WPCĚ 2MBERKZ3|j /  X4#Xj\  P6G;3XP#"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNX\  P6G;P 7jC:,3Xj\  P6G;XPWPWPWP Button Bar7WPWP2: K B >"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNi@I?^J@OLitemizeX1=&V 8F ` hp xr#FxX  Pg9CXP#header2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#2ZPA MBNCrVODOCitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  BFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. 2RErPFPGQHPRa3AgendaEHeadingChapter HeadingFJ d  ) I. ׃  Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersG>a݅@  I.   X(# SubheadingSubheadingH0\ E A.  2ZVIdSJ|SKTL1)UHIGHLIGHT 1Italics and BoldldeddI+. DRAFT ONHeader A Text = DRAFT and DateJ X =8` (#FDRAFTă r  ` (#=D3 1, 43 12pt (Z)(PC-8))T2Dă  ӟDRAFT OFFTurn Draft Style offK@@    LETTER LANDLetter Landscape - 11 x 8.5L 3'3'Standard'3'3StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11 ;   2ZM1VN1WO1XPnZLEGAL LANDLegal Landscape - 14 x 8.5Mf 3'3'Standard'A'AStandardZ K e6VE L"nu;   LETTER PORTLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 11NL 3'3'Standard3'3'StandardZ K e6VE L"nU9   LEGAL PORTLegal Portrait - 8.5 x 14O 3'3'StandardA'A'StandardLetter Portrait - 8.5 x 119   TITLETitle of a DocumentPK\ * ă2-^QZRd@[Sj[T\BLOCK QUOTESmall, single-spaced, indentedQN X HIGHLIGHT 2Large and Bold LargeRB*d. HIGHLIGHT 3Large, Italicized and UnderscoredS V -qLETTERHEADLetterhead - date/marginsTu H XX  3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"nE9    * 3'3'LetterheadZ K e VE L"n3' II"n"Tv3'StandarddZ K e VE L"nU9 Ѓ   2AcUE_^V-_W8`X8 bINVOICE FEETFee Amount for Math InvoiceU ,, $0$0  MEMORANDUMMemo Page FormatVD.   ! M E M O R A N D U M ă r  y<N dddy   INVOICE EXPSEExpense Subtotals for Math InvoiceW:A ,p, $0$00INVOICE TOTTotals Invoice for Math MacroXz 4p, $0$002"fYscZXe[[le\[eINVOICE HEADRHeading Portion of Math InvoiceY+C`*   4X 99L$0 **(  ӧ XX NORMALReturn to Normal TypestyleZSMALLSmall Typestyle[FINEFine Typestyle\2h][Tf^[f_[ g`egLARGELarge Typestyle]EXTRA LARGEExtra Large Typestyle^VERY LARGEVery Large Typestyle_ENVELOPEStandard Business Envelope with Header`+w ,,EnvelopeZ K e VE L"n,,EnvelopeLarge, Italicized and Under;    ,, 88+  `   2oaXibricjdj1adfStyle 14Swiss 8 Pt Without Marginsb$$D Co> PfQ  )a [ PfQO Style 12Dutch Italics 11.5c$$F )^ `> XifQ  )a [ PfQO Style 11Initial Codes for Advanced IIdJ )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 ! )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   x )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect II Learning Guide   j-n )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  jBX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2relof/qgqh|WrStyle 3oDutch Roman 11.5 with Margins/Tabse )a [ PfQO  ddn  # c0*b, oT9 !Style 4 PSwiss 8 Point with MarginsfDq Co> PfQ  dddd  #  Style 1.5Dutch Roman 11.5 Fontg4h )a [ PfQO  dddn Style 2Dutch Italic 11.5h$ )^ `> XifQ 2yisjskEtltStyle 5Dutch Bold 18 Pointi$RH$L T~> pfQ_  )a [ PfQO Style 7Swiss 11.5j$$V )ao> PfQ ]  )a [ PfQO Style 6Dutch Roman 14 Pointk$$N w [ PfQ   )a [ PfQO Style 10oInitial Codes for Advancedl U )a [ PfQK  dddn  ##  [[ b, oT9 !b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Advanced Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  QN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 2mzn%o*K@Style 8PfInitial Codes for Beginninggmi )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9  [ &e )^ `> XifQ ` Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   d )^ `> XifQ Beginning Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jH )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`6 >Page  j )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 Style 9Initial Codes for Intermediaten )a [ PfQK  dddn  # X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 Њ [ e )^ `> XifQ ` Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   3 )^ `> XifQ Intermediate Legal WordPerfect Learning Guide   jf )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc.`+ >Page  jX )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 UpdateInitial Codes for Update Moduleo )a [ PfQK  dddn  #  [ X` hp x (#%'b, oT9 !n )^ `> XifQ ` Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   f )^ `> XifQ Legal WordPerfect 5.0 Update Class Learning Guide   Q" )^ `> XifQ    Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988`7 CPage  jN~ )^ `> XifQ    Page ` Copyright  Portola Systems, Inc. 1987, 1988 "i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""NH2C8THNCNHC>HC^CC>.888288882T8888"282H222"":":-"""""""""8">C8C8C8C8C8dXH2C8C8C8C8H8N8N8N8N8H8H8H8H8C2C8H8N>N8C2H8B8C8C8C8H2H2H:H2H>C8C8C8C8N8N8N8N:N8H:H8">"">J,::C2888"8"8H8&>>-H8H8H8H8H8H8^HC:>2>2>2H88"H8C2>"C8>28WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$68">8888n8&%TT8"$JJ8T"""8d"" ~ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See id. at 1723.h  G6!24. One FS commenter, APCO, states that the 21102145 MHz band should not be  |$allocated to BAS, but rather to FS for advanced public safety microwave communications, to  |$compensate FS for its loss of the 21652200 MHz band. APCO advocates requiring BAS to  |$_operate in the remaining 85 megahertz of the BAS band. In support of this proposal, APCO  |$points out that the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) reports  X4that 50 megahertz of additional spectrum is needed for public safety FS communications.? {O' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See APCO Comments at 35 (citing NTIA, U.S. National Spectrum Requirements: Projections and Trends, Spec. Pub. 9431 at 38 (1995)).  G6!25. In its reply comments, MSTV argues that a channel width of 12 megahertz, as  X4 |$lsuggested by COMSAT, is not feasible.n@j  {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See MSTV Reply at 410.n SBE states that a reduction of one megahertz per  X4 |$/channel would be tolerable when more spectrumefficient hardware is available.lA  {On#'#X\  P6G;IP#э See SBE Reply at 25.l In response  |$cto Motorola's suggestion that we move BAS out of the 2 GHz band entirely, MSTV asserts that  |$the 7 and 13 GHz bands are unsuitable for mobile ENG activity. MSTV also states that Motorola  |$significantly underestimates the cost of relocating BAS, which MSTV and SBE place at  |$approximately $171 million. This estimate includes the costs of replacing or retrofitting"e A,-(-(ZZ"  |$transceiver equipment and antennas for all BAS licensees nationwide. MSTV supports our  |$proposal to reallocate the 21102145 MHz band to BAS, which would then have available 120  X4 |$megahertz of spectrum at 20252145 MHz.hB {OK'#C\  P6QIP#э See id. at 1114.h SBE also opposes the idea of freezing BAS license  |$applications or establishing a date after which BAS licensees would no longer be compensated  |$for relocation, because such measures would give MSS licensees incentive to avoid bargaining  X4in good faith on relocation issues.lCZ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See SBE Reply at 25.l  G6!26. In its reply comments, COMSAT states that BAS should reduce its bandwidth  |$requirements in anticipation of digital technology, because the cost of relocating BAS to the  |$l21102145 MHz band, with the attendant cost of clearing that band, would make global MSS  X 4 |$Vfinancially infeasible. LQP calls for a FAC to study and implement a transition plan.lD  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Reply at 68.l PCSAT  |$supports voluntary negotiations on relocation for 70 days or until a solution is reached and,  |$failing resolution, supports LQP's proposal of a FAC. PCSAT contends that relocation costs  X 4would cripple the nascent MSS industry.nE ~ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See PCSAT Reply at 45.n  X 4 G6!27. In supplemental comments, the MSS CoalitionF  yOh' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э "MSS Coalition" is a collective name for supplemental comments filed jointly by Celsat, COMSAT, ICO, Hughes, and PCSAT. recommends a twophase plan to  |$compress BAS spectrum. In the first phase, the Commission would require licensees in BAS  |$ychannel A1 (19902008 MHz) to vacate by January 1, 2000, either retuning equipment for all  |$BAS channels to use channel bandwidths of 14 or 15 megahertz, or moving to other spectrum.  |$In the second phase, the Commission would require licensees in BAS channel A2 (20082025  |$VMHz) to vacate by January 1, 2005, again either retuning all channels to bandwidths of 12 or 13  |$megahertz, to take advantage of digital compression techniques, or relocating to another band.  |$Under this MSS Coalition plan, BAS would bear the expense of its own relocation. The MSS  |$Coalition claims that ordinary equipment replacement schedules will allow most BAS licensees  |$8to retune or replace equipment, or to relocate with minimal additional expense above normal  |$cequipment replacement. To support this plan, the MSS Coalition urges us to freeze immediately  X4 |$}all new BAS licensing in channels A1 and A2.Gh  {O"'#C\  P6QIP#э See MSS Coalition Supplemental Comments at 1416, 22. LQP supports the MSS Coalition plan, but with  |$three modifications. LQP urges that first, all BAS license applications and renewals should be  |$frozen immediately, to avoid further complications in the band clearing process. Second, it  |$argues that we should adopt an ending date for BAS primary operations of January 1, 2005, in  |$order to give BAS licensees incentive to seek new spectrum and to allow MSS to plan on the  |$basis of unrestricted use as of that date. Third, it urges us to allocate replacement BAS spectrum"7 G,-(-(ZZ_"  |$cfor the 19902025 MHz band, and suggests as a possibility the 36503700 MHz band, which will  X4be reassigned from Government to nonGovernment use in 1999.|H {Ob'#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Supplemental Comments at 49.|  G6!28. In response to the MSS Coalition proposal, MSTV states that the spectrum allocation  X4 |$}proposal of the Notice is sound and is the only plan that would be effective, given the heavy and  |$still growing use of BAS. According to MSTV, the MSS Coalition plan is unrealistic, given the  |$current state of the art in BAS equipment; and we should not adopt a plan that relies on  |$canticipated but uncertain future advances in the state of the art. SBE states that channels of 15  |$megahertz are possible, but that narrowing BAS channels must be accompanied by new  |$'equipment capable of tuning to the narrower channels and having narrower intermediate  X 4frequency bandpass to avoid degradation in adjacentchannel rejection.|I Z {O' '#C\  P6QIP#э See SBE Supplemental Comments at 13.|  G6!29. One MSS proponent, Iridium, objects to the MSS Coalition's twophase plan, stating  |$cthat it is inconsistent with the international allocations of the bands. Iridium claims that, globally,  |$the Coalition's Phase One uplink band of 19902008 MHz would be paired with two different  |$Vdownlink bands: 21652185 MHz in Regions 1 and 3, and 21802198 MHz in Region 2. Iridium  |$cstates that the MSS Coalition's proposal does not include a coherent plan for the downlink band.  |$+Further, Iridium claims that the MSS Coalition's plan would probably only allow operation of  |$None MSS system in the Phase One period, and that system would have an overwhelming  XM4competitive advantage flowing from its fiveyear head start.JM {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Iridium Supplemental Comments at 36.  