IN THIS ISSUE
February 2007
Vol 7 Issue 1

Feature Article
From Sunrise to "Sunset" - 2.1 GHz Cost-sharing

Case Corner
Microwave Backhaul – Design to Deployment

Contact us

Archives

Text only /
Printer friendly

Unsubscribe

 Update my
subscriber info

 Forward to
a friend

by Chris Holt
Director of Clearinghouse Operations, Comsearch

From Sunrise to "Sunset" - 2.1 GHz Cost-sharing

From time to time, and for various reasons, the FCC requires licensed spectrum users (incumbents) to move their operations from their licensed frequency assignment to a new frequency location.  Such FCC-mandated frequency relocations incur expenses which can be paid by another party (a relocator) with an interest in having the incumbent vacate certain frequencies.  Typically, the party that incurs the expenses to relocate the incumbent isn’t the only entity that gains from the spectrum move.  Other licensees that utilize the spectrum (new entrants) may also enjoy the benefits associated with newly-unencumbered spectrum, and the FCC permits the relocator to request that these new entrants reimburse them for a portion of their costs.  This is called cost-sharing.

The formal concept of cost-sharing the expenses associated with relocating incumbents was introduced by the FCC in 1996 as part of the new 1.9 GHz Personal Communications Service (PCS), in a response to the free rider issue associated with previous incumbent relocations.  A free rider was a new entrant into a spectrum band that benefited from the relocation of an incumbent without contributing to the relocation costs paid by the relocator.  The FCC established cost-sharing procedures to ensure that all parties benefiting from incumbent relocations share in the associated costs.

In the 2.1 GHz (2110 - 2200 MHz ) relocations that are currently being initiated, cost-sharing will be employed to make certain that Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) and Mobile Satellite Services (MSS) licensees who benefit from the  previous relocation of a 2.1 GHz incumbent share in the cost of that relocation by making a proportional payment to the relocator.  The procedures for implementing this cost-sharing exercise are set forth in the FCC’s Ninth Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-258, adopted on April 21, 2006 (9th R&O).  Specifically, the 9th R&O addresses the relocation of both Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Fixed Microwave Service (FS) incumbents from the 2.1 GHz band and the related cost-sharing obligations of eligible relocations.

In order to make spectrum available for use by the AWS licensees, the FCC rules require newly-licensed AWS operators to pay the costs associated with relocating the legacy systems operating in the 2.1 GHz band.  Accordingly, these new 2.1 GHz entrants must invest significant sums of money to relocate incumbent BRS and FS systems.  The cost-sharing mechanism allows new AWS licensees to enter the market and deliver the benefits of advanced wireless services with a minimum of delay, while continuously and equitably distributing the associated costs to clear the band among all those that benefit.

CTIA Spectrum Clearinghouse, LLC
The CTIA Spectrum Clearinghouse, LLC (CTIA Clearinghouse) was created as a cooperative venture in 2006 by CTIA - The Wireless Association and Comsearch.  It operates under the authorized designation of the FCC, and ensures objective and equitable cost-sharing for incumbent relocations in the 2.1 GHz spectrum band.  The CTIA Clearinghouse provides database management, technical relocation analysis and cost-sharing assistance to all affected licensees; both incumbent users of the spectrum and newly-licensed entities.

The CTIA Clearinghouse is tasked with identifying and making notifications regarding, cost-sharing obligations in the AWS and MSS portions of the 2.1 GHz spectrum band. Just prior to the AWS auction, there were some 5,700 fixed microwave links and approximately 206 BRS systems in the new AWS spectrum.  Now that the AWS licenses have been awarded, the licensees who secured spectrum through the auction process face the obligation to clear the spectrum of any interference potential to the incumbent users prior to deployment of their new services as required by the FCC's transition rules.  This spectrum-clearing effort creates a situation in which the relocator pays for the relocation of incumbent systems, thereby collaterally removing obstacles to market for direct competitors in the same geographical area.  Thus, the concept of the AWS cost-sharing clearinghouse was developed by the FCC to distribute the financial burden of incumbent relocation fairly and equitably while promoting a more rapid deployment of Advanced Wireless and Mobile Satellite Services.

