside the 1930-1995 MHz band and broadly consistent with Commission rules.242  For all
three OOBE limits, the Commission proposed using the existing measurement procedure of Section
27.53(h) of the Commission’s rules.243

236 47 U.S.C. §§ 303(g), (r).
237 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3575-77 ¶¶ 36-43.
238 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3575-76 ¶ 36; see also 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(c)(2)
239 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3576-77 ¶¶ 37-41.
240 Id. at 3576 ¶ 38.
241 Id. at 3576 ¶ 39.
242 Id. at 3576-77 ¶ 40.
243 Id. at 3577 ¶ 41.

32

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

76.
In addition to the proposals discussed above, the Commission also sought comment on
two proposals to mitigate interference issues associated with the 1995-2000 MHz band through a shift of
the 2000-2020 MHz band.244  Under the first proposal, the band would be shifted up five megahertz to
2005-2025 MHz.245  The second proposal involved a ten megahertz shift and band compression, which
would move the band to 2010-2025 MHz.246
77.
In response to the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission received comments favoring and
opposing the proposals discussed above. Some parties commented that using linear interpolation with a
43 + 10 log10(P) dB limit at 2000 MHz tapering to 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at 1995 MHz is appropriate.247
Other parties proposed different approaches. For example, Greenwood suggested that no taper is required
as “filters will provide the requisite roll-off as well as provide necessary attenuation between 1995-2000
MHz.”248  Motorola recommended that a flat 43 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit would allow for typical
signal roll-off and normal variations in commercial filter performance and enable AWS-4 to conform with
other commercial mobile bands, thereby eliminating the need to impose costly operational limits on
AWS-4.249  DISH suggested that the existing linear interpolation be maintained, but interpreted in watts,
not dB,250 that a limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz would not preclude full use of the 1995-2000
MHz band,251 and, alternatively, that a limit of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz would provide adequate
protection of the 1995-2000 MHz band.252
78.
Additionally, commenters discussed the merits of using 1995-2000 MHz as a guard
band.253  For example, AT&T commented that both 1995-2000 MHz and 1915-1920 MHz should be
guard bands.254  In contrast, Sprint and U.S. Cellular argued that 1995-2000 MHz should not be used as a
guard band, but rather made available for commercial use.255  U.S. Cellular did, however, suggest using
2000-2010 MHz as a guard band, by prohibiting AWS-4 operations in that range.256  Furthermore,
comments regarding the proposed spectrum shifts were mixed.  For example, AT&T, Greenwood, and
Motorola all supported the proposed shift.257  These parties suggest that a 5 megahertz shift would reduce
potential interference between AWS-4 and the PCS bands.258  Conversely, both Alcatel and DISH argue a

244 Id. at 3577 ¶¶ 42-43.
245 Id. at 3577 ¶ 42.
246 Id. at 3577 ¶ 42.
247 DISH Comments at 27; Nokia Reply at 4.
248 Greenwood Reply at 7-8.
249 Motorola Comments at 6.
250 DISH Comments at 27-28.
251 DISH Nov. 14 Letter at 2.
252 DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 3-5.
253 See AT&T Comments at 7-8, Reply at 5-7; DISH Comments at 28; Greenwood Comments at 18; Sprint Reply at
6-8; TIA Comments at 12; and U.S. Cellular Comments at 5-6, Reply at 4.
254 AT&T Comments at 7-8, Reply at 5-7.
255 Sprint Reply at 4; U.S. Cellular Comments at 3-7.
256 U.S. Cellular Comments at 5.
257 AT&T Comments at 3, 5-8; Greenwood Comments at 19; Motorola Comments at 2-4.
258 AT&T Comments at 3, 5-8; Greenwood Comments at 19; Motorola Comments at 2-4.

33

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

5 megahertz shift is unnecessary as it would curtail the rights of the 2 GHz MSS licensees by effectively
making portions of the 2 GHz MSS spectrum unusable for the existing satellites, cause delays in
deployment, and create additional interference issues.259
79.
Discussion: For AWS-4 operations in 2000-2020 MHz, we adopt an OOBE limit of 70 +
10 log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz, which is the second of the three proposals from the AWS-4
NPRM, discussed above.260  This limit promotes the public interest for several reasons: (1) it promotes the
best and highest use of spectrum, (2) it fulfills our statutory obligations, (3) it provides consistent levels of
protection for the adjacent 1990-1995 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz downlink bands, and (4) it maintains
consistency with past Commission actions.
80.
Best and highest use of adjacent spectrum. DISH has stated that a required attenuation of
70 + 10 log10(P) dB below 2000 MHz would have a negative impact on operations in the AWS-4 uplink
band.261  While this is correct, we seek to balance this negative impact on a portion of the AWS-4 uplink
spectrum with the positive impact on the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band, to obtain the most
efficient use of both bands, and to maximize the overall public interest.  To this end, we observe that
mobile broadband uses far more downlink than uplink spectrum. For example, at an FCC forum on the
future of wireless band plans, Nokia Siemens Networks presented data showing a typical LTE network
producing 13 times more downlink data than uplink data, while Alcatel Lucent showed 17 to 30 times
more downlink data than uplink data.262 Accordingly, there is a more pressing need for downlink
spectrum than for uplink spectrum. Therefore, a possible limited reduction in uplink capacity may not
present a hardship to a licensee of AWS-4 operating authority. In addition, as discussed further below,
while some of the uplink spectrum may be restricted in power, our rules do not eliminate the use of any
uplink spectrum.263 Furthermore, extensions of existing bands can typically be put to use more cost-
effectively than new bands.264 Finally, to the extent some spectrum may have reduced utility to address
interference issues, a fixed spectrum impact will represent a larger fraction of the 5 megahertz band from
1995 to 2000 MHz than of the lower 10 megahertz block in the 2000-2020 MHz band. Therefore,
because 1995-2000 MHz can be used as a small downlink expansion of the existing PCS band, while
2000-2020 MHz is the larger uplink of a new band, these factors indicate that more efficient use of
spectrum can be realized by promoting usability of 1995-2000 MHz even if it decreases the usability of a
limited portion of the 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 band.265

259 Alcatel Comments at 9, 12-13; DISH Comments at 34, Reply at 24-28.
260 See supra ¶ 75.
261 DISH Comments at 27.
262 See Nokia Siemens Networks presentation at FCC forum on the future of wireless band plans at 2, available at
http://transition fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting71612/PANEL2.1-Jette-NokiaSiemensNetworks.pdf (last
visited Dec. 4, 2012) and Alcatel Lucent presentation at FCC forum on the future of wireless band plans at 2,
available at http://transition fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting71612/PANEL2.2-Wilkus-Alcatel-Lucent.pdf
(last visited Dec. 4, 2012).
263 See infra ¶¶ 89, 91, 138.
264 For example, a new device supporting an extended band may be able to replace existing components one-for-one
maintaining existing cost and size, while a device supporting a new band may have to add components for the new
band while keeping previous components. Also, a new network being built in an extension of a band can reuse the
site locations of existing band networks.
265 In a 2003 notice of proposed rulemaking the Commission envisaged that new operations in the 1990-2000 MHz
band would “need to take into account” MSS operations, including ATC, above 2000 MHz and that these licensees
“should take measures both to ensure that their operations are protected from MSS/ATC operations and will protect
(continued….)

34

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

81.
Statutory obligations. We find this OOBE limit, combined with the mobile power limits
and requirement to accept interference within the 2000-2005 MHz band from lawful operations in the
1995-2000 MHz band, which we establish below,266 allows us to fulfill our spectrum manager role under
the Communications Act by balancing the public interest goals of enabling efficient use of both the 1995-
2000 MHz band and the AWS-4 band. Moreover, this limit enables us to fulfill our obligations under the
Spectrum Act with regard to the 1995-2000 MHz band. The Spectrum Act requires the Commission,
among other things, to make available via a system of competitive bidding the 1995-2000 MHz band.267
We believe it is consistent with Congress’s specific direction to auction this spectrum to preserve our
ability to reach a possible finding that this band should support the deployment of full, robust,
commercial service—including for mobile broadband.  DISH suggests that we could restrict an auction of
1995-2000 MHz to small cell operations or as part of a paired air-to-ground / ground-to-air band.268  We
decline to so limit the potential uses of the 1995-2000 MHz band at this time, because this would likely
diminish the efficiency and usefulness of the spectrum given the significant value we believe exists for
high power uses in the 1995-2000 MHz band.269  Further, the Spectrum Act specifically calls for flexible
use of 1995-2000 MHz, and limiting the band to be suitable only for small cell or air-to-ground services
may improperly curtail such flexible use if full terrestrial use remains a reasonable possibility for the
band. While flexible use rules that permit higher power terrestrial use could also permit small cell or air-
to-ground services, the reverse is not true—a band limited to either of those uses could not also be used
for full power terrestrial operations.270  DISH fails to explain how we can fulfill our statutory obligation
to make the 1995-2000 MHz band available for flexible use via a system of competitive bidding without a
strong OOBE limit. Moreover, it is not clear if either small cell or air-to-ground use would result in an
improved interference environment as compared to full power use.271  Should the Commission ultimately
(Continued from previous page)
MSS and ATC operations from interference.” Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate
Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless
Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No. 99-81, Third Report
and Order, Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 2223,
2249 ¶ 51 (2003) (AWS Third Report and Order).  The Commission sought comment on this matter and did not
subsequently adopt rules or otherwise decide the matter.
266 See infra Section III.B.4.b. (Mobile Stations), Section III.B.5. (Acceptance of Interference into the AWS-4
Uplink Band).
267 The Spectrum Act makes an exception in the case of interference to the 1930-1995 MHz PCS band, however, no
technical information in the record indicates that the 1995-2000 MHz band would cause interference to the 1930-
1995 MHz band.  See Spectrum Act § 6401(b)(4).
268 See e.g., DISH Oct. 3 Letter at 2-3.
269 See e.g., Sprint Oct. 31 Letter at 2; Sprint Nov. 2 Letter at 2.
270 See e.g., Sprint Oct. 31 Letter at 2.
271 Sprint argues that due to the difficulty of co-location with small cells and the potentially large number of small
cells, interference could be worse, not better, in the small cell scenario.  See Sprint Oct. 31 Letter at 2. DISH
counters with calculations showing at least 60 dB less signal from small cells, implying at least a million small cells
would be needed to generate as much interference as one macro cell.  DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 3. However DISH’s
calculations assume small cells are limited to 200 mW, limited to indoor use, and deployed only at low heights, all
of which are significant restrictions on the flexible use of 1995-2000 MHz.  In addition, DISH’s calculation includes
30-50 dB of attenuation due to the indoor use and low antenna height restrictions, but does not explain how DISH
obtained this range, including what antenna heights, penetration losses, or propagations models it has assumed. No
parties addressed the interference characteristics of air-to-ground systems in any detail.

35

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

determine, in the forthcoming proceeding on this band, to limit the permissible services in this band,
DISH or any other party is free to petition us to revisit the technical rules we adopt herein.272
82.
Consistent Protection Levels.  To promote more effective and efficient use of the 1995-
2000 MHz band, we believe the same OOBE limit the Commission adopted to protect current PCS
operations below 1995 MHz—70 + 10 log10(P) dB—will be both necessary and sufficient to protect
future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band.273  This creates consistency in our rules, by affording the
1995-2000 MHz band the same protections as the existing PCS band.
83.
Past Commission Actions.  The Commission has long sought to put the 1995-2000 MHz
band to productive commercial use. In 2004, 2007, and 2008, the Commission undertook efforts to make
this spectrum available for full flexible use.274  We therefore reject the approach advocated by some that
the 1995-2000 MHz band should be used as a guard band between the extended PCS downlink band from
1990-1995 MHz and the AWS-4 uplink band.275  Setting aside this block for no use is directly at odds
with the Commission’s past actions. Further, in 2010, the National Broadband Plan recommended that
the Commission make this band available through auction.276  Thus, the public has long been on notice
that the 1995-2000 MHz band is not intended for use as a guard band.277  Such notice significantly
predates the current MSS licensee’s acquisition of DBSD and TerreStar in 2011.
84.
The Record.  The proposed OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz
received some support in the record.  For example, Sprint supports this OOBE level as necessary to
protect the 1995-2000 MHz band.278  U.S. Cellular proposed a limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at and below
2000 MHz to protect the 1995-2000 MHz band.279  Several other commenters indirectly support an
OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) at 2000 MHz, which will be five megahertz away from full power use of
the AWS-4 uplink band,280 by stating that this level is necessary to protect PCS operations below 1995
MHz without assuming any reduction in power between 2000-2005 MHz.281  To achieve this level of
protection for the 1995-2000 MHz band without applying this OOBE limit at 2000 MHz and lower power
limits in 2000-2005 MHz, we would need to create frequency separation between the 1995-2000 MHz

272 We could also have delayed establishing AWS-4 rules until we first established services rules for the 1995-2000
MHz band, but decline to take this route.
273 See e.g., 47 CFR 25.252(c)(2).
274 See AWS-2 NPRM, AWS-3 NPRM, 2008 Further Notice, and National Broadband Plan.  We observe in all cases
1995-2000 MHz was proposed for licensed, full power, terrestrial use.  See e.g. AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at
19305 ¶110; 2008 Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9860-61 ¶4.
275 See e.g. AT&T Comments at 7-8, Reply at 5-7; TIA Comments at 12.
276 National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8.3 at p. 86.
277 In general, designating spectrum for guard bands reduces their utility.  See e.g. DISH Comments at 28.
Therefore, it is generally good spectrum management to minimize the designation of spectrum to guard bands.
However, in some circumstances it may be in the public interest to designate spectrum for guard bands. For
example, we propose technically reasonable guard bands between different high-power services in our incentive
auction NPRM.  Incentive Auction NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 12412-15 ¶¶ 152-159. However, we find that the balance
of the record before us in this proceeding does not require allocation 1995-2000 MHz as a guard band.
278 Sprint Sep. 17 Letter at 6.
279 U.S. Cellular Comments at 5.
280 See infra Section III.B.4.b (Mobile Stations).
281 Id.

36

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

band and the AWS-4 uplink band. For the reasons explained above, however, we decline to shift the
AWS-4 uplink band up 5 megahertz (or more) to 2005-2025 MHz. DISH makes several arguments
objecting to this OOBE limit as unprecedented, unnecessary, and restrictive.282  DISH also asserts that
this limit would affect AWS-4 operations, including negative impacts for AWS-4 devices, rendering 25%
of the AWS-4 uplink unusable, slowing DISH’s deployment due to delays in the 3GPP standards process,
requiring as many as 15-30% additional sites for licensees of AWS-4 authority, and not creating a net gain
of spectrum for broadband.283 DISH proposed that we instead adopt an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P)
dB at 2000 MHz284 and separately that we adopt an OOBE limit of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz.285
We are not persuaded by these arguments.
85.
We adopt the specific level of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB because it provides a reasonable level
of protection for the 1995-2000 MHz band, there is directly applicable precedent in the existing protection
of the PCS G block from MSS/ATC, and it is superior to other attenuation levels raised in the record. As
DISH correctly notes,286 the interference from the AWS-4 uplink to operations in the 1995-2000 MHz
band is likely to be mobile-to-mobile interference, and is therefore probabilistic, meaning the probability
of interference depends on the likelihood of the interfering and victim mobiles passing close enough to
each other under the right conditions. However, determining that interference is probabilistic does not
mean that it should be ignored; rather, it means that rules should be set to ensure that the probability of
interference is reasonably low.287 To evaluate this probability, we make reasonable assumptions about
interference and look at the separation needed between mobile devices to prevent interference with those
assumptions. A larger resulting separation indicates a higher likelihood of interference.  In its comments
on this proceeding, Motorola proposes assumptions for the protection of the 1930-1995 MHz band that
we find reasonable, with one modification, and applicable to the 1995-2000 MHz band.288 Using the
proposed assumptions with this modification, 70 + 10 log10(P) dB yields a separation of 1.4 meters (under
5 feet), similar to the separation of 2 meters (about 6 feet) proposed by Motorola and the separations

282 See e.g., DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 1, 4.
283 See DISH Comments at 27; DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 3.
284 See e.g., DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 4.
285 See DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 3-5.
286 See e.g., DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 6.
287 In fact, this unpredictability of a mobile interferer makes this type of interference hard to identify and mitigate, so
the probabilistic nature can make it more important to set rules to prevent it, not less. For example, DISH argued in
the case of possible BAS interference that DISH would need to plan for the worst case when a mobile electronic
news gathering (ENG) truck set up with a DISH base station in the line between the truck and the receive site, even
though the probability of such an event is low.  See e.g., Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and
Deputy General Counsel, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No.
10-142 at attached Wireless Strategy study 7. (filed Sep. 17, 2012).
288 The exception is that Motorola applies body loss only to the transmitting mobile, and fails to apply it to the
receiving mobile.  See Motorola Comments, Technical App. at A-1. Applying it to both handsets is more
reasonable, and is in fact the approach that Motorola takes in their own submissions to 3GPP. See e.g., 3GPP R4-
080710, available at http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg ran/wg4 radio/TSGR4 46bis/Docs/R4-080710.zip (3GPP R4-
080710) (last visited Dec. 4, 2012); 3GPP R4-114592, available at
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg ran/wg4 radio/TSGR4 60/Docs/R4-114592.zip (3GPP R4-114592) (last visited Dec.
7, 2012). Motorola concludes that a level of 77 + 10 log10(P) dB is appropriate (this is equivalent to -47 dBm /
MHz). Motorola Comments, Technical App. at A-1. However, adjusting their calculation by applying body loss to
both devices lowers this to 67 + 10 log10(P) dB, very close to our proposal of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.

37

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

typically used in 3GPP standards.289 70 + 10 log10(P) dB is also the level that Sprint recommends as
necessary to protect the 1995-2000 MHz band. 290 As another reference point, 3GPP adopts a similar but
more stringent level of 80 + 10 log10(P) dB for the protection of mobile receivers from mobile
transmitters in most cases.291
86.
DISH’s initial proposal of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB does not provide adequate protection to
the 1995-2000 MHz band. Applying the same calculations to the level of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB yields a
separation of 32 meters (over 100 feet). 292  This represents a dramatic increase in the probability in
interference, because it is far more likely that two mobiles will pass within 100 feet of each other, rather
than 5 feet of each other.293
87.
Although DISH provides more technical support for its later proposal of  60 + 10 log10(P)
dB, including references to two 3GPP submissions, from Qualcomm and Intel respectively, and one
CEPT (European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations) study that proposed
levels less stringent than 60 + 10 log10(P) dB in various situations, 294 we observe that applying the above
assumptions to the 60 + 10 log10(P) dB level would result in a separation of 14 meters (about 46 feet), an
unacceptably high separation compared to industry norms.295  In addition, each of these studies considers
a different case than we consider here, and thus is not directly applicable.296  Finally, we note that despite

289 See e.g., 3GPP R4-080710; 3GPP R4-114592.
290 Sprint Sep. 17 Letter at 6.
291 See LTE RF Standard for UEs at 68-71. (-50 dBm / MHz is equivalent to 80 + 10 log10(P)).
292 See e.g., DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 8; , Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Senior Vice President and Deputy General
Counsel, DISH to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142 at 2
(filed Nov. 8, 2012) (DISH Nov. 8 Letter); DISH Nov. 14 Letter at 2 (where DISH argues that a limit of 43 + 10
log10(P) dB does not preclude use of the 1995-2000 MHz band. DISH also argues that setting symmetric limits of
43 + 10 log10(P) dB both from AWS-4 to the 1995-2000 MHz band and vice-versa will facilitate market-based
solutions, as suggested in the AWS-4 NPRM.)  See DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 4; AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3567 ¶
39. However, since we conclude that this level does not adequately protect the 1995-2000 MHz band, it is not clear
if operators would take the risk of acquiring 1995-2000 MHz, and therefore it is not clear if these market forces
would come into play.
293 The area over which a mobile can cause interference is proportional to the square of this number. Since 1002 / 52
= 400, interference may be 400 times more likely with a limit of  43 + 10 log10(P) dB than with a limit of 40 + 10
log10(P) dB.
294 See DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 4.
295 See e.g., 3GPP R4-080710; 3GPP R4-114592, see also Letter from Marc S. Martin, K&L Gates LLP, Counsel
for Sprint Nextel Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket
Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 3 (filed Dec. 6, 2012) (Sprint Dec. 6, 2012 Letter) (an OOBE of 60 +
10 log10(P) dB would triple the separation distance and “could result in widespread interference to future H Block
users”).
296 The Qualcomm study considers interference to narrow band public safety devices in the 800 MHz band, the Intel
study considers interference between the extended 800 MHz band and the 700 MHz Asia Pacific band, and the
CEPT study considers TDD- FDD coexistence in the 2.6 GHz band. See Derivation of a Block Edge Mask (BEM)
for Terminal Stations in the 2.6 GHz Frequency Band (2500-2690 MHz), ECC Report 131 (Jan. 2009), available at
http://www.erodocdb.dk/Docs/doc98/official/pdf/ECCREP131.PDF (last visited Dec. 10, 2012); 3GPP TSG RAN
WG4 R4-B26ah-0009, Results of Monte Carlo Simulations for Band 26 Coexistence Scenarios, Qualcomm,
Incorporated (Jan. 17-19, 2012), available at
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg ran/WG4 Radio/TSGR4 AHs/R4 AH Band-26/Docs/R4-B26ah-0009.zip (last visited
Dec. 10, 2012); 3GPP TSG RAN WG4 R4-B26ah-0035, Band 26 UE Spurious Emission on 850 MHz Lower Band
(continued….)

38

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

these studies, 3GPP has adopted the level of  80 + 10 log10(P) dB for the protection of the vast majority of
bands,297 and offering a level of only 60 + 10 log10(P) dB may not allow full use of the 1995-2000 MHz
band.298 Further, DISH argues that independent of the OOBE level, interference can only occur 0.25% of
the time.299  However, DISH offered no data to support its conclusions.300 In sum, contrary to DISH’s
assertions that this emission limit is not necessary to protect the 1995-2000 MHz band,301 we find
attenuating OOBE in 1995-2000 MHz by a factor of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB will provide needed protection
to the 1995-2000 MHz band.
88.
In addition to providing reasonable protection from interference, 70 + 10 log10(P) dB is
the level the Commission has already determined appropriate for protection of PCS operations below
1995 MHz, and given the expected similarity of operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, this level is also
applicable to AWS-4 emissions into the 1995-2000 MHz band. DISH suggests that this is not an
applicable precedent because it was previously applied at 5 megahertz separation from the MSS/ATC
band, not at the band edge.302  DISH suggests that precedents such as 60 + 10 log10(P) dB, 55 + 10
log10(P) dB, or 43 + 10 log10(P) dB are more relevant. 303  We disagree with DISH because we find that
the interference in the 1995-2000 MHz band will be driven by the AWS-4 OOBE into the 1995-2000
MHz band itself, not by the emission levels of the transmissions outside these frequencies.  Therefore, the
frequency separation from the band edge is not determinative of establishing the OOBE limit.304  In
addition, the 60 + 10 log10(P) dB level is from a study of TDD to FDD interference released by the
Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology (OET), which did not result in the adoption of this
limit into our rules.305 Although this study considers a similar case of mobile-to-mobile interference, the
difference results from differing assumptions, including assumptions that the victim handset is using
UMTS and can tolerate an interfering signal 11.8 dB stronger than its desired signal.306 LTE mobiles,
however, cannot necessarily tolerate such high levels of interference, and we find, in agreement with the
(Continued from previous page)
(Band 27), Intel Corporation (Jan. 17-19, 2012) (“Intel Band 26/APAC700 Study”), available at
http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/tsg ran/WG4 Radio/TSGR4 AHs/R4 AH Band-26/Docs/R4-B26ah-0035.zip (last visited
Dec. 10, 2012).
297 See LTE RF Standard for UEs at 68-71.
298 See Sprint Dec. 6, 2012 Letter at 3 (DISH’s proposed OOBE limit “could lead to widespread interference to
future H Block users and [could lead to] significantly decreased interest from potential H Block auction bidders”).
299 See DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 4.
300 Id. at 3-4.
301 See e.g., DISH Oct. 11 Letter at 1. DISH also argues that imposing this limit in 1995-2000 MHz is not necessary
to protect the PCS G block at 1990-1995 MHz.  See DISH Oct. 15 Letter at 1. We agree, and our adoption of 70 +
10 log10(P) in 1995-2000 MHz is to protect 1995-2000 MHz, as discussed in the previous section, we are protecting
1990-1995 MHz by adopting an OOBE limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) in 1990-1995 MHz.
302 DISH Nov. 6 Letter at note 13 (inapplicability of 70 + 10 log10(P)).
303 DISH Oct. 10 Letter at 4 (60 + 10 log10(P) in a Commission Office of Engineering and Technology study); DISH
Nov. 8 Letter at 3 (55 + 10 log10(P) in BRS/EBS spectrum); DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 4 (43 + 10 log10(P) in 700 MHz
spectrum).
304 Emissions outside the band can cause overload interference, but this discussion is concerned with interference
due to OOBE. Overload interference is discussed below.  See infra Section III.B.4.b (Mobile Stations).
305 The FCC’s Office of Engineering and Technology Releases Analysis of AWS-3 Interference Tests, WT Docket
Nos. 07-195 and 04-356, Public Notice, 23 FCC Rcd 14669 at 14670 (2008) (OET Interference Study) (study titled
“Advanced Wireless Service Interference Test Results and Analysis” released as a Public Notice.).
306 OET Interference Study, 23 FCC Rcd at 14679.

39

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

modified Motorola assumptions discussed above, that the interfering signal should be no stronger than the
mobile’s noise floor. Applying this one change to the assumptions of the OET study would result in level
of at least 71 + 10 log10(P) dB. DISH also argues that the 55 + 10 log10(P) level, used in BRS, is a similar
case of TDD to FDD interference. There are many differences between the BRS band and the 1995-2000
MHz band, including the flexibility of BRS operators to synchronize their systems to avoid interference
and the greater ease of achieving frequency separations in a 194 megahertz band.  In addition, we note
that the BRS rules apply a level of 67 + 10 log10(P) to fixed stations in the event of interference
complaints, much closer to the 70 +10 log10(P) level we adopt here. Further, as discussed above, the 43 +
10 log10(P) dB level does not provide adequate protection from interference in this case and so is not
appropriate here.307
89.
Although applying this limit of 70 +10 log10(P) dB at the edge of the AWS-4 band may
be more restrictive than applying it at 1995 MHz and below, we find DISH’s assertions that adopting this
limit at and below 2000 MHz would increase the cost of mobile devices, require significant power
reductions, and require a roll-off region to be poorly supported and unpersuasive.308  DISH did not
quantify these hardships with specific cost numbers, filter insertion losses, power reduction requirements,
or the amount of spectrum impacted. Nor did DISH explain what factors would increase the cost of the
mobile devices, so it is not clear if these impacts would be independent of or additive to one another. For
example, there is a trade-off between filter roll-off and filter cost (and therefore device cost), so it may not
be reasonable to assert both hardships will result.  Further, we note that to the extent there is a roll-off
region or power reduction region, these reduce the power in the lower part of the AWS-4 uplink band, but
do not necessarily render it unusable. For example, if there is reduced coverage in the first 5 megahertz, it
may still be usable for capacity in areas of good coverage.  In fact, with technological advancements it
may be put to use dynamically. For example, a base station scheduler using a 10 megahertz carrier in
2000-2010 MHz could assign mobiles in good signal conditions (and therefore requiring less power to
close the link) to the lower 5 megahertz, and mobiles in poor signal conditions (requiring higher power) to
the upper 5 megahertz, thereby making use of all of the spectrum.
90.
Similarly, we find to be flawed DISH’s arguments that the limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at
and below 2000 MHz would render 25% of the AWS-4 uplink spectrum unusable and increase AWS-4
deployment costs by 15-30%309  DISH’s argument for rendering 25% of the uplink unusable actually
asserts that base station operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band would potentially overload its AWS-4
base station receivers; DISH does not make an argument based on the AWS-4 uplink OOBE limit.310
Therefore, this argument is not relevant to the OOBE limits on AWS-4 devices. However, we do discuss
potential interference from the 1995-2000 MHz band to AWS-4 base stations below.311  Similarly, DISH
argues that the anticipated OOBE from 1995-2000 MHz band transmitters above 2005 MHz will require

307 DISH argues that 43 + 10 log10(P) maintains flexibility, referring to the use of this limit in the 700 MHz band.
See DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 4-5. However, it is inadequate protection against interference, and therefore would
greatly reduce the flexibility of use of 1995-2000 MHz.  The flexible use of the AWS-4 is discussed below.  See
infra Section III.G.1.a. (Flexible Use).
308 DISH comments at 27.
309 See e.g., DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 3-4.
310 Id. at 3.
311 Although we do not establish rules for the 1995-2000 MHZ band here, below we require AWS-4 operators to
accept some interference from future 1995-2000 MHz operations.  See infra Section III.B.5. (Acceptance of
Interference into the AWS-4 Uplink Band).

40

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

additional site builds where colocation is not possible,312 and makes some high-level, general statements
that the impact represents about a 15% increase in the number of sites to be built.313  This is also not
relevant to the limit of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2000 MHz for the AWS-4 uplink. The technical
requirements for base stations in the 1995-2000 MHz band are outside the scope of this Report and Order
and will be addressed in the H Block NPRM.314
91.
We also find for the reasons stated above that, to the extent imposing a limit of 70 +10
log10(P) dB at and below 2000 MHz does have some negative impact on the usability of the AWS-4
uplink, this impact is balanced by the increased utility of the 1995-2000 MHz band. 315  DISH argues that
its claimed loss of 25% of its uplink spectrum to enable the full flexible use of the 5 megahertz of the
1995-2000 MHz band will result in no net increase in the amount of spectrum available for broadband.316
However, this claim overlooks the fact that if 1995-2000 MHz is paired with 1915-1920 MHz, the
calibrated restrictions we place on AWS-4 may enable the Commission to make available 10 megahertz
of broadband spectrum. Moreover, the restrictions would still allow the full use of at least 5 megahertz (if
not more) of uplink (i.e., at least 2005-2010 MHz of the 2000-2010 MHz uplink segment) and the full 10
megahertz of paired downlink spectrum (i.e., 2180-2190 MHz). This would not be the case if the
restrictions at issue were imposed on 1995-2000 MHz in a scenario where that spectrum is only paired
with another 5 megahertz. And, even if 1995-2000 MHz becomes an unpaired downlink band, DISH’s
argument rests on the assumption that 5 megahertz of uplink in the 2000-2020 MHz band is equivalent to
5 megahertz of downlink in the 1995-2000 MHz. As discussed above, this argument is flawed, because
(1) there is more need for downlink spectrum than uplink spectrum, (2) the restricted use of 5 megahertz
would have less of an impact to a 10 or 20 megahertz carrier in the AWS-4 band than it would to a 5
megahertz carrier in the 1995-2000 MHz band, including a carrier that would use the 1995-2000 MHz
band to expand an existing use of the PCS band, (3) given the downlink-limited nature of broadband
capacity, the loss of 5 megahertz of uplink spectrum in a band with two paired 10 + 10 megahertz blocks
may have no impact on actual network capacity,317 and (4) an extension of an existing band is more easily
utilized than a new band. 318
92.
We are also not convinced by DISH’s argument that adopting this limit will protect and
favor an unassigned band over an assigned band.319  Because there has been no deployment of terrestrial
services, devices, or base stations in either band, we find this argument unpersuasive. DISH further
argues that adopting this limit places “the entire burden” on AWS-4,320 and that imposing this limit is
premature and an attempt to predetermine the rules for the 1995-2000 MHz band.321  We disagree. We do

312 DISH refers only to the OOBE above 2005 MHz, apparently since they argue earlier in the letter that 2000-2005
MHz will be unusable due to overload interference from 1995-2000 MHz band transmitters.
313 DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 3.
314 See H Block NPRM, at ¶¶ 34-37.
315 See supra ¶¶ 64-73, 80.
316 See e.g., DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 4. DISH also argues further, but without explanation, that new emissions limits
would result in a net loss of spectrum in all bands.  DISH Oct. 11 Letter at 1.
317 This is due to the asymmetry of downlink and uplink traffic.  See supra ¶ 80.
318 See id.
319 DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 4.
320 Id. at 6.
321 DISH Oct. 15 Letter at 3.

41

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

not set rules for 1995-2000 MHz in this proceeding; rather, we set some limitations on AWS-4 which are
balanced by promoting the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band.
93.
In addition, the likely practical impact of technical protections for the 1995-2000 MHz
band in the AWS-4 uplink is small.  We are not reclaiming any spectrum; rather, we are implementing an
OOBE limit that may reduce the power levels on some uplink spectrum.322  As discussed above, with
newer technologies such as LTE, power reductions of a portion of a carrier do not prevent it from being
put to use in some portions of a cell and augmenting capacity. Further, current broadband networks use
far more downlink capacity than uplink capacity.323  Based on prevailing traffic patterns, a licensee of
AWS-4 authority with 20 MHz of downlink capacity is very likely to have excess uplink capacity in any
case.  DISH states that this line of reasoning is “misguided”,324 because DISH needs 40 megahertz to
compete,325 and needs “more spectrum, not less”.326  However, DISH fails to address the asymmetry of
traffic, and only makes the blanket statement that it needs more spectrum. Of course, like all operators,
DISH is free to acquire more spectrum as needed, and in fact we observe that DISH has spectrum in other
bands, including in the 700 MHz Band. In any case, we are creating 40 megahertz of terrestrial rights.
Although the rules we adopt may limit the power levels in part of the uplink spectrum, they do not
prohibit its use, and as discussed below, they leave room for the licensee of AWS-4 operating authority to
find technical or business approaches to increase the utility of the uplink spectrum if needed.
94.
Finally, we find DISH’s arguments that adopting this emission limit would delay its
deployment time frame by causing delay in equipment standards in 3GPP to be unpersuasive.327  First, the
Commission has historically not based its decisions regarding the appropriate technical rules for a
wireless service merely on the potential of those decisions to delay the development of private party
technical standards. Second, DISH is not required to await 3GPP standards resolution to design, test, and
deploy equipment, particularly if it is the only operator in the band. Rather, a decision to wait until 3GPP
has established final standards is an internal business decision, not a delay imposed by the Commission’s
development of technical rules for the service. Third, the only change necessary in the 3GPP standard
would be modifying band 23 to accommodate the emission limit at 2000 MHz (and the power limits for
operations in 2000-2005 MHz); many of the other parameters for this band (e.g., OOBE at 2020 MHz;
duplex spacing; frequencies; channel numbers; and so forth) could remain the same.328  Sprint has
indicated that this additional work should take less than 6 months,329 and it has stated its commitment to

322 And, as discussed below, imposing a power restriction on the first 5 megahertz.  See infra Section III.B.4.b.
(Mobile Stations).
323 See e.g., Sprint Nov. 2 Letter at 3, n.3.
324 DISH Nov. 6 Letter at 7.
325 DISH Oct. 11 Letter at 2.
326 DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 7.
327 See e.g. DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 3.
328 We also note Sprint’s commitment to facilitate the 3GPP process, and the recent agreement of 3GPP on Band 23
emissions limits.  See e.g Sprint Nov.4 Letter; Letter from Marc S. Martin, , to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, FCC,
WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Oct. 2, 2012) (Sprint Oct. 2 Letter); Sprint Nov.
14 Letter.
329 Letter from Stephen Bye, Chief Technology Officer and Vice President of Technology Development and
Strategy, Lawrence R. Krevor, Vice President, Legal and Government Affairs - Spectrum, Sprint, to Julius
Genachowski, Chairman, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Oct. 2, 2012)
(Sprint Oct. 2 Letter).

42

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

facilitating relevant work in 3GPP.330  Fourth, DISH can also mitigate a delay in obtaining final standards
in several ways. For example, in its comments, DISH identifies several groups of tasks that would need
to be completed prior to the launch of service, but states that the task groups must be performed serially,
taking four years in sum.331  We do not believe that either engineering or business practices require these
tasks be completed in a serial process; rather, we believe that they can be accomplished in part in parallel.
Indeed, in the WCS proceeding, AT&T indicated that about half of the time needed to develop standards
would overlap with equipment design and equipment testing.332  If DISH were to apply a similar level of
overlap to the tasks it outlines, it would still be able to meet its proposed 4 year timeline for launching
service.333  In sum, while DISH makes unsupported, speculative, and vague statements as to the possible
impact of 3GPP timing on its market entry, the impact of not adopting these rules is clear and detrimental
to the public interest.
95.
As discussed above,334 DISH also proposed a combination of rules and commitments that
it says will allow full use of the 1995-2000 MHz band while preventing any 3GPP delay.335  In addition to
finding above that this proposal does not facilitate full flexible use of the 1995-2000 MHz band,336 we
also find that it does not reduce the likelihood of 3GPP delays. DISH bases its argument on its assertion
that integration of an external duplexer will allow it to meet a level of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB without
changing the design of its chipset.337  However, as DISH has pointed out, the 3GPP standards contain the
current ATC rule for OOBE in 1995-2000 MHz in the device co-existence table,338 and regardless as to
whether the limit is 60 + 10 log10(P) dB or 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, 3GPP may choose to update this table and
evaluate the impact of the new level on device design. Further, since the level of 60 + 10 log10(P) dB
affords less protection than 70 + 10 log10(P) dB, it may create more contention and delay in 3GPP than
our proposal. In summary, we do not find support in the record that adopting a level of 60 + 10 log10(P)
dB will bring operations in the AWS-4 band to market sooner than the attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB
that we do adopt.

330 See e.g., Letter from Richard B. Engelman, Director, Spectrum Resources, Sprint to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y,
FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142 at 2 (filed Oct. 5, 2012).  We observe that Sprint and
DISH have recently been able to resolve previously contentious Band 23 emissions limits in 3GPP, see Sprint Nov.
14 Letter.
331 DISH Comments at 20-22. These groups of tasks generally fall into the following categories: complete
standards, infrastructure and device development, develop and test retail and billing operations, and
deployment/launch service. DISH claims that these tasks will take 48 months after standards are set (or 30, 9, and 9
months respectively for the later 3 task groups).  Id.
332 See Letter from Joan Marsh, Vice President – Federal Regulatory, AT&T Services, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No. 95-91, GEN Docket No. 90-357, at 3-6 (filed June 15, 2012).
333 See DISH Comments at 20-22.
334 See supra ¶ 70.
335 See DISH Dec. 3 Letter; DISH Dec. 7 Letter.
336 See supra Section ¶ 86-87.
337 See DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 2-3. Although DISH does not explain exactly what is meant here, it appears to be an
assumption that the A-MPR tables would not need to be updated. DISH also does not provide any technical support,
such as duplexer curves, showing why it believes 60 + 10 log10(P) dB is achievable without modification of the A-
MPR tables, but 70 + 10 log10(P) dB is not.
338 See DISH Oct.10 letter at 3.

43

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

96.
Private Agreements. We recognize that technological improvements in devices in the
1995-2000 MHz band, as well as willingness on the part of licensees of the 1995-2000 MHz band to
accept a higher probability of interference, could reduce the need for OOBE restrictions in 1995-2000
MHz. Therefore, we allow for licensees of AWS-4 authority to enter into private operator-to-operator
agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 1995-2000 MHz at OOBE levels above 70 +
10 log10(P) dB.
97.
Summary. We find that while DISH argues that the imposition of an OOBE limit of 70 +
10 log10(P) dB on AWS-4 uplink operations will render 5 megahertz of the AWS-4 uplink unusable and
create delays in 3GPP, these arguments are unsupported, speculative, and vague, and in some cases not
relevant to the uplink OOBE limit. Similarly, we do not find DISH’s recent proposal of 60 + 10 log10(P)
dB at 2000 MHz to be an appropriate limit.  While we acknowledge that imposition of the limit of 70 +
10 log10(P) dB may have a negative impact on the usability of a portion of the AWS-4 uplink band, this is
more than offset by the public interest benefits of increasing the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band.
Moreover, some of DISH’s objections are not relevant to the OOBE limit on the AWS-4 uplink, but
instead have to do with power and OOBE for operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band. As discussed
below, DISH in fact does also suggest OOBE and power limitations for the 1995-2000 MHz band. As
discussed elsewhere,339 we have had an open proceeding since 2004 that proposed full power use in 1995-
2000 MHz, and an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB for H block transmitters.340  Therefore, DISH has
been aware of these issues for some time.  These issues, moreover, can be addressed in the H Block
NPRM.341  Further, even if our actions do in fact create only 15 megahertz of usable uplink for terrestrial
use, this Report and Order still creates a large increase in the overall utility of this spectrum. That is, 15
megahertz of full usable terrestrial uplink can be put to more productive use than 20 megahertz of
MSS/ATC uplink spectrum. For example, one commenter suggested that this conversion creates billions
of dollars in value.342  For all these reasons, we find that requiring an attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at
and below 2000 MHz is appropriate for the AWS-4 uplink.
98.
Finally, we decline to address the request by DISH that we clarify that the existing linear
interpolation of the OOBE between 2000 MHz and 1995 MHz should be calculated in watts, rather than
in dB.343  Because we adopt a flat OOBE limit across 1995-2000 MHz, this issue is moot, and we do not
make a determination on it.
99.
  Measurement Procedure.  We adopt the measurement procedure set forth in Section
27.53(h) of our rules to determine compliance with this limit.  This section requires a measurement
bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater with an exception allowing a smaller measurement bandwidth in the
first megahertz adjacent to the channel.344
100.
In sum, in order to maximize the public interest, comply with Congressional direction,
and best balance the most efficient use of all relevant spectrum bands, including enabling future
operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band and creating a useful AWS-4 band, we set the OOBE limit of 70
+ 10 log10(P) dB at all frequencies at or below 2000 MHz.