X4 G6![30. Decision. Based on the record, we conclude that it is necessary to relocate BAS in  X 4 |$order to accommodate MSS in the 19902025 MHz band. As we indicated in the Notice, and the  |$3commenting parties agree, BAS and MSS cannot share the spectrum without unacceptable mutual  |$<interference. Therefore, to reallocate the 19902025 MHz band to MSS, it will be necessary to clear this band of BAS.  G6!31. We reject Motorola's suggestion that we remove BAS from the 2 GHz band entirely.  |$#We agree with commenters who point out that the 2 GHz band has ideal propagation  |$characteristics for mobile services including BAS, which must transmit along unengineered paths from unpredictable locations.  G6!h32. BAS currently operates with 17 and 18megahertz wide channels. Comments from  |$both MSS interests and broadcasting interests lead us to believe that BAS may not need channels  |$this wide, especially in light of the fact that advances in radio technology since the current  |$<channelization of BAS was established could make it possible for BAS to transmit contribution |$quality signals in somewhat narrower channels. On the other hand, we do not agree with the  |$position of the MSS community that we should reduce BAS to 12 and 13megahertz channels"!~J,-(-(ZZ? "  |$pand mandate a switch to digital transmission. We believe that a reduction of five megahertz per  |$channel is too severe to permit FM analog contributionquality BAS signals, and we do not  |$believe that this is the appropriate proceeding to determine whether or when BAS should convert  |$/to digital format in conjunction with the development of digital television. Some representatives  X4 |$Mof both industries, however, agree that BAS may be able to operate with 15megahertz channels.K {O'#X\  P6G;IP#э See, e.g., MSS Coalition Supplemental Comments at 1416; SBE Comments at 8.  |$We conclude that the best solution for BAS relocation is to reduce the BAS band at 2 GHz from  |$y120 to 105 megahertz, and relocate the band from 19902110 MHz to 20252130 MHz. This  |$would allow the resultant BAS band to be divided into seven channels of 15 megahertz each, thus  |$retaining the current capacity of the BAS band. This solution is more spectrumefficient than our  X14 |$Vprimary proposal in the Notice of simply relocating the 120megahertz BAS band upward by 35  X 4 |$megahertz, and also more feasible than our alternate proposal of reducing the BAS band to 85  |$Imegahertz. Further, this solution will require the relocation of FS users from only 20 megahertz  |$yat 21102130 MHz, rather than 35 megahertz at 21102145 MHz, as in our primary proposal.  |$uHowever, we merely note here that a BAS band of 105 megahertz will allow seven BAS  |$channels. Rather than mandating channels in the new band, we explore possible alternate  X 4channelizations in the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice), below.  G6!J 33. Relocating BAS will require retuning of BAS equipment, and in many if not most  |$cases replacing equipment or retrofitting equipment to allow improved intermediate frequency  XO4 |$bandpass and adjacentchannel rejection, as pointed out by SBE.|LOZ {OZ'#X\  P6G;IP#э See SBE Supplemental Comments at 13.| Because the new BAS band  |$is in the same region of the spectrum as the current BAS band, we anticipate that no new  |$facilities will need to be constructed. We do not foresee that there will be any need physically  |$Ato relocate or rebuild any facilities. We are confident that the reaccommodation of BAS  |$<operations can be accomplished by simply replacing or retrofitting current equipment. The cost  |$of all steps necessary for clearing the 19902025 MHz band for MSS operations will be borne  X4 |$"by MSS operators. The Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making (Further Notice), below, proposes rules and policies for clearing the 19902025 MHz band for MSS.  X4C. Relocation of Existing 21652200 MHz Band Services.  XV4 G6!!34. The 21652200 MHz band is currently allocated to private and commercial FS, but  X?4 |$has been reserved for emerging technologies, such as MSS.sM? {O!'#C\  P6QIP#э See Notice at  14.s In the Notice, we stated that five  |$higher bands have already been allocated during our Emerging Technologies proceeding for  X4 |$/reaccommodation of the FS incumbents.N\~ {OB%' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See id. at  11. In the Emerging Technologies proceeding, we allocated the 37004200 MHz, 59256425  |$  MHz, 10.5510.68 GHz, and 10.711.7 GHz bands to private FS and the 65256875 MHz band to commercial FS  {O&'on a primary basis. See Emerging Technologies, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6495, 6523 (1993). We inquired whether sharing between MSS and FS"N,-(-(ZZ"  |$lwould be feasible, and whether FS incumbents should be relocated. Finally, we proposed to  X4require that MSS pay the costs of relocating FS incumbents, where necessary.jO {Ob'#C\  P6QIP#э See id. at  13.j  X4 G6!_"35. Comments on MSS/FS Spectrum Sharing. In general, the MSS community advocates  X4 |$Esharing between FS and MSS, at least in the early stages of MSS deployment.PZ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Comments at 810; COMSAT Comments at 1721; LQP Comments at 1416. COMSAT  |$presents studies which purport to demonstrate that sharing between FS and MSS downlinks in  |$"the 21652200 MHz band is feasible. Based on these studies, COMSAT claims that relocation  Xa4 |$Iof FS incumbents in the band is unnecessary.}Qa {O '#X\  P6G;IP#э See COMSAT Comments at 18, Appendix 2.} Constellation states that the Commission should  |$lconduct technical studies to determine the feasibility of sharing in the 2 GHz band, especially  X34 |$with respect to CDMA systems which have low power levels.wR3~ {Ob'#X\  P6G;IP#э See Constellation Comments at 3.w LQP also asserts that it has  |$conducted studies that demonstrate that MSS/FS sharing is feasible, and urges us to convene a  X 4FAC to resolve transition issues, including spectrum sharing.nS  {O'#X\  P6G;IP#э See LQP Comments at 16.n  G6!#36. Motorola, however, states that COMSAT's model has several shortcomings which  |$4must be addressed before we can confidently conclude that MSS downlink/FS sharing is  X 4 |$feasible,sT  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Motorola Reply at 1623.s a position which API and AAR share, arguing that COMSAT's sharing model does not  |$cdemonstrate the feasibility of sharing between MSS and FS, because it assumes too high a level  X{4 |$gof acceptable interferencelU{4  {O`'#C\  P6QIP#э See API Reply at 68.l and neglects a fading model and degradation criteria.V{  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See AAR Reply at 24. See also UTC Reply at 9. Motorola goes  |$on to state that it believes that sharing is not possible in the long term, and cites the conclusions  XM4 |$of the Report of the Conference Preparatory Meeting for WRC95, which rates the feasibility of  |$ MSS downlink/FS sharing as "ModeratePoor." Motorola therefore advocates immediate clearing  X!4 |$<of the 21652200 MHz band.W!X  {O*"'#X\  P6G;IP#э See Motorola Comments at 1518 (citing CPM Report). AFCCE and CBT also state that sharing between MSS and FS  X 4is not feasible, and that relocation of FS licensees is necessary.X  {O$'#X\  P6G;IP#э See AFCCE Comments at 2; CBT Comments at 7. "|X,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ G6!$37. In supplemental comments, the MSS Coalition states that MSS and FS will be able  |$pto share spectrum for several years, and therefore proposes that a gradual transition plan for FS  X4incumbent relocation be adopted.Y {OK' |$3 #C\  P6QIP#э See MSS Coalition Supplemental Comments at 4, 810, 1722. See also LQP Supplemental Comments at 4. Hughes favors the MSS Coalition MSS/FS sharing plan.}Z" {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Hughes Supplemental Comments at 2.}  G6!`%38. The majority of FS commenters argue that there are inadequacies in the MSS  X4 |$Coalition's sharing study.S[Z {O ' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See AAR Supplemental Comments at 6; APCO Supplemental Comments at 46; Dr. Bellamy Supplemental  |$ Comments at 1; California Supplemental Comments at 2, 4; CBPC Supplemental Comments at 1; UTC Supplemental Comments at 46. S TIA states that WRC95 only set out the criteria for MSS/FS sharing  Xv4 |$studies and then encouraged others to conduct the studies.|\v {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See TIA Supplemental Comments at 79.| API, Alcatel, and TIA contend that  X_4 |$MSS/FS sharing criteria should not be based on international standards.]_h  {Ox' |$/ #C\  P6QIP#э See Alcatel Supplemental Comments at 23; API Supplemental Comments at 78; TIA Supplemental Comments at 23. TIA and Alcatel in  XH4 |$<particular point out that there are differences between U.S. and international FS systems,^H  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Alcatel Supplemental Comments at 23; TIA Supplemental Comments at 23. and  |$API states that U.S. interference standards are stricter than international standards; therefore, they  X 4 |$_urge us to rely upon U.S. criteria.|_ T  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See API Supplemental Comments at 78.| API, APCO, and Alcatel suggest that we rely on TIA's  X 4 |$8TR14.11 committee to do any necessary MSS/FS sharing studies.`  {O' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See API Supplemental Comments at 78; Alcatel Supplemental Comments at 23; APCO Supplemental Comments at 46. The State of California  |$}(California) points out that COMSAT's proposal fails to take into account those highly populated  |$areas where interference is likely to occur sooner, and that the proposal fails to recognize  X 4 |$yinterference from MSS space or earth stations.a @ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See California Supplemental Comments at 25. UTC states that the MSS Coalition fails to  X 4 |$ provide any details of how MSS and FS can share in the 2 GHz band.|b  {O*"'#C\  P6QIP#э See UTC Supplemental Comments at 46.| The Central Iowa Power  |$Cooperative (CIPCO) states that some of its FS paths are over 18 miles in length. If sharing  |$4were required then CIPCO would have to lower the operating power of its equipment to  |$accommodate MSS, increasing the chances that its FS operations would receive unacceptable  XK4interference.|cKd {O`''#C\  P6QIP#э See CIPCO Supplemental Comments at 4.|"Kc,-(-(ZZQ"Ԍ X4 G6!ԙ&39. Comments on Relocation. If sharing proves to be infeasible, MSS interests generally  |$advocate a gradual transition of FS incumbents to other spectrum, with FS incumbents paying all  X4 |$or most of the costs of their relocation.d {OM'#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Comments at 810; COMSAT Comments at 1721; LQP Comments at 1416. For example, PCSAT advocates relocation of FS over  |$a gradual transition period so as to require FS licensees to pay for their own relocation as they  |$amortize their equipment. In the alternative, PCSAT states that we should limit the compensation  X4 |$ from MSS to FS to the incremental replacement costs of FS equipment.reZ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See PCSAT Comments at 610.r LQP suggests creating  Xx4 |$a FAC to resolve transition issues, such as the apportionment of FS relocation costs.qfx {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Comments at 1819.q TRW  |$notes that part of the recently allocated PCS spectrum (19701990 MHz) had been internationally  |$allocated to MSS, and if MSS had received this allocation domestically instead of PCS, FS would  |$not have to be relocated because of MSS. Therefore, TRW concludes, PCS operators should  X 4 |$have to pay at least part of the relocation costs of FS.og ~ {OK'#C\  P6QIP#э See TRW Comments at 79.o Iridium proposes that we adopt a sunset  |$policy on compensation for FS relocation similar to that used in our 1982 Digital Broadcasting  |$3Service proceeding. During the sunset period MSS would compensate FS licensees for relocation,  X 4 |$but after this period, FS licensees would have to pay their own relocation expenses.h^  {O' |$Q #C\  P6QIP#э See Iridium Comments at 12 (citing In re Inquiry into the Development of Regulatory Policy in Regard to  {Ob' |$ Direct Broadcast Satellites for the Period Following the 1983 Regional Administrative Conference, GEN Docket No.  {O,'80603, FCC 82285, Report and Order, 90 F.C.C.2d 676 (1982)). Celsat  X 4suggests allowing MSS to relocate FS incumbents in increments as MSS needs more spectrum.si 6  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Comments at 810.s  G6!''40. API and APCO, on the other hand, recommend that FS not be relocated for fear of  |$Idisruption of safetyrelated services provided by private FS licensees, claiming that relocation is  |$ha difficult and timeconsuming process with inherent uncertainty and risk. If relocation is  XM4 |$necessary, they recommend that provisions to effect the relocation be made without delay.jM  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See API Comments at 914; APCO Comments at 23.  |$Southwestern Bell stresses that reallocation of FS from the 21602180 MHz band to higher bands  |$would harm cellular service providers, because of the resultant need for shorter paths for cellular  X4 |$service backhaul links and increased equipment costs.}kZ  {O#'#C\  P6QIP#э See Southwestern Bell Comments at 13.} All of the FS commenters agree with  X4our proposal in the Notice that our Emerging Technologies rules should be followed.l {O%' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See API Comments at 1214; AAR Comments at 25; APCO Comments at 23; BellSouth Comments at 34; UTC Comments at 12. "Fl,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ G6!(41. In supplemental comments, the Corn Belt Power Cooperative (CBPC), APCO and  |$the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) point out that the MSS Coalition's plan  |$to relocate FS over a tenyear period by allowing FS incumbents to amortize their equipment and  X4 |$&replace it with the appropriate equipment at their own expense is unrealistic.m {O4'#C\  P6QIP#э See MDOT Supplemental Comments at 23; APCO Supplemental Comments at 34. MDOT states that  |$uit uses its equipment for up to 30 years, and to amortize its current equipment will take 20  X4 |$years.}nZ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See MDOT Supplemental Comments at 23.} APCO states that the average life of microwave equipment is 1520 years, and that  |$some private FS licensees have new equipment which would not be amortized until the decade  X_4 |$of the 2010s.}o_ {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See APCO Supplemental Comments at 34.} Ameritech points out that WRC95 moved up the date MSS is to have primary  |$access in the 2 GHz spectrum from the year 2005 to the year 2000, making COMSAT's tenyear  X14 |$plan unrealistic.p1~ {O`'#C\  P6QIP#э See Ameritech Supplemental Comments at 35. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (L.A. Sheriff) asserts that  |$public safety FS incumbents should not have to pay any direct or indirect cost associated with  X 4 |$relocation, because otherwise this burden would be passed on to taxpayers.q  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See L.A. Sheriff Supplemental Comments at 2. The majority of  |$FS commenters and other commenters advocate applying the Emerging Technologies rules  X 4adopted in ET Docket No. 929.rZ  {O(' |$* #C\  P6QIP# See API Supplemental Comments at 1011; Ameritech Supplemental Comments at 35; AAR Supplemental  |$ Comments at 24, 911; APCO Supplemental Comments at 34; BellSouth Supplemental Comments at 6; CIPCO  yO'Supplemental Comments at 5; UTC Supplemental Comments at 34.Ė  X 4 G6!)42. Decision. We will provide for MSS sharing with, and any necessary relocation of,  |$qFS incumbents in accordance with the policies set forth in our Emerging Technologies  |$proceeding. It is our policy to encourage spectrum sharing between emerging technologies  Xd4 |$Vservices and incumbent 2 GHz FS operations whenever technically feasible.sd  {O' |$ #X\  P6G;IP#э See, e.g., Emerging Technologies, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule Making at   yO'29. Our rules do not  |$require relocation of incumbents unless and until the incumbents will receive harmful interference  |$from, or cause harmful interference to, a new technology service. COMSAT and LQP have  |$provided studies indicating that sharing is possible on at least a shortterm basis. At the same  |$time, Motorola and some FS service representatives have criticized these studies, claiming that  |$they fail to account for important factors. MSS and FS industry groups are currently working  |$under the auspices of TIA to resolve differences over sharing models and adopt a set of mutually  |$@agreed sharing criteria. We encourage these efforts, and will consider the product of these efforts  |$for inclusion in our rules as the standard for evaluating the likelihood of unacceptable MSS/FS  |$<interference. MSS cannot begin operations until its spectrum is cleared of all FS licensees who"s,-(-(ZZ"  |$<would receive harmful interference from MSS, but MSS will not be required to relocate any FS  |$incumbent with whom it can successfully share spectrum. If a specific FS operation does not  |$receive unacceptable levels of interference until several years after the beginning of MSS operations, MSS will not be required to relocate the FS licensee until that interference occurs.  G6!*43. Where sharing proves infeasible, however, we will allow the MSS operator to relocate  |$cthe incumbent FS operation to bands above 5 GHz. We will address the precise mechanism for  X_4relocation in the Further Notice, below.  X34D. Technical Parameters for MSS Systems.  X 4 G6!+44. In the Notice, we proposed to make the newlyallocated MSS bands available for both  |$&GSO and LEO use; otherwise, we did not propose specific technical parameters for MSS systems  |$in the 19902025 MHz and 21652200 MHz bands. We requested comment, however, on  |$}whether these proposed new MSS bands should be limited to either exclusive GSO or LEO use;  |$Ion whether minimum geographic coverage requirements or a particular access method, such as  |$cCDMA, should be mandated for all MSS licensees; on what power limits should be imposed; on  |$Celsat's proposal to share spectrum with PCS at 19701990 MHz in order to provide a hybrid  |$PCS/MSS system; and on whether there is a need to allocate spectrum for feeder links to support  XQ4 |$2 GHz MSS.mtQ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Notice at  16.m These issues were addressed primarily by commenters who are potential MSS service providers or MSS equipment manufacturers.  X 4 G6![,45. Comments. With regard to orbital geometries,u Z yO'#C\  P6QIP#э Orbital geometries are the type of orbits satellites describe, such as GSO or LEO. Celsat advocates reservation of the  |$entire 70 megahertz of spectrum for GSO systems, because MSS spectrum in the 1.6/2.4 GHz  |$3band is reserved exclusively for LEO systems and licensed to MSS providers using these systems.  |$Reserving the spectrum at issue to GSO systems, according to Celsat, will ensure diversity of  X4 |$Iservice providers and encourage competition.qv {OM'#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Comments at 11.q COMSAT and others disagree, stating that we  |$should mandate no orbital geometry now, and that we should either allow the market to decide  X4 |$/what is the best orbital geometryw| {O ' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 33; Ericsson Comments at 13; Newcomb Comments at 27; TRW Comments at 25. or wait until after an allocation plan is finished to decide this  Xm4 |$Vissue.qxm {O#'#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Comments at 2023.q In its reply comments, LQP asserts that we should reject Celsat's attempt to close this  |$spectrum to current MSS licensees employing LEO systems by mandating GSO, because the  |$Commission can encourage competition, as Celsat urges, by licensing multiple systems, and because current satellite providers are in the best position to improve service."(h x,-(-(ZZ""Ԍ G6!ԙ-46. With regard to access methods, Celsat states that we should mandate use of CDMA  |$ytechnology, which it claims will allow many licensees to share the same spectrum and permit  |$&more energyefficient coding, greater tolerance for interference from incumbent licensees, greater  |$gprotection from interference to incumbent licensees, and greater frequency reuse, as well as avoid  X4 |$hmutual exclusivity in licensing.y {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See  Celsat Comments at 1118. See also TRW Comments at 24. Newcomb adds a recommendation that we either adopt  |$uCDMA, or split the band into subbands of 17.5 megahertz in each direction, for separate  Xv4 |$"assignment to GSO and LEO systems.szvZ {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See Newcomb Comments at 79.s LQP argues that we should wait until after we finish  X_4 |$+allocating spectrum to MSS to take up technical issues.q{_ {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Comments at 2023.q Other commenters disagree with  |$/Celsat, stating that we should remain technologically neutral and allow the market to decide the  X14 |$best access methodology.|1~ {O`'#C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 3334; Ericsson Comments at 13; Motorola Comments at 1114. In its reply comments, LQP adds that CDMA is superior to time  |$division multiple access (TDMA) in terms of multiple entry, capacity, and spectrum efficiency,  X 4but continues to advocate waiting until after the allocation is made to decide the issue.n}  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Reply at 1618.n  G6!.47. With regard to geographic coverage requirements, COMSAT advocates the imposition  X 4 |$of the same requirements as those imposed on Big LEOs, i.e., coverage of the entire globe from  X 4 |$70-N to 55-S for 75% of each day, stating that these would provide effective global coverage  X4 |$while containing costs.q~ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 34.q LQP, PCSAT, and TRW argue that imposing no coverage standard will  X{4 |$allow for more varied and flexible MSS system design.{4  {O`'#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Comments at 2023; PCSAT Comments at 45; TRW Comments at 25. Motorola states that LEO and GSO  |$systems should be assigned to separate bands, with GSO systems allowed to provide coverage  XM4 |$8only in regions they choose to serve.vM  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Motorola Comments at 1011.v In its reply comments, Celsat argues that we should  |$allow for GSObased domesticonly service in at least part of the band, stating that this will allow  |$lowercost domestic systems that will not have to pay for the capacity needed for international  X4coverage.qX  {O#'#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Reply at 1417.q  G6!