Eligibility for Cost-sharing – Primary vs. Secondary Systems
The license status of an incumbent’s system, i.e., whether it is designated as “primary” or “secondary,” determines the new entrant’s relocation requirements.  Newly-licensed entities are only required to relocate systems with a primary status.  Licenses designated as secondary are relocated at the incumbent licensee's expense, as new entrants are not required to negotiate and pay for such relocations.  Secondary systems are permitted to operate if it is determined that they do not pose potential interference to a new entrant’s system.  New entrants must provide at least 30 days notice prior to commencing operations.  It is important to note that some fixed microwave links are currently licensed as primary on one end and secondary on the other end.  When this is the case, only the primary portion of the link is eligible for relocation at the new entrant’s expense.  Both microwave incumbents and new entrants need to be aware of the license status on both ends of affected systems.

The Basic Mechanics of Cost-sharing
Cost-sharing in the 2.1 GHz band is contingent upon two independent events – relocation and a cost-sharing “trigger.”  The former, a relocation of an incumbent’s system, takes place when a new entrant clears the spectrum of interference potential for future network deployment.  The new entrant identifies the incumbent with whom they may interfere, negotiates a deal for the incumbent to vacant the spectrum, pays the FCC-allowable costs, and registers the relocation at the CTIA Clearinghouse (a registered relocation).  This relocation registration is then continuously monitored for cost-sharing triggers.
A cost-sharing trigger is identified by the CTIA Clearinghouse when a new entrant’s base station is co-channel with a registered relocation and satisfies the appropriate cost-sharing test.  For the relocation of a fixed microwave system, the appropriate and bright-line test is called the Proximity Threshold Test (PTT) box.  Consequently, when the two conditions are met (the new entrant is co-channel with the relocated link and inside the virtual PTT box), a cost-sharing obligation is triggered and all affected parties will be notified by the CTIA Clearinghouse of the event.
 
The Proximity Threshold Test box as defined by the FCC:

For relocated BRS systems, the two-part cost-sharing test differs somewhat.  In this scenario, the new entrant’s base station needs to be co-channel with the relocated BRS system and have line-of-sight to either the geographical service area for one-way BRS systems (typically video operations), or the receive station hub for two-way systems (typically data operations).  Again, if both conditions are completely satisfied, the affected parties will be notified by the CTIA Clearinghouse of the cost-sharing event.
A third basic cost-sharing scenario in the 2.1 GHz spectrum band involves another new entrant into the band – MSS operators.  MSS operators can trigger cost-sharing obligations in one of two ways.  First, an MSS operator can trigger an obligation on a registered relocation from its satellite downlink.  TIA Technical Service Bulletin 86 establishes the guidelines for determining the potential for interference from such operations.  Second, an MSS operator can also trigger a cost-sharing obligation from the deployment of ground-based facilities, called ancillary terrestrial components or ATCs.  The PTT box, coupled with co-channel criteria, is used in the determination of the cost-sharing obligations of MSS operators for their terrestrial components.  In either scenario, when the MSS operator triggers an obligation, it is responsible for contributing 50% toward the relocation, without depreciation, up to the FCC-allowable costs.

Determining Cost-sharing Amounts
After the cost-sharing criteria have been completely satisfied in any of the aforementioned scenarios, the CTIA Clearinghouse determines the amount a subsequent new entrant will be obligated to reimburse a relocator or previous, contributing new entrant.  The reimbursable costs are capped at $250k for equipment and $150k for tower modifications for FS microwave relocations.  There is no cap for reimbursable BRS relocation costs.

In a typical pro-rata cost-sharing situation, the reimbursement amount R is calculated using three variables – costs of the relocation C, the number of benefiting licensees N, and a depreciation factor D.  This depreciation factor should not be considered as a discount as in the accounting sense.  Rather, the FCC describes it as the competitive advantage that the relocator enjoys over later entrants and is calculated as difference, in whole months, between the date a relocator obtains reimbursement rights for a system and the date a later entrant triggers the obligation.  Thus, the first provider to market should expect to pay a greater percentage of the relocations costs. 

In its most basic form, the pro-rata cost-sharing formula is R = (C/N) – D and is utilized to determine the pro-rata cost-sharing amounts regardless of whether or not the incumbent relocation was a BRS or fixed microwave system. 