339 See supra ¶ 83; see infra Section III.B.1.viii. (Interference with Other Bands).
340 See e.g., AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 19035 ¶110.
341 See H Block NPRM, at ¶¶ 34-37.
342 PIO Comments at 2.
343 DISH Comments at 27-28; Greenwood Reply Comments at 7-8.
344 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(h)

44

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

(iii)

Interference with operations in 2020-2025 MHz

101.
Background.  The AWS-4 uplink band will be adjacent to the AWS-2 Lower J block
(2020-2025 MHz). Although the Part 25 ATC rules adopted in 2003 originally attenuated the mobile
station emissions in this frequency range by a linear interpolation from 43 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2020 MHz
to 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at 2025 MHz, 345 the Commission separately proposed in 2004 to apply a standard
of 43 + 10 log10(P) to the 2020-2025 MHz (AWS-2 lower J) block.346  In 2009, in the ICO Waiver Order,
the Commission waived the Part 25 ATC rules and instead applied the 43 + 10 log10(P) limit to OOBE in
2020-2025 MHz from transmitters operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band.347  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the
Commission proposed that no additional attenuation beyond 43 + 10 log10(P) dB is needed to protect
services in the 2020-2025 MHz band.  The AWS-4 NPRM also noted that the ICO Waiver Order modified
the measurement procedure for determining AWS-4 compliance with the OOBE to conform to the
procedure for both broadband PCS and AWS-1 mobiles.348
102.
Discussion. We conclude that the 43 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit and the measurement
procedure set forth in Section 27.53(h) are appropriate for protecting the 2020-2025 MHz band.  No
commenters opposed this proposal.  Thus, for the reasons articulated in the AWS-4 NPRM and in the ICO
Waiver Order, we find that this OOBE limit remains appropriate.
(iv)

Interference with operations above 2025 MHz

103.
Background.  The AWS-4 uplink band is 5 megahertz from the 2025-2110 MHz band.
That band is utilized by non-Federal broadcast auxiliary service (BAS) and cable television service
(CARS) operations, as well as certain Federal government operations.349  The MSS/ATC rules originally
limited the mobile emissions from operations in the ATC uplink band to 70 + 10 log10(P) above 2025
MHz.350  In 2009, the Commission waived the Part 25 ATC rule for a specific licensee and instead
applied the 43 + 10 log10(P) standard.351  The Commission also modified the measurement procedure for
measuring compliance with this limit to require a measurement bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater with
exceptions as noted in Section 27.53(h).352  Accordingly, the AWS-4 NPRM proposed to require AWS-4
uplink operations to attenuate operations at a level of at least 43 + 10 log10(P) dB above 2025 MHz with
the measurement procedure defined in the ICO Waiver Order and sought comment on this proposal.353
We received no comments seeking a different OOBE limit for mobile devices operating in the AWS-4
uplink band.
104.
Discussion:  We conclude the 43 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit and the associated
measurement procedure defined in 27.53(h) are appropriate for protecting federal operations and BAS and
CARS operations at 2025-2110 MHz. This limit is consistent with the record. For example, Motorola

345 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(c)(2).
346 See e.g., AWS-2 NPRM,  19 FCC Rcd at 19301 ¶ 98.
347 See ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 193-194 ¶ 61.
348 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3577-78 ¶ 44; see also 47 C.F.R. § 24.238(b) and 27.53(h).
349 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3578 ¶ 45.
350 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(c)(2).
351 See ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 193-194 ¶ 61.
352 Id. at 183 ¶ 34.
353 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3578 ¶ 45.

45

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

supports a 43 + 10 log10(P) OOBE limit for the AWS-4 uplink band edge.354 In addition, although
EIBASS comments that an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) is not sufficient for fixed or base
transmissions originating in the 2020-2025 MHz band, EIBASS also states that it has no objection to an
OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) if transmissions in the 2020-2025 MHz band are other than fixed or base
station.355  Here, as discussed above, the band plan calls for 2000-2020 MHz to be part of the mobile
uplink band. This Report and Order does not authorize any services, fixed or mobile, in the 2020-2025
MHz band. No commenters disagreed with a 43 + 10 log10(P) OOBE limit above 2025 MHz, thus we
conclude the record indicates that the benefits of the proposal outweigh any potential costs.  Thus, we find
it appropriate to continue to apply the 43 + 10 log10(P) OOBE limit and its associated measurement
procedure that has effectively been in place since 2009.
(v)

Interference with operations below 2180 MHz

105.  Background.  The AWS-4 downlink band, 2180-2200 MHz, is adjacent to the AWS-2
Upper J block, 2175-2180 MHz, which is itself adjacent to the AWS-3 band, 2155-2175 MHz.356  The
Spectrum Act refers to these adjacent bands as a single 2155-2180 MHz band.357  The Commission
observed in the AWS-4 NPRM that it had previously proposed an OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 log10(P)
dB as an appropriate base station emission limit to prevent harmful electromagnetic interference in the
AWS-2 and AWS-3 bands. 358  This 43 + 10 log10(P) dB attenuation is generally our standard prescribed
OOBE limit when like services are considered. Because circumstances had not changed significantly
since that attenuation level was proposed for the AWS-2/3 bands, the Commission proposed that no
additional attenuation beyond 43 + 10 log10(P) dB was needed for AWS-4 transmissions below 2180
MHz. 359
106.  Discussion:  We adopt the proposal to apply the 43 + 10 log10(P) dB OOBE limit as
appropriate for protecting wireless systems that will operate below 2180 MHz. This conclusion is
supported by the record. DISH, for example, comments that the proposed 43 + 10 log10(P) dB is
sufficient.360  Furthermore, we anticipate future operations in the 2155-2180 MHz band will be similar in
design and use to cellular and PCS systems, in which the 43 + 10 log10(P) dB limit has been used
effectively in limiting adjacent channel interference between systems operating in the same direction
(e.g., downlink next to downlink). Indeed, Nokia commented that “[t]his level should be sufficient to
protect systems in the adjacent spectrum blocks when they are deployed with the same duplex directions –
meaning, uplink next to uplink and downlink next to downlink.”361  We therefore adopt the 43 + 10
log10(P) dB OOBE limit below 2180 MHz for all transmitters operating in the 2180-2200 bands.  With no
commenters opposing this emission limit, we further conclude that its benefits outweigh any potential
costs.

354 See Motorola Comments at 4.
355 See EIBASS Comments at 1-3.
356 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3578 ¶ 46.
357 Spectrum Act, § 6401(b)(2)(D).
358 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3578 ¶ 46; see also, e.g., 2008 Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9860-9861 ¶ 4.
359 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3578 ¶ 46.
360 DISH Comments at 29.
361 Nokia Reply Comments at 5 n.17.

46

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

(vi)

Interference with operations above 2200 MHz

107.
Background. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate
OOBE limit for licensees of AWS-4 downlink spectrum at 2180-2200 MHz in order to protect adjacent
block operations, including federal operations at 2200-2290 MHz.362 The Commission observed that the
Part 25 rules set forth strict emission limitations (-100.6 dBW/4 kHz EIRP) in the 2180-2200 MHz band,
including at the 2200 MHz band edge.363  The rules also prohibit the location of 2180-2200 MHz base
stations within 820 meters of a Federal earth station operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band.364 In 2009,
however, the Commission waived the Part 25 emission limit (-100.6 dBW/4kHz EIRP) rule for one of the
2 GHz MSS/ATC licensees with regard to operations at or above 2200 MHz; instead of the rule, that
licensee was required to satisfy the terms of an operator-to-operator agreement between the MSS/ATC
licensee and certain federal operators in the 2200-2290 MHz band.365  That agreement specified that, in
certain circumstances, the MSS/ATC licensee was required to satisfy the Part 25 emission limit, but in
other circumstances, only had to satisfy the standard Commission emission limit of 43 + 10 log10(P)
dB.366
108.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comments on several ways that OOBE
limit restrictions on downlink operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band could be established so that band
can be fully utilized while still adequately protecting Federal earth station receive sites.367  We received
few comments on this issue. Alcatel asserts the Commission should take a flexible approach.368  In
particular, Alcatel supports an approach of setting a power flux density (PFD) limit at Federal sites as an
optional alternative to setting an emission limit applicable for all AWS-4 base stations.369  Nokia states
that the Part 25 emissions limit “is considerably more stringent than the standard OOBE limit of 43 + 10
log10(P) dB.”370 Nokia states that to meet this OOBE limit above 2200 MHz, a filter between 1 and 5
MHz of bandwidth is needed for rolloff.371 To minimize the impact of such a rolloff on AWS-4
operations and allow use of the entire 20 MHz of AWS-4 spectrum, Nokia suggests creating a guard band
above 2200 MHz.

362 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3577-78 ¶ 44.  The Commission identified the most prevalent Federal government
uses of the 2200-2290 MHz band in the AWS-4 NPRM. See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3578 ¶ 47 (citing, U.S.
Department of Commerce, An Assessment of the Viability of Accommodating Wireless Broadband in the 1755-1850
MHz Band (Mar. 2012), available at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/ntia 1755 1850 mhz report march2012.pdf (last visited Dec. 4,
2012).
363AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3579 ¶ 48
364 Id. at 3579 ¶ 48.
365 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3579 ¶ 48.
366 Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology, Federal Communications Commission, File No. SES-LIC-20071203-01646, SES-AMD-20080118-
00075, SES-AMD-20080219-00172, Call Sign: E070272, Attachment at 2 (Jan. 6, 2009).
367 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3580 ¶¶ 52-54.
368 Alcatel Comments at 14-15.
369 Id.
370 Nokia Reply at 4.
371 Id.  The specific size of any rolloff would depend upon the size, complexity and cost of the filter.  Id.

47

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

109.
In December 2012, DISH and federal users of the 2200-2290 MHz band entered into an
operator-to-operator agreement, which the National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce transmitted to the Commission.372  The agreement specifies
that DISH (through its subsidiaries, as appropriate) will operate each base station in the 2180-2200 MHz
band such that the power spectral density (PSD) of the signal received at existing Federal earth stations
and aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT) stations shall not exceed agreed upon levels.  The agreement
also contains provisions for addressing the operation of 2180-2200 MHz base station relative to new
federal stations to be deployed in the 2200-2290 MHz band.373
110.
Discussion.  We adopt the following approach for protecting Federal operations in the
2200-2290 MHz band from harmful interference from AWS-4 operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band.
First, as discussed further below, we permit AWS-4 operators and Federal operators to enter into an
operator-to-operator agreement that will specify terms of the permissible AWS-4 OOBE limits and/or
maximum actual AWS-4 emissions to be received at the sites of Federal operations in the 2200-2290
MHz band. Second, we establish default OOBE limits for AWS-4 operations into the 2200-2290 MHz
band in the event such private agreement were not in effect (e.g., the agreement was terminated pursuant
to its terms); AWS-4 licenses return to the Commission (e.g., for a licensee’s failure to meet the
construction requirements).
111.
We adopt this approach after careful analysis of the options before us. As explained
above, the current ATC regime for protecting Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band is a mix of
Commission rules, waiver orders, and operator-to-operator agreements. As a result, the two MSS/ATC
licensees have different interference protection requirements with respect to Federal operators in the
2200-2290 MHz band. Further, as noted above, during the course of this proceeding, the current 2 GHz
MSS/ATC licensees (and prospective AWS-4 licensees) entered into an operator-to-operator agreement
with Federal operators in the 2200-2290 MHz band.374  It is against this backdrop that we promulgate
OOBE rules for AWS-4 base station emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band, which, like the ATC
regime, will both set clear rules and allow licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to deviate from those
rules by entering into operator-to-operator agreements, which will be transmitted to the Commission by
NTIA.
112.
First, we permit, but do not require, licensees of AWS-4 authority to enter into operator-
to-operator agreements with Federal operators at 2200-2290 MHz to address the attenuation of emissions
from AWS-4 base stations operating at 2180-2200 MHz into the adjacent Federal band, so long as such
agreements do not otherwise run afoul of other Commission rules.  We observe that the existing
MSS/ATC licensees and federal users of the 2200-2290 MHz band have already effectuated such an
agreement on what they, as actual operators, find to be the best environment to avoid actual harmful
interference. We applaud the adjacent Federal and non-Federal operators for reaching this agreement and,
with this Report and Order, provide a foundation for this agreement and other similar agreements that
might be reached in the future without the need for a waiver or other special permission from the
Commission. Therefore, we permit the DISH-Federal Agreement to govern AWS-4 base station

372 Letter from Karl B. Nebbia, Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National
Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and
Technology, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 12-70; ET Docket No. 10-142; WT Docket No.
04-356, Attachment (“Operator-to-Operator Agreement between New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. and Gamma
Acquisition L.L.C. and United States Federal Government Agencies Operating Earth Stations and/or Aeronautical
Mobile Telemetry (AMT) Stations in the 2200-2290 MHz Band”) (“DISH-Federal Agreement”) (Dec. 11, 2012).
373 See DISH-Federal Agreement.
374 Id.

48

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

emissions from 2180-2200 MHz into the 2200-2290 MHz band. Specifically, when, as discussed below,
the licenses held by the current 2 GHz MSS licensees are modified to include AWS-4 service, we will
include as conditions to such license modifications the requirement that the licensees of AWS-4 operating
authority must comply with the DISH-Federal Agreement with regard to the permissible AWS-4
emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band and/or the maximum actual AWS-4 emissions to be received at
the specified sites of Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band. To ensure that this agreement, and
any subsequent agreements are consistent with other Commission rules and do not impede the operation
of secondary markets, we require that the licensee of AWS-4 authority who is a party to an operator-to-
operator agreement maintain a copy of the agreement(s) in its station files and disclose it, upon request, to
prospective AWS-4 assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees, to Federal operators in the 2200-2290
MHz band, and to the Commission.375
113.
Second, to ensure that OOBE limits are established in the event such private agreements
are not entered into or do not address all situations between AWS-4 operations in the 2180-2200 MHz
band and Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band, we establish default OOBE limits for AWS-4
emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band. Because the record does not contain any technical justification
to support any specific OOBE limit, and because the Commission did not propose a specific limit in the
AWS-4 NPRM, we adopt the protection levels contained in the ATC rules relative to protection of Federal
operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band.376  Accordingly, AWS-4 base stations operating in 2180-2200
MHz shall not exceed an EIRP of -100.6 dBW/4 kHz for emissions into the 2200-2290 MHz band.
Further AWS-4 base stations operating in 2180-2200 MHz may not be located less than 820 meters from
a U.S. Earth Station facility operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
114.
Finally, to avoid possible confusion between the operation of an operator-to-operator
agreement and the default OOBE limit, we clarify the application of our rules in the event that (1) an
operator-to-operator agreement ceases to operate (for whatever reason) or (2) is operative for less than the
entire universe of AWS-4 licenses or Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band. In either case
where the agreement is not in effect, the licensee of AWS-4 operating authority must comply with the
default rule. For example, should the DISH-Federal Agreement terminate for any reason, DISH
(assuming it is the licensee of AWS-4 authority) would be required to operate pursuant to the default rule.
115.
To ensure that AWS-4 base stations would be able to operate pursuant both to an
operator-to-operator agreement and to the default rule, equipment manufacturers may seek equipment
authorization for equipment designed against either the OOBE limit in the default rule, the OOBE limit in
an executed operator-to-operator agreement between a licensee of AWS-4 authority and Federal operators
in the 2200-2290 MHz band (which must provide at least 43 + 10 log10 (P) dB of attenuation), or both,
except as specified below. We shall approve or deny the equipment authorization, based on testing
against whichever (or both) OOBE the manufacturer requests.
116.
We recognize, however, that equipment designed to operate to the stricter default OOBE
limits will also comply with any more relaxed OOBE limit contained in an operator-to-operator
agreement. In the case where equipment is intended to be operated at either the default or the relaxed
limits, we believe the equipment will be either modified or adjusted by the manufacturer or in the field.
That is, we expect the equipment to have more than one mode of operation in this case. We require the
application for equipment authorization for such equipment to clearly demonstrate compliance with both
limits. If at the time of authorization the equipment is only approved for compliance with one limit, but is
expected to be modified subsequently by the manufacturer to operate in another mode either in the factory

375 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(10).
376 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(a)(1).

49

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

or in the field, the original equipment must be approved to permit such changes or meet such changes as
allowed in the permissive change rules for equipment authorization.377
117.
In addition, a licensee in the AWS-4 band may operate its base stations consistent with its
operator-to-operator agreement only if such an agreement is in effect. In any other situation, including
where such an agreement existed, but has been terminated (for whatever reason), the licensee must
operate AWS-4 base stations that have obtained equipment authorization based on the default rule.  To
the extent that a licensee of AWS-4 authority that is a party to an operator-to-operator agreement installs
and operates bases stations that are authorized against an OOBE limit that is less stringent than the default
rule, that licensee is solely responsible for ensuring that its equipment would be authorized to operate in
the event that the agreement terminates (for whatever reason).
(vii)

Interference with Global Positioning Systems (GPS)
operations

118.
Background: In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission observed that the current Part 25
MSS/ATC rules require certain protection limits over the GPS band at 1559-1610 MHz.378  Specifically,
the current rules require 2 GHz MSS/ATC base stations and mobile terminals to provide an EIRP limit
of -70 dBW/MHz or -80 dBW/700Hz, measured over any two millisecond active transmission interval, in
the 1559-1610 MHz band.379  The Commission also observed that different MSS/ATC bands have
different frequency separations from the GPS band and sought comment on whether any special
interference rules should apply to AWS-4 operations to protect GPS service.380
119.
Some parties submitted comments asking for tighter emissions limits over the GPS band.
USGIC argued that the current Part 25 OOBE limits for the protection of GPS operations at 1559-1610
MHz from terrestrial operations in the 2 GHz band are obsolete and proposed that the Commission adopt
the EIRP emission limits agreed to by TerreStar and DBSD in their ATC authorization proceedings—
EIRP emission limits for mobile transmitters of -95dBW/MHz for wideband signals and of -105dBW/kHz
for narrowband signals, and EIRP emission limits for fixed or base station of -100dBW/MHz for
wideband signals and of -110dBW/kHz for narrowband signals.381  Deere similarly asserted that the
OOBE limits in the Part 25 rules are not sufficient to protect GPS operations at 1559-1610 MHz,
observed that TerreStar and DBSD had agreed to more stringent limits, and recommended that the
Commission “further study this issue and consider an update to the OOBE limit” that should be applied to
AWS-4 operations.382  On September 27, 2012, DISH and USGIC submitted a letter agreement in which
DISH agreed to limit its OOBE EIRP densities over the 1559-1610 MHz band to the limits contained in
USGIC’s comments.383

377 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.944, 2.1043.
378 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3580 ¶ 55.
379 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(a)(7), (b)(3).
380 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3580 ¶ 55.
381 USGIC Comments at 4-9, Exh. A; see Letter from F. Michael Swiek, Executive Director, U.S. GPS Industry
Council, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET
Docket No. 10-142, at 1-4 (filed Nov. 8, 2012) (USGIC Nov. 8, 2012 Letter).
382 Deere Comments at 4-7.
383 Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Deputy General Counsel, DISH Network Corporation, and F. Michael Swiek,
Executive Director, The U.S. GPS Industry Council, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Federal Communications
Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1-2 (filed Sept. 27, 2012) (DISH-USGIC
Sept. 2012 Letter Agreement)

50

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

120.
Other parties opposed the addition of GPS specific protection limits for AWS-4
operations. CTIA stated that GPS protection limits are not necessary for AWS-4 operations because the
AWS-4 band is located several hundred megahertz away from the GPS band.384  CTIA further observed
that operations in bands much closer to the GPS frequencies, such as the AWS-1 band (1710-1755 MHz;
2110-2155 MHz), operate with an OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log10(P) dB into the GPS band and these
operations have not given rise to any complaints of interference to GPS. Instead of adopting OOBE
limits, either by rule or by license condition, CTIA recommended that the Commission continue its recent
efforts to examine receiver performance and noted that the Commission had recently held a workshop on
receiver performance issues.385  LightSquared also stated that the Commission should focus its efforts to
protect GPS by examining GPS receiver reliability standards.386  Greenwood claimed that
the -105dBW/MHz EIRP limit would be reasonable if implemented over time, provided that receiver
protection requirements for GPS/GNSS receivers increase to mitigate interference susceptibility.387
Greenwood, like CTIA, also observed that there are many millions of devices transmitting between the
GPS and AWS-4 bands that operate in bands that do not have specific OOBE protection levels for GPS
and that are not causing OOBE interference to GPS.388
121.
Discussion.  The Commission has long recognized the importance of GPS and our
responsibility to ensure that it receives appropriate interference protections from other
radiocommunication services.  The Commission generally supports the actions of licensees to resolve
interference issues raised by other spectrum holders or users through private agreements, where, as is the
case here, they are not otherwise inconsistent with Commission rules or policies.  Because the prospective
licensees of AWS-4 operating authority have reached a private agreement with the industry council
representing GPS interests, the USGIC, we believe the most appropriate approach is to require that, as a
license condition, the licensees comply with this agreement and the specific GPS protection limits
contained therein.389  This is consistent with the USGIC’s request that we “condition AWS-4 licenses
with the OOBE limits jointly agreed by DISH and the USGIC.”390  The licenses, moreover, shall remain

384 CTIA Reply at 16-17; Letter from Christopher Guttman-McCabe, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, CTIA—
The Wireless Association®, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos.
12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1-2 (filed Oct. 25, 2012) (CTIA Oct. 25 Letter)
385 CTIA Reply at 16-17, citing Office of Engineering and Technology, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, and
Office of Strategic Planning Announce Workshop on “Spectrum Efficiency and Receiver Performance,” Public
Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 2084 (OET, WTB, OSP, rel. Feb. 24, 2012); see Letter from Scott K. Bergmann, CTIA—The
Wireless AssociationTM, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-
70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed Nov. 30, 2012) (“CTIA reiterated that there is no need for
Commission action or GPS-specific regulation in this instance. . . .  CTIA encouraged the Commission to decline to
adopt unnecessary and inappropriate regulation of, or license condition on, commercial mobile services.”).
386 LightSquared Reply at 3, citing Office of Engineering and Technology, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
and Office of Strategic Planning Announce Workshop on “Spectrum Efficiency and Receiver Performance,” Public
Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 2754 (OET, WTB, OSP, rel. March 9, 2012).
387 Greenwood Comments at 15-18; Greenwood Reply at 8-9.
388 Greenwood Comments at 18.
389 See DISH-USGIC Sept. 2012 Letter Agreement.
390 Letter from F. Michael Swiek, Executive Director United States GPS Industry Council to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed
Oct. 9, 2012); see id. at 3 (stating that “the forthcoming AWS-4 report and order must include reference to the
OOBE values agreed to by DISH and the USGIC, and that the resulting AWS-4 authorizations must reflect that
AWS-4 operations will be subject to OOBE limits in the DISH/USGIC agreement for AWS-4”).

51

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

subject to this license condition in the event that the licensees assign or otherwise transfer the licenses to
successors-in-interest or assignees.  To the extent that AWS-4 licenses return to the Commission (e.g., for
a licensee’s failure to meet the construction requirements), the Commission will, prior to reassigning such
licenses, consult with NTIA about the need for specific OOBE requirements on the new licenses to
protect GPS operations in the 1559-1610 MHz band.391
122.
In requiring the licensees comply with their voluntary agreement, we need not—and do
not—reach the issue of determining whether the record contains sufficient information on whether and, if
so, at what level, to establish an OOBE limit rule for protection of GPS from AWS-4 operations. We
observe that the USGIC stated that both it and its member Deere believe that the emissions limits for the
GPS band for services operating in other frequency bands should be considered on a “case-by-case
basis.”392  We make no determination as to whether the limits in the private agreement are appropriate or
viable for services operating in other spectrum.
(viii)

Interference with Other Bands

123.
DISH suggested that we should impose emission limits on the 1995-2000 MHz block and
on the 1930-1995 MHz PCS blocks, as well as power limitations for 1995-2000 MHz operations.393
Establishing such limits are outside the scope of this Report and Order, which sets service rules for AWS-
4 spectrum, not the 1995-2000 MHz or 1930-1995 MHz bands. OOBE and power limits for the 1995-
2000 MHz band will be addressed in the H Block NPRM.394  To the extent that any party seeks a change
in the existing PCS rules, that party is free to petition the Commission for a rule change.
124.
Nevertheless, we observe that DISH proposed that the Commission limit 1995-2000 MHz
block base station operations by an attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) dB at and above 2000 MHz, and later
proposed instead that such operations should be attenuated by a factor of 79 + 10 log10(P) dB at and above
2005 MHz.395  Similarly, DISH suggested that the in-band transmit power of operations in the 1995-2000
MHz band should be significantly reduced, i.e., that this should be a low power band.396 These proposals
could reduce the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band. Such limits appear to be inconsistent with our
general finding that the public interest, consistent with the Spectrum Act, is best served by preserving the
usability of 1995-2000 MHz even if there is a possibility of reduced usability of the lower portion of the
AWS-4 uplink band. Thus, we caution any licensee of AWS-4 operating authority against designing or
deploying its network (except at its own risk) assuming either of these levels of OOBE protection for the
2000-2005 MHz band from the 1995-2000 MHz band or low power limits in the 1995-2000 MHz band.
As noted below, the Commission will not take action to protect licensees of AWS-4 operating authority
from interference that arises in such a scenario.397  We expect that licensees and their equipment suppliers

391 See infra Section III.F (Applications for Any AWS-4 Spectrum Returned to the Commission).
392 Letter from Stephen D. Baruch, Counsel for the United States GPS Industry Council, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Sec’y, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, at 1 (filed
Oct. 9, 2012) (“The participants also discussed the USGIC’s position that the potential interfering capability of other
services should be considered on a case-by-case basis (particularly for bands operating closer in frequency to the
RNSS bands).”); DISH-USGIC Sep. 2012 Letter Agreement at 2 n.2 (“Deere & Company, however, does support an
evaluation of the appropriate OOBE limits on a case-by-case basis with respect to other bands.”).
393 DISH Comments at 28; DISH Dec.3 Letter at 3; DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 6-7.
394 See H Block NPRM, at ¶¶ 34-37.
395 See e.g. DISH Dec.3 Letter at 3.
396 DISH Comments at 28.
397 See infra Section III.B.5. (Acceptance of Interference into the AWS-4 Uplink Band).

52

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

will take this warning into account when establishing technical specifications, including industry
standards, and procuring equipment for the band.  To the extent that satellite receivers have already been
deployed, which could suffer reductions in performance if full power services are deployed in 1995-2000
MHz,398 we note that our proceeding proposing full power flexible use for 1995-2000 MHz has been open
since 2004, before satellites operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band were launched, or even likely
designed.399  Therefore, we expect that the satellites were designed with this overload scenario in mind
and there should, therefore, be no impact to MSS. To the extent this is not the case, we do not expect to
limit use of 1995-2000 MHz due to any limitations of receivers deployed after our proceeding on use of
1995-2000 MHz was opened.
2.

Co-Channel Interference Among AWS-4 Systems

125.
Co-channel interference rules prevent harmful interference between geographically
adjacent licenses operating in the same spectrum. Specifically, to avoid this interference, the Commission
adopts field strength limits that apply at the geographic edge of the license area. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the
Commission proposed that the current AWS-1 signal strength limit be applied to AWS-4 operations.400
Because we are licensing AWS-4 spectrum in geographic service areas that are smaller than nationwide,
we must adopt signal strength limits here.401  With no commenters opposing this proposal, we conclude
that the benefits of our proposal outweigh any potential costs. As we are basing our technical rules
generally on AWS-1 rules where applicable, we continue to believe it appropriate to adopt the AWS-1 co-
channel interference requirements for AWS-4. Thus we adopt the proposed co-channel interference
levels and expand Section 27.55(a)(1) of the Commission’s rules to include the 2180-2200 MHz band.402
We observe, however, that the assignment approach we adopt below likely will result in an individual
licensee obtaining assignments for geographically adjacent AWS-4 EA licenses. In such a scenario, that
licensee may choose not to observe this signal strength limit between its geographically adjacent AWS-4
licenses, so long as it complies with other Commission rules and the adjacent affected service area
licensee(s) agree(s) to a different field strength.403
3.

Receiver Performance

126.
Background: We invited comments on any potential overload interference that may be
caused by AWS-4 transmitters or other transmitters that may cause overload interference to AWS-4
receivers.  We also asked for characteristics of such receivers, potential mitigation solutions to overload
interference and an assessment of the impact to deployment of AWS-4 service.404 On March 12, 2012, the
Commission hosted a two-day workshop on Spectrum Efficiency where various industry and federal
participants discussed the role of receivers in enabling access to spectrum for new services.405 The FCC’s

398 DISH Comments at 28.
399 See AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20739 ¶ 39 (“We also find that due to similar characteristics
and proximity to Broadband PCS, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band pairing is comparable to the 1910-
1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz band pairing”); see also 2008 Further Notice 23 FCC Rcd at 9860-61 ¶ 4
(proposing 1995-2000 MHz be used for base station use).
400 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3582 ¶ 65.
401 See supra Section III.A.3. (Geographic Area Licensing).
402 47 C.F.R. § 27.55(a)(1).
403 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.55(a).
404 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3581-82 ¶¶ 56.
405 See http://www fcc.gov/events/workshop-spectrum-efficiency-and-receivers-day-1 (last visited Dec. 4, 2012).

53

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Technological Advisory Council (TAC) has also created a “Receiver and Spectrum Working Group” for
2012, which presented its interim recommendations at the September 24, 2012, TAC meeting.406  The
Spectrum Act also directed the U.S. Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on receiver
performance and spectrum efficiency and issue a report by February 2013.407
127.
Discussion: Various parties have commented on the receiver performance. LightSquared,
Greenwood, CTIA, and NRTC suggested that the Commission continue its recent efforts on receiver
performance.408  Silicon Flatirons introduced the concept of “Interference Limit” as an alternative to
receiver standard. It defined the “Interference Limit” as a profile of field strength density over frequency
that a receiver should tolerate before claiming interference, and suggested that this concept, as opposed to
a receiver standard, be applied to the AWS-4 band.409
128.
We decline to address receiver performance issues at this time due to lack of details and
discussions from commenters. As suggested by commenters, we will continue our efforts to collaborate
with multiple stakeholders on receiver performance and establish a path forward based on the various
inputs from interested parties, including the final recommendations of the TAC Working Group.
4.

Power Limits

129.
The Commission sought comment on appropriate power limits for terrestrial operations
in the AWS-4 band.410 Specifically, the Commission proposed to apply existing AWS-1 power limits for
both base and mobile stations in the AWS-4 bands.411 As discussed below, we adopt the Commission’s
proposed power limit for base stations. For mobile operations we adopt a power limit of 2 watts total
equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) with the additional constraint that total power between
2000-2005 MHz be limited to 5 milliwatts EIRP.
a.

Base Stations

(i)

Background

130.
The Commission made three proposals in the AWS-4 NPRM relating to power limits for
base stations operating in the AWS-4 bands.  These proposals would generally apply the AWS-1 base
station power limits for AWS-4 base stations, adjusting any coordination requirements to account for
AWS-4 spectrum being adjacent to different spectrum bands than AWS-1 spectrum.412  AWS-1 rules
limit base station power in non-rural areas to 1640 watts EIRP for emission bandwidths less than 1 MHz
and to 1640 watts per MHz EIRP for emission bandwidths greater than 1 MHz, and double these limits
(3280 watts EIRP and 3280 watts/MHz EIRP) in rural areas.413

406 See http://transition fcc.gov/bureaus/oet/tac/tacdocs/meeting92412/TAC-9-24-12-Presentations.pdf (last visited
Dec. 4, 2012).
407 See Spectrum Act § 6408(a).
408 LightSquared Reply at 7; Greenwood Comments at 18; CTIA Reply at 17; NRTC Comments at 10.
409 Silicon Flatirons Comments at 5-6, 8.
410 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3581-82 ¶¶ 57-61.
411 Id.
412 Id.
413 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(d); ICO Waiver Order, 24 FCC Rcd at 188 ¶ 47; TerreStar Waiver Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 235-
236 ¶¶ 23-24.

54

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

131.
First, the Commission proposed power limits for base stations in non-rural areas.  To best
allow flexibility in the use of various bandwidths, the Commission proposed applying the limits of the
existing AWS-1 rule of (1) 1640 watts EIRP for emissions less than 1 megahertz and (2) 1640 watts/MHz
EIRP for emissions over 1 megahertz.414  The Commission also discussed the MSS/ATC base station
power limits set forth in the Commissions Part 25 rules and in the 2 GHz license authorizations, which
vary somewhat from the AWS-1 rules.415
132.
Second, the Commission proposed setting the AWS-4 power limits for base stations
operating in rural areas to the limits set forth in sections 27.50(d)(1)-(2) for AWS-1 base station
operations, which are double the limits for non-rural areas (i.e., 3 dB higher).416  We noted in the AWS-4
NPRM that the Commission had not previously considered whether the higher power level of 3280 watts
EIRP allowed for rural AWS-1 base stations is appropriate for 2180-2200 MHz.417  In the AWS-4 NPRM,
the Commission proposed to allow the increase of these power levels to 3280 watts EIRP for emissions
less than 1 MHz and 3280 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 MHz in rural areas in an effort to further
the goal of rural deployment of broadband services.418
133.
Third, the Commission proposed that AWS-4 base stations with transmit power above
1640 watts EIRP and 1640 watts / MHz EIRP be required to coordinate with users in adjacent AWS
blocks located within 120 kilometers.419  The Commission made this proposal because it is equivalent to
the AWS-1 coordination requirements as adjusted to account for differences in which bands are adjacent
to AWS-1 and AWS-4 spectrum, respectively.420
(ii)

Discussion

134.
We adopt the three base station power limit proposals detailed in the AWS-4 NPRM. As
we explain throughout this order, we base our technical rules on those in place for AWS-1 spectrum. The
proposed rules are based on those for AWS-1, and we received no comments opposing the rules.  Thus,
we adopt the proposal to limit AWS-4 base stations to 1640 watts EIRP for emissions less than 1 MHz
and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP for emissions over 1 MHz for non-rural areas; the proposal to set AWS-4
power limits for base stations operating in rural areas at the limits specified in 27.50(d)(1-2) of the
Commission’s rules;421 and the proposal that AWS-4 base stations with transmit power above 1640 watts
EIRP and 1640 watts/MHz EIRP be required to coordinate with users in adjacent AWS blocks located
within 120 kilometers.  These power limits will help ensure robust service in the AWS-4 bands, while
also helping to minimize harmful interference into other bands.  No commenters opposed these proposals.

414 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 3581 ¶ 58.
415 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252 (a)(2).
416 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 3581 ¶ 59.
417 These higher power levels for rural areas were not considered because they were not requested in the waivers.
418 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 3581 ¶ 59.
419 Id. at 3581-3582 ¶ 60.
420 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3581-3582 ¶ 60.
421 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.50(d)(1-2).

55

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Mobile Stations

(i)

Background

135.
Commission rules governing ATC operations set a power limit of 1.0 dBW (1.25 watts)
EIRP in a bandwidth of 1.23 MHz for mobiles operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band,422 while AWS-1
rules set the power limit for mobile operations at 1 watt EIRP.423  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission
suggested that the AWS-1 mobile power limit is somewhat more restrictive than the ATC rules and,
because these two limits are similar, that the AWS-1 limit found in 27.50(d)(4) should be applied to
mobile operations in AWS-4.424  DISH argues for a 2 watt mobile power limit, asserting both that “the
PCS power limit and its Part 27 counterpart, the 2 watt limit applicable to BRS/EBS, are more appropriate
references for AWS-4” than is the AWS-1 power limit and that the ATC rule, because it specifies power
spectral density (PSD) rather than a total power, allows more power, for example, 3 dBW in a 5 MHz
bandwidth.425  No other parties argued for or against a 1 watt or 2 watt limit for mobile stations.
(ii)

Discussion

136.
We adopt the following power limits for AWS-4 mobile operations. First, we adopt a
limit of 2 watts equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for the total power of a device operating in
the AWS-4 uplink. Then, to protect future operations in the adjacent 1995-2000 MHz band, we also limit
the power of the portion of a device’s transmission that falls into 2000-2005 MHz to 5 milliwatts. Our
adoption of these requirements is based on the following technical analysis.
137.
First, we consider the total mobile power for the AWS-4 uplink band. Although we
generally are applying AWS-1 technical rules to AWS-4, here we adopt the 2 watt EIRP power limit
proposed by DISH. No party opposed this proposal. We find that DISH is correct in its understanding of
the ATC rule, and a 2 watt power limit is more restrictive than the existing ATC rules in the case of large
bandwidths, which may be deployed in this band. Conversely, we note that keeping the PSD-based ATC
rule would unnecessarily limit flexibility, and it could restrict the use of narrow transmission bandwidths,
such as an LTE mobile transmitting on only a few resource blocks. We agree with DISH that a 2 watt
EIRP for AWS-4 mobiles will provide adequate protection to PCS mobiles operating at 1990-1995 MHz.
138.
Second, as discussed above,426 to promote the best and highest use of spectrum, to fulfill
our statutory obligations, and to maintain consistency with past Commission actions, we determine that it
is in the public interest to ensure the efficient and robust use of both the 1995-2000 MHz band and the
AWS-4 band, even if that results in adopting targeted rules that partially limit the usability of a portion of
the AWS-4 uplink band. For these reasons, above we establish specific attenuation requirements to
address interference from AWS-4 OOBE into the 1995-2000 MHz band.427  OOBE limits do not,
however, address overload issues. Overload interference can occur in a receiver when it receives signals
outside of the frequencies of the desired signal, especially if they are of a much higher power than the
desired signal. Overload interference can be managed by improving receiver performance through
filtering or other techniques, or by placing transmit power limitations on the authorized frequencies of the
potential interferer.  We find below that a balance of expected improved performance for receivers in

422 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.252(b)(1).
423 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(d)(4).
424 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3582 ¶ 61.
425 DISH Comments at 30.
426 See supra Section III.B.1.b.ii. (Interference with operations in 1995-2000 MHz).
427 Id.

56

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

1995-2000 MHz (relative to typical specifications) and establishing power limitations on AWS-4
operations in the 2000-2005 MHz band best mitigates the possibility of mobile-to-mobile interference
from the AWS-4 uplink band to the 1995-2000 MHz band.428
139.
As detailed below, to establish the appropriate power limitations for AWS-4 operations in
2000-2005 MHz we make several calculations. First, we determine the signal level that future mobiles
operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band can tolerate in an adjacent band, considering both the desired
signal and the undesired signal levels, that is, the blocking performance. Next, we describe the user
environment under which interference can reasonably be prevented.  The environment defines the path
losses between the interfering AWS-4 mobile and the 1995-2000 MHz receiver.  Then, we establish
power limits on the AWS-4 mobiles by applying the path losses to the maximum interfering signal level
to work back to the allowable transmitter power.
140.
Blocking Performance. As the Commission has not yet adopted rules for the 1995-2000
MHz band, and does not have receiver standards for comparable bands, to calculate the level of overload
interference that we anticipate future mobile receivers operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band will tolerate
we must turn to other sources. With the rapid adoption of 4G mobile broadband technologies, LTE is a
technology commonly being deployed today. We use the 3GPP specifications for LTE user equipment
(UE) operating in the nearby PCS band, band 25 (1930-1995 MHz).429  Although these 3GPP LTE
specifications are applicable to user equipment operating in 1930-1995 MHz, not 1995-2000 MHz, and
are specific to LTE devices, we feel they are a reasonable indication of the likely performance of future
1995-2000 MHz band devices.
141.
In the 3GPP specifications for LTE, blocking performance is specified with a desired
signal 6 dB above the reference sensitivity.430  For a device operating in the 1930-1995 MHz band (band
25) on a 5 megahertz channel, the reference sensitivity is -96.5 dBm.431  Thus, the desired signal is -90.5
dBm. Next we determine the level of the undesired signal. For interferers on the adjacent channel, the
3GPP standard specifies the ratio of the undesired to desired signal level, termed the adjacent channel
selectivity (ACS), rather than an absolute blocking level.432  For band 25, assuming 5 MHz carriers, the
ACS is 33 dB, resulting in -57.5 dBm as the level of undesired signal that the receiver must tolerate.433
142.
User Environment. The interference scenario that has been discussed in the record is
where a handheld AWS-4 mobile transmitter and a handheld PCS mobile receiver are in close
proximity.434  Based on the parameters provided in the comments of Motorola Mobility, which we find
reasonable with the modification that the body loss applies to both devices as discussed above,435 the
characteristics of this environment are:
•  Mobiles are separated by 2 meters

428 As discussed above, we are not establishing receiver performance requirements at this time.  See supra III.B.3.
(Receiver Performance).
429 LTE RF Standard for UEs at 20.
430 LTE RF Standard for UEs at 86.
431 LTE RF Standard for UEs at 78.
432 LTE RF Standard for UEs at 83-85.
433 LTE RF Standard for UEs at 83.
434 Motorola Comments, Technical App. at A-1.
435 See supra ¶ 85.

