Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
Before the
Federal Communications Commission 
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of )
)
Service Rules for the 746-764 and )
776-794 MHz Bands, and ) WT Docket No. 99-168 
Revisions to Part 27 of the ) 
Commission's Rules )
FIRST REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: January 6,2000 Released: January 7,2000
By the Commission: CommissionerNess issuing a separate statement; CommissionerFurchtgott-Roth 
approving in part and dissenting in pan and issuing a separate statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................!
II. BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................^
III. SERVICE RULES..................................................................................................................8
A. In General ......................................................................................................................E
1. Spectrum Management Considerations....................................................................^
2. Band Plan.................................................................................................................26
a. General Considerations.....................................................................................26
B. Licensing Rules..............................................................................................................43
1. Regulatory Status ....................................................................................................44
2. Eligibility and Use Restrictions; Spectrum Aggregation........................................47
3. Size of Service Areas for Geographic Area Licensing ...........................................54
4. Foreign Ownership Restrictions..............................................................................62
5. License Terms; Renewal Expectancy......................................................................66
6. Performance Requirements .....................................................................................69
7. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Licenses ..........................................................73
8. Public Notice of Initial Applications; Petitions to Deny.........................................79
C. Operating Rules .............................................................................................................81
1. Applicability of General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance....................82
2. Equal Employment Opportunity .............................................................................89
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
D. Technical Rules..............................................................................................................93
1. In-Band Interference Control ..................................................................................94
2. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emission Limits...........................................................98
3. RF Safety/Power Limits........................................................................................108
4. Special Considerations for Use of Channels 65, 66, and 67 .................................1 12
E. Competitive Bidding.................................................................................................... 121
1. Statuton. Requirements......................................................................................... 121
2. Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules......................128
3. Small Business Definitions ...................................................................................131
IV. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES..........................................................:...... 137
A. Negotiations uith Incumbent Broadcast Licensees.....................................................142
V. CANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS ...................................................... 146
VI. PROCEDl RAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES ............................................147
Appendix A: LIST OF PARTIES
Appendix B. FINAL RULES
Appendix C: GEOGRAPHIC LICENSING MAP
I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. B> thi-> Report and Order we adopt service rules for licensing the commercial use of the 746- 
764 MHz and "6-"44 MHz bands bands that have been reallocated, by Congressional direction, from 
their previous use solel> for the broadcasting service. 1 The service rules adopted today govern the 
predominant portion of these bands thirty of the thirty-six megahertz reallocated for commercial use. 
A subsequent Report and Order will adopt service rules, including licensing, technical, and operational 
rules, for the remaining six megahertz." We believe that, under these rules, these bands can be used to 
provide a wide ran jt- of advanced wireless services. The revised spectrum allocation, which enabled the 
provision of Fixed. Mobile, and Broadcasting services on these bands, subject to the particular 
requirements of the service rules, was adopted in our Reallocation Report and Order* The rules we 
adopt today are aimed at enabling the broadest possible use of this spectrum, consistent with sound 
spectrum management and the Congressional mandate that the receipts from auctioning this spectrum be 
deposited into the Treasury by September 30, 2000.4
2. This Report and Order is our first decision guided by the principles enunciated in our recent
1 See Section 337(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 337(a), as added by § 3004 of the Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-33, 111 Stat. 251 (1997).
2 See Public Comment Sought on Issues Related to Guard Bands in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz 
Spectrum Block (WT Docket No. 99-168), Public Notice, January 7, 2000.
3 See Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Red 22953 (1998) (Reallocation Report and Order), recon., 13 FCC Red 21578 (1998) 
(Reallocation Reconsideration).
4 See Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Appendix E, Section 213. See also 145 Cong. Rec. at H12494-94, 
HI2501 (Nov. 17, 1999), "Making consolidated appropriations for the fiscal year ending September 30,2000, and 
for other purposes." (Consolidated Appropriations).
477
___________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement? Based on those principles, the record developed in this 
proceeding, and our own review of technical issues, we find that a flexible, market-based approach is the 
most appropriate method for determining service rules in this band. We also conclude that, in the 
circumstances of these spectrum bands, the establishment of sub-bands will best ensure that a variety of 
spectrum management priorities are realized, including protection of public safety operations from 
interference. In this Report and Order we adopt service, licensing and auction rules for the thirty 
megahertz of spectrum that are separated from public safety spectrum by Guard Bands totaling six 
megahertz. Rapidly expanding demand for wireless voice and data services, as well as projections of 
international demand and the increased spectrum necessary to support wideband applications to be 
implemented with next generation technologies,6 confirm that these bands should be structured to enable 
their efficient and intensive use for wireless services and technologies. New broadcast-type services that 
can be provided within the technical parameters adopted here are also permissible in these bands. To 
comport with the range of potential service applications on these bands, and our intended use of Part 27 
as a basic regulatory framework for service rules governing other bands, we have also recast the structure 
of the Part 27 rules to reflect their revised scope.
3. More specifically, we are today making the following determinations for licensing and 
operations in this spectrum:
  We are providing for two license bands - one of 20 megahertz and one of 10 megahertz - that 
address the increasing demand for broadband wireless access capacity, including both fixed 
and mobile next generation applications. The 20 megahertz segment, consisting of paired 10 
megahertz blocks, offers bidders Ł significantly large block of spectrum that should be 
desirable for providers of advanced wireless services. The 10 megahertz segment, consisting 
of paired 5 megahertz blocks, should prove of interest to parties in the record who desire 
spectrum to deploy innovative wireless technologies, including high-speed Internet access, 
that do not require as much spectrum. New broadcasting operations that are consistent with 
our technical rules could also utilize some or all of these blocks. Finally, we are permitting 
parties interested in acquiring both licenses in an area to win both in the auction.
  We also are providing for two paired Guard Bands - one of 4 megahertz and one of 2 
megahertz - located immediately adjacent to public safety spectrum. These bands are 
necessary to protect public safety users from interference. Consistent with the Congress's 
intent, we have provided protection to public safety users by establishing "Guard Bands" 
immediately adjacent to public safety bands, and in our subsequent Report and Order will 
adopt technical standards and service rules for the Guard Bands. To ensure that public safety 
licensees in adjacent bands can operate free of interference, we intend to adopt more 
stringent interference protection standards for these Guard Bands than we adopt in this 
Report and Order for the larger segments that do not directly abut public safety spectrum.
Principles for Reallocation of Spectrum to Encourage the Development of Telecommunications Technologies 
for the New Millennium, Policy Statement, FCC 99-354, November 22, 1999, (Spectrum Reallocation Policy 
Statement), 1999 WL 1054886 (1999).
Recent growth trends in voice and data wireless applications are described in the Fourth CMRS Competition 
Report. Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Annual Report and 
Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile Services, Fourth Report, 14 FCC 
Red 10145(1999).
478
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
  We will auction licenses for the larger spectrum blocks on the basis of six Economic Area 
Groupings (EAGs) throughout the country. These relatively large regions should allow for 
significant economies of scale to help reduce costs and increase efficiencies. We also will 
allow bidders to aggregate these regional licenses into nationwide licenses. To further our 
overall policy goals of implementing innovative auction techniques to increase bidder 
flexibility, we also are directing the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to implement, if 
operationally feasible, a new optional bidding procedure. This procedure would cap bid 
withdrawal payments on a nationwide aggregation of licenses for a bidder who commits at 
the outset to bid solely on that nationwide aggregation. Finally, to increase options for the 
provision of service to otherwise unserved geographic areas, we also will allow licensees to 
partition and disaggregate their licenses in the post-auction market.
  The service rules also provide for application licensing, technical and operational
requirements, and competitive bidding. We also have determined how best to maximize the 
scope of practicable flexibility afforded licensees in this spectrum, consistent with our 
review of flexible use allocations required by Section 303(y) of the Act,7 and with the 
technical and other service rules that govern the range of services enabled.