Here’s an example:

• Company A relocates a fixed microwave link on 11/29/06 for $150,000 (equipment and tower costs combined) and benefits from the relocation – N of the pro-rata formula equals 1 for Company A.
• Company B triggers a cost-sharing obligation to Company A on 1/15/07 – N of the pro-rata formula equals 2 for Company B.
• Company C triggers a cost-sharing obligation to both Company A and Company B on 2/1/07 –N of the pro-rata cost-sharing formula equal 3 for Company C.

* Company B’s trigger had 1 month of depreciation associated with it.
** Company C’s trigger had 2 months of depreciation associated with it, and the amount of Company C’s obligation ($49,166) is split equally between Company A and Company B, with $24,583 paid to each.
*** Without considering depreciation, all 3 companies would have actually paid exactly the same amount towards the relocation - $50,000.

There are two additional cost-sharing situations worthy of mention - full reimbursement and self-relocation.  In a full reimbursement situation, a new entrant may complete a relocation of an incumbent’s system, but not benefit from the relocation of specific link segments in the system.  In this case, the licensee serving as the relocator would be entitled to full reimbursement (up to the allowable amounts and without depreciation) from the first new entrant to subsequently benefit from the relocator investment.  After the initial cost-sharing trigger, the relocation would then be cost-shared in a pro-rata manner going forward.  The second scenario, in which an incumbent relocates its own facilities under the FCC’s guidelines, also known as a self-relocation, entitles the self-relocator to full reimbursement less depreciation from the first new entrant benefiting from the relocation.  The self-relocator’s investment would then be cost-shared in a pro-rata manner going forward.

Sunset – the Termination of Cost-sharing in the 2.1 GHz Band
“Sunset” is the term the FCC uses to describe the termination of its rules for BRS and fixed microwave relocations and the related cost-sharing obligations in 2.1 GHz spectrum band.  These rules are scheduled to sunset on November 29, 2016, ten years after the first AWS license was awarded.  This sunset provision has two important exceptions.  First, cost-sharing on eligible BRS relocations will end on November 29, 2021, fifteen years after the first F-block license was awarded.  Second, for the licensees in the 2180-2200 MHz band, sunset will take place on December 8, 2013, ten years after the start of the mandatory negotiation period between MSS/ATC operators and incumbent users of the spectrum.

A Final Word
The FCC made an educated decision to employ the proven mechanism that was the cost-sharing program developed for the relocation of the PCS band to address the challenges associated with the deployment of AWS in an encumbered portion of the spectrum band.  And, according to the FCC, the cost-sharing process serves the public interest well while continuously addressing their objectives of ensuring:

• Equitable distribution of relocation costs among beneficiaries of the spectrum-clearing effort;
• Encouragement of simultaneous relocation of multi-link communication systems; and
• Acceleration of the relocation process promoting a rapid deployment of new services in the spectrum band.

Comsearch, in its partnership with CTIA, looks forward to working with all affected licensees in the 2.1 GHz band to equitably and expeditiously manage the entire cost-sharing process. 

by Daniel Hardiman
Manager, Spectrum Solutions

Microwave Backhaul - Design to Deployment

In recent years, the Fixed Wireless Access craze that ran so rampant and reckless in the late ‘90s and into 2000 has really started to heat up again.  Big players have stepped in, WISPs have cropped up everywhere, WiMAX is happening, and the capital pipeline is again free-flowing.  The vision of ubiquitous untethered (affordable) high-speed connectivity is proving to be a here-and-now reality.  Network designers are aggressively working to build and expand their systems.  The challenges are great, and wireless connectivity to the customer premises is only half the battle.  At the heart of any well-designed wireless deployment is a reliable, diverse, and robust backhaul network.

Last-mile connectivity is of no use if you can’t get that traffic back to the point of presence (POP) and ultimately onto the internet.  Designing a solid backhaul network can be a daunting task.  There are many tools that can help, and just being aware of the various options at each step of the process will bring you closer to being a full-fledged backhaul designer.  In the following sections I examine just a few of the challenges you may face.

Microwave?
Although the focus of this article is on microwave backhaul, a full microwave or even partial microwave backhaul network is by no means a requirement.  In fact, most backhaul networks will be a hybrid of microwave, leased line, or even fiber.  Factors such as available capital, capacity requirements, reliability, customer base, type of terrain, and local vegetation will all affect your decision to use microwave.  Having said that, it if fair to state that microwave is an extremely reliable medium for backhaul traffic and its long-term economic viability often exceeds all other options.

