WPC8Z 2BJZ Courier3|j ix6X@`7X@HP LaserJet 4Si (Add) 2025M RM5126HPLA4SAD.PRSx  @\0!QX@2 68KH Z3|j "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+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN/>/>/>/x]SSSSx]x]x]x]xSxSx]SSxSxSf]xSxSxSxIxIxWxIx{nInInInISSSWS]a?/?]?9?]]WW]n/nKn9nCn/x]xx]x]SSxxIxIxI]?]?]?]WnUn9nax]x]x]x]x]x]xxWnInInIx]n9x]]?n9xSz+SS8-8WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN8HH"&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!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""A.SSxSSJR"RNOdxSxS8JSVSSSSS;88VVS++SSfSSxSc]]8VS;"xxSxxqS]^^^z0^88^^^zxzzzggx8E]S^/zU*FJSvggxxxxxzzzzKxggqU^^^zxxxxzzK|lr]f]oJiSfM`xJ.+fS{Sc|YoS`x^_^eSSiJxJofx]fff|i8Sxxf`lrf88SSS]2'K\K( f s"i~'^:DTddDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDd||||DXp||dp||ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlD4lTDDD4DDDDDDdDd8|d|d|d|d|dX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXlXx|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDddllXp8pHpDp@p8dtdddd|L|L|LdLdLdLllpHp8pTddddddplpLpLpLdpDddLpDpdx4ddC,CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxHhdLdddddd8@d<@d<DDppdDDxddzHxxHkddDpd<"dxtldxxdTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman ItalicSymbolCG TimesCG Times BoldCG Times ItalicCourierCourier Italic"i~'^DOuuOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuOOuۨYuۨ騨OAOuOuggOuAOAăugYOuuug]3]yO=yOOO=OOOOOOuOAuuuuu騨gggggVAVAVAVAuuuuuuuuuuuuuggyggggguuuyuYAYYOYyyAiO]Auu稨gggYYYywO騨ygggOYOu=uuN?NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTT|uOuuuuuuFOuFOuFOOuuuPPuu鏱T錌TƒOuuF"u錊~u匌u",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCY~~vCN~sk~CCCddCYdYdYCdd88d8ddddJN8ddddYYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8YYYYYY~Y~Y~Y~YC8C8C8C8ddddddddddYdddddsdXdXXXddx|X~d~d|XdddddddC8ddddCdoddd|8|H~d<|8dtddddHHdlLlLlLkd|H|8~ddddddddXXXd~ddkd~ddxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCYQQddddddFddddFCChhd44ddzzdddvooChdF"dhd9dCCzCddoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCz~ozoY~NYdYC8YooYdYzsdzdd~YYzozzz~CdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L2F f ( f q3K> "A",tB^ f ^;C]ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxN`xoCCCddCdoYoYFdo8Co8odooYNCodddYdddd4dddddCddddddddo8dddddYYYYYN8N8N8N8oddddooooddpddddxodddXXddXddXdddddooL8doddNorddo8PdN8ppoddXXdpLoNpLodPDdopoopodXYXodoodddCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCdUUddddddFddddFCCssd44ddzzddd~ooCsdF"dsd9dCCzCddoddCdYds`zUvdddCCCCzozoYNYYYN8YooYdYzzdzddYYzozzzNdzYzzzzCCdddddddzCzdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L",tB^ f ^;C`ddCCCdCCCCddddddddddCCdxxxsCYoxxdoxxooCCCddCddYdY8dd88Y8ddddLL8dYYYLYdYd4dddddCddddddddd8xdxdxdxdxdYxYxYxYxYC8C8C8C8dddddddddoYxddddoYdxdxdxdxdXXddxxXxdxdxXdddddddD8ddddCdddddp8pHodp8p8dxddddxLxLxddLdLdLddpHp8odddddddodpLpLpLdoddddododxCddCCCWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNdddCd]]ddddddFddddFCCddd88ddzzdddkddCddF"ddd9dCCzCdzdoddCdYds]zUvdYYCCCCzzzozoYzNoYdYC8YooYdYzzdzddoYoYzzozzzzzCdoozYzzzzCCddddzdddooozCsdYC\   pxtll\tll@\@\`L"i~'^DO]uuĶOOOu=O=AuuuuuuuuuuAAgרOYͨۨOAOkuOgugugOuuAAuAuuuuOYAuuuugp/p~O=~kOOO=OOOOOOOOuAggggg͘gggggOAOAOAOAuuuuuuuuuuguruuuuggggg~ggggguuu~u~uOAOuOOOu~~uA]OOAuuuuuͨOOOYYY~bAkuuuuuuۨ~ggguOuYOu=uuN*NWxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNTTkuOguuuuuAKuFKuFOOgguPPuu叱T錌TƒOguF"u錇~u匌u"i~'K2^$(8<><q*"xxxxWWxxxWWkkxxxA.SSxSSJJSJS+SSSSS8SSSSSSSSS.xJxJxJxJxJorJiJiJiJiJ8.8.8.8.{SxSxSxSxS{S{S{S{SxSxJ{SxSxSxS{S`SxIxSxIqIqIrSrS{dgIiSiSgIxSxSxSxSxS{S{S8.SSSS8Sz]SSuSg/gFx6X@`7X@V"G($,ChG PE37hP<r5ddd,jSd6X@`7@ r5ddd,rd6Nhez7H@|ND,i|\  P6G;P@ND,,ʼ4  pG;x/c81,Cc PE37PDy.f81,Luf_ pi7a) 1. 1. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .26Z X- XX   ) X-w #Xj\  P6G;+XP# Federal Communications Commission`(# FCC 97112 ă  yxdddy )+J #Xj\  P6G;+XP#Before the w Federal Communications Commission  X-Washington, D.C. 20554 #c PE37P#у  X-` ` #Xj\  P6G;+XP#In the Matter of l) e` `  l)  XU-Amendment of the Commission's Rules tol) GN Docket No. 96228  X>-Establish Part 27, the Wirelessl)  X'-Communications Service ("WCS")l)  X -  MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER lU  X -` p Adopted: March 31, 1997 pp Release "E: d "E: : April 2, 1997  X -pX` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:it is impossible for equipment manufacturers to design new equipment to provide adequate  xZprotection in a changed environment. WCA also states that the use of digital technology will not  xenable the wireless cable industry to completely protect against interference from WCS licensees  xoperating at excessive power. Further, according to WCA, many wireless cable systems,  xLparticularly those serving more rural communities, are unlikely to convert to digital modulation  xybecause the cost associated with digital operations cannot be borne by their limited subscriber  xbase. WCA adds that, for similar reasons, ITFS licensees that operate independently of wireless  xcable systems have not announced any plans to convert to digital technology and thus should not  xjbe expected to replace their installed base of downconverters any time soon. WCA states that  xno known technology will provide infinite frequency selectivity to ensure that downconverters  xwill not receive signals from WCS transmitters operating with unlimited power. Thus, in WCA's  X - xview, the Commission's statement in the Report and Order that it will examine WCS interference  X - xKon a post hoc basis does not provide adequate protection for MDS/ITFS licensees. WCA argues  xthat wireless cable subscribers will switch to alternative sources of multichannel video  x>programming if they get interference. Noting that the recent MDS auction raised over $200  xmillion, WCA claims that, if the Commission does not grant the relief requested, the Commission  x>will have engaged in a regulatory taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.  X!- px7.ppIn addition, WCA states that, although the installed downconverters have been  xdesigned to avoid interference by filtering out signals from currently authorized users of the  x23052320 MHz and 23452360 MHz bands, the installed downconverters may suffer destructive  xblanketing interference if WCS signals are transmitted at power levels exceeding 20 watts EIRP.  xThus, WCA argues that, if it does nothing else, the Commission should in the interim assure  xprotection of existing MDS/ITFS downconverters. Ultimately, WCA urges the Commission to  xZimpose a specific power limitation on WCS licensees to allow equipment manufacturers to design,  X- xmanufacture and market newer downconverters that will be protected against WCS interference.  xMoreover, since WCS licensees may use WCS spectrum to provide MDS service, WCA argues that a power limit is needed to promote regulatory parity.  X$- pPx8.ppOpposition. Metricom, Inc. ("Metricom") opposes WCA's proposal to limit WCS  X- xoperations to 20 watts EIRP.v 6 {O -ԍ See Metricom, Inc.'s Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration at 1. v Metricom states that the Commission has already considered and  xrejected the arguments raised in the WCA petition. Specifically, Metricom argues that the  X- xCommission expressly considered BellSouth's request (made in ex parte filings) to limit WCS  xjoperations to 20 watts and declined to adopt such a limitation. Metricom states that WCA has  x-not raised any new arguments for imposing a 20 watt limit and, thus, reconsideration of this issue  x=is not warranted. In addition, Metricom argues that BellSouth's technical showing was filed in  X#- x>latefiled ex parte comments and, thus, no potential WCS applicants had an opportunity to  x.respond to the assertions. Metricom believes that any interference problems created by WCS "r$Z ,N(N(ZZF#"  xoperations under the adopted rules will be minimal. Metricom notes that the WCS and  xMDS/ITFS facilities practically need to be colocated for the alleged interference to occur.  xMetricom avers that because of the anticipated pointtopoint operations that will largely comprise  xWCS service, antenna sites will need to be carefully engineered and strategically placed at  xjoptimum positions. Therefore, Metricom believes that the likelihood of WCS fixed transmitters  x.being located a mere 300 feet away from any particular downconverter, which will generally be  xlocated in a residential area, is minimal at best. Metricom argues that the small percentage of  xdownconverters which may be affected certainly does not justify Commission action which affects  xthe entire WCS service. Metricom states that because WCS will operate in a different frequency  x]band than MDS/ITFS, matters of alleged interference should be able to be resolved with  x.technological fixes. Metricom argues that since MDS/ITFS downconverters currently operate  xwith other "high power" operations in the 2.1 to 2.7 GHz band, there is no reason why the  xdownconverters cannot be redesigned to tolerate interference from another outofband operation,  x=that is, WCS. Finally, Metricom argues that the Commission must provide adequate power for WCS operations.  X- px9.ppReplies. BellSouth, Pacific Telesis Group, and WCA filed Reply Comments, urging  X{- xLus to establish a 20 watt EIRP limit for WCS operations.u {6 {O-ԍ See, e.g., Reply Comments of Pacific Telesis Group at 1. u BellSouth urges us to adopt a WCS  xpower limitation, above which WCS licensees would, prior to beginning operations, be required  xto notify nearby MDS/ITFS licensees and negotiate with them a mutually acceptable transmitter  X6- xsiting arrangement.}6Z6 {OA-ԍ See Reply of BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. at ii. } Specifically, BellSouth suggests 20 watts as this WCS power limit and  xsuggests 60 days prior to commencement of WCS operations as the minimum time for  x\notification. BellSouth also urges that the specification of an absolute power limit for WCS  xoperations is necessary as a design prerequisite for the development of MDS/ITFS downconverters that will not be susceptible to signal overloading caused by WCS operations.  X- px10.ppWCA argues that restricting WCS licensees to 20 watts EIRP absent consent of  x potentially affected MDS and ITFS licensees would provide WCS licensees with sufficient  X~- xLflexibility.v~6 {O-ԍ See Reply of The Wireless Cable Association International, Inc. at ii.v WCA agrees with Metricom that the Commission should provide for enough EIRP  xto make WCS attractive and viable. WCA observes, however, that no one has presented the  x/Commission with any factual evidence that a 20 watt EIRP limit would adversely impact the  xdevelopment of WCS and that DigiVox the only party in this docket that specifically addresses  xthe power level necessary for the successful employment of its technology requires far less than  X - x20 watts EIRP. ~6 yO:%-ԍ DigiVox's PACS system requires 800 milliwatts ("mW") for base stations and 200 mW for handsets. Moreover, WCA states that the adoption of its proposal need not preclude  xhigher power WCS operations in the future should a demand arise, so long as the WCS licensee  xand affected MDS/ITFS licensees are able to negotiate mutuallyacceptable arrangements designed",N(N(ZZ;"  x]to mitigate harmful WCS interference. WCA also states that Metricom's contention that  xinterference from WCS to MDS/ITFS receivers would be minimal is based on a flawed reading  xof WCA's Petition. WCA states that Metricom bases its analysis upon flawed assumptions  xregarding the power levels of WCS transmitters, the configuration of WCS networks, and the  xpotential proximity of MDS/ITFS receivers to WCS transmitters. Given the possible WCS  xsystem configurations, WCA argues that the possibility of interference is far greater than  xMetricom surmises. WCA states that the size of the area in which interference to MDS/ITFS  xreception will occur expands dramatically as WCS power, number of WCS transmitters, and their  XH- xradio horizon increases.NH6 yO -ԍ WCA cites EdNet Comments, Exhibit E.N WCA also states that Metricom is wrong in implying that MDS/ITFS  xreceivers are already subject to significant interference from ISM and Amateur operations.  xSpecifically, WCA states that ISM equipment must protect MDS/ITFS reception and, as a  xpractical matter, does not cause interference because ISM equipment generally is designed to  xjcontain RF emissions. Likewise, WCA states that amateur operations are obligated to transmit  xat the lowest possible power, rarely transmit at maximum authorized power, are few and far between, and transmit intermittently in any event.  X- Xp` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:employ equipment in the future which will not require undue power restrictions on users of  xZnearby spectrum. To balance these objectives, we are establishing an interference protection rule  X - xfor MDS/ITFS receivers, based on aspects of the existing FM blanketing rule.J BJ {O%-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  73.318.J Specifically,  x/WCS licensees will bear full financial obligation to remedy interference to MDS/ITFS block",N(N(ZZ<"  xdownconverters if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the complaint of interference is  X- xreceived by the WCS licensee prior to February 20, 2002; (2) the MDS/ITFS downconverter was  xkinstalled prior to August 20, 1998; (3) the WCS operation transmits at 50 or more watts peak  X- x/EIRP;J yO4- xԍ The 50 watts EIRP allowance provides a 2 dB margin of protection against overload of the frequency converter. (4) the MDS/ITFS downconverter is located within a WCS transmitter's power flux  X- xdensity contour of 34 dBW/m2; J yOu- x-ԍ We calculated the power density, F, contour by the following method: Assume, per WCA's Petition, a 24  yO= K xdBi antenna (numeric of which is 251.2 = Gr) and that the maximum allowable input to the MDS/ITFS  yO K x;downconverter, Pr, is 12 dBm. Then Pr = F2Gr  (4!), where wavelength, , = c  f. F = 37 dBW/m2. However,  xin a matched system, only half of the average antenna power is delivered to the load (downconverter). Therefore,  yO -the power density contour is increased by 3 dB, which is 34 dBW/m2.  and (5) the MDS/ITFS customer or licensee has informed the  xWCS licensee of the interference within one year from the initial operation of the WCS  xtransmitter or within one year from any subsequent power increase at the WCS station. If the  xWCS licensee cannot otherwise promptly eliminate interference caused to MDS/ITFS reception,  xthen that licensee would be required to cease operations from the offending WCS facility. In  x/addition to this blanketingtype rule, we will require WCS licensees, at least 30 days before  xcommencing operations from any new WCS transmission site or with increased power from any  xyexisting WCS transmission site, to notify all MDS/ITFS licensees in or through whose licensed  xservice areas they intend to operate of the technical parameters of the WCS transmission facility.  xjWe emphasize, however, that WCS licensees have no obligation to remedy interference unless  xall of the conditions are met. If the WCS licensees and the MDS and ITFS licensees coordinate  xvoluntarily, we believe that WCS fixed and land stations can generally be located in a manner  x\to avoid causing interference to MDS/ITFS receivers. We expect the WCS and MDS/ITFS  xlicensees to coordinate voluntarily and in good faith to avoid interference problems and to allow the greatest operational flexibility in each other's operations.   x16. We believe that the above approach appropriately apportions the burdens and  xincentives between the WCS and MDS/ITFS licensees. WCS licensees will have an incentive  xto coordinate voluntarily with the MDS/ITFS industry in order to prevent interference problems  x/from occurring, and the 30day notification requirement will afford MDS/ITFS licensees an  xyopportunity to alert their subscribers to the potential for interference and explain what to do in  xKthe event it occurs. In turn, MDS/ITFS licensees will have an incentive to develop and use better  x.technology for new receiving installations. The MDS/ITFS industry will have 18 months from  X- xthe release date of the Report and Order in this proceeding to deplete inventories of existing  xequipment and to design more robust replacement equipment, and WCS licensees will be  xMobligated for five years to remedy actual interference. Beyond that time, it is reasonable to  xexpect the MDS/ITFS industry to bear full financial responsibility for any necessary equipment  x-replacement costs. Further, we believe that basing MDS/ITFS protection on a power flux density  xLcontour rather than a restrictive power limitation serves the public interest. This approach will  xprovide WCS licensees with greater flexibility to design and implement new wireless services.  xWCS licensees operating at power levels higher than 50 watts will have a larger zone within" ,N(N(ZZ"  xwhich they will be obligated to remedy interference to MDS/ITFS downconverters, but they will  x[be able to make that choice given the particular characteristics of the market in which they will  x0operate. From our experience in addressing technically analogous issues of blanketing  xinterference caused by FM broadcast transmitters, we believe that the "technological fixes"  x[contemplated by the blanketingtype rule coupled with the 30day notification requirement will  x[adequately protect MDS/ITFS operations and yet allow WCS substantially greater operational  xflexibility than would be possible under the power limit approach suggested by the petitioner.  xWe therefore conclude that the approach we adopt here to address concerns about WCS signal overloading of MDS/ITFS downconverters will best serve the overall public interest.  X -WCS OutofBand Emission Limits  X -  X - Ax17.Petition. In their joint Petition, PPF and DigiVox  J yOe - xԍ DigiVox desires to be a WCS licensee and, if successful at the WCS auction, would employ its licensed  xspectrum for the provision of low power service by means of Personal Access Communications System ("PACS")  xtechnology. The PACS system is a well defined technology for operations in the broadband PCS spectrum that is  {O- xnearing final adoption in the standards setting process. See Telecommunications Industry Association's Standards  xProposal No. 3418, Proposed New Standard "Personal Access Communications System Air Interface Standard" (if  x-approved, to be published as JSTD014), dated February 13, 1995. According to the PACS Standards Proposal,  xJPACS architecture consists of fixed or portable subscriber units communicating through radio ports ("base stations")  xthat, typically, have wireline access via a radio port control unit and an access manager to the public switched  xtelephone network. PACS uses separate channels for base station transmit and subscriber unit transmit, that is, the  xduplexing technique used in PACS is frequency division duplexing ("FDD"). PACS channels are 300 kHz wide,  xsubscriber units transmit in the lower band, and base stations transmit in the upper frequency band. The base stations  xtransmit continuously using Time Division Multiplexing ("TDM"), which is a multiplexing technique whereby two  xwor more channels are derived from a transmission medium by dividing access to the medium into sequential intervals.  xiEach transmitter uses one 300 kHz channel to send several bit streams of information. The maximum allowable  xtransmitter output power as measured at the base station antenna connection is 800 mW, but, over time and with  yO- xYtemperature variations, power is allowed to vary + 20%, that is, the base station power could go as high as 960 mW.  xThe subscriber unit transmits in bursts (Time Division Multiple Access ("TDMA")) with a burst power level  x-determined by the adaptive power control process. (TDMA is a multiple access technique whereby users share a  xtransmission medium by being assigned and using (oneatatime) for a limited number of time division multiplexed  xJchannels; several transmitters thus could use one channel for sending several bit streams.) The subscriber unit adjusts  xits output power in steps of 1 dB in response to the power control signal received from the base station. The total  xadjustment range is required to be at least 30 dB. If the subscriber unit's power control does not function properly,  xthe subscriber unit defaults to its highest transmit power level. When the subscriber unit is off, the emissions of the  xsubscriber unit must not exceed 80 nanowatts when measured in a 300 kHz band. The maximum allowable burst  xtransmitter output power as measured at the subscriber unit's antenna connection is 200 mW, but, over time and with  yO - x<temperature variations, this power is allowed to vary as much as + 20%, that is, the subscriber unit's power could go as high as 240 mW. request that we reconsider the  x@WCS outofband emission limits with respect to the dedicated Satellite DARS band,  X - x2320-2345MHz.Z J {O%- xԍ In the Report and Order, we required that all emissions into the 23202345 MHz band from fixed WCS  xtransmitters be attenuated below the transmitter output power ("p") by at least 80 + 10 log (p) dB and all such emissions from mobile WCS transmitters be attenuated below p by at least 110 + 10 log (p) dB. PPF/DigiVox argues that the adopted out-of-band emission limits are much" ,N(N(ZZl "  xmore restrictive than necessary to protect Satellite DARS reception, and would effectively  xjpreclude any use of the WCS spectrum for portable communications. PPF/DigiVox argues that  xit is possible to protect Satellite DARS reception while allowing for the use of specific segments  xof the WCS bands for portable services by adopting the allocations and operating parameters  xdiscussed below. Specifically, PPF/DigiVox recommends that the 23052310 MHz band  x.(BandA) and the 23102315 MHz (Band B) be designated for subscriber portable unit transmit  xand that the 23502355 MHz band (Band A) and the 23552360 MHz band (Band B) be  xdesignated for base station transmit. For systems that conform to specific parameters,  xjPPF/DigiVox proposes that the power of emissions into the 23202345 MHz band from portable  xunits transmitting in the 23052315 MHz band be limited to 81 + 10 log (p) dB and that the  xpower of emissions into the 23202345 MHz band from base stations transmitting in the 2350 x2360 MHz band be limited to 75 + 10 log (p) dB. PPF/DigiVox then provides the following  xtechnical parameters, which it avers will afford Satellite DARS reception with adequate protection: O ddx !ddx " V O  q  h " X-Q Additional Technical Parameters q Z  hI  Handset Duty Cyclerh 12.5% duty cycle: 312.5 microsecond pulses every 2.5 millisecondsZ q  Ih  Subscriber unit transmit powerh 200 milliwatts ("mW")q , [ h   Base station transmit power=h 800 mW at a height of 25 feet. For base stations mounted higher, it will be possible to raise the power in accordance with the additional path loss afforded by the greater distance,     w  Polarizationyw Linear  w  xyPPF/DigiVox states that portable services are specifically distinguished from mobile services in  xthat portable handset antennas are by definition not mounted on vehicles. Rather, the handset and  xits transmitting antenna will be operated within 20 cm of the subscriber's head. PPF/DigiVox  x[argues that, under its proposed outofband emission limits, an operating WCS handset would  x/have to come within twelve feet of an operating Satellite DARS antenna for there to be any  xinterference to Satellite DARS reception. PPF/DigiVox states that, given the realworld  x<practicalities of the operations of the two systems, it is highly improbable that they will come into  x>such close contact. PPF/DigiVox argues that even in the case of urban areas in the eastern  xUnited States, the interfering contact would on average last no more than one second for every  x200 minutes of listening. Additional assumptions upon which PPF/DigiVox relies to justify its  x.proposed alternative WCS outofband emission limits include a 5 dB loss due to proximity of"e$ ,N(N(ZZ7#4"  xthe portable unit to the user's head, a 9 dB reduction claimed to result from the handset duty  X-cycle of 12.5%, and a variety of other complex, technical factors.d H {Ob-ԍ See PPF/DigiVox Petition at pp. 1113 and Exhibit A.d x  X-  ]x18. Oppositions. All four Satellite DARS applicants oppose the PPF/DigiVox Petition.!ZH yO- xԍ In addition, 21st Century Telesis, Inc., a Block C Broadband PCS licensee intending to deploy PACS technology, filed reply comments urging the denial of the PPF/DigiVox Petition.  