57

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

•  The mobiles are in line of sight conditions, experiencing free space path loss (FSPL)
FSPL (dB) = 20 log (d) + 20 log (f) – 27.55,
where d = distance in meters and f = frequency in MHz.
For a 2 meter separation and 2000 MHz transmit frequency, this translates to
FSPL = 20 log(2) + 20 log (2000)- 27.55 = 44.5 dB,
•  Each mobile (TxAntGain, RxAntGain) has a combined antenna gain and head/body loss
of -10 dB
•  Total path losses = TxAntGain + FSPL + RxAntGain = 10 + 44.5 + 10 = 64.5 dB
143.
Power Limitation.  The allowable transmitter power for AWS-4 is thus calculated by
adding the path losses of 64.5 dB to the maximum level of the undesired signal level of -57.5 dBm.
Hence, we arrive at a transmitter power level of 7 dBm, which is equivalent to 5 milliwatts.  Accordingly,
we find that the limit on the total EIRP of AWS-4 mobiles in 2000-2005 MHz must be at most 5
milliwatts.  We recognize that carriers larger than 5 MHz may be deployed in the AWS-4 spectrum, and
therefore, this power limit may in some cases apply to only a portion of the total power transmitted by the
mobile.  Therefore, we allow a device to transmit a total of 2 watts EIRP, as long as the portion of the
device’s transmission in 2000-2005 MHz is limited to an EIRP of 5 milliwatts.
144.
Comparison to OOBE limit. To confirm the appropriateness of this limit, we compare the
effect of overload interference to the 1995-2000 MHz band to OOBE interference to the 1995-2000 MHz
band. As discussed above,436 we establish an OOBE attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) below 2000 MHz for
AWS-4 uplink transmissions.  This corresponds to a level of -40 dBm/MHz. Applying the same isolation
of 64.5 dB for 2 meters of separation, this means the level present at the 1995-2000 MHz receiver is -
104.5 dBm/MHz. This is 3 dB below Motorola’s suggested typical noise floor of -101.5 dBm/MHz,
consisting of thermal noise of -114 dBm/MHz plus a 12.5 dB noise figure.437  This is an approximately 2
dB noise rise or desensitization, close to the 3 dB desensitization Motorola recommends as a threshold of
interference.438  So the OOBE attenuation of 70 + 10 log10(P) and power limitation of 5 milliwatts are
well balanced, with neither one allowing significantly higher probability of interference than the other.
145.
Receiver Improvements. We note that using standard 3GPP blocking specifications,
similar analysis would also imply the need for power reductions in 2005-2020 MHz. However, we
believe that future equipment for the 1995-2000 MHz band should be able to exceed these specifications,
if licensees find it necessary to do so.  We impose power restrictions only in the first 5 megahertz because
of the difficulty of improving filter performance in the first 5 megahertz adjacent to a band.
146.
Private Agreements.  We recognize that further improvement of the performance of
receivers in 1995-2000 MHz band, as well as willingness on the part of licensees of the 1995-2000 MHz
band to accept a higher probability of interference, could reduce or eliminate the need for power
restrictions in 2000-2005 MHz. Therefore, we allow for licensees of AWS-4 authority to enter into
private operator-to-operator agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 2000-2005 MHz
at power levels above 5 milliwatts EIRP. In no case, however, may the total power of the AWS-4 mobile
emissions exceed 2 watts EIRP.
147.
Alternate proposal.  As discussed above,439 DISH also proposed a combination of rules
and commitments that it says will allow full use of the 1995-2000 MHz band while preventing any 3GPP

436 See supra Section III.B.1.b.ii. (Interference with operations in 1995-2000 MHz).
437 Motorola Comments, Technical App. at A-1.
438 Id.
439 See supra ¶ 70.

58

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

delay.440  In particular, part of this proposal is that DISH will designate 2000-2005 MHz as a terrestrial
guard band, and DISH’s devices will not transmit on those frequencies. DISH suggests that this will
create more certainty for potential bidders on the1995-2000 MHz band than a power limitation such as we
adopt here, and that its proposal will therefore increase the usability of that band.441  However, we do not
adopt any rules prohibiting transmission in 2000-2005 MHz, as establishing calibrated technical limits
with the flexibility to be modified via private agreements allows technical and business solutions that
increase the usability of this spectrum if needed, whereas a rule such as proposed by DISH would
foreclose any productive use of the spectrum. We also do not believe that DISH’s proposal will increase
the usability of the 1995-2000 MHz band over the rules we adopt here, which adequately protect the
1995-2000 MHz band through a combination of OOBE limits and power limitations.
148.
In sum, we decline to adopt the proposed power limit of 1 watt EIRP for mobiles.
Rather, we set power limits for mobile operations in the 2000-2020 MHz band as follows: the total power
of the mobile is limited to 2 watts EIRP for emissions in 2000-2020 MHz, and is limited to 5 milliwatts
EIRP for the portion of any emission that falls into 2000-2005 MHz, except as provided for by private
agreement between a licensee of AWS-4 operating authority and all 1995-2000 MHz licensees.  No party
presented data on the costs associated with different mobile power limits. Thus, given the record before
us, we conclude that the potential benefits of our adopted mobile station power limit would outweigh any
potential costs.
5.

Acceptance of Interference into the AWS-4 Uplink Band.

149.
As discussed earlier, the Commission looks to maximize the flexible use of both the
AWS-4 and the 1995-2000 MHz bands to enable deployment of full, robust, commercial service for
mobile broadband. And, as discussed above, to promote the best and highest use of spectrum, fulfill our
statutory obligations, and to maintain consistency with past Commission actions, we determine that it is in
the public interest to ensure the efficient and robust use of both the 1995-2000 MHz band and the AWS-4
band, even if that results in adopting targeted rules that partially limit the usability of a portion of the
AWS-4 uplink band.442  To this end, we have prescribed both power and emission limits on the AWS-4
mobile transmitters to prevent interference to the mobile receivers in the 1995-2000 MHz band. The
Commission anticipates that the new technical rules to be provided in a forthcoming rulemaking for
operation in the 1995-2000 MHz band will address interference to AWS-4 operations.443  Even with
appropriate technical rules and good engineering practice, where uplink and downlink operations are so
closely located, there will remain a potential for base stations in the 1995-2000 MHz band to interfere
with the AWS-4 base station receivers. Further, although we are not adopting rules limiting the
operations of MSS mobile transmitters, the proximity of uplink and downlink operations also raises the
potential for 1995-2000 MHz band base stations to interfere with MSS satellite receivers.  Therefore, to
the extent that future operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band, operating within the rules established for
use of the 1995-2000 MHz band, cause harmful interference to AWS-4 operations or MSS operations due

440 See DISH Dec. 3 Letter; DISH Dec. 7 Letter.
441 See DISH Dec. 7 Letter at 3.
442 Again, as stated above, we disagree with DISH’s assertion that the Commission has a “first-in-time” policy that
requires us to grant DISH “full rights” to use AWS-4 spectrum and, only thereafter, begin to examine the rules for
the 1995-2000 MHz band.  See DISH Nov. 26 Ex Parte Letter at 3. We are aware of no Commission rule requiring
the application of a generic first-in-time priority between adjacent spectrum bands.  See supra n.232.
443 See H Block NPRM, at ¶¶ 35-37.

59

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

to either OOBE in the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS uplink band or in-band
power in 1995-2000 MHz, AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS licensees must accept this interference.444
150.
We emphasize that we limit the acceptance of OOBE interference to the 2000-2005 MHz
portion of the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS bands. However, should in band interference occur due to the
power in 1995-2000 MHz overloading receivers above 2000 MHz, this overload can potentially affect the
entire receive band. Overload interference can be prevented by improved receive filters.  Therefore, if a
licensee of AWS-4 operating authority determines such filters are necessary, the impact to the uplink
band is limited to the transition band of the filter, not the entire band. Such a transition band would be
less than 5 megahertz,445 thus the impact would be limited to (at most) the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the
AWS-4 bands, and there is no legacy equipment impact, as ATC service has not been deployed. Finally,
we note that unlike the terrestrial service, MSS has been deployed in this band, with two satellites
launched. Because both satellites were launched well after the Commission initiated the H block
proceeding,446 we expect that they were designed with this overload scenario in mind.447  Therefore, there
should be no impact to MSS. To the extent this is not the case, we do not expect to limit use of 1995-
2000 MHz due to any limitations of receivers deployed after our proceeding on use of 1995-2000 MHz
was opened.
151.
Thus, for the public interest reasons discussed above and because Congress requires us to
make available via a system of competitive bidding the 1995-2000 MHz band, we find that the costs of
the tailored limitations on the use of the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band as well as possibly
some portion of the 2 GHz MSS band are outweighed by the benefits of enabling full use of the 1995-
2000 MHz band and of the 2005-2020 MHz portion of the AWS-4 band.
6.

Antenna Height Restrictions

152.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed that the flexible antenna height rules
applicable to AWS-1 should be also applied to AWS-4 stations.448 In response, only DISH commented
on this issue. As explained below, we adopt the Commission’s proposals with minor modifications.
a.

Base Stations

(i)

Background

153.
Part 27 of the Commission’s rules does not set out specific antenna height restrictions for
AWS-1 base stations. However, pursuant to Section 27.56, all services operating under Part 27 are
required to limit base station antenna heights to elevations that do not present a hazard to air
navigation.449  Additionally, the limitations of field strength at the geographical boundary of the license

444 We set this rule for the 2000-2005 MHz portion of the band because the record indicates base station transmit
filters need 1 to 5 megahertz to roll-off to a low level of emissions.  See Nokia Reply at 4, Alcatel Comments at 12.
445 For example, DISH argues for 5 megahertz of transition band to avoid overload.  See DISH Oct. 17 Letter at 3.
446 DBSD launched its satellite in April 2008 and TerreStar launched its satellite in July 2009.  AWS-4 NPRM, 27
FCC Rcd at 3565-66 ¶ 8.
447 See AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20739 ¶ 39 (“We also find that due to similar characteristics
and proximity to broadband PCS, the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz band pairings is comparable to the
1910-1915 MHz and 1990-1995 MHz band pairing”); see also 2008 Further Notice, 23 FCC Rcd at 9860-61 ¶ 4
(proposing 1995-2000 MHz be used for base station use).
448 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3582 ¶¶ 62-64.
449 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.56.

60

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

discussed above also effectively limit antenna heights.450  As a result, because of these inherent height
limitations, the Commission proposed that unique antenna height limits were not needed for AWS-4
facilities, and that the general height restrictions of Part 27 would be sufficient.451  We received one
comment on this issue, which supported the proposal.452
(ii)

Discussion

154.
We find that, consistent with the Commission’s proposal, specific antenna height
restriction for AWS-4 base stations are not necessary. As discussed above, the general requirement to not
endanger air navigation and the effective height limitations implicitly resulting from our co-channel
interference rules obviate the need for specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-4 base stations.
Additionally, the sole commenter on this issue supports the Commission’s position.453 Thus, we find
specific antenna height restrictions for AWS-4 base stations are not required.
b.

Fixed Stations

(i)

Background

155.
Unlike base stations operating under Part 27, Commission rules specify a height
restriction of 10 meters for fixed stations operating in AWS-1 uplink spectrum.454 As the Commission
discussed throughout the AWS-4 NPRM, because of the similarities between AWS-1 and AWS-4, we
expect use of the AWS-4 bands to be similar to AWS-1 services. Hence, the Commission proposed
applying the AWS-1 antenna height restriction of 10 meters to AWS-4.455
(ii)

Discussion

156.
DISH suggests that a height restriction is not necessary for AWS-4 fixed stations,
because the uplink operations of AWS-4 will be more similar to BRS/EBS than AWS-1.456  The 10 meter
height limit was adopted in AWS-1 specifically to protect the Federal operations in the 1710-1755 MHz
band and the adjacent Federal bands above and below.457  Outside of this specific case, the Commission
has not found a 10 meter height restriction necessary for other terrestrial mobile bands, such as BRS/EBS
or PCS.  No other comments were received on this issue. Because the AWS-4 uplink band at 2000-2020
MHz is not adjacent to Federal operations, and to promote flexibility in the use of AWS-4 spectrum, we
decline to adopt a height limitation for fixed stations in the AWS-4 uplink band.
7.

Canadian and Mexican Coordination

157.
Because of our shared border with Canada and Mexico, the Commission routinely works
in conjunction with the United States Department of State and Canadian and Mexican government
officials to ensure efficient use of the spectrum as well as interference-free operations in the border areas.
Until such time as any adjusted agreements, as needed, between the United States, Mexico and/or Canada
can be agreed to, operations must not cause harmful interference across the border, consistent with the

450 See supra Section III.B.2. (Co-Channel Interference Among AWS-4 Systems).
451 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3582 ¶ 63.
452 DISH Comments at 30.
453 DISH Comments at 30.
454 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(d).
455 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3582 ¶ 64.
456 DISH Comments at 30-31.
457 AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25204 n. 279.

61

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

terms of the agreements currently in force.458 We note that further modifications of the rules might be
necessary in order to comply with any future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of
these bands.
8.

Other Technical Issues

158.
In addition to the specific technical issues addressed above, the Commission also
proposed applying additional Part 27 rules to the AWS-4 band.459  Specifically, the Commission proposed
applying the following rule sections: 27.51 Equipment authorization, 27.52 RF safety, 27.54 Frequency
stability, 27.56 Antennas structures; air navigation safety, and 27.63 Disturbance of AM broadcast station
antenna patterns.460  The Commission reasoned that because AWS-4 will be a Part 27 service, these rules
should apply to all licensees of AWS-4 terrestrial authority, including those who acquire licenses through
partitioning or disaggregation.461  No commenters opposed this proposal. Accordingly, because these
rules generally apply to all Part 27 services, and because, as we explain below, we find it appropriate to
license the AWS-4 spectrum under our Part 27 regulatory framework,462 we conclude that the potential
benefits of our proposal would outweigh any potential costs and adopt the proposal to apply these
additional Part 27 rules to licensees of AWS-4 authority.

Protection of MSS Operations

159.
Background. As explained above, the Commission allocated 2 GHz spectrum for Mobile
Satellite use in 1997 and issued MSS authorizations between 2001 and 2005.463  Subsequently, in 2011,
the Commission added co-primary Fixed and Mobile allocations to the band, but stated that MSS would
remain co-primary in the 2 GHz MSS band.464  In adding the terrestrial allocations, the Commission
explained that the new allocation would “not result in harmful interference, and would not inevitably lead
to uses that would result in harmful interference,” as no terrestrial service rules yet existed for the band
(other than the pre-existing MSS/ATC rules).465  Most recently, with the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission
proposed to establish terrestrial service rules for the 2 GHz band. Consequently, to ensure that the
addition of full terrestrial operations in the 2 GHz band does not result in harmful interference to 2 GHz
MSS operations, the Commission proposed a rule requiring that any licensee of AWS-4 operating
authority protect 2 GHz MSS operations from harmful interference.466

458 The list of agreements includes the “Protocol Concerning the Transmission and Reception of Signals from
Satellites for the Provisions of Mobile-Satellite Services and Associated Feeder links in the United States of
America and the United Mexican States.”

459 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3583 ¶ 67.
460 Id.; 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.51, 27.52, 27.54, 27.56, 27.63.
461 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3583 ¶ 67.
462 See infra Section III.G.1.b. (Regulatory Framework).
463 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the
Mobile-Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making, 12 FCC Rcd 7388 (1997) (allocating 2 GHz spectrum for Mobile Satellite use); AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC
Rcd at 3564, 3565-66 ¶¶ 4, 7-8 (discussing history of MSS in the 2 GHz band).
464 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5715 ¶ 10.
465 Id. at 5715-16 ¶ 13.
466 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3583 ¶ 68.

62

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

160.
Discussion. We adopt a rule concerning protection of MSS operations in the 2 GHz
band. The rule requires that AWS-4 operations not cause harmful interference to 2 GHz MSS operations
and accept any interference received from duly authorized 2 GHz MSS operations. Further, with no
commenters opposing the proposed MSS protection rules, we conclude that the benefits of these rules
would outweigh any potential costs. As detailed more fully below,467 the approach adopted also involves
reliance upon rapid terrestrial build-out by the licensees, with potential loss of MSS interference
protection in the event terrestrial services are not built out.468 Finally, we observe that, should a licensee
of AWS-4 operating authority who also possesses 2 GHz MSS operating authority fail to satisfy its AWS-
4 Final Build-out Requirement in an EA, among other things, the MSS protection rule (discussed in this
paragraph) shall not apply to that EA.469

Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority

161.
License assignment refers to the process by which the Commission grants an entity the
right to use specified channels or frequencies of radio transmission for a specified period of time; no
ownership right is conveyed to the licensee.470  Sections 307-309 of the Communications Act generally
govern the initial assignment of licenses.471  Section 316 governs the modification of Commission
licenses.472  As discussed below, we propose to modify, pursuant to our Section 316 authority, the
incumbent 2 GHz MSS authorization holders’ licenses to include AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights.
162.
Specifically, we propose to modify the existing MSS licenses to add Part 27 rights and
obligations for AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum use with all of the attendant rights, limitations, and obligations
associated with the AWS-4 service rules we adopt herein. We find that a section 316 license modification
approach is the best course of action because it is the most efficient and quickest path to enabling flexible
terrestrial use of this band while ensuring compliance with the MSS protection rule described above.473

467 See infra Section III.E. (Performance Requirements)
468 This approach is incompatible with deployment of additional MSS systems in the band, and therefore we do not
anticipate accepting applications for new or modified MSS operations, except from an incumbent operator or its
assignee or transferee.  Accordingly, we delegate authority to the International Bureau to dismiss, upon acceptance
by the incumbent MSS licensees of modified licenses authorizing AWS-4 operations, the “Consolidated Petition for
Reconsideration of Inmarsat Ventures Limited and Inmarsat Global Limited,” filed January 9, 2006, in IB Docket
Nos. 05-220 and 05-221.  That petition sought reconsideration premised on the deployment of an additional MSS
system in the 2 GHz MSS bands.
469 See infra Section III.E.2.b. (Penalties for Failure to Meet Construction Requirements).
470 47 C.F.R. § 2.1 (“Assignment (of a radio frequency or radio frequency channel). Authorization given by an
administration for a radio station to use a radio frequency or radio frequency channel under specified conditions.
(RR)”); see 47 U.S.C. § 301, stating:
It is the purpose of this chapter, among other things, to maintain the control of the United States over all the
channels of radio transmission; and to provide for the use of such channels, but not the ownership thereof,
by persons for limited periods of time, under licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license
shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms, conditions, and periods of the license. No person
shall use or operate any apparatus for the transmission of energy or communications or signals by radio . . .
except under and in accordance with this chapter and with a license in that behalf granted under the
provisions of this chapter.
471 47 U.S.C. §§ 307-309.
472 47 U.S.C. § 316.
473 See supra Section III.C. (Protection of MSS Operations).

63

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

163.
As explained below, we believe that technological difficulties continue to make it
impractical today for same band, separate mobile satellite and terrestrial operator sharing of this spectrum,
and therefore propose to modify the existing MSS licenses so that satellite and terrestrial services are
managed by the same operator. We observe, however, that it may become possible for such same band,
separate operator sharing to become technically feasible in the future. For this reason, and for other
reasons discussed below, we find it appropriate to permit licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to
utilize the Commission’s wireless secondary market mechanisms with respect to their terrestrial operating
authority.474
1.

Background

164.
In 2003, the Commission established the ATC rules, concluding that any grant of ATC
authority would only be to MSS incumbents.475  The Commission limited ATC authority to the existing
MSS licensees because, in part, it determined that separately controlled MSS and terrestrial mobile
operations (i.e., two ubiquitous mobile services) in the same band would be “impractical and ill-advised”
as the two distinct parties would be unable to overcome technical hurdles to reach a workable sharing
arrangement.476  Technical analyses at the time, moreover, demonstrated that granting a third party the
right to use licensed MSS spectrum for terrestrial use could not occur without impacting the rights of the
existing satellite licensees.477
165.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission posited that the complexities of coordination
between mobile satellite and terrestrial uses identified by the Commission in 2003 remain, and would
continue to render grant of licenses for terrestrial operations to an entity other than the incumbent MSS
licensee impractical.478  The Commission expected that interference problems associated with two or
more distinct mobile licensees in the band would continue to call for granting authority for AWS-4
operations to the 2 GHz MSS incumbents.479  The Commission observed that granting authority for
AWS-4 operations terrestrial use to the incumbent MSS licensees would provide them with at least as
much ability to provide terrestrial service as their ATC authority does.480  As a result of these factors, the
Commission proposed to assign terrestrial use of AWS-4 spectrum to the incumbent 2 GHz MSS
licensees as a means to make additional spectrum available for terrestrial broadband use.481  The
Commission sought comment on this proposal, including on whether technical advances had occurred
since 2003 such that separately controlled mobile satellite and terrestrial mobile operations in the same
band had become feasible.482
166.
In response to this proposal, the Commission received numerous comments generally
supporting the Commission’s position that technical hurdles remain and that granting AWS-4 terrestrial
operating authority to an entity other than the MSS incumbent remains impractical.483  For example,

474 See infra Section III.G.3. (Secondary Markets).
475 See ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1964 (2003).
476 ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1991-92 ¶ 49.
477 Id. at 1972-73 ¶ 18.
478 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3584 ¶ 71.
479 Id.
480 Id.
481 Id. at 3584-85 ¶¶ 72.
482 Id. at 3583-85 ¶¶ 69-73.
483 See, e.g., Alcatel Comments at 5; DISH Comments at 9-10; SIA Comments at 3; and USGIC Comments at 3-4.

64

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Alcatel states that technical difficulties remain and that co-channel sharing between MSS and terrestrial
operations is technically challenging.484  According to Alcatel, a division of “the frequency block for use
by separate MSS and terrestrial licensees would restrict the data rates and capacity of each, far below
what a coordinated system would support, greatly impinging on both MSS and terrestrial service
capabilities.”485  Similarly, DISH submitted a technical study showing that, to ensure efficient AWS-4
operations, the same operator must control both AWS-4 and MSS using an integrated
system.486  According to the study, an ideal system would operate under a single overall AWS-4/MSS
network control facility.487  A single control facility would diminish the impact of expected
interference between AWS-4 operations and MSS operations under separate control.488  For example, if
AWS-4 terrestrial service is provided using Long Term Evolution (LTE) technology, because LTE can be
dynamically reassigned, a single operator could dynamically assign channels, power levels, and signal
coding to manage system interference.489  However, if the AWS-4 and MSS systems were independently
controlled, each operator would need to have control of the other’s system to provide dynamic carrier
management—an infeasible situation for two competing systems.490  According to the study, the only
solution in a separately controlled scenario would be to segregate spectral usage in a non-dynamic
fashion, which would not enable stable, independent operation of satellite and terrestrial systems.491  In
sum, several commenters assert that adopting the Commission’s proposal to assign the AWS-4 licenses to
the MSS incumbents presents the most efficient means of putting the spectrum to use and minimizes
technical complications related to interference issues, thereby resulting in faster licensing and deployment
of AWS-4 spectrum.492
167.
Additionally, some parties support the Commission’s proposal to grant AWS-4 authority
to the incumbent MSS operators provided the Commission imposes certain conditions upon the licenses.
For example, a collection of public interest organizations supports that approach so long as additional
“obligations and safeguards” are imposed.493
168.
Although most parties support the Commission’s proposal, two commenters, MetroPCS
and NTCH, suggest that this proposal is not the correct path. MetroPCS argues the 2003 finding that the
terrestrial services and satellite services cannot be separately licensed in the same geographic area may no
longer be applicable.494  MetroPCS suggests that technical hurdles can be overcome and, therefore, at
least some of the spectrum should not be licensed to the incumbent MSS operators for full terrestrial use,

484 Alcatel Comments at 6-7.
485 Id.
486 See DISH Comments, Exh. 1 (DISH Technical Study).
487 DISH Technical Study at Section 1.5.
488 Id. at Section 1.3.
489 Id. at Section 3.1.
490 Id. at Section 3.2.
491 Id. at Section 3.1.
492 E.g., Sprint Comments at 14-15; Greenwood Comments at 10; Alcatel Comments at 6.
493 PIO Comments at 2.  We address these proposed conditions in the Regulatory Issues section, below.  See infra
Section III.G.7 (Other Matters—Proposed Party Conditions).
494 MetroPCS Comments at 2-3.

65

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

but rather assigned via competitive bidding.495  According to MetroPCS, interference concerns of sharing
spectrum are illusory because there is no requirement that MSS be offered, and it is likely that only
terrestrial services will be used in the 2 GHz spectrum bands.496  Whereas MetroPCS argues technical
hurdles can be overcome, NTCH argues that accepting competing applications for the AWS-4 licenses is
in the public interest.497 NTCH also argues the proposed modification of the MSS incumbents’ licenses
would result in an unjustified windfall and a loss to the public.498
2.

Discussion—Section 316 License Modification

169.
As discussed below, we reaffirm the Commission’s earlier technical findings regarding
same-band, separate operator sharing between mobile satellite and terrestrial operations in this band.  We
believe that such a sharing scenario generally remains impractical at this time and would inappropriately
affect the rights of the existing MSS authorization holders.499  Evidenced by the broad support among
commenters for the proposed license modification approach, we conclude that the Commission’s initial
proposal to grant terrestrial authority to operate in the AWS-4 band to the current 2 GHz MSS licensees,
through Section 316 license modifications, is appropriate and will serve the public interest, convenience,
and necessity.
170.
Of the numerous parties who commented on this issue, only NTCH opposes the license
modification procedure outright.500  We disagree with NTCH, and explain our reasoning below.
a.

Legal Authority

171.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed modifying the 2 GHz MSS licensees’
authority to operate in the AWS-4 bands by adding the authority to operate Part 27 terrestrial services.501
This approach is consistent with the Commission’s broad license modification authority, existing
precedent, and the record.  We therefore adopt the Commission’s proposal to issue an Order of Proposed
Modification, which accompanies this Report and Order, to modify the existing 2 GHz MSS licenses to
include terrestrial operating authority in the AWS-4 spectrum upon the effective date of the service rules
adopted herein.
172.
Section 316 grants the Commission authority to modify a license if the modification
promotes “the public interest, convenience, and necessity.”502  The D.C. Circuit has explained the
authority granted by Section 316 to be a “broad power to modify licenses; the Commission need only find
that the proposed modification serve the public interest, convenience and necessity.”503  This broad nature

495 Id. at 29-35. (MetroPCS proposes two alternatives for consideration: (1) the existing 2 GHz MSS licensee
relinquish 20 megahertz of spectrum, which would then be auctioned; or (2) 2 GHz MSS licensee relinquish 30
megahertz of spectrum in the top 100 MSAs).  Id.
496 MetroPCS Comments at 35.
497 NTCH Comments at 3-7.
498 Id. at 1, 3-7; see also T-Mobile Comments at 18-20, U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at 5-6.
499 See infra Section III.D.2.a.ii. (Public Interest Considerations); ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1991-92 ¶
49; see also AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3583-84 ¶ 69.
500 NTCH Comments at 3.
501 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 3585 ¶ 75.
502 47 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1).
503 California Metro Mobile Communications v. FCC, 365 F.3d 38, 45-46 (D.C. Cir 2004) (CMMC) (determining
that the Commission had acted within its authority and that its license modification served the public interest, even
though the analysis on which the Commission based its decision showed potential rather than actual interference).

66

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

includes eliminating harmful interference, or the potential for such interference, as an accepted basis for
ordering wholesale license modifications.504
173.
Numerous commenters support the Commission’s proposal to exercise this authority
here.505  For example, PIO states that the Commission “has ample legal authority under Title III…to
modify spectrum licenses at any time.”506  DISH comments that the license modification is consistent
with both FCC precedent and the Communications Act, and that it is within the Commission’s purview to
modify the authorizations under Section 316.507 Globalstar states that courts have confirmed the broad
nature of Congress’s grant of authority under Section 316 to modify licenses when doing so serves the
public interest.508  Moreover, even MetroPCS, who opposes, in part, the proposed approach, comments
that the Commission is within its authority to modify licenses in order to improve spectrum utilization.509
174.
Grant of AWS-4 terrestrial operating authority to the 2 GHz MSS licensees will expand
the amount of spectrum available for stand-alone terrestrial mobile broadband by 40 megahertz, while
also reducing the potential for interference between existing satellite and new terrestrial operations in the
band.510  Both reducing potential interference and increasing spectrum available for mobile broadband
serve the public interest.  To further ensure that modifying these licenses serves the public interest, we
impose performance requirements and other license conditions, which will help to ensure the AWS-4
spectrum is used to provide consumers with mobile broadband service.511  Therefore, as explained in
greater detailed below, we conclude both that the Commission has the authority under Section 316 to
modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses to add terrestrial rights and that so modifying these licenses will serve
the public interest.
175.
As discussed herein, the Commission is proposing to modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses to
establish more uniform configuration and duplex spacing, one that will be consistent with the
configuration of the spectrum for terrestrial use.512  We undertake this modification pursuant to Section
316, which provides the Commission with the authority to modify licenses, including by rearranging
licensees within a spectrum band.. As evidenced by the 800 MHz proceeding, for example, the
Commission previously has exercised this authority to modify a license to include authority to operate on
new frequencies—there the Commission modified Nextel’s authorization to add the 1990-1995 MHz

504 See CMMC, 365 F.3d at 41.  Furthermore, courts have determined that the Commission is within its authority to
make modifications even without an application from the licensee.  See Peoples Broadcasting Co. v. United States,
209 F.3d 286, 288 (D.C. Cir. 1953) (upholding the Commission’s authority to modify a television station license
without an application by the licensee for such a modification and observing that “if modification of licenses were
entirely dependent upon the wishes of existing licensees, a large part of the regulatory power of the Commission
would be nullified.”).
505 See, e.g., Globalstar Reply at 4-5; Sprint Reply at 15; USGIC Comments at 3-4; CCIA Comments at 2-5, CCIA
Reply at 2.
506 PIO Comments at 7-8.
507 DISH Comments at 15-16, DISH Reply at 2.
508 Globalstar Reply at 4-5 (citing CMMC, 365 F.3d at 44-45).
509 MetroPCS Comments at 36-38; MetroPCS Reply Comments at 6-8.
510 See supra Sections III.A. (Band Plan), III.B. (Technical Issues).
511 See Section III.E. (Performance Requirements).
512 See supra Section III.A. (Band Plan)

67

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

band.513  Additionally, the Commission modified licenses to relocate operations of certain Digital
Electronic Message Service licensees from the 18 GHz band to the 24 GHz band, in order to
accommodate Department of Defense military systems.514  In modifying licenses to rearrange the MSS
duplex spacing, the Commission must meet the public interest, convenience, and necessity requirements
of Section 316, which we do here for the reasons detailed below.515  Here, our action to reconfigure an
existing band among existing licensees is of a much more limited nature than in previous exercises of
Section 316 authority, such as the 800 MHz re-banding for Nextel.  Indeed, although the 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz bands are currently assigned to two different licensees, Gamma Acquisitions L.L.C.
(Gamma) and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (New DBSD), both of these licensees are wholly owned
subsidiaries of DISH.516  As the satellites are under common control, the modification and resulting
recalibration of the satellites should present a minimal burden to the existing licensees.  We direct these
licensees to determine how to effectuate the reconfiguration of the 2 GHz MSS band into an A-B/A-B
arrangement.  Providing the licensees with the ability to determine how to best effectuate the MSS band
reconfiguration should further limit any burden the reconfiguration places on them.  Thus, we will modify
the respective licenses of Gamma and New DBSD to reflect the assignment of the paired spectrum as
2000-2010 MHz paired with 2180-2190 MHz and 2010-2020 MHz paired with 2190-2200 MHz, based
on the licensees’ responses to the Order of Proposed Modification herein.
b.

Public Interest Considerations

176.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission expected modification of the 2 GHz MSS licenses
would yield certain public interest benefits, including the removal of regulatory barriers that impede the
Commission’s goal of terrestrial mobile broadband services in the 2 GHz band.517  The Commission
proposed that if current technology did not permit separate MSS and terrestrial mobile licensees, then
license modifications pursuant to Section 316 would make more spectrum available for broadband use
and avoid harmful electromagnetic interference.518  As discussed below, to benefit the public interest, we
adopt our proposal to modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses pursuant to Section 316.
177.
Making More Spectrum Available for Flexible Mobile Use. As the Commission has
observed, the availability and quality of wireless broadband services is likely to become constrained if
additional spectrum is not made available to enable network expansion and technology upgrades.519  The
National Broadband Plan notes that, should additional mobile terrestrial spectrum not become available,
the result could be higher prices, poor service quality, an inability for the U.S. to compete effectively on

513 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket Nos. 00-258
and 95-18, RM-9498, RM-10024, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 16015, 16045 ¶ 69 (2005) (800
MHz Order); see also Establishing Rules and Policies for the Use of Spectrum for Mobile Satellite Services in the
Upper and Lower L-Band, Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 2704 (2002) (MSS Order).
514 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Relocate the Digital Electronic Message Service from the 18 GHz
Band to the 24 GHz Band and to Allocate the 24 GHz Band for Fixed Service, Order, 12 FCC Rcd 3471 (1997).
515 See supra Section III.A.2. (Spectrum Block and Duplex Spacing); see infra Section III.D.2.b. (Public Interest
Considerations).
516 See DBSD North America, Inc. Debtor-in-Possession; New DSD Satellite Services G.P., Debtor-in-Possession;
Pendrell Corporation, Transferor; and TerreStar License Inc., Debtor-in-Possession; Assignor, and DISH Network
Corporation, Transferee; and Gamma Acquisition L.L.C.; Assignee, IB Docket No. 11-150, Order, 27 FCC Rcd
2250 (2012).
517 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3586 ¶ 76; National Broadband Plan at 87-88.
518 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3586 ¶ 76.
519 See supra Section II.A. (The Growing Spectrum Demands of Mobile Broadband Services).

68

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

an international basis, depressed demand and, ultimately, a drag on innovation.520  Although the
Commission previously envisioned the 2 GHz MSS band being available to respond to the demand for
spectrum, including through the development of the ATC regime,521 to date commercial use of this
spectrum remains virtually non-existent.522  Therefore, to improve the public interest benefits of the 2
GHz spectrum, the Commission proposed authorizing terrestrial operations in this spectrum.523  Granting
the 2 GHz MSS operators the ability to provide more and better services to both existing and potentially
new subscribers with the same amount of spectrum improves the efficiency with which they can use the
spectrum.  For example, DISH has commented that use of this spectrum for satellite service is most likely
to be in conjunction with terrestrial service.524
178.
We emphasize that, although our determination to grant AWS-4 authority to the
incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensees will undoubtedly result in an increase in value of those licensees,525
such increase in value is not a basis for our decision today; rather, it is a consequence of our decision,
which is intended to enable AWS-4 spectrum to be meaningfully and timely put to use in a manner that
promotes the public interest. (We believe that various aspects of the rules we are adopting will create
additional public benefits in consideration of the increase in the spectrum value.)  We deem the Section
316 license modification approach the best and fastest method for bringing this spectrum to market, a
position underscored by commenters.526  Thus, we conclude Section 316 license modifications are in the
public interest.
179.
Additionally, the technical requirements that we are adopting today for 2000-2005 MHz
operations will help make the adjacent band, 1995-2000 MHz, available for terrestrial, flexible use,
including for mobile broadband use. The Commission allocated 1995-2000 MHz for fixed and mobile
use in 2003 and designated it for AWS use in 2004 as a downlink band paired with 1915-1920 MHz.527
The existence of uplink operations adjacent to downlink operations, however, raises interference
concerns; we resolve those through the establishment of technical and interference rules above.528
Further, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission to license the 1995-2000 MHz band under flexible

520 See National Broadband Plan at 77.
521 See Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Mobile Satellite service in the 2 GHz Band, IB Docket
No. 99-81, Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16127 (2000); see also ATC Order at ¶ 12 (adding ATC authority to the
2 GHz MSS band and concluding that “the public interest is best served by permitting MSS licensees flexibility to
improve MSS by having the option of deploying MSS ATC to improve spectrum efficiency and achieve other
public-interest goals, particularly given that our technical analyses demonstrate that we cannot grant to a third party
the right to use licensed MSS spectrum for terrestrial use without impacting the rights of the existing satellite
licensees.”).
522 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3565-66 ¶ 8.
523 Id. at 3586 ¶ 78.
524 See Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70 and 04-356,
ET Docket No. 10-142, at 2-3 (filed Aug. 28, 2012).  Many commenters also emphasize the benefits that will follow
the authorization, such as freeing up spectrum, benefitting consumers, and meeting goals established in the National
Broadband Plan.  E.g., TIA Comments at 6; Alcatel Comments at 4-5; and CCIA Reply at 4-6 (arguing the grant of
authority to the 2 GHz MSS licensee will help to fuel job growth and the economy).
525 NTCH Comments at 1, 3-7; see also T-Mobile Comments at 18-20, U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at 5-6; PIO
Comments at 7 (stating that AWS-4 licenses could be valued at $4 to $6 billion).
526 See, e.g., DISH Reply at 17-18; Alcatel Comments at 2, 5.
527 See AWS AWS Sixth Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 20740 ¶ 41 (pairing two bands).
528 See supra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).

69

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

use service rules, unless doing so would cause interference to PCS licensees in the 1930-1995 MHz
band.529  Enabling this band to be used efficiently for flexible, commercial use is consistent with this
statutory requirement. Moreover, as explained above, wireless broadband traffic is asymmetrical with
more downlink than uplink; thus the public interest is best served by limiting uplink operations at 2000-
2005 MHz to facilitate potential downlink operations at 1995-2000 MHz, particularly where such a
downlink band could become part of the workhorse PCS band.530  Accordingly, we conclude Section 316
license modifications are in the public interest.
180.
Finally, we disagree with NTCH’s assertion that the license modification approach we
take is not in the public interest. NTCH argues the Commission’s proposed actions are inappropriate and
that we should accept competing applications for AWS-4 spectrum. NTCH, however, ignores the critical
detail that same-band, separate operator sharing of the spectrum is not technically feasible at this time.
Moreover, nothing we do today eliminates the existing mobile satellite allocation for the 2 GHz MSS
band531 or limits the licensees’ continued satellite use rights for this spectrum (other than certain targeted
technical restrictions applicable to 2000-2005 MHz). The Commission recognized these technical hurdles
when it established co-primary fixed and mobile allocations in the 2 GHz band. Therefore, to make more
spectrum in this band available for flexible terrestrial use, including for mobile broadband, and thereby
serve the public interest, we will authorize AWS-4 operations by the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensees
through license modifications.532
181.
  Eliminating Harmful Interference. The Commission previously determined that
separately controlled MSS and terrestrial operations (i.e., two ubiquitous mobile services) in the same
band would be impractical because the parties would not be able to overcome the technical hurdles to
reach a workable sharing arrangement.533  This determination suggested that the public interest would be
best served by modifying the 2 GHz MSS license to allow the satellite licensee to operate terrestrial
services, rather than make the band available for terrestrial licenses under a sharing regime with MSS.534
As discussed below, the record demonstrates that the earlier Commission conclusion regarding the
impracticality of allowing same spectrum, different operator use of the AWS-4 spectrum remains valid.535
The majority of commenters discussing this issue concur with the Commission’s assessment that harmful
interference would occur if the 2 GHz MSS and AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights were controlled by
different entities.536  Thus, we conclude that the public interest is best served by modifying the 2 GHz
MSS license rather than allowing shared use of the band. Accordingly, based on the record before us at
this time, we decline to assign AWS-4 terrestrial rights through a system of competitive bidding.537

529 See Spectrum Act § 6401(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1451(b).
530 See supra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).
531 See 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5710 (2011).
532 To the extent NTCH suggests the Commission remove the MSS allocation in the 2 GHz band, we consider that
request to be an untimely Petition for Reconsideration of the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order. See 47
C.F.R. §1.429.
533 ATC Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 1991 ¶ 49.
534 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 3586-87 ¶ 79.
535 See infra Section III.D.2.b. (Public Interest Considerations).
536 See, e.g., DISH Comments at 4, 9-10; NRTC Comments at 4-5; USGIC Comments at 3.
537 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3587 ¶ 80.