Terrain Data
The first step in any design project is assembling the necessary tools to get the job done.  Digitized terrain data is a must to perform path designs accurately and efficiently.  Thirty-meter (30m) resolution terrain data is readily available from many vendors, and if just a small area is required, free downloads can be found.  At this time, 10m national elevation data (NED) datasets are available for large portions of the United States and 3m datasets are available for select areas.

Being able to quickly profile many different paths is critical to getting a design done in a timely manner.  A backhaul network consisting of 50 or even 100 sites can result in many hundreds of potential paths that need to be assessed.  Ruling out those links which are blocked by terrain first, and then prioritizing the remainder, will allow you to focus your efforts on those links with the highest probability for success.  Incorporating comprehensive terrain data with a network design tool, such as Comsearch’s iQ·link® tool, will allow you to automate parts of this process, dramatically decreasing the time required to develop a solid preliminary design.

Map Datum
A map datum is a mathematical model of the surface of the Earth.  All positioning information on a map, such as latitude and longitude, must be based on a reference datum.  Digitized terrain data will also refer to a given map datum.  The most common datum in the United States is North American Datum 1983 (NAD83).  The reference datum for the global positioning system (GPS) is the World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84) datum.  For all practical purposes WGS84 and NAD83 datums are interchangeable.  In addition to these, there are numerous other local and regional datums covering all parts of the world.  In fact, many US Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps are still based on North American Datum 1927 (NAD27) datum.  In many parts of the country, the difference between NAD83 and NAD27 coordinates can be many tens of meters.

The key point to stress here is that a consistent map datum must be utilized throughout the design process.  All design tools, terrain data, GPS units, and reference maps must all refer to or convert to a single consistent datum.  Field engineers should never just blindly turn on a GPS and take a reading without knowing the associated map datum. 

Site Selection
There are many factors controlling the site selection process in a network deployment.  Often, the overriding factors will have little to do with backhaul requirements.  Customer locations, last mile RF concerns, lease costs, zoning, and even existing relationships can all affect site selection.  However, since site selection can so dramatically affect the microwave design process, backhaul engineers should be engaged early in the process.  Maintaining an open dialogue between the backhaul and site acquisition specialists is the best way to insure the selection of backhaul friendly sites.

So what makes a site “backhaul friendly”?  In a word, height; high centerlines are the number one factor in getting microwave connectivity.  Higher elevation sites, large towers with little or low vegetation surrounding them, rooftops that slightly exceed the average height in the area, these are all good candidates.  Other backhaul concerns may include available tower space, structural loading, ambient RF environment (especially if using unlicensed radios).  In addition, proximity to customers, core network facilities, or other sites must also be considered.

Field Surveys
Often, designers may forego field surveys in order to save time and expense.  This is a very dangerous proposition, however.  Full path surveys or at least visual line-of-sight (LOS) verifications are always recommended.  Through the preliminary design processyou can make some fairly reliable judgments, but nothing can take the place of real world surveys.  A building database can aid in the design processand is definitely useful for ruling out paths, but generally not reliable enough for ensuring clear LOS.  In urban and suburban areas, there are just too many potential obstructions.  In rural areas most of your antennas will be mounted on towers.  Guessing at average tree heights and leaving sufficient margin to ensure a clear path can lead to unnecessarily high antenna centerlines.  This is turn can lead to increased lease costs, structural loading concerns, additional transmission line, excessive line losses, and even path fading.  With a properly performed field survey, antenna centerlines can be optimized, clear line of sight can be insured, and the potentially disastrous consequences of a blocked path can be avoided. 

Equipment Selection
Many of the key factors in choosing microwave radio equipment are completely dependent on the network architecture.  Thus, many of these choices go hand-in-hand with the type of service being provided.  But there are some on-going choices the designer will be constantly evaluating.  Band selection and antenna size will be adjusted accordingly based on path length while maintaining overall link quality and reliability.  Capacity requirements are also a huge factor the designer will be considering.  Higher capacity links will be required closer to the POP as traffic from all other sites will have been aggregated.  All other things being equal, higher capacity generally means higher modulation rates, and thus higher receiver thresholds.  This results in a reduced fade margin with a greater percentage of path outage.  The reduced fade margin can usually be overcome with larger, higher gain antennas or by limiting path lengths, but those options are not always viable.  The designer must be well aware of this delicate balance of the various factors.  All factors must be considered and the unique aspects of each link must be addressed individually.

Licensed vs. Unlicensed
Unlicensed manufacturers have begun implementing some rather ingenious modulation schemes into their unlicensed radios.  With so many unlicensed radios deployed and clearly so many more being planned, interference rejection is a top priority.  Dynamic frequency selection (DFS) is just one example of this type of thinking.  DFS radios continuously scan the available band looking for clear spectrum and then assign the active channel accordingly.  Adaptive modulation is also used to allow for operation in complex environments.  By constantly optimizing the modulation scheme, throughput can be maximized while maintaining link quality.  But probably most important of all has been the use of orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM).  OFDM is inherently resistant to interference and especially multipath.  The use of OFDM is the basis for many of the non-line of sight (NLOS) radios now being advertised.  OFDM schemes divide the carrier channel into numerous sub-carriers while intelligently distributing traffic.  They do well to combat frequency selective fading, allow for increased delay spreads, and provide increased resistance to cochannel interference.

With all these advances in unlicensed radio technology, one might wonder why bother with licensed radios.  Well, the interference rejection schemes were developed for a reason: crowded spectrum.  Deployments in the unlicensed bands are so prevalent that finding clear spectrum is increasingly difficult.  Although these rejection schemes are resistant to interference, they are not immune.  With adaptive modulation, link quality can often be maintained even in noisy environments, but throughput is always the first to suffer.  Consistent throughput limitations can wreak havoc on a backhaul network.

The most disconcerting aspect of utilizing unlicensed spectrum is the lack control.  An operator can perform every possible test of the RF environment at the time of deployment, but what happens after that is completely beyond his control.  Licensed links are the safe choice for long-term reliability of the network.  Many WISPs will often opt to use a combination of licensed and unlicensed radios, where all critical backbone and transport links utilize protected licensed frequencies and less critical spurs may utilize unlicensed spectrum.

FCC Filing
When planning your network rollout and scheduling a launch date, enough time must be set aside for frequency coordination and FCC filing.  In most cases, your links can be coordinated and launched under “conditional authorization” meaning transmissions can begin immediately upon filing applications with the FCC.  This eliminates the typical 60 to 120 day period while waiting for applications to be granted, but you still must allow time for the coordination process.  Typical timeframes would include 5 to 7 days for a frequency search, 30 days waiting period for the Prior Coordination Notice (PCN), and 3 to 5 days to file all applications.  In total 40 to 45 days from initiation of the frequency search to available launch date is typical.  An estimate of 55 to 60 days is probably safer to avoid any possible delays.  Lack of available frequencies, geographical/band restrictions, or even objections from other incumbents could all hamper the process and lead to extended coordination timeframes.

Frequency Protection
So all your designs are complete, line of sight has been verified, you’ve got clear frequencies and they’ve been filed with the FCC.  Now don’t forget about protecting those licenses.  Although many licensees feel that just having their license on file with the FCC will provide adequate protection, the burden actually lies with the licensees.  Licensees are actually required to review all prior-coordination notices and applications that come out on public notice.  Frequency Protection services from a qualified vendor can relieve this burden and provide for years of worry free interference-free operation.

Comsearch is here to help.  With design tools such as iQ·link, services including Fixed Network Design, Path Surveys, Microwave Coordination, FCC License Preparation and Submittal, Frequency Protection, and a complete array of data solutions including worldwide terrain and morphology data, we can provide any level of assistance.  We provide services that can help throughout all phases of your design, implementation, and on-going network management. Click here for more information on Comsearch's Backhaul services.

MICROWAVE

Structure Announced for the new Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau – (FCC No. 06-35) FCC-06-35A1.pdf FCC-06-35A2.pdf FCC-06-35A3.pdf FCC-06-35A4.pdf FCC-06-35A5.pdf DOC-267599A1.pdf DOC-267599A2.pdf DOC-267599A3.pdf DOC-267599A4.pdf DOC-267599A5.pdf

Pilot Program Adopted for Rural Health Care – Program planned to help public and non-profit health care providers build state and region-wide broadband networks dedicated to the provision of health care services, and connect those networks to Internet2, a dedicated nationwide backbone. (Dkt No 02-60, FCC No. 06-144) DOC-267605A1.pdf DOC-267605A2.pdf DOC-267605A3.pdf DOC-267605A4.pdf DOC-267605A5.pdf DOC-267605A6.pdf FCC-06-144A1.pdf FCC-06-144A2.pdf FCC-06-144A3.pdf FCC-06-144A4.pdf FCC-06-144A5.pdf FCC-06-144A6.pdf

Annual Report on State of Competition in the Wireless Industry - The FCC adopted its Eleventh Annual Report to Congress on the state of competition in the mobile telephone - or Commercial Mobile Radio Services (CMRS) - industry. (Dkt No 06-17) DOC-267610A1.pdf DOC-267610A2.pdf DOC-267610A3.pdf DOC-267610A4.pdf DOC-267610A5.pdf

Re-channelization of the 17.7-19.7 GHz Frequency Bands - Rules revised to reduce regulatory burdens for 18 GHz band terrestrial Fixed Microwave Services (FS) licensees that are subject to involuntary relocation from the 18.3-19.3 GHz band pursuant to the FCC's reallocation of that band. (Dkt No 04-143, FCC No 06-141) FCC-06-141A1.pdf FCC-06-141A2.pdf

Low Power Devices on Vacant TV Channels - The FCC adopted a 1st R&O and Further NPRM allowing new low power devices to operate in the broadcast television spectrum.  (Dkt No 02-380, 04-186) DOC-267867A1.pdf DOC-267867A2.pdf DOC-267867A3.pdf DOC-267867A4.pdf DOC-267867A5.pdf DOC-267867A6.pdf FCC-06-156A1.pdf FCC-06-156A2.pdf FCC-06-156A3.pdf FCC-06-156A4.pdf FCC-06-156A5.pdf FCC-06-156A6.pdf

Protection Requirements in the 700 MHz Band - The FCC granted in part and denied in part a Petition for Declaratory Ruling filed by Qualcomm Incorporated regarding the requirements for interference protection in the 700 MHz band.  (Dkt No 05-7, FCC No. 06-155) DOC-267862A1.pdf DOC-267862A2.pdf DOC-267862A3.pdf  FCC-06-155A1.pdf FCC-06-155A2.pdf FCC-06-155A3.pdf

Advanced Television Systems - The FCC proposed a new DTV Table of Allotments, providing all eligible stations with channels for DTV operations after the DTV transition. (Dkt No 87-268, FCC No. 06-150) FCC-06-150A1.pdf FCC-06-150A2.pdf FCC-06-150A3.pdf

Telephone Subscribership Report - The report presents subscribership statistics based on the Current Population Survey (CPS) conducted by the Census Bureau in March 2006.  The report also shows subscribership levels by state, income level, race, age, household size, and employment status. DOC-268003A1.pdf

Migratory Bird Collisions With Communications Towers - The FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that seeks comment on whether the FCC should take measures to reduce the number of migratory bird collisions with communications towers. Extension of Time for the pleading cycle of the pending NPRM in this Docket. (Dkt No 03-187) Comments Due:  04/23/2007. Reply Comments Due:  05/23/2007. (Dkt No 03-187, DA No. 07-72)
DOC-268333A1.pdf DOC-268333A2.pdf DOC-268333A3.pdf DOC-268333A4.pdf DA-07-72A1.pdf

Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band - The FCC adopted a Ninth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that proposes a national, centralized approach to maximize public safety access to interoperable, broadband spectrum in the 700 MHz band. (Dkt No 96-86, 06-229, FCC No. 06-181) DOC-269117A1.pdf DOC-269117A2.pdf DOC-269117A3.pdf DOC-269117A4.pdf DOC-269117A5.pdf DOC-269117A6.pdf FCC-06-181A1.pdf FCC-06-181A2.pdf FCC-06-181A3.pdf FCC-06-181A4.pdf FCC-06-181A5.pdf FCC-06-181A6.pdf