=/48. With regard to power limits, COMSAT argues that there is no reason to limit the  |$power from MSS handsets, except to the extent necessary to meet existing RF hazard guidelines",-(-(ZZ"  X4 |$ for handheld transmitters.q {Oy'#X\  P6G;IP#э See 47 C.F.R.  2.1093.q COMSAT further argues that coordination with other services in the  X4 |$downlink band is preferable to setting absolute power limits.tZ {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 3536.t Motorola states that no power  X4 |$limit should be placed on the band,v {Oo'#C\  P6QIP#э See Motorola Comments at 1114.v and LQP believes that the issue should be taken up later.w~ {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Comments at 2023.w  |$Only TRW advocates a specific power limit, stating that in order to maximize capacity and  |$minimize interference, we should specify a maximum power flux density from each space station  X4of 137 dB(W/m2/4 kHz).n {ON '#C\  P6QIP#э See TRW Comments at 26.n  G6!049. With regard to feeder link spectrum, COMSAT asserts that 2 GHz MSS should be  |$allowed to use any FixedSatellite Service (FSS) bands allocated by WRC95 for MSS feeder  X14 |$links.q1 {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 37.q PCSAT states that feeder link spectrum in the 11 GHz and 13 GHz bands, currently  |$yallocated to FSS, should be authorized for MSS use, and points out that the American Mobile  X 4Satellite Corporation's first generation MSS system already uses these bands for feeder links.o 4  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See PCSAT Comments at 5.o  G6!150. Finally, with regard to Celsat's proposal to allow these bands to be used to create a  |$hybrid PCS/MSS system, in which a single handheld earth terminal could access either terrestrial  X 4 |$cPCS or MSS,r  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Notice at  3.r LQP argues that such a system would, in part, merely replicate terrestrial PCS,  X4 |$3and therefore would not be an efficient use of spectrum.nX  {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See LQP Comments at 23.n Celsat replies that its proposed system  |$would not be merely redundant, but would be more flexible than terrestrial PCS alone, and would  |$immediately cover areas where PCS is not available and marginal areas, such as sparsely XK4populated rural regions.qK {O!'#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Reply at 1417.q  X4 G6!+251. Decision. We are deferring consideration of these technical issues until after we have  |$&accepted applications for system licenses in these bands. We are not persuaded by arguments for  |$_or against restricting use of the spectrum exclusively to either GSO or LEO systems. Either  |$system can provide global coverage, and while a GSO system offers many advantages for  |$cdomesticonly systems, we do not wish to rule out innovative designs before they are submitted. "|,-(-(ZZ"  |$Further, as Motorola pointed out, in our proceeding to license Big LEO systems, we concluded  |$that there was no support for a finding that CDMA is inherently superior to TDMA as an access  X4 |$umethod. {OK'#C\  P6QIP#э See Big LEOs, Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5936 at n. 52 (1994). We believe that the market will be the best judge of the relative desirability of  |$different access methods. We also believe that we will be in a better position to determine  |$whether and what power limits we should adopt and to evaluate Celsat's proposal for a hybrid  |$PCS/MSS system after we have received license applications and supporting documentation. Finally, we will address feeder link spectrum in proceedings addressing those bands.  XH4E. Licensing by Competitive Bidding.  X 4 G6!h352. In the Notice, we notified the public of our intent to award licenses for MSS in these  |$bands by competitive bidding. We stated our belief that, of the options for awarding MSS  |$licenses, competitive bidding best serves the public interest where mutual exclusivity exists among  |$lapplicants. We sought comment on whether our proposal to award licenses by simultaneous  X 4multiple round bidding was the most appropriate method of awarding MSS licenses.m Z {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See Notice at  17.m  X4 G6!453. Comments. All commenters opposed the idea of awarding MSS licenses by  |$competitive bidding. First, commenters argue that we are required to show mutual exclusivity  |$cin order to use competitive bidding for licenses, and that we have not done so, because we have  XQ4 |$not yet accepted applications for licenses.!Q {O' |$3 #C\  P6QIP#э See Constellation Comments at 4; GE Americom Comments at 45; Hughes Comments at 25; Motorola Comments at 2627; PCSAT Comments at 1113; Teledesic Comments at 1014; TRW Comments at 1820.! Several state that engineering solutions such as the  |$use of CDMA, or negotiations, service rules, and financial qualification thresholds can be used  X#4 |$to avoid mutual exclusivity.#F {O' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 2527; GE Americom Comments at 45; LQP Comments at 2527; PCSAT Comments at 1113; Teledesic Comments at 1014; TRW Comments at 1820. Noting that MSS is international in nature, commenters assert that  |$Alicensing by competitive bidding raises two international problems. First, auctioning MSS  |$spectrum in the United States could "open the door" for other countries to require MSS providers  X4 |$Vto pay for the same spectrum in each country. {O/ ' |$@ #C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 2730; GE Americom Comments at 20; Hughes Comments at 25; Motorola Comments at 2526; PCSAT Comments at 1314; Teledesic Comments at 1014; TRW Comments at 2123. Second, the international coordination process  |$required before MSS providers could begin service would make it uncertain exactly how much  |$spectrum any MSS provider would actually receive, which in turn would make it extremely  X4 |$difficult to assign an appropriate value to the spectrum.  {OD%' |$  #C\  P6QIP#э See GE Americom Comments at 1516; Hughes Comments a 25, Motorola Comments at 2526; PCSAT Comments at 1314; TRW Comments at 2123. Several commenters state that the cost  |$<of spectrum auctions, added to the costs of relocation of incumbent licensees and system costs,"T ,-(-(ZZ"  X4 |$would make MSS economically infeasible. {Oy' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See COMSAT Comments at 2930; GE Americom Comments at 1516;Hughes Comments at 25; Motorola Comments at 2526; PCSAT Comments at 1113; CEPT Reply at 2; LQP Reply at 2327. A number of commenters argue that auctions would  |$also put MSS at a competitive disadvantage with respect to foreign MSS systems and Big LEOs,  |$and would not be consistent with our stated goal of providing lowcost service to underserved and  X4 |$rural areas." {O' |$< #C\  P6QIP#э See Hughes Comments at 25; Motorola Comments at 2526; PCSAT Comments at 1314; Teledesic Comments at 1014; TRW Comments at 2123; ICO Reply at 2. Celsat asserts that if we assign this spectrum by competitive bidding, small  |$businesses defined by Celsat as businesses with annual revenues of less than $125 million and  |$assets of less than $500 million should be given a 15 percent bidding credit and a favorable  Xv4payment plan, in order to promote competition.tv| {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See Celsat Comments at 1920.t  XH4 G6! 554. Decision. We will defer the decision on whether to license MSS in these bands by  |$competitive bidding until after we have accepted applications for licensing. As many commenters  |$ypoint out, we will not know if there is mutual exclusivity until we receive license applications.  |$At that point, we will decide whether engineering solutions or other methods may solve mutual exclusivity, and if not, precisely how we will structure auctions.  X 4F. Disposition of Celsat's Pioneer's Preference Request.  G6!J655. Our pioneer's preference rules were established to provide a means of extending  |$preferential treatment in our licensing processes to parties that demonstrate their responsibility  Xf4 |$/for developing new communications services and technologies.Pf {O%' |$x #C\  P6QIP#э The pioneer's preference regulations are codified at 47 C.F.R.  0.241, 1.402, and 5.207. See Establishment  {O' |$Q of Procedures to Provide a Preference, GEN Docket No. 90217, Report and Order (Pioneer's Preference Report  {O' |$ and Order), 6 FCC Rcd 3488 (1991), recon. granted in part, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 7 FCC Rcd 1808  {O' |$t (1992), further recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 1659 (1993). In October 1993, the  {OM' |$ Commission initiated a review of the pioneer's preference rules; see ET Docket No. 93266, Notice of Proposed Rule  {O' |$Z Making, 8 FCC Rcd 7692 (1993); First Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 605 (1994), recon. denied, Memorandum  {O' |$Z Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 6837 (1994); Second Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule  {O' |$ Making, 10 FCC Rcd 4523 (1995), recon. denied, Memorandum Opinion and Order,11 FCC 2468 (1996); Third  {Ou' |$M Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 13183 (1995), recon. granted, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 11 FCC 2468  {O? ' |$ (1996). See also ET Docket No. 93266 and GEN Docket No. 90314 (broadband PCS), Memorandum Opinion and  {O !'Order on Remand, 9 FCC Rcd 4055 (1994).P A party awarded a pioneer's  |$preference receives the right to obtain a license to operate in the service that it has innovated,  |$using the design and technologies upon which its award is based. The pioneer's preference rules  |$Iensure that innovators have an opportunity to participate either in new services which they take  X 4 |$ha lead in developing or in existing services which they substantially enhance. A pioneer's  |$cpreference applicant must persuade us that its proposal is innovative, has merit, and that it is the original developer of the innovation at issue. ",-(-(ZZ "Ԍ G6!ԙ756. Under the pioneer's preference rules, a necessary condition for the award of a  |$<preference is that the applicant demonstrate that it has developed the capabilities or possibilities  |$of a new technology or service, or demonstrate that it has brought the technology or service to  X4 |$pa more advanced or effective state.s {O4'#C\  P6QIP#э See 47 C.F.R.  1.402(a).s A preference is granted only if the service rules adopted  |$8are a reasonable outgrowth of the applicant's proposal and lend themselves to the grant of a  X4 |$hpreference.^Z {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See id.^ The applicant must also demonstrate that the new technology or service is  |$technically feasible by submitting either the summarized results of an experiment or a technical  X_4 |$showing.p_ {O '#C\  P6QIP#э See 47 C.F.R.  5.207.p Finally, preferences are not granted casually. Rather, each applicant has a significant  XH4burden to persuade us that its proposal is innovative.H~ {Ow'#C\  P6QIP#э Pioneer's Preference Report and Order, 6 FCC Rcd 3494, at  48.  