70

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

182.
One party opposes the Commission’s proposal that shared use of the AWS-4 spectrum
remains infeasible. MetroPCS argues that the current technology environment actually allows for sharing
the AWS-4 spectrum between different operators.538  MetroPCS suggests that use of known technologies,
such as advance coding and interference cancellation and mitigation techniques, would allow for greater
interference protection for satellite handsets from terrestrial broadcasts.539  Additionally, MetroPCS
asserts that because MSS satellites “are essentially ‘bent pipes,’ satellite and terrestrial operators will be
able to coordinate their systems in a way that was not originally contemplated when the Commission
decided that sharing was not feasible.” Although MetroPCS is correct that DISH’s satellites use a “bent
pipe” architecture where the satellite is essentially repeating a signal generated on the ground, MetroPCS
does not clarify how this would facilitate coordination.  Contrary to MetroPCS’s assertions, we find the
record demonstrates continued technical hurdles exist.  As DISH notes, although such technologies do
allow for greater interference protection, they are “only feasible when operations are integrated . . . [and]
the reverse link interference cancellation technique…is not a viable solution in the absence of integration,
as it requires real-time knowledge of signals for this interference to be prevented.”540  Similarly, as NRTC
notes, the technology necessary to share spectrum between two separate licensees, such as dynamic
spectrum access and cognitive radios, is not market-proven for sharing mobile satellite and terrestrial
operators or addressed in relevant technical standards.541  Other parties, such as US GIC, comment that
the Commission correctly concluded that multiple parties would not be able to overcome technical
hurdles.542
183.
Also, the record contains no evidence that dynamic frequency coordination can be
achieved today between separately-controlled MSS and terrestrial networks. Indeed, as DISH notes, no
commenter—including MetroPCS—provides technical support that disputes the continued validity of the
Commission’s 2003 finding.543  Rather, as Sprint states, the record engineering analysis presented by
DISH “credibly indicates that frequency sharing between separate operations could cause interference
between AWS-4 and MSS equipment and transmissions.”544  Thus, we find that spectrum sharing
between separately-licensed MSS and terrestrial operators, while perhaps possible in the future, is not
viable today in this spectrum band.545  Consequently, we conclude that substantial technical hurdles
remain, justifying authorizing AWS-4 operations by the incumbent MSS licensees.546
184.
We emphasize that this public interest determination is based in part on rules that will
limit or potentially limit the licensees’ terrestrial use of a five megahertz portion of AWS-4 spectrum to
facilitate the use of 1995-2000 MHz.547  In particular, as explained above, we are  imposing increased
OOBE limits at and below 2000 MHz, reduced power limits for mobile terrestrial operations in 2000-

538 MetroPCS Comments at 2-3, 14, 19-22, 33-35.
539 Id. at 20.
540 DISH Reply Comments at 6-7, emphasis in original.
541 NRTC Comments at 4.
542 USGIC Comments at 4.
543 DISH Reply at 6-7.
544 Sprint Reply at 14.
545 Globalstar Comments at 6; Globalstar Reply at 2.
546 Having determined to modify the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensee’s authorization to permit it terrestrial use of the
AWS-4 spectrum, we decline to pursue other assignment approaches, such as assigning the terrestrial use through
competitive bidding.  See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3587 ¶ 80.
547 See supra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).

71

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

2005 MHz, and requiring an AWS-4 A block licensee to accept interference from duly authorized lawful
operations in the 1995-2000 MHz band .548  We do this to protect future operations in the 1995-2000
MHz band from harmful interference, to ensure the possibility of flexible commercial use of that band,
consistent with Congressional direction, and to strike a balance in ensuring the efficient use of all relevant
spectrum bands.  The Communications Act established “that the Commission’s powers are not limited to
the engineering and technical aspects of radio communications.”549  Rather, the Communications Act
directs the Commission to “‘encourage the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest’”
and to adopt “‘such rules and regulations and prescribe such restrictions and conditions . . . as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act.’”550  As explained above, we deem it necessary to set
these technical limits to best maximize AWS-4 and 1995-2000 MHz spectrum for flexible terrestrial use
by minimizing harmful interference between the bands. We believe the technical rules we adopt today to
protect against harmful interference will promote more effective and efficient use of the 1995-2000 MHz
band and the AWS-4 band and we believe that the benefits of these rules will outweigh any restrictions on
the use of a portion of the AWS-4 uplink band. Moreover, any restrictions on the use of a portion of the
AWS-4 band would be more than offset by the considerable increase in flexibility that the authorization
holders will receive in obtaining overall terrestrial use rights under the Commission’s Part 27 flexible use
rules instead of under the existing ATC rules.551
185.
Commenters did not offer specific data on the amount of benefits or costs associated with
our proposed authorization of AWS-4 operations by the incumbent MSS licensees. However, because of
the technical difficulties associated with coordinating between different AWS-4 licensees and the MSS
licensee using the shared spectrum in the same service area, and the requirement discussed above for
licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to protect 2 GHz MSS operations from harmful interference, and
given the record before us and the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the potential benefits of
assigning the AWS-4 spectrum rights to the existing 2 GHz MSS licensees would outweigh any potential
costs.
3.

Proposed Modification

186.
For the reasons discussed throughout this Report and Order, we conclude that it is in the
public interest, convenience, and necessity to propose modifying the existing 2 GHz MSS licenses as
described in Section V below.552 These modifications include adding Part 27 terrestrial spectrum rights to
the 2 GHz MSS licenses, creating more uniform duplex spacing for the MSS rights, and eliminating ATC
authority from the licenses. In the unexpected event that the license modification fails to become
effectuated, we will take appropriate action at that time, potentially including full reconsideration of the
assignment methods contemplated in this item and based on the revised factual scenario such an
occurrence would represent.

Performance Requirements

187.
The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote the productive use of
spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide service to customers expeditiously, and to promote the

548 Id.
549 NBC, 319 U.S. at 215.
550 Id. at 217 (quoting 47 U.S.C. §§ 303(g) & (r)).
551 NTCH Comments at 1, 3, 7; see also T-Mobile Comments at 18-20; U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at 5-6; PIO
Comments at 7 (stating that AWS-4 licenses could be valued at $4 to $6 billion.).
552 See infra Section V. (Order of Proposed Modification).

72

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

provision of innovative services throughout the license area(s), including in rural areas.553  Historically,
the Commission tailors performance and construction requirements to the unique characteristics of the
spectrum band at issue.554  For the AWS-4 band, we adopt performance requirements that will ensure that
the spectrum is put to use expeditiously, while providing licensees with the flexibility needed to deploy
services according to their business plans. Specifically, we require:
•  AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement:  Within four (4) years, a licensee shall provide
reliable terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least forty (40) percent of
its total AWS-4 population. A licensee’s total AWS-4 population shall be calculated by
summing the population of each of its license areas in the AWS-4 band.
•  AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement: Within seven (7) years, a licensee shall provide reliable
terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least seventy (70) percent of the
population in each of its license areas.
188.
Additionally, we adopt the following penalties for failing to meet the build-out
benchmarks:
•  Failure to Meet AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement:  Where a licensee fails to meet the
aggregate AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement, the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement
shall be accelerated by one year (from seven to six years).
•  Failure to Meet AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement:  Where a licensee fails to meet the
AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in any EA, its authorization for each EA in which it
fails to meet the requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action.  To
the extent that the licensee also holds the 2 GHz MSS rights for the affected license area,
failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in an EA shall also result in the MSS
protection rule in section 27.1136 of the Commission’s rules no longer applying to that EA.
We explain the rationale for these performance requirements below.
1.

Background

189.
The AWS-4 band is allocated on a co-primary basis for both mobile satellite and
terrestrial use and the Commission has previously granted MSS authorizations, including ATC authority,
for 2 GHz MSS spectrum.555  Given these unique circumstances, and the proposed Section 316 license
modifications, the Commission proposed, as an interim terrestrial build-out requirement, to require that,
within three years, a licensee must provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at
least thirty percent of its total license-area population.556  The Commission proposed to calculate a
licensee’s total AWS-4 population by summing the population of each EA license authorizations in the
band.557  As a final build-out requirement, the Commission proposed that, within seven years, the licensee
must provide signal coverage and offer service to at least seventy percent of the population in each EA it
holds.558  The Commission proposed an aggregate license-area requirement for the interim milestone to

553 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Second Report
and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289 at 15348 ¶ 154 (2007) (700 MHz Second Report and Order).
554 See e.g., 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15348-15355 ¶¶ 153-77.
555 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3563-3566 ¶¶ 3-9.
556 Id. at 3590 ¶ 92.
557 Id. at 3590 ¶ 92.
558 Id. at 3590 ¶ 92.

73

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

provide a licensee with flexibility in the initial build of its network, and it proposed EA-based
requirements for the final milestone in order to encourage widespread deployment throughout many areas
of the country.559
190.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on specific penalties in the event
a licensee fails to satisfy its terrestrial build-out requirements.560  The Commission proposed and sought
comment on whether all of a licensee’s terrestrial spectrum rights should terminate automatically without
Commission action if a licensee fails to meet the interim build-out requirement.561  The Commission also
sought comment on whether in the event a licensee fails to meet the final build-out requirement in any
license area, its terrestrial spectrum rights for each license area in which it fails to meet the build-out
requirement should terminate automatically without Commission action.562  The Commission observed
that, if it assigns AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights to the 2 GHz MSS licensee pursuant to a Section 316
license modification, the license would include both Part 27 terrestrial and Part 25 mobile satellite
rights.563  In such a situation, the Commission proposed that failure to meet the interim build-out
requirement would result in the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS spectrum rights automatically terminating in all
license areas (i.e., nationwide, if a single licensee holds all of the authorizations), and failure to meet the
final build-out requirement would result in the AWS-4 and 2 GHz MSS spectrum rights automatically
terminating in those areas where the licensee fails to meet the requirement.564
191.
Furthermore, in case a licensee’s terrestrial authority to operate terminates, the
Commission sought comment on the process for making terrestrial spectrum rights available for
reassignment pursuant to the competitive bidding provisions of Section 309(j).565  The Commission
observed that its ability to reassign the spectrum rights could be impaired should the Commission
continue to require coordination and protection of 2 GHz MSS operations by licensees of reassigned
terrestrial spectrum rights.566  The Commission sought comment on the appropriate remedy in such
circumstances.567
192.
Finally, the Commission proposed and sought comment on whether, consistent with
Section 1.946(d) of the Commission’s rules, licensees must demonstrate compliance with any new
performance requirements by filing a construction notification within 15 days of the relevant milestone
certifying that they have met the applicable performance benchmark.568  The Commission also proposed
to require additional detailed supporting documentation, including electronic coverage maps, for each
construction notification.569

559 Id. at 3591 ¶ 93.
560 Id. at 3591-92 ¶¶ 94-96.
561 Id. at 3591 ¶ 94.
562 Id. at 3591 ¶ 94.
563 Id. at 3591 ¶ 95.
564 Id. at 3591 ¶ 95.
565 Id. at 3592 ¶ 96; see 47 U.S.C. § 309(j).
566 Id. at 3592 ¶ 96; see 47 U.S.C. § 316.
567 Id. at 3592 ¶ 96.
568 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3592 ¶ 97; see 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(d) (“notification[s] must be filed with
Commission within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable construction or coverage period”).
569 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3592 ¶¶ 97-98.

74

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Discussion

193.
We adopt specific performance requirements for the AWS-4 band in an effort to foster
timely deployment of flexible terrestrial mobile service in the band, and to enable the Commission to take
appropriate corrective action should the required deployment fail to occur.  Although the record in
response to the Commission’s specific performance benchmark and penalty proposals is mixed, parties
generally agree that performance requirements promote the timely, productive use of spectrum.   For
example, Alcatel-Lucent states that “reasonable deployment milestones ensure that the spectrum actually
gets used in the near term.”570  Timely deployment of wireless networks in this band is vital given the
failure of any terrestrial ATC service and failure of significant MSS to develop despite years of
Commission effort to enable deployment of emerging and innovative technologies in the band.571
194.
We disagree with commenters who argue that our build-out requirements “would be of
limited value,”572 because they either do not believe the licensee (post license modification) intends to
build out using the spectrum or believe that additional conditions are needed to ensure the spectrum is
utilized.573  As an initial matter, we observe that the incumbent 2 GHz MSS licensees generally support
our seven year end-of-term build-out benchmark and have committed to “aggressively build-out a
broadband network” if they receives terrestrial authority to operate in the AWS-4 band.574  We expect this
commitment to be met and, to ensure that it is, adopt performance requirements and associated penalties
for failure to build-out, specifically designed to result in the spectrum being put to use for the benefit of
the public interest.  We address requests for conditions in addition to performance requirements in section
III.G.7., below.
a.

Benchmarks

195.
To ensure that a licensee provides service to consumers expeditiously, we adopt specific
quantifiable performance requirements.  Consistent with our approach to performance benchmarks in
other bands—including the Upper 700 MHz C-block and the 2.3 GHz WCS band—we adopt objective
interim and final build-out benchmarks.575  As explained below, after taking into account the full range of
comments, we adopt an interim requirement that differs somewhat from that proposed in the AWS-4
NPRM and adopt the final benchmark proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM.

570 Alcatel Comments at 16.
571 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3563-3566, ¶¶ 3-9. Although TerreStar, a predecessor 2 GHz MSS licensee to
DISH, previously offered MSS service to a limited number of customers in an arrangement with AT&T, there is no
indication from the current licensee’s web site that any service is presently offered to consumers in the 2 GHz MSS
band.  See URL: http://www.dish.com (last visited Nov. 30, 2012).
572 MetroPCS Comments at 27.
573 Id. at 27-29; PIO Comments at 17-19; RCA Comments at 4-5, 11-12.
574 DISH Comments at 18; but see, MetroPCS Comments at 28 (arguing that DISH “lacked detail regarding its plans
to obtain the necessary technical, operational and business expertise to construct and operate a terrestrial network, as
well as how it planned to compete against the nationwide carriers.”); MetroPCS Reply Comments at 8-9.
575 See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15351 ¶¶ 163-64. Although the C Block was licensed by
REAG, the rules require C Block licensees to meet these benchmarks in each EA. 47 C.F.R. § 27.6(b)(2).  We
decline to use the AWS-1 band as a basis for the performance requirements we adopt here. Build-out requirements
for AWS-1 spectrum took into account the uncertainty associated with the timing of clearing Federal operations
from the band, which does not need to occur here.  See AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25191-93 ¶¶ 73-
79.

75

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

196.
Interim Benchmark.  We modify the proposed interim build-out requirement in response
to the record. Recognizing concerns raised by commenters that the proposal may not afford a new entrant
in a new flexible use terrestrial band sufficient time to deploy its network and offer service, we extend the
interim build-out requirement timeframe from three to four years.576  Extending the interim benchmark to
four years will enable service providers and equipment vendors to deploy network infrastructure and
devices based on the most advanced technologies, including the LTE-Advanced standard.577  This is
analogous to the Commission’s decision in the 2012 WCS Order in which the Commission extended the
proposed build-out requirements by six months to accommodate new technological developments.578
Extending the interim benchmark from three to four years also accommodates possible timing effects that
may result from our technical findings, above, to enable use of the adjacent 1995-2000 MHz band.579  We
also increase the population benchmark from 30% to 40%, to more closely align the benchmark with
interim benchmarks in other bands.580  Finally, we determine that a licensee’s total AWS-4 population
shall be calculated by summing the population, based on the most recent decennial U.S. Census Data at
the time of measurement, of each of its license areas in the AWS-4 band.581
197.
Final Benchmark.  We find, consistent with the record, that a final seven-year
construction milestone provides a reasonable timeframe for a licensee to deploy its network and offer
widespread service.582  No party suggested that a longer time frame would be necessary and, indeed,
DISH stated that seven years is a reasonable period for a final build-out milestone.583  We are not

576 DISH Comments at 5, 19-20 (arguing that a “four-year interim buildout period is necessary to allow sufficient
time to build a new facilities-based network.”); see also, CCIA Reply Comments at 2, 9-11; AT&T Comments at
11-12; Globalstar Comments at 6 n.13; CCIA Comments at 6-8; Letter from Alison A. Minea, Corporate Counsel,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 12-70 at 2 (filed August 21, 2012) (arguing in favor
of modifying the interim milestone from three to four years); but see, T-Mobile Comments at 9 (arguing for more
rigorous interim build-out requirements and requiring the licensee to provide coverage to at least 100 million people
within 21 months and at least 145 million people within 33 months).
577 DISH Comments at 19-23.
578 In the 2.3 WCS band, the Commission implemented an interim build-out requirement of 4 years / 40% of
population (per license) and a final build-out requirement of 6 ½ years / 75% of population (per license), finding that
additional time was warranted to allow for the development and deployment of new equipment and technologies in
the band.  Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications
Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No. 95-91, Order on Reconsideration, 27 FCC
Rcd 13651 at 13702-06 ¶¶ 127-135 (2012) (2012 WCS Order).
579 See supra Section III.B (Technical Issues). Although, as stated above, we do not base our technical rules on the
potential of those rules effect the development of private party technical standards, we consider it as one reason of
many here to adjust the interim build-out benchmark.  See supra ¶¶ 94-95.
580 See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15351 ¶ 162; 2012 WCS Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 13702-
06 ¶¶ 127-135.
581 For example, if Wireless Operator A has 20 AWS-4 EA licenses, its total AWS-4 population would be the sum
of the populations in each of those twenty EAs. To meet the AWS-4 Interim Build-out requirement, Wireless
Operator A would need to provide reliable terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service to at least forty
(40) percent of this total AWS-4 population. The benchmark is thus measured against a single aggregate population
total and is not calculated on an individual EA basis.
582 See e.g., DISH Reply Comments at 13; DISH Comments at 18 (stating that a seven year build-out schedule is
achievable); RCA Comments at 6; NTCA Comments at 4. DISH Reply Comments at 16.
583 DISH Comments at 18.

76

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

persuaded by T-Mobile’s proposal that we require an expedited build-out schedule.584  Although we
expect it is possible for a licensee to meet a faster schedule, we believe such a benchmark could
unnecessarily restrict the business plans of licensees, particularly new entrants.  Therefore, after assessing
the record and Commission precedent, we find that requiring 70% build-out at the seven-year milestone
would serve the public interest.585
198.
As discussed above,586 we are adopting an EA-based AWS-4 band plan requirement and
not a nationwide band plan. Setting build-out benchmarks on an EA basis is consistent with our general
approach of assigning AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights under the Commission’s Part 27 rules, including
permitting any licensee to avail itself of the Commission’s secondary market mechanisms.587  Consistent
with our practice in other bands, we will measure interim and final build-out benchmarks using
percentages of license area population.  We reject DISH’s proposal to measure these benchmarks using
static measures of population.588  This allows for more flexibility and certainty in licensing. For example,
should a licensee partition some of its AWS-4 spectrum, a percentage-based approach would apply to
each partition, while a single population count would not.
199.
Rural Specific Benchmarks. We conclude that no additional rural-specific construction
benchmarks are warranted beyond the performance requirements described above. We recognize that
some commenters seek stricter performance requirements to promote service to rural areas.589  However,
the performance requirements we adopt today will provide licensees with an ability to scale networks in a
cost efficient manner while also ensuring that the vast majority of the population will have access to these
wireless broadband services by the final benchmark.590  Because of the substantial capital investment and
logistical challenges associated with a licensee building-out its terrestrial network to a significant
percentage of the Nation’s population within four and seven years, we conclude that the performance
requirements we adopt are an appropriate balance.

584 See, T-Mobile Comments at 10 (arguing that “seven years to deploy a terrestrial wireless network in this
spectrum band is excessive in this case.”); see also T-Mobile Comments at 3, 6, 8-11; PIO Comments at 5-7
(arguing that the build-out requirements proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM “are not substantially more stringent than
conditions attached to auctioned spectrum.”).
585 See, DISH Comments at 23 (“The final milestone should be set at 200 million POPs, which is approximately 65
percent of the current U.S. population based on the 2010 U.S. Census.”); AT&T Comments at 12 (proposing
performance requirements modeled after the Upper 700 C-Block requirements, in particular, proposing to require
licensees “to cover 75% of the total population of each MEA by the end of the license term.”).
586 See supra Section III.A.3. (Geographic Licensing Area).
587 See infra Section III.G.3. (Secondary Markets).
588 See DISH Comments at 23 (“[T]he Commission should adopt a four-year milestone that requires coverage and
service to 60 million POPs, which is approximately 20 percent of the current U.S. population based on the 2010 U.S.
Census….The final milestone should be set at 200 million POPs, which is approximately 65 percent of the current
U.S. population based on the 2010 U.S. Census.”).
589 NRTC Comments at 6-7; NRTC Reply Comments at 4-5; see also PIO Comments at 7; PIO Reply Comments
at 8.
590 See 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15351 ¶ 164.  See also DISH Comments at 19-22;
AT&T Reply Comments at 9.

77

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Penalties for Failure to Meet Construction Requirements

200.
We adopt meaningful and enforceable consequences, or penalties, for failing to meet both
the interim and the final benchmarks.591  The penalties we adopt represent modification of the
Commission’s main proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM for the penalty for failure to meet in the interim build-
out requirement; they reflect the record generated in this proceeding.
201.
Penalties for Failure to Meet the Interim Benchmark.  We modify the Commission’s
proposal and find that failure to meet the aggregate AWS-4 Interim Build-out Requirement will result in
the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement being accelerated (shortened) by one year.592  We agree with
commenters who suggest that penalties of this nature are appropriate for failure to meet the AWS-4
interim benchmark.593 In modifying the Commission’s proposal from the AWS-4 NPRM,594 we note the
concerns raised by commenters who argued that the proposal to terminate all of a licensee’s terrestrial
authority for not meeting the Interim Build-out Requirement could impact investment and impact
customers.595
202.
Penalties for Failure to Meet the Final Benchmark:  In the event a licensee fails to meet
the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in any EA, we adopt the proposal in the AWS-4 NPRM that the
licensee’s terrestrial authority for each such area shall terminate automatically without Commission
action. Automatic termination is a common remedy for failure to build Part 27 flexible use licenses.596
We also adopt the Commission proposal that any licensee who forfeits its AWS-4 operating authority for
failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Build-out Requirement in an EA shall be precluded from regaining that
authorization.597  To the extent that a licensee is also the 2 GHz MSS licensee, failure to meet the AWS-4
Final Build-out Requirement in a license area shall also result in the MSS protection rule in section
27.1136 of the Commission’s rules no longer applying to that AWS-4 license area.598  We believe that our
approach strikes an appropriate balance between promoting prompt build-out and penalizing a licensee

591 See Alcatel-Lucent Comments at 16.
592  If a licensee of AWS-4 authority fails to meet the interim benchmark, its final build-out benchmark would be
reduced to 6 years instead of 7 years. We recognize that in the 700 MHz proceeding, we reduced a licensee’s final
build-out requirement and license term by two years for failing to meet the interim benchmark.  See 700 MHz
Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15351 ¶ 163.  However, we find that it would be unreasonable to set the
interim benchmark for the licensees of AWS-4 authority at 4 years and the final benchmark at 5 years.
593 DISH Reply Comments at 15 (proposing alternative sanctions including “reducing the length of the license term,
implementing a remediation plan, or limiting the ability to obtain additional AWS licenses in other bands until
buildout is completed.”); DISH Comments at 24-25; AT&T Comments at 12-13; U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at
9-10.
594 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3591 ¶ 94.
595 Alcatel-Lucent Comments at 16; CCIA Comments at 6; CCIA Reply Comments at 9-11; AT&T Comments at
13; CTIA Comments at 17; CTIA Reply Comments at 12-14; Nokia Comments at 5; USCC at 9-10; Globalstar
Reply Comments at 7; Globalstar Comments at 7; Sprint Reply Comments at 16; MSUA Comments at 3; SIA
Comments at 4-5; but see MetroPCS Reply Comments (stating that “[t]he Commission’s proposed penalties are fair
and in-line with conditions imposed on other licensees.”); T-Mobile Comments at 12-13.
596 See generally 47 C.F.R. § 27.14.
597 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3592 ¶ 96; see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.14(a), (j), (o).
598 See RCA Comments at 6; PIO Reply Comments at 8 (arguing that “it seems reasonable and consistent with
efficient spectrum use to reclaim the AWS-4 licenses that correspond to particular service areas where the licensee
fails to meet final build-out requirements.); see also 47 C.F.R. § 27.1136.

78

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

for not meeting its terrestrial performance obligations in a particular EA.599  In addition, by only
terminating specific licenses where a licensee fails to meet the final benchmark in a particular license
area, a licensee’s customers in other license areas would not be impacted.600
203.
Moreover, we reject suggestions that MSS interference protections should not be affected
by a failure to construct terrestrial services.601  If we do not remove the protection rule for satellite
operations for those geographic areas where the terrestrial operating authority terminates, it will be
challenging to relicense the spectrum in a way that will encourage productive terrestrial use.  This could
create incentives for the current licensees not to comply with the construction benchmarks and could
potentially cause the spectrum to continue to lay fallow of terrestrial use contrary to the public interest.602
204.
We believe these penalties are necessary to ensure that licensees utilize the spectrum in
the public interest. As explained above, the Nation needs additional spectrum supply.603  Failure by
licensees to meet the build-out requirements would not address this need. Commenters did not offer
specific data on the amount of benefits or costs associated with our proposed penalties or any alternative
penalties for failure to meet performance requirements. We disagree that the penalties could potentially
discourage network investment604 for the licensee or lower the service quality for terrestrial wireless
service customers.605  While a customer might lose service if a licensee loses its terrestrial spectrum rights
for failure to build-out,606 we expect that a future licensee of AWS-4 authority for that EA would
ultimately serve more customers. We expect the probability of not meeting the performance requirements
due to the costs of meeting the rules to be small and that the performance penalties are unlikely to deter
network investment. Moreover, the Commission has consistently dismissed the contention that an
automatic termination policy is unfair; rather, it is the same approach that the Commission applies to
nearly all geographically-licensed wireless services.607  The Commission has specifically rejected the
argument that the automatic termination penalty would deter capital investment, noting that the wireless
industry has invested billions of dollars and has flourished under this paradigm.608
205.
“Use it or Share it.” We decline to impose any “use it or share it” requirements for the
AWS-4 spectrum band.609  PIO argues that the Commission’s build-out requirements should be
“augmented by a ‘use it or share it’ license condition that would permit other parties to make use of

599 See RCA Comments at 6; PIO Reply Comments at 8.
600 RCA Comments at 6; see PIO Reply Comments at 8; see generally, AT&T Comments at 13-14; U.S. Cellular
Reply Comments at 9-10.
601 MSUA Comments at 3; SIA Comments at 4-5.
602 SIA acknowledges that “it is not practical for MSS licenses and AWS licenses for the same frequency bands to
be held by different entities” SIA Comments at 4.
603 See supra Section II.A (The Growing Spectrum Demands of Mobile Broadband Services).
604 See Globalstar Comments at 7, CTIA Reply at 12-14, U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at 9-10.
605 See Alcatel Comments at 16, CTIA Reply at 12-14.
606 See Alcatel Comments at 16, DISH Comments at 25, U.S. Cellular Reply Comments at 9-10.
607 2010 WCS Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 11796 ¶ 214; 2012 WCS Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 13704 ¶ 131 (rel. Oct. 17,
2012).
608 2010 WCS Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 11796 ¶ 214; 2012 WCS Order, 27 FCC Rcd at 13704 ¶ 131 (rel. Oct. 17,
2012).
609 CTIA Reply Comments at 2, 14-16; AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11.

79

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

unused” AWS-4 spectrum on a localized basis until the licensee actually begins providing service.610
While we reserve the right to implement “use it or share it” obligations in the future, “use it or share it” is
a complex concept that is not sufficiently developed in this record.611  Even though we do not adopt a
requirement, we encourage providers to enter into leasing agreements for unused spectrum.612  While we
discuss spectrum leasing in greater detail below,613 we note that engaging in spectrum leasing may assist a
licensee in meeting its performance milestones.614 We also note that we asked a number of questions
about “use or lease” in the Incentive Auctions NPRM and hope to build a more robust record in that
proceeding about how such a process could work effectively.615
206.
Compliance Procedures. After assessing the record, we find that licensees must
demonstrate compliance with the new performance requirements by filing a construction notification
within 15 days of the relevant milestone certifying that they have met the applicable performance
benchmark, consistent with Section 1.946(d) of the Commission’s rules.616  Further, we find that each
construction notification must include electronic coverage maps and supporting documentation, which
must be truthful and accurate and must not omit material information that is necessary for the
Commission to determine compliance with its performance requirements.617  Finally, we decline to
require, as suggested by T-Mobile,618 that any licensee file certifications every six months regarding its

610 PIO Comments at 13; see also, Letter from Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open
Technology Institute, New America Foundation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 12-70 at 3
(filed August 20, 2012) (arguing that “any build-out requirements should be augmented by a ‘use it or share it’
license condition”); Letter from Michael Calabrese, Director, Wireless Future Project, Open Technology Institute,
New America Foundation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 12-70 at 2 (filed July 19, 2012);
Letter from James Carlson, President, Carlson Wireless Technologies, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
WT Docket No. 12-70 at 1 (filed June 22, 2012) (applauding the “use it or share it” approach).
611 See CTIA Reply Comments at 2, 14-16.
612 NRTC Reply at 5 (arguing that the Commission should encourage licensees to partner with rural organizations
by, for example, leasing spectrum to a rural entities and counting the population and geography associated with the
lease toward meeting performance requirements); see also, RTG Reply Comments at 3 (supporting “NTCA’s
recommendation that DISH be permitted to meet its deployment benchmarks by meaningfully partnering with rural
wireless carriers”).
613 See infra Section III.G.3.b. (Spectrum Leasing).
614 See NTCA Comments at 4-5 (“[I]f the Licensee offers reciprocal roaming, marketing, leasing, or in any other
meaningful way integrates a rural carrier’s spectrum seamlessly into its network or operation, the population served
by the rural provider should count toward the Licensee’s build-out benchmarks.”); NRTC Comments at 7 (arguing
that “the population and/or geography associated with that lease could be applied toward satisfying the performance
requirement.”).
615 See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Docket
No. 12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-118 (rel. Oct. 2, 2012).
616 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(d) (“notification[s] must be filed with Commission within 15 days of the expiration of the
applicable construction or coverage period”).
617 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.17 (Truthful and accurate statements to the Commission); 47 C.F.R. § 1.917(c) (“Willful
false statements . . . are punishable by fine and imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. 1001, and by appropriate administrative
sanctions, including revocation of station license pursuant to 312(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended.”).
618 See T-Mobile Comments at 15.

80

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

construction progress; such frequent reporting is unnecessary to ensure intensive spectrum use given the
performance measures we adopt today. 619
207.
Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each license area in
the licensee’s service territory.620  If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire EA,
its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each EA not being served. Each
licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is providing for each EA
within its service territory and the type of technology used to provide such service. Supporting
documentation must include the assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the propagation
model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable service with the licensee’s technology.
208.
Further, the licensee must use the most recently available decennial U.S. Census Data at
the time of measurement to meet the population based build-out requirements.621  Specifically, the
licensee must base its claims of population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level.622  This
requirement tracks the Commission’s action requiring broadband service providers to report “snapshots”
of broadband service at the Census Tract level twice each year by completing FCC Form 477.623

Applications for Any AWS-4 Spectrum Returned to the Commission

209.
Certain requirements adopted in this Report and Order create the potential for AWS-4
spectrum rights to be terminated automatically or otherwise returned to the Commission’s spectrum
inventory for reassignment.624  For example, this Report and Order adopts consequences, including the
loss of terrestrial use of, and satellite protection for, the spectrum, if a licensee fails to meet certain build-
out requirements.625  Such returned AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum rights would be reassigned using a
geographic-area approach with licenses to be made available on an EA basis.  In such a situation,
consistent with the proposal set forth in the AWS-4 NPRM, we adopt a licensing process that provides for
the acceptance of mutually exclusive applications, which would be resolved by means of competitive
bidding pursuant to the statutory directive.626 The Commission has long recognized that where mutually
exclusive applications are submitted this type of framework best serves the public interest because the
competitive bidding mechanism is most likely to select licensees that value the spectrum the most and

619 See DISH Reply Comments at 30-31; see also PIO Reply Comments at 8.
620 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(p)(7).
621 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(h).
622 The Census Bureau defines Census Tracts as “small, relatively permanent statistical subdivisions of a county
delineated by local participants as part of the U.S. Census Bureau's Participant Statistical Areas Program… [T]he
entire United States is covered by census tracts.” U.S. Census Bureau,
http://www.census.gov/geo/www/geo defn html#CensusTract (last visited Dec. 3, 2012).
623 See e.g., Development of Nationwide Broadband Data to Evaluate Reasonable and Timely Deployment of
Advanced Services to All Americans, Improvement of Wireless Broadband Subscribership Data, and Development
of Data on Interconnected Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) Subscribership, WC Docket No. 07-38, Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 23 FCC Rcd 9691 (2008). Specifically, the Commission
modified FCC Form 477 to require (1) wired, terrestrial fixed wireless, and satellite broadband service providers to
report the number of broadband connections in service in individual Census Tracts; and (2) mobile wireless
broadband service providers to identify those Census Tracts in which they offer service.  See id at 23 FCC Rcd at
6995-99 ¶¶ 10-16.
624 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3587 ¶ 81.
625 See supra Section III.E. (Performance Requirements).
626 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3587 ¶ 81.

81

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

will put it to its highest and most efficient use.627  In the event that AWS-4 spectrum rights are returned to
the Commission, we conclude that any such rights will be made available for reassignment for terrestrial
use only.628  Accordingly, the returned spectrum rights will be subject to the competitive bidding
procedures we adopt below and will not be subject to any MSS protection rule.
1.

Procedures for Any AWS-4 Licenses Subject to Assignment by Competitive
Bidding

210.
We will conduct any auction for AWS-4 licenses resulting from terrestrial spectrum
rights being returned to the Commission pursuant to our standard competitive bidding rules found in Part
1, Subpart Q of the Commission’s rules and will provide bidding credits for qualifying small businesses,
as proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM. Below we discuss our reasons for adopting the relevant proposals.
a.

Application of Part 1 Competitive Bidding Rules

211.
The Commission proposed to conduct any auction for AWS-4 licenses in conformity with
the general competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission’s rules, and
substantially consistent with the competitive bidding procedures that have been employed in previous
auctions.629  Additionally, the Commission proposed to employ the Part 1 rules governing competitive
bidding design, designated entity preference, unjust enrichment, application and payment procedures,
reporting requirements, and the prohibition on certain communications between auction applicants.630
Under this proposal, such rules would be subject to any modifications that the Commission may adopt for
its Part 1 general competitive bidding rules in the future. The AWS-4 NPRM also sought comment on

627 See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81,
Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11956, 11974 ¶ 47 (2000) (concluding that geographic-area licensing of the 928.85-
929 MHz and 959.85-960 MHz bands would encourage efficient spectrum use, expeditious licensing, and the rapid
delivery of new technologies to the public); Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding the 37.0-38.6 GHz
and 38.6-40.0 GHz Bands, ET Docket No. 95-183, Report and Order and Second Notice of Further Rule Making, 12
FCC Rcd 18600, 18647 ¶ 101 (1997) (predetermined service areas provide a more orderly structure for the licensing
process and foster efficient utilization of the spectrum in an expeditious manner); see also Revision of part 22 and
Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitates Future Development of Paging Systems, WT Docket No. 96-18,
Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 2732, 2744 ¶ 15 (1997);
Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Third
Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2941, 2944 ¶ 6 (1994) (Narrowband Personal Communications Services); see
generally Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act – Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-
253, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 2348, 2350 ¶ 4-5 (1994) (competitive bidding should place licenses in
the hands of the parties able to use them most efficiently).
628 As noted above, while we conclude that technological difficulties make it impractical today for same-band
sharing of this spectrum between separate mobile satellite and terrestrial operators, we observed that it may become
possible for such sharing to become technically feasible in the future. For this reason, and for other reasons
discussed herein, including our determination that returned spectrum will not be subject to any MSS protection rule,
we find it appropriate to put a framework in place now that would govern the reassignment of AWS-4 spectrum
rights. To the extent that the MSS licensee relinquishes its terrestrial spectrum rights either voluntarily or
involuntary the MSS licensee bears the consequences of any interference that occurs as an attendant result of its
opening the door to satellite/terrestrial use in the same band by two different licensees. That is, the MSS licensee
would be responsible for its own considered choices or for its failure to fulfill the responsibilities that attends the
expansion of its licensed rights into the terrestrial realm.
629 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3587-88 ¶ 83.
630 Id.

82

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

whether any Part 1 rules would be inappropriate or should be modified for an auction of licenses in the
AWS-4 bands.631
212.
We received no comments on the proposed use of our standard competitive bidding rules
for any auction of terrestrial AWS-4 licenses.
213.
One commenter, TIA, makes several proposals addressing auction design, such as the use
of two-sided auctions and auction vouchers, the use of combinatorial, or package, bidding, and avoiding
the use of minimum bids.632  Consistent with our long-standing approach, auction-specific matters such as
the competitive bidding design and specific mechanisms relating to day-to-day auction conduct, including
minimum opening bids and/or reserve prices, would be determined by the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau prior to the start of the auction pursuant to its delegated authority, after providing interested
parties an opportunity to comment.633  Such delegated authority has proven effective over the years in
providing flexibility to develop auction procedures in response to auction-specific issues and to respond
rapidly to potential bidder concerns that are sometimes of a time-sensitive nature. Consequently, we
determine that the Commission’s Part 1 bidding rules should govern the conduct of any such auction.634
Given the record before us and the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the potential benefits of our
proposal would likely outweigh any potential costs.
b.

Small Business Provisions for Terrestrial Geographic Area Licenses

214.
As the AWS-4 NPRM discussed, in authorizing the Commission to use competitive
bidding, Congress mandated that the Commission “ensure that small businesses, rural telephone
companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and women are given the opportunity
to participate in the provision of spectrum-based services.”635  In addition, Section 309(j)(3)(B) of the
Communications Act provides that, in establishing eligibility criteria and bidding methodologies, the
Commission shall promote “economic opportunity and competition . . . by avoiding excessive
concentration of licenses and by disseminating licenses among a wide variety of applicants, including
small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned by members of minority groups and
women.”636  One of the principal means by which the Commission fulfills this mandate is through the
award of bidding credits to small businesses.
215.
In the Competitive Bidding Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission
stated that it would define eligibility requirements for small businesses on a service-specific basis, taking
into account the capital requirements and other characteristics of each particular service in establishing
the appropriate threshold.637  Further, in the Part 1 Third Report and Order, the Commission, while

631 Id.
632 TIA Comments at 19-20.  TIA characterizes minimum bids as “artificial floors to bidding” and claims they limit
the ability of commercial entities to bid.  Id. at 20.
633 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 0.131(c), 0.331; see also Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission’s Rules – Competitive
Bidding Procedures, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No.
97-82, 13 FCC Rcd 374, 448-49, 454-55 (1997) (directing the Bureau to seek comment on specific mechanisms
relating to auction conduct pursuant to the BBA) (Part 1 Third Report and Order).
634 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3587-88 ¶ 83.
635 Id. at 3588 ¶ 84 (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(D)).
636 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(B).
637 Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253,
Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 7245, 7269 ¶ 145 (1994) (Competitive Bidding Second
Memorandum Opinion and Order); 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(c)(1).

83

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

standardizing many auction rules, determined that it would continue a service-by-service approach to
defining the eligibility requirements for small businesses.638
216.
The Commission proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM to define a small business as an entity
with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a very small
business as an entity with average gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15
million.639  Under this proposal, small businesses would be provided with a bidding credit of 15 percent
and very small businesses with a bidding credit of 25 percent, consistent with the standardized schedule in
Part 1 of our Rules.640
217.
This proposal was modeled on the small business size standards and associated bidding
credits as the Commission adopted for the AWS-1 band.641  The Commission premised this proposal on
the belief that the AWS-4 spectrum, assigned in geographic area licenses, would be employed for
purposes similar to those for which the AWS-1 band is used.642  In response to the AWS-4 NPRM’s
request for comment on these proposals, including the costs or benefits of these standards and associated
bidding credits, especially as they relate to the proposed geographic areas, the Commission received no
comment.  Based on our prior experience with the use of bidding credits in spectrum auctions, we believe
that the use of bidding credits is an effective tool in achieving the statutory objective of promoting
participation by designated entities in the provision of spectrum-based services.643  In the absence of small
business size standards and bidding credits, designated entities might have less opportunity to obtain
spectrum in this band.  The Commission believes that continuing to extend such benefits to AWS-4 would
be consistent with our statutory mandate.  In light of the similarities with the AWS-1 service, we adopt
these size standards and associated bidding credits for small businesses in the event that AWS-4 licenses
are awarded through competitive bidding.644
218.
We received two comments in response to the AWS-4 NPRM’s request for comment on
whether to use a different approach to bidding credits.645  Commenters addressed eligibility in differing
ways. NTCH proposes adopting eligibility rules that would preserve a 20 megahertz license for entities
with less than $100 million in assets, with the remaining 20 megahertz block available for all bidders.646
Council Tree proposes that in the absence of “set aside blocks” of AWS-4 spectrum for bidding only by
designated entities, that the Commission adopt significantly higher bidding credits, with discounts up to
45 percent.647  The Commission has previously rejected suggestions for spectrum “set-asides” in

638 Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 388 ¶ 18; 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110 (c)(1).
639 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3588-89 ¶ 86.
640 Id. at 3589 ¶ 87
641 Id. at 3588-89 ¶ 86.
642 Id. at 3588-89 ¶ 86.
643 See e.g., AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25219-20 ¶ 148.
644 On December 5, 2012, we requested the U.S. Small Business Administration’s approval of our final rule
adopting these small business size standards.  Letter from Gary D. Michaels, Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum
Access Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, to Khem R.
Sharma, Division Chief, Office of Size Standards, U.S. Small Business Administration, dated Dec. 5, 2012.
645 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3589 ¶ 89.
646 NTCH Comments at 10.
647 See, e.g., Council Tree Comments at 11-12; see also MetroPCS Reply Comments at 15-16. Council Tree
proposes bidding credits of 25% to businesses with average annual gross revenues not exceeding $40 million; 35%
(continued….)

84

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

rulemaking proceedings, concluding that it was unnecessary to supplement the incentives provided for
small business participation by foreclosing licenses to other bidders.648  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the
Commission acknowledged the difficulty in accurately predicting the market forces that might exist at the
time that these frequencies are licensed, but the Commission is not persuaded that it is necessary to either
set aside a portion of the spectrum at issue now, or adopt significantly larger bidding credits, in order to
encourage the full participation of designated entities.649  We therefore adopt our proposals relating to
small businesses. Given the record before us and the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the
potential benefits of our proposals would likely outweigh any potential costs.

Regulatory Issues; Licensing and Operating Rules

219.
The regulatory framework we adopt below establishes the license term, criteria for
renewal, and other licensing and operating rules pertaining to the AWS-4 bands. In the AWS-4 NPRM,
the Commission proposed to grant licensees of AWS-4 operating authority the flexibility to provide any
fixed or mobile service consistent with the allocations for this spectrum.650 The Commission also
proposed to license this spectrum under the Commission’s market-oriented Part 27 rules, and generally to
apply the provisions of the Commission’s Part 27 rules applicable to AWS and the Commission’s
wireless rules generally applicable across multiple commercial bands to AWS-4 spectrum.651
1.

Flexible Use, Regulatory Framework, and Regulatory Status

220.
Below, we adopt regulations to provide licensees of AWS-4 operating authority with the
flexibility to provide any terrestrial fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocation and
service rules for AWS-4 spectrum. We also determine to license the AWS-4 spectrum under the
Commission’s market-oriented Part 27 rules and apply the regulatory status provisions of Section 27.10
a.

Flexible Use

221.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed service rules that would
permit licensees to employ the AWS-4 band for any terrestrial use permitted by the United States Table of
Frequency Allocations contained in Part 2 of the Commission’s rules (i.e., fixed or mobile services).652
In proposing this approach, the Commission observed that Congress recognized the potential benefits of
flexible allocations of the electromagnetic spectrum and amended the Communications Act in 1999 to add
Section 303(y), which gives the Commission authority to provide for flexibility of use if:
(1) such use is consistent with international agreements to which the United States is a
party; and (2) the Commission finds, after notice and an opportunity for public comment,
that (A) such an allocation would be in the public interest; (B) such use would not deter
(Continued from previous page)
for businesses with revenues not exceeding $15 million; and 45% to businesses with revenues not exceeding $3
million. Council Tree Comments at 11-12. This proposal is premised on Council Tree’s own assessment of the
Commission’s designated entity program. The Commission has made clear that it is unpersuaded by Council Tree’s
claims with respect to the performance of designated entities in recent auctions.  See, e.g., Service Rules for the 698-
746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket
No. 06-150, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8090 ¶ 65 (2007).  Therefore, although we address Council Tree’s proposals for the
AWS-4 band, we decline to address again such claims, which are not the subject of this proceeding.
648 See AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25189-90 ¶ 68.
649 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3589 ¶ 88.
650 Id. at 3592 ¶ 99.
651 Id. at 3592-604 ¶¶ 99-129.
652 Id. at 3593 ¶ 100.

85

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

investment in communications services and systems, or technology development; and (C)
such use would not result in harmful interference among users.653

The Commission also stated that it had previously laid the foundation for more flexible use of the AWS-4
band in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order, in which the Commission added co-primary Fixed and
Mobile allocations to the pre-existing MSS allocation in the 2 GHz band.654  The Commission sought
comment on its proposal for flexible use of the AWS-4 band.655  The Commission asked whether any
restrictions on the band are warranted and, if so, requested that commenters state what they should be and
why they are needed.656  In addition, the Commission asked commenters to quantify the costs and benefits
of any such restrictions and to discuss any trade-offs between flexibility and investment in technology and
new services.657
222.
Discussion.  In order to promote innovative broadband services and encourage the
flexible and efficient use of the AWS-4 band, we will allow a licensee of AWS-4 authority to utilize the
spectrum for any terrestrial use permitted by the United States Table of Frequency Allocations contained
in Part 2 of the Commission’s rules, provided that the licensee complies with the applicable service rules.
We find that this determination fully meets the criteria of Section 303(y) and that the record unanimously
supports our permitting flexible use of the AWS-4 spectrum.658
223.
First, as required by Section 303(y)(1), flexible use of this band is consistent with
applicable international agreements. Such use would remain subject to bilateral discussions commonly
undertaken whenever spectrum is put to use in border areas.
224.
Second, as required by Section 303(y)(2), flexible use is in the public interest because it
would not deter—and, indeed, we expect it will stimulate—investment in broadband, and it would not
result in harmful interference.659  We agree with commenters who state, for example, that flexibility will
promote broadband deployment,660 ensure the spectrum is put to its most beneficial use,661 and maximize
the probability of success for new services to be provided in the AWS-4 band.662  Similarly, we expect
that flexibility will allow any licensee of AWS-4 authority to respond to consumer demand in a manner
that, as AT&T states, would “maximize the value of the spectrum resource both to the licensee and to the
public.”663

653 Id. at 3593 ¶ 100 (citing Balanced Budget Act, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251, 268-69; 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)).
654 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5714-16 ¶¶ 8-13.
655 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3594 ¶ 102.
656 Id.
657 Id.
658  See e.g., Alcatel Comments at 14; AT&T Comments at 10; CEA Comments at 3; COMPTEL Comments at 2;
DISH Comments at 25; Nokia Comments at 4-5; NRTC Comments at 2; T-Mobile Comments at 6; Verizon
Wireless Comments at 4.
659 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)(2).
660 See, e.g., Alcatel Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 6; Verizon Wireless Comments at 4.
661 CEA Comments at 3.
662 NRTC Comments at 7.
663 AT&T at i, 9; see also Alcatel Comments at 7; DISH Comments at 31; Nokia Comments at 5.

86

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

225.
Similarly, we believe flexibility will spur investment in communications services and
systems and technology development. We find that permitting licensees to use this spectrum for any use
permitted by the spectrum’s allocation will not deter investment in communications services and systems,
or technology development.664  The record in this proceeding unambiguously supports this determination.
For example, T-Mobile states that “[f]lexible use could ‘encourage innovation and investment in mobile
broadband.’”665  DISH asserts that flexibility will allow the licensee “to tailor its services to consumer
demand and technological innovation.”666  Nokia explains that being able to adapt as necessary will allow
operators to “address the rapid changes generated by new and innovative concepts in the marketplace.”667
Similarly, NRTC states that “flexibility will be critical in adapting to changing technology.”668
226.
We also find that permitting licensees’ flexible use of the AWS-4 spectrum will not result
in harmful interference among spectrum users.  The technical rules we adopt today reflect careful
consideration of potential interference scenarios and the overall public interest.669  Further, the flexibility
we are permitting will itself provide licensees with the ability to adjust their operations to minimize any
interference that might occur.670  Our technical rules for the AWS-4 band will permit licensees to provide
a wide variety of services in these bands with a minimum of interference, and will permit both in-band (if
any) and adjacent-band licensees to operate with sufficient certainty and clarity regarding their rights and
responsibilities. Because we are adopting technical restrictions to protect other spectrum users, this
proposal will not result in harmful interference.671  Accordingly, the standards of Section 303(y)(2) are
satisfied here.  Commenters did not offer specific data on the amount of benefits or costs associated with
our proposal for flexible use of the AWS-4 band. Given unanimous supports in the record and the
potential benefits discussed above, we conclude that the potential benefits of our proposal would
outweigh any potential costs.
b.

Regulatory Framework

227.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, because the Commission proposed to permit flexible
use of these bands, the Commission also proposed to license the spectrum under the flexible regulatory
framework of Part 27 of our rules.672  The Commission stated that Part 27 does not prescribe a
comprehensive set of licensing and operating rules for the spectrum, but instead defines the permissible
uses and any limitations thereon, and specifies basic licensing requirements.673  The Commission sought
comment on its proposal to apply the Part 27 rules to the AWS-4 band and the associated costs and
benefits.674

664 See 47 U.S.C. § 303(y)(2)(B).
665 T-Mobile Comments at 6 (citing AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3561 ¶ 1).
666 DISH Comments at 31.
667 Nokia Comments at 5
668 NRTC Comments at 7.
669 See supra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).
670 See Alcatel Comments at 7 (“flexibility will also assist the AWS-4 licensee to best address any adjacent
interference”).
671 See supra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).
672 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3594 ¶ 103.
673 Id. at 3594 ¶ 103.
674 Id. at 3594 ¶ 103.

87

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

228.
Discussion. We determine to license the AWS-4 spectrum under Part 27 because these
rules provide a broad and flexible regulatory framework for licensing spectrum, thereby enabling the
spectrum to be used to provide a wide variety of broadband services. This light-handed regulatory
approach permits licensees to use the spectrum for a multitude of purposes across the country and
provides licensees with the ability to change technologies in response to changes in market conditions.
229.
The record unanimously supports this approach.675  For example, NRTC states that
licensees should be able to take advantage of the flexibility provided by the Part 27 rules.676  Similarly,
the Consumer Electronics Association (“CEA”) states that this Part 27 flexibility will allow market forces
to determine what services are offered in the AWS-4 band.677  We agree.  This flexibility should allow
licensees to design their systems to respond readily to consumer demand, thus allowing the marketplace
to dictate the best uses of the licensed spectrum.  Commenters did not offer specific data on the amount of
benefits or costs associated with our proposal to apply the Part 27 rules to the AWS-4 band. Given
unanimous support in the record and the potential benefits discussed above, we conclude that the potential
benefits of our proposal would outweigh any potential costs.
c.

Regulatory Status

230.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply the regulatory
status provisions of Section 27.10 of the Commission’s rules to licensees in the AWS-4 band.678  Under
this approach, the Commission permits applicants to request common carrier status as well as non-
common carrier status for authorization in a single license, rather than to require the applicant to choose
between common carrier and non-common carrier services.679  In addition, the Commission proposed that
an AWS-4 band licensee would be required to indicate its regulatory status based upon the type of
service(s) it chooses to provide.680 A licensee would be able to provide all allowable services anywhere
within its licensed area, consistent with its regulatory status.681  Apart from this designation of regulatory
status, the Commission did not propose to require applicants to describe the services they seek to
provide.682  If a licensee changes the service or services it offers such that its regulatory status would
change, the Commission proposed that the licensee be required to notify the Commission.683  A change in
a licensee’s regulatory status would not require prior Commission authorization, provided the licensee
was in compliance with the foreign ownership requirements of Section 310(b) of the Communications Act
that would apply as a result of the change.684  Consistent with our Part 27 rules, the Commission proposed
to require the notification within 30 days of a change made without the need for prior Commission
approval, except that a different time period may apply where the change results in the discontinuance,

675 See, e.g., CEA Comments at 3-4; NRTC Comments at 7; NRTC Reply Comments at 5.
676 See NRTC Comments at 7.
677 See CEA Comments at 3.
678 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3594 ¶ 104.
679 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.10.
680AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3595 ¶ 105.
681AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3594-95 ¶ 104. For instance, we note that, to the extent a licensee provides a
Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such service would be subject to the provisions of Part 20 of the Commission’s
rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 20.1 et seq.
682 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3595 ¶ 105.
683 Id. at 3595 ¶ 106.
684 Id. at 3595 ¶ 106; see also, 47 U.S.C. § 310(b); see infra Section III.G.2.a. (Foreign Ownership).

88

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

reduction, or impairment of the existing service.685   The Commission sought comment on these proposals
and the associated costs and benefits of the proposals.686
231.
Discussion.  No commenters directly addressed the application of Section 27.10 of the
Commission’s rules to the AWS-4 band. Commenters, however, overwhelmingly support increased
regulatory flexibility and applying the Part 27 rules to the AWS-4 band.687  We believe that by applying
Section 27.10 of the Commission’s rules to the AWS-4 band we will achieve efficiencies in the licensing
and administrative process, and provide licensees with additional flexibility.688 Therefore, we adopt the
proposal from the AWS-4 NPRM to apply Section 27.10 of our rules to the AWS-4 band.689
232.
Under this flexible regulatory approach, licensees in the AWS-4 band may provide
common carrier, non-common carrier, private internal communications or any combination of these
services, so long as the provision of service otherwise complies with applicable service rules.690  This
broad licensing framework will encourage licensees to develop new and innovative services with minimal
regulatory restraint.
233.
To fulfill our enforcement obligations and to ensure compliance with Titles II and III of
the Communications Act, we require the licensee to identify the regulatory status of the service(s) it
intends to provide. Consistent with Section 27.10 of the Commission’s Rules, the licensee will not be
required to describe its particular services, but only to designate the regulatory status of the service(s).
We remind potential licensees that an election to provide service on a common carrier basis requires that
the elements of common carriage be present;691 otherwise the applicant must choose non-common carrier
status.692  If a potential licensee is unsure of the nature of its services and whether classification as
common carrier is appropriate, it may submit a petition with its applications, or at any time, requesting
clarification and including service descriptions for that purpose.693
234.
We also determine that if the licensee elects to change the service or services it offers
such that its regulatory status would change, it must notify the Commission and must do so within 30
days of making the change.694  A change in the licensee’s regulatory status will not require prior

685 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3595 ¶ 106; see also 47 C.F.R. § 27.66.
686 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3595 ¶¶ 104-06.
687 See supra Sections III.G.1.a.. (Flexible Use), III.G.1.b. (Regulatory Framework).
688 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3594-95 ¶ 104.
689 Id. at 3594-95 ¶¶ 104-06.
690 See FCC Form 601.
691 See 47 U.S.C. § 153(44) (“A telecommunications carrier shall be treated as a common carrier under this Act”);
see also 47 U.S.C. § 332(C)(1)(A) (“A person engaged in the provision of a service that is a commercial mobile
service shall, insofar as such person is so engaged, be treated as a common carrier for purposes of this Act”).
692 See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10848 ¶¶ 121-22.  The Commission examined services in the
LMDS Second Report and Order and explained that any video programming service would be treated as a non-
common carrier service. Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the
27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies
for Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report
and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 12545, 12639-41 ¶¶
213-15 (1997) (LMDS Second Report and Order); aff'd, Melcher v. FCC, 134 F.3d 1143 (D.C. Cir. 1998).
693 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10848 ¶ 121.
694 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.10(d).  See also 47 C.F.R. § 27.66.

89

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Commission authorization, provided the licensee is in compliance with the foreign ownership
requirements of Section 310(b) of the Communications Act that apply as a result of the change.695 We
note, however, that a different time period (other than 30 days) may apply, as determined by the
Commission, where the change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of the existing
service.696
2.

Ownership Restrictions

Foreign Ownership

235.
Background: In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission observed that Sections 310(a) and
310(b) of the Communications Act impose foreign ownership and citizenship requirements that restrict
the issuance of licenses to certain applicants.697 The Commission stated that Section 27.12 of its rules
implements these restrictions and proposed to apply Section 27.12 to applicants applying for licenses in
the AWS-4 band.698  With respect to filing applications, the Commission proposed that all applicants
provide the same foreign ownership information, which covers both Sections 310(a) and 310(b),
regardless of whether they propose to provide common carrier or non-common carrier service in the band.
The Commission sought comment on this proposal, including any associated costs or benefits.
236.
Discussion: Based on our statutory responsibilities, we determine that all licensees of
AWS-4 authority shall be subject to the provisions of Section 27.12 of the Commission’s rules.699  All
such entities are subject to Section 310(a) of the Communications Act, which prohibits licenses from
being “granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative therefore.”700  In addition, as

695 47 U.S.C. § 310(b); see infra Section III.G.2.a. (Foreign Ownership).
696 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.66.
697 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3596 ¶ 107 (citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 310(a), (b)).  The relevant provisions of section
310 are as follows:
Sec. 310. Limitation on Holding and Transfer of Licenses.
(a) The station license required under this Act shall not be granted to or held by any foreign
government or representative thereof.
(b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station
license shall be granted to or held by—
(1) any alien or the representative of any alien;
(2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign government;
(3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted
by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any
corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country;
(4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than
one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a
foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a
foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or
revocation of such license.
698 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3596 ¶ 107 (citing 47 C.F.R. § 27.12, which provides that: “Except as provided in
§§ 27.604, 27.1201, and 27.1202, any entity other than those precluded by section 310 of the Communications Act .
. . is eligible to hold a license under this part.”).
699 47 C.F.R. § 27.12.
700 47 U.S.C. § 310(a).

90

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

applicable here, a licensee that would provide a common carrier, aeronautical en route, or aeronautical
fixed service in this band would also be subject to the foreign ownership and citizenship requirements in
Section 310(b) of the Communications Act.701
237.
We did not receive any comments opposing our proposal that applicants for this band be
required to provide the same foreign ownership information in their filings, regardless of the type of
service the licensee would provide using its authorization. Since we are adopting a flexible approach to
licensing the AWS-4 band, we determine that all licensees will be subject to the same requirements for
filing foreign ownership information in their applications. Therefore, we will require all licensees to
provide the same foreign ownership information, which covers both Sections 310(a) and 310(b) of the
Communications Act, regardless of whether the licensee will provide common carrier or non-common
carrier service. We note, however, that we would be unlikely to deny a license to an applicant requesting
to provide exclusively services that are not subject to section 310(b), solely because its foreign ownership
would disqualify it from receiving a license if the applicant had applied for authority to provide such
services.
b.

Eligibility and Mobile Spectrum Holding Policies

238.
Background. Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act recognizes the Commission’s authority
“to adopt and enforce rules of general applicability, including rules concerning spectrum aggregation that
promote competition.”702  In the AWS-4 NPRM the Commission proposed not to apply any eligibility
restrictions to AWS-4 licenses.703  The Commission stated that it believed that open eligibility in the
AWS-4 band would not pose a significant likelihood of substantial harm to competition in any specific
markets and that open eligibility in these bands is consistent with the FCC’s statutory mandate to promote
the development and rapid deployment of new technologies, products, and services; economic
opportunity and competition; and the efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.704  The
Commission sought comment on this approach and asked commenters to discuss the costs and benefits of
the open eligibility proposal on competition, innovation, and investment.705  No commenters specifically
addressed this issue.
239.
Access to spectrum is a precondition to the provision of mobile wireless services.
Ensuring the availability of sufficient spectrum is critical for promoting the competition that drives
innovation and investment.  Currently, the Commission generally addresses mobile spectrum holdings
issues using a case-by-case analysis. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether
and, if so, how to address any such concerns involving AWS-4 spectrum, including on the costs and
benefits of any proposals.706
240.
Several parties addressed mobile spectrum holdings issues in their comments. For
example, NRTC stated that AWS-4 spectrum should be subject to the same spectrum aggregation policies
that apply to other CMRS spectrum bands.707  AT&T argued that the AWS-4 spectrum should be included

701 47 U.S.C. § 310(b).
702 See Spectrum Act at § 6404.
703 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3596 ¶ 109.
704 Id. at 3596 ¶ 109 (citing 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(3)(A), (B) & (D)).
705 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3596 ¶ 109.
706 Id. at 3596-97 ¶¶ 110-11.
707 NRTC Comments at 8; NRTC Reply Comments at 5-6.

91

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

in the Commission’s spectrum screen.708  And Council Tree asserted that the Commission should
establish generally applicable spectrum aggregation limits, beyond the current screen, to all mobile
telephony/broadband services.709  Finally, subsequent to the comment dates for the AWS-4 NPRM, the
Commission opened a proceeding to examine its mobile spectrum holding policies.710
241.
Discussion.  The Commission has previously determined in a number of services that
eligibility restrictions on licenses may be imposed only when open eligibility would pose a significant
likelihood of substantial harm to competition in specific markets and when an eligibility restriction would
be effective in eliminating that harm. This approach relies on market forces absent a compelling showing
that regulatory intervention to exclude potential participants is necessary.711
242.
There is nothing in the record indicating that open eligibility in the AWS-4 band would
pose a significant likelihood of substantial competitive harm in the broadband services market.
Therefore, consistent with our findings on this issue for other spectrum bands, we find that open
eligibility in this band is consistent with our statutory mandate to promote the development and rapid
deployment of new technologies, products, and services; economic opportunity and competition; and the
efficient and intensive use of the electromagnetic spectrum.712  The open eligibility is also consistent with
Section 6404 of the Spectrum Act.713  Given the record before us, we conclude that the potential benefits
of open eligibility would outweigh any potential costs.714
243.
The Commission recently opened a general rulemaking proceeding to broadly examine
its policies and rules regarding mobile spectrum holdings.715  Given that recently-initiated proceeding, we
decline to address here the narrower issue of how to assess AWS-4 spectrum holdings for purposes of
spectrum concentration analysis. During the pendency of the Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies
proceeding, we will continue to apply our case-by-case approach to secondary market transactions and
initial license applications as necessary.716

708 AT&T Comments at 11.
709 Council Tree Comments at 14-16.
710 Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings, WT Docket No. 12-269, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 27
FCC Rcd 11710 (2012) (Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies NPRM).
711 See, e.g., Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Second
Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15381, 15383-84 ¶¶ 253, 256 (2007); Allocations and Service Rules for the
71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318 at 23346-47 ¶ 70 (2003); see
also AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3596 ¶ 108.
712 See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3)(A), (B), & (D).
713  See Spectrum Act at § 6404.
714 We note that, although there will be no band specific eligibility restrictions on holding a AWS-4 operating
authority, as discussed earlier the terrestrial operating authority will be granted to the incumbent 2 GHz MSS
authorization holders through license modifications pursuant to Section 316 of the Act.  See infra Section III.D.
(Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority).
715 See Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 11710.
716 Id. at 11718 ¶ 16 n.59.

92

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Secondary Markets

Partitioning and Disaggregation

244.
Background. The Commission’s Part 27 rules generally allow for geographic partitioning
and spectrum disaggregation.717  Geographic partitioning refers to the assignment of geographic portions
of a license to another licensee along geopolitical or other boundaries. Spectrum disaggregation refers to
the assignment of a discrete amount of spectrum under the license to another entity. Disaggregation
allows for multiple transmitters in the same geographic area operated by different companies on adjacent
frequencies in the same band.  As the Commission noted when first establishing partitioning and
disaggregation rules, allowing such flexibility could facilitate the efficient use of spectrum by providing
licensees with the flexibility to make offerings directly responsive to market demands for particular types
of services, increase competition by allowing market entry by new entrants, and expedite provision of
services that might not otherwise receive service in the near term.718
245.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on allowing licensees in the
AWS-4 band to partition their service areas or to disaggregate their spectrum into new licenses.719  The
Commission’s Part 27 rules for terrestrial wireless service provide that licensees may apply to partition
their licensed geographic service areas or disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the
grant of their licenses.720  The Commission’s rules also set forth the general requirements that apply with
regard to approving applications for partitioning or disaggregation, as well as other specific requirements
(e.g., performance requirements) that would apply to licensees that hold licenses created through
partitioning or disaggregation. The Commission sought comment on applying these general procedures
and requirements to any permissible partitioning or disaggregation of AWS-4 licenses. In particular, the
Commission sought comment on the performance requirements that would apply to any license created
through partitioning or disaggregation.721  The Commission proposed requiring each licensee of AWS-4
authority who is a party to a partitioning, disaggregation or combination of both to independently meet
the applicable performance and renewal requirements.722  The Commission sought comment on these
proposals and asked that commenters discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of these proposals on
competition, innovation, and investment.723
246.
The Commission acknowledged, however, that there may be technical impediments to
partitioning or disaggregating satellite spectrum and service.724  The Commission, therefore, sought

717 See 47 CFR § 27.15.
718 Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Service Licensees, WT
Docket No. 96-148 Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21831, 21833 ¶ 1
(1996).
719 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3598 ¶ 113.
720 See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10836-39 ¶¶ 96-103.
721 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3598 ¶ 113.
722 Id. at 3598 ¶ 113.
723 Id. at 3598 ¶ 113.
724 Id. at 3598-99 ¶ 114 (noting that the Commission was seeking comment on the Commission’s earlier conclusion
that the complexities of coordination between MSS and terrestrial operations render impractical assignment of
terrestrial licenses to an entrant other than the incumbent MSS licensee(s)).

93

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

comment on whether the actual capabilities of existing or future satellites make partitioning or
disaggregation of spectrum difficult or problematic.725
247.
The Commission also acknowledged that Part 25 of its rules does not contain provisions
governing the partition or disaggregation of MSS.726  The Commission thus sought comment on whether,
in the event the Commission permits partitioning or disaggregation for licensees of AWS-4 authority, the
Part 25 rules also should be amended to address partitioning and disaggregation of 2 GHz MSS spectrum
by its licensees. The Commission also asked if any permitted partitioning or disaggregation should apply
to AWS-4 use individually or only to the entire terrestrial and mobile satellite authorization. Commenters
were asked to discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of allowing partitioning and disaggregation of
AWS-4 spectrum.727
248.
Discussion.  Partitioning and disaggregation promote the efficient use of spectrum and
increase competition.  These secondary market tools also should expedite the provision of service to rural
and other underserved areas of America as well as to niche markets.728
249.
We conclude that a licensee of AWS-4 authority should have the same ability to partition
its service territories and disaggregate its spectrum as other wireless licensees and, therefore will allow
any such licensee to partition its service areas or to disaggregate its spectrum to the extent permitted by
section 27.15 of the Commission’s rules.729  We acknowledge that, as the record indicates, there may be
technical complexities associated with partitioning and disaggregation specific to the satellite overlay that
exists in the band. For example, CEA contends that partitioning and disaggregation should be permitted
in the AWS-4 band to the extent technically feasible and NRTC states that partitioning and disaggregation
will be technically complex.730  Further, SIA and US GPSIC argue that partitioning and disaggregation
should be prohibited in the AWS-4 band due to coordination and technical difficulties.731  Although these
coordination and technical issues are real—indeed, they are central to our assignment determinations,
above—the fact that we will assign AWS-4 operating authority to the 2 GHz MSS licensees mitigates
against the need to prohibit partitioning or disaggregation.  Additionally, the MSS interference protection
rule we adopt above will “run with the license”, obligating any partitionee or disaggregatee to avoid
interference with MSS operations.732
250.
To the extent that a licensee of AWS-4 authority develops the ability (through technical
advances or coordination measures) to ensure that an AWS-4 partitionee or disagregatee would not cause

725  AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3598-99 ¶ 114.
726 Id. at 3598 ¶ 114; see 47 C.F.R. Part 25.
727 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3598-99 ¶ 114.
728 See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal,
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules and Policies for
Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 25 FCC Rcd
6996 at 7024-25 ¶ 75 (WRS Renewals NPRM and Order), citing CMRS Partitioning and Disaggregation Order, 11
FCC Rcd at 21843 ¶ 14 (“increasing the number of parties that may obtain partitioned PCS licenses will lead to
more efficient use of PCS spectrum and will speed service to underserved or rural areas”).
729 47 C.F.R. § 27.15.
730 CEA Comments at 3; NRTC Comments at 8.
731 SIA Comments at 5; US GPIC Comments at 4.
732 See infra Section III.C. (Protection of MSS Operations).

94

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

harmful interference to MSS operations, we find no basis to restrict it from entering into partitioning or
disaggregation arrangements in the same manner as other Part 27 licensees.
251.
As explained above and in the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission determined that, based on
the facts in this band, a grant of AWS-4 operating authority to a third party would potentially compromise
the existing rights of existing satellite licensees.733  A private party licensee, however, is free to choose
voluntarily to enter into a business relationship that includes its agreeing to not pursue all of its rights or
even to encumber some of its rights.  This is particularly so, if the licensee’s forgoing of its rights furthers
larger Commission goals.  Stated otherwise, while we decline to grant AWS-4 authority to parties in a
manner that would undermine the existing MSS licensees,734 we find it would be consistent with the
Commission’s goal of widespread mobile broadband availability to permit an MSS licensee to limit
voluntarily its ability to offer satellite service as part of a secondary market arrangement enabling another
party to better provide flexible use terrestrial service, including mobile broadband using AWS-4
spectrum. For example, a licensee may determine that it would be best for it to give up its rights to
interference protection for its satellite operations for a certain geographic area or a specific portion of its
spectrum and permit another licensee to have a license for terrestrial use for the corresponding geographic
area or spectrum.
252.
Thus, we believe that any licensee of AWS-4 authority should have the same freedom as
other wireless licensees to use its licensed spectrum in the way that the licensee determines would make
the best business sense through the use of partitioning or disaggregation. A licensee of AWS-4 authority
should be permitted the discretion to determine the amount of spectrum it will occupy and the area it will
serve consistent with its business plan.735  Accordingly, we find it in the public interest to permit any
licensee of AWS-4 authority to partition any geographic portion of its license area, at any time following
the grant of its license, and to also permit any such licensee to disaggregate spectrum in any amount, at
any time following the grant of its license.736
253.
We further conclude that the public interest would be served by requiring each party to a
partitioning, disaggregation, or combination of both in the AWS-4 band to individually meet the
applicable AWS-4 performance requirements. As the Commission observed in the WRS NPRM, this
approach should lead to more efficient spectrum usage and prevent the avoidance of timely construction
through secondary market fiat, while still providing operators with the flexibility to design their networks
according to their operational and business needs.737  In addition, commenters did not offer specific costs
associated with the geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation rules for the AWS-4 band.
Given the benefits discussed above, we conclude that the potential benefits of the partitioning and
disaggregation rules would likely outweigh any potential costs.
b.

Spectrum Leasing

254.
Background. In order to promote more efficient use of terrestrial wireless spectrum
through secondary market transactions, while also eliminating regulatory uncertainty, the Commission, in

733 There are mechanisms whereby the Commission can limit or even revoke the right to use spectrum of a particular
licensee (e.g., revocation under Section 312 of the Communications Act). Because the 2 GHz MSS licensees have
met their satellite milestones and committed to offer MSS to the public, we do not pursue such options here. See
DISH Comments at 2; DISH Reply at 9-12, 20.
734 See supra Section III.D. (Assignment of AWS-4 Operating Authority).
735 See WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7025 ¶ 76.
736 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(a)(2); see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10836-39 ¶¶ 96-103.
737

ee WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7023, 7029 ¶¶ 73, 91.

95

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

2003, adopted a comprehensive set of policies and rules to govern spectrum leasing arrangements
between terrestrial licensees and spectrum lessees.738  These policies and rules enabled terrestrially-based
Wireless Radio Service licensees holding “exclusive use” spectrum rights to lease some or all of the
spectrum usage rights associated with their licenses to third party spectrum lessees, which then would be
permitted to provide wireless services consistent with the underlying license authorization.739  Through
these actions, the Commission sought to promote more efficient, innovative, and dynamic use of the
terrestrial spectrum, expand the scope of available wireless services and devices, enhance economic
opportunities for accessing spectrum, and promote competition among terrestrial wireless service
providers.740  In 2004, the Commission built upon this spectrum leasing framework by establishing
immediate approval procedures for certain categories of terrestrial spectrum leasing arrangements and
extending the spectrum leasing policies to additional Wireless Radio Services. 741  Most recently, in 2011
in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order, the Commission extended its secondary market spectrum leasing
policies, procedures, and rules to MSS/ATC spectrum and licenses for spectrum manager lease
arrangements.742
255.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the extent to which the
Commission’s secondary markets spectrum leasing policies and rules should be extended to AWS-4
spectrum.743  The Commission proposed to extend spectrum manager lease arrangements to AWS-4
spectrum.744  With regard to de facto transfer lease arrangements, the Commission proposed to permit
them only to the extent that the disaggregation and partitioning of AWS-4 spectrum and licenses is

738 Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary
Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 18 FCC Rcd
20604 (2003) (Secondary Markets First Report and Order), Erratum, 18 FCC Rcd 24817 (2003).
739 Secondary Markets First Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20609-13, 20648-49 ¶¶ 8-9, 12-13, 91-92.  Wireless
Radio Services do not include satellite services. 47 C.F.R. § 1.907. Under these secondary market policies and
rules, the service rules and policies applicable to the licensee under its license authorization—including all technical,
interference, and operational rules—apply to the spectrum lessee as well.  Secondary Markets First Report and
Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20648-49 ¶¶ 91-92; see 47 C.F.R.§§ 1.9020(c)-(d), 1.9030 (c)-(d), 1.9035(c)-(d).  The rules
and procedures for spectrum leasing arrangements are set forth in Part 1, Subpart X. 47 C.F.R §§ 1.9001 et seq.
740 See Secondary Markets First Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 20607 ¶ 2.
741 Promoting Efficient Use of Spectrum Through Elimination of Barriers to the Development of Secondary
Markets, WT Docket No. 00-230, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Second Further Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 17503 (2004) (Secondary Markets Second Report and Order).  The
Commission has added more terrestrial services to this spectrum leasing framework, including the AWS-1 in 2003
(AWS-1 Report and Order) and the Broadband Radio Services and Educational Broadband Services in 2004
(Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of Fixed and
Mobile Broadband Access, Educational and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162 and 2500-2690 MHz Bands,
WT Docket Nos. 03-66, 03-67, 02-68, 00-230, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165, 14232-34 ¶¶ 177-181 (2004).
742 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5716-19 ¶¶ 14-19. The Commission did not
extend the secondary market regime to MSS/ATC de facto transfer lease arrangements because that would have
been inconsistent with the need to have the same entity control both the terrestrial and satellite operations.
Additionally, as explained in the MSS NPRM, the application of the secondary market rules to MSS/ATC spectrum
does not apply to the BAS and FSS operations currently in the 2 GHz band or to MSS leasing arrangements (e.g.,
transponder leases) that do not involve spectrum associated with terrestrial operations.  MSS Fixed and Mobile
Allocation NPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 9488-92 ¶¶ 17-25.
743 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3600 ¶ 117.
744 Id. at 3600 ¶ 117.

96

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

permitted.745  The Commission also proposed, however, not to allow de facto transfer lease arrangements
for AWS-4 spectrum or licenses, to the extent that the Commission finds that the complexities of
coordination between MSS and terrestrial operations renders impractical assignment of terrestrial licenses
to an entrant other than the incumbent MSS licensee(s).746  The Commission sought comment on these
proposals, and asked commenters to discuss the costs and benefits for competition, innovation, and
investment of extending the Commission’s secondary spectrum leasing policies and rules to AWS-4
spectrum.747
256.
The record unanimously supports permitting spectrum manager lease arrangements for
AWS-4 spectrum,748 but is mixed with regard to de facto transfer lease arrangements.749  Several parties
urge the Commission to extend our existing secondary markets leasing rules and policies to the AWS-4
spectrum.750  Others, however, urge the Commission not to permit de facto leasing arrangements, arguing
that it would be difficult for parties to such licenses to overcome the technical difficulties to reach
workable sharing arrangements.751
257.
Discussion. We find it in the public interest to apply the same comprehensive set of
rules, policies, and procedures governing spectrum leasing arrangements between terrestrial licensees and
spectrum lessees that we have adopted for other wireless spectrum bands to the AWS-4 band.752  This
decision will encourage innovative arrangements and investment in the AWS-4 band.
258.
We extend our secondary leasing policies to both spectrum manager lease arrangements
and de facto transfer lease arrangements.753 For a particular spectrum band, spectrum leasing policies
generally follow the same approach as the partitioning and disaggregation policies for the band. In the
AWS-4 NPRM, we observed this relationship between partitioning/disaggregation and spectrum leasing,
but did not make a specific proposal with respect to whether to permit partitioning and disaggregation of
AWS-4 spectrum. Consistent with our determination, above, to permit partitioning and disaggregation of
AWS-4 spectrum,754 we permit spectrum leasing of AWS-4 spectrum, including both categories of
spectrum lease arrangements.755
259.
We acknowledge that in the 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Order the Commission did not
extend the secondary market regime to permit MSS/ATC de facto transfer lease arrangements.756  The
facts underlying that decision, however, differ from those here. In the case of MSS/ATC spectrum,
terrestrial operations were explicitly ancillary to satellite operations and terrestrial operations were

745 Id. at 3600 ¶ 117.
746 Id. at 3600 ¶ 117.
747 Id. at 3600 ¶ 117.
748 See, e.g., CEA Comments at 4; NRTC Reply Comments at 5-6; TIA Comments at 21.
749 See, e.g., SIA Comments at 5; USGIC at 4.
750 See, e.g., CEA Comments at 4; NRTC Reply Comments at 5-6; TIA Comments at 21.
751 See, e.g., USGIC at 4; see also SIA Comments at 5.
752 See generally Secondary Markets First Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 20604; Secondary Markets Second
Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 17503.
753 See, e.g., CEA Comments at 4; TIA Comments at 20.
754 See supra Section III.G.3.a. (Partitioning and Disaggregation).
755 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3600 ¶ 117.
756 2 GHz Band Co-Allocation Report and Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 5716-19 ¶¶ 14-19.

97

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

premised on the operator satisfying the ATC gating criteria, some of which require at least a certain
amount of control over satellite operations, control an ATC lessee would not be able to exercise.757  That
is not the situation here. The AWS-4 terrestrial spectrum use will not be ancillary to satellite 2 GHz MSS
use. Rather, subject to the technical rules established herein, terrestrial and satellite uses will exist under
co-primary allocations and will have equal status. Further, an AWS-4 terrestrial lessee will not be
responsible for meeting satellite obligations, including the ATC gating criteria, which we are eliminating
(along with the entire ATC regime) for the 2 GHz MSS band. Accordingly, we decline to adopt the
Commission’s proposal to not permit de facto lease arrangements of AWS-4 spectrum and reject the
similar position of a handful of commenters.  Instead, for the aforementioned reasons, we permit these
lease arrangements, as well as spectrum manager lease arrangements for AWS-4 spectrum.  Additionally,
the MSS interference protection rule we adopt above will “run” with either type of leasing arrangement,
obligating any lessee to avoid interference with MSS operations.758  Given the record before us, we
conclude that the potential benefits of extending these rules, policies, and procedures are likely to
outweigh the potential costs.
4.

License Term, Renewal Criteria, and Permanent Discontinuance of
Operations

License Term

260.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to establish a 10-year term
for AWS-4 licenses.759  Although the Communications Act does not require a specific term for spectrum
licenses,760 the Commission has adopted 10-year terms for many wireless radio services.761  The
Commission sought comment on its proposal to establish a 10-year term for AWS-4 spectrum rights,
including on its costs and benefits.762  The Commission also sought comment on whether the spectrum
rights should match the 15-year term of the satellite licenses and, if so, inquired how this could be
accomplished given that the term of the two 2 GHz MSS licenses have different expiration dates.763
261.
The Commission proposed, in addition, that, if the terrestrial authority under a license is
partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee would be authorized to hold its license for
the remainder of the partitioner’s or disaggregator’s original license term.764  The Commission
emphasized that nothing in this proposal was intended to enable a licensee, by partitioning or
disaggregation, to be able to confer greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license grant;
nor would any partitionee or disaggregatee obtain rights in excess of those previously possessed by the
underlying Commission licensee.765  The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including on
their costs and benefits.

757 Id. at 5717 ¶ 16.
758 See infra Section III.C. (Protection of MSS Operations).
759 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3600 ¶ 118.
760 The only statutory limit on license terms is eight years for licenses in the broadcast services.  See 47 U.S.C. §
307(c)(1); see also 47 C.F.R. § 73.1020(a).  The Table of Frequency Allocations does not permit broadcast use of
the 2155-2175 MHz band. 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
761 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3600 ¶ 118; see, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.15, 27.13(a).
762 Id. at 3600 ¶ 118.
763 Id. at 3600-01 ¶ 119.
764 Id. at 3601 ¶ 120.
765 Id. at 3601 ¶ 120.

98

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

262.
Discussion.  We adopt a license term for AWS-4 spectrum rights of ten years and
subsequent renewal terms of ten years and we modify Section 27.13 of the Commission’s rules to reflect
these determinations.766  We find our decision consistent with the Commission’s adoption of ten-year
license terms in most other Part 27 services767 and in services using similar spectrum, such as that used
for PCS.768  Thus, in adopting a 10-year license term, we treat holders of AWS-4 spectrum rights
similarly to licensees providing like services. Further, no party opposed (or commented on) the
Commission’s license term proposal.
263.
In addition, we adopt the Commission’s proposal that, in the event that the terrestrial
portion of a license is partitioned or disaggregated, any partitionee or disaggregatee will be authorized to
hold its license for the remainder of the partitioner’s or disaggregator’s license term. Although the parties
to such an arrangement may agree that the arrangement will terminate prior to the end of the license term,
the arrangement may not remain in effect longer than the license term (or any subsequent renewal term).
Thus, we ensure that a licensee, by partitioning or disaggregation, will not be able to confer greater rights
on another party than it was awarded by the Commission under the terms of its license grant.  This
approach is similar to the partitioning and disaggregation provisions the Commission adopted for
licensees in other spectrum bands, including for the BRS (formerly MDS),769 broadband PCS,770 700
MHz band,771 and AWS-1 bands.772  Accordingly, we conclude that the potential benefits of the proposed
license terms would outweigh any potential costs.
b.