  Finally, we adopt standards to assure protection of the approximately 100 existing 
conventional television stations that will continue to operate on these bands during the 
transition to digital television (DTV), and to safeguard public safety operations on adjacent 
bands.
4. We expect these service rules will enable a significant number of existing and potential 
wireless service providers to pursue these bands, potentially to deploy new methods of providing high 
speed Internet access in competition with digital subscriber loop (DSL) and cable modem operators. 
These bands are also suitable for new fixed wireless service in underserved areas, as well as next 
generation, high-speed mobile services. Because the record indicates a wide range of possible technical 
approaches to serving the expanding demand for wireless services, we have sought to establish an open 
regulatory framework with the potential to accommodate both existing and future technologies. This 
framework permits new broadcast-type services that are consistent with the technical rules essential to 
fostering efficient development of wireless services in this band, and sound spectrum management. By 
setting the scope of our flexible service rules to enable the most efficient and intensive use of this 
spectrum, we believe we have fully satisfied our statutory spectrum management responsibilities.
II. BACKGROUND
5. The 746-806 MHz band at issue here has historically been used exclusively by television 
stations (Channels 60-69). Incumbent conventional television broadcasters are permitted by statute to 
continue operations in this band until their markets are converted to digital television.8 The Balanced 
Budget Act of 1997 directed the Commission to reallocate this spectrum for public safety and 
commercial use by December 31, 1997, 9 and to commence competitive bidding for the commercial
7 47 U.S.C. § 303(y). See paras. 20-25.
8 See 47 U.S.C. § 337(e). See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon Existing Television 
Broadcast Service, MM Docket No. 87-268, Reconsideration of Fifth Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 6860, 6887 
(1998).
9 See Section 337(a) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 337(a).
479
____________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC 00-5
licenses on the reallocated spectrum after January 1,2001.'  In November 1999, Congress enacted a 
consolidated appropriations statute that revises the latter instruction.11 This legislation accelerates the 
schedule for auction of the commercial spectrum bands, and requires that the proceeds from the auction 
of these bands be deposited in the U.S. Treasury by September 30, 2000.
6. In the Reallocation Report and Order, adopted December 31, 1997, we implemented the 
specific spectrum management decisions enacted by Section 3004 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 12 
by adding Fixed and Mobile services to the Broadcasting allocation in the 746-806 MHz band. We 
designated Channels 60-62 and 65-67 for commercial use, and designated Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 
for the exclusive use of public safety. We also declined to adopt additional protections for low-power 
TV and TV translator stations beyond those adopted in the DTV Proceeding. 13 We stated that no new 
applications would be considered for the provision of analog TV service in Channels 60-69, but that 
current applicants, at a later date, would be afforded an opportunity to amend their applications to seek 
channels below Channel 60. We subsequently denied petitions that sought reconsideration of these 
decisions to grant no new licenses for TV service on these channels, and the decision to provide no 
additional protection to low-power TV and TV translator stations. 14
7. In the NPRM'm this proceeding, we sought comment on various service rule issues necessary 
to conduct an auction, including licensing, operational, technical, and competitive bidding rules. 13 The 
Report and Order we adopt here addresses these issues and will enable the auctions process to commence 
expeditiously, consistent with the statutory deadline set by Congress.
III. SERVICE RULES 
A. In General
8. The NPRM sought comment both on broad spectrum management issues 16 and on the unique 
technical issues raised by the reallocation of this band. In this Report and Order, we initially address the 
broad question of whether our service rules for these bands should implement flexible use at the inter- 
service level by providing for sharing of these bands between incumbent conventional, full-power 
television broadcasting licensees and the range of possible broadcasting and wireless services. 17 After
10 See Section 337(b)(2) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 337(b)(2)(a).
11 See Consolidated Appropriations, Appendix E, § 213. See also 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999).
12 Balanced Budget Act of 1997, § 3004 (adding new §§ 337(a) and 337(b) of the Communications Act).
lj See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service (DTV 
Proceeding), MM Docket No. 87-268, Fifth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 12809 (1997), recon., 13 FCC Red 
6860 (1998); Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 14588 (1997), recon., 13 FCC Red 7418 (1998).
14 Reallocation Reconsideration, 13 FCC Red at 21582-83 paras. 12-14.
15 Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, 
WT Docket No. 99-168, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, FCC 99-97, June 3, 1999 (NPRM), 1999 WL 350460.
16 NPRM at paras. 6-15.
As explained more ful 
relation between broad categories of services, such as "broadcast" or "fixed wireless," that are treated as distinct
fully at paras. 10 and 23-25, we use the term "inter-service" to refer to issues involving the
480
____________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
this discussion, we turn to the specific service rule decisions required by this proceeding. 
1. Spectrum Management Considerations
9. Background. In the NPRM, we emphasized our continued interest in the broader aspects of 
spectrum management, noting the potential for new technologies to blur technical and regulatory 
distinctions and affect the balance between licensee discretion and regulatory requirements. 18 We also 
sought comment on the extent to which flexible use allocations that juxtapose such technically dissimilar 
services as wireless and conventional broadcasting might raise new issues. Such additional issues might 
include whether and how to apply service-specific statutory requirements in this context, how to 
consistently apply service rules for this spectrum band and other Parts of our Rules, and, more broadly, 
how these service rules should provide for implementation of next generation wireless technology. 19 We 
recognized that proposals involving a broad range of services make our review of flexible use allocations 
under Section 303(y) especially important,20 and sought comment on the extent to which the spectrum 
could and should be made available for private mobile and fixed radio service.21 We noted the statutory 
provisions that potentially bear on our spectrum management decisions for these bands, including 
Sections 303(y), 309, 337, broadcast-specific statutory provisions such as Sections 312(a)(7) and 315," 
and Section 713 (captioning regulations), and Section 255 (accessibility of telecommunications 
equipment and services).2""
10. Section 303(y) reflects Congressional concern that proposals for the flexible use of spectrum 
have the potential, if not thoroughly considered, to create interference between services and discourage 
investment and technical innovation.24 That section requires the Commission to make a positive 
determination that such issues have been considered, and that these potential problems will not be 
realized, before it approves such flexible use of spectrum allocations i.e., allocation or service rules
"services" for purposes of the Table of Allocations. In the discussion generally, we use the term "wireless services" 
to refer to terrestrial fixed and mobile wireless services other than conventional television and radio broadcasting.
18 NPRM at para. 6.
19 NPRM at paras. 7-10.
20 NPRM at paras. 11-13.
21 NPRM at para. 15.
22 NPRM at para. 10.
23 AT'/JM at paras. 10, 8.
24 Section 303(y) authorizes the Commission "to allocate electromagnetic spectrum so as to provide flexibility of 
use" if consistent with international agreements and:
(2) the Commission finds, after notice and an opportunity for public comment, that 
(A)such an allocation would be in the public interest;
(B)such use would not deter investment in communications services and systems, or technology 
development; and
(C) such use would not result in harmful interference among users.
47 U.S.C. § 303(y)(2).
481
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
that enable the licensing of multiple services, as the term "service" is used in the Table of Allocations, on 
the same frequency band. We make the determinations required by Section 303(y) below, at paras. 20-
25.
