Skip Navigation

Federal Communications Commission

English Display Options

Commission Document

FCC Adopts Relaxed 2.5 GHz OOBE Rules

Download Options

Released: June 9, 2014
image01-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

Before the

Federal Communications Commission

Washington, D.C. 20554

In the Matter of

)

)

Amendment of Parts 1, 21, 73, 74 and 101 of the

)

WT Docket No. 03-66

Commission’s Rules to Facilitate the Provision of

)

RM-11614

Fixed and Mobile Broadband Access, Educational

)

and Other Advanced Services in the 2150-2162

)

and 2500-2690 MHz Bands

)

)

FIFTH REPORT AND ORDER

Adopted: June 6, 2014

Released: June 9, 2014

By the Commission:

I.

INTRODUCTION

1.

In this Fifth Report and Order (“BRS/EBS OOBE R&O”), we relax the out-of-band emissions

(“OOBE”) limits for Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and Educational Broadband Service (“EBS”)

digital mobile stations (“broadband mobile devices”) operating in the 2496-2690 MHz radio frequency

(“RF”) band (“2.5 GHz band”). These changes will enable operators to use BRS and EBS spectrum more

efficiently and provide higher data rates to consumers. These changes will also promote greater

consistency between the Commission’s BRS/EBS technical rules and global standards for broadband

mobile devices in the 2.5 GHz band, potentially making equipment more affordable and furthering the

proliferation of broadband mobile devices, such as smartphones and tablets, that operate in the 2.5 GHz

band.

II.

BACKGROUND

2.

General: To enable commercial operators to develop and deploy new and innovative wireless

services, in 2004, the Commission fundamentally transformed the licensing and technical rules for the

BRS and EBS. The Commission reconfigured the 2.5 GHz band into upper and lower-band segments

(“UBS” and “LBS,” respectively) for new two-way low-power operations, such as mobile and fixed

wireless broadband services, and a mid-band segment (“MBS”) for legacy one-way video high-power

operations, such as long-distance learning.1 In addition, the Commission reallocated and assigned an

additional 5 megahertz to the BRS/EBS band at 2495-2500 MHz, and permitted BRS and EBS services to

share the 2495-2500 MHz portion of the band on a co-primary2 basis with operators in the Part 25 Mobile

1 See 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 No. 03-66, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 14165,

14182-14188 ¶¶ 36-49 (2004) (“BRS/EBS R&O”); see also Order on Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum

Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606

(2006) (“BRS/EBS 3rd MO&O & 2nd R&O”).

2 Allocation of a given frequency band to a particular service on a primary basis entitles operators to protection

against harmful interference from stations of “secondary” services. Further, secondary services cannot claim

protection from harmful interference caused by stations of a primary service. See 47 C.F.R §§ 2.104(d) and

2.105(c). Co-primary means that the services share a frequency band on an equal basis, that facilities will be

(continued….)

image02-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

Satellite Service (“MSS”), as well as grandfathered Part 74 Broadcast Auxiliary Service (“BAS”) and

Part 90 mobile service (“MS”) and Part 101 fixed service (“FS”) stations.3 Under the new band plan,

BRS Channel 1 (“BRS1”) was relocated to 2496-2502 MHz from 2150-2156 MHz. BRS1 was the

channel most affected by the Commission’s decision to allow BRS/EBS operators and MSS, BAS

channel A10, MS, and FS radio services to share the 2496-2500 MHz portion of the 2.5 GHz band. To

reduce the potential for harmful interference to operations above and below 2495 MHz, the Commission

created a one megahertz guard band at 2495-2496 MHz.4

3.

To protect against adjacent channel interference and to facilitate mobile operations in the band,

the Commission’s 2004 decision also revised the OOBE limits for BRS and EBS licensees operating in

the LBS and UBS, consistent with a proposal made by a coalition of organizations representing BRS and

EBS licensees.5 The Commission retained the existing OOBE limits for MBS analog operations, but

applied the new OOBE limits to MBS digital operations with the result that all digital operations

throughout the 2.5 GHz band would be subject to the same OOBE limits.6 For mobile broadband devices,

the Commission required that emissions outside the licensee’s channel, or channels if combined, be

attenuated below the transmitter power (P) by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) decibels (dB) at the channel’s

edge, and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 5.5 megahertz from the channel edge, where (P) is the transmitter power

measured in Watts.7 The Commission noted that MSS licensees operating in the adjacent band could seek

tighter OOBE limits for BRS1 operations in cases of documented harmful interference.8

4. Since the Commission adopted these OOBE limits and other changes to the BRS/EBS services

in 2004, Clearwire Corporation (“Clearwire”) has become the predominant operator in the band.9

Clearwire and other operators in the 2.5 GHz band use equipment designed according to the Worldwide

Interoperability for Microwave Access (“WiMAX”) version 802.16e standard, a technology based on the

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (“IEEE”) 802.16 standard, to provide wireless broadband

service.10 Sprint, which now controls 100 percent of Clearwire, has announced its intent to deploy a Time

(Continued from previous page)

protected based on the order in which the license applications are coordinated and authorized, and that the services

have equal rights of protection against harmful interference from stations of secondary services.

3 See BRS/EBS R&O at 14182-14187 ¶¶ 27-47. See also Review of the Spectrum Sharing Plan Among Non-

Geostationary Satellite Orbit Mobile Satellite Service Systems in the 1.6/2.4 GHz Bands, 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, IB Docket No. 02-

364, ET Docket No. 00-258, Report and Order, Fourth Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking, 19 FCC Rcd 13356, 13387 ¶¶ 69-74 (2004) (“Big LEO Spectrum Sharing Order”); Order on

Reconsideration and Fifth Memorandum Opinion and Order and Third Memorandum Opinion and Order and

Second Report and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 5606, 5623- 26 ¶¶ 29-34; 5628-30 ¶¶ 38-42; 5631-32 ¶¶ 44-47 (2006) (“Big

LEO Spectrum Sharing Reconsideration Order”); 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 NG 147.

4 See Big LEO Spectrum Sharing Order at 13388-13389 ¶¶ 72-74.

5 See BRS/EBS R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 14213-14215 ¶¶ 124-130.

6 Id. at 14215 ¶ 130.

7 Id. at 14215 ¶ 128. See also 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(m)(4).

8 See BRS/EBS R&O, 19 FCC Rcd at 14215 ¶ 129. Under the Commission’s rules, harmful interference is defined

as interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously

degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the

International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1(c).

9 Clearwire is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Sprint Nextel Corporation. See Applications of SOFTBANK

CORP., Starburst II, Inc., Sprint Nextel Corporation, and Clearwire Corporation, et al., IB Docket No. 12-343,

Memorandum Opinion and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration, 28 FCC Rcd 9642 (2013).

10 See Comments of Clearwire Corporation, RM-11614 (filed Dec. 6, 2010) at 1-2.

2

image03-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

Division Duplex (“TDD”) system based on Long Term Evolution (“LTE”), another global standard for

wireless broadband technology, in the 2.5 GHz band as part of its Sprint Spark service, which is currently

available in 11 markets.11 The Third Generation Partnership Project (“3GPP”), a consensus-driven

international partnership of telecommunications standards bodies, developed LTE .12 3GPP has identified

three band classes for LTE applicable to the 2.5 GHz Band:

Band Class 7 (Frequency Division Duplex (“FDD”)) operation with uplink operation in 2500-

2570 MHz and downlink operation in 2620-2690 MHz);

Band Class 38 TDD operation in 2570-2620 MHz); and

Band Class 41 (TDD operation throughout the 2496-2690 MHz band).13

5.

Sprint estimates that 100 million customers will have Sprint Spark or 2.5 GHz band coverage

by the end of 2014.14 IEEE and 3GPP state that they are refining their respective standards into new

versions: WiMAX 2 (based on the 802.16m standard) and Advanced-LTE (3GPP Release 10 and

beyond).15

6.

To cope with increased demand for Fourth Generation (“4G”) services while using spectrum

efficiently, WiMAX2 and LTE-Advanced equipment will use channels that have bandwidths up to 40-

100 megahertz.16 In contrast, current WiMAX equipment typically uses channels that have a maximum

bandwidth of 10 megahertz.17 Although channels in the LBS and UBS, except for BRS1 and BRS

Channel 2 (“BRS2”), are 5.5 megahertz, operators generally combine multiple channels to provide

service.18

7.

WCAI Petition: To permit operators to realize the full benefits of 4G technologies, such as

WiMAX2 and Advanced-LTE, which can use wider bandwidth technologies, on October 22, 2010, the

Wireless Communications Association International (“WCAI”) filed a petition for rulemaking asking the

Commission to revise the OOBE limits for mobile broadband devices operating in the 2.5 GHz band to

accommodate channel bandwidths of 20 megahertz and wider.19 WCAI stated that it is difficult for

11 See http://newsroom.sprint.com/presskits/sprint-spark.htm.

12 See also Comments of the Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (filed July 7, 2011) (“WCAI

Comments”) at 3 and n.7.

13 See LTE; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and

reception (3GPP TS 36.101 version 10.8.0 Release 10) (“LTE Release 10 Technical Standards”) at 20 (Table 5.5-1

E-UTRA operating bands).

14 See http://newsroom.sprint.com/presskits/sprint-spark.htm.

15 See Standards Development Working Group - WG802.16 - Broadband Wireless Access Working Group

(http://standards.ieee.org/develop/wg/WG802.16.html) and LTE Advanced

(http://www.4gamericas.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page§ionid=352).

16 See Report ITU-R M.2134, Requirements related to technical performance for IMT-Advanced radio interface(s)

at 5 Section 4.3 (stating that IMT Advanced Technologies “shall support a scalable bandwidth up to and including

40 MHz,” and encouraging operation in bandwidths up to 100 megahertz). See also ITU paves way for next-

generation 4G mobile technologies; ITU IMT-R Advanced 4G standards to usher new era of mobile broadband

communications, Press Release (Oct. 21, 2010), available at

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2010/40.aspx (designating LTE-Advanced and WiMAX2 as IMT-

Advanced technologies).

17 See Petition for Rulemaking, Wireless Communications Association, International, RM-11614 (filed Oct. 22,

2010) (“WCAI Petition”) at 3.

18 See id. at 4.

19 Id. at 3.

3

image04-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

mobile broadband devices operating in the 2.5 GHz band to meet the OOBE limits for 10 megahertz

channels because of the limits of power amplifier efficiency inherent in current technology.20 WCAI also

asserted that it would be difficult or impossible to develop a smartphone that both complies with current

out-of-band emissions standards and that could fully use a 20 megahertz channel bandwidth.21 WCAI

thus asked the Commission to relax the OOBE limits for mobile broadband devices operating in the 2.5

GHz band by modifying the attenuation factors that these devices must meet.22 WCAI argued that this

increase would allow operators to provide the full uplink capacity available in 20 megahertz or wider

channels, and would align the Commission’s OOBE limits with international standards developed by

3GPP for OOBE limits in the 2.5 GHz band.23

8. BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM: In response to WCAI’s petition, on May 27, 2011, the Commission

released the BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, in which it found that enabling the use of wider channels in the 2.5

GHz band would enhance spectrum efficiency and throughput of mobile broadband devices operating in

the 2.5 GHz band, and that aligning the Commission’s rules with international standards could benefit

both operators and consumers.24 The Commission sought comment on whether it should modify the

OOBE limits for mobile broadband devices operating in the 2.5 GHz band, and specifically sought

comments on the OOBE limits (i.e., attenuation factors) requested by WCAI, and outlined below.25

40 + 10 log (P) (where (P) is the transmitter power in Watts) dB at the channel edge,

measured using a resolution bandwidth of 2 percent of the emission bandwidth of the

fundamental emission in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the

frequency block;

43 + 10 log (P) dB beyond 5 megahertz from the channel edges; and

55 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation factor at a separation of “X” megahertz from the channel

edges, where “X” is the greater of 6 megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in

Section 27.53(m)(6) of the Commission's rules.26

9. In addition to seeking comment on the specific OOBE limits proposed by WCAI, the

Commission also inquired about the following issues:

whether the proposed rule changes are necessary to permit mobile broadband devices to

operate in the 2.5 GHz band using channel bandwidths wider than 10 megahertz;27

20 Id. at 4-5. WCAI states that such a device would require additional filtering, which would lessen battery life and

generate additional heat that would be difficult to dissipate. Id. at 5.

21 Id.

22 Id. at 6.

23 Id. at 6.

24 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,

Fourth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 03-66, 26 FCC Rcd 8133, 8138 ¶ 11 (2011)

(BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM).

25 Id. at 8138 ¶ 12. See also WCAI Petition at 2.

26 Id. 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(m)(6) defines the emission bandwidth “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.”

27 BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 8138 ¶ 13.

4

image05-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

whether the proposed rule changes would result in insufficient protection against

harmful interference within the 2.5 GHz band, and if so, whether additional protections

against such harmful interference would be needed;28

whether the proposed rule changes would increase the potential for harmful interference

into the MSS and BAS below 2495 MHz;29

whether the Commission should adopt a fixed limit for OOBE below 2495 MHz or

above 2690 MHz;30

whether the proposed rule would work for channels wider than 20 megahertz without

causing harmful interference to operations in adjacent bands;31

whether the proposed rule changes would be consistent with IEEE’s continuing

development of WiMAX2, as well as other evolving standards;32 and

whether any additional changes to the OOBE limits applicable to digital mobile stations

in the 2.5 GHz band are necessary or desirable to promote greater efficiency and

flexibility in the provision of broadband services in these bands.33

10.

Comments and Clearwire Ex Parte: Most commenters supported the BRS/EBS OOBE

FNPRMs proposed rule changes.34 They argued that the proposed changes to the OOBE standard would

allow faster data rates in the 2.5 GHz band,35 align the Commission’s rules with international standards,36

maximize spectral efficiency and broadband throughput,37 and permit manufacturers and network

28 Id. at 8139 ¶ 14.

29 Id. at 8139 ¶ 15.

30 Id. at 8140 ¶ 16.

31 Id. at 8140 ¶ 17.

32 Id.

33 Id.

34 Comments of Alcatel Lucent (filed July 7, 2011) (“Alcatel Lucent Comments”) at 2; Comments of Catholic

Television Network and National EBS Association (filed July 7, 2011) (“CTN/NEBSA Comments”); Comments of

Clearwire Corporation (filed July 7, 2011) (“Clearwire Comments”); Comments of GCT Semiconductor (filed July

7, 2011) (“GCT Comments”); Comments of Huawei Technologies (USA) (filed July 7, 2011) (“Huawei

Comments”); Comments of Motorola Mobility, Inc. (filed July 7, 2011) (“Motorola Comments”); Comments of

Nokia Siemens Networks US LLC and Nokia Inc. (filed July 7, 2011) (“Nokia Comments”); Comments of

SEQUANS Communications (filed July 7, 2011) (“SEQUANS Comments”); Comments of the Telecommunications

Industry Association (filed July 7, 2011) (“TIA Comments”); WCAI Comments.

35 Clearwire Comments at 2 (describing tests Clearwire has conducted that achieve speeds of up to 90 Mbps using

20 megahertz channels); Motorola Comments at 2; TIA Comments at 3; WCAI Comments at 3.

36 Alcatel Lucent Comments at 2; CTN/NEBSA Comments at 2; Clearwire Comments at 3; GCI Comments at 2;

Motorola Comments at 2; Huawei Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 2-3; SEQUANS Comments at 2; TIA

Comments at 3-4; WCAI Comments at 4.

37 CTN/NEBSA Comments at 2; Clearwire Comments at 4; GCI Comments at 2; Huawei Comments at 2-3;

Motorola Comments at 5; SEQUANS Comments at 2; WCAI Comments at 3.

5

image06-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

operators to realize enormous economies of scope and scale.38 However, four commenters opposed the

proposed changes, including Globalstar Corporation (“Globalstar”), the Engineers for the Integrity of

Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (“EIBASS”), IP Wireless, Inc. (“IP Wireless”), and Northrop

Grumman Systems Corporation (“Northrop Grumman”).39

11.

On October 18, 2012, in response to the opposition comments of Globalstar and EIBASS,

Clearwire proposed a modification of the BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM’s proposal.40 Under Clearwire’s

suggested approach, the relaxation of the OOBE limits proposed by WCAI would be implemented except

for at and below the lower band edge of the 2.5 GHz band at 2496 MHz, where the current OOBE limits

applicable to a channel with a lower edge at 2496 MHz would apply to all BRS/EBS channels.41 Under

this modified approach, the attenuation factors for mobile broadband devices operating in the 2.5 GHz

band would be as follows:

40 + 10 log (P) (where (P) is the transmitter power in Watts) dB at the channel edge;

43 + 10 log (P) dB beyond 5 megahertz from the channel edges;

55 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation factor at a separation of “X” megahertz from the channel

edges, where “X” is the greater of 6 megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in

Section 27.53(m)(6) of the Commission's rules;

43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2496 MHz; and

55 + 10 log (P) dB at or below 2490.5 MHz.42

12.

Clearwire also proposed that the Commission modify WCAI’s proposal to change the

way compliance with the OOBE limits is measured for BRS/EBS mobile digital stations. Under the

Commission’s current rules, compliance is measured using a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or

greater, except in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, where

a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the transmitter’s fundamental emission may be used.43 In

its petition, WCAI had requested that the resolution bandwidth be changed to 2 percent in all portions of

the 2.5 GHz band. Clearwire proposed that, except for the 2495-2496 MHz band, in the 1 megahertz

bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block under use, a resolution bandwidth of at

least 2 percent of the fundamental emission be allowed to measure compliance.44 In the 2495-2496 MHz

band, the existing resolution bandwidth requirement of at least 1 percent would still apply.45 Globalstar

38 Alcatel Lucent Comments at 2; CTN/NEBSA Comments at 2; Clearwire Comments at 3; GCI Comments at 2;

Huawei Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 3; SEQUANS Comments at 2; WCAI Comments at 3.