Broadband PCS Spectrum (Auction 71) – 38 total licenses, frequencies are:

Scheduled for May 16, 2007. (DA No 06-2298, Dkt No 06-206, AUC-06-71-A) Auction71.Summary

Phase II 220 MHz Spectrum (Auction 72) – Band is 220–222 MHz, Scheduled for June 20, 2007. (DA No 06-2437, Dkt No 06-214)   Auction72.Summary

SATELLITE

FCC Grants Authority to Construct a Satellite System of Highly-elliptical, NGSO Satellites to Operate in C- and Ku-band Frequencies
The FCC granted Virtual Geosatellite, LLC (Virtual Geo) authority to construct a satellite system of highly-elliptical, non-geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) fixed-satellite service (FSS) satellites to operate in C- and Ku-band frequencies. Specifically, Virtual Geo was authorized to construct 18 NGSO FSS satellites capable of operating service links, infrastructure and relay links, and telemetry, tracking, and command links in the 5925-6725 MHz, 12.75-13.25 GHz, and 13.8-14.5 GHz uplink frequency bands (Earth-to-space), and the 3700-4200 MHz, and 10.7-12.7 GHz downlink frequency bands (space-to-Earth).  Upon Virtual Geo meeting certain orbital debris requirements, this authorization will allow Virtual Geo to offer a range of data, voice, and video broadband fixed satellite services to businesses and consumers around the globe, and will promote competition and investment in broadband services.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2560A1.doc

FCC (IB) Invites Comment on Proposal to Remove Certain Non-U.S.-Licensed Satellites From the Exclusion List for Global International Section 214 Authorization Purposes
The FCC International Bureau invites comment on a proposal to remove from the Section 214 Exclusion List those non-U.S.-licensed satellites that have been allowed to enter the U.S. market for satellite services pursuant to the procedure adopted in the DISCO II Order.This action is taken pursuant to the International Bureau’s authority to maintain the Section 214 Exclusion List, which was delegated to the Bureau by the Commission in the 1996 Streamlining Order.

In the 1996 Streamlining Order, the Commission promulgated rules for carriers to apply for and receive a global facilities-based Section 214 authorization, which allow carriers to provide international services using any U.S.-licensed facilities, such as U.S.-licensed satellites, without filing a separate Section 214 application for each new facility. In that order, the Commission also established the Section 214 Exclusion List, which identifies particular facilities and/or particular countries that are not included in a global facilities-based Section 214 authorization, and, therefore, require a separate Section 214 authorization under Section 214 of the Communications Act, as amended.

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-100A1.doc

FCC Seeks Additional Comment on Recommendations Approved by the Advisory Committee for the 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WARC) Regarding the Regulatory Measures for the Protection of the Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (Passive) from UnwantedEmissions of Active Services
The 2007 World Radiocommunication Conference (WRC-07) will address Agenda Item 1.20, which calls for consideration of regulatory measures for the protection of the Earth exploration-satellite service from unwanted emissions of active services in the following bands: 1 350-1 400 MHz, 1 427-1 452 MHz, 22.55-23.55 GHz, 30-31.3 GHz, 47.2-50.2 GHz and 50.4-52.6 GHz. These bands are allocated for use in various FCC rule parts related to a number of radio services including Part 25 (Satellite Communications), Part 27 (Miscellaneous Wireless Communications Services, Part 87 (Aviation) Part 90 (Private Land Mobile Radio Services), Part 95 (Personal Radio Services), and Part 101 (Fixed Microwave Services).

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2262A1.doc

SkyTerra Completes Acquisition of BCE Inc’s Stake in MSV
SkyTerra Communications Inc. has completed its previously announced acquisition of BCE Inc.'s stake in Mobile Satellite Ventures (MSV), SkyTerra announced Jan. 8.
SkyTerra now is the sole owner of MSV's general partner and about 83 percent of the outstanding limited partnership interests of MSV. SkyTerra's ownership will increase to 100 percent of the limited partnership interests of MSV upon completion of the remaining exchanges under the existing agreement with the Motient Corp.

