WirelessPulse-Comsearch E-News - July 2008

Comsearch's quarterly e-newsletter for professionals in the wireless industry.

Our engineers use the latest technology in the dynamic wireless market and consistently publish up-to-date information through white papers, case studies and informative articles. With the publication of WirelessPulse, we are able to pass along this information to you, our valued clients and prospects.

WirelessPulse features three industry news sections, the first with our "Feature Article" - in-depth analysis on industry trends, "Case Corner" - featuring relevant industry case studies and "Regulatory Rap" - featuring extensive spectrum management news. We have added "What's New at Comsearch" so that we can keep you informed of what's going on at Comsearch.

In the July 2008 Issue

FEATURE ARTICLES
Self-relocation From The Advanced Wireless Spectrum (AWS) Band
by Chris Holt
Director of Clearinghouse Operations, Comsearch

TV White Space-What’s All The Fuss About?
- Part I -
by Mark Gibson
Senior Director, Business Development, Comsearch

CASE CORNER
No Case Corner for this issue.

REGULATORY RAP
Microwave & Satellite News

WHAT'S NEW AT COMSEARCH

FEATURE ARTICLES

Self-relocation From The Advanced Wireless Spectrum (AWS) Band

As you are likely aware, the Federal Communications Commission held auction 66, AWS 1, in mid-2006 to award spectrum to the highest bidders on a per-license basis for Advanced Wireless Services. While the spectrum range for this auction covered 1710–1755 MHz (currently used by the Federal Government) paired with 2110–2155 MHz (currently used by private licensees—common carrier and operational fixed microwave incumbents), both portions of AWS spectrum band need to be cleared of existing users prior to any wide-spread deployment by the new entrants. The Federal Government will use the proceeds of Auction 66 to fund its relocations from the 1.7 GHz band, and private 2.1 GHz users will either be relocated outside the affected frequencies by an auction winner or could self-relocate from the band and seek reimbursement for eligible relocation expenditures through an FCC-designated spectrum clearinghouse. The latter situation will be the focus of the article.

Ground rules for self-relocation from the AWS band

Prior to the start of Auction 66, the FCC released its Ninth Report and Order (FCC-06-45A1) establishing the ground rules for which relocation and cost-sharing will take place in the AWS band. It states, among many other details, that incumbent users of the spectrum are afforded the opportunity to self-relocate from the band and seek the possibility of reimbursement by new entrants through the clearinghouse. For the incumbents who were affected by the spectrum clearing efforts of the PCS band, 1850–1990 MHz, the ground rules and overall process are quite similar in the AWS band.

Eligibility to self-relocate and seek reimbursement through the Clearinghouse

While the FCC did not restrict which incumbent user of AWS spectrum can self-relocate from the band, they did restrict which incumbents can self-relocate and seek potential reimbursement through the clearinghouse. In its Ninth Report and Order, the FCC established that only incumbent users of fixed microwave systems in the AWS band can self-relocate under the rules established in the Ninth Report and Order and seek cost-sharing. Broadcast Radio Service (BRS) incumbents in the 2150–2162 MHz may self-relocate, but have no rights to reimbursement from the new entrants.

Status of fixed microwave link and incumbent users’ rights

Active microwave links licensed by the FCC will have one of two statuses associated with them—primary or secondary. An incumbent whose link status is primary has the right to continued use of the spectrum until one of the three following events occurs:

1. The incumbent decides to self-relocate its system at their own expense, provide the FCC with a discontinuance notice and register the relocation for cost-sharing at the clearinghouse.
2. The incumbent is approached by an AWS licensee and strikes a deal to have its system relocated at the AWS licensee’s expense. In this situation, the reimbursement rights would transfer to the AWS licensee who paid for the relocation, and it would register the link for cost-sharing purposes at the clearinghouse.
3. Ten years after the issuance of first AWS licenses (November 29, 2016), all affected microwave links in the AWS spectrum band will automatically become secondary, per the FCC’s transition rules. Once this occurs, the AWS license needs to provide a six-month written notice to the incumbent outlining its intentions to use their frequencies in a geographic-specific location.

An incumbent whose microwave link is secondary in the AWS band has some rights to the continued use of the spectrum. Per the FCC’s relocation rules, the AWS licensee who desires to use its spectrum acquired in Auction 66 only needs to provide the incumbent with a 30-day written notice to vacate the affected spectrum in a geographical area.

Entitlements of self-relocation

Whether the relocation is performed by the microwave incumbent, a self-relocation, or by an AWS licensee, all microwave incumbents whose links are primary in status are entitled to comparable facilities. The three components that determine comparable facilities are:

1. throughput (the amount of information transferred within the system in a given amount of time),
2. reliability (the degree to which information is transferred accurately and dependably within the system), and
3. operating costs (cost to operate and maintain the system).

The cost-sharing process—an opportunity to potentially recover self-relocation expenditures

The FCC requires self-relocating microwave incumbent in the 2.1 GHz band to file its reimbursement claims with the clearinghouse within 30 calendar days from when they submit their notice of service discontinuance with the FCC. Once the relocation is received by the clearinghouse, it will administer, on a continuous basis, the Proximity Threshold Test—a bright-line test that does not require extensive engineering studies or analyses, and it yields consistent, predictable results. The FCC concluded that the use of such a bright-line test in this context will expedite the relocation process by facilitating cost-sharing, minimizing the possibility of disputes that may arise, and encourages both self-relocation and relocation by the new entrants.

The length of the Proximity Threshold Test box is X, where X is a line extending through both nodes of the microwave link to a distance of 48 kilometers (30 miles) beyond each node. The width of the rectangle is Y, where Y is a line perpendicular to X and extending for a distance of 24 kilometers (15 miles) on both sides of X. Thus, the box is represented as follows:

When a new entrant deploys a base station that falls within this box and is co-channel to the relocation’s frequencies, the clearinghouse will notify the affected parties that cost-sharing has been triggered. The parties will then work outside of the clearinghouse to satisfy the cost-sharing obligation.

The FCC caps relocation expenditure for cost-sharing and outlines the requirements to provide documentation supporting claims to reimbursement

For the purpose of cost-sharing on the relocated systems, the FCC established “caps” or maximum amounts of money one party can register as part of its reimbursement claim. On a per-link basis, the cap is $250,000 for equipment expenditures and $150,000 for tower modifications. The FCC also established the requirements to provide supporting documentation for every self-relocation. In such situations, the self-relocating incumbent must provide as part if its submission to the clearinghouse documentation itemizing the costs of the self-relocation and a third-party appraisal of its compensable relocation costs. The latter, a service Comsearch offers, in most cases, will be a necessary safeguard against excessive costs, system upgrades, items outside of the scope of the relocation effort and the like.

Examples of allowable costs for a self-relocation

The actual cost of relocating a system includes, but is not limited to, such items as: radio terminal equipment, antennas, towers and/or modifications, back-up power equipment, monitoring or control equipment, engineering costs (i.e., path design and survey), installation, system testing, FCC filing costs, site acquisition and civil works, zoning costs, training, disposal of old equipment, test equipment (vendor required), spare equipment, project management, site lease renegotiation, power plant upgrade, if necessary, electrical grounding systems, heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) if necessary, alternate transport equipment and leased facilities. In addition to actual costs, reimbursable costs may include the cost of an independent third party appraisal conducted pursuant to the FCC’s rules and incumbent transaction expenses that are directly attributable to the relocation, subject to a cap of two percent of the “hard” costs involved. Hard costs are defined as the actual costs associated with providing a replacement system, such as equipment and engineering expenses.

Cost-sharing on self-relocations in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz range

The FCC declined to impose cost sharing on MSS operators for voluntary self-relocation by microwave incumbents in the band. Accordingly, for incumbents that elect to self-relocate their paired channels in the 2130-2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, with AWS in the lower band and MSS in the upper band, the FCC has imposed cost-sharing obligations on AWS licensees but not on MSS operators. When a microwave incumbent voluntarily relocates a paired microwave link with paths in the 2130–2150 MHz and 2180–2200 MHz bands, it’s entitled to partial reimbursement from the first AWS beneficiary, equal to 50% of its actual costs for relocating the paired link, or half of the reimbursement cap, whichever is less. This amount is subject to depreciation.

Additional information on the clearinghouse

Throughout this article, we’ve referred to “the clearinghouse.” Comsearch is working with the CTIA Spectrum Clearinghouse, designated by the FCC to manage the cost-sharing processes described above. To learn more about the CTIA Spectrum Clearinghouse and its services, please visit www.ctiaspectrumclearinghouse.org or contact Comsearch at 703.726.5663.

TV White Space—What’s All The Fuss About?
- Part I -

by Mark Gibson
Senior Director, Business Development, Comsearch

The notion of TV white space might conjure up an image of snow on the TV screen indicating you’re viewing an unused TV channel. (The snow is actually background radiation from the Big Bang, but perhaps that’s the subject of another article). Nonetheless, that is exactly what TV white space is all about—the use of radio transmitters in the broadcast television spectrum at locations where that spectrum is not being used. This is the FCC’s definition of white space, and considering the spectrum under consideration is prime real estate, the notion of TV white space is conjuring up quite a fuss.

It all began back at the end of 2002 with a Notice of Inquiry (NOI). The FCC was seeking comments on possibly permitting unlicensed devices to, “operate in TV broadcast spectrum at locations and times when spectrum is not being used, and on the technical requirements that would be necessary to ensure that such devices do not cause interference to authorized services operating within the TV broadcast bands.” Since then, there has been a Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) and a Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O and FNPRM). There have been over 11,900 comments, reply comments, and ex parte filings on these proceedings. Indeed, if they were seeking comments, they certainly got what they were asking for.

The FCC has proposed two types of devices: personal/portable and fixed. Personal/portable devices are expected to operate at lower power, usually indoors or within a small localized area. This would include devices such as computers or wireless LANs that can be moved to operate at different locations. Fixed devices will generally operate from a fixed location, usually outdoors at a higher power. These devices may be used to provide a commercial service such as wireless broadband internet access.

The key issue is how to determine what spectrum to operate on (i.e., when TV channels are really white or unused). For personal/portable devices, the FCC proposed that they operate only when they receive a control signal from a source such as an FM or TV station that identifies the locally vacant TV channels. For fixed devices, the FCC proposed they incorporate a geolocation method such as GPS or be professionally installed, and that they access a database to identify vacant channels. The FCC also proposed using spectrum sensing as an alternative to both approaches.

The concept of identifying the white spaces is complicated by the fact there are more than just TV stations residing in this spectrum. Indeed, the TV bands are home to a combination of licensed and unlicensed incumbents. The unlicensed users include remote controlled devices operating above 70 MHz and biomedical telemetry operating at 174–216 MHz and 470–668 MHz. The licensed users include TV studio-transmitter links (STLs) and relay systems as well as wireless microphones and low power auxiliary systems; all operating across practically the entire spectrum. Finally, the 608–614 MHz portion is protected for wireless medical telemetry service (WMTS) and radio astronomy.

The actual spectrum under consideration for white space is not all of the TV bands. Because of the need to protect VCRs and other set-top boxes, the 54–88 MHz band (channels 2–6) is off the table for personal/portable devices as is the 470–512 MHz band (channels 14–20) because of existing public safety services. The 608–614 MHz band (channel 37) is protected for the wireless medical telemetry service (WMTS) and radio astronomy. In addition, the 698–806 MHz band (channels 52–69) was reallocated for 700 MHz services and is also not part of the proceeding. The figure below depicts the TV white space spectrum and provides additional detail on the incumbent users.

The FCC is also considering whether operation should be licensed, unlicensed, or both. They had initially proposed all operation be unlicensed, but were convinced by comments filed that there is merit in a licensed approach as well. They present a litany of questions in the FNPRM regarding how to address a licensed approach. It’s interesting they indicate by a footnote that if they adopt a licensed approach, they would have to have an auction.

Considering the overwhelming response to these proceedings and the complicated issues they have to untangle, the FCC has their hands full with this one. Comments and ex parte filings continue, and the constituents in the proceeding are quite vocal and include TV broadcasters; companies such as Google, Dell, and Intel; wireless carriers such as FiberTower, T-Mobile, and Sprint; and everyone’s representatives such as the White Spaces Coalition, the Association for Maximum Service TV, and CTIA. In addition, no deployment activity will occur before the DTV transition is completed on February 17, 2009. Our intelligence indicates the FCC hopes to issue an order before the end of the year. So stay tuned, there’s bound to be more fuss as the snow on the TV screen melts.