Renewal Criteria

264.
Background. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt AWS-4 renewal
requirements consistent with those adopted in the 700 MHz First Report and Order, which form the basis
of the renewal paradigm proposed in the Wireless Radio Services Renewal NPRM.773  The Commission
emphasized that, as was set forth in both of these items, a performance showing and a renewal showing

766 47 C.F.R. § 27.13.
767 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.13, describing initial license terms for licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
Bands (ten years), 698-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz Bands (ten years, except for initial authorizations for (1)
broadcast service providers and (2) licensees in the 746-747 MHz, 776-777 MHz, 762-764 MHz and 792-794 MHz
Bands ), 1390-1392 MHz Band (ten years), 1392-1395 MHz and 1432-1435 MHz Bands (ten years), 1670-1675
MHz Band (ten years); but see AWS-1 Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25190 ¶ 70 (fifteen years).
768 See 47 C.F.R. § 24.15.
769 See Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules With Regard to Filing Procedures in the
Multipoint Distribution Service and in the Instructional Television Fixed Service, MM Docket No. 94-131, Report
and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589, 9614 ¶ 46 (1995).
770 See Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Services Licensees and
Implementation of Section 257 of the Communications Act—Elimination of Market Barriers, WT Docket No. 96-
1148, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 21831, 21870 ¶¶ 76-77 (1996).
771 See Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s
Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168, First Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 476, 506-08 ¶ 73-78 (2000) (Upper 700 MHz
First Report and Order); Reallocation and Service Rules for 698-746 MHz Spectrum Band, Report and Order, 17
FCC Rcd 1022, 1079-81 (2002).
772 See AWS-1 Service Rules Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25193-95 ¶¶ 80-83.
773 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3601 ¶ 121; see Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands,
WT Docket Nos. 06-150, 01-309, 03-264, 06-169, 96-86, CC Docket No. 94-102, PS Docket No. 06-229, Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 22 FCC Rcd 8064 at 8093-94 ¶ 75-77 (2007) (700 MHz
First Report and Order); WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 6997-98, 7002-09 ¶¶ 2, 16-32.

99

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

are two distinct showings. A performance showing provides a snapshot in time of the level of a licensee’s
service, while a renewal showing provides information regarding the level and types of service provided
over the entire license term.”774
265.
The Commission proposed that applicants for renewal of AWS-4 spectrum rights file a
“renewal showing,” in which they demonstrate that they have been and are continuing to provide service
to the public, and are compliant with the Commission’s rules and policies and with the Communications
Act.775  The Commission proposed that the same factors that were discussed in the 700 MHz First Report
and Order and in the WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, such as the level and quality of service, whether
service was ever interrupted or discontinued, and whether service has been provided to rural areas and to
qualifying tribal lands, should be considered when evaluating renewal showings for the AWS-4 band, and
sought comment on this approach.776  The Commission also requested that commenters discuss and
quantify the costs and benefits of this approach, including on competition, innovation, and investment.777
266.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission also proposed that AWS-4 spectrum holders  meet
three and seven-year performance obligations and sought comment on whether licensees should obtain a
renewal expectancy for subsequent license terms, if they continue to provide at least the level of service
demonstrated at the seven-year performance benchmark through the end of any subsequent license
terms.778  The Commission asked commenters to discuss and quantify the costs and benefits of this
approach, including on competition, innovation, and investment.779
267.
The Commission further proposed prohibiting the filing of mutually exclusive renewal
applications780 and proposed that if a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum would be returned to
the Commission for reassignment.781  The Commission sought comment on these proposals, including the
costs and benefits of these proposals.782
268.
No comments were filed in this proceeding on the issue of renewal criteria.
269.
Discussion.  Pursuant to Section 308(b) of the Communications Act, the Commission
may require renewal applicants to “set forth such facts as the Commission by regulation may prescribe as
to the citizenship, character, and financial, technical, and other qualifications of the applicant to operate
the station” as well as “such other information as it may require.”783  We find that all licensees of
spectrum in the AWS-4 band seeking renewal of their authorizations at the end of their license term must

774 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3601 ¶ 121.
775 Id. at 3602 ¶ 122; see WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 6997-98, 7002-09 ¶¶ 2, 16-32.
776 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3601-02 ¶ 121-22; see 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093 ¶
75; see WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 6997-98, 7002-09 ¶¶ 2, 16-32; see also WRS Renewals
NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7043 App. A (proposed rule 1.949(c)(4)).
777 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3602 ¶ 122.
778 Id. at 3602 ¶ 123.
779 Id. at 3602 ¶ 123.
780 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3602 ¶ 124 (citing WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 6998, 7012-
13 ¶¶ 3, 40-42; 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093-8094 ¶¶ 76-77).
781 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3602 ¶ 124 (citing WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 6998, 7013-
14 ¶¶ 3, 43-44; 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8093 ¶ 76).
782 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3602 ¶ 124.
783 47 U.S.C. § 308(b).

100

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

file a renewal application, independent of their performance requirements, pursuant to Section 1.949 of
the Commission’s rules.784  Commenters did not comment on or address any potential costs associated
with the proposed license renewal criteria in the AWS-4 band.  Accordingly, we conclude that the
potential benefits of the proposed license renewal requirements would outweigh any potential costs.
270.
A licensee’s renewal showing is distinct from its performance showing. In the renewal
context, the Commission will consider the level and types of a licensee’s service provided over the entire
license term, as opposed to measuring services offered at a specific point in time for performance
requirements.  Thus, a licensee that meets the applicable performance requirements might nevertheless
fail to meet the renewal requirements.
271.
We require the renewal showing to include a detailed description of the renewal
applicant’s provision of service during the entire license period and discuss: (1) the level and quality of
service provided by the applicant (e.g., the population served, the area served, the number of subscribers,
the services offered); (2) the date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the
duration of any interruption or outage; (3) the extent to which service is provided to rural areas; (4) the
extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(e)(3)(i) of this chapter;
and (5) any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.785 A licensee must also
demonstrate at renewal that it has substantially complied with all applicable Commission rules and
policies, and the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, including any applicable performance
requirements.  The licensee must also maintain the level of service provided at its final performance
benchmark to the end of the license term.
272.
As we did in the 700 MHz First Report and Order, we will prohibit the filing of mutually
exclusive renewal applications. If a license is not renewed, the associated spectrum will be returned to
the Commission for reassignment.786
c.

Permanent Discontinuance of Operations

273.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission requested comment on the
application to AWS-4 operators of our rules governing the permanent discontinuance of operations.787
Under Section 1.955(a)(3) of our rules, an authorization will automatically terminate, without specific
Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.”788  The Commission proposed to define,
“permanently discontinued,” for the AWS-4 spectrum, as a period of 180 consecutive days during which
a licensee does not operate and does not serve at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with, controlled
by, or related to, the provider. The Commission proposed that licensees would not be subject to this
requirement until the date of the first performance requirement benchmark. The Commission also
proposed that, consistent with Section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules, if a licensee permanently
discontinues service, the licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within 10 days by
filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation. The Commission also noted that an
authorization will automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service is permanently

784 47 C.F.R. § 1.949.
785 In the 700 MHz First Report and Order the Commission noted that “As we have had the authority to do in the
past on a case-by-case basis, we could nevertheless condition the renewal of any 700 MHz license on a specific level
of compliance with one or more of these or any other relevant factors.” Id. at 22 FCC Rcd at 8064¶ 75 n.174.
786 See 700 MHz First Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8094 ¶ 76.
787 See WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7017 ¶ 49-50; AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3602 ¶ 125.
788 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(3).

101

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the required form.  The Commission sought comment on these
proposals.789  We received no comments on these issues.
274.
Discussion.  We adopt the Commission’s proposal to apply Section 1.955(a)(3) of the
Commission’s rules to any licensee, such that an AWS-4 operator’s terrestrial spectrum rights, will
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is “permanently discontinued.”790
For AWS-4 spectrum, we define “permanently discontinued” as a period of 180 consecutive days during
which a licensee does not operate and does not serve at least one subscriber that is not affiliated with,
controlled by, or related to, the provider in an EA. We believe this approach strikes the appropriate
balance between a licensee’s need for operational flexibility and the need to ensure efficient utilization of
licensed spectrum. In addition, our determination will ensure that AWS-4 spectrum does not remain idle
for extended periods. Rather, it will facilitate business and network planning by providing certainty to
licensees and their investors.  The discontinuance rule will apply commencing on the date a licensee must
meet its final performance requirement benchmark,791 thereby providing a licensee with adequate time to
construct its terrestrial network.
275.
Furthermore, in accordance with Section 1.955(a)(3) of the Commission’s rules, if  a
licensee permanently discontinues service, the licensee must notify the Commission of the discontinuance
within 10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 and requesting license cancellation.792  We emphasize,
however, that an authorization will automatically terminate without specific Commission action if service
is permanently discontinued even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license
cancellation.
276.
Finally, in applying section 1.955(a)(3) to licensees of AWS-4 authority, we clarify that
operation of so-called channel keepers, e.g., devices that transmit test signals, tones and/or color bars, do
not constitute operation for purposes of the permanent discontinuance rules.793
5.

Other Operating Requirements

277.
Background. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission stated that even though licenses for
this band may be issued pursuant to one rule part, licensees in these bands may be required to comply
with rules contained in other parts of the Commission’s rules by virtue of the particular services that they
offer.794  The Commission sought comment on any provisions in existing, service-specific rules that may
require specific recognition or adjustment to comport with the supervening application of another rule
part, as well as any provisions that may be necessary in the other rule part to fully describe the scope of
covered services and technologies.795 In addition, the Commission sought comment generally on

789 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3602-03 ¶ 125.
790 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(3).
791 See supra Section III.E. (Performance Requirements).
792 47 C.F.R. § 1.955(a)(3).
793 See Application of San Diego MDS Company, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 23120, 23124 ¶
10 (2004) (“in order to provide a service a provider would, at a minimum, need a customer or other person to serve”)
(San Diego MDS); BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 5731 ¶ 297 (favorably citing San Diego MDS when
affirming that “transmission of test signals and/or color bars by a BRS/EBS licensee or lessee does not constitute
substantial service”); see WRS Renewals NPRM and Order, 25 FCC Rcd at 7019 ¶ 59.
794 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3603 ¶ 126.
795 Id. at 3603 ¶ 127.

102

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

whether any conditions should govern the operation of a provider’s network if it is granted a license to
operate in these bands.796
278.
Discussion. Although we are generally adopting Part 27 rules for the AWS-4 band, in
order to maintain general consistency among various wireless communication services, we also require
any licensee of AWS-4 operating authority to comply with other rule parts that pertain generally to
wireless communication services. For example, Section 27.3 of the Commission’s rules lists some of the
other rule parts applicable to wireless communications service licensees generally;797 we thus find it
appropriate to apply this and similar rules to the AWS-4 band. Some of these other rule parts will be
applicable by virtue of the fact that they apply to all licensees, and others will apply depending on the
type of service a licensee provides. For example:
•  Applicants and licensees will be subject to the application filing procedures for the Universal
Licensing System, set forth in Part 1 of our rules.798
•  Licensees will be required to comply with the practices and procedures listed in Part 1 of our
rules for license applications, adjudicatory proceedings, etc.
•  Licensees will be required to comply with the Commission’s environmental provisions,
including section 1.1307.799
•  Licensees will be required to comply with the antenna structure provisions of Part 17 of our
rules.
•  To the extent a licensee provides a Commercial Mobile Radio Service, such service is subject
to the provisions of Part 20 of the Commission’s rules, including 911/E911 and hearing-aid
compatibility requirements, along with the provisions in the rule part under which the license
was issued.800  Part 20 applies to all CMRS providers, even though the stations may be
licensed under other parts of our rules.801
•  The application of general provisions of Parts 22, 24, or 27 will include rules related to equal
employment opportunity, etc.
No commenter opposes this approach.
6.

Facilitating Access to Spectrum and the Provision of Service to Tribal Lands

279.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission observed that it has under
consideration in the Tribal Lands NPRM various provisions and policies intended to promote greater use

796 Id. at 3603-04 ¶ 128.
797 47 C.F.R. § 27.3.
798 See 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart F.
799 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307.
800 47 C.F.R. Part 20; see also 47 C.F.R. § 27.3(g).
801 See, e.g., 700 MHz Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 15478-79 ¶¶ 550-53.

103

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

of spectrum over Tribal Lands.802  The Commission proposed to extend any rules and policies adopted in
that proceeding to any licenses that may be issued through competitive bidding in this proceeding. The
Commission sought comment on this approach, including its associated costs and benefits.803  We
received no comments on this issue.
280.
Discussion.  We adopt our proposed approach and defer the application of any rules and
policies for facilitating access to spectrum and the provision of service to Tribal Lands to the Tribal
Lands proceeding.804  The Tribal Lands proceeding, being specifically focused on that issue, is better
suited than the instant proceeding to reach conclusions on that issue.
7.

Other Matters—Proposed Party Conditions

281.
Mandatory Wholesale and Roaming Requirements. Several commenters requested that
the Commission impose mandatory wholesale and roaming requirements on licensees of AWS-4
operating authority.805  For example, RCA contends that the Commission should require any licensee to
“make a minimum portion of its network available to competitive carriers at cost-based wholesale rates,
and to provide roaming at cost-based rates to any competitive carrier whose network is technologically
compatible."806  Similarly, PIO asserts that the Commission should require a licensee “to make up to 50
percent of its capacity available in each Economic Area for open wholesale leasing by any qualified
entity, or for roaming by other carriers, on a non-discriminatory basis.”807  Commenters supporting these
additional requirements argue they will increase competition and benefit consumers by increasing
broadband deployment.808  Other parties, however, argue against these restrictions, asserting they are
unwarranted, economically inefficient and beyond the scope of the proceeding.809
282.
We decline to impose any mandatory wholesale and roaming requirements in this Report
and Order.  We find these requests beyond the scope of the service rules proceeding before us and would
be better addressed in other, non-band specific, proceedings on those topics. For example, roaming
requirements for wireless spectrum licensees are the subject of other Commission proceedings.810  We
also note that we have recently initiated a proceeding to broadly examine our policies and rules regarding
mobile spectrum holdings, including possible remedies to address potential harms or to help ensure the
realization of potential benefits.811

802 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3604 ¶ 129 (citing, Improving Communications Services for Native Nations by
Promoting Greater Utilization of Spectrum over Tribal Lands, WT Docket 11-40, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
26 FCC Rcd 2623 (2011) (Tribal Lands NPRM)).
803 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3604 ¶ 129.
804 Tribal Lands NPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 2630-31 ¶¶ 19-20 (2011).
805 See, e.g., NTCA Comments at 3; PIO Comments at 8-11; RCA Comments at 4, 6-7; U.S. Cellular Reply
Comments at 4-5.
806 RCA Comments at 4, 6-7; see also PIO Comments at 2, 9; PIO Reply Comments at 2-5.
807 PIO Comments at 9.
808 See, e.g., PIO Comments at 16.
809 See, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11; Verizon Wireless Reply Comments at 2-4.
810 See, e.g., Reexamination of Roaming Obligations of Commercial Radio Service Providers and Other Providers of
Mobile Data Services, WT Docket No. 05-265, Second Report & Order, 26 FCC Rcd 5411 (2011), recon. pending.
811 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 11730-32 ¶¶ 43-48.

104

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

283.
Wholesale Restrictions.  A number of commenters proposed that, in order to promote
competition and prevent the entrenchment of duopoly power, the Commission should impose restrictions
on the amount of AWS-4 spectrum that a licensee may make available for access to a particular wireless
service provider.812  For example, T-Mobile suggests that any licensee be required “to obtain the
Commission’s prior approval before entering into any wholesale agreement that would result in another
wireless carrier’s traffic accounting for more than a certain substantial percentage (i.e., 25 percent) of the
total traffic carried on the AWS-4 licensee’s terrestrial network.”813  T-Mobile states that this limitation
should apply to any wholesale arrangements, regardless of the other party, for an amount of AWS-4
network capacity above the specified threshold.814  Other commenters argue for a specific percentage
limitation on the amount of wireless traffic that a licensee may make available to a particular wireless
carrier815 or for restrictions focused on the two largest wireless carriers.816  In contrast, other commenters
argue that such restrictions are unwarranted, unworkable and that no technical or economic justifications
have been provided that support traffic restrictions generally or that support applying any such restrictions
only to Verizon Wireless and AT&T.817
284.
We decline to impose restrictions on the ability of a licensee of AWS-4 authority to
provide access to its AWS-4 traffic capacity to other wireless carriers in this proceeding. We believe that
this issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. We also note that we have recently initiated a
proceeding to broadly examine our policies and rules regarding mobile spectrum holdings.818
285.
Penalties for Early License Transfers. Some commenters seek the imposition of unjust
enrichment penalties if a licensee of AWS-4 authority sells or otherwise transfers control of its license to
one of the two largest mobile data carriers within a specified time period.819  These commenters argue that
such a penalty would partially compensate the public for the value of the spectrum and prevent an AWS-4
licensee from unjustly realizing a windfall.820  For example, PIO argues that if a licensee does not use the
AWS-4 spectrum but instead sells the spectrum to an incumbent mobile carrier, the licensee “would be
enriching itself financially at the expense of the public who would suffer from a much more heavily
consolidated mobile broadband environment.”821
286.
PIO and RCA state that there are already current models for mitigating unjust enrichment
and the Commission should look to them for guidance here.822  Specifically, these commenters point to
the designated entity rules, which contain penalty provisions in the event a designated entity receives a

812 See, e.g., PIO Comments at 11-13; RCA Comments at 11-12; T-Mobile Comments at 15-17; USCC Reply
Comments at 8-9.
813 T-Mobile Comments at 6-7.
814 Id.
815 See, e.g., PIO Comments at 11-13.
816 See, e.g., RCA Comments at 11-12.
817 See, e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 10-11; DISH Reply Comments at 30; Verizon Wireless Reply Comments
at 2-4.
818 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 11710.
819 See, e.g., PIO Comments at 3, 17-19; RCA Comments at 5, 11-12.
820 PIO Comments at 3, 17-19; RCA Comments at 11-12.
821 PIO Comments at 18.
822 Id. at 3, 18-19; RCA Comments at 11-12.

105

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

benefit in the competitive bidding process and subsequently transfers its license(s).823 These commenters
assert that such a condition would make it more likely that the AWS-4 spectrum will be deployed in a
manner consistent with the public interest.824
287.
In response, other parties oppose such an approach. For example, DISH asserts that the
commenters did not offer “a statutory basis or Commission precedent to support such a departure from the
Commission’s secondary market policies.”825  Verizon Wireless argues that the proposed unjust
enrichment rules are superfluous and overly broad because the Commission will review any application to
assign or transfer spectrum licenses.826  Verizon Wireless further contends that, because the proposals are
only intended to apply to two companies, the proposals are less about the unjust enrichment of a licensee
of AWS-4 authority and more about preventing AT&T and Verizon Wireless from acquiring new
spectrum.827  For similar reasons, AT&T also opposes unjust enrichment conditions.828
288.
We will not, in this proceeding, adopt a system for imposing unjust enrichment penalties
in the event that a licensee of AWS-4 operating authority seeks to transfer its license to one of the two
largest mobile data providers. Nor will we impose additional restrictions on the licensee’s ability to
transfer or otherwise assign its terrestrial spectrum rights. Rather, the Commission will continue to
review any proposed transfers of control or assignments of AWS-4 authority under its requirements then
in place. Finally, we note that we have recently initiated a proceeding to examine spectrum concentration
issues and that, during the pendency of this proceeding, we will continue to apply our case-by-case
approach to secondary markets transactions and initial license applications as necessary.829

Relocation and Cost Sharing

Emerging Technologies Policies

289.
As the Commission explained in the AWS-4 NPRM, the Emerging Technologies (ET)
procedures represent a broad set of tools that the Commission uses to aid the process of making spectrum
available for new uses.830  Generally, the Commission applies the ET procedures when it is necessary to
relocate incumbent licensees to introduce new services into a frequency band. The Commission sets a
“sunset date”—a date by which incumbent licensees may not cause interference to new band entrants.
Prior to the sunset date, the new entrants may negotiate with incumbents to gain early entry into the band
and, if necessary, may relocate the incumbents to comparable facilities. Because new entrants may have
to relocate incumbents from a larger frequency range or greater geographic area than where the new

823 Id.
824 PIO Comments at 19; RCA Comments at 11-12.
825 DISH Reply Comments at 30.
826 Verizon Wireless Reply Comments at 5.
827 Id. at 4-5.
828 AT&T Reply at 10-11.
829 Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd 11710.
830 See Redevelopment of Spectrum to Encourage Innovation in the Use of New Telecommunications Technologies,
ET Docket No. 92-9, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 (1992)
(“Emerging Technologies First R&O”); Second Report and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6495 (1993); Third Report and
Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 (1993) (“Emerging Technologies Third R&O and
MO&O”); Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 (1994); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9
FCC Rcd 7797 (1994); aff’d Association of Public Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. v. FCC, 76
F.3d 395 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (collectively, “Emerging Technologies proceeding”).

106

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

entrants will operate, the Commission also typically establishes a companion set of cost-sharing
procedures.  These procedures allow the operators that have relocated incumbents to be reimbursed a
portion of their relocation expenses from new entrants that benefit from the spectrum clearance.  The
application of specific relocation and cost sharing processes under the ET framework generally varies for
each frequency band, and is based on the types of incumbent licensees and particular band
characteristics.831  We discuss, below, the particular relocation and cost sharing procedures that we adopt
for the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
2.

Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2000-2020 MHz

290.
Background. The lower portion of the AWS-4 band (2000-2020 MHz) is part of the
1990-2025 MHz band that the Commission reallocated from the Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) to
emerging technologies such as PCS, AWS, and MSS.832  Consistent with the relocation principles first
established in the Commission’s Emerging Technologies proceeding, each new entrant had an
independent responsibility to relocate incumbent BAS licensees.833  Sprint Nextel (Sprint), which is the
PCS licensee at 1990-1995 MHz, completed the BAS transition for the entire 35 megahertz in 2010.834  In
2011, Sprint notified the Commission that it entered in a private settlement with DISH to resolve its
dispute with MSS licensees with respect to MSS licensees’ obligation to reimburse Sprint for their share
of the BAS relocation costs.835  In the AWS-4 NPRM, we asked whether any relocation and cost-sharing
issues for the 2000-2020 MHz band remained if the Commission were to assign terrestrial licenses under
Part 27.836
291.
Discussion. We find that no additional relocation or cost-sharing procedures are
necessary for the 2000-2020 MHz AWS-4 band. In addition, although we do not adopt cost-sharing rules
in this Report and Order, we clarify that AWS-2 licensees will continue to be responsible for reimbursing
Sprint for 2/7th of the BAS relocation costs (i.e., the proportional share of the costs associated with Sprint
relocating 10 megahertz of BAS spectrum that may be used by AWS-2 entrants) and that such cost-
sharing issues will be addressed in a separate proceeding.

831 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocated Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed
Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless
Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, WT Docket No. 02-353, Ninth Report and Order and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 4473,
4479 ¶ 11 n.35 (2006) (AWS Ninth R&O).
832 See 47 C.F.R. § 74.690. Of the total 35 megahertz of spectrum, five megahertz was authorized for PCS and held
by Sprint Nextel; 10 megahertz is authorized for, and to be auctioned and licensed as, AWS; and 20 megahertz was
authorized for MSS.
833 Improving Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket No. 02-55, ET Docket No. 00-258,
ET Docket No. 95-18, Fifth Report and Order, Eleventh Report and Order, Sixth Report and Order, and
Declaratory Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd 13874 at 13876 ¶ 5 (2010) (2010 BAS Ruling). Each new entrant also had a
responsibility to reimburse an earlier entrant for its share of the costs for the relocation of BAS from the 1990-2025
MHz band.  See, e.g., id., 25 FCC Rcd at 13876 ¶ 6.
834 Letter from Brett S. Haan, 800 MHz Transition Administrator, LLC, to David L. Furth, Deputy Chief, Public
Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Federal Communications Commission at 2 (May 13, 2011), citing Letter
from Robert H. McNamara, Sprint Nextel Corporation, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, WT Docket No. 02-55 (dated July 15, 2010).
835 See Applications of New DBSD Satellite Services G.P., Debtor-in-Possession, and TerreStar Licensee Inc.,
Debtor-in-Possession, Withdrawal of Petition to Condition Approval of Sprint Nextel Corporation, IB Docket No.
11-149 (Nov. 3, 2011) (informing the Commission that Sprint had reached an agreement with DISH to settle its
outstanding disputes).
836 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3605 ¶ 131.

107

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

292.
Relocation.  As explained in the AWS-4 NPRM, Sprint undertook the relocation of BAS
from the entire 35 megahertz at 1990-2025 MHz and notified the Commission that this transition was
completed in 2010.837  No party raised outstanding relocation issues, unrelated to cost-sharing (which is
discussed below), for the 1990-2025 MHz band in response to the AWS-4 NPRM.  Therefore, we find no
need to adopt additional relocation procedures for the 1990-2025 MHz band.
293.
Cost Sharing. Even though Sprint only benefits from the use of five megahertz of
spectrum (1990-1995 MHz), Sprint incurred significant costs in clearing the remaining thirty megahertz
of spectrum (1995-2025 MHz) to the benefit of other entrants.   The Commission has consistently
affirmed its general cost-sharing policy that an entrant who has relocated incumbents from reallocated
spectrum is entitled to reimbursement for a portion of the band clearing costs from other entrants
benefitting from that relocation.838  The Commission has emphasized that all entrants to the 1990-2025
MHz band may be required to bear a proportional share of the costs incurred in the BAS clearance, on a
pro rata basis according to the amount of spectrum each entrant is assigned.839  Of the total 35 megahertz
of spectrum, five megahertz was authorized for PCS and held by Sprint; 10 megahertz is authorized for
(but yet to be auctioned and licensed as) AWS-2; and 20 megahertz was authorized for MSS. Sprint
clarified in the record that DISH satisfied the cost-sharing obligations associated with 20 megahertz of
spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band and that the only remaining cost-sharing obligations in this band
are attributable to the 10 megahertz of spectrum authorized for AWS-2.840
294.
We conclude that, consistent with the Commission’s policy that all entrants to the 1990-
2025 MHz band bear a proportional share of the costs incurred in the BAS clearance on a pro rata basis
according to the amount of spectrum each entrant is assigned, future AWS-2 licensees who enter the band
prior to the sunset date will be responsible for reimbursing Sprint for 2/7ths of the BAS relocation costs
(i.e., the proportional share of the costs associate with Sprint relocating 10 megahertz of BAS spectrum
that will be used by AWS-2 entrants).841  We believe that this determination represents the most fair and
balanced approach for all parties.  The Commission will address the application on these cost-sharing
obligations on AWS-2 licensees, including Sprint’s proposal to set the sunset date for reimbursement at
ten years after the issuance of the first AWS licenses in these bands separately in the H Block NPRM.

837 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3605 ¶ 131.
838 See, e.g., 2010 BAS Ruling); AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4513-4516 ¶¶ 74-79; See Microwave Cost Sharing
First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 8825, 8861 ¶ 71 (2000)
(“Microwave Cost Sharing First R&O and FNPRM”); Amendment to the Commission’s Rules Regarding a Plan for
Sharing the Costs of Microwave Relocation, WT Docket No. 95-157, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd
1923, 1931, ¶ 16 (1995).
839 Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed
Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, including Third Generation Wireless
Systems, ET Docket Nos. 00-258 and 95-18, Sixth Report and Order, Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, and
Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 20720, 20750 ¶ 63 (2004) (“AWS Sixth R&O”); Improving
Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, WT Docket 02-55, Report and Order, Fourth Report and
Order, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 14969, 15099 ¶¶ 261-262 (2004) (“800
MHz R&O”).
840 Sprint Comments at 15.  Sprint was the only party to comment specifically on cost-sharing issues for the 2020-
2025 MHz band.
841 Each five megahertz block of spectrum in the 1990-2025 MHz band represents one-seventh of the relocated BAS
spectrum. Sprint has stated that the pro rata share of the overall BAS relocation costs attributable to each five
megahertz of relocated BAS spectrum amounts to $94,875,516. Letter from Marc S. Martin, Counsel for Sprint
Nextel Corporation, K&L Gates, to Marlene H. Dortch, Sec’y, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 12-70, 04-356, ET Docket
No. 10-142, at 2 (filed Jul. 9, 2012).

108

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Relocation and Cost Sharing for 1915-1920 MHz.

295.
Although relocation and cost sharing for the 1915-1920 MHz band were not raised in the
AWS-4 NPRM, UTAM, Inc. filed comments seeking reimbursement in this proceeding for its costs in
clearing the 1915-1920 MHz block, i.e., the AWS-2 Lower H block.842  UTAM is the frequency
coordinator for the unlicensed personal communications service (UPCS) and was designated by the
Commission to relocate incumbent licensees in the 1910-1930 MHz band to support the introduction and
deployment of UPCS devices.843  Because the Commission has not yet auctioned the H Block, UTAM has
yet to be compensated for its relocation efforts. UTAM expressed concern that “converting the 2000-
2020 MHz band from an MSS uplink to a terrestrial uplink” band would result in harmful interference to
the 1995-2000 MHz block.844  This could make the Upper H block unusable, resulting in both the Upper
and Lower H blocks remaining unlicensed and, consequently, UTAM not being reimbursed for clearing
the Lower H block. UTAM argues, therefore, that we should require the licensee of AWS-4 operating
authority to reimburse UTAM while affording the licensee a reimbursement right to collect the amount
from AWS-2 licensees once the 1915-1920 MHz band is auctioned.845  We disagree that the licensees of
AWS-4 authority should be held responsible for this outstanding cost-sharing obligation. As noted above,
cost-sharing procedures under the ET framework allow the operators that have relocated incumbents to be
reimbursed a portion of their relocation expenses from new entrants that benefit from the spectrum
clearance. In this case, we find no benefit to the licensees of AWS-4 operating authority for UTAM’s
clearing of 1915-1920 MHz. To be clear, we recognize UTAM’s outstanding claim for full
reimbursement of its expenses for clearing fixed microwave incumbents from the 1915-1920 MHz band.
Additionally, as discussed above, we expect that the technical rules we are adopting will have a positive
effect on the utility of the 1995-2000 MHz band relative to the existing MSS and MSS/ATC rules.846
Consistent with precedent, we defer cost-sharing issues for the 1915-1920 MHz band until we establish
service rules for that band, which we expect to do in the near future.847
4.

Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2180-2200 MHz

Relocation

296.
Background. The upper portion of AWS-4 (2180-2200 MHz) is part of the 2160-2200
MHz band that the Commission previously reallocated from the Fixed Microwave Services (FS) to
emerging technologies.848  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission observed that our licensing records
show approximately 700 active FS licenses in the 2180-2200 MHz band and that most of these
incumbents appear to be state or local governmental entities, utilities, railroads, and other businesses with
FS links licensed in the Microwave Public Safety Pool (MW) or the Microwave Industrial/Business Pool

842 UTAM Comments at 2-6; UTAM Reply Comments at 1-4; see AWS Sixth Report & Order, 19 FCC Rcd at
20726-20740 ¶¶ 8-41; AWS-2 NPRM, 19 FCC Rcd at 19264 ¶ 2.
843 See 47 C.F.R. § 15.307 (applications for certification of UPCS equipment must include an affidavit from UTAM,
Inc. certifying that the applicant is a participating member of UTAM, Inc.); see generally biannual reports filed by
UTAM in GEN Docket No. 90-314.
844 UTAM Comments at 4.
845 Id. at 4-6.
846 See supra Section III.B. (Technical Issues).
847 See 2010 BAS Ruling, 25 FCC Rcd at 13903-13904 ¶ 72.
848 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.69.

109

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

(MG) for private, internal communication.849  FS links in the 2180-2200 MHz band typically are paired,
for two-way operation, with FS links in the 2130-2150 MHz band. The Commission previously adopted
relocation and cost-sharing rules for AWS-1 licensees in the 2110-2155 MHz band, and we proposed in
the AWS-4 NPRM to adopt similar rules for licensees of AWS-4 operating authority to govern relocation
and cost-sharing in the 2180-2200 MHz band.850
297.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply the rules that govern the
relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-2155 MHz band by AWS-1 licensees to the relocation of FS
incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band by an AWS-4 entrant.851  Under the existing rules, AWS-1
licensees must coordinate their frequency usage with all potentially affected co-channel and adjacent
channel incumbents prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station.852  If interference would
occur,853 the AWS-1 licensee can initiate a mandatory negotiation period.854  If no agreement is reached
during the mandatory negotiation period, the AWS-1 licensee can initiate involuntary relocation
procedures.855  Under the Commission’s proposal, these processes would also apply to AWS-4 entrants,
too.
298.
In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission also proposed to sunset AWS-4 relocation
obligations ten years after the first AWS-4 license is issued in the band.856  Under the ET policies, the
Commission sunsets the relocation obligation owed by new licensees to incumbents. For example,
MSS/ATC relocation obligations to FS in the 2180-2200 MHz band will sunset in December 2013.857
Similarly, for the 2110–2150 MHz, 2160–2175 MHz, and 2175–2180 MHz bands, the sunsets occur “ten
years after the first ET license is issued in the respective band.”858  Thus, because AWS-1 licenses were
first-issued in 2006, the sunset for relocation obligations for FS incumbents in the 2130-2150 MHz band
will occur in 2016.  The Commission recognized in the AWS-4 NPRM that the 2013 sunset date applies to
2180-2200 MHz for MSS/ATC.859  However, the Commission stated that, under its proposal to permit
full terrestrial use under Part 27, it would be appropriate to treat the AWS-4 band the same as other AWS
bands by setting the sunset ten-years after the band is licensed for AWS.860  The Commission therefore

849 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3605 ¶ 132.
850 Id. at 3605-3607 ¶¶ 132-135.
851 Id. at 3605-3606 ¶¶ 132-134.
852 47 C.F.R. § 27.1131 (“Coordination shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of [47 C.F.R.] §
24.237.”).
853 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1131, 27.1160, 101.82.
854 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69, 101.73.
855 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.75.
856 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3606 ¶ 134; see 47 C.F.R. § 101.75.
857 47 C.F.R. § 101.79(a)(2); see Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2
GHz for use by the Mobile Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No. 01-185,
Third Report and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23638, 23675 ¶ 77 (2003) (“MSS
Third R&O”).
858 47 C.F.R. § 101.79(a)(1).
859 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3606 ¶ 134.
860 Id.

110

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

proposed to revise Section 101.79(a)(2) of the Commission’s rules861 to include Part 27 sunset rules in the
2180-2200 MHz band, setting a 10-year sunset date.862  The Commission also proposed removing
footnote NG168 from the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations.863  The Commission explained that this
would clarify, that after the applicable sunset date, grandfathered fixed microwave systems will be
governed by the procedures in Section 101.79.864
299.
Discussion.   We adopt the proposed approach to apply rules for the relocation of FS
incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band by an AWS-4 entrant based on similar rules that apply to the
relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-2155 MHz band by AWS-1 licensees.  We also establish a 10-
year sunset date from the grant of the first license or issuance of a modification of a license to authorize
the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band for AWS-4 under Part 27.
300.
We received minimal comment on this issue. DISH opposed this approach, arguing that
the Commission should allow FS operations to terminate in 2013 because current MSS/ATC obligations
to relocate FS incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band will sunset in December 2013 and FS incumbents
have been on notice for more than 20 years that they would likely need to relocate their services.865
Conversely, the Utilities Telecom Council (UTC) supports the Commission’s proposal to establish a ten-
year sunset for AWS-4 relocation obligations in the 2180-2200 MHz band, claiming that this will provide
FS incumbents with an equal opportunity to negotiate relocation with AWS-4 entrants as was provided
for negotiation with other entrants.866
301.
Under the AWS-4 service rules that we are adopting, the MSS/AWS-4 licensee will be
required to build a terrestrial network to serve a large portion of the country. Thus, the deployment of a
ubiquitous AWS-4 network creates a much greater certainty that incumbents would need to relocate from
the band than might have been anticipated under the existing MSS/ATC regime.867  Because of the large
number of FS incumbents still present in the band, we find that it serves the public interest to impose an
obligation on an AWS-4 entrant to relocate FS incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band, and that this
obligation should be independent and distinct from the existing MSS/ATC relocation obligation.
Consequently, this relocation obligation shall not sunset at the December 2013 date applicable under the
MSS/ATC rules but instead shall be determined by the AWS-4 relocation rules which we are now
adopting.

861 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3632-33, App. A (proposed 47 C.F.R. § 101.79).
862 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3606 ¶ 134.
863 NG168, which has subsequently been renumbered as NG43, limits the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band to MSS
and ancillary terrestrial components, establishes a cut-off date for new primary fixed and mobile services, and sets
December 9, 2013 as the date by which all fixed and mobile service licensees shall operate on a secondary basis.
864 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3606 ¶ 134.
865 DISH Comments at 33.
866 UTC Comments at 1-2; see also Motorola Comments at 1-2 (noting that the Commission is correct to look to the
AWS-1 rules as a model for AWS-4 for technical matters as well as other regulatory issues).
867 Unless otherwise specified, our ET policies do not require an incumbent licensee to cease operating after the
relocation obligation period ends for new entrants. Instead, incumbent primary licensees may continue to operate on
a primary basis but must vacate the spectrum within six months of receiving written notice from a new entrant
intending to turn on a system within the interference range of the incumbent.  See, e.g. 47 C.F.R. § 101.79(a).
Incumbent secondary licensees must vacate the spectrum within 30 days of receiving a written notification from a
new entrant.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d) (30-day notification period for frequency coordination).

111

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

302.
Although DISH is correct that FS incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band were subject
to relocation by MSS licensees,868 we find it appropriate to impose relocation obligations on licensees of
AWS-4 authority at this time because we now adopt service rules for a new wireless terrestrial service
under Part 27.  The Commission generally adopts relocation procedures at the time that it adopts rules for
the provision of new services in bands that are used by incumbent licensees.  The MSS/ATC relocation
rules are based on unique circumstances that were only applicable to MSS.  The Commission departed
from its traditional relocation rules in adopting a mandatory negotiation period for relocation of FS
incumbents by MSS licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band as well as providing a specific date for the
start of the ten-year sunset period instead of the issuance of the first license or start of the first relocation
negotiations.869  The Commission believed that the modifications to the traditional relocation/negotiation
procedures was warranted due to the presence of special circumstances specific to MSS and hoped that it
would expedite the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band.870  The Commission also
has stated that those special circumstances are not applicable to relocations by AWS licensees and
declined to depart from the traditional trigger for determining the mandatory negotiation period and the
sunset dates for the relocation of FS incumbents by AWS licensees.871
303.
Although we agree with DISH that FS incumbents had considerable notice that they
would likely need to relocate their services, we are not persuaded that this should be the predominant
factor in our decision. We note that, under the ET procedures, the date at which the incumbents first
received notice that they would be relocated has not determined the starting date for the relocation sunset
period. For example, when the Commission allocated spectrum for AWS, including at 2130-2150 MHz
in 2002, and thereafter adopted service rules, modified relocation rules, and adopted cost-sharing rules, it
continued to impose an obligation on AWS-1 licensees to relocate FS incumbents at 2130-2150 MHz for
ten years from the date on which the first AWS-1 license was granted, even though those FS incumbents
were already on notice that they would be subject to relocation. Similarly, the Commission decided to
relocate BAS incumbents in the 1990-2025 MHz band to make way for MSS in 1997, but did not begin
the ten-year relocation period until 2000 and later extended the sunset date to 2013.872

868 DISH Comments at 33.
869 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the
Mobile Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No. 01-185, Third Report and
Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23638, 23675 ¶ 77 (2003) (“MSS Third R&O”).
The mandatory negotiation period for non-public safety incumbents ended on December 8, 2004, and the mandatory
negotiation period for public safety incumbents ended December 8, 2005.   47 C.F.R. § 101.69(e)(1), (2). MSS
relocation obligations to FS in the 2180-2200 MHz band will sunset in December 2013 (ten years after the
mandatory negotiation period began for MSS licensees).  47 C.F.R. § 101.79(a)(2).
870 See MSS Third R&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 23675 ¶ 77. Rather than the mandatory negotiations commencing when the
MSS licensee informs the FS incumbent in writing of its desire to negotiate, the Commission modified its rules and
specified the starting date of the mandatory negotiation period between MSS licensees and FS incumbents, as well
as the starting date of the related ten-year sunset period for relocation of FS incumbents by MSS licensees in the
2180-2200 MHz band.  See MSS Third R&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 23675 ¶ 77; see also id. (noting that “MSS proponents
have argued that the ATC component recently authorized for MSS licensees would be instrumental in accelerating
their ability to move forward with the relocation process.”).
871 AWS Sixth R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 20763 ¶ 102.
872 See Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for use by the
Mobile Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, ET Docket No. 00-258, IB Docket No. 01-185, First Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,, 12 FCC Rcd 7388, 7401 ¶ 30 (1997); MSS Third R&O, 18 FCC
Rcd at 23649-50, 23661-62 ¶¶ 19, 47.

112

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

304.
For all of the reasons discussed above, we conclude that it is in the public interest to
adopt relocation rules for licensees of AWS-4 authority, including the trigger for determining the
mandatory negotiation period and the sunset date for relocation obligations, that are based on our
traditional Emerging Technologies proceedings and similar to rules that have governed the relocation of
incumbent licensees by AWS-1 licensees and other terrestrial wireless licensees.  We believe that our
action will promote a harmonized approach under Part 27 to the relocation of FS incumbents by terrestrial
wireless licensees across the AWS bands and will provide FS incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band
with a meaningful opportunity to negotiate relocation agreements with a licensee of AWS-4 authority.
305.
The specific rules that we adopt are set-forth in the attached Appendix A and, as
explained above, are based on similar rules that apply to the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-
2155 MHz band by AWS-1 licensees.873  No parties commented on modifying the proposed rules
themselves. In general, licensees of AWS-4 authority will be required to coordinate their frequency usage
with all potentially affected co-channel and adjacent channel FS incumbents operating in the 2180-2200
MHz band prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station. If interference would occur,874 the
licensee of AWS-4 authority can initiate a mandatory negotiation period (two-years for non-public safety,
three-years for public safety) during which each party must negotiate in good faith for the purpose of
agreeing to terms under which the FS licensees would: (1) relocate their operations to other fixed
microwave bands or other media; or alternatively (2) accept a sharing arrangement with the licensee of
AWS-4 authority that may result in an otherwise impermissible level of interference to the FS
operations.875  If no agreement is reached during the mandatory negotiation period, the licensee of AWS-4
authority can initiate involuntary relocation procedures.876
306.
We also establish a 10-year sunset date from the grant of the first license or issuance of a
modification of a license to authorize the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band for AWS-4 under Part 27.877
We addressed arguments raised by DISH with respect to the sunset above. In addition, we adopt our
proposal to delete the reference in footnote NG168 in the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations to all
Fixed and Mobile facilities operating on a secondary basis not later than December 9, 2013.878  No parties
commented on our proposal to modify this footnote. As we explained in the AWS-4 NPRM,
grandfathered fixed microwave systems will be governed by the procedures in Section 101.79 after the
applicable sunset date.879

873 See supra Section III.H.4.a. (Relocation and Cost-Sharing for 2180-2200 MHz - Relocation)
874 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1131, 27.1160, 101.82.
875 47 C.F.R. §§ 101.69, 101.73.
876 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.75.
877 Id.
878 NG168 stated that “Except as permitted below, the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band is limited to the MSS and
ancillary terrestrial component offered in conjunction with an MSS network, subject to the Commission’s rules for
ancillary terrestrial components and subject to all applicable conditions and provisions of an MSS authorization. In
the 2180-2200 MHz band, where the receipt date of the initial application for facilities in the fixed and mobile
services was prior to January 16, 1992, said facilities shall operate on a primary basis and all later-applied-for
facilities shall operate on a secondary basis to the mobile-satellite service (MSS); and not later than December 9,
2013, all such facilities shall operate on a secondary basis.”  This footnote has since been renumbered as NG43.
879 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3606 ¶ 134; see also infra Section IV (Ancillary Terrestrial Component in the 2
GHz MSS Band) (deleting footnote 168, as well, because ATC is eliminated in the 2180-2200 MHz band).

113

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Cost-Sharing

307.
Background.  In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed to extend to the AWS-4
band the cost-sharing rules adopted for AWS-1 licensees. As noted above, FS links in the 2180-2200
MHz band typically are paired, for two-way operation, with FS links in the 2130-2150 MHz band. The
Commission previously established a cost-sharing plan for MSS, MSS/ATC, and AWS-1 licensees in
these paired bands.880  Pursuant to the proposal, the cost-sharing plan would sunset for licensees of AWS-
4 operating authority on the same date on which the relocation obligation sunsets.881  The Commission
also proposed conforming amendments to Parts 27 and 101 to include AWS-4 under the relocation and
cost-sharing rules generally and to delete references to MSS/ATC.882
308.
Discussion. We adopt the proposals set forth in the AWS-4 NPRM to extend the cost-
sharing rules adopted for AWS-1 licensees to the AWS-4 band. This will result in the cost-sharing
requirements sunsetting on the same date as the relocation obligations. UTC supports the Commission’s
proposal to apply cost-sharing rules similar to those adopted for AWS-1 licensees and contends that our
failure to do so would provide a windfall to AWS-4 entrants.883  The Commission has emphasized that it
is desirable to harmonize the FS relocation procedures among the various AWS designated bands to the
greatest extent feasible.884  The Commission specifically noted that relocation procedures that are
consistent throughout the band can be expected to foster a more efficient rollout of AWS and minimize
confusion among the parties, and thereby serve the public interest.885  We believe that adopting rules
based on the Part 27 cost-sharing rules that apply to AWS-1 licensees will accelerate the relocation
process and promote rapid deployment of new advanced wireless services in the band. The Part 27 cost-
sharing rules were designed to accommodate the deployment of new wireless terrestrial services and have
a proven record of success.  We also observe that the Commission refined the Part 27 cost-sharing plan
based on the experience and record of the cost-sharing plan that applied to PCS under Part 24. We
therefore believe that our adoption of similar rules in this instance will expedite the relocation of FS
incumbents and the introduction of new services.  We further find that this approach will serve the public
interest because it will distribute relocation costs more equitably among the beneficiaries of the
relocation, encourage the simultaneous relocation of multi-link communications systems, and accelerate
the relocation process, thereby promoting more rapid deployment of new services.  We reach this
conclusion for the reasons stated in this paragraph and irrespective of UTC’s windfall argument.
Accordingly, we adopt rules in Appendix A based on the formal cost-sharing procedures codified in Part

880 47 C.F.R. § 101.82.  The cost-sharing plan is administered by clearinghouses selected by the Commission’s
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau under delegated authority.  See 47 C.F.R. § 27.1162; see also id. (“This
clearinghouse(s) will administer the cost-sharing plan by, inter alia, determining the cost-sharing obligation of AWS
and other ET entities for the relocation of FMS incumbents from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands.”).
881 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.1174.
882 See AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3628-33, App. A (proposed rules).
883 UTC Comments at 1-2. Although DISH did not directly comment on issues relating to cost-sharing with respect
to the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band, DISH stated that FS operations to terminate in
2013.  DISH Comments at 33.
884 AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4506 ¶ 60; Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate
Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless
Services, including Third Generation Wireless Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Eighth Report and Order, Fifth
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, and Order, 20 FCC Rcd 15866, 15883 ¶ 34 (2005) (“AWS Eighth R&O and Fifth
Notice”).
885 AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4506 ¶ 60; AWS Eighth R&O and Fifth Notice, 20 FCC Rcd at 15883 ¶ 34.

114

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

27 of our rules to apportion relocation costs among those entrants that benefit from the relocation of FS
incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band.
309.
Consistent with our proposal to extend the cost-sharing rules adopted for AWS-1
licensees to the AWS-4 band, we also adopt rules to permit for voluntary self-relocating FS incumbents to
obtain reimbursement from those licensees of AWS-4 authority benefiting from the self-relocation.
Incumbent participation will provide FS incumbents with the flexibility to relocate themselves and the
right to obtain reimbursement of their relocation costs, adjusted by depreciation, up to the reimbursement
cap, from new AWS-4 entrants in the band.  Incumbent participation also will accelerate the relocation
process by promoting system wide relocations and result in faster clearing of the band, thereby expediting
the deployment of new advanced wireless services to the public.  Therefore, we require licensees of
AWS-4 authority to reimburse FS incumbents that voluntarily self-relocate from the 2110-2150 MHz and
2160-2200 MHz bands and AWS licensees will be entitled to pro rata cost sharing from other AWS
licensees that also benefited from the self-relocation.
310.
With respect to cost-sharing obligations on MSS operators for FS incumbent self-
relocation in the 2180-2200 MHz band, we recognize that the Commission previously declined to impose
cost sharing on MSS operators for voluntary self-relocation by FS incumbents in that band.886
Accordingly, for FS incumbents that elect to self-relocate their paired channels in the 2130-2150 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz bands, we will impose cost-sharing obligations on AWS licensees but not on MSS
operators.887  Where a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent relocates a paired microwave link
with paths in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz, it may not seek reimbursement from MSS
operators but is entitled to reimbursement from the first AWS beneficiary for its actual costs for
relocating the paired link, subject to the reimbursement cap in Section 27.1164(b).888  This amount is
subject to depreciation as specified in § 27.1164(b). An AWS licensee who is obligated to reimburse
relocation costs under this rule is entitled to obtain reimbursement from other AWS beneficiaries in
accordance with Sections 27.1164 and 27.1168.889  For purposes of applying the cost-sharing formula
relative to other AWS licensees that benefit from the self-relocation, depreciation shall run from the date

886 See MSS Third R&O, 18 FCC Rcd at 23673 ¶ 73 (a reimbursement scheme for voluntary self-relocation was not
envisioned by the MSS/FS relocation plan and thus a cost sharing plan for MSS reimbursing FS incumbents who
voluntarily relocate was not warranted).
887 To the extent that a party is both an AWS licensee and a 2 GHz MSS operator, its AWS obligations shall govern
its relocation and cost sharing obligations should the two sets of obligations conflict.
888 47 C.F.R. § 27.1166(f).  Because MSS licensees were not obligated to reimburse a voluntarily relocating FS
incumbent with a paired microwave link with paths in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, a voluntary
relocating FS incumbent was only entitled to partial reimbursement from the first AWS beneficiary, equal to fifty
percent of its actual costs for relocating the paired link, or half of the reimbursement cap in Section 27.1164(b),
whichever was less.  With the adoption of rules in this Report and Order to permit for voluntary self-relocating FS
incumbents to obtain reimbursement from licensees of AWS-4 authority benefiting from the self-relocation, a
reimbursement obligation for self-relocations will exist for AWS licensees that benefit from the relocation of the
paths in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands as of the effective date of this Report and Order. To the
extent that an FS incumbent with paths in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands undertook self-
relocation prior to the effective date of this Report and Order, the voluntary relocating FS incumbent is entitled to
only partial reimbursement, as discussed above. We will rely on the notice requirement set-forth in Section
27.1166(a)(2) for determining the date of self-relocation.  See 47 C.F.R. § 27.1166(a)(2) (requiring a voluntarily
relocating microwave incumbent to submit documentation of the relocation of the link to the clearinghouse within
30 calendar days of the date that the incumbent notifies the Commission that it intends to discontinue, or has
discontinued, the use of the link, pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 101.305 of the Commission’s rules).
889 47 C.F.R. § 27.1166(f).

115

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

on which the clearinghouse issues the notice of an obligation to reimburse the voluntarily relocating
microwave incumbent.890
311.
We require AWS-4 relocators to file their reimbursement requests with the
clearinghouse891 within 30 calendar days of the date the relocator signs a relocation agreement with an
incumbent.  Terrestrial operations trigger incumbent microwave relocations on a link-by-link basis,892 and
the Commission imposed a mandatory requirement that all terrestrial operators—–AWS and MSS ATC—
that relocate FS incumbents from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands use a clearinghouse.893
No party proposed that we modify the rules requiring the use of a clearinghouse by terrestrial wireless
licenses for cost-sharing. The clearinghouses have considerable experience in determining the cost-
sharing obligation of AWS and other ET entities for the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-2150
MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands, and the Commission selected clearinghouses to serve as neutral third-
parties in the cost-sharing process.894  We continue to believe that a mandatory requirement will allow the
clearinghouses to accurately track cost-sharing obligations as they relate to all terrestrial operations895 and
expedite the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2180-2200 MHz band by minimizing disputes over the
reimbursement of those costs. For similar reasons and consistent with precedent, we will also require
self-relocating microwave incumbents in the 2180-2200 MHz band to file their reimbursement requests
with the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of the date that they submit their notice of service
discontinuance with the Commission.896
312.
We further require all licensees of AWS-4 authority that are constructing a new site or
modifying an existing site to file site-specific data with the clearinghouse prior to initiating operations for
a new or modified site.  The site data must provide a detailed description of the proposed site’s spectral
frequency use and geographic location.897  We will also impose a continuing duty on those entities to
maintain the accuracy of the data on file with the clearinghouse. We find that such an approach will
ensure fairness in the process and preclude new AWS-4 entrants from conducting independent

890 Id.
891 On October 4, 2006, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau found PCIA--The Wireless Infrastructure
Association (PCIA) and the CTIA Spectrum Clearinghouse, LLC qualified to serve as clearinghouses that will
administer the Commission's cost-sharing plan and determining the cost-sharing obligation of AWS and other ET
entities for the relocation of FS incumbents from the 2110-2150 MHz and 2160-2200 MHz bands.  See Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Finds CTIA and PCIA Qualified to Administer the Relocation Cost-Sharing Plan For
Licensees in the 2.1 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 21 FCC Rcd 11265 (2006).
892 See AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4522 ¶ 94.
893 See AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4522-4523 ¶¶ 94-96. Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(a)(1), ATC base
stations transmit in the MSS downlink band (2180–2200 MHz).
894 47 C.F.R. § 27.1162.  Because of the considerable experience of the clearinghouses and their role as neutral,
third parties in the cost-sharing process, most cost-sharing disputes are resolved between the parties or through the
clearinghouses.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 27.1172(a) (requiring parties to submit cost-sharing disputes, in the first
instance, to the clearinghouse for resolution).
895 See AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4523 ¶ 96.
896 47 C.F.R. § 27.1166(a)(2).
897 The site-specific data must at least include the applicant’s name and address, the name of the transmitting base
station, the geographic coordinates corresponding to that base station, the frequencies and polarizations to be added,
changed, or deleted, and the emission designator. Because this information is included in the prior coordination
notice (PCN) required by 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d), entities can satisfy the site data filing requirement by submitting
their PCN to the clearinghouse instead.

116

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

interference studies for the purpose or effect of evading the requirement to file site-specific data with the
clearinghouse prior to initiating operations.898
313.
Utilizing the site-specific data submitted by licensees of AWS-4 authority, the
clearinghouse determines the cost-sharing obligations of each entrant by applying the Proximity
Threshold Test. We find that the presence of an entrant’s site within the Proximity Threshold Box,
regardless of whether it predates or postdates relocation of the incumbent, and regardless of the potential
for actual interference, will trigger a cost-sharing obligation.899  Accordingly, any entrant that engineers
around the FS incumbent will trigger a cost-sharing obligation once relocation of the FS incumbent
occurs.900
314.
Consistent with precedent, we establish a specific date on which the cost-sharing plans
that we adopt here will sunset.  We find that the sunset date for cost sharing purposes is the date on which
the relocation obligation for the subject band terminates.901  Although we realize that we are adopting a
sunset date that differs from the sunset date for cost-sharing obligations of AWS-1 licensees, we find that
establishing sunset dates for cost sharing purposes that are commensurate with the sunset date for AWS
relocation obligations in each band appropriately balances the interests of all affected parties and ensures
the equitable distribution of costs among those entrants benefiting from the relocations. We reiterate,
however, that AWS entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation prior to the sunset date must satisfy
their payment obligation in full. 902
315.
We continue to require participants in the cost-sharing plan to submit their disputes to the
clearinghouse for resolution in the first instance.903  Where parties are unable to resolve their issues before
the clearinghouse, parties are encouraged to use expedited ADR procedures, such as binding arbitration,
mediation, or other ADR techniques.904  Except for the independent third party appraisal of the
compensable relocation costs for a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent and documentation of the
relocation agreement or discontinuance of service required for a relocator or self-relocator’s
reimbursement claim, both of which must be submitted in their entirety, we require participants in the

898 47 C.F.R. § 27.1131 (all AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations, must coordinate their frequency usage
with co-channel and adjacent channel incumbent, Part 101 fixed point-to-point microwave licensees in the 2110-
2155 MHz band, in accordance with 47 C.F.R. § 24.237); 47 C.F.R. § 101.103(d) (proposed frequency usage must
be prior coordinated with existing licensees).
899 See, e.g., Microwave Cost Sharing First R&O and FNPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 8892-3, Appendix A ¶¶ 32-33 (The
Proximity Threshold Test is less expensive and easier to administer than the interference criteria of TIA TSB 10-F
because under the test, a PCS base station will either fall inside the reimbursement “box” or out of it.)
900 Our rules also preclude entrants that have triggered a cost-sharing obligation from avoiding that obligation by
deconstructing or modifying their facilities.  Once an entrant submits its site-specific data with the clearinghouse and
triggers a cost sharing obligation because it is within the Proximity Threshold “box,” it is required to pay its cost
sharing obligations in full. The “post-trigger” deconstruction or modification of the entrant’s facilities will neither
eliminate nor mitigate such payment obligations.  47 C.F.R. § 27.1168(b).
901 In accordance with the rules adopted herein, the relocation sunset date is ten years after the grant of the first
license or modification of a license authorizing the use of the 2180-2200 MHz band for AWS-4 under Part 27.
902 We clarify that a clearinghouse determines when an entrant triggered a cost sharing obligation pursuant to the
Proximity Threshold Test. Regardless of the reason, entrants that somehow evade notifying the clearinghouse of the
fact that they triggered a cost sharing obligation will nevertheless be responsible for the full payment of their
obligation.  See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.1168, 27.1170; see also AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4517 ¶ 82 n. 295.
903 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.1188(a).
904 Id.

117

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

cost-sharing plan to provide only the uniform cost data requested by the clearinghouse subject to the
continuing requirements that relocators and self-relocators maintain documentation of cost-related issues
until the sunset date and provide such documentation, upon request, to the clearinghouse, the
Commission, or entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation. In addition, we also require that parties of
interest contesting the clearinghouse’s determination of specific cost-sharing obligations must provide
evidentiary support to demonstrate that their calculation is reasonable and made in good faith.905
Specifically, these parties are expected to exercise due diligence to obtain the information necessary to
prepare an independent estimate of the relocation costs in question and to file the independent estimate
and supporting documentation with the clearinghouse.906
316.
We expect new entrants and incumbent licensees to act in good faith in all matters
relating to the cost-sharing process herein established.  Although the Commission has generally required
“good faith” in the context of parties’ participation in negotiations,907 self-relocating incumbents benefit
through their participation in the cost-sharing regime and therefore we expect them to act in good faith in
seeking reimbursement for recoverable costs in accordance with the Commission’s rules.  We find that
the question of whether a particular party was acting in good faith is best addressed on a case-by-case
basis. By retaining sufficient flexibility to craft an appropriate remedy for a given violation in light of the
particular circumstances at hand, we can ensure that any party who violates our good faith requirements,
either by acting in bad faith or by filing frivolous or harassing claims of violations, will suffer sufficient
penalties to outweigh any advantage it hoped to gain by its violation.908

IV.

ANCILLARY TERRESTRIAL COMPONENT IN THE 2 GHZ MSS BAND

317.
Background. In the AWS-4 NPRM, the Commission proposed eliminating the ATC rules
for the 2 GHz band.909  The Commission recognized that an authorization of terrestrial operations under
Part 27 of the Commission’s rules for the AWS-4 band, while also maintaining ATC operations would be
redundant and potentially confusing to operators.910  Additionally, the Commission observed that the
ATC regulations no longer represented the best framework for terrestrial mobile broadband to develop in
the 2 GHz band. Thus, the Commission proposed eliminating ATC rules for this band.911  As part of
effectuating the replacement of ATC with Part 27 rules, the Commission also proposed deleting footnote
NG168 from the U.S. Table of Allocations.912

905 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.1188(b).
906 Id.
907 See, e.g., AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4519 ¶ 85; Emerging Technologies Third R&O and MO&O, 8 FCC
Rcd at 6595, ¶¶ 15-16; Microwave Cost Sharing First R&O and FNPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 8838, ¶¶ 20-22;
Amendment of Section 2.106 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum at 2 GHz for Use by the Mobile-
Satellite Service, ET Docket No. 95-18, Second Report and Order and Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 15
FCC Rcd 12315, 12331 ¶ 47 (2000) (“MSS Second R&O and Second MO&O”).
908 See, e.g., AWS Ninth R&O, 21 FCC Rcd at 4519 ¶ 85; Emerging Technologies Third R&O and MO&O, 8 FCC
Rcd at 6595 ¶¶ 15-16; Microwave Cost Sharing First R&O and FNPRM, 11 FCC Rcd at 8838 ¶¶ 20-22; MSS
Second R&O and Second MO&O, 15 FCC Rcd at 12331 ¶ 47.
909 AWS-4 NPRM, 27 FCC Rcd at 3607 ¶ 136.
910 Id.
911 Id.
912 Id.

118

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

318.
Discussion. We adopt the proposal to eliminate the ATC rules for the 2 GHz band and
delete footnote NG168 (now numbered NG43) from the U.S. Table of Allocations. We conclude that
authorizing two, distinct terrestrial mobile operations in the band would result in confusion and
redundancy. Furthermore, as the Commission observed in the AWS-4 NPRM, the changing circumstances
in the 2 GHz MSS band demonstrate that ATC regulations are no longer the best framework for
developing and deploying terrestrial broadband operations in the band.913 Finally, the record reflects no
opposition to our adopting the proposals. We therefore conclude that the potential benefits of our
proposals would outweigh any potential costs. In eliminating the ATC rules for the 2 GHz MSS band, we
emphasize that our action does not result in changes to the ATC rules for either the L-band or the Big
LEO band; rather, we intend to address issues pertaining to the ATC rules for those bands in one or more
separate proceedings at a later date.914

ORDER OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION

319.
As noted above, although the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands are currently
assigned to two different licensees, Gamma Acquisitions L.L.C. (Gamma) and New DBSD Satellite
Services G.P. (New DBSD), both licenses are wholly owned subsidiaries of DISH.915  In paragraph 175
above, we direct these 2 GHz MSS licensees to determine how to effectuate the reconfiguration of the
2 GHz MSS band into an A-B/A-B arrangement by each licensee selecting a duplex pair in response to
this Order of Proposed Modification.  For the reasons discussed throughout this Report and Order, we
conclude that it is in the public interest, convenience, and necessity to propose modifying the existing 2
GHz MSS licenses as follows:
•  To modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses of Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. (call sign E060430)
and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (call sign E070272) to reflect the duplex pairing
that each licensee selects in its response to this Order of Proposed Modification,
consistent with paragraph 175, above;
•  To add AWS-4 terrestrial operating authority, as detailed in this Report and Order and
Order of Proposed Modification, to the 2 GHz MSS licenses of both Gamma Acquisition
L.L.C. (call sign E060430) and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (call sign E070272)
consistent with the 2 GHz MSS licensees’ duplex pairing selections;
•  To require Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. to accept
any OOBE interference to MSS or terrestrial operations in 2000-2005 MHz from lawful
operations from future 1995-2000 MHz licensees;
•  To require Gamma Acquisitions L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. to accept
any in band interference in some or all of 2000-2020 MHz from lawful operations from
1995-2000 MHz licensees; and
•  To eliminate the ATC authority in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz spectrum
bands of both Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P.916
320.
In this connection, we believe that the proposed license modifications would serve the
public interest by allowing for additional terrestrial broadband spectrum, while minimizing harmful
interference. In accordance with Section 316(a) of the Communications Act, as amended, and Section

913 Id.
914 Id.
915 See supra ¶ 14.
916 See infra Section IV. (Ancillary Terrestrial Component in the 2 GHz MSS Band).

119

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

1.87(a) of the Commission’s rules, we will not issue a modification order(s) until Gamma Acquisition
L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. have received notice of our proposed action and have had
an opportunity to protest. 917  We direct the staff to send this Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification by certified mail, return receipt requested to Gamma Acquisition L.L.C., and to New DBSD
Satellite Services G.P. Pursuant to Section 316(a)(1) of the Act and Section 1.87(a) of the Commission’s
rules, receipt of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification by certified mail, return
receipt requested, shall constitute notification in writing of our Order of Proposed Modification proposing
to modify the 2 GHz MSS licenses of Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P.
and of the grounds and reasons therefore. 918  Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. and New DBSD Satellite
Services G.P. shall have thirty days from the date of such receipt to protest such Order of Proposed
Modification.  To protest the proposed modifications, Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. or New DBSD Satellite
Services G.P. must, within thirty days of receiving notice of this Report and Order and Order of
Proposed Modification, submit a written statement with sufficient evidence to show that the modification
would not be in the public interest. The protest must be filed in the Electronic Comment Filing System
(ECFS) under WT Docket No. 12-70919 or with the Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission, 445 Twelfth Street, S.W., Room TW-A235, Washington, D.C. 20554; the protesting party
must, within 30 days of receiving notice of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification,
send a copy of the protest via electronic mail to Kevin Holmes of the Broadband Division of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at Kevin.Holmes@fcc.gov.920  Once the 30 day protest period has lapsed,
Gamma Acquisition L.L.C.’s and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P.’s right to file a protest expires, and
the Commission may modify the licenses as noticed.921  Finally, in the event that Gamma Acquisition
L.L.C. or New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. rejects any aspect of the proposed license modification, it
will be deemed to have rejected the entire license modification.
321.
We delegate to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the International Bureau
the authority to issue a license modification order for Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. (call sign E060430) and
for New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. (call sign E070272), but only to the extent consistent with
paragraphs 319-320 above.
322.
Ex Parte Status.  Unless otherwise provided by the Commission or its staff pursuant to
Section 1.1200(a),922 a license modification proceeding under Title III of the Communications Act is
treated as a restricted proceeding for ex parte purposes under Section 1.1208 of the Commission’s

917 18 U.S.C. § 316(a); 47 C.F.R. § 1.87(a).
918 Id.
919 As discussed in paragraph 322 below, we are using WT Docket No. 12-70 for any filings related to the instant
Order of Proposed Mofication for administrative convenience only.
920 This address is proper only for protests submitted by U.S. mail. For hand-delivered or messenger-delivered
paper filings, the proper address is 236 Massachusetts Ave., N.E., Suite 110, Washington, D.C. 2002.  For
documents sent by overnight delivery service other than United States Postal Service Express Mail and Priority
Mail, the proper address is 9300 East Hampton Dr., Capitol Heights, MD 20743. For further information, contact
the Office of the Secretary at (202) 418-0300 or mdortch@fcc.gov.
921 We also note, as set forth in Section 316(a)(2), that “[a]ny other licensee or permittee who believes its license or
permit would be modified by the proposed action may also protest the proposed action before its effective date.”  47
U.S.C. § 316(a)(2); see also 47 C.F.R. § 1.87(c).
922 47 CFR §§ 1.1200(a) (“[w]here the public interest so requires in a particular proceeding, the Commission and its
staff retain the discretion to modify the applicable ex parte rules by order, letter, or public notice.”).

120

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

rules.923  In this case, the license modification proceedings are related to the above-captioned rulemaking
proceeding, WT Docket No. 12-70, which is designated as a permit but disclose proceeding under the ex
parte rules.924  Due to the interrelated nature of these proceedings, we find that it is in the public interest
to treat the license modification proceedings as permit but disclose proceedings under Section 1.1206 of
the Commission’s rules.925  Therefore, any ex parte presentations that are made with respect to the issues
involved in the subject license modification proceedings subsequent to the release of the this Order of
Proposed Modification will be permissible but must be disclosed in accordance with the requirements of
Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission's Rules.926  Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy
of any written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business
days after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons
making oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1)
list all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter’s written comments, memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte
meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
For administrative convenience only, any filings related to this Order of Proposed Modification must be
filed in WT Docket No. 12-70 and may be filed using the Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS),
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/2d.927  In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte presentations and memoranda summarizing
oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic comment
filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.

VI.

NOTICE OF INQUIRY: 2 GHZ EXTENSION BAND CONCEPT

323.
In the AWS-4 Notice of Inquiry, the Commission sought comment on a variation on the
AWS-4 band plan proposed in the AWS-4 NPRM. That band plan, termed the “2 GHz Extension Band
Concept,” would have incorporated the NTIA proposal to reallocate the 1695-1710 MHz band from
Federal to non-Federal use and would have resulted in a 35 megahertz band that paired 2180-2200 MHz
(downlink) with 1695-1710 MHz (uplink) and a 30 megahertz downlink expansion band of 1995-2025
MHz.928  Because we adopt a specific AWS-4 band plan above that includes much of this spectrum, we
decline at this time to pursue the 2 GHz Extension Band Concept.

923 47 C.F.R. § 1.1208 (Restricted proceedings).
924 See AWS-4 NPRM at ¶ 148.
925 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206 (Permit-but-disclose proceedintgs).
926 47 C.F.R. § 1.1206(b).
927 For additional information on filings in FCC proceedings, see AWS-4 NPRM at section V (Procedural Matters).
928 AWS-4 Notice of Inquiry, 27 FCC Rcd at 3607-3611 ¶¶ 137-147.

121

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

VII.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

324.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)929 requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice and comment rulemakings, unless the agency certifies that “the rule will not,
if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.”930
Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concerning the possible impact of
the rule changes contained in the Report and Order on small entities. The Final Regulatory Flexibility
Analysis is set forth in Appendix B.

Paperwork Reduction Act Analysis

325.
This document contains modified information collection requirements subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA. OMB, the general public,
and other Federal agencies are invited to comment on the new or modified information collection
requirements contained in this proceeding. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought
specific comment on how the Commission might further reduce the information collection burden for
small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
326.
In this present document, we have assessed the effects of the policies adopted in this
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification with regard to information collection burdens on
small business concerns, and find that these policies will benefit many companies with fewer than 25
employees because the revisions we adopt should provide small entities with more information, more
flexibility, and more options for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum. In addition, we have
described impacts that might affect small businesses, which includes most businesses with fewer than 25
employees, in the FRFA in Appendix B, infra.

Further Information

327.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Kevin Holmes of the Broadband
Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-BITS or Kevin.Holmes@fcc.gov.

VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES

328.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307,
308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332 and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.
Sections 151, 152, 154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 that this
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
329.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules,
47 C.F.R. Sections 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101, ARE AMENDED as specified in Appendix A, effective 30 days
after publication in the Federal Register except as otherwise provided herein.
330.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments, adopted above and specified in
Appendix A, to sections 1.949, 27.14, 27.17, 27.1131, 27.1134, 27.1136, 27.1166, 27.1168, 21.1170,
101.69, and 101.73(d) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.949, 27.14, 27.17, 27.1131, 27.1134,
27.1136, 27.1166, 27.1168, 21.1170, 101.69, and 101.73(d), which contain new or modified information

929 See 5 U.S.C. § 601–612.  The RFA has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
930 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

122

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

collection requirements that require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice
in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
331.
IT IS FURTHER PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87 of the
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.87, that the license for Call Sign E060430 held by Gamma
Acquisition L.L.C. BE MODIFIED consistent with Section IV (Order of Proposed Modification) of this
Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification. Pursuant to Section 316(a)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), and Section 1.87(a) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.87(a), receipt of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall constitute notification in writing of our
Order of Proposed Modification that proposes to modify Call Sign E060430 held by Gamma Acquisition
L.L.C., and of the grounds and reasons therefore, and Gamma Acquisition L.L.C. shall have thirty (30)
days from the date of receipt to protest such Order of Proposed Modification.  The Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau and the International Bureau are delegated authority to issue an order of
modification if no protests are filed.
332.
IT IS FURTHER PROPOSED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 316(a) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 316, and Section 1.87 of the
Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.87, that the license for Call Sign E070272 held by New DBSD
Satellite Services G.P. BE MODIFIED consistent with Section IV (Order of Proposed Modification) of
this Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification. Pursuant to Section 316(a)(1) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 316(a)(1), and Section 1.87(a) of the
Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.87(a), receipt of this Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification by certified mail, return receipt requested, shall constitute notification in writing of our
Order of Proposed Modification that proposes to modify Call Sign E070272 held by New DBSD Satellite
Services G.P., and of the grounds and reasons therefore, and New DBSD Satellite Services G.P. shall
have thirty (30) days from the date of receipt to protest such Order of Proposed Modification. The
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the International Bureau are delegated authority to issue an
order of modification if no protests are filed.
333.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this Report and Order and Order of Proposed
Modification SHALL BE SENT by certified mail, return receipt request, to Gamma Acquisition L.L.C.,
9601 South Meridian Blvd., Englewood, CO 80112 and Pantelis Michalopoulos, Steptoe & Johnson
LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1795, and to New DBSD Satellite
Services G.P., 11700 Plaza America Drive, Suite 1010, Reston VA 20190 and Pantelis Michalopoulos,
Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1795.
334.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the license modification proceedings commenced by
the Order of Proposed Modification shall be treated as permit-but-disclose proceedings under the
Commission’s ex parte rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1200 et seq.
335.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau IS
DELEGATED authority to make all necessary changes to its electronic database systems and forms to
implement the policies and rules adopted in this Report and Order.
336.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the International Bureau IS DELEGATED
AUTHORITY to act on the petition for reconsideration filed by Inmarsat in IB Docket Nos. 05-220 and
05-221, consistent with this Order as set forth above.
337.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Appendix
B hereto IS ADOPTED.

123

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

338.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report
and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review
Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
339.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Report and Order, including
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary

124

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

APPENDIX A

Final Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR
parts 1, 2, 25, 27, and 101 as follows:

PART 1—

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE

1.  The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  15 U.S.C. 79 et seq.; 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 225, 227, 303(r), and
309.
2.  Amend § 1.949 by adding paragraph (c) as follows:
§ 1.949 Application for renewal of license.
*****
(c) Renewal Showing. An applicant for renewal of a geographic-area authorization in the 2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz service bands must make a renewal showing, independent of its performance
requirements, as a condition of renewal. The showing must include a detailed description of the
applicant’s provision of service during the entire license period and address:
(1) The level and quality of service provided by the applicant (e.g., the population served, the area served,
the number of subscribers, the services offered);
(2) The date service commenced, whether service was ever interrupted, and the duration of any
interruption or outage;
(3) The extent to which service is provided to rural areas;
(4) The extent to which service is provided to qualifying tribal land as defined in § 1.2110(f)(3)(i); and
(5) Any other factors associated with the level of service to the public.

PART 2—

FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL

RULES AND REGULATIONS

125

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

3.  The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
4.  § 2.106 in the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:
a. Page 36 is revised
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG43 is removed.
§ 2.106 Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revision reads as follows:
*****

126

1980-2010
1980-2025
NG177

FIXED
2000-2020

MOBILE
FIXED
Satellite Communications (25)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.351A
MOBILE
Wireless Communications (27)

5.388 5.389A 5.389B  5.389F
MOBILE-SATELLITE
(Earth-to-space)
2010-2025
2010-2025
2010-2025

FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
2020-2025

MOBILE 5.388A  5.388B
MOBILE
MOBILE 5.388A  5.388B
FIXED

MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
MOBILE

5.388
5.388 5.389C  5.389E
5.388
NG177
2025-2110
2025-2110
2025-2110

SPACE OPERATION (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
SPACE OPERATION
FIXED NG118
TV Auxiliary Broadcasting (74F)
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
(Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)  MOBILE 5.391
Cable TV Relay (78)
FIXED
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE
Local TV Transmission (101J)
MOBILE 5.391
(Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
SPACE RESEARCH (Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)
SPACE RESEARCH

(Earth-to-space) (space-to-space)

5.391 5.392 US90 US222 US346  5.392 US90 US222 US346
5.392
US347 US393
US347 US393
2110-2120
2110-2120
2110-2120

FIXED

FIXED
Public Mobile (22)
MOBILE 5.388A  5.388B

MOBILE
Wireless Communications (27)
SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earth-to-space)

Fixed Microwave (101)

5.388
US252
US252
2120-2170
2120-2160
2120-2170
2120-2200
2120-2180
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
FIXED
MOBILE 5.388A  5.388B
MOBILE 5.388A  5.388B
MOBILE 5.388A  5.388B
MOBILE
Mobile-satellite (space-to-Earth)

5.388
2160-2170
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)

5.388
5.388 5.389C  5.389E
5.388
2170-2200
NG153 NG178
FIXED
2180-2200

MOBILE
FIXED
Satellite Communications (25)
MOBILE-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.351A
MOBILE
Wireless Communications (27)

MOBILE-SATELLITE

(space-to-Earth)

5.388 5.389A 5.389F
Page 36
127

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

*****

PART 25—

SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS

5.  The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and 332
of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309 and
332, unless otherwise noted.
6.  Amend § 25.143 by revising paragraphs (i) and (k) to read as follows:
§ 25.143 Licensing provisions for the 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service and 2 GHz mobile-satellite
service.
*****
(i) Incorporation of ancillary terrestrial component base stations into a 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite
service network. Any licensee authorized to construct and launch a 1.6/2.4 GHz system may construct
ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) base stations as defined in § 25.201 at its own risk and subject to
the conditions specified in this subpart any time after commencing construction of the mobile-satellite
service system.
*****
(k) Aircraft. ATC mobile terminals must be operated in accordance with 25.136(a). All portable or hand-
held transceiver units (including transceiver units installed in other devices that are themselves portable or
hand-held) having operating capabilities in the 1610–1626.5 MHz/2483.5–2500 MHz bands shall bear the
following statement in a conspicuous location on the device: “This device may not be operated while on
board aircraft. It must be turned off at all times while on board aircraft.”
7.  Amend § 25.149 by revising the section heading, and paragraph (a)(1) introductory text,
removing and reserving paragraphs (a)(2)(i), (b)(1)(i), and (b)(5)(i), and revising paragraphs (d)
and (e), to read as follows:
§ 25.149 Application requirements for ancillary terrestrial components in the mobile-satellites
service networks operating in the 1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz mobile-satellite service.

128

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

(a) ***
(1) ATC shall be deployed in the forward-band mode of operation whereby the ATC mobile terminals
transmit in the MSS uplink bands and the ATC base stations transmit in the MSS downlink bands in
portions of the 1626.5–1660.5 MHz/1525–1559 MHz bands (L-band) and the 1610–1626.5 MHz/2483.5–
2500 MHz bands (Big LEO band).
*****
(d) Applicants for an ancillary terrestrial component authority shall demonstrate that the applicant does or
will comply with the provisions of § 1.924 of this chapter and §§ 25.203(e) through 25.203(g) and with
§§ 25.253 or 25.254, as appropriate, through certification or explanatory technical exhibit.
(e) Except as provided for in paragraph (f) of this section, no application for an ancillary terrestrial
component shall be granted until the applicant has demonstrated actual compliance with the provisions of
paragraph (b) of this section. Upon receipt of ATC authority, all ATC licensees must ensure continued
compliance with this section and §§ 25.253 or 25.254, as appropriate.
*****
§25.252 [Removed and Reserved].
8.  Remove and reserve § 25.252

9.  Amend § 25.255 by revising the section heading as follows:
§ 25.255 Procedures for resolving harmful interference related to operation of ancillary terrestrial
components operating in the 1.5/1.6 GHz and 1.6/2.4 GHz bands.
10.  Add § 25.265 as follows:
§ 25.265 Acceptance of Interference in 2000-2020 MHz.
(a) MSS receivers operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band must accept interference from lawful operations
in the 1995-2000 MHz band, where such interference is due to:
(1) The in-band power of any operations in 1995-2000 MHz (i.e., the portion of transmit power contained
in the 1995-2000 MHz band); or

  129

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

(2) The portion of out-of-band emissions contained in 2000-2005 MHz.
(b) Reserved.

PART 27—MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

11.  The authority citation for part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
12.  Amend § 27.1 by adding paragraph (b)(10) to read as follows:
§ 27.1 Basis and purpose.
*****
(b) ***
(10) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz.
*****
13.  Amend § 27.2 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 27.2 Permissible communications.
(a) Miscellaneous wireless communications services. Except as provided in paragraph (b) or (d) of this
section and subject to technical and other rules contained in this part, a licensee in the frequency bands
specified in § 27.5 may provide any services for which its frequency bands are allocated, as set forth in
the non-Federal Government column of the Table of Allocations in § 2.106 of this chapter (column 5).
*****
(d) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Operators in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz
bands may not provide the mobile-satellite service under the provisions of this part; rather, mobile-
satellite service shall be provided in a manner consistent with part 25 of this chapter.
14.  Amend § 27.4 by revising the definition in “Advanced wireless service (AWS)” to read as
follows:
§ 27.4 Terms and definitions.
*****

  130

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Advanced Wireless Service (AWS). A radiocommunication service licensed pursuant to this part for the
frequency bands specified in § 27.5(h) or § 27.5(j).
*****
15.  Amend § 27.5 by adding paragraph (j) to read as follows:
§ 27.5 Frequencies.
*****
(j) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. The following frequencies are available for licensing
pursuant to this part in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz (AWS-4) bands:
(1) Two paired channel blocks of 10 megahertz each are available for assignment as follows:
Block A: 2000-2010 MHz and 2180-2190 MHz; and
Block B: 2010-2020 MHz and 2190-2200 MHz.
(2) Reserved.
16.  Amend § 27.6 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 27.6 Service areas.
*****
(i) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. AWS service areas for the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands are based on Economic Areas (EAs) as defined in paragraph (a) of this section.
17.  Amend § 27.13 by adding paragraph (i) to read as follows:
§ 27.13 License period.
*****
(i) 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Authorizations for the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200
MHz bands will have a term not to exceed ten years from the date of issuance or renewal.
18.  Amend § 27.14 by revising the first sentence of paragraphs (a), (f), and (k), and adding paragraph
(q) to read as follows:
§ 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in

  131

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands,
Block E in the 722–728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 788–793 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305–2310 MHz and 2350–2355
MHz bands, Block B in the 2310–2315 MHz and 2355–2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315–2320
MHz band, and Block D in the 2345–2350 MHz band, and with the exception of licensees holding AWS
authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, must, as a performance requirement,
make a showing of “substantial service” in their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in
§ 27.13. ***
*****
(f) Comparative renewal proceedings do not apply to WCS licensees holding authorizations for the 698–
746 MHz, 747–762 MHz, and 777–792 MHz bands and licensees holding AWS authorizations for the
2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. ***
* * * * *
(k) Licensees holding WCS or AWS authorizations in the spectrum blocks enumerated in paragraphs (g),
(h), (i), or (q) of this section, including any licensee that obtained its license pursuant to the procedures set
forth in paragraph (j) of this section, shall demonstrate compliance with performance requirements by
filing a construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the expiration of the applicable
benchmark, in accordance with the provisions set forth in § 1.946(d) of this chapter. ***
* * * * *
(q)  The following provisions apply to any licensee holding an AWS authorization in the 2000-2020 MHz
and 2180-2200 MHz bands (an “AWS-4 licensee”):
(1) An AWS-4 licensee shall provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service within four
(4) years from the date of the license to at least forty (40) percent of the total population in the aggregate
service areas that it has licensed in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands (“AWS-4 Interim
Buildout Requirement”). For purposes of this subpart, a licensee’s total population shall be calculated by
summing the population of each license area that a licensee holds in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200

  132

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

MHz bands; and
(2) An AWS-4 licensee shall provide terrestrial signal coverage and offer terrestrial service within seven
(7) years from the date of the license to at least to at least seventy (70) percent of the population in each of
its license areas in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands (“AWS-4 Final Buildout
Requirement”).
(3) If any AWS-4 licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS-4 Interim Buildout Requirement, the
AWS-4 Final Buildout requirement shall be accelerated by one year from (seven to six years).
(4) If any AWS-4 licensee fails to establish that it meets the AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement in any
of its license areas in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, its authorization for each license
area in which it fails to meet the requirement shall terminate automatically without Commission action.
To the extent that the AWS-4 licensee also holds the 2 GHz MSS rights for the affected license area,
failure to meet the AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement in an EA shall also result in the MSS protection
rule in section 27.1136 no longer applying in that license area.
(5)  To demonstrate compliance with these performance requirements, licensees shall use the most
recently available U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement and shall base their measurements of
population served on areas no larger than the Census Tract level. The population within a specific Census
Tract (or other acceptable identifier) will only be deemed served by the licensee if it provides signal
coverage to and offers service within the specific Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier).  To the
extent the Census Tract (or other acceptable identifier) extends beyond the boundaries of a license area, a
licensee with authorizations for such areas may only include the population within the Census Tract (or
other acceptable identifier) towards meeting the performance requirement of a single, individual license.
(6) Failure by any AWS-4 licensee to meet the AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement in paragraph (q)(4) of
this section will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.

19.  Amend § 27.15 by revising paragraph (d)(1)(i); adding paragraph (d)(1)(iii); revising paragraph
(d)(2)(i); and adding paragraph (d)(2)(iii) to read as follows:

  133

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
*****
(d) ***
(1) ***
(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz
bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 MHz band,
Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and
788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for
purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. Parties to partitioning
agreements have two options for satisfying the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. Under the
first option, the partitioner and partitionee each certifies that it will independently satisfy the substantial
service requirement for its respective partitioned area.  If a licensee subsequently fails to meet its
substantial service requirement, its license will be subject to automatic cancellation without further
Commission action. Under the second option, the partitioner certifies that it has met or will meet the
substantial service requirement for the entire, pre-partitioned geographic service area. If the partitioner
subsequently fails to meet its substantial service requirement, only its license will be subject to automatic
cancellation without further Commission action.
*****
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the
following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14.
Each party to a geographic partitioning must individually meet any service-specific performance
requirements (i.e., construction and operation requirements). If a partitioner or partitionee fails to meet
any service-specific performance requirements on or before the required date, then the consequences for
this failure shall be those enumerated in § 27.14(q)
(2) ***

  134

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

(i) Except for WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz
bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands, Block E in the 722–728 MHz band,
Blocks C, C1, or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands, or Block D in the 758–763 MHz and
788–793 MHz bands; and for licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-
2200 MHz bands; the following rules apply to WCS and AWS licensees holding authorizations for
purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. Parties to disaggregation
agreements have two options for satisfying the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14. Under the
first option, the disaggregator and disaggregatee each certifies that it will share responsibility for meeting
the substantial service requirement for the geographic service area. If the parties choose this option and
either party subsequently fails to satisfy its substantial service responsibility, both parties’ licenses will be
subject to forfeiture without further Commission action. Under the second option, both parties certify
either that the disaggregator or the disaggregatee will meet the substantial service requirement for the
geographic service area. If the parties choose this option, and the party responsible subsequently fails to
meet the substantial service requirement, only that party’s license will be subject to forfeiture without
further Commission action.
*****
(iii) For licensees holding AWS authorizations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, the
following rules apply for purposes of implementing the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14.
Each party to a spectrum disaggregation must individually meet any service-specific performance
requirements (i.e., construction and operation requirements). If a disaggregator or a disagregatee fails to
meet any service-specific performance requirements on or before the required date, then the consequences
for this failure shall be those enumerated in § 27.14(q).
20.  Add § 27.17 to read as follows:
§ 27.17 Discontinuance of Service in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
(a) Termination of Authorization.  A licensee’s AWS authorization in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200
MHz bands will automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if it permanently

  135

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

discontinues service after meeting the AWS-4 Final Buildout Requirement as specified in § 27.14.
(b) Permanent discontinuance of service is defined as 180 consecutive days during which a licensee
holding AWS authority in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands does not operate or, in the
case of a commercial mobile radio service provider, does not provide service to at least one subscriber
that is not affiliated with, controlled by, or related to the providing carrier.
(c) Filing Requirements. A licensee of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands that permanently
discontinues service as defined in this section must notify the Commission of the discontinuance within
10 days by filing FCC Form 601 or 605 requesting license cancellation. An authorization will
automatically terminate, without specific Commission action, if service is permanently discontinued as
defined in this section, even if a licensee fails to file the required form requesting license cancellation.
21.  Amend § 27.50 by revising paragraphs (d) introductory text, (d)(1),  and (d)( 2) and adding
paragraph (d)(7)  and (d)(8) to read as follows:
§ 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
*****
(d) The following power and antenna height requirements apply to stations transmitting in the 1710–1755
MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands:
(1) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 2110–2155 MHz or 2180-2200 MHz bands
and located in any county with population density of 100 or fewer persons per square mile, based upon
the most recently available population statistics from the Bureau of the Census, is limited to:
*****
(2) The power of each fixed or base station transmitting in the 2110–2155 MHz or 2180-2200 MHz bands
and situated in any geographic location other than that described in paragraph (d)(1) of this section is
limited to:
*****
(7) Fixed, mobile, and portable (hand-held) stations operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band are limited to
2 watts EIRP, except that the total power of any portion of an emission that falls within the 2000-2005

  136

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

MHz band may not exceed 5 milliwatts. A licensee of AWS-4 authority may enter into private operator-
to-operator agreements with all 1995-2000 MHz licensees to operate in 2000-2005 MHz at power levels
above 5 milliwatts EIRP; except the total power of the AWS-4 mobile emissions may not exceed 2 watts
EIRP.
(8) A licensee operating a base or fixed station in the 2180–2200 MHz band utilizing a power greater
than 1640 watts EIRP and greater than 1640 watts/MHz EIRP must be coordinated in advance with all
AWS licensees authorized to operate on adjacent frequency blocks in the 2180–2200 MHz band.
*****
22.  Amend § 27.53 by revising paragraph (h) introductory text and adding paragraph (h)(4) to read as
follows:
§ 27.53 Emission limits.
*****
(h) AWS Emission Limits.
(1) General Protection Levels. Except as otherwise specified below, for operations in the 1710–1755
MHz, 2110–2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-2200 bands, the power of any emission outside a
licensee’s frequency block shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 43 + 10
log10(P) dB.
(2) Additional Protection Levels. Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph (h)(1) of this section:
(i) Operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band are subject to the out-of-band emission requirements set forth
in § 27.1134 for the protection of federal government operations operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
(ii) For operations in the 2000-2020 MHz band, the power of any emissions below 2000 MHz shall be
attenuated below the transmitter power (P) in watts by at least 70 + 10 log10(P) dB.
(3) Measurement Procedure. (i) Compliance with this provision is based on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However, in the 1
megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the licensee's frequency block, a resolution
bandwidth of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the

  137

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

transmitter may be employed. The emission bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two
points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of
which all emissions are attenuated at least 26 dB below the transmitter power.
(ii) When measuring the emission limits, the nominal carrier frequency shall be adjusted as close to the
licensee's frequency block edges, both upper and lower, as the design permits.
(iii) The measurements of emission power can be expressed in peak or average values, provided they are
expressed in the same parameters as the transmitter power.
(4) Private Agreements.
(i) For AWS operations in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands, to the extent a licensee
establishes unified operations across the AWS blocks, that licensee may choose not to observe the
emission limit specified in paragraph (h)(1), above, strictly between its adjacent block licenses in a
geographic area, so long as it complies with other Commission rules and is not adversely affecting the
operations of other parties by virtue of exceeding the emission limit.
(ii) For AWS operations in the 2000-2020 MHz band, a licensee may enter into private agreements with
all licensees operating between 1995 and 2000 MHz to allow the 70 + 10 log10(P) dB limit to be exceeded
within the 1995-2000 MHz band.
(iii) An AWS licensee who is a party to a private agreement described in this section (4) must maintain a
copy of the agreement in its station files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS assignees,
transferees, or spectrum lessees and to the Commission.
*****
23.  Amend § 27.55 by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as follows:
§ 27.55 Power strength limits.
(a)***
(1) 2110–2155, 2180-2200, 2305–2320 and 2345–2360 MHz bands: 47 dBµV/m.
*****
24.  Amend § 27.57 by revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

  138

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

§ 27.57 International coordination.
*****
(c) Operation in the 1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands is
subject to international agreements with Mexico and Canada.
25.  Add § 27.65 to read as follows:
§ 27.65 Acceptance of Interference in 2000-2020 MHz.
(a) Receivers operating in the 2000-2020 MHz band must accept interference from lawful operations in
the 1995-2000 MHz band, where such interference is due to:
(1) the in-band power of any operations in 1995-2000 MHz (i.e., the portion transmit power contained in
the 1995-2000 MHz band); or
(2) the portion of out-of-band emissions contained in 2000-2005 MHz.
(b) Reserved.
26.  Amend part 27 by revising the heading of subpart L to read as follows:

Subpart L—1710-1755 MHz, 2110-2155 MHz, 2000-2020 MHz, and 2180-2200 MHz bands

27.  Add § 27.1103 to read as follows:
§ 27.1103 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz band licenses are subject
to competitive bidding. The general competitive bidding procedures set forth in 47 CFR part 1, subpart Q
will apply unless otherwise provided in this subpart.
28.  Add § 27.1104 to read as follows:
§ 27.1104 Designated Entities in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
Eligibility for small business provisions:
(a)(1)  A small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, the affiliates
of its controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an attributable material relationship, has
average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its affiliates, its controlling interests, the

  139

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

affiliates of its controlling interests, and the entities with which it has an attributable material relationship,
has average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
(b) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business as defined in this section or a
consortium of small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(iii) of this chapter.
A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business as defined in this section or a consortium of very
small businesses may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(f)(2)(ii) of this chapter.
29.  Revise § 27.1131 to read as follows:
§ 27.1131 Protection of Part 101 operations.
All AWS licensees, prior to initiating operations from any base or fixed station, must coordinate their
frequency usage with co-channel and adjacent channel incumbent, Part 101 fixed-point-to-point
microwave licensees operating in the 2110–2155 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands. Coordination shall be
conducted in accordance with the provisions of § 24.237 of this chapter.
30.  Amend § 27.1134 by adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
§ 27.1134 Protection of Federal Government operations.
*****
(e) Protection of Federal operations in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
(1) Default Emission Limits.  Except as provided in paragraph (e)(2) of this section, the following default
out-of-band emissions limits shall apply for AWS-4 operations in the 2180-2200 MHz band.
(i) For these AWS-4 operations, the power of any emissions on all frequencies between 2200 and 2290
MHz shall not exceed an EIRP of -100.6 dBW/4 kHz.
(ii) No AWS-4 base station operating in the 2180-2200 MHz band shall be located less than 820 meters
from a U.S. Earth Station facility operating in the 2200-2290 MHz band.
(2) Agreements between AWS-4 operators and Federal government entities.  The out-of-band emissions
limits in paragraph (e)(1) of this section may be modified by the private contractual agreement of
licensees of AWS-4 operating authority and Federal government entities operating in the 2200-2290 MHz
band.  Such agreement shall be transmitted to the Commission by the National Telecommunications and

  140

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Information Administration (NTIA) of the U.S. Department of Commerce. A licensee of AWS-4
operating authority who is a party to such an agreement must maintain a copy of the agreement in its
station files and disclose it, upon request, to prospective AWS-4 assignees, transferees, or spectrum
lessees, to Federal operators, and to the Commission.
31.  Add § 27.1136 to read as follows:
§ 27.1136 Protection of mobile satellite services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands.
An AWS licensee of the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz bands must accept any interference
received from duly authorized mobile satellite service operations in these bands. Any such AWS
licensees must protect mobile satellite service operations in these bands from harmful interference.
32.  Amend § 27.1160 by revising the first sentence to read as follows:
§ 27.1160 Cost-sharing requirements for AWS.
Frequencies in the 2110–2150 MHz and 2160–2200 MHz bands listed in §101.147 of this chapter have
been reallocated from Fixed Microwave Services (FMS) to use by AWS (as reflected in §2.106) of this
chapter. ***
33.  Amend § 27.1166 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (b) introductory text, (b)(2), and (f) to read as
follows:
§ 27.1166 Reimbursement under the cost-sharing plan.
(a) ***
(1) To obtain reimbursement, an AWS relocator must submit documentation of the relocation agreement
to the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days of the date a relocation agreement is signed with an
incumbent. In the case of involuntary relocation, an AWS relocator must submit documentation of the
relocated system within 30 calendar days after the end of the relocation.
*****
(b) Documentation of expenses. Once relocation occurs, the AWS relocator, or the voluntarily relocating
microwave incumbent, must submit documentation itemizing the amount spent for items specifically
listed in §27.1164(b), as well as any reimbursable items not specifically listed in §27.1164(b) that are

  141

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

directly attributable to actual relocation costs. Specifically, the AWS relocator, or the voluntarily
relocating microwave incumbent must submit, in the first instance, only the uniform cost data requested
by the clearinghouse along with a copy, without redaction, of either the relocation agreement, if any, or
the third party appraisal described in (b)(1) of this section, if relocation was undertaken by the microwave
incumbent. AWS relocators and voluntarily relocating microwave incumbents must maintain
documentation of cost-related issues until the applicable sunset date and provide such documentation
upon request, to the clearinghouse, the Commission, or entrants that trigger a cost-sharing obligation. If
an AWS relocator pays a microwave incumbent a monetary sum to relocate its own facilities, the AWS
relocator must estimate the costs associated with relocating the incumbent by itemizing the anticipated
cost for items listed in §27.1164(b). If the sum paid to the incumbent cannot be accounted for, the
remaining amount is not eligible for reimbursement.
*****
(2) Identification of links. The AWS relocator or the voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent must
identify the particular link associated with appropriate expenses (i.e., costs may not be averaged over
numerous links). Where the AWS relocator or voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent relocates both
paths of a paired channel microwave link (e.g., 2110–2130 MHz with 2160–2180 MHz and 2130–2150
MHz with 2180–2200 MHz), the AWS relocator or voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent must
identify the expenses associated with each paired microwave link.
*****
(f) Reimbursement for Self-relocating FMS links in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands.
Where a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent relocates a paired microwave link with paths in the
2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, it may not seek reimbursement from MSS operators, but is
entitled to reimbursement from the first AWS beneficiary for  its actual costs for relocating the paired
link, subject to the reimbursement cap in § 27.1164(b). This amount is subject to depreciation as
specified in § 27.1164(b).  An AWS licensee who is obligated to reimburse relocation costs under this
rule is entitled to obtain reimbursement from other AWS beneficiaries in accordance with §§27.1164 and

  142

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

27.1168. For purposes of applying the cost-sharing formula relative to other AWS licensees that benefit
from the self-relocation, depreciation shall run from the date on which the clearinghouse issues the notice
of an obligation to reimburse the voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent.
34.  Amend § 27.1168 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text, (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(3)(ii), and (b) to
read as follows:
§ 27.1168 Triggering a reimbursement obligation.
*****
(a) The clearinghouse will apply the following test to determine when an AWS entity has triggered a cost-
sharing obligation and therefore must pay an AWS relocator, MSS relocator, or a voluntarily relocating
microwave incumbent in accordance with the formula detailed in §27.1164:
*****
(2) An AWS relocator, MSS relocator or a voluntarily relocating microwave incumbent has paid the
relocation costs of the microwave incumbent; and
(3) The AWS or MSS entity is operating or preparing to turn on a fixed base station at commercial power
and the fixed base station is located within a rectangle (Proximity Threshold) described as follows:
*****
(ii) If the application of the Proximity Threshold Test indicates that a reimbursement obligation exists, the
clearinghouse will calculate the reimbursement amount in accordance with the cost-sharing formula and
notify the AWS entity of the total amount of its reimbursement obligation.
(b) Once a reimbursement obligation is triggered, the AWS entity may not avoid paying its cost-sharing
obligation by deconstructing or modifying its facilities.
35.  Revise § 27.1170 to read as follows:
§ 27.1170 Payment issues.
Prior to initiating operations for a newly constructed site or modified existing site, an AWS entity is
required to file a notice containing site-specific data with the clearinghouse. The notice regarding the new
or modified site must provide a detailed description of the proposed site’s spectral frequency use and

  143

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

geographic location, including but not limited to the applicant’s name and address, the name of the
transmitting base station, the geographic coordinates corresponding to that base station, the frequencies
and polarizations to be added, changed or deleted, and the emission designator. If a prior coordination
notice (PCN) under §101.103(d) of this chapter is prepared, AWS entities can satisfy the site-data filing
requirement by submitting a copy of their PCN to the clearinghouse. AWS entities that file either a notice
or a PCN have a continuing duty to maintain the accuracy of the site-specific data on file with the
clearinghouse. Utilizing the site-specific data, the clearinghouse will determine if any reimbursement
obligation exists and notify the AWS entity in writing of its repayment obligation, if any. When the AWS
entity receives a written copy of such obligation, it must pay directly to the relocator the amount owed
within 30 calendar days.
36. Revise § 27.1174 to read as follows:
§ 27.1174 Termination of cost-sharing obligations.
The cost-sharing plan will sunset for all AWS and MSS entities on the same date on which the relocation
obligation for the subject AWS band (i.e., 2110–2150 MHz, 2160–2175 MHz, 2175–2180 MHz, 2180-
2200 MHz) in which the relocated FMS link was located terminates. AWS or MSS entrants that trigger a
cost-sharing obligation prior to the sunset date must satisfy their payment obligation in full.

PART 101—

FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

37.  The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, and 303 unless otherwise noted.
38.  Amend § 101.69 by revising paragraph (e) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 101.69 Transition of the 1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200 MHz bands from the
fixed microwave services to personal communications services and emerging technologies.
*****
(e) Relocation of FMS licensees by Mobile-Satellite Service (MSS) licensees will be subject to
mandatory negotiations only.

  144

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

*****
39.  Amend § 101.73 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) introductory text to read as follows:
§ 101.73 Mandatory negotiations.
(a) A mandatory negotiation period may be initiated at the option of the ET licensee. Relocation of FMS
licensees by Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operators and AWS licensees in the 2110–2150 MHz and
2160–2200 MHz bands will be subject to mandatory negotiations only.
*****
(d) Provisions for Relocation of Fixed Microwave Licensees in the 2110–2150 and 2160–2200 MHz
bands. A separate mandatory negotiation period will commence for each FMS licensee when an ET
licensee informs that FMS licensee in writing of its desire to negotiate. Mandatory negotiations will be
conducted with the goal of providing the FMS licensee with comparable facilities defined as facilities
possessing the following characteristics:
*****
40.  Amend § 101.79 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(2) to read as follows:
§ 101.79 Sunset provisions for licensees in the 1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200

MHz bands.

(a) FMS licensees will maintain primary status in the 1850–1990 MHz, 2110–2150 MHz, and 2160–2200
MHz bands unless and until an ET licensee requires use of the spectrum. ET licensees are not required to
pay relocation costs after the relocation rules sunset. Once the relocation rules sunset, an ET licensee
may require the incumbent to cease operations, provided that the ET licensee intends to turn on a system
within interference range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA TSB 10–F (for terrestrial-to-terrestrial
situations) or TIA TSB 86 (for MSS satellite-to-terrestrial situations) or any standard successor. ET
licensee notification to the affected FMS licensee must be in writing and must provide the incumbent with
no less than six months to vacate the spectrum. After the six-month notice period has expired, the FMS
licensee must turn its license back into the Commission, unless the parties have entered into an agreement

145

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

which allows the FMS licensee to continue to operate on a mutually agreed upon basis. The date that the
relocation rules sunset is determined as follows:
*****
(2) For the 2180–2200 MHz band, for MSS/ATC December 8, 2013 (i.e., ten years after the mandatory
negotiation period begins for MSS/ATC operators in the service), and for ET licensees authorized under
part 27 ten years after the first part 27 license is issued in the band.  To the extent that an MSS operator is
also an ET licensee authorized under part 27, the part 27 sunset applies to its relocation and cost sharing
obligations should the two sets of obligations conflict.
*****
41.  Amend § 101.82 by revising paragraphs (a) and (d) to read as follows:
§ 101.82 Reimbursement and relocation expenses in the 2110–2150 MHz and 2160–2200 MHz
bands.
(a) Reimbursement and relocation expenses for the 2110–2130 MHz and 2160–2200 MHz bands are
addressed in §§ 27.1160–27.1174.
*****
(d) Cost-sharing obligations among terrestrial stations. For terrestrial stations (AWS), cost-sharing
obligations are governed by §§ 27.1160 through 27.1174 of this chapter; provided, however, that MSS
operators are not obligated to reimburse voluntarily relocating FMS incumbents in the 2180–2200 MHz
band. (AWS reimbursement and cost-sharing obligations relative to voluntarily relocating FMS
incumbents are governed by § 27.1166 of this chapter).
*****


  146

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

APPENDIX B

Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

1.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 the
Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed in the Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM). No comments were filed addressing the IRFA. Because we amend
the rules in this Report and Order, we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA).
This present FRFA conforms to the RFA.2

Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order

2.
Demand for wireless broadband services and the network capacity associated with those
services is surging, resulting in a growing demand for spectrum to support these services. Adoption of
smartphones increased at a 50 percent annual growth rate in 2011, from 27 percent of U.S. mobile
subscribers in December 2010 to nearly 42 percent in December 2011.3 Further, consumers have rapidly
adopted the use of tablets, which were first introduced in January of 2010.4 By the end of 2012, it is
estimated that one in five Americans—almost 70 million people—will use a tablet.5 Between 2011 and
2017, mobile data traffic generated by tablets is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of
100 percent.6  New mobile applications and services, such as high resolution video communications, are
also using more bandwidth. For example, a single smartphone can generate as much traffic as thirty-five
basic-feature mobile phones,7 while tablets connected to 3G and 4G networks use three times more data

1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
3 comScore 2012 Mobile Future in Focus (2012) at 16
http://www.comscore.com/Press Events/Presentations Whitepapers/2012/2012 Mobile Future in Focus (last
visited Dec. 6, 2012).
4 Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report
and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Mobile Wireless, Including Commercial
Mobile Services, WT Docket No. 10-133, Fifteenth Report, 26 FCC Rcd 9664, 9754 ¶ 145 (Fifteenth
Mobile Wireless Competition Report).
5 Press Release, eMarketer, Tablet Shopping Growing, but Retailers Must Keep Up (June 15, 2012), available at
http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?R=1009120&ecid=a6506033675d47f881651943c21c5ed4 (last visited Dec.
6, 2012).
6 Ericsson, Traffic and Market Report: On the Pulse of the Networked Society (June 2012), available at
http://www.ericsson.com/res/docs/2012/traffic and market report june 2012.pdf (last visited Dec. 6, 2012).
7 Cisco Visual Networking Index: Global Mobile Data Traffic Forecast Update, 2011-2016 (February 2012),
available at http://www.cisco.com/en/US/solutions/collateral/ns341/ns525/ns537/ns705/ns827/white paper c11-
520862.html (last visited Dec. 6, 2012).

147

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

than smartphones over the cellular network.8  All of these trends, in combination, are creating an urgent
need for more network capacity and, in turn, for suitable spectrum.
3.
The 2010 National Broadband Plan recommended the Commission undertake to make
500 megahertz of spectrum available for broadband use within ten years, including 300 megahertz within
five years.9  The Commission has taken numerous steps to achieve these goals, including recently
adopting a notice of proposed rulemaking on conducting the world’s first incentive auction to repurpose
broadcast spectrum for wireless broadband use,10 and updating the Commission’s rules for the 2.3 GHz
Wireless Communications Service (WCS) band to permit the use of the most advanced wireless
technologies in that band.11
4.
In February 2012, Congress enacted Title VI of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 (the “Spectrum Act”).12  The Spectrum Act includes several provisions to make
more spectrum available for commercial use, including through auctions, and to improve public safety
communications.13  Among other things, the Spectrum Act requires the Commission, by February 23,
2015, to allocate the 1915-1920 MHz band and the 1995-2000 MHz band (collectively, the H Block) for
commercial use, and to auction and grant new initial licenses for the use of each spectrum band, subject to
flexible-use service rules.14  Congress provided, however, that if the Commission determined that either
of the bands could not be used without causing harmful interference to commercial licensees in 1930-
1995 MHz (PCS downlink), then the Commission was prohibited from allocating that specific band for
commercial use or licensing it.15  Additionally, Sections 6401(f) and 6413 of the Spectrum Act specify
that the proceeds from an auction of licenses in the 1995-2000 MHz band and in the 1915-1920 MHz
band shall be deposited in the Public Safety Trust Fund and then used to fund the Nationwide Public
Safety Broadband Network (“FirstNet”).16  The H block spectrum could be the first spectrum specified by

8 Kevin Fitchard, 3G/4G tablets suck up 3x more data than smartphones, GIGAOM, May 15, 2012, available at
http://gigaom.com/mobile/study-3g4g-tablets-suck-up-3x-more-data-than-smartphones/ (last visited Dec. 6, 2012).
9 National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8 at 84-85.
10 See Expanding the Economic and Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Docket No.
12-268, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-118, at 3 (rel. Oct. 2, 2012); National Broadband Plan at 81-82.
11 See Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications
Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, Order on Reconsideration, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No. 95-91, (rel. Oct.
17, 2012) (2012 WCS Order); see also, Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation
of Wireless Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket No. 95-91, GEN
Docket No. 90-357, RM-8610, Report and Order and Second Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710 (2010) (2010
WCS Order).
12 See generally Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012)
(Spectrum Act)
13 Spectrum Act §§ 6001-6703.
14 See Spectrum Act § 6401(b), codified at 47 U.S.C. § 1451(b).
15 See Spectrum Act § 6401(b)(4), codified at 47 USC § 1451(b)(4).
16 Spectrum Act §§ 6401(f), 6413, codified at 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(8)(D)(ii), 1457. Amounts remaining in the Public
Safety Trust Fund after fiscal year 2022 are required to be deposited into the Treasury’s general fund for the purpose
of deficit reduction.

148

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

the Spectrum Act to be licensed by auction, and thus could represent the first inflow of revenues toward
this statutory goal.17
5.
In this Report and Order, we increase the Nation’s supply of spectrum for mobile
broadband by adopting flexible use rules for 40 megahertz of spectrum in the 2 GHz band (2000-2020
MHz and 2180-2200 MHz), which we term the AWS-4 band. In so doing, we carry out a
recommendation in the National Broadband Plan that the Commission enable the provision of stand-
alone terrestrial services in the 2 GHz Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) spectrum band, thus dramatically
increasing the value of this spectrum to the public. Specifically, we remove regulatory barriers to mobile
broadband use of this spectrum, and adopt service, technical, and licensing rules that will encourage
innovation and investment in mobile broadband and provide certainty and a stable regulatory regime in
which broadband deployment can rapidly occur.

Legal Basis

6.
The actions are authorized pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308,
309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§
151, 152, 154(i), 201, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 324, 332, and 333, and Section 706 of
the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1302.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will
Apply

7.
The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and, where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted, herein.18  The RFA generally
defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small
organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”19  In addition, the term “small business” has the
same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.20  A “small business
concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.21  Below, we describe and
estimate the number of small entity licensees that may be affected by the adopted rules.
8.
Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present. We therefore
describe here, at the outset, three comprehensive, statutory small entity size standards that encompass

17 Concurrently with the issuance of this Report and Order, the Commission is issuing a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking that proposes service, technical, and licensing rules for the H block.  See generally, Service Rules for
the Advanced Wireless Services H Block—Implementing Section 6401 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job
Creation Act of 2012 Related to the 1915-1920 MHz and 1995-2000 MHz bands, WT Docket No. 12-357, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 12-152 (adopted Dec. 11, 2012).
18 5 U.S.C. § 603(b)(3).
19 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
20 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
21 15 U.S.C. § 632.

149

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

entities that could be directly affected by the proposals under consideration.22 As of 2009, small
businesses represented 99.9% of the 27.5 million businesses in the United States, according to the SBA.23
Additionally, a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”24 Nationwide, as of 2007, there were approximately
1,621,315 small organizations.25 Finally, the term “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally
as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a
population of less than fifty thousand.”26 Census Bureau data for 2007 indicate that there were 89,527
governmental jurisdictions in the United States.27  We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761
entities may qualify as “small governmental jurisdictions.”28  Thus, we estimate that most governmental
jurisdictions are small.
9.
Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications. The rules adopted in
this Order would affect some providers of satellite telecommunications services.  Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth station operators. Since 2007, the SBA
has recognized two census categories for satellite telecommunications firms: “Satellite
Telecommunications” and “Other Telecommunications.” Under the “Satellite Telecommunications”
category, a business is considered small if it had $15 million or less in average annual receipts.29  Under
the “Other Telecommunications” category, a business is considered small if it had $25 million or less in
average annual receipts.30
10.
The first category of Satellite Telecommunications “comprises establishments primarily
engaged in providing point-to-point telecommunications services to other establishments in the
telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via

22 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)–(6).
23 See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions,” available at
http://web.sba.gov/faqs/faqindex.cfm?areaID=24 (last visited Dec. 11, 2012).
24 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
25 INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
26 5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
27 U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2011, Table 427 (2007).
28 The 2007 U.S Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the
population in each such organization. There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in 2007. If we assume
that county, municipal, township, and school district organizations are more likely than larger governmental
organizations to have populations of 50,000 or less, the total of these organizations is 52,095. If we make the same
population assumption about special districts, specifically that they are likely to have a population of 50,000 or less,
and also assume that special districts are different from county, municipal, township, and school districts, in 2007
there were 37,381 such special districts. Therefore, there are a total of 89,476 local government organizations.  As a
basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government organizations were small, in 2011, we note that
there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor civil divisions) with populations over
50,000. CITY AND TOWNS TOTALS: VINTAGE 2011 – U.S. Census Bureau, available at
http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index html. If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that meet
or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small. U.S. CENSUS
BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES 2011, Tables 427, 426 (Data cited therein are
from 2007).
29 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
30 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.

150

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”31   For this category, Census Bureau data
for 2007 show that there were a total of 512 satellite communications firms that operated for the entire
year.32  Of this total, 464 firms had annual receipts of under $10 million, and 18 firms had receipts of $10
million to $24,999,999.33
11.
The second category of Other Telecommunications is comprised of entities “primarily
engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation.  This industry also includes establishments primarily engaged in
providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities connected with one or more terrestrial
systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and receiving telecommunications from,
satellite systems. Establishments providing Internet services or voice over Internet protocol (VoIP)
services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also included in this industry.”34  For this
category, Census Bureau data for 2007 show that there were a total of 2,383 firms that operated for the
entire year.35  Of this total, 2,346 firms had annual receipts of under $25 million.36  Consequently, the
Commission estimates that the majority of All Other Telecommunications firms are small entities that
might be affected by our actions.
12.
Satellite Telecommunications/Mobile Satellite Service Licensees. Neither the
Commission nor the U.S. Small Business Administration has developed a small business size standard
specifically for mobile satellite service licensees.  The appropriate size standard is therefore the SBA
standard for Satellite Telecommunications, which provides that such entities are small if they have $15
million or less in annual revenues.37   This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in
providing telecommunications services to other establishments in the telecommunications and
broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of satellites or
reselling satellite telecommunications.38  Currently, the Commission’s records show that there are 31
entities authorized to provide voice and data MSS in the United States. The Commission does not have
sufficient information to determine which, if any, of these parties are small entities.  The Commission
notes that small businesses are not likely to have the financial ability to become MSS system operators
because of high implementation costs, including construction of satellite space stations and rocket launch,
associated with satellite systems and services.
13.
However, the U.S. Census publishes data about Satellite Telecommunications generally,
and this data may well be relevant to the estimate of the number of voice and data MSS. Census data for
2007 indicate that 512 satellite telecommunications firms operated during that year. Of that 512, 290
received annual receipts of $10.0 million or less. 18 firms received annual receipts of between $10.0

31 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications.”
32 See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable? bm=y&-geo id=&- skip=900&-ds name=EC0751SSSZ4&-
lang=en .
33 Id.
34 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517919 Other Telecommunications”,
http://www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517919.HTM.
35 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517919.
36 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census, Subject Series: Information, Table 5, “Establishment and Firm
Size: Employment Size of Firms for the United States: 2007 NAICS Code 517919” (issued Nov. 2010).
37 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
38 http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch.

151

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

million and $24, 999.999 and 30 received annual receipts of $25.0 million or more. Since the Census data
does not distinguish between MSS and other types of satellite communications companies, it cannot be
known precisely, based on Census data, how many of the 31 authorized MSS firms are small.39  However,
since the majority of all satellite telecommunications companies were small under the applicable standard,
a limited inference is possible that some of the 31 MSS firms are small. Since it is possible that some
MSS companies are small entities affected by this Order, we therefore include them in this section of the
FRFA.
14.
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except satellite). The Report and Order applies
various Commission policies and rules to terrestrial service in the MSS bands. We cannot predict who
may in the future become a licensee or lease spectrum for terrestrial use in these bands. In general, any
wireless telecommunications provider would be eligible to become an Advanced Wireless Service
licensee or lease spectrum from the MSS or AWS licensees.  This industry comprises establishments
engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide communications
via the airwaves. Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide services using that
spectrum, such as cellular phone services, paging services, wireless Internet access, and wireless video
services.40
15.
The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is for the category Wired
Telecommunications Carriers. Under that size standard, such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer
employees.41 Census Bureau data for 2007, which now supersede data from the 2002 Census, show that
there were 3,188 firms in this category that operated for the entire year.  Of this total, 3,144 had
employment of 999 or fewer, and 44 firms had employment of 1,000 employees or more. Thus under this
category and the associated small business size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of
wireless telecommunications carriers (except satellite) are small entities that may be affected by our
actions.42

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance
Requirements

16.
The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements resulting
from the Report and Order will apply to all entities in the same manner.  The Commission believes that
applying the same rules equally to all entities in this context promotes fairness.  The Commission does
not believe that the costs and/or administrative burdens associated with the rules will unduly burden small
entities.  The revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more
information, more flexibility, and more options for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.
17.
Any applicants for licenses of AWS-4 operating authority will be required to file license
applications using the Commission’s automated Universal Licensing System (ULS). ULS is an online
electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool that enables potential licensees to
research applications, licenses, and antennae structures. It also keeps the public informed with weekly
public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a telecommunications glossary. Licensees of

39http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN 2007 US 51SSSZ4&pro
dType=table
40  http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/sssd/naics/naicsrch?code=517210&search=2007%20NAICS%20Search
41 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.
42See http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable? bm=y&-fds name=EC0700A1&-geo id=&- skip=600&-
ds name=EC0751SSSZ5&- lang=en

152

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

AWS-4 operating authority that must submit long-form license applications must do so through ULS
using Form 601,43 FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services
using FCC Form 602, and other appropriate forms.44

Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered

18.
The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.45
19.
As we provide in this Report and Order, licensing the AWS-4 bands under Economic
Areas (EA) geographic size licenses will provide regulatory parity with other AWS bands that are
licensed on an EA basis, such as AWS-1 B and C block licenses. Additionally, assigning AWS-4 in EA
geographic areas will allow AWS-4 licensees to make adjustments to suit their individual needs. EA
license areas are small enough to provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers. EA license
areas also nest within and may be aggregated up to larger license areas that have been used by the
Commission for other services, such as Major Economic Areas (MEAs) and Regional Economic Area
Groupings (REAGs) for those seeking to create larger service areas. Licensees may also adjust their
geographic coverage through secondary markets.  These rules should enable licensees of AWS-4
operating authority, or any entities, whether large or small, providing service in other AWS bands to more
easily adjust their spectrum to build their networks pursuant to individual business plans.
20.
This Report and Order adopts rules to protect entities operating in nearby spectrum
bands from harmful interference, which may include small entities. The technical rules adopted in the
Report and Order are designed, among other things, to protect broadband PCS services operating in the
1930-1995 MHz band, future services operating in the 1995-2000 MHz band, and Federal operations in
the 2200-2290 MHz band from harmful interference from AWS-4 operations.
21.
The Report and Order provides licensees of AWS-4 authority with the flexibility to
provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with the allocations for this spectrum, which is
consistent with other spectrum allocated or designated for licensed fixed and mobile services, e.g.,
AWS-1. The Report and Order further provides for licensing of this spectrum under the Commission’s
market-oriented Part 27 rules. This includes applying the Commission’s secondary market policies and
rules to all transactions involving the use of AWS-4 bands for terrestrial services, which will provide
greater predictability and regulatory parity with bands licensed for terrestrial mobile broadband service.
These rules should make it easier for AWS-4 providers to enter secondary market arrangements involving
terrestrial use of their spectrum. The secondary market rules apply equally to all entities, whether small
or large. As a result, we believe that this will provide an economic benefit to small entities by making it
easier for entities, whether large or small, to enter into secondary market arrangements for AWS-4
spectrum.

43 47 C.F.R. § 1.913(a)(1).
44 47 C.F.R. § 1.2107
45 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).

153

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Rules

22.
None.

Report to Congress

23.
The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including the FRFA, in a
report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.46  In addition, the Commission will send a
copy the Report and Order, including FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration. A copy of this Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in
the Federal Register.47


46 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A). The Congressional Review Act is contained in Title II, § 251, of the CWAAA, see
Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, § 251, 110 Stat. 868.
47 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

154

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

APPENDIX C

List of Commenters to AWS-4 NPRM and NOI

Comments

Alcatel-Lucent (Alcatel)

AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T)

Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)

Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)

COMPTEL

Council Tree Investors, Inc. (Council Tree)

CTIA—The Wireless Association (CTIA)

DECT Forum (DECT)

Deere & Company (Deere)

DISH Network Corporation (DISH)

Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS)

Globalstar, Inc.

Greenwood Telecommunications Consultants, LLC (Greenwood)

Iridium Satellite LLC (Iridium)

Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)

LightSquared Inc.

MetroPCS Communications, Inc. (MetroPCS)

Mobile Satellite Users Association (MSUA)

Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Motorola)

Nokia Siemens Network (Nokia)
National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative (NRTC)
National Telecommunications Cooperative Association (NTCA)
New America, Public Knowledge, and Consumers Union (Public Interest Organizations/PIO)
NTCH, Inc.
RCA- The Competitive Carriers Association (RCA)
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
Silicon Flatirons Center, University of Colorado (Silicon Flatirons)
Sprint Nextel Corporation (Sprint)
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
T-Mobile USA, Inc. (T-Mobile)
United States Cellular Corporation (US Cellular/USCC)
US GPS Industry Council (USGIC)
UTAM, Inc.
Verizon Wireless

Reply Commenters

AMS Corporation (AMS)
AT&T
CCIA
CTIA
DECT
DISH
Globalstar
Greenwood
Iridium
LightSquared

155

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 12-151

MetroPCS
NRTC
Nokia
PIO
Rural Telecommunications Group, Inc. (RTG)
Sprint
USCC
US GIC
UTAM
Utilities Telecom Council
Verizon Wireless

156

Edoc Internal Id:

317983

Released On:

Sun, 2012-12-16 19:00

Published On:

December 17 2012

Adopted Date:

Mon, 2012-12-10 19:00

Edoc ID:

FCC-12-151

Federal Communications Commission

Commission Document

Print

Email

Related Topics

You are leaving the FCC website

Federal Communications Commission

Commission Document Print Email

Related Topics

You are leaving the FCC website

Commission Document

Print

Email