G6!857. In conjunction with its February 1992 Petition for Rule Making (RM7927), Celsat  |$filed a pioneer's preference request. Celsat amended its petition in July 1993 and amended its  |$pioneer's preference request in December 1993. As described in its amended petition, Celsat  |$seeks a pioneer's preference for an integrated GSO satellite/terrestrial cellular and microcellular  |$hmobile service that would use code division multiple access (CDMA) technology. Celsat  |$maintains that this system would have benefits and advantages in cost and overall spectrum  |$efficiency relative to separate PCS and MSS systems. It states that its hybrid MSS service could  |$operate in either a portable (personal) or mobile (vehicular) terrestrial mode, but is primarily a  |$satellite service. Celsat submits that this service will provide important new features, such as  |$position determination, transmissions with data speeds of up to 144 kilobits per second, and  |$}compressed video, in addition to conventional mobile voice and messaging. Celsat further states  |$Vthat because its system will cover only the United States, coordination with other nations will be  |$relatively simple. Celsat contends that its proposed service would allow direct access to satellite  |$hcommunications through personal handsets and that it will be able to share spectrum with terrestrial PCS without interference.  G6!958. In April 1992, AMSC Subsidiary Corporation (AMSC), GTE Service Corporation  |$E(GTE), Loral Qualcomm Satellite Services, Inc. (LQSS), and TRW each filed oppositions to  |$Celsat's pioneer's preference request. AMSC argues that the concept of a single mobile system  |$using terrestrial and satellite elements in different geographic areas on the same frequencies is  |$pnot novel, and that Celsat has not developed and tested the technology necessary to create such  |$a system. GTE concurs, contending that Celsat was not the first party to propose integrating  |$mobile satellites with terrestrialbased mobile systems, and that Celsat has failed to make a  |$technical feasibility showing. GTE also argues that the time delay inherent in a GSO personal  |$ycommunications system may render it undesirable to consumers, and that Celsat should have  |$<employed market surveys or tests to demonstrate consumer acceptance of such delays. LQSS",-(-(ZZ"  |$Vasserts that Celsat has not developed any new or innovative technology, and states that CDMA  |$was developed by Qualcomm, Inc. LQSS also contends that Celsat has not demonstrated the  |$ technical feasibility of its system. TRW maintains that Celsat is requesting a pioneer's preference  |$Efor technologies developed by other parties, and states that Celsat has failed to show that its  |$3proposed system is technically feasible. AMSC, LQSS, and TRW also raise procedural objections  |$to Celsat's pioneer's preference request, as do Constellation Communications, Inc. and Ellipsat  |$Corporation, which each filed motions to dismiss both Celsat's original petition and pioneer's preference request.  X14 G6!u:59. In the Notice, we stated that we would defer action on Celsat's pioneer's preference  |$request until final action had been taken in the pioneer's preference review proceeding, ET  X 4 |$&Docket No. 93266.j  {O~ '#C\  P6QIP#э See Notice at n. 6.j Action has now been completed in that proceeding; accordingly, we herein  X 4take action on Celsat's pioneer's preference request. Z {O' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э By Public Notice released May 14, 1996, Celsat was required to submit a supplement to its pioneer's preference request. It did so on June 21, 1996.  X 4 G6!;60. Decision. We find that Celsat's pioneer's preference request fails to meet the  |$pioneer's preference criteria. We find Celsat's proposal insufficiently innovative to warrant a  |$pioneer's preference, and we find that Celsat has not demonstrated the technical feasibility of its proposal.  G6!<61. Celsat claims as the innovative features of its system the use of CDMA, GSO  |$satellites with large multibeam antennas, operation in the 2 GHz band, and hybrid space and  X!4 |$"terrestrial operation of its proposed system.! {O'#C\  P6QIP#э See, e.g., Celsat Amendment to Request for Pioneer's Preference at 2627. We note, however, that CDMA is used in many  |$communications systems, and, as LQSS points out, CDMA was not developed or improved by  X4 |$/Celsat.F {O'#C\  P6QIP#Ѝ See LQSS Comments in Opposition at 57. We further note that the use of GSO satellites for continuous service to a given area  |$Iis also a technique already heavily used in satellite communications, and the fact that the 2 GHz  |$band is useful for satellite services is reflected in the fact that there are satellite allocations in the  X4 |$V2 GHz band. {O7!'#X\  P6G;IP#э See, e.g., Big LEOs Report and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 5936 (1994). In addition, hybrid space and ground operation of a communications system has  X4 |$calso been proposed by others before Celsat's request.Dj  {O#' |$ #C\  P6QIP#э See GTE Comments in Opposition at 9 (citing Chien, Goodman, Russell, Cellular Access Digital Network  {O|$'(CADN): Wireless Access to Networks of the Future, 25 IEEE Communications Magazine 2231 (1987)).D We thus find that Celsat's combination of these current techniques is not sufficiently innovative to warrant a pioneer's preference. "i ,-(-(ZZ"Ԍ G6!`=62. Celsat also has not presented a demonstration of the technical feasibility of its  |$8proposal. Our rules require that a pioneer's preference applicant present either summarized  X4 |$results of an experiment or a technical showing of feasibility.p {OK'#C\  P6QIP#э See 47 C.F.R.  5.207.p Celsat has not performed an  |$experiment to demonstrate the technical feasibility of its proposal, and while Celsat's pioneer's  |$ppreference request presents a large amount of technical data on its proposed system's coverage  |$Ipattern, frequency plan, and marketing figures, this data does not constitute a technical showing of feasibility.  G6!>63. As indicated above, the burden is on the pioneer's preference applicant to demonstrate  |$that its proposal is both innovative and technically feasible. For the foregoing reasons, we  |$@conclude that Celsat has failed to meet this burden, and we therefore deny its pioneer's preference request.  X 4c  FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULE MAKING ă  X4 G6!q?64. In the First Report and Order, above, we modified the BAS allocation from 120  |$megahertz at 19902110 MHz to 105 megahertz at 20252130 MHz, and stated that we will  |$require MSS operators to pay the costs of relocating BAS incumbents into the new BAS band,  |$pincluding the costs of clearing FS incumbents from the 21102130 MHz portion of the new BAS  |$band. We further provided for MSS/FS sharing of the 21652200 MHz band where such sharing  |$is possible without unacceptable mutual interference. In cases where sharing is not possible, we  |$@allowed MSS operators to relocate FS incumbents to frequencies above 5 GHz in accordance with  X4 |$our Emerging Technologies policies. In this Further Notice, we propose specific details of relocation, and request comment on our proposals.  X4 G6!8@65. Relocation of Existing 19902025 MHz Band Services. In the Notice, we proposed  |$_to accomplish relocation of BAS incumbents in accordance with our Emerging Technologies  |$policies, with modifications necessitated by the differences between FS, for which our Emerging  |$Technologies policies were formulated, and BAS. We continue to adhere to that principle, but  |$also propose details of the relocation process for BAS. We propose to channelize the new BAS  |$band into seven channels of 15 megahertz bandwidth, with the new channelization plan to become  |$primary on January 1, 2000, or the day after the last FS licensee in the 21102130 MHz band has  |$been relocated in accordance with Sections 101.69101.81 of the Commission's rules, whichever  |$date is later. We further propose to allow MSS operators to negotiate with BAS licensees for relocation.  G6!iA66. The current BAS band is divided into seven channels. Commenters in this  X"4 |$proceeding stated that BAS at 2 GHz is currently heavily used."Z {O&'#X\  P6G;IP#э See MSTV Comments at 10; SBE Comments at 12; CBT Comments at 7. For this reason, we propose"",-(-(ZZ "  |$cto retain the sevenchannel plan for the BAS band. Each channel of the new BAS band will be  X4 |$<15 megahertz wide. yOb' |$ #X\  P6G;IP#э We propose that the new BAS band will consist of seven channels, with frequencies of 20252040 MHz, 20402055 MHz, 20552070 MHz, 20702085 MHz, 20852100 MHz, 21002115 MHz, and 21152130 MHz. We believe that replacement of current BAS equipment with equipment  |$having narrower intermediate frequency bandpass to avoid degradation in adjacentchannel  |$rejection will be all that is necessary to relocate BAS incumbents. In the case of newer  |$equipment, simply retuning the equipment to the new frequencies may suffice for relocation of BAS incumbents.  G6!B67. Rechannelizing BAS raises a problem not encountered in our Emerging Technologies  |$proceeding. A BAS transceiver operating in any channel of the new channel plan except the new  |$channel A1 (20252040 MHz) will overlap two channels of the current BAS band. Similarly, a  |$BAS transceiver operating on the current channel plan will overlap two channels of the new BAS  |$ band. We propose to allow BAS licensees to operate under the new channel plan on a secondary  |$basis, so long as operations under the new channel plan do not interfere with BAS operations  |$under the current channel plan. After the new channel plan becomes primary, we propose to  |$allow BAS licensees to operate under the current channel plan on a secondary basis. This  |$scenario would allow for testing and operation of new equipment, provided these operations do not interfere with other users of the band.  G6!,C68. We note that BAS tends to be both local in nature and highly directional in its  |$emissions. For this reason, we inquire whether we should allow a more flexible channelization  |$of the new BAS band. For example, it is possible that in some markets not all of the seven BAS  |$channels will be needed, and BAS licensees in these markets may prefer to adhere to the current  |$BAS channel plan, simply forgoing the use of channels A1 and A2 (19902025 MHz) and thus  |$Iusing only the five remaining channels, rather than changing to the proposed channelization plan  |$Ifor the new BAS band. It is also possible that by switching to digital equipment, BAS licensees  |$8may be able to operate with narrower channels, thus allowing for more than seven channels  |$within the new BAS band. We thus request comment on whether we should allow for flexible  |$Rchannelization of the new BAS band. If so, should we designate one channelization plan as  |$primary and any others as secondary, as proposed above, in order to resolve any cases of  |$Vinterference that may arise? Further, we note that it is possible that the broadcast industry may  |$convert to digital BAS in the future. We request comment on likely scenarios for conversion  |$pfrom analog to digital BAS, and the implications such a conversion may have for BAS spectrum requirements.  G6!\D69. Because BAS and FS generally cannot share spectrum, the relocation and  |$<rechannelization of the BAS band in any specific geographic area must be coordinated with the  |$clearing of FS licensees in that area from the 21102130 MHz band. We propose to set a specific  |$date by which all relocation and rechannelization of BAS, and the accompanying relocation of  |$cincumbent FS licenses in the 21102130 MHz band, will be expected to be completed nationally.  |$That is, we propose to make the new BAS channelization plan above primary on January 1, 2000,"# ,-(-(ZZ!"  |$3or the day after the last FS licensee in the 21102130 MHz band has been relocated in accordance  |$with Sections 101.69101.81 of the Commission's rules, whichever date is later. The primary  |$status of the new BAS channelization plan, however, would be subject to the rights of the  |$relocated FS incumbents to be returned to their original facilities within one year if their relocated  |$facilities or equipment prove not to be equivalent to their original facilities, in accordance with  X4 |$the Emerging Technologies rules. {O'#X\  P6G;IP#э See  47 C.F.R. 101.69(e) and the discussion of FS relocation below. In that event, we tentatively believe that we should maintain  |$uthe primary status of the current BAS spectrum and channelization for one year after the  |$/relocation of the last FS licensee from the 21102130 MHz band. We request comment on this  |$"proposal. For example, is the January 1, 2000 date appropriate? Can BAS equipment tuned to  |$pthe new channelization plan be manufactured in sufficient quantity by that date? In addition, we  |$}seek comment on whether it is necessary to clear completely fixed services from the 21102130  |$pMHz band before relocated BAS operations can begin in that band. For example, depending on  |$Ithe geographic deployment of incumbent fixed services, are there circumstances under which it  |$would be possible for BAS operations to begin within the 21102130 MHz without immediately  |$Eclearing existing fixed services? Parties are invited to comment on the feasibility of such an  |$"arrangement, giving specific cases of how this alternative might be carried out in practice. We  |$also encourage the MSS, BAS, and FS industries to study the feasibility of band sharing between  |$/any two or all three of these services, on a short term or permanent basis. We would carefully  |$consider any complete or partial solutions to sharing problems agreed upon by the industries involved.  G6!JE70. In our Emerging Technologies proceeding, we encouraged the parties involved in  |$relocation to negotiate relocation agreements voluntarily, and stated that we would accommodate  X4 |$8any agreement which is consistent with our rules. Z {O' |$^ #X\  P6G;IP#э See Emerging Technologies , ET Docket 929, First Report and Order and Third Notice of Proposed Rule  {O'Making, 7 FCC Rcd 6886 at  24.  In order to ensure that the transition of  |$current services and introduction of new services cannot be stymied by parties unwilling to  |$negotiate, we established a twoyear voluntary negotiation period, commencing with our  |$acceptance of applications for licensing of new technology services. After that period, we  |$established that a new technology provider could invoke a oneyear mandatory negotiation period  |$}by a written request to the current licensee to negotiate relocation terms. During the mandatory  |$period, the parties would be required to negotiate in good faith, but again the parameters of the  |$ynegotiation are left to the parties. We determined that this twophase negotiation period best  X74 |$"balanced the needs of the parties involved.7 {O"' |$b #X\  P6G;IP#э See Emerging Technologies, ET Docket 929, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd 6589 at  1516. After this negotiation period, the new technology  |$provider may involuntarily relocate the current licensee. We propose to apply the same policy  |$here for MSS negotiations with all pertinent BAS and FS licensees, including FS licensees who  |$must be relocated from the 21102130 MHz band, in order to clear that band for BAS relocation. In order for a MSS provider to involuntarily relocate a BAS licensee:",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X4  jԙXX` ` All relocation expenses would be paid entirely by the displacing MSS   aprovider. These expenses would include all engineering, equipment, and site costs and FCC fees, as well as any reasonable additional costs. `  X4  k` ` Relocation facilities or equipment would be required to be fully comparable to those being replaced.(#`  X_4  k` ` All activities necessary for placing the new facilities or equipment into operation,   k9including clearing incumbents from the 21102130 MHz band into which BAS will   kFbe relocated, engineering, and frequency coordination, would be completed before relocation.(#`  X 4  k` ` The new facilities or equipment would be fully built and tested before the relocation may commence.(#`  X 4  k9` ` Should the new facilities or equipment, within one year, prove not to be equivalent   kin every respect to the relocated facilities, the displacing MSS provider would be   krequired to move the relocated operation to its original facilities or equipment until complete equivalency is attained.(#`  |$VWe request comment on whether this is the appropriate plan for relocation of BAS incumbents.  |$Particularly, we inquire whether the starting date for voluntary negotiations should be later, given  |$+that we have proposed to require FS licensees to be cleared from the 21102130 MHz band  |$before BAS relocation can commence. We further seek comment on relocation procedures.  |$<Should we follow the procedures of our Emerging Technologies rules? If so, should we modify  |$those procedures for the BAS band as we propose below to modify the procedures for FS  |$relocation? Should we make other modifications to the Emerging Technologies rules, such as  |$taking the value and age of BAS equipment into account in deciding appropriate costs in the case  X|4 |$of involuntary relocation? Finally, should we establish a "sunset" date, i.e., a reasonable time for  |$relocation after which any BAS licensees who have not been relocated will be required to vacate  |$'the spectrum without compensation? We applied such a provision to FS licensees in our  X94 |$<Microwave CostSharing proceeding.^9 {O' |$ #X\  P6G;IP#э In re Amendment to the Commission's Rules Regarding a Plan for Sharing the Costs of Microwave  {O|' |$ Relocation (Microwave CostSharing), WT Docket 95157, First Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed  {OF 'Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 8825 (1996). See also  75 infra. If we apply a similar sunset date in the case of BAS relocation, what should that date be?  G6!iF71. As we noted above, however, negotiating relocation with BAS incumbents  |$individually could lead to interference between licensees on the current BAS channel plan and  |$licensees on the new BAS channel plan. We inquire further as to whether we should require  |$BAS incumbents to negotiate on a collective basis with MSS operators, with the results to be  |$binding upon all BAS licensees. If so, should we require all BAS incumbents in each market,"",-(-(ZZ "  |$or all incumbents nationwide, to be represented in negotiations by a single organization? We also  |$seek comment on whether we should freeze new BAS license applications during the negotiation  |$period. If we do not freeze new applications, given that new BAS license applicants would be  |$on notice of the pending relocation of BAS, should we subject new BAS licenses issued after the  X4 |$release of this Further Notice to a condition requiring relocation to be at their licensees' own expense?  G6!G72. In order to encourage early, voluntary negotiations, we should discourage MSS  |$operators from waiting for another MSS operator to clear the spectrum at its own expense,  |$<allowing "free riders" to begin operations later without having borne any of the costs of clearing  |$the spectrum. Ideally, all initial MSS licensees in the band will divide the tasks and costs of  |$"early clearing of the band, but this may not be the case. For this reason, we propose to require  |$subsequently entering MSS licensees in the 19902025 MHz band to compensate earlier MSS  |$operators for the reasonable costs incurred in clearing the spectrum. Under this proposal,  |$hsubsequently entering MSS licensees would be required to compensate earlier entrants in  |$proportion to the amount of spectrum the subsequent entrant would be authorized to use. We seek comment on this proposal.  Xd4 G6!H73. Relocation of Existing 21102130 MHz and 21652200 MHz Band Services. As we  XO4 |$gstated in the First Report and Order, we encourage sharing of the 21652200 MHz band between  |$MSS and FS licensees. Wherever such sharing is possible, we will not mandate the relocation  |$Iof the FS incumbent. Where sharing is not possible however, we intend to require relocation of the incumbent FS licensee to bands above 5 GHz.  G6!=I74. In general, we propose to follow our Emerging Technologies policies in providing  |$yfor the relocation of FS incumbents from the 21102130 MHz and 21652200 MHz bands, as  |$codified at 47 C.F.R.  101.69101.81. Incumbents will be relocated from the 21102130 MHz  |$band to clear that band for relocated BAS operations. In our Emerging Technologies proceeding,  |$8we established two periods for negotiation between new emerging technology licensees and  |$"incumbent FS licensees. The first period is for voluntary negotiations, in which the parties may  |$arrive at any mutually agreeable solution. Negotiations during this period are strictly voluntary,  |$"and we established no parameters for these negotiations. The voluntary period begins with our  |$Iacceptance of license applications for the emerging technology service, and lasts for two years,  X4 |$or, in the case of public safety FS, three years.F {O ' |$* #X\  P6G;IP#э Public safety FS licensees eligible for the threeyear voluntary negotiation period are defined in Emerging  {OR!'Technologies, ET Docket 929, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 1943 at  3641.F The voluntary period is followed by a  |$mandatory negotiation period, which begins at any time after expiration of the voluntary period  |$when the emerging technologies licensee informs the FS incumbent in writing of the emerging  |$technology licensee's desire to negotiate relocation. During the mandatory period, the parties  |$<would be required to negotiate in good faith, but again the parameters of the negotiation are left  |$to the parties. The mandatory period lasts for one year, or two years for public safety FS""$,-(-(ZZ "  X4 |$incumbents. {Oy' |$o #X\  P6G;IP#э See Emerging Technologies, ET Docket 929, Third Report and Order and Memorandum Opinion and Order, 8 FCC Rcd. 6589 at  15. Should the parties fail to reach an agreement during the mandatory negotiation  X4 |$period, the emerging technology provider would be able to request involuntary relocation of the  |$existing facility. Involuntary relocation requires that the emerging technology provider (1)  |$guarantee payment of all costs of relocating the incumbent to a comparable facility; (2) complete  |$Eall activities necessary for placing the new facilities into operation, including engineering and  X4 |$[frequency coordination; and (3) build and test the new FS or alternative system.i" {O` '#X\  P6G;IP#э See id. at  5.i Once  |$Icomparable facilities are made available to the incumbent microwave operator, the Commission  |$lwill amend the 2 GHz license of the incumbent to secondary status. After relocation, the FS  |$+incumbent is entitled to a oneyear trial period to determine whether the facilities are indeed  |$comparable, and if they are not, the emerging technologies licensee is required to remedy the  |$defects or pay to relocate the FS incumbent back to its former or an equivalent 2 GHz  X 4frequency.