Loral and Telesat to Combine
The Fixed Satellite Services (FSS) business of Loral Space & Communications Inc. and Telesat Canada will be combined under a new Canadian company to become the fourth largest operator in the world, the companies announced Dec. 18. Under an agreement, Loral and its partner, Canada's Public Sector Pension Investment Board (PSP Investments), will acquire 100 percent of the stock of Telesat Canada from parent company BCE Inc. The combined operations of Telesat and Loral Skynet consist of 11 satellites with four additional spacecraft scheduled to be placed into orbit throughout the next three years. The new organization, dubbed Telesat, will have a backlog of $4.9 billion. Daniel Goldberg, president and CEO of Telesat, will serve as CEO of the new organization, which will be headquartered in Ottawa.

Echostar Authorized to Operate in Additional Spectrum 18.3 – 18.5 GHz, 18.6 – 18.8 GHz
The FCC authorized EchoStar Satellite to operate the EchoStar 9 satellite in 400 megahertz of additional Ka-band spectrum at the 121º W.L. orbital location.  Specifically, they authorize EchoStar to operate EchoStar 9 in the 18.3-18.5 GHz, 18.6-18.8 GHz, 28.4-28.6 GHz, and 29.3-29.5 GHz frequencies, in addition to the previously authorized 29.5-30.0 GHz and 19.7-20.2 GHz frequencies.

The EchoStar 9 satellite, a hybrid Ku-/Ka-band satellite, was launched in 2003 and is currently located at the 121º W.L. orbital location.  EchoStar 9 is authorized to operate in the "upper" half of the 1000 megahertz of Ka-band spectrum ("upper Ka-band") allocated in both transmission directions to the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS).   When the "lower Ka-band" became available for reassignment, EchoStar filed a modification application to add these frequencies to its license for a next-generation Ku-/Ka-band satellite which is scheduled for launch in 2009 and will be located at the 121º W.L. orbital location.  The Commission granted this modification application in August 2005  On August 30, 2006, EchoStar filed the instant application to add 400 MHz of the lower Ka-band frequencies to an existing payload on its EchoStar 9 satellite  The application was placed on public notice as accepted for filing on September 29, 2006.      

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2590A1.doc

Comsearch Selected, for the 10th year, as the CTIA WIRELESS Official Spectrum Manager
In its tenth consecutive year as official spectrum manager at CTIA WIRELESS, Comsearch will ensure that the radio frequencies used in demonstrations by exhibitors do not interfere with each other and other licensed wireless operations in the area. This year's show presents new challenges with demonstrations using UMTS, WiMax, and Digital Video Broadcasting-Handhelds (DVB-H) technologies, in addition to the GSM and CDMA technologies common to the show. Click here for more information.

Comsearch Offers Incumbent Relocation Services to Assist Winners
of FCC's AWS Auction
Comsearch has introduced a turnkey set of services that will assist winners in the Federal Communications Commission's advanced wireless spectrum (AWS) auctions with deploying new services in a timely and cost-effective manner.

Comsearch's incumbent relocation solutions are tailored to address the FCC's requirements for those acquiring 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz spectrum, specifically the need to address interference with existing federal government and commercial systems in those radio bands. Comsearch uses its iQ.clearXG™ software to identify channels that can be shared without causing interference to 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz incumbents. In instances where spectrum sharing is not an option, Comsearch will facilitate relocating an incumbent to a different band through negotiation and project management. View press release for more information.

Comsearch Contracted By CTIA Cost-sharing Clearinghouse
Comsearch has been contracted by CTIA, designated FCC Cost-sharing Clearinghouse for post AWS-auction relocations, to handle the day-to-day operations of relocation and cost-sharing for wireless licensees as a result of the 2006 Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) auction. Visit http://www.ctia.org/news_media/press/body.cfm?record_id=1650 for more information.

Visit Comsearch at the Annual Defense Spectrum Summit 2006
Comsearch will be exhibiting at Defense Spectrum Summit 2006, December 4th-8th in Annapolis, MD. This year's event , "Spectrum Transformation: Full Partnership", will underscore the importance of our community working together to identify and manage the critical spectrum requirements both within the military community, as well as those within the broader domestic and international arenas. To find out more, visit:
http://www.afcea.org/events/spectrum/info.asp

Not subscribed?

  
If you have been forwarded WirelessPulse by a friend or colleague and wish to subscribe yourself then click below and enter your details.

CLICK HERE TO SUBSCRIBE