11. Many commenters assert that renewed conventional television operations on these bands 
would create such a wide range of interference difficulties as to effectively preclude other, non-broadcast 
wireless applications. Motorola states that it is not possible to "craft service rules that will permit 
efficient operation of advanced mobile systems and traditional wide area broadcast systems in the same 
geographic area," and warns of "unrealizable" business plans.25 Motorola and AirTouch contend that 
this view is supported by experience with sharing in the Channel 14-20 television band, 26.and Motorola 
also refers to the rule changes we adopted for the 2.5 GHz MMDS spectrum to allow licensees the 
flexibility to provide broadcasting and wireless applications.27 US WEST cautions against renewed 
broadcast use of the band, stating that the interference caused by full-power broadcast services would 
deter necessary investment in new services and systems.28
12. Interference from conventional television broadcast services concerns parties who seek 
additional spectrum to provide next generation wireless services, whether fixed or mobile. AirTouch 
states that sharing between mobile and new broadcast uses "would necessitate further segmentation of 
the band, thus limiting the Commission's ability to designate spectrum blocks of sufficient size to 
facilitate reliable mobile services."29 Bell Atlantic Mobile asserts the 700 MHz band is uniquely suited 
for 3G mobile services, and asks us to reserve these bands for 3G terrestrial mobile service, citing 
demand projections prepared by the WRC-2000 advisory committee.30 Metricom, which provides 
wireless Internet access, opposes conventional broadcast television service, as does RTG, which 
contemplates both fixed and mobile services.31
13. A few commenters advocate inter-service, wideband "flexible use," and seek service rules 
sufficiently flexible to enable conventional full-service television broadcast operations, or "hybrid" 
services with comparable technical characteristics. Advocates of enabling such full-service conventional 
television service include MSTV and TWDC, which assert that there are few locations in the crowded 
radio spectrum with sufficient bandwidth for terrestrial broadband services, especially a "hybrid
Motorola Comments at 9.
26 Motorola Comments at 9; AirTouch Comments at 15-16. See also Resolution of Interference Between UHF 
Channels 14 and 69 and Adjacent-channel Land Mobile Operations, MM Docket No. 87-465, Notice of Proposed 
Rule Making and Notice of Inquiry, 2 FCC Red 7328 (1987).
27 Motorola Comments at 9.
28 US WEST Comments at 7.
2 AirTouch Comments at 14; see also US WEST Comments at 6-9.
30 Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 3-6, citing Public Notice, "The FCC's Advisory Committee For the 2000 World 
Radio Communications Conference Offers Additional Draft Proposals On WRC 2000 Issues," DA 99-1364 
(released July 14, 1999).
31 Metricom Reply at 4-6; RTG Comments at ii-iii, 1.
482
____________________Federal CommunicationsCommission_____________FCC 00-5
broadband and mobile service."32 NTA contends that the objective of these service rules should be to 
have 10 to 12 analog channels in translator-dependent areas, to reflect new program sources as well as to 
extend DTV signals.33
14. Commenters also specifically address the "flexible use" findings that the Commission is 
required to make under Section 303(y). Several commenters ascribe the WCS auction results, and the 
subsequent slow pace of WCS service activation, to excessively flexible service rules.34 To avoid a 
recurrence, they argue that we should limit flexibility in both the inter-service and intra-service aspects. 
With regard to inter-service flexibility, they contend we should exclude conventional television 
broadcast from these bands, i.e., prohibit "flexible use" between distinct services in the sense that 
"service" is used in the Table of Allocations. With regard to intra-service flexibility, they assert that we 
should not permit unbounded flexibility even within the context of wireless service, but should instead 
create a stable regulatory framework a band plan and related rules that encourages investment and 
service innovation.35 Metricom, while not opposing those views, raises a more specifically focussed 
concern, urging us not to retreat from the existing scope of operational flexibility contained in the Part 27 
service rules. Metricom asserts that flexibility with regard to bandwidth, channelization, and other 
technical variables affecting the structure of its Ricochet  service was essential to its expeditious 
activation.36
15. Discussion. After careful consideration, we will not adopt service rules that would permit 
the sharing of this band by conventional television and wireless services. The inherent interference 
difficulties presented by sharing between these dissimilar services require that we orient our service rules 
to one service or the other, if efficient and intensive use of this spectrum is to be realized. Based on the 
predominant interest in fixed and mobile wireless services expressed in the record, we will adopt service 
rules primarily oriented toward fulfilling the need for a variety of wireless services on these bands. The 
rules are not structured to establish particular service configurations. Rather, the service rules allow 
licensees to make determinations respecting the services provided and technologies to be used, including 
provision of new broadcast-type services so long as those services comply with our technical rules.37
32 Quote from MSTV Comments at 3; see also TWDC Comments at 2-4.
NTA Comments at 1-2. The NAB supports service rules that ensure protection from interference to existing 
broadcasters, but does not advocate service rules configured to encourage additional conventional television 
licenses. NAB Comments at 2-3.
34 See ArrayComm Comments at 3-4; AMTA Comments at 2 n3; and Motorola Comments at 3-4. AirTouch 
asserts that the Conference Report states "unlimited flexibility can introduce a level of entrepreneurial uncertainty 
that could ultimately retard the development of new services and technology." AirTouch Comments at 5, citing H. 
Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, at 581 (1997), reprinted at 1997 USCCAN 201.
35 See, e.g., AMTA Comments at 1-2; Motorola Comments at 1-2, 16-17, and Motorola Ex Parte Filing of 
October 18, 1999; PCIA Comments at 3-5; ArrayComm Comments at 5-8.
36 Metricom Reply Comments at 2-4.
37 Such services, to the extent they may be offered on these bands, will not necessarily resemble current radio 
and television broadcast services subject to Part 73 and Part 74 of our Rules, but could still meet the statutory 
definition of "broadcasting." See 47 U.S.C. § 153(6). (The term "broadcasting" means the "dissemination of radio 
communications intended to be received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations.") Because 
such new broadcast-type services on these bands will necessarily use lower power levels than even existing low-
483
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
16. Our recent Spectrum Reallocation Policy Statement identifies as a Commission objective the 
development of a variety of mechanisms to make spectrum markets more efficient, including flexible 
service rules and innovative assignment mechanisms. In this proceeding, we find that such flexibility 
cannot extend to opening these bands to both conventional television and wireless services. Establishing 
regulatory flexibility sufficient to accommodate conventional television broadcasting would impose 
disproportionate, offsetting burdens on wireless services, constraining their technical effectiveness and, 
consequently, their economic practicability.38 This conclusion is supported by the record. AirTouch, for 
example, asserts that the inherent conflicts between such disparate services "will require burdensome 
interference protection requirements that will prevent efficient spectrum use and compromise service to 
the public/"9 Sharing with conventional broadcasting services is also opposed by AMTA, APCO, 
Motorola, PCI A. RTG. and US WEST.40 AMTA asserts that protective co-channel and adjacent channel 
standards designed to prevent land mobile interference to television operations in the 470-512 MHz band 
severely limited both the number of markets in which spectrum was available for land mobile use, and 
the area in uhich operations could be conducted within those markets. According to AMTA, 
transplanting similar sharing criteria to this band would severely limit provision of wireless services.41
17. \\V find that the contrasting technical characteristics of conventional television broadcasting, 
using power le\cl» authorized by Part 73, and wireless services effectively preclude the development of 
interference rule.-, that Mould enable the practicable provision of both sets of services on this spectrum.42 
The interference problem arises from the disparity between the two services' characteristic power levels, 
and between their transmitter tower heights.4' Any substantial disproportion between the power levels of
power television ser\ ice. and may differ significantly in both technical and public policy respects from conventional 
broadcasting, we ha\c not sought to anticipate or develop a regulatory framework, beyond the technical and 
operational rules we adopt in this Report and Order or that already apply to broadcast services generally.
j8 See, e.g.. Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 6-8; Intek Comments at 4; ITA Comments at 5-7; Metricom Reply at 
4-6; Motorola Commenis at 8; PCIA Comments at 4; US WEST Comments at 6-8.
J AirTouch Comments at 13. AirTouch recognizes that Commission rules authorize cellular and broadband PCS 
licensees to provide fixed service on a co-primary basis with mobile operations, and does not object to that type of 
flexible use authorization. AirTouch Comments at 12; see 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.901(d) and 24.3.
40 AMTA Comments at 12; APCO Comments at 3; Motorola Comments at 8; PCIA Comments at 4; RTG 
Comments at 11-12: US WEST Comments at 6.
45 AMTA Comments at 12.
42 See, e.g., Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 6-8; Intek Comments at 4; ITA Comments at 5-7; Metricom Reply at 
4-6; Motorola Comments at 8; PCIA Comments at 4; US WEST Comments at 6-8.