{  {Oh'#X\  P6G;IP#э See 47 C.F.R.  21.50, 94.59.{  X 4 G6!J75. We propose to modify our Emerging Technologies policies to some extent. In our  X 4 |$uMicrowave CostSharing proceeding, we decided that a fair balance between emerging  |$technologies and FS incumbents is struck by allowing an FS incumbent to retain primary status  |$unless and until an emerging technology licensee requires use of the spectrum, while providing  |$that the emerging technology licensee will no longer be obligated to pay relocation costs ten years  |$after the voluntary negotiation period begins for the first emerging technology licensees in the  |$service. We stated that once the relocation rules "sunset," an emerging technology licensee may  |$require the incumbent to either cease operations or relocate itself to alternate facilities at its own  |$expense, provided the emerging technology licensee intends to start operation of a system within  |$hinterference range of the incumbent, as determined by TIA Bulletin 10F or any standard  |$successor document. We provided that the new technology licensee must notify the FS  |$cincumbent in writing, and must provide the incumbent with no less than six months to vacate the  |$spectrum. After the sixmonth period has expired, the incumbent must surrender its 2 GHz  X4license to the Commission, unless the parties agreed to allow the incumbent to operate.jF {O'#X\  P6G;IP#э See id. at  65.j  X~4 G6!FK76. In our Microwave CostSharing proceeding, we also provided guidelines for  |$negotiation in good faith during the mandatory negotiation period. These guidelines stated that  |$we expect incumbent FS licensees to allow inspection of their facilities by the emerging  |$technologies (there, PCS) licensee and to provide any other information that the PCS licensee  |$8needs in order to evaluate the cost of relocating the incumbent to comparable facilities. We  |$Istated that we would consider claims that a party has not negotiated in good faith on a caseby X4 |$Ecase basis, and that we will consider, inter alia, the following factors: (1) whether the PCS" ,-(-(ZZ"  X4 |$licensee has made a bona fide offer to relocate the incumbent to comparable facilities; (2) if the  X4 |$+microwave (FS) incumbent has demanded a premium, the type of premium requested (e.g.,  |$whether the premium is directly related to relocation, such as systemwide relocations and analog |$todigital conversions, versus other types of premiums) and whether the value of the premium as  X4 |$compared to the cost of providing comparable facilities is disproportionate (i.e., whether there  |$Eis a lack of proportion or relation between the two); (3) what steps the parties have taken to  |$pdetermine the actual cost of relocation to comparable facilities; and (4) whether either party has  |$withheld information requested by the other party that is necessary to estimate relocation costs  |$or to facilitate the relocation process. Finally, to ensure that parties do not bring frivolous bad  |$faith claims, we also required any party alleging a violation of our good faith requirement to  |$provide an independent estimate of the relocation costs of the facilities in question. We provided  |$that independent estimates must include specifications for the comparable facility and statements  X 4of the costs associated with providing those facilities to the incumbent licensees.w  {Ok '#X\  P6G;IP#э See id. at  2122.w  X 4 G6!~L77. We propose to provide for FS relocation in this case using the same sunset period  X 4 |$and good faith guidelines as those established in the Microwave CostSharing proceeding. Ten  |$years after the beginning of the voluntary negotiation period for the first MSS licensees, MSS  |$operators would no longer be required to pay the costs of relocating FS incumbents, and would  |$be able to require the incumbents to cease operating or relocate at their own expense upon six  |$Nmonths written notice. The MSS and FS industries are currently developing interference  |$standards under the good offices of TIA. We propose to adopt these standards, or their  |$successors, in determining whether our sunset rules would apply to a given FS incumbent. At  |$the end of the sixmonth notice period, the incumbent FS licensees would be required to  |$<surrender their 2 GHz licenses to the Commission, unless the incumbent FS licensees arrived at  |$an agreement with the MSS operators to allow the incumbent FS licensee to continue operations.  |$<During mandatory negotiations, we propose to adhere to the guidelines enumerated above. We  |$request comment on whether we should apply the sunset rule of 47 C.F.R.  101.81 and the good  |$faith guidelines of 47 C.F.R.  101.75 for the 21102130 MHz and 21652200 MHz bands. If  |$so, we inquire whether the sunset date should be ten years after the beginning of the voluntary negotiation period for relocation, as in 47 C.F.R.  101.81, or some other date.  X?4 G6!M78. In our Microwave CostSharing proceeding, we also proposed to adjust the voluntary  |$8and mandatory negotiation periods for FS relocation in the case of the D, E, and F spectrum  |$_blocks of PCS. Specifically, we proposed to reduce the voluntary period to one year, or two  |$years in the case of public safety FS incumbents. We proposed to increase the mandatory  |$negotiation period to two years, or three years in the case of public safety FS. Thus, the total  |$Inegotiation period would remain the same, but the division into voluntary and mandatory periods  |$would be altered. We request comment on whether we should adjust the negotiation periods for  X"4 |$ the MSS band. If so, should we follow the proposal in our Microwave CostSharing proceeding,  |$or should we establish some other negotiation periods? Also, should we begin the voluntary negotiation period when we accept applications for MSS licensing, or at some later date?"t$!Z,-(-(ZZ""Ԍ X4 G6!ԙN79. In addition to addressing FS in the 21102130 MHz and 21652200 MHz bands, we  |$inquire into procedures for relocation of FS licensees in the 21302150 MHz band. This band  |$}is not directly reallocated by this proceeding, but FS links in the 21302150 MHz band are paired  |$}with links in the 21802200 MHz band, which is being reallocated to MSS. We propose to allow  |$yparties to negotiate the relocation of links in the 21302150 MHz band during negotiations for  |$the relocation of FS licensees in the 21802200 MHz band. We inquire, however, whether we  |$should assume that the involuntary relocation of FS links in the 21802200 MHz band necessitates  |$relocation of the paired links in the 21302150 MHz band, or whether we should require  |$relocation only of links in the 21802200 MHz band, leaving situate the paired links in the 2130 |$I2150 MHz band, unless the FS licensees involved demonstrate the need to have the paired links  |$in the 21302150 MHz band included in involuntary relocation. Commenters are urged to address  |$the feasibility of paired links in widely separated frequency bands, as well as any other aspects of this question.  X 4 G6!O80. Finally, as in  72 above, we propose to require subsequently entering MSS operators  |$to compensate earlier MSS operators for the costs of relocating incumbent FS licensees. We  |$propose that the subsequently entering MSS operators will pay a proportionate share of the costs  |$Vof clearing the spectrum band that the subsequently entering MSS operator is authorized to use.  |$hFurther, in any case where the earlier MSS operator was able to share spectrum with FS  |$incumbents, but the entry of another MSS operator necessitates relocation, we propose to require  |$the earlier MSS operator to compensate the subsequently entering MSS operator in the same  |$manner. We also inquire, as in  70 above, whether we should consider the age and value of FS equipment in determining costs issues in the case of involuntary relocation.  X4 G6!P81. We request comment on all these proposals. Commenters are encouraged to present  |$possible alternatives to any of the proposals we present here. We also specifically inquire  |$whether there are sound reasons to establish different relocation procedures for the BAS band than those we establish for FS relocation.  XN4i PROCEDURAL MATTERS ă  V 4Regulatory Flexibility Analysis  X4 G6!NQ82. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement relating to the First Report and Order  X4 |$and an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Statement relating to the Further Notice of Proposed  X 4 |$Rule Making are contained in Appendix E of this First Report and Order and Further Notice of  X!4Proposed Rule Making.  V#4"#",-(-(ZZ!" Ex Parte Rules NonRestricted Proceeding  X4 G6!R83. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rule making proceeding. Ex parte  |$[presentations are permitted except during the Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are  X4disclosed as provided in the Commission's rules. {O'#X\  P6G;IP#э See generally 47 C.F.R.  1.1202, 1.1203, 1.1206(a).  Vx4Comment Period  XJ4 G6!SS84. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the  X34 |$Commission's rules, interested parties may file comments on or before [60 days from date of  X 4 |$publication in the Federal Register] and reply comments on or before [n"w+insert date 90 days from date of  X 4 |$@publication in the Federal Register] . To file formally in this proceeding, you must file an  |$8original and four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments. If you  |$want each Commissioner to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original  |$plus nine copies. You should send comments and reply comments to the Office of the Secretary,  |$Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.  |$820554. A copy of all comments should also be filed with the Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 14, (202) 8573800.  Vd4  VM4Contact Persons  X4 G6!T85. For further information concerning this proceeding, contact Sean White at (202) 4182453, swhite@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering and Technology.  X4` `  y ORDERING CLAUSES ă  G6!U86. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 2 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED  |$as specified in Appendix C, effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. IT IS  |$FURTHER ORDERED that Celsat's request for a pioneer's preference, PP28, IS DENIED.  Xg4 |$cAuthority for issuance of this First Report and Order is contained in Sections 4(i), 302, 303(g),  |$303(r), 309(j), 332(a), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C.  |$ 154(i), 302, 303(g), 303(r), 309(j), 332(a), 403; and Section 115(a) of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration Organization Act, 47 U.S.C.  925(a). ` `  Ghh}FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ` `  Ghh}William F. Caton ` `  Ghh}Acting Secretary ""#Z,-(-(ZZ!"  X' $%  APPENDIX B  X'List of Commenters ă American Petroleum Institute Association of American Railroads Association of Federal Communications Consulting Engineers Association for Maximum Service Television, et al. Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials International BellSouth Corporation Celsat America, Inc. COMSAT Corporation Constellation Communications, Inc. Creative Broadcast Techniques, Inc. & New Vision Group, Inc. Ericsson Corporation GE American Communications, Inc. Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company Iridium, Inc. Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P. Motorola, Inc. Newcomb Communications, Inc. Personal Communications Satellite Corporation Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Teledesic Corporation TRW, Inc. UTC (formerly the Utilities Telecommunications Council)  X|' nlList of Reply Commenters ă Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. American Petroleum Institute Apple Computer, Inc. Association of AmerIcan Railroads Association for Maximum Service Television, et al. Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials International Celsat America, Inc. CEPT Joint Project Team COMSAT Corporation Constellation Communications, Inc. ICO Global Communications Ltd. Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P. Motorola, Inc. Newcomb Communications, Inc."#'$,-(-(ZZ%"ԌPersonal Communications Industry Association Personal Communications Satellite Corporation Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. Southwestern Bell Mobile Systems Telecommunications Industry Association TRW, Inc. United States Sugar Corporation and Wackenhut Corporation UTC WCXP License Partnership  X 4P List of Supplemental Commenters ă Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. American Petroleum Institute Ameritech, Inc. Association of American Railroads Association for Maximum Service Television, et al. Association of PublicSafety Communications Officials International Dr. John Bellamy BellSouth Corporation The State of California Central Iowa Power Cooperative Corn Belt Power Cooperative Hughes Telecommunications and Space Company Iridium, Inc. Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, L.P. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department Minnesota Department of Transportation The MSS Coalition Society of Broadcast Engineers, Inc. Telecommunications Industry Association UTC " %,-(-(ZZ"  X4 APPENDIX C ă  X4 Final Rules  X4 Part 2 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:  Xv'  GxXPART 2 FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY  XH'MATTERS; GENERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS    X 4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:X&     X 4  X!4     r X%'0*,.8135@8:X&'  XX   #,7P@,P##IP,RP# h ddx !ddx'vvvvv h  .  &+& "$D International table.+"`United States table.+"x'FCC use designators&.   & &+& "dRegion 1 allocation bMHz" Region 2 allocation D MHz"XRegion 3 allocation VMHz"`Government"NonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"~+Specialuse +frequencies(   .( && " (1)"Oi I(2)" v (3)"ZAllocation MHz w(4)" Allocation MHz  x!(5)"' '(6)", ,(7)( .  ( &+& "*+"MO*+"*+"{K*+"!*+"'*+",*&.    & &+&  1980!1990 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace)? ? S5.388 S5.389A S5.389F  1980!1990  FIXED% % % % % % % % % % % % MOBILE      MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) S5.388 S5.389A S5.389B   1980!1990     FIXED MOBILE             MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace);; S5.388 S5.389A   1980!1990   1980!1990!! FIXED MOBILE    FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PERSONAL COM MUNICATIONS (24)   &    & &&  1990!2010 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace)? ? S5.388 S5.389A S5.389Ft 1990!2010 FIXED% % % % % % % % % % % % MOBILE      MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) S5.388 S5.389A t 1990!2010   FIXED MOBILE             MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace);; S5.388 S5.389A t 1990 ! 2010 US111 t 1990 ! 2010 MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) US111 t  AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)t &     & &&  2010!2025 FIXED MOBILE S5.388< 2010 ! 2025 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) S5.388 S5.389C S5.389D S5.389E< 2010 ! 2025 FIXED MOBILE S5.388< 2010 ! 2025 US111 < 2010 ! 2025 MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) US111 < AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)< "' "&  . t& &+& "$D International table.+"`United States table.+"x'FCC use designators&.   & &+& "dRegion 1 allocation bMHz" Region 2 allocation D MHz"XRegion 3 allocation VMHz"`Government"NonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"~+Specialuse +frequencies(   .( && " (1)"Oi I(2)" v (3)"ZAllocation MHz w(4)" Allocation MHz  x!(5)"' '(6)", ,(7)( B   ( &i &  2025!2110 SPACE OPERATION (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space)c c EARTH EXPLORA TIONSATELLITE (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space) FIXED MOBILE S5.391 SPACE RESEARCH (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space)c c S5.392i 2025!2110 SPACE OPERATION (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space) EARTH EXPLORA TIONSATELLITE (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space) FIXED MOBILE S5.391llll SPACE RESEARCH (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space) S5.392i 2025!2110     SPACE OPERATION (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space)__ EARTH EXPLORA TIONSATELLITE (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space) FIXED MOBILE S5.391 SPACE RESEARCH (Earthtospace) (spaceto-space)__ S5.392i 2025 ! 2110 US90 US111 US219 US222i 2025 ! 2110 FIXED MOBILE US90 US111 US219 US222 NG23 NG118i  AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) i &B   ^  & &i s&  2110!2120 FIXED MOBILE SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earthtospace) S5.388vs 2110!2120 FIXED MOBILE  SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earthtospace) S5.388vs 2110!2120   FIXED MOBILE     SPACE RESEARCH (deep space) (Earthtospace) S5.388vs 2110 ! 2120 US111 US252vs 2110 ! 2120 FIXED MOBILE US111 US252 NG23 NG118 vs  AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22)vs &^  n  & &s&  2120!2130 LFIXED   LMOBILE  S5.388 2120!2130 LFIXED LMOBILE MobileSatellite55 (spacetoEarth) S5.388 2120!2130 LFIXED LMOBILE S5.388 2120 ! 2130 2120 ! 2130 FIXED MOBILE NG23 NG118   AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22) "( 1"&n  . v& &+& "$D International table.+"`United States table.+"x'FCC use designators&.   & &+& "dRegion 1 allocation bMHz" Region 2 allocation D MHz"XRegion 3 allocation VMHz"`Government"NonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"~+Specialuse +frequencies(   .( && " (1)"Oi I(2)" v (3)"ZAllocation MHz w(4)" Allocation MHz  x!(5)"' '(6)", ,(7)(   ( &!&  2130!2150 LFIXED   LMOBILE  S5.388 ! 2130!2150 LFIXED LMOBILE MobileSatellite55 (spacetoEarth) S5.388 ! 2130!2150 LFIXED LMOBILE S5.388 ! 2130 ! 2150 ! 2130 ! 2150 FIXED MOBILE NG23 NG153 !  FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22) !  EMERGING TECHNOL OGIES&    & &!!&  2150!2160 LFIXED   LMOBILE  S5.388! 2150!2160 LFIXED LMOBILE MobileSatellite55 (spacetoEarth) S5.388! 2150!2160 LFIXED LMOBILE S5.388! 2150 ! 2160! 2150 ! 2160 FIXED NG23!  DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED (21) FIXED MICRO WAVE (101)! &    & &!&  L2160!2165 LLFIXED LMOBILE S5.388 S5.392A 2160!2165 LFIXED LMOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389C S5.389D S5.389E 2160!2165 LFIXED LMOBILE S5.388 2160 ! 2165 2160 ! 2165 FIXED MOBILE NG23 NG153  DOMESTIC PUBLIC FIXED (21) FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22)  EMERGING TECHNOL OGIES&    & &&  L2165!2170 LLFIXED LMOBILE> > S5.388 S5.392Az 2165!2170 LFIXED LMOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389C S5.389D S5.389Ez 2165!2170 LFIXED LMOBILE S5.388z 2165 ! 2170z 2165 ! 2170 MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) NG23 z  FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)z ":) a"&  . & &+& "$D International table.+"`United States table.+"x'FCC use designators&.   & &+& "dRegion 1 allocation bMHz" Region 2 allocation D MHz"XRegion 3 allocation VMHz"`Government"NonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"~+Specialuse +frequencies(   .( && " (1)"Oi I(2)" v (3)"ZAllocation MHz w(4)" Allocation MHz  x!(5)"' '(6)", ,(7)(   ( &&  2170!2200 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389A S5.389F S5.392A   2170!2200 FIXED MOBILE  MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389A   2170!2200   FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389A   2170 ! 2200  2170 ! 2200 MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) NG23    FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)  &  >  & &8& "* 8"MO* 8"* 8"{K* 8"!* 8"'* 8",*>   8 '3'3StandardHPLA4ADD.PRSC\ 3'3'StandardHPLA4ADD.PRSC\ X'*  X   " *  "  X4#XP\  P6Q3XP# X SdINTERNATIONAL FOOTNOTES  * * * * * I. "S" Numbering Scheme X%'0*,.8135@8:X*-     X 4  X 4     r X%'0*,.8135@8:X-.  XX   #,7P@,P##IP,RP# | !ddx'vvvvv Addx.vvvvv | &>  .  & &+& "$D International table.+"`United States table.+"x'FCC use designators&.   & &+& "dRegion 1 allocation bMHz" Region 2 allocation D MHz"XRegion 3 allocation VMHz"`Government"NonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"~+Specialuse +frequencies(   .( && " (1)"Oi I(2)" v (3)"ZAllocation MHz w(4)" Allocation MHz  x!(5)"' '(6)", ,(7)( .  ( &+& "*+"MO*+"*+"{K*+"!*+"'*+",*&.    & &+&  1990!2010 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace)? ? S5.388 S5.389A S5.389F  1990!2010 FIXED% % % % % % % % % % % % MOBILE      MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) S5.388 S5.389A   1990!2010   FIXED MOBILE             MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace);; S5.388 S5.389A   1990 ! 2010 US111   1990 ! 2010 MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) US111 NG156   AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)  &    & &&  2010!2025 FIXED MOBILE S5.388t 2010 ! 2025 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) S5.388 S5.389C S5.389D S5.389Et 2010 ! 2025 FIXED MOBILE S5.388t 2010 ! 2025 US111 t 2010 ! 2025 MOBILESATELLITE (Earthtospace) US111 NG156 t AUXILIARY BROAD CASTING (74) CABLE TELEVISION (78) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)t &  .  & &+& "*+"MO*+"*+"{K*+"!*+"'*+",*&.    t& &+&  L2165!2170 LLFIXED LMOBILE> > S5.388 S5.392AZ 2165!2170 LFIXED LMOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389C S5.389D S5.389EZ 2165!2170 LFIXED LMOBILE S5.388Z 2165 ! 2170Z 2165 ! 2170 MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) NG23 NG157 Z  FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)Z &    & &&  2170!2200 FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389A S5.389F S5.392A " 2170!2200 FIXED MOBILE  MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389A " 2170!2200   FIXED MOBILE MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) S5.388 S5.389A " 2170 ! 2200" 2170 ! 2200 MOBILESATELLITE (spacetoEarth) NG23 NG157 "  FIXED MICRO WAVE (101) PUBLIC MOBILE (22) SATELLITE COM MUNICATIONS (25)" ".  "&  . Z& &+& "$D International table.+"`United States table.+"x'FCC use designators&.   & &+& "dRegion 1 allocation bMHz" Region 2 allocation D MHz"XRegion 3 allocation VMHz"`Government"NonGovernment"&Rule part(s)"~+Specialuse +frequencies(   .( && " (1)"Oi I(2)" v (3)"ZAllocation MHz w(4)" Allocation MHz  x!(5)"' '(6)", ,(7)( >  ( &8& "*8"MO*8"*8"{K*8"!*8"'*8",*>   8 '3'3StandardHPLA4ADD.PRSC\ 3'3'StandardHPLA4ADD.PRSC\ X./  X   "/  "  X4X%'0*,.8135@8: