FCC EXPECTS DECISIONS ON 3G RELOCATION, 800 MHZ IN EARLY 2004

“This is one part of a very complex spectrum policy puzzle,” said James Schlichting, deputy chief of the FCC’s Office of Engineering & Technology, concerning plans for the MDS relocation bands. He said a rough forecast would be for decisions “early next year on all these interrelated matters.” The WCA show opened Wed. and runs through Fri.

FCC Wireless Bureau Chief John Muleta said the Commission shortly would be issuing an answer to a WCA petition asking the agency to roll back a decision that immediately froze the filing of applications for new or modified Instructional TV Fixed Service (ITFS) and MDS facilities (CD April 24 p5). The group has asked that the freeze be limited to ITFS stations located outside existing protection areas that would be seeking licenses for unassigned ITFS spectrum, or “white space,” in those bands. The freeze stems from a recent proposal at the FCC for changes designed to facilitate the rollout of more fixed and mobile broadband services in those bands. On a separate panel, Bryan Tramont, aide to FCC Chmn. Powell, said the agency also would be moving ahead shortly with a followup to a proposal made last year that would pave the way for commercial operations for the first time at 71-76 GHZ, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz. “It’s on a relatively short time frame; we are very hopeful this could get done early in the fall,” Tramont said. “We think that the band holds great potential.”

On the interlocking spectrum issues elsewhere at the FCC, the agency last fall reallocated spectrum for advanced wireless services (AWS) such as 3G, including part of the 2150-2162 MHz occupied by MDS operators. Those operators, including Sprint, WorldCom and BellSouth, in turn proposed that such licenses could be moved to 1910-1916 MHz and 1990- 1996 MHz. Meanwhile, Nextel, which has proposed a rebanding plan for mitigating interference to public safety at 800 MHz, opposed the MDS plan, saying it would conflict with its interest in redesignating some of that same spectrum as part of its own rebanding plan.

On the replacement spectrum issue related to 3G relocation, “I am still hopeful we will get something done near the first of the year,” Tramont said. “This is interrelated to a number of other proceedings, including the 800 MHz” proceeding, he said. An item on public safety interference issues in that band “is likely to come first,” he said. “It doesn’t necessarily implicate anything on the merits for your petition, or it doesn’t seem likely to,” he said, referring to the WCA petition proposing relocation spectrum. Tramont stressed that the 800 MHz proceeding in particular involved a number of complicated policy issues. “I am still hopeful it gets done in the next few months,” he said. Barry Ohlson, wireless adviser to Comr. Adelstein, said he has had meetings on those issues with stakeholders throughout the summer and nearly every session has yielded new information. “The Commission should really try to get this right rather than to rush this out,” he said.

“The good news is that we did say there was going to be some relocation spectrum, which was up in the air previously,” Kathleen Ham, deputy chief of the FCC’s Office of Strategic Planning & Policy Analysis, said of the AWS relocation spectrum question. “If the Commission could just figure all this out, I think we'll be a lot better for it, so we just need to be patient and we'll be moving on some of this stuff pretty shortly.”

Muleta said service rules for that AWS spectrum were likely to be issued within 9 months. “We have a lot of critical things on the table. The auction is usually within a year after that,” he said. Ham said another consideration for the FCC was a spectrum relocation trust fund, should that ultimately be passed by Congress. Such a fund would be paid for through spectrum auction receipts and would help reimburse govt. agencies that relocated to new bands to facilitate band-clearing for commercial users. “That will require some activity on the Commission’s part” and will have to “interlaced” into the overall time budgeted for this proceeding, she said.

Tramont said an FCC proposal on how to update the MMDS and ITFS rules to add regulatory flexibility in those bands was “sort of an effort to pull away the final vestiges of the command-and-control regime on this band.” That includes moving away from site-based licensing, creating a path for the previous mobile allocation to MMDS and grouping similar uses together “while still respecting the fundamental educational commitment of the ITFS licensees,” he said: “We are going to try to bring it to closure in a fairly quick time frame.” A panel of 8th floor wireless advisers agreed, however, that the possibility raised in that rulemaking -- that ITFS licensees could sell spectrum to commercial operators -- had been controversial. Potential changes in the band “represent a shift but not an abandonment,” Tramont said, noting an abandonment would have been to line up the spectrum for 3G services, which the FCC decided not to do. “It’s an evolution,” he said. He said it has been 10 years since ITFS rules have been re-examined and the Commission isn’t planning any changes that would compel shifts for ITFS operators that wanted to continue providing educational programming.

Some of the questions raised in the rulemaking “made folks nervous,” said Paul Margie, aide to Comr. Copps. Copps had raised concerns about not having a final outcome for the proposal that would strip away the educational nature of ITFS spectrum or that would provide a windfall to licensees that received spectrum free. Those questions included the possibility of ITFS licensees’ being able to sell spectrum to operators without educational programming obligations. Copps has said there are questions about the current ITFS leasing system, particularly cases where up to 95% of an operator’s holdings are leased to noneducators, Margie said. “There are definitely situations where it’s not ideal. But it doesn’t mean you kill the patient with the cure and I don’t think that’s anybody’s intent here.”

“I'm not sure I would characterize it as a shift yet, because we haven’t made any judgments about it, we are just asking questions,” said Sam Feder, aide to FCC Comr. Martin. “It’s a tough issue,” he said, and Martin is very interested in allowing free trade of spectrum rights: “On the other hand, ensuring there is some spectrum available for educational use is an important public policy goal.”

On the decision that emerged from the World Radio Conference last week to make additional spectrum available at 5 GHz, Jennifer Manner, aide to Comr. Abernathy, said the Commission already had made substantial progress, having approved a rulemaking in May. One contingency of that proposal was that such an allocation receive final approval at the WRC, she said. “Overall at the conference the United States was successful, and was very successful on this particular item,” Manner said. While the final item adopted at the WRC provides that a preponderance of the use actually has to be indoor, she said: “That’s not a mandatory requirement. It doesn’t limit the United States from being able to go with an outdoor use.” Manner said industry feedback had indicated that companies were planning equipment for a mix of both indoor and outdoor uses. -- Mary Greczyn

WCA Notebook…

Intel said Wed. it planned to develop silicon-based equipment based on the 802.16a standard or WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access). The technology is designed to provide wireless last-mile broadband access in the metropolitan area network, delivering performance that developers tout as comparable to traditional cable, DSL or T1 offerings. Intel said 802.16 was complementary to the hot- spot-based technology of the 802.11 standard, potentially providing outdoor, long-range connections back to the service provider. Intel said 802.16a had up to a 30-mile range with a typical cell radius of 4-6 miles and could provide wireless backhaul technology to connect WiFi-based wireless local area networks and commercial hot spots to the Internet. In conjunction with the Intel product announcement, Alvarion said it had signed a strategic agreement with Intel to incorporate 802.16a chips into the company’s next-generation broadband wireless access (BWA) systems. “Until now, the uptake of BWA technologies has been restrained by the lack of interoperability between the equipment of the industry’s many manufacturers and the availability of standards-based, volume components,” Alvarion said. It said the Intel decision and related announcements would provide interoperable WiMAX certified systems. Alvarion CEO Zvi Slonimsky said the standard was a “natural step” to follow the growth of WiFi. .HEADLINE CABLE AND ILECs DIFFER ON BROADBAND-OVER-POWER-LINE DEPLOYMENT

The FCC’s inquiry into technical issues of providing broadband over power lines (BPL) drew largely predictable responses from key players that faced potential competition from the nascent technology and those that had possible interference concerns: (1) Cable was worried about reasonable access and rates for poles owned by utilities. (2) Telephone companies called for uniform regulatory treatment of all broadband providers. (3) Broadcasters urged the Commission to ensure there was no interference for over- the-air broadcast stations signals, including DTV stations. (4) Utilities said existing rules for carrier current systems provided adequate protection against interference.

In announcing the inquiry April 23, the FCC avoided delving into regulatory issues, calling for comments on interference and emission concerns involving BPL services(CD April 24 p1). Questioning the agency’s decision to limit its investigation to technical issues, Comr. Copps wanted the FCC to look into issues such as the potential for cross- subsidization of services by power companies and the implications of BPL to universal service and pole attachments. Comr. Adelstein said it would be prudent to consider regulatory issues after the Commission knew more about technical factors.

Cable operators expressed anxiety whether certain “unreasonable” utility pole access and inspection practices could escalate as utilities pursued a business that would be in direct competition with cable and CLEC offerings. If the current BPL trials lead to commercial deployment, the Commission should make specific modifications, probably through a rulemaking, in its non-rate access and cost allocation rules, said Charter Communications and the cable associations of Fla., Ga., O., S.C. and Tex. in a joint filing. They said there already had been “significant” litigation because of “tensions” between utilities and communications attachers over pole access, particularly on surveys or new plant and overlashed installations.

“Cable operators attempting to attach to electric utility-owned poles recently have experienced an increase in delayed access to poles, the assessment of excessive pole attachment rental rates, the imposition of inspections and pole loading studies and formal permit requirement for overlashing, all of which contravene explicit case precedent and FCC rules,” the cablers said. Such actions delayed fiber deployment and made them more expensive, they said, and “even the prospect of access by BPL systems may lead to an escalation of these practices as utilities’ competitive neutrality with regard to 3rd-party pole use is reduced.” They said the FCC should: (1) “Carefully” monitor utilities’ engineering, pole loading and audit requirements for 3rd- party attachers to prevent any “increase in anticompetitive actions” by utilities deploying BPL. (2) Be prepared to supplement existing non-rate access and cost allocation precedent when BPL progressed through the trial stage.

Verizon said the advent of BPL along with other “largely deregulated” alternative platforms such as cable, satellite, fixed wireless and WiFi “reinforces the urgent need for the Commission to classify all broadband services under Title I and to treat all broadband services equally.” Calling for a deregulatory national policy for all broadband providers, it said all providers must “fit within a coherent regulatory scheme that treats all competitors equally and harmonizes the rights and obligations of all broadband providers.” Verizon said that, unlike cable and satellite, local telephone companies were being subject not only to the full range of Title II regulation but also to a host of additional requirements under the Computer Inquiries rules. While encouraging BPL deployment, the FCC also must ensure that it doesn’t interfere with existing and future telecom services, the carrier said.

Qwest said the FCC, besides addressing technical and interference issues, must resolve how it would treat BPL for regulatory purposes: “Specifically, the Commission must take steps to ensure that BPL providers do not improperly leverage their monopoly over the distribution of electric power to the benefit of their competitive BPL service.” Qwest said the emergence of BPL provided more reason to treat ILECs as “nondominant” carriers in their provision of broadband services. Sprint, saying it might consider deploying BPL technology in the future as an alternative means of providing access in selected areas, suggested the FCC involve existing standards sponsors such as the Alliance for Telecommunications Industry Solutions and the Institute of Electronic & Electrical Engineers in testing for interference and establishing standards.

While broadcasters said they didn’t oppose BPL as a technology, they said the Commission shouldn’t authorize BPL in the TV broadcast bands because of potential degradation of analog and DTV signals. They said there were “insufficient” technical data that the broadcast industry and the Commission could use to “fully and properly evaluate” BPL’s potential to interfere with free over-the-air TV stations operating on the low VHF frequencies, including DTV signals. In a joint filing, the NAB and MSTV said the low VHF TV band already was polluted heavily with “man-made impulse type background interference” that was attributed in part to leaky power lines: “BPL systems radiating RF energy in the television broadcast bands are likely to lead to a further increase of the noise floor and may result in significant analog television picture disruption and total degradation of DTV signals.”

The Alliance for Public Technology (APT) urged the Commission to regulate BPL in a technology-neutral manner. Saying all broadband providers must operate under the same rules, APT said the current disparate rules for cable and DSL showed that “uneven regulations lead to uneven deployment.” An important component of regulatory parity for BPL should be the existence of consumer protections that were applicable to other telecom providers. APT said accessibility requirements under Sec. 255 of the Telecom Act also should be applied to BPL providers and BPL networks should be required to be interoperable with other broadband systems. Net2Phone urged the FCC to create regulatory certainty for BPL through a rulemaking addressing “only those regulations necessary to preserve public safety and prevent harmful interference.”

The United Power Line Council (UPLC) said existing Part 15 rules for carrier current systems provided adequate protections against interference. It said no interference had been reported in its members’ BPL field trials, which were conducted with the existing Part 15 limits and measurement procedures. Experience from the tests indicated BPL systems complied with Part 15 limits, and those rules protected licensed users against interference from BPL systems, the UPLC said: “If anything, the existing rules may be too stringent and unnecessarily limit the range of BPL, but certainly the emission limits do not need to be reduced to prevent interference.” Although late, BPL has arrived in the market at a “critical time,” the UPLC said, pointing out that FCC statistics showed there was no choice of broadband providers in 34% of the zip codes in the country and 16% of the country had no access at all.

The Power Line Communications Assn. urged the FCC to give primary consideration to actual field tests and surveys of those offering BPL services, and discount “speculative and self-serving comments offered by parties who seek to hinder the deployment of BPL technology.”