43 Formulas for maximum television transmitter power levels are specified in Section 73.614 of the 
Commission's Rules. While 5000 kW is the maximum power for UHF NTSC stations, less than a fifth of licensed 
stations use that level of power; in Washington, D.C., for example, the powers used by four UHF stations range 
from 2450 kW to 5000 kW. The maximum power permitted PCS licensees in the 900 MHz bands, in contrast, is 
3500 watts, more than 1000 times less. 47 C.F.R. § 24.312. The central problem arises from the disparity, 
amounting to several orders of magnitude, between even a comparatively modest conventional television facility 
and a maximum-power PCS license. As described in Section III.D.3, we here adopt maximum power levels for 
these bands of 1000 watts and 30 watts for the lower and upper band segments respectively.
The high transmission power characteristic of conventional analog or digital television service, and the 
channelization of that spectrum into 6 megahertz sections, reflect standards developed to establish a nationally
484
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
services sharing a spectrum band creates much greater interference difficulties for the lower-power 
service than when sharing or adjacent-band services operate at comparable power levels. The disparity 
between television transmitter tower heights and those used by typical wireless providers adds to the 
difficulty by accentuating the pow'er of the more powerful service. Even at considerable distance from 
the higher-power service's transmitter, its signal is still strong enough, due in part to the effect of tower 
height, to make a receiver designed for a nearer, lower-power service vulnerable to interference.44 These 
effects are recognized by the Commission's Rules establishing minimum distance separation 
requirements between conventional television facilities using the same channel and between facilities 
using adjacent channels.43
18. Establishing standards to manage the inherent interference between such dissimilar 
transmissions as conventional television and wireless services would create substantial spectrum 
inefficiencies in a band where efficiency is especially important because of the band's suitability for uses 
ranging from wideband mobile communications to innovative, fixed wireless Internet access services and 
new broadcast-type services.46 If, for example, we applied standards for the protection of incumbent 
television licensees on this band to protect new television licensees operating at power levels authorized 
by Part 73, we would curtail to negligible levels the potential of this band for wireless service. The 
efficient and intensive use of spectrum resources47 is critical to facilitating new wireless technologies 
that have the potential to provide innovative new services and, as well, to serve underserved areas with 
both narrowband and broadband services.48 The record in this proceeding demonstrates diverse and 
substantial demand for expanded wireless broadband spectrum for uses ranging from the 
implementation of next generation applications as extensions of existing mobile and fixed uses, to the 
implementation of various innovative stand-alone technologies.49 The innovations expected from the 
transition to DTV have been and will continue to be accommodated on the bands dedicated for television 
broadcasting.
19. Although we have determined to orient our technical and service rules primarily to enable 
the efficient and intensive use of these bands for wireless service, we will nonetheless allow any 
broadcast-type services consistent with the Table of Allocations that meet those rules. This approach will
consistent television service, which has generally been implemented by allocating bands limited to television 
service. Neither the high power levels nor the preconfigured 6 megahertz spectrum blocks characteristic of 
conventional television service are necessary, however, for the flexible range of existing and contemplated wireless 
services.
44 See Motorola October 27, 1999 Ex Pane Filing.
See 47 C.F.R. § 73.610. Additional distance separation requirements applicable to conventional television 
operations on Channels 14-69 are specified in Table II of 47 C.F.R. § 73.698.
46 See, e.g., Cisco November 1, 1999 Ex Pane Filing; see also, e.g., CEMA filings.
47 See 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(3)(D).
JO RTG asserts that allowing broadcast use on these bands is inconsistent with Sections 309(j) and 706 of the Act, 
because rules permitting broadcast use "will dramatically reduce the amount of spectrum actually made available for 
advanced telecommunications services in rural areas." RTG Comments at 12. See also FreeSpace October 13, 
1999 Ex Pane Filing.
49 See FreeSpace October 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing; Clearwire Reply at 3-4.
485
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
allow the broadest degree of flexibility possible, consistent with technical interference limits and their 
economic consequences here.
20. Section 303(y) Review. Section 303(y) requires the Commission to make affirmative 
findings before permitting flexible use as part of the allocations process. Specifically, we are required to 
determine that such flexibility: (1) is consistent with international agreements; (2) would be in the public 
interest; (3) would not deter investment in communications services or systems, or technology 
development; and (4) would not result in harmful interference among users.50 We find that the flexible 
allocation we adopted in the allocation Report and Order satisfies the standards of Section 303(y).
21. In the Reallocation Report and Order, we preserved the allocation of these bands to 
broadcasting, but recognized that sharing the spectrum between broadcasting and wireless services 
presented technical issues.51 Metricom and other commenters assert that the fundamental purpose of 
flexible regulation would be defeated, and Section 303(y) would be violated, by an attempt to reconcile 
the very different interference rules associated with conventional broadcasting and broadband wireless 
communications.52 Because we agree that service rules permitting television service based on 
conventional (Part 73 and Part 74) technical standards are not in the public interest, and have determined 
against that approach, we need not consider whether that approach to flexible use violates Section 
303(y).
22. We do, however, undertake Section 303(y) review with respect to our decision to allow 
broadcasting that complies with Part 27 technical rules. We have determined that this inter-service 
aspect of our decision fully satisfies the requirements of Section 303(y). The revised entry in our Table 
of Allocations continues this band's previous use for broadcast service, and is consistent with 
international agreements.53 As for the findings required by Section 303(y)(2), we find that no additional 
interference will be created by this approach to inter-service flexibility, because new broadcast-type 
services on these bands will be required to comply fully with the same technical requirements applied to 
wireless services. In that regard, our technical rules are transparent, and include no provisions to 
accommodate conventional broadcasting. For this reason, we anticipate no adverse investment or 
innovation effects on wireless services. In these circumstances, we find that permitting new broadcast- 
type use on these bands by the flexible use plan adopted here is in the public interest, and otherwise 
satisfies the review required by Section 303(y).
23. Some commenters have construed the scope of the Section 303(y) review requirement to 
reach beyond an inter-service interpretation of that mandate. These parties assert that the findings 
required by Section 303(y) are required to be made when the Commission adopts intra-service rules 
sufficiently flexible to enable a range of technical and regulatory characteristics within a specific service 
allocation. Specifically, they assert that Section 303(y) requires us to limit licensees using these 700
50 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).
5 ' Reallocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 22962 para. 18.
Metricom Reply at 5. CEMA contends too broad an approach to flexibility "may have the undesired effect of 
deterring those investments needed to provide communications services and encourage new technologies on the 
newly allocated spectrum. The potential sharing of this spectrum between broadcast service licensees and fixed and 
mobile wireless licensees, alone, complicate these issues." CEMA Comments at 14. See also US WEST Comments 
at 7.
53 See Reallocation Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 22960, 22962 (paras. 14,19).
486
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
MHz commercial spectrum bands, or some portion of them, to specific technical or regulatory categories 
of wireless service, e.g., specialized mobile radio (SMR) or terrestrial mobile applications. Southern, for 
example, while supporting a more flexible use for half the spectrum at issue, contends the public interest 
finding mandated by Section 303(y)(2)(A) requires the Commission to designate 18 Megahertz 
exclusively for SMR use.54 AirTouch similarly invokes the public interest finding to assert that the 
demand for second- and third-generation mobile services, the spectrum needed to meet such demand, and 
the technical characteristics of the 700 MHz band, together demonstrate that the public interest is served 
by designation of these bands exclusively for terrestrial mobile use.55 In addition, Metricom urges us not 
to diminish the existing flexibility of Part 27 with regard to channelization and other service rules that 
enable the flexible configuration of a particular service. 6
24. We interpret the Section 303(y) review requirement as applicable to flexible use 
determinations by the Commission that would enable the sharing of specific spectrum bands by services 
treated as distinct by the international and domestic allocations process. Our review of flexible use under 
Section 303(y) is limited to regulatory decisions that would enable such inter-service flexibility.37 We 
disagree with commenters that assert that the Commission is required to make the affirmative findings 
required by Section 303(y) as a precondition to adoption of flexible intra-service regulations. That 
statutory provision confers authority to "allocate electromagnetic spectrum so as to provide flexibility of 
use," but does not address domestic assignments or operational regulations. Nevertheless, while we find 
that its requirements apply directly and explicitly to our service allocation decisions, we here also 
consider these criteria under our broader public interest mandates in the statute, when making decisions 
that may affect the broader allocation through service rules.