39 Comments of Globalstar, Inc. (filed July 7, 2011) (“Globalstar, Inc. Comments”); Comments of EIBASS (filed

July 7, 2011) (“EIBASS Comments); Comments of IP Wireless, Inc. (filed July 7, 2011) (“IP Wireless Comments”);

Reply Comments, Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (filed July 22, 2011) (“Northrop Grumman Reply

Comments”).

40 Letter from Cathleen A. Massey, Clearwire to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission at 1

(dated Oct. 19, 2012) (“Clearwire Ex Parte”).

41 Clearwire Ex Parte at 1; slide 6. Under our existing rules, a mobile broadband device using a 10 megahertz

bandwidth channel in the 2496-2506 MHz band (the bottom of the 2.5 GHz band) must have an OOBE attenuation

factor below the transmitter power (P) by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2496 MHz (the channel edge), and 55 +

10 log (P) dB at 2490.5 MHz (5.5 megahertz below the channel edge). See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(m)(4).

42 Id. at slide 8.

43 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(m)(6).

44 Clearwire Ex Parte at slide 8.

45 Id.

6

image07-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

does not object to the modified Clearwire proposals.46 No other commenting party objected to

Clearwire’s proposed modification.

III.

DISCUSSION

13.

We find that the public interest will be served by a modification of the OOBE limits for

BRS and EBS mobile broadband devices as proposed in the BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, with the

modifications proposed by Clearwire.47 These changes will produce several benefits for operators and

consumers.

14.

First, by adjusting our OOBE standards, we can facilitate the use of wider channels,

which will result in faster data rates and allow the use of advanced wireless technologies such as LTE-

Advanced. Commenters unanimously tout the benefits of wider channels.48

The record shows that

changes to our OOBE standards are necessary to facilitate development of a device ecosystem that would

fully take advantage of wider channels in the 2.5 GHz band. To that end, most equipment manufacturers

support the proposed changes.49 While IP Wireless states that it has developed a universal serial bus

(“USB”) stick that can operate with 20 megahertz channels and comply with the existing OOBE

requirements,50 it does not appear, given the state of current technology, that such performance can be

cost-effectively replicated with highly mobile, highly integrated, multi

mode, multi

band smartphones.51

Furthermore, there is a benefit in having a wide variety of equipment manufacturers providing devices

-

-

that can operate on wider channels.

15.

Second, the changes will conform our 2.5 GHz band OOBE limits to the emission mask

standards established by 3GPP for 20 megahertz channels.52 Adopting internationally harmonized OOBE

standards for the 2.5 GHz band will result in several advantages for manufacturers, operators, and

consumers. For example, internationally harmonized standards will allow manufacturers to produce

equipment that can be used worldwide, lowering their development and production costs, thereby

increasing consumer choice and supply and decreasing the cost of mobile broadband devices available for

use domestically. In addition, harmonizing the standards will facilitate international roaming by

46 Letter from L. Barbee Ponder IV, General Counsel & Vice President Regulatory Affairs, Globalstar Corporation

to Marlene H. Dortch, Federal Communications Commission (dated Nov. 5, 2012) (“Globalstar Ex Parte”) at 1

(Globalstar states that is has “no objection” to Clearwire’s proposal).

47 The rules we adopt today are slightly different than the rules proposed by Clearwire. The main purpose of the

changes we make is to make clear where the OOBE standards apply over a range of frequencies. Specifically, while

Clearwire proposes to adopt the 55 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation factor at a distance of “X” megahertz from the

channel edges, the rule we adopt today applies that factor at “X” megahertz or more from the channel edges.

48 Although IP Wireless opposes the specific changes proposed in the BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, it supports the use

of wider channels. IP Wireless Comments at 2.

49 See Alcatel Lucent Comments at 2; GCT Comments at 2; Huawei Comments at 2; Motorola Comments at 4;

SEQUANS Comments at 2; TIA Comments at 2.

50 See IP Wireless Comments at 3-4.

51 See Reply Comments, Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (filed July 22, 2011) (“WCAI

Reply Comments”) at 14-15.

52 Specifically, the rules we adopt today will make our OOBE standards consistent with the general OOBE standards

adopted by 3GPP for 20 megahertz channels. The 3GPP standards provide for an OOBE power of -10 dBm

(-40 dBW), which corresponds to an OOBE attenuation factor of 40 + 10 log (P) dB (see Alcatel Lucent Comments

at 1) up to 5 megahertz away from the channel edge, and an OOBE power of -13 dBm (-43 dBW), which

corresponds to an OOBE attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB up to 20 megahertz away from the channel edge.

See LTE Release 10.8.0 Technical Standards at 61, Table 6.6.2.1.1-1: General E-UTRA spectrum emission mask.

7

image08-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

consumers since there will be a consistent set of technical standards that will apply to broadband mobile

devices.

16.

Third, our action will facilitate the continued development of mobile wireless broadband

services in the 2.5 GHz band. These changes will facilitate the use of TDD technologies, since TDD

operations use a single wider channel, as opposed to the two narrower channels that are used in FDD

operations. Our action will provide operators with additional flexibility to use the 2.5 GHz band more

efficiently and more intensively.

17.

Fourth, we can change our 2.5 GHz band OOBE rules without materially increasing the

potential for harmful interference to other authorized services in bands adjacent to the 2.5 GHz band. In

the BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, the Commission asked whether the proposed OOBE changes would

materially increase harmful interference into the adjacent bands,53 and, if so, whether the Commission

should establish a fixed limit on out-of-band emissions below 2495 MHz or above 2690 MHz.54 In

response, Globalstar and EIBASS originally argued that amending the BRS/EBS mobile OOBE rule

would greatly increase the probability of harmful interference to Big LEO MSS and BAS operations

below 2495 MHz, especially in rural and remote areas.55 Since that time, however, Clearwire proposed

retaining the existing OOBE limits at and below 2496 MHz, which are currently applicable to a channel

with a lower edge at 2496 MHz (e.g., Channel BRS1), as “band edge” limits for all BRS/EBS channels,56

and Globalstar has stated that it has no objection to that proposal.57 Retaining the existing Channel BRS1

OOBE limits at and below 2496 MHz for all BRS/EBS channels would also address EIBASS’ concerns

about increased interference to BAS Channel A9 (2467-2483.5 MHz)58 because BRS/EBS mobile units

will not be allowed to increase OOBE below 2496 MHz. While several parties had expressed concern

that establishing different limits at lower edges of the 2.5 GHz band would negate many of the advantages

of allowing wider channels,59 we agree with Clearwire that the revised OOBE limits that we adopt today

will allow licensees to provide enhanced broadband services to their subscribers by operating with wider

channels throughout most of the 2.5 GHz band, as well as support international roaming, without

materially increasing the potential for harmful interference to other authorized services in adjacent

bands.60

18.

EIBASS also expressed concern about increased interference to BAS Channel A10

(2483.5-2500 MHz).61 With respect to the 2491-2500 MHz portion of that channel, that portion could, in

theory, be subject to increased interference from certain adjacent channel BRS/EBS mobile units’

increased OOBE.62

However, we believe the chance of harmful interference to BAS Channel A10 is very

53 BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 8139 ¶ 15.

54 Id. at 8140 ¶ 16.

55 Globalstar, Inc. Comments at 1; EIBASS Comments at 2.

56 Clearwire Ex Parte at slide 8.

57 Globalstar Ex Parte at 1.

58 See EIBASS Comments at 2.

59 See GCT Comments at 3; Huawei Comments at 2; Nokia Comments at 3-4; SEQUANS Comments at 3; WCAI

Comments at 5.

60 Clearwire Ex Parte at Slide 7.

61 EIBASS Comments at 2; see also Reply Comments of EIBASS (filed July 22, 2011) (“EIBASS Reply

Comments”) at 1-3.

62 Under Clearwire’s relaxed OOBE parameters, the theoretical increase in potential interference would result

because mobile units operating with a 20 megahertz channel at 2511-2531 MHz would only be required to attenuate

OOBE by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB above 2491 MHz, while under the current rules, they are required to

(continued….)

8

image09-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

low for several reasons. First, we note that BAS Channel A10 is currently subject to OOBE from

BRS/EBS base stations, which can operate at higher power than mobile units. 63 Notwithstanding this

fact, we are unaware of any allegation or complaint that BRS/EBS operations have caused harmful

interference to BAS Channel A10 operations.64 Second, there are many fewer operations on BAS

Channel A10 (56 active licenses) than on any other BAS channel,65 and BRS/EBS mobile stations are

unlikely to be operated in close proximity to BAS receiving antennas, which are typically located on the

same or similar structures as TV broadcasting antennas. Third, because the primary use of the 2.5 GHz

band is for TDD operations, we believe BRS/EBS operators are unlikely to use channels at or near the

lower edge of the 2.5 GHz band in situations where base stations may cause harmful interference to BAS

or MSS operations. We therefore conclude that any potential increase in OOBE is highly unlikely to

result in harmful interference to the BAS.

19.

Under Clearwire’s suggested approach, any BRS or EBS channel can operate under the

relaxed OOBE limits except at 2496 MHz, where the existing OOBE limits applicable to a channel with a

lower edge at 2496 MHz would apply.66 Thus under the actions we take today, the current OOBE limits

applicable to a channel with a lower edge at 2496 MHz will apply, inter alia, to channel BRS1 and EBS

Channels A1 and A2, assuming a channel with a bandwidth of 20 megahertz.67 By adopting Clearwire’s

proposed modification, we ensure that Globalstar’s operations, BAS operations on channels A9 and A10,

and Part 90 MS and Part 101 FS stations will continue to be protected, that BRS and EBS operators may

operate broadband mobile devices at optimal power and with wider channel bandwidths in most of the

2.5 GHz band, and that the 2.5 GHz band will be able to support international roamers.68

20.

The relaxed OOBE limits for broadband mobile equipment operating in the 2.5 GHz band

will not materially increase the potential for harmful interference within the 2.5 GHz band. While we do

not casually adopt looser OOBE standards, modest relaxing of our OOBE rules in line with the 3GPP

standards is not likely to result in harmful interference to other BRS/EBS stations. Furthermore, as noted

above, most operators and equipment manufacturers support the proposed standard.69 IP Wireless is

concerned about the coexistence of multiple unsynchronized TDD systems operating with relaxed OOBE

(Continued from previous page)

attenuate OOBE by a factor of 55 + 10 log (P) dB. For mobile units operating with a 20 megahertz channel at 2502-

2522 MHz, a theoretical increase in potential interference would result because they would only be required to

attenuate OOBE by a factor of 40 + 10 log (P) dB from 2497-2500 MHz, while under the current rules they are

required to attenuate OOBE by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB from 2497-2500 MHz.

63 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(m)(2). This base station OOBE is attenuated by 43 +10 log (P) dB.

64 EIBASS expressed concern about a BRS license in Chicago and promised to file an ex parte reporting any

interference to grandfathered BAS Channel A10 operations in Chicago. EIBASS Reply Comments at 3. EIBASS

did not make any subsequent filings.

65 EIBASS is correct that multiple transmitters can be authorized under a single license. See EIBASS Comments at

5. It is nonetheless true that BAS Channel A10 is much more lightly utilized than BAS Channel A9, which has 788

active BAS licenses.

66 See Clearwire Ex Parte at Slide 6. Under our existing rules, a mobile broadband device with a 10 megahertz

bandwidth in the 2496-2506 MHz band (the bottom of the 2.5 GHz band) must have an OOBE attenuation factor

below the transmitter power (P) by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2496 MHz (the channel edge), and 55 + 10 log

(P) dB at 2490.5 MHz (5.5 megahertz below the channel edge). See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(m)(4). Under the rules we

adopt today, all 2.5 GHz band mobile broadband devices must maintain an OOBE attenuation factor of at least 43 +

10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2490.5 MHz and 2496 MHz and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at or below 2490.5

MHz. See Appendix A.

67 See id.

68 See id. at Slide 5.

69 See ¶ 10, supra.

9

image10-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

in the same area.70 As WCAI pointed out, however, the potential for harmful interference among

uncoordinated TDD systems or between TDD and FDD systems already exists in the 2.5 GHz band

because, in the BRS/EBS R&O, the Commission sought to maximize flexibility for licensees in the band

by allowing them to use the technology of their choice. Furthermore, WCAI stated that the Commission

has provided mechanisms for licensees to resolve documented interference complaints.71 IP Wireless has

not shown that increased OOBE in the 2.5 GHz band will materially change the interference environment

for BRS and EBS stations. In addition, IP Wireless has not shown that our existing rules for interference

resolution between BRS/EBS licensees, which remain in place, together with coordination practices

developed by BRS and EBS operators, are not sufficient to allow licensees to mitigate the potential for

harmful interference that could result from increased OOBE in the 2.5 GHz band. Our existing rules and

industry practices together will enable BRS and EBS licensees to mitigate any increase in the potential for

harmful interference that results from increasing the OOBE limits for BRS/EBS digital mobile

transmitters.

21.

Northrop Grumman has experienced base-to-base adjacent channel interference, which

was resolved by adding supplementary filtering to the relevant base stations.72 Northrop Grumman

expressed concern that as the customer base of the adjacent commercial carrier grows, the potential for

commercial broadband mobile devices to interfere with a system for which Northrop Grumman is the

systems integrator will increase significantly.73 We find Northrop Grumman’s concerns to be speculative.

As WCAI has pointed out, the practical output power limitations of industry transmitter designs for 4G

mobile broadband devices mitigate the potential for harmful interference.74 Moreover, 4G mobile

broadband devices using orthogonal frequency-division multiple access (“OFDMA”) technology will

typically not be allocated all available bandwidth while at the same time operating at full transmit power.

75 Motorola Mobility agreed, and argued that interference concerns are merely hypothetical because to

maximize battery life and minimize intra-system interference, 4G mobile broadband devices operate

under stringent power control.76 The likelihood of harmful interference actually occurring is very small,

Motorola Mobility continues, because typical 4G system design specifications limit the bandwidth that is

typically used at full power, which in turn limits the OOBE.77

22.

We also adopt Clearwire’s proposed changes to the procedures for measuring

compliance with the OOBE limits. Revising the resolution bandwidth used for measuring compliance

with the OOBE limits will help ensure that our limits are consistent with international standards.78

Clearwire’s proposal was not opposed by any party. Therefore, we will change the rules to specify that,

except for the 2495-2496 MHz band, in the 1-megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the

70 IP Wireless Comments at 4.

71 See WCAI Reply Comments at 13-14.

72 Northrup-Grumman Reply Comments at 1. We are not changing our OOBE standards for base stations in the 2.5

GHz band.

73 Id. at 2.

74 WCAI Comments at 6. WCAI argues that although the maximum EIRP for mobile devices in the BRS/EBS band

is 2 Watts (33dBm), based on battery life and thermal design constraints, mobile broadband devices such as laptop

cards and smartphones are typically designed to operate at a maximum of only 200 milliwatts (23 dBm). WCAI

Comments at 6.

75 WCAI Comments at 7.

76 Motorola Comments at 6.

77 Id.

78 See Letter from Cathleen A. Massey, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs and Public Policy, Clearwire Corporation

to Ms. Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Jan. 4, 2013).

10

image11-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

frequency block under use, a resolution bandwidth of at least 2 percent of the fundamental emission be

allowed to measure compliance. In the 2495-2496 MHz band, the existing resolution bandwidth

requirement of at least 1 percent would still apply.

23.

With respect to the remaining questions raised in the BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, the

answers to those questions support adopting the rule changes we make today.79 In response to the

question of whether the changes would work for channels wider than 20 megahertz, every commenter that

addressed the issue supported allowing channels wider than 20 megahertz.80 Moreover, keeping the

existing protections to operations below 2496 MHz will eliminate any impact on adjacent channel

licensees. Other than the Clearwire Ex Parte, we did not receive any proposals in response to our inquiry

whether any additional changes to the OOBE limits applicable to digital mobile stations in the 2.5 GHz

band are necessary or desirable.81

IV.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

A.

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

24.

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)82 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.”83

Accordingly, we have prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis concerning the possible impact of

the rule changes contained in this Fifth Report and Order on small entities. The Final Regulatory

Flexibility Analysis is set forth in Appendix B.

B.

Paperwork Reduction Analysis

25.

This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any

proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,”

pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. §

3506(c)(4).

C.

Further Information

26.

For further information contact Nancy M. Zaczek of the Wireless Telecommunications

Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0274 or by e-mail to Nancy.Zaczek@fcc.gov.

V.

ORDERING CLAUSES

27.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 4(i), 7, 10, 201, 214, 301, 302,

303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333 and 706 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§

151, 152, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 214, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 319, 324, 332, 333, and 706, that

this Fifth Report and Order is hereby ADOPTED.

79 See BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 8140 ¶ 17.

80 See Clearwire Comments at 4; GCT Comments at 3; Huawei Comments at 3; Nokia Comments at 3; SEQUANS

Comments at 3.

81 BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM, 26 FCC Rcd at 8140 ¶ 17.

82 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).

83 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).

11

image12-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

28.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of

1934, 47 U.S.C. § 154(i), that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference

Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Fifth Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory

Certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

Marlene H. Dortch

Secretary

12

image13-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

APPENDIX A

Final Rules

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends Part 27 of

Title 47 as follows:

I. PART 27 – MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

1.

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.

2.

Amend § 27.53 by revising paragraphs (m)(4) and (m)(6) to read as follows:

§ 27.53 Emission Limits.

*****

(m) * * *

(4) For mobile digital stations, the attenuation factor shall be not less than 40 + 10 log

(P) dB on all frequencies between the channel edge and 5 megahertz from the channel edge, 43 + 10

log (P) dB on all frequencies between 5 megahertz and X megahertz from the channel edge, and 55 +

10 log (P) dB on all frequencies more than X megahertz from the channel edge, where X is the

greater of 6 megahertz or the actual emission bandwidth as defined in § 27.53(m)(6). In addition, the

attenuation factor shall not be less that 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2490.5 MHz

and 2496 MHz and 55 + 10 log (P) dB at or below 2490.5 MHz. Mobile Satellite Service licensees

operating on frequencies below 2495 MHz may also submit a documented interference complaint

against BRS licensees operating on channel BRS Channel 1 on the same terms and conditions as

adjacent channel BRS or EBS licensees.

*****

(6) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on the use of

measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 megahertz or greater. However,

in the 1 MHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth

of at least one percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter may

be employed; for mobile digital stations, in the 1 megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent

to the frequency block a resolution bandwidth of at least two percent may be employed, except when

-

the 1 megahertz band is 2495

2496 MHz, in which case a resolution bandwidth of at least one percent

may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases to improve

measurement accuracy provided the measured power is integrated over the full required measurement

bandwidth (i.e. 1 megahertz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as specified; or 1 megahertz or 2

-

percent for mobile digital stations, except in the band 2495

2496 MHz). 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. With respect to television operations, measurements must be made of the

13

image14-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

separate visual and aural operating powers at sufficiently frequent intervals to ensure compliance with

the rules.

*****

14

image15-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

APPENDIX B

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

1.

As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (“RFA”),1 we

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 Fourth Further

Notice of Proposed Rule Making (“FNPRM”). Because we amend the rules in this Fifth Report and

Order, we have included this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (“FRFA”). This present FRFA

conforms to the RFA.2

A.

Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules

2.

In this Fifth Report and Order, we relax the out-of-band emissions (OOBE) limits for

mobile digital devices operating in the Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and Educational Broadband

Service (“EBS”) in the 2496-2690 MHz band (“2.5 GHz band”), which limit the amount of energy that

can be radiated outside a licensee’s authorized bandwidth, but retain the current OOBE rules for

operations at the lower edge of the 2.5 GHz band as “band edge” limits for all BRS/EBS channels. This

change will enable smartphone, tablet computers, and other mobile broadband devices to use wider

channel bandwidths, which could potentially allow higher data rates and more efficient use of spectrum.

It would also increase the range of applications and devices that can benefit from mobile broadband

connectivity, generating a corresponding increase in demand for mobile broadband service from

consumers, businesses, public safety entities, health care institutions, educational institutions, and energy

companies. The change also harmonizes standards in the equipment market for mobile devices in the 2.5

GHz band, which would make equipment more affordable and further the development of advanced

wireless broadband devices. Retaining the current OOBE rules applicable to operations at the lower edge

of the 2.5 GHz band for all BRS/EBS channels, however, helps protect co-primary operations in and

adjacent to the 2496-2500 MHz portion of the band.

B.

Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the

IRFA:

3.

No comments were submitted specifically in response to the IRFA.

C.

Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed

Rules Will Apply

4.

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 proposed rules and policies, if adopted.3 The

RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,”

“small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”4 In addition, the term “small business” has

the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.5 A “small

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 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(4).

4 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).

5 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

(continued….)

15

image16-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

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.6

Here, we describe the small

entities to which the rule will apply.

5.

Broadband Radio Service and Educational Broadband Service. Broadband Radio

Service systems, previously referred to as Multipoint Distribution Service (“MDS”) and Multichannel

Multipoint Distribution Service (“MMDS”) systems, and “wireless cable,” transmit video programming

to subscribers and provide two-way high speed data operations using the microwave frequencies of the

Broadband Radio Service (“BRS”) and Educational Broadband Service (EBS) (previously referred to as

the Instructional Television Fixed Service (“ITFS”)).7 In connection with the 1996 BRS auction, the

Commission established a small business size standard as an entity that had annual average gross

revenues of no more than $40 million in the previous three calendar years.8 The BRS auctions resulted in

67 successful bidders obtaining licensing opportunities for 493 Basic Trading Areas (“BTAs”). Of the 67

auction winners, 61 met the definition of a small business. BRS also includes licensees of stations

authorized prior to the auction. At this time, based on our review of licensing records, we estimate that of

the 61 small business BRS auction winners, based on our review of licensing records, 48 remain small

business licensees. In addition to the 48 small businesses that hold BTA authorizations, there are

approximately 86 incumbent BRS licensees that are considered small entities (18 incumbent BRS

licensees do not meet the small business size standard).9 After adding the number of small business

auction licensees to the number of incumbent licensees not already counted, there are currently

approximately 133 BRS licensees that are defined as small businesses under either the SBA or the

Commission’s rules. In 2009, the Commission conducted Auction 86, the sale of 78 licenses in the BRS

areas.10 The Commission offered three levels of bidding credits: (i) a bidder with attributed average

annual gross revenues that exceed $15 million and do not exceed $40 million for the preceding three

years (small business) received a 15 percent discount on its winning bid; (ii) a bidder with attributed

average annual gross revenues that exceed $3 million and do not exceed $15 million for the preceding

three years (very small business) received a 25 percent discount on its winning bid; and (iii) a bidder with

attributed average annual gross revenues that do not exceed $3 million for the preceding three years

(entrepreneur) received a 35 percent discount on its winning bid.11 Auction 86 concluded in 2009 with

the sale of 61 licenses.12 Of the ten winning bidders, two bidders that claimed small business status won

(Continued from previous page)

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.”

6 15 U.S.C. § 632.

7 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 and Implementation of Section 309(j) of the

Communications Act—Competitive Bidding, MM Docket No. 94-131, PP Docket No. 93-253, Report and Order, 10

FCC Rcd 9589, 9593 ¶ 7 (1995).

8 47 C.F.R. § 21.961(b)(1) (1996).

9 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). Hundreds of stations were licensed to incumbent MDS licensees prior to implementation of

Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. § 309(j). For these pre-auction licenses, the

applicable standard is SBA’s small business size standard of 1500 or fewer employees.

10 Auction of Broadband Radio Service (BRS) Licenses, Scheduled for October 27, 2009, Notice and Filing

Requirements, Minimum Opening Bids, Upfront Payments, and Other Procedures for Auction 86, Public Notice, 24

FCC Rcd 8277 (2009).

11 Id. at 8296.

12 Auction of Broadband Radio Service Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 86, Down

Payments Due November 23, 2009, Final Payments Due December 8, 2009, Ten-Day Petition to Deny Period,

Public Notice, 24 FCC Rcd 13572 (2009).

16

image17-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

4 licenses; one bidder that claimed very small business status won three licenses; and two bidders that

claimed entrepreneur status won six licenses.

6.

In addition, the SBA’s placement of Cable Television Distribution Services in the

category of Wired Telecommunications Carriers is applicable to cable-based educational broadcasting

services. Since 2007, Wired Telecommunications Carriers have been defined as follows: “This industry

comprises establishments primarily engaged in operating and/or providing access to transmission

facilities and infrastructure that they own and/or lease for the transmission of voice, data, text, sound, and

video using wired telecommunications networks. Transmission facilities may be based on a single

technology or a combination of technologies.”13 Establishments in this industry use the wired

telecommunications network facilities that they operate to provide a variety of services, such as wired

telephony services, including VoIP services; wired (cable) audio and video programming distribution; and

wired broadband Internet services. By exception, establishments providing satellite television distribution

services using facilities and infrastructure that they operate are included in this industry.14 The SBA has

developed a small business size standard for this category, which is 1,500 or fewer employees.15 Of

those 31,996, 1,818 operated with more than 100 employees, and 30,178 operated with fewer than 100

employees.16

Thus under this category and the associated small business size standard, the majority of

such firms can be considered small. In addition to Census data, the Commission’s Universal Licensing

System indicates that as of July 2013, there are 2,236 active EBS licenses. The Commission estimates

that of these 2,236 licenses, the majority are held by non-profit educational institutions and school

districts, which are by statute defined as small businesses.17

D.

Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance

Requirements

7.

This Fifth Report and Order imposes no new reporting or recordkeeping requirements

and does not establish other compliance requirements.

E.

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

Significant Alternatives Considered

8.

The RFA requires an agency to describe the steps it has taken to minimize any significant

economic impact on small entities consistent with the stated objectives of applicable statutes.18

We see no

potential burden on small entities that hold BRS or EBS licenses. We believe our action today provides

benefits to small businesses that hold BRS and EBS licensees, who would be able to use wider channel

bandwidths to provide faster service and use their spectrum more efficiently.

13 U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 NAICS Definitions, “517110 Wired Telecommunications Carriers,” (partial

definition), www.census.gov/naics/2007/def/ND517110.HTM#N517110.

14 Id.

15 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110.

16 See

http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ECN_2007_US_51SSSZ2&prod

Type=table.

17 The term “small entity” within SBREFA applies to small organizations (nonprofits) and to small governmental

jurisdictions (cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, and special districts with populations of

less than 50,000). 5 U.S.C. §§ 601(4)-(6).

18 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).

17

image18-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

9.

The main alternative considered was to adopt the proposed rule changes without

maintaining the current level of interference protection to adjacent channel licensees below 2495 MHz.

That alternative was rejected because it could have increased the potential for harmful interference to

licensees operating below 2495 MHz and because it is possible for licensees in the 2.5 GHz band to get

the benefits of wider channel bandwidths in most of the band without changing the out-of-band emission

limits that apply below 2495 MHz.

Report to Congress:

10.

The Commission will send a copy of this Fifth Report and Order, including this FRFA,

in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the

Congressional Review Act.19 In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this Fifth Report and

Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A

copy of this Fifth Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the

Federal Register.20

19 See generally, 5 U.S.C. § 801 (a)(1)(A).

20 See 5 U.S.C. § 604(b).

18

image19-00.jpg612x792

Federal Communications Commission

FCC 14-76

APPENDIX C

List of Commenters to BRS/EBS OOBE FNPRM

Commenters

Alcatel Lucent

Clearwire Corporation (Clearwire)

DigitalBridge Communications Corp. (DigitalBridge)

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

GCT Semiconductor (GCT)

Globalstar, Inc. (Globalstar)

Huawei Technologies (USA) (Huawei)

IP Wireless, Inc. (IP Wireless)

Motorola Mobility, Inc. (Motorola)

National EBS Association (NEBSA) and Catholic Television Network (CTN)

Nokia Siemens Networks US LLC (Nokia Siemens Networks) and Nokia Inc. (Nokia)

SEQUANS Communications

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)

Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCAI)

Reply Commenters

EIBASS

Globalstar

Northrup-Grumman Systems Corporation (NGSC)

WCAI

Ex Parte

Clearwire

Globalstar

19

Note: We are currently transitioning our documents into web compatible formats for easier reading. We have done our best to supply this content to you in a presentable form, but there may be some formatting issues while we improve the technology. The original version of the document is available as a PDF, Word Document, or as plain text.

close
FCC

You are leaving the FCC website

You are about to leave the FCC website and visit a third-party, non-governmental website that the FCC does not maintain or control. The FCC does not endorse any product or service, and is not responsible for, nor can it guarantee the validity or timeliness of the content on the page you are about to visit. Additionally, the privacy policies of this third-party page may differ from those of the FCC.