xThe Satellite DARS applicants challenge PPF/DigiVox's analysis and contend that unreasonable  xinterference with DARS reception would result even under WCS operations that meet the  x0petitioner's suggested technical restrictions. For example, Digital Satellite Broadcasting  xZCorporation ("DSBC") and Primosphere Limited Partnership ("Primosphere") state that duty cycle  xrelated benefits accrue only to systems employing pulsed transmissions. Further, DSBC states  xthat the interference caused by portable unit pulsed transmissions cannot be mitigated by  x<averaging techniques, because the pulses cause repetitive spikes of interference at the peak level  X -that will be quite harmful to perceived audio quality.?" H yOh-ԍ DSBC Opposition at 4.?  X - x19.American Mobile Radio Corporation ("AMRC"), DSBC and Primosphere state that  xuse of duty cycle/pulsed based transmissions may still cause harmful effects. Specifically, AMRC  xstates that reliance on a portable handset transmit duty cycle of 12.5% to reduce the effect of  xinterference by 9 dB is not appropriate because whenever interference from portable unit  xemissions at a given level causes severe interference, a Satellite DARS receiver will suffer the  Xd- x>loss of 12.5% of its received information rate.# dBH yOW- xԍ AMRC Opposition, Technical Statement at 1. Hughes Network Systems ("HNS") averaged power as follows:  xwwhen the handset is on, it is permitted to transmit only oneeight of the time, that is, 312.5 microseconds every 2.5  xmilliseconds. Since power is halved every 3 dB, Hughes concludes that duty cycle will reduce PACS interference potential by 9 dB.  AMRC avers that reliance on duty cycle to  xLreduce the effective interference is appropriate only where the interference results overall from  xjthe composite effects of a large number of transceivers operating with a random distribution of  x=transmit start times. In the instant case, however, AMRC states that it is necessary to analyze  xthe effect of a single PACS transmitter, and no credit for interference reduction may be obtained from consideration of the duty cycle.  X- x20.DSBC observes that HNS assumes an average 5 dB loss due to signal blockage by  x?the user's head. DSBC argues, however, that there is no basis for assuming that a WCS  xisubscriber's head will always be located between the WCS portable handset transmit antenna and  X~- x<the DARS receive antenna.?$~* H yOY%-ԍ DSBC Opposition at 4.? To the contrary, DSBC believes that this situation would arise only  xabout 50% of the time. Likewise, AMRC asserts that the attenuation of WCS transmitted signals  xresulting from energy absorption by the human head will vary widely, and can be zero over a"P $,N(N(ZZ4"  X- xrange of directions around the side of the head where the transceiver is held.V%H yOy-ԍ AMRC Opposition, Technical Statement at 1. V AMRC adds that  xsince a single WCS portable transmitter can cause interference, no analytical benefit is obtained  xfrom averaging the emissions from a number of such units over a statistical distribution of  x0orientations. Accordingly, AMRC posits that 0 dB head loss should be assumed in the  xjinterference analysis. Primosphere adds that the interference situation is even worse. It states  xthat recent testing demonstrates that the human head not only absorbs energy at these frequencies  xZbut also acts as a reflector. Specifically, Primosphere states that though the signal strength in the  xdirection through the head is reduced by 2 to 5 dB, it is increased in the direction away from the  xhead by 1 to 2 dB. Primosphere concludes that "head effects" may cause increased WCS  xinterference to Satellite DARS dependent upon the WCS subscriber's geographic orientation  x\relative to a Satellite DARS receive antenna and, therefore, should be considered in the link budget. x  X - Ax21.In addition, the Satellite DARS applicants disagree with other assumptions of the  xpetitioner. For example, AMRC states that the polarization loss assumed by the petitioner is  X - xmoptimistic.X& XH yO-ԍ AMRC Opposition, Technical Statement at 12. X AMRC observes that while 3 dB of isolation between linear and circular  xpolarizations can be obtained in the main beam of the antenna, the HNS analysis presented is for  x[a side lobe. AMRC states that in an antenna side lobe, polarization isolation is much less than  xin the main beam, and should not be counted on. AMRC argues that HNS underestimates  xyinterference from PACS base station transmitters as well as portables. AMRC states that while  xisolation from base antenna directivity may be 20 dB directly below the antenna, HNS has not  xdemonstrated that the worst case location for interference is directly below the antenna. AMRC  X- x notes that the radiation pattern from a dipole antenna is quite broad. At 60o away from the  xminimum, AMRC states that the radiation pattern is near its maximum, while separation distance  x[has increased only from the assumed 24 feet to 48 feet. Thus, AMRC concludes that doubling  xthe separation increases path loss by 6 dB, but also decreases the antenna directivity by 20 dB, resulting in a net increase in interference of 14 dB.  X|- x22.AMRC, Primosphere, DSBC, argue that the supposed improbability of close  Xe- xproximity of WCS and DARS receivers should be discounted.'xeH yO- x.ԍ In particular, AMRC states that many of the parameters in Dr. Harstad's (PPF/DigiVox's consultant's)  xanalysis cannot be known with any precision, and assumptions or approximations must be made. AMRC Opposition,  xTechnical Statement at 2. AMRC states that one assumption appears to be that Satellite DARS equipped vehicles  xwould be within interference range of PACS users only briefly while passing them. AMRC believes that this  xLassumption is unreasonable since vehicles can remain sidebyside for relatively long periods of time, even in  xmoderate traffic. AMRC also states that Dr. Harstad assumes that 12 feet is sufficient isolation to prevent  yO$-interference to Satellite DARS without justifying that assumption.pp Finally, Satellite CD Radio, Inc.  x("CD Radio") argues that requests to operate under less stringent emission limits should only be considered, after the close of the WCS auction, as requests for waiver of the rules. "  ( ',N(N(ZZ4"Ԍ X- x23.Reply. PPF/DigiVox states that its proposed outofband emission limits coupled with  xZits proposed technical criteria will cause no greater interference to Satellite DARS operations than  xthe generally applicable outofband emission limits. PPF/DigiVox argues that PACS is an  ximportant, LECcompetitive service and that the narrow exception requested would enable PACS  xto be provided in the WCS bands. PPF/DigiVox states that the general outofband emission  xlimits were set at what it describes as "a draconian level" because other technical rules are so  xliberal. For example, while the WCS rules permit unlimited power, PPF/DigiVox states that its  xproposal is limited to operations with a subscriber unit peak power of 200 mW. PPF/DigiVox  x=argues that the low power, 12.5% duty cycle for the portable units, a requirement that portable  xjunits employ TDMA technology, and other limitations mean that the effect of a PACS handset  xon a DARS receiver is less than that produced by a single overhanging tree. PPF/DigiVox states  xthat it is critical to note that the technical objections raised by the DARS applicants are general  xin nature, and do not address the specific features of their own service proposals. The suggestion  xthat any relaxation of the rule must be done through waiver at some unspecified later date,  xaccording to PPF/DigiVox, is simply a ruse to postpone the final determination of this issue until  x>after the WCS auction and thereby preclude additional services from operating in the WCS  xspectrum. PPF/DigiVox argues that it is appropriate to average the power when using a duty  xycycle for a system that uses TDMAbased portable units; that 5 dB is the generally recognized  xstandard for signal loss attributable to the human head, taking into account the variability of  xdirection; that 3 dB is in fact the correct isolation factor between circular and linear polarized  xyantennas; that the error correction and interleaving techniques used by all DARS applicants to  xlmitigate highway and foliage obstructions will also be sufficient to mitigate the expected  xzinterference from WCS portable units; and that the 5 MHz separation is sufficient to protect  xDARS without the need for specific rolloff requirements. PPF/DigiVox also states that, although  x.the low noise floor for DARS systems may rest on insupportable assumptions, a conservative  xassumption would give a 2 dB rise in the DARS noise floor. PPF/DigiVox concludes that a WCS  x>portable unit will create a rise of only 6 dB in the DARS floor over a 12 foot radius which,  x[it believes, the DARS systems should be able to accommodate. Beyond 12 feet, the amount of interference would be so drastically reduced as to be of no concern to DARS reception. x  XP- |x24.Decision. We have dedicated considerable staff engineering expertise and resources  xto evaluate the proposal set forth by PPF/DigiVox and find that it is appropriate to adjust the  x[WCS outofband limits for systems that comply with certain parameters. Accordingly, we will  xypermit WCS systems that operate in accordance with the specific parameters set forth below to  xreduce their portable unit emissions into the 23202345 MHz band by a factor not less than 93  X- xz+ 10 log (p) dB, where p is the transmitter power in watts.(H yOX"-ԍ We are maintaining the outofband emission limit of 80 + 10 log (p) dB for base stations. While this is considerably more  X - xLpermissive than the limit for WCS mobile operations that we adopted in the Report and Order,  xwe believe that the specific operating parameters set forth by PPF/DigiVox will limit the potential  xfor such a system to interfere with DARS to a reasonable level generally equivalent to that provided by the stricter limits for more general WCS operations. "n$X(,N(N(ZZF#4"Ԍ X- x25.In authorizing DARS, it was our desire to ensure a high quality radio service.  xHowever, a desire for an interferencefree radio service must be balanced with the need to  xprovide reasonable operating parameters for adjacent services. Accordingly, our intention in  xdetermining outofband emission limits for WCS into the spectrum used by DARS has been to  xlimit the potential for interference to a reasonable level not to provide a pure, interferencefree  X- xLenvironment. In determining the outofband emission limits adopted in the Report and Order  xwe had to take into consideration the wide flexibility that we are providing WCS licensees to  xZprovide any services consistent with the Table of Frequency Allocations. Because we are unable  xkto determine the specific operating parameters of a WCS service until the service is actually  ximplemented, we found it appropriate to adopt limits that take into account any possible system  xconfiguration. Such limits are necessary to ensure the viability of Satellite DARS, which will  xoperate with very low signal levels at the receive antennas, in a frequency band adjacent to a  x[terrestrial service that will likely employ much higher powers and whose transmitters may be in  xzthe immediate vicinity of a DARS receiver. Accordingly, we affirm our decision generally to  xyrequire WCS operations to reduce their emissions in the 23202345 MHz band by not less than  x=80 + 10 log (p) dB for fixed, land, and radiolocation land station transmissions and 110 + 10 log  x<(p) dB for mobile and radiolocation mobile station transmissions, where p is the transmitter power  X{-in watts.)Z{H {O- xԍ We are, however, clarifying that the outofband emission limits specified in the Report and Order for "fixed  xoperations" pertain to transmissions from fixed, land, and radiolocation land stations and that the emission limits specified for "mobile operations" pertain to transmissions from mobile and radiolocation mobile stations.  XM- ^x26.We recognize, however, that it is possible to provide a reasonable level of protection  xto DARS by taking into account a specific WCS system, although it may exceed the outofband  X- xemission limits adopted in the Report and Order. A specific system configuration may have  xycertain attributes that were not taken into account when developing the general emission limits  xbut which reduce its potential to interfere with DARS. For instance, a system may have reduced  xgain in the direction of Satellite DARS receiver, or the probability of the transmitters of a certain  xjtype of WCS system being close enough to interfere with Satellite DARS systems may be very  x>low. PPF/DigiVox has provided a specific set of operating parameters that we can take into  xaccount in our analysis of potential interference to DARS. By taking these specific parameters  xinto account, we believe that is possible for a system to operate with less stringent outofband limits than those originally adopted.  X;- x27.The system described by PPF/DigiVox is a low power, low mobility portable system  xthat will provide voice and data service from fixed and portable units. No vehicle mounted units  xwould be permitted. In reaching our decision to reduce the outofband limits for WCS systems  x.that operate in a manner consistent with that described by PPF/DigiVox, we take into account  xboth the technical and operational factors specific to the interaction of this specific system and  xa DARS system. One of the greatest difficulties in performing this type of analysis, however,  xis the fact that neither system has yet been deployed. Accordingly, our analysis must take into  xconsideration what we believe to be realistic assumptions about system equipment and operations. ""),N(N(ZZ!4"  X- x While we based our analysis on the record of the proceeding, we recognize that there is some  xuncertainty inherent in trying to evaluate two systems that have not yet been deployed and for  xwhich equipment designs are not yet final. We also recognize that the 23202345 MHz frequency  xband is the only spectrum specifically available for provision of Satellite DARS in the United  xyStates. Accordingly, if Satellite DARS in this spectrum is subject to excessive interference, the  xservice will not be successful and the American public will not benefit from the service. In  xcontrast, PACS can be provided in other spectrum currently available for use by services  xkincluding cellular and PCS. Thus, should the potential for WCS operations to interfere with  xDARS prove to be greater when the systems are implemented than our analysis indicates, we  X1-would of course revisit this issue and make appropriate adjustments.5*X1H yO - xԍ Specifically, parties should note that per 47 C.F.R.  27.53(c), when emissions outside of the authorized  xbandwidth cause harmful interference, we may, at our discretion, require greater attenuation than that specified in the Rules.5  X - x28.PPF/DigiVox questions some of the technical parameters of the DARS system. One  xNarea of contention is the Satellite DARS receiver noise temperature used in the analysis.  xPrimosphere used a 200 Kelvin noise temperature in its analysis, which is greater than the 120  xKelvin noise temperature proposed in its application. PPF/DigiVox contends that 370 Kelvins  xis more realistic. Based on the type of antenna proposed for DARS use and the need for cost  x[effective equipment, we believe that a receiver noise temperature of 250 Kelvins is realistic and  Xy-that is what our calculations are based upon.+\yH {O- x-ԍ We note that, in an ex parte filing, TRW Inc. states that "200 degK for an Sband vehicular radio is a bit  {O- xoptimistic, but that a temperature of 250 degK would be readily achievable." See Ex parte Comments of TRW Inc., filed on March 28, 1997, at 5 and Erratum to Comments of TRW Inc., filed on March 31, 1997, at 1.   XK- x29.PPF/DigiVox contends that a rise in noise floor from a single interferer of 2 dB  x/should be allowed, rather than the 0.2 dB rise considered by Primosphere. Considering the  xlimited power that the satellite systems will be able to operate with and the potential for a DARS  xreceiver to be affected by more than one interfering source, whether it is another WCS  xLtransmitter, outofband emissions from another source, or signal blockage, we believe that a 2  xdB allowable rise is too great a contribution from a single source. We also, however, believe that  xa 0.2 dB allowable rise is overly conservative. Accordingly, we have based our calculations on  xka 1.0 dB allowable rise, which corresponds to a 25% rise in receiver noise. These values are  X- xconsistent with those used in determining the outofband limits adopted in the Report and Order.  Xg- x30.In determining the potential for interference from its portable units, PPF/DigiVox  x[takes into account a number of factors. These include the duty cycle of the WCS handset, the  xantenna pattern of a Satellite DARS antenna, isolation due to differences in polarization between  xDARS and WCS, and losses due to the proximity of a WCS portable unit to the head of the user.  xUsers of portable units for the system described by PPF/DigiVox will generally be to the side  xand, in many instances, slightly below the roof of an automobile. We therefore agree with  xPPF/DigiVox that the antenna pattern can be taken into account in performing an interference" +,N(N(ZZ4"  xanalysis. While antenna patterns can vary greatly, thereby affecting the strength of the undesired  X- xsignal into the DARS receiver, we believe that the values proposed by DigiVox are reasonable.,zH {Ob- xԍ In a March 28, 1997, ex parte filing, Primosphere states that it will use a trunk mounted whip antenna which  xiwill place the interfering signal in the main lobe of its antenna. Primosphere contends that DigiVox should have  x taken this into consideration when it did its calculations. We note, however, that the application filed by Primosphere  xxspecifically states that it intends to use a flat antenna design. We reiterate that one of the primary difficulties in  xYperforming this evaluation is the number of unknowns due to changing designs of systems that are not yet deployed.  xOur analysis must, therefore, necessarily depend on what we believe to be reasonable assumptions. We also  yO-anticipate that our decision here will affect how DARS licensees design and deploy their systems.   X- x. We also agree that the isolation realized between the circularly polarized DARS signal and the  xlinearly polarized WCS operations can be taken into consideration. We disagree, however, with  x<the contention that the outofband limits should be reduced by 9 dB due to the duty cycle of the  xWCS handset. Because the symbol time used by DARS is shorter than the WCS burst of 312  xmicrosecond, the DARS data will be disrupted by the WCS operations. While it may be possible  xfor the DARS operators to employ error correction techniques that take into account the limited  xduty cycle of the WCS operations, any reduction in interference potential does not correlate  xdirectly to the reduction in power claimed by PPF/DigiVox. We do believe, however, that DARS  xyoperators will be able to use the duty cycle to their advantage and are therefore requiring WCS  x-operations to employ a 12.5% duty cycle in order to qualify for the reduced outofband emission  xlimits. Finally, we do not agree that any isolation can be assumed for energy absorbed by the  xhuman head. As Primosphere points out (pg. 7), the subscriber's head often will not be  xpositioned between the WCS transmitter and the Satellite DARS receiver and, in some positions,  xmay add to, rather than subtract from, undesired radiation. No statistical information was  xprovided as to the probability of head loss occurring, or of its magnitude at those times. Due to the mobility of the handheld units, it is highly unlikely that head loss is always present.  XK- x31.In its analysis, PPF/DigiVox assumes a separation of 12 feet between the WCS user  xand the DARS receiver. We have reviewed the statistical analysis provided in support of this   [assumption and, while we do not necessarily agree with all aspects of the analysis, 12 feet is   a reasonable distance to assume in evaluating the potential interaction of DARS listeners and   users of portable WCS operations as described by PPF/DigiVox. While we believe that there   Mwill be interference to the DARS service from these WCS operations, we believe that actual   =instances of interference will be sufficiently limited as to not unduly jeopardize the commercial   viability of DARS. Based on this analysis, we find it reasonable to allow portable WCS units   that meet the criteria described in paragraph 16 to reduce their emission into the 23202345 MHz band by only 93 + 10 log (p) dB.  XN-  O32.PPF/DigiVox has also requested that we relax the outofband limits for base stations   yused in the type of system they describe. PPF/DigiVox bases its argument on the relative gain   of the WCS antenna with respect to the position of the DARS receiver. As pointed out by   Primosphere, depending on the exact antenna employed by the WCS station, the greatest potential   for interference is not directly under the antenna as claimed by PPF/DigiVox. Although the path   loss does increase as the DARS receiver moves away from the WCS base station, the gain of the" ,,N(N(ZZ4"   WCS antenna will also increase. It is not possible to determine the precise relationship between   these two factors without knowing the gain pattern for the specific antenna to be employed. In   addition, if we made such an adjustment, we would have to require that any WCS licensee   joperating under the reduced emission limits use an antenna meeting those characteristics. We   also note that in its evaluation, PPF/DigiVox considered a separation of 24 feet between its base   station and a DARS receiver directly underneath. The system described by PPF/DigiVox may   employ antennas mounted as low as 25 feet. If a DARS antenna is mounted on the roof of a   !vehicle it will be closer than 24 feet to the WCS antenna, resulting in reduced path loss.   Accordingly, fixed WCS stations will continue to be required to reduce their emissions into the 23202345 MHz band by 80 + 10 log (p) dB.  X -  33.For the reasons discussed above, we are permitting WCS Block A and B licensees  X -  to employ portable devices- H yOe - xiԍ For the purposes of this decision, portable devices are defined as transmitters designed to be used within 20 centimeters of the body of the user. that transmit in the 23052315 MHz band only to attenuate all   emissions into the 23202345 MHz band by a factor of not less than 93 + 10 log (p) dB and to   employ base stations that transmit in the 23502360 MHz band only to attenuate all emissions   Ninto the 23202345 MHz band by a factor of not less than 80 + 10 log (p) dB. These less   Lstringent outofband emission limits may be used only if the average portable transmit power   ]is limited to 25 mW, the peak portable transmit power is limited to 200 mW, the portable   ndevices employ means to limit the power to the minimum necessary for successful   communications, the portable devices have a duty cycle of 12.5% or less, and the portable devices   Zuse time division multiple access ("TDMA") technology. In addition, we prohibit the installation   <of vehiclemounted units, require that transmitting antennas employ linear polarization or another   polarization that provides equivalent or better discrimination with respect to a Satellite DARS   antenna, require that the average base station transmit output power be limited to 800 mW, and   require that base station antennas be located at a height of at least 8 meters (26.25 feet) above ground.  X-  X-  X|- = III. ORDERING CLAUSE & EFFECTIVE DATE  Xe-   XN-  34.Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, That Part 27 of the Commission's Rules IS   AMENDED, as set forth in Appendix B, and that, in accordance with the Omnibus Consolidated   Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), these Rules shall be effective  X -  immediately upon   publication in the Federal Register. This action is taken pursuant to Sections   4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 157(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g), and 303(r) and the Omnibus  "E: " -,N(N(ZZ4"   M "E: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). Furthermore, IT   IS ORDERED, That the petitions for reconsideration ARE GRANTED, to the extent described above and DENIED in all other respects.  hh,FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  hh,William F. Caton  hh,Acting Secretary"1-,N(N(ZZ4"  X-|  #Xw PE37 =9XP## Xj\  P6G;+XP#Appendix A: Parties and Submissions  X-l  X-lU Wireless Cable Association Petition  X-Comments in Support of Petition  Xv-  ! 1. 1. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)X hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:2. Archdiocese of Los Angeles Education and Welfare Corporation, the Diocese of Orange  w''pEducation and Welfare Corporation, Caritas Telecommunications, Inc., and Genesee Intermediate School District(#' 3. Asheville Christian Academy 4. AshevilleBuncombe Technical Community College 5. Blue Ridge Community College 6. Brunswick Community College 7. CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. 8. Cape Fear Community College 9. College of the Albemarle 10. Edgecombe Community College 11. Fayetteville Technical Community College 12. Forsyth Community College 13. Gaston College 14. George Mason University 15. James Sprunt Community College 16. Lenoir Community College 17. Meredith College 18. Mississippi EdNet Institute, Inc. 19. Mitchell Community College 20. Nash Community College"%'-,N(N(ZZ%4"Ԍ21. Pamlico Community College 22. Queens College 23. Randolph Community College 24. Roanoke Bible College 25. Roanoke Rapids Graded School District 26. Sampson Community College 27. Sandhills Community College 28. University of North Carolina 29. Wilson Technical Community College  X1-  X -Opposition  1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. Metricom, Inc.  X -Replies  1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. Pacific Telesis Group 2. Bellsouth Corporation and BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. 3. Wireless Cable Association International, Inc.  XK-  X-PACS Providers Forum/DigiVox Corporation Petition  X-Oppositions  X- 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. American Mobile Radio Corporation  X-2. Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corporation  X-3. Primosphere Limited Partnership  X|-4. Satellite CD Radio, Inc.  Xe-  XN-Replies  1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)1. 21st Century Telesis, Inc.   2. American Mobile Radio Corporation, Digital Satellite Broadcasting Corporation, Primosphere w''pLimited Partnership and Satellite CD Radio, Inc.(#' "E: "-,N(N(ZZ4"  X- Appendix B: Final Rules ă Part 27 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: X' hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:requirements, then paragraph (a)(2) shall not apply to portable devices, which instead shall   yattenuate all emissions into the 23202345 MHz band by a factor of not less than 93 + 10 log (p) dB:  XK- 0XS hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:FX@## X PjQ =9XP#  YY -  I agree with the determinations made in this # Xz&_ x/2Q ~XX#Memorandum Opinion and Order# X PjQ =9XP#. I am writing   separately to emphasize that in making the decisions regarding technical performance criteria,   I relied heavily, as is my usual practice, upon the analyses and recommendations of our inhouse   technical experts. The engineers in our Office of Engineering and Technology and in the   iInternational, Wireless, and Mass Media Bureaus reviewed the record thoroughly, including   rapidly evolving technical submissions from those seeking reconsideration, and worked   extensively with potential providers. The FCC's experts came to the joint conclusion that the   technical parameters that we adopt herein provide the best opportunity for greatest number of   potential providers of diverse communications services to participate in the auction of the   frequencies designated by Congress for Wireless Communications Services. Moreover, the   FCC's experts believe that these technical criteria will adequately protect services in adjacent frequency bands.   As is almost always the case, no party got everything it wanted in the final decision but I know   that all received a fair hearing. Furthermore, the decision whether to participate in the   upcoming auctions reposes where it properly belongs: in the business judgment of the potential   bidders. Our technical decisions neither guarantee success nor preclude participation. That is   jas it should be. The public interest is served in a competitive bidding scenario where the   Commission does not preselect winners or losers but allows those entities that value a particular frequency most highly to bid to provide the allocated communications service(s).   kNevertheless, I would be remiss if I did not mention that I remain concerned about the   repercussive negative effects of having spectrum management decisions driven by auction   + methodology. Since this Commission was given initially the authority to use competitive bidding   while I served as Chairman, I have often reiterated my belief that auctions are a licensing   method, they are not a spectrum management technique. To confuse one with the other does violence to the goals and purposes of both.   Management of the radio frequency spectrum in the public interest is one of the fundamental  Y&-  purposes for which this Federal Communications Commission was created.&Ղ Y9)-ԍ #Xw PE37 =9XP# # c PE37P#47 U.S.C. Title 1, Communications Act of 1934, as amended (General Provisions), passim.#x6X@`7 >FX@# Determining which"&y,**'4"   innovative new communications services are worthy of an allocation of this valuable natural   resource and where in the usable radio frequency band such service should be provided is the  Y-  ,essence of responsible spectrum management in behalf of our fellow citizens, # XQo=  x7.Q ~XX#i.e.# X PjQ =9XP#, determining  Y-  z"what" and "where" serves the public interest by, # XQo=  x7.Q ~XX#inter alia# X PjQ =9XP#, minimizing harmful radio interference.   ,In this particular 'Wireless Communications Service,' however, these decisions were taken out   of our hands. The allocation and assignment decisions were made legislatively. Congress   directed this Commission to reallocate certain frequencies to "wireless services" (delimited only   by consistency with "international agreements") and to assign licenses by auction on a specific  Y -  + and expedited timetable.. Ղ yP -ԍ#c PE37P# #d6X@DQS@##c PE37P#Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104208,  xP` -110 Stat. 3009 (1996).#Xx6X@DQ >FX@#. The focus was on receipt of auction revenues into the national treasury   Yby a date certain. The budget process rather than engineering principles drove the overarching   Zallocation and assignment decisions. Our decisions on the interstitial technical criteria were similarly bound by the revenuebased allocation and assignment parameters.   I am not certain that any decisions that we have made in this proceeding would be different if   this Commission were allowed to pursue our timetested and proven procedures for allocating   Zand assigning spectrum. I am certain, however, that the decisions on technical criteria were   hmade considerably more complex by having to be made after, rather than as an integral part of,   the underlying allocation decision and in a hurried manner. This is especially troublesome   wwhere, as in these bands, equipment is yet to be developed. Manufacturers are at only the very   <early stages of research and development. Indeed, the record reveals that the manufacturers were looking for guidance from this Commission in order to target their R&D efforts.  Y-  ,This is not to denigrate in any way the efforts of our technical experts or the # XQo=  x7.Q ~XX#bona fides# X PjQ =9XP# of the   hparties to this proceeding. I am continually impressed by technical acumen and prowess of this   Commission's experts. They have become quite adept at pounding square service assignment   Z"pegs" into round allocation "holes," but it is far preferable if they are allowed to shape the   -allocation and assignment decisions to limit interference in keeping with sound engineering practice in the first instance.   kI am not an engineer, but my twentythree year tenure at this Federal Communications   Commission and the practical experience I gained as a broadcaster in my previous career have   ;convinced me that engineering and, in particular, spectrum management is at least as much   art as science. The technical experts evaluate all the variables and develop formula for   hpredicting the likelihood and severity of harmful radio frequency emissions. To the extent that   some variables in the calculation are fixed by allocation or other decisions that do not have a strong technical basis, the formula are less flexible and reliable.   That said, I reiterate that I support the minimal technical "corrections" that we make in this  Yn$-# XQo=  x7.Q ~XX#MO&O# X PjQ =9XP#. "Y%!,**&4"  Y- "E:    "E: W # Xw PE37 =9XP# April 2, 1997 l l l .Separate Statement eof Commissioner Susan Ness  Y`-l U  W -Re: Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Services ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96228. (#  Y -As we continue to authorize new services in new bands under flexible criteria, we necessarily are faced with difficult choices regarding interference not just inband, but also from  Y -neighboring bands. Often the levels of permissible interference are derived by theoretical models without the benefit of experience under real world conditions. Such is the situation in this case. Here, on reconsideration of our Wireless Communications Services Order of six weeks ago, the Commission was requested to adopt less stringent outofband emission limits for portable WCS transmitters to accommodate the Personal Access  Y-Communications Systems (PACS) technology. FCC engineers have examined the submitted information about the technology and that of the four applicants' digital audio radio systems, and have concluded that some relaxation of the outofband emission limits would be feasible without causing harmful interference to the planned DARS service.  Y-It is with some misgiving that I vote to approve relaxation of the emissions standard b efore we have had a chance to further assess the intereference levels on the specific systems that will provide DARS service. The United States fought hard at the 1992 World Radio Conference for the authority to allocate spectrum in the S Band for DARS. This is the only band in the United States in which this service can be provided. PACS is and can be offered in spectrum other than the 2.3 GHz WCS band, where there would be no potential interference with DARS. Adequate protection from interference is essential for satellite delivered digital audio radio. In my view, it would not be in the public interest to authorize a service and then to encumber it with harmful interference from another band. As stated by Bellcore in the record of this proceeding, the issue is how much interference  Y!-DARS can tolerate and still provide a high quality service. (Bellcore Ex Parte submitted by PPF on March 27, 1997.) Our engineering advisors have independently assessed the technical data submitted and concluded that this decision is fully consistent with a high quality and viable DARS service. Based upon the independent analysis of the FCC engineers, I am content at this time to authorize a higher emissions level for systems meeting the specified criteria. However, if as a result of this decision satellite DARS is subject to harmful interference, I would revisit this issue and make appropriate adjustments."(,**0*4"   k hh,Vpp  April 2, 1997  X-  Statement of Commissioner Rachelle B. Chong, l  X-0Dissenting in Part lU  Wv-Re:Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless  Y_-Communications Services ("WCS"), GN Docket No. 96228, Memorandum Opinion and Order(#  Y3-   kI am pleased to support the portion of our WCS reconsideration decision to adopt additional service interference protection for multipoint distribution service ("MDS") and the instructional television fixed service ("ITFS"). I write separately, however, to respectfully  Y -dissent from the portion of the Memorandum Opinion and Order adopting a less stringent  Y -outofband emission limit for portable WCS transmitters. Ղ Y;-#XSX  PQ =9XP#э Memorandum Opinion and Order, paras. 2433. Ĉ kIn their joint petition, the PACS Providers Forum ("PPF") and DigiVox Corporation ("DigiVox") request that we reconsider the WCS outofband emission limits with respect to the dedicated satellite digital audio radio service ("DARS") band at 23202345 MHz. Specifically, they propose that we adopt an outofband emission limit of 81 + 10 log (p) dB  Y8-for portable operations and 75 + 10 log (p) dB for fixed operations. PPF and DigiVox argue that these changes in the interference parameters will enable Personal Access Communications Systems ("PACS") technology to be used in the WCS band. Although my colleagues decline to grant the specific relief requested by these two parties, they nonetheless relax to some degree the outofband emission limits we adopted just six weeks ago in the  Y-Report and Order.{Ղ Y-  #XSX  PQ =9XP#э Report and Order, FCC 9750 (released February 19, 1997), 62 Fed.Reg. 09636 (March  Y-3, 1997) ("Report and Order").  Specifically, the Memorandum Opinion and Order allows WCS portable transmitters to meet the outofband emission limit in the DARS band of 93 + 10 log (p) dB, provided that those transmitters meet certain technical restrictions. kRather than developing a "compromise" interference level, I would have preferred that we simply deny the PPF and DigiVox petition. I would have preferred this approach, in part, because it is unclear to me whether the PACS technology will actually work with the  Y'-less stringent outofband emission limits we adopt today.z'Ղ Y#-  #XSX  PQ =9XP#э Initially, the PACS providers indicated that their equipment could not operate in the WCS   band unless we adopted the emission limits proposed in their petition of 81+ 10 log (p) dB for   hmobile operations and 75 + 10 log (p) dB for fixed operations. However, on March 31, 1997,  Y&-  one of the PACS equipment manufacturers, Hughes Network Systems, filed an ex parte letter   that indicates that "microwave components have become available" which should allow PACs  Y(-to meet the outofband emission limits adopted in this Memorandum Opinion and Order.   I am also concerned about the haste with which the compromise was developed, due to stringent time constraints imposed"[ ,**4"  Y-on us.^Ղ Yy-  w#XSX  PQ =9XP#э The PPF/DigiVox petition was filed on March 11, 1997, with oppositions due March 21,   i1997 and replies due March 25, 1997. We are required by law to start the WCS auction on April 15, 1997. The DARS auction was scheduled to begin today.^ Finally, I note that the affected parties did not have an adequate opportunity to provide us with input on the compromise. Thus, for all of those reasons, I am reluctant to  Y-endorse a change in the carefullycrafted limits adopted in the recent Report and Order.  Y- kThere are also equities in the situation that should have been considered. The United States government fought hard for authority to establish the DARS service at WARC '92, and I do not wish our decision today to jeopardize our considerable efforts to create a successful DARS service. Unlike the PACS providers which can operate in a number of  YJ-different bands, the 23202345 MHz band is the only band authorized for DARS.JKՂ YF -  #XSX  PQ =9XP#э PACS equipment has been authorized for use in a number of bands, including the PCS  Y/-and cellular bands. The DARS applicants already face significant technical impediments in the deployment of their service not the least of which is the need to coordinate their system with Canada and Mexico. Thus, it would be my preference not to place any additional burdens on the DARS providers especially given that the DARS auction starts today. kI note that the original outofband emission limit of 110 + 10 log (p) dB already reflected a compromise on the part of the DARS applicants. They had originally proposed outofband emission limits on the order of 123 + 10 log (p) dB for mobile operations. In my view, the Petition offers no new information to the Commission and raises no new issues  Yf-that were not directly addressed by the Commission six weeks ago in the Report and Order. Accordingly, while this issue was a close call, on balance my preference would have been to reaffirm our original decision and to address the PPF and DigiVox petition through a waiver process. Once the DARS licensees and their system parameters are known, I believe that the Commission's ability to determine the appropriate interference limits would have been greatly enhanced. Thus, I respectfully dissent to this portion of today's decision.