25. The Part 27 provisions referred to generally by Metricom enable the type of operational 
flexibility that, while important to individual licensees, does not involve the type of inter-service 
regulations that, in our view, might potentially be inconsistent with the terms of Section 303(y). These 
regulations confer discretion on licensees at the level of individual system implementation, and pose 
minimal if any potential for interference or discouragement of investment. Thus, while our broad 
statutory mandate requires that our service and other rules (e.g., competitive bidding regulations) fulfill 
the general public interest standard as well as enumerated legislative purposes,58 we find further that, 
under Section 303(y), our various non-allocative, intra-service regulations meet the statutory criteria to 
provide such flexibility of use.
54 Southern Comments at 3-5. The Commission is required to consider the effect of its policies on competitive 
conditions within the relevant markets, Southern asserts, citing Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass 'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto 
Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), and Southern contends it faces unique competitive concerns in the SMR context. 
See also Southern November 4, 1999 Ex Parte Filing.
55 AirTouch Comments at 4-6. At the same time, however, AirTouch states that it does not object to flexible use 
provisions that provide for co-primary use by cellular and PCS licensees and mobile operations. AirTouch 
Comments at 11-12.
56 Metricom Reply at 2-4.
57 See NPRM at para. 11 n.24.
tion 3( 
309(j)(4) (elements of regulations implementing competitive bidding authority).
so See, e.g.. Section 309(j)(3) (safeguards to protect the public interest in the use of the spectrum) and Section
487
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
2. Band Plan
26. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on several aspects of spectrum 
management, including the extent to which the pace of technical change may affect the desirable balance 
between licensee discretion and the extent of technical and operational regulations,39 and how investment 
generally, and specifically for new and innovative technologies and services, would be affected by 
service rules. The NPRM also sought comment on the effect of different approaches to these bands upon 
interference to other services,60 and how the Commission's auction processes should reflect and 
implement the spectrum management decisions.61
27. Several commenters urge us to auction a single, 36 megahertz license. A single, 36 
megahertz license would, Metricom contends, leave the details of flexible use, including management of 
interference between distinct services, to be determined by the licensee.62 MSTV similarly asserts that a 
unitary license would leave issues arising from the coordination of services, including the development 
of methods for sharing spectrum that do not unfairly burden specific services, to the licensee.63 
AirTouch also advocates a single, 36 megahertz license, though it would designate the entire band for 
terrestrial mobile services, predicated on substantially expanded spectrum needs for the implementation 
of next generation broadband wireless services.64 Cisco contends that a single, 36 megahertz license 
would better enable use of these bands for efficient fixed wireless applications without precluding mobile 
services, and asserts that discrete sub-bands are not necessary to protect adjacent public safety uses.63
28. Several other commenters, including AMTA, FreeSpace, Motorola, PCIA, Intek, and US 
WEST, support a more structured approach to band management.56 Some of these commenters argue for 
division of the band into comparatively modest spectrum segments, configured to flexibly enable a range 
of new and existing narrowband technologies, and propose division of the 36 megahertz into several 
bands with varying degrees of flexibility. In this latter category, for example, Motorola has proposed an 
overall band plan that configures two 1.5 megahertz band pairs, adjacent to the public safety spectrum 
bands, designated for the licensing of systems to band managers, and divides the remainder of the band 
into sub-bands intended to support a range of expanded wireless fixed and mobile services.67 Others 
seek larger spectrum blocks; Southern, for example, argues that 18 megahertz should be designated for
59 NPRM at para. 6.
60 NPRM at paras. 57-70.
61 NPRM at paras. 79-83.
Metricom Reply at 5-8. Metricom also proposes that the successful bidder be required to make a payment for 
each transmitter deployed, based on power and bandwidth.
63 MSTV Comments at 4-8. 
AirTouch Comments at 6.
65 Cisco November 10, 1999 Ex Pane Filing.
66 AMTA Comments at 7-9; Free Space October 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 2; Motorola Comments at 7; PCIA 
Comments at 5; Intek Comments at 5-6; US WEST Comments at 3-6.
57 Motorola October 27, 1999 Ex Pane Filing.
488
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
SMR service, and the remainder for flexible use.68
29. Several commenters assert that the failure to establish at least a minimal regulatory 
framework for services offered on these bands will seriously compromise the overall public benefits 
from these bands.69 AMTA, for example, while asserting that relaxed regulation has encouraged 
innovative technologies and service offerings, also notes that the FCC is properly concerned that 
"unbridled regulatory flexibility not have the contrary effect of permitting harmful interference among 
users, deterring investment in communications systems or services or technological development, or 
otherwise not serve the public interest."70 PCIA believes that a service allocation that is too flexible will 
deter investment in communications services and systems and technology.71
30. Discussion. We will adopt a band plan that establishes a 20 megahertz segment (two 
paired, 10 megahertz blocks), a 10 megahertz segment (two paired, 5 megahertz blocks), and two small, 
also paired, Guard Bands of 1 and 2 megahertz adjacent to the established public safety bands. The two 
larger band segments are not subject to eligibility requirements. The regulatory and technical standards 
applicable to the smaller Guard Band segments will be resolved in the subsequent Report and Order.
31. We decline to grant a unitary, 36 megahertz license. As an initial matter, we do not consider 
it desirable, in light of the record regarding the potential for interference to public safety users, to leave 
determination of the internal framework of these bands, including the structure of Guard Bands, to a 
single commercial entity. More broadly, in light of the range of technologies, services, and spectrum 
needs asserted by commenters, we find that the best course is to adopt a band plan that will allow bidders 
to pursue licenses that are less than the full 36 megahertz, but will allow bidders to aggregate a 
substantial portion of the band. In that way, the marketplace forces operating through the auction 
process, rather than regulatory fiat, will determine which of the multitude of service proposals will 
actually be implemented.72 In addition, given the relatively small amount of bandwidth presently 
available, we must achieve a balance between the configuration of bands for broad groups of services, 
and preserving overall licensee flexibility in technical and service application choices.
Ł0 Southern Comments at 2-4, 6-7.
69 Motorola states that "[l]ack of activity towards defining a service for the WCS band is the clearest indication 
that such extreme flexibility does not work in the real world. While auction revenues should not be equated with the 
public interest, we also note that the WCS auctions attracted less than one percent of the revenue projected by 
budget experts." Motorola Comments at 5, citing 47 U.S.C. § 303(y).
70 AMTA Comments at 1-2.
71 PCIA Comments at 2.
72 See Section III.E.
489
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
32. Our band plan is presented graphically in the diagram below. Our subsequent description 
includes the specific public interest basis for each of the plan's several components.
700 MHz Band Plan
Commercial Band Channelization
762_________________777______________79:
Public Safety
Guard Bands   Guard Bands
TV Channelization
TVCh. 60 TVCh. 61 TV Ch. 62 TV Ch. 63 TVCh 64 TVCh 65 TV Ch. 66 TVCh. 67 1 TVCh. 68 
1
TVCh. 69
746 752 758 764 770 776 800 806
33. Protecting Public Safety Operations Through Guard Bands. Consistent with the legislative 
history of Section 33 7,73 a primary goal of our band plan structure is to ensure that activation of services 
in these 36 Megahertz of spectrum will not impair public safety operations in the former channels 63-64 
and 68-69 through harmful interference. The Conference Report states that the Commission should 
ensure that public safety service licensees in the 746-806 MHz band "continue to operate free of 
interference from any new commercial licensees."74 The importance attached to interference protection 
by the Congress is emphasized by APCO, the NCC, and the International Association of Firefighters.75 
In addition, Motorola has recognized this concern in its band plan proposal, which establishes Guard 
Bands at the extremities of the commercial use bands to insulate the adjacent public safety bands from 
stronger commercial service emissions in the central segments of these bands.76 Other commenters, 
though proposing different approaches, have also recognized the public safety priority. 77 Accordingly,
73
75
H. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, at 12 (1997), reprinted at 1997 U.S.C.C.A.N. 201.
Id. at 580.
APCO Comments at 2-5; NCC August 25, 1999 Ex Parte Filing; IAFC Comments at 2-3. See also Motorola
Comments at 14-17; Region 20 Comments at 3-4.
76
77
Motorola October 27, 1999 Ex Pane Filing.
FreeSpace, for example, proposes bands with low out of band emission levels adjacent to public safety bands. 
FreeSpace October 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 4-6.
490
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
we wish to ensure that the public safety bands are protected from interference, given that such spectrum 
will be used by local, state and Federal agencies for the protection of life, health, or property. This is a 
core function of this Commission under Section 1 and Section 337(f)(l) of the Communications Act.78
34. We agree with commenters who contend that Guard Bands are the best way to ensure 
protection for public safety uses. In this Report and Order, we establish four sub-bands, two each of 1 
and 2 megahertz, designated as Guard Bands in the diagram, in order to protect the immediately 
adjoining public safen. licensees on Channels 63, 64, 68, and 69 from harmful interference. We will 
require licensees on these Guard Bands to minimize interference to public safety licensees through 
technical and operational measures to be determined in the subsequent Report and Order. .While 
protecting adjacent public safety bands from harmful interference, the sub-bands we establish here will 
allow for effective and \ alued use of the spectrum, consistent with sound spectrum management, rather 
than the creation 01'Guard Band spectrum of little use. To that end, we find it is appropriate to establish 
two 1 megahert? sub-hands at 746 MHz and 776 MHz, to allow for a paired block, and similarly to 
establish Use paired 2 megahertz sub-bands, at 762 and 792 MHz, to provide further protection for public 
safety bands and i.> encourage the effective and valued use of the Guard Band spectrum.
35. Paired ^lib-bands of 10 megahertz (5 megahertz pairs) and 20 megahertz (10 megahertz 
pairs). We have determined to divide each of the two remaining 15 megahertz bands into a 5 megahertz 
and 10 megahertz segment, to be auctioned as paired bands of 5+5 and 10+10 megahertz. The division 
into these spectrum blocks furthers several spectrum management goals.
36. The tuo paired 5 megahertz segments appear well-suited to the expressed preferences of new 
technology advocates, and. depending on the technology adopted will enable some data services, 
including Internet access Five megahertz segments, paired as a 10 megahertz segment, enable a single 
wideband COM A channel, which is sufficient to provide some forms of Internet access. 79 FreeSpace 
initially sought 8 megahertz of spectrum, and subsequently proposed 6 megahertz in four 1.5 megahertz 
paired channels.* AT&T Wireless is reportedly using some elements of its Project Angel to develop a 
new wireless data sen ice. to compete against wireless data access service provided by, e.g., MCI 
(reselling Metricom service).81 Similarly, the Japanese Communications Research Laboratory, applying a 
new transmission system to existing Personal Handyphone System technology, which employs TDD 
transmission to serve approximately six million customers, reportedly has demonstrated a high-speed 
(384 kbps) transmission system for multimedia communications to wireless mobile terminals.82
78 See47U.S.C. §§ 151, 337(f)(l).
79 See Lucent November 15, 1999 Ex Parte Filing.
80 FreeSpace October 5, 1999 Ex Pane Filing; FreeSpace November 30, 1999 Ex Parte Filing (Presentation to 
National Coordination Committee at November 18-19, 1999 meeting.)
81 "AT&T Revs Up Portable Access Battle," Fred Dawson, October 18, 1999, http://w\vw.zdnet.com/2dnn 
(downloaded Oct. 19, 1999).
R7 "Development of 3 84 kbps PHS Communication Device," MPT NEWS, June 21, 1999at4. While the time 
division duplex transmission used by PHS does not dedicate bandwidth to data transmission in a manner directly 
comparable to channelized frequency division systems, the demonstration of this capability on a system widely used 
for voice and alphanumeric messaging is suggestive.
491
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
37. The size and placement of the two 5 megahertz segments achieves other spectrum 
management goals as well. As the diagram illustrates, this structure reduces the number of existing 
television channels, and thus of incumbent television licensees, to which a new licensee's operations 
would potentially cause co-channel interference, compared with equal 7.5 megahertz segments. In 
addition, we believe that our approach furthers the development and deployment of many services using 
these segments, but particularly accommodates firms seeking to negotiate accelerated transition 
agreements with incumbent television licensees. Such firms may likely confront a simpler negotiation 
process, because the alignment of these segments with existing television channels requires them to 
negotiate with fewer co-channel incumbents in many areas. Also, because the new license will directly 
overlap with the spectrum assignment of only a single incumbent television station, this alignment 
reduces the "free rider" problem created when third parties benefit from others' negotiations. Nor is any 
offsetting burden created for entities interested in the 10 megahertz segments, as compared to an equal 
division into 7.5 megahertz segments. Entities interested in providing services consistent with these 
spectrum blocks thus benefit from a reduced burden of expense and delay in achieving full use of their 
licensed spectrum.83
38. The wider, 10 megahertz segments should enable a broader range of broadband services, 
including Internet access at higher speeds. A 10 megahertz segment, for example, is sufficient to provide 
two bidirectional 384 kb/s mobile data streams per sector, as well as smaller-capacity services, using 
high-tier cellular and PCS technologies consistent with 3G service classifications.84 Commenters such as 
Bell Atlantic and AirTouch assert that a large block of spectrum is needed to support 3G mobile 
telephony.83 Lucent, in describing the suitability of the 700 MHz band for 3G services, notes that the 5 
megahertz minimum bandwidth increment is necessary to support the broadest range of 3G 
technologies,86 and the greater flexibility of larger bandwidth segments could be used to satisfy the 
asymmetric characteristics of data services. These wider segments will enable substantial augmentation 
of existing CMRS systems, whether for expansion into provision of next generation services under the 
3G service classification or some other approach less directly linked to existing systems. They also have 
the potential to support new systems in appropriate circumstances, as US WEST states.87
39. We recognize assertions by Cisco and others that establishing any sub-bands reduces 
spectrum efficiencies achieved by aggregation and creates more frequency boundaries between licensees
Telcordia, however, suggests in its November 4, 1999, Ex Pane Filing, that DECT, PACS, and Personal 
Handyphone Service (PHS), while containing "well-defined data transport protocols," would be best at providing 
moderate-rate (64-128 kb/s) data service.
83 See 47 U.S.C. § 3090)(3)(A).
84 Telcordia November 4, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 2.
85 AirTouch Comments at 16-17; AirTouch Reply at 10-11; Bell Atlantic Mobile Reply at 2-5.
86 Lucent November 15, 1999 Ex Parte Filing.
9,1 US WEST states that the economics of manufacturing new equipment for use in this band, and the preference 
of wireless service providers to establish services of national scope, require that a significant amount of spectrum be 
designated for a single nationwide license to enable a new nationwide competitor. US WEST modified its original 
proposal to ask that we designate 20 megahertz as a national license, and 10 megahertz for regional licensing. US 
WEST Comments at 4-6; US WEST November 15, 1999 Ex Parte Filing.
492
____________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC QO-S
that require interference management.81 We believe our decision here is appropriate, however. First, 
encouraging a variety of technologies and entrants is an important spectrum management goal. 
Subdividing the 36 megahertz of available spectrum will make it more likely that start-ups and 
companies that are not highly capitalized will have the opportunity to pursue spectrum. Second, our 
auction rules allow bidders to aggregate these band segments. This allows entities that believe they need 
to acquire a larger amount of spectrum than that available in the individual licenses to do so. Third, our 
choice of two licenses, rather than a single license, adds only one interference boundary as a constraint 
on spectrum efficiencies. While Cisco suggests that its approach to broadband Internet access would 
encourage the provision of such access to less densely developed areas, other parties that favor large 
spectrum block approaches generally do not suggest that a single large block is necessary to 
accommodate such important spectrum management goals. In the circumstances presented here, we 
conclude that our band plan, rather than a 30 or 36 megahertz license, best fulfills our statutory spectrum 
management responsibility.
40. Paired-Band Architecture. To achieve effective flexibility, without constraining new 
technologies and services, the band plan designates the lower and upper 18 megahertz segments for 
distinct power limits, consistent with traditional practice for paired mobile services and the requests of 
providers such as AirTouch, AMTA, and US WEST.89 We establish different power limits for the lower 
frequency segment and the higher frequency segment. These limits reflect and optimize the efficient use 
of spectrum for the expected predominant use of each segment. Thus, power limits for the lower 
frequency band segment reflect its expected primary use for higher-power base station transmissions 
received by control, mobile and portable stations; in contrast, we have set power limits for the higher 
frequency band segment at levels that optimize its efficient use for the lower-power transmissions from 
control, mobile and portable stations that will be received by base stations. This approach enables more 
efficient spectrum use, by minimizing the "near-far" interference problem that arises in more extreme 
form by the juxtaposition of television transmission with land mobile services. Our Part 27 rules enable 
fixed services on either segment.90
41. We recognize that advocates of lower power, TDD transmission seek smaller, unpaired sub- 
bands, and emission standards configured to encourage that mode of transmission.91 FreeSpace and other 
parties support the configuration of sub-bands and emission limits for TDD applications, and assert their 
preference for unpaired spectrum bands.92 Lower power technologies provide a range of voice and data 
services by flexibly using a single, contiguous band for asymmetric up- and down-link access.93 
ArrayComm notes a trade press prediction that NTT will rely on TDD-based systems rather than W- 
CDMA to deploy the first commercial 3G systems, and submits a spectral efficiency comparison
88 Cisco November 11, 1999, Ex Pane Filing at 3.
89 AirTouch Comments at 16-17; AMTA Comments at 7-8; US WEST Comments at 2-5.
90 Determination of maximum allowable power levels is discussed in Section III.D.3.
91 See ClearWire Reply at 3; FreeSpace Communications Oct. 13, 1999; Ex Pane Filing at 6-7; ArrayComm 
Comments at 5-7.
92 ArrayComm Comments at 10; DDI Pocket Reply at 3-4; Clearwire at 3.
PHS GUIDEBOOK, July, 1998, Japan Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications; DDI Comments at 2-3.
493
____________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC 00-5
between various wireless technologies.94
42. The majority of commenters note, however, that Frequency Division Duplex (FDD), which 
is the most commonly-used transmission procedure for PCS, cellular, and other mobile telephony 
applications, requires paired spectrum. Pairing of these bands under these circumstances will facilitate 
the auction procedure, by not requiring bidders seeking paired bands to prepare multiple bids. In sum, 
because paired bands are essential to these technologies, while technologies using unpaired spectrum can 
operate on paired segments if the segments are large enough, we conclude that the post-auction unpairing 
of this spectrum creates less of an overall problem for the expeditious activation of these bands than 
would the need to pursue post-auction pairing, if our rules did not initially establish a paired 
configuration.
B. Licensing Rules
43. In the NPRMwe sought comment on licensing rules for a full range of possible licensees, 
consistent with our stated intention to permit as much flexibility in the use of this spectrum as is 
consistent with the requirements of Section 303(y) of the Act. In the interests of flexibility and optimum 
spectrum use, we have enabled the provision of any service in this Order, so long as the licensee 
complies with the technical rules governing spectrum use. The following discussion addresses licensing 
rules for uses of this spectrum other than new broadcast-type services.95
1. Regulatory Status
44. Background. In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether to apply the existing licensing 
framework established in Part 27 for Wireless Communications Service (WCS)96 to the 746-764 MHz 
and 776-794 MHz bands.97 Part 27 accords licensees the flexibility to provide any fixed, mobile or 
radiolocation service contained in the non-government column of Table of Allocations in Part 2 of the 
Commission's Rules98 for this spectrum, and provides, inter alia: (i) the limitation of eligibility 
requirements to foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the Communications Act; (ii)
94. ArrayComm Reply at 5-6, citing Baskerville Communications Corp., "Japan Takes Quiet Road to Third- 
Generation Explosion," 3G MOBILE, May 19, 1999, at 6.
Qf _There is-little record comment on the appropriate regulatory treatment for new broadcast-type services, 
although several commenters note that different considerations inform the regulatory structures for broadcast 
services and nonbroadcast services. See, e.g., CEMA Comments at 14. However, we cannot anticipate the nature of 
those broadcast services that may be developed in the future for use of this spectrum in conformance to to the power 
limits and band configurations adopted in this Order. While we do not make specific determinations here regarding 
any new broadcast-type services, we remind potential applicants that certain broadcast regulations are mandatory as 
a matter of statute and thus must apply to such services. The provision of new broadcast-type services compliant 
with Part 27 technical standards does not alter the underlying nature of such services, or the licensee's related 
regulatory and statutory obligations.
OA This regulatory framework was established in response to the Congressional mandate in Section 3001 of the 
Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997 to reallocate and assign the use of the frequencies at 2305-2320 
MHz and 2345-2360 MHz. Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996).
97 AT'/JA/atpara. 57.
98 Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service ("WCS"), 
GN Docket No. 96-228, Report andOrder, 12 FCC Red 10797-10802 (paras. 25-36) (Part 27 Report and Order).
494
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
the exclusion of WCS spectrum holdings from application of the CMRS spectrum cap; (iii) flexibility to 
partition geographic service areas and disaggregate spectrum blocks; (iv) determination of regulatory 
status by a licensee's designation in its long-form application; and (v) with some exceptions, 
incorporation of the competitive bidding rules set forth in Part 1 of the Commission's Rules."
45. Noting in the NPRMtha.1 the licensing framework for Part 27 permits applicants to request 
common carrier status as well as non-common carrier status under a single license, 100 we proposed to 
authorize licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to provide a variety or combination of 
fixed and mobile, common carrier and non-common carrier, and broadcast services, anywhere within 
their licensed areas at any time, consistent with the regulatory status specified by the licensee in its long 
form application (Form 601) and with applicable interference protection requirements. We tentatively 
concluded that this approach was likely to achieve efficiencies in the licensing and administrative 
process. In this regard, we sought comment in the NPRMon the need to modify Form 601 or any other 
appropriate form(s) to account for the flexibility of use permitted for these bands. Several parties 
advocating regulatory neutrality in administering this spectrum endorsed our proposal. 101 TWDC, for 
example, contends that traditional regulatory requirements can disadvantage one class of participants and 
can discourage experimentation and the development of new services. 102
46. Discussion. To fulfill our enforcement obligations and ensure compliance with the statutory 
requirements of Titles II and III of the Communications Act, we will require applicants to identify 
whether they seek to provide common carrier services or other services permitted under the final rules 
adopted in this proceeding. However, licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands will not be 
required to describe the specific services they seek to provide but only to designate the regulatory status 
of the services. 103 To facilitate this result, we have amended item 35 of the Form 601 to add the 
broadcast option. Licensees also will be required to notify the Commission within 30 days of service 
changes that alter the regulatory status of their services. When the change results in the discontinuance, 
reduction, or impairment of the existing service, a different approach may apply, depending on the nature 
of the service affected. 104
99 We have since proposed application of the Part 27 framework to development of service and operational rules 
for other spectrum bands. See, e.g., 47 GHz Notice, 13 FCC Red at 16968 (para. 51).
100 Part 27'Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10845-48 (paras. 118-122).
101 TWDC Comments at 9; TWDC Reply at 8-9; MSTV Comments at 14; Alaskan Choice Comments at 4.
102 TWDC Comments at 9; TWDC Reply at 8.
103 See Section 27.10 of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.10. See also Part 27 Report and 
Order, 12 FCC Red at 10848 (para. 121). See also Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the 
Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 19.5-30.0 GHz 
Frequency Band, To Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service And for Fixed Satellite 
Services, Petitions for Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications for Waiver of the Commission's Common 
Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service Rules, CC Docket No. 92-297, Suite 12 Group Petition for Pioneer 
Preference, PP-22, Second Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 
12 FCC Red 12545, 12644 (para. 223) (1997) (LMDS Second Report and Order); 47 C.F.R. § 101.1013.
104 47 U.S.C. § 214(a). See Section 27.66 of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.66. See also 
discussion of operating rules, infra.
495
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
2. Eligibility and Use Restrictions; Spectrum Aggregation
47. Background. Sections 27.12 and 27.302 of the Commission's Rules105 impose no 
restrictions on eligibility, other than the foreign ownership restrictions set forth in Section 310 of the 
Communications Act. 106 Our proposal to impose no additional eligibility requirements is endorsed by 
several parties. 107 We also proposed to impose no restrictions on the amount of spectrum that any one 
licensee may obtain in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in the same licensed geographic 
service area. We received conflicting responses to this portion of our proposal. 108
48. With respect to out-of-band spectrum aggregation, we noted in the NPRMthat the 746-764 
MHz and 776-794 MHz bands may be used for mobile services comparable to the cellular, broadband 
Personal Communications Service (PCS), and Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) spectrum for which the 
CMRS spectrum cap was devised. 109 The CMRS spectrum cap in Section 20.6 of the Commission's 
Rules governs the amount of CMRS spectrum that can be licensed to a single entity within a particular 
geographic area. Under Section 20.6, a single entity may acquire attributable interests in the licenses of 
broadband PCS, cellular, and SMR services that cumulatively do not exceed 45 megahertz of spectrum 
within the same geographic area. "  In rural geographic areas, an entity may acquire as much as 55 
megahertz of spectrum. The CMRS spectrum cap is intended to preclude licensees from aggregating 
sufficient amounts of CMRS spectrum in a single geographic area to enable them, singly or in 
combination with other licensees, to exclude competitors, reduce the quantity or quality of services 
provided, or increase prices to the detriment of customers.111 In the NPRMwe inquired whether CMRS 
provided on the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands should be exempt from the CMRS spectrum 
cap. 112 This proposal was supported by a number of com m enters," 3 although others argued for
105 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.12, 27.302. See also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10829, para. 83.
106 47U.S.C. §310.
107 AirTouch Comments at 22-25; BAM Reply at 11-12.
108 This proposal is opposed by AirTouch (Comments at 22-24); Bell Atlantic Mobile (Reply at 12); and MSTV 
(Comments at 14). KM supports limiting the spectrum obtained by a single licensee (KM Comments 4).
109 See Section 20.6(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 20.6(a). See also Part 27 Report and Order, } 2 
FCC Red at 10832-34 (paras. 87-91).
See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review Spectrum Aggregation Limits for Wireless Telecommunications 
Carriers, WT Docket No. 98-205, Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance 
from the 45 MHz CMRS Spectrum cap, Amendment of Parts 20 and 24 of the Commission's Rules Broadband 
PCS Competitive Bidding and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service Spectrum Cap, WT Docket No. 96-59, 
Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket No. 93-252, Report and Order, 
FCC 99-244, released Sept. 22, 1999, 1999 WL 734848 (Spectrum Cap Report and Order).
1 '' Spectrum Cap Report and Order at para. 11.
112 AWZA/atpara. 28.
113 AirTouch Comments at 20-22; BAM Reply at 11; MSTV Comments at 14. RTG argues that applying the 
spectrum cap to this spectrum would preclude deployment of advanced 3G services to rural areas. RTG Comments 
at 9-10. See also RTG Reply at 9.
496
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
subjecting these bands to the CMRS spectrum cap."4
49. Discussion. We will impose no restrictions on eligibility for a license in the 747-762 MHz 
and 777-792 MHz bands. Thus, no prospective licensee will be barred from participation in the auction 
or from post-auction acquisition of a license for this spectrum based on its status as a provider of cable 
services, for example, or of telephone or other telecommunications services. We believe that opening this 
spectrum to as wide a range of applicants as possible will encourage entrepreneurial efforts to develop 
new technologies and services, while helping to ensure the most efficient use of the spectrum." 3
50. We have pursued a policy of flexible use for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. 
We are particularly concerned that eligibility restrictions could impede efficient development of this 
spectrum. Were we to exclude all incumbent providers of services that could compete with services that 
could be provided using this spectrum, we would exclude virtually every major telecommunications 
service provider active today. We anticipate that use of this spectrum will offer incumbent providers of 
both wireline and wireless services an opportunity to augment their existing services and systems, rather 
than to act in an anticompetitive manner, for example, by warehousing the spectrum acquired.
51. With respect to the CMRS spectrum cap, we noted in the NPRMthat the 746-764 MHz and
776-794 MHz bands may be used for mobile services comparable to the cellular, broadband PCS, and 
SMR spectrum for which the CMRS spectrum cap was devised. Recognizing that the spectrum cap 
limits were set on the basis of the particular amount of spectrum (180 megahertz) available at that time 
for CMRS, we indicated in the Spectrum Cap Report and Order that we would evaluate whether the cap 
should apply, or be adjusted, at the time that we made more spectrum available for CMRS."6 It has been 
our expectation that, as we made more spectrum available for CMRS services, we would either adjust the 
cap upward or refrain from including the new spectrum within the scope of the cap.
52. Consistent with our proposal in the NPRM, we have determined that the 747-762 MHz and
777-792 MHz bands, if used to provide CMRS, should not count against the 45/55 megahertz spectrum 
cap. In our recent biennial review of the CMRS spectrum cap, we declined to increase the cap, except in 
those rural areas in which we determined that an increase was necessary to facilitate the deployment of 
CMRS."7 We believe that the presence of the CMRS spectrum cap for the existing 180 megahertz of 
CMRS spectrum provides a sufficient safeguard against consolidation of spectrum to refrain from 
extending the cap to the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. We also are interested in facilitating 
the use of these bands for next generation applications that would benefit from those economies of scale 
provided by licensing on a national or large regional basis. In addition, it is not clear that this spectrum 
will be used primarily or even substantially for CMRS services or that the services that are provided will 
be competitive with CMRS. The spectrum is presently encumbered and is likely to remain so, to at least 
some extent, until 2006. In no part of the country is this band totally unencumbered; in certain parts of
114 UTC argues that the imposition of a spectrum cap on CMRS services provided on the spectrum would create 
needed parity between broadcast and CMRS providers. UTC Comments at 4. See also KM Comments at 4.
115 Given the commercial nature of the spectrum and our recent (and significant) public safety allocation in the 
700 MHz band, providers of public safety services as defined in Section 337(f) of the Communications Act will not 
likely be interested in participating in the auction of this spectrum or acquiring spectrum in post auction 
transactions. See 47 U.S.C. § 337(f).
1 ' 6 Spectrum Cap Report and Order at paras. 20-27, 66-67. 
1 ' 7 Spectrum Cap Report and Order at paras. 20-27, 66-67.
497
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
the country, particularly metropolitan areas, very little of this band is presently available. In light of the 
present level of encumbrance and the extended transition period provided for incumbent television 
broadcasters to move out of the band, it would not make sense to count this spectrum against the current 
cap.
53. Finally, our decision furthers the public interest better than including this spectrum in the 
cap and then adjusting the cap upward. That course would permit reconsolidation within the present 
CMRS bands. We note that our approach here is consistent with that in other bands for which we have 
adopted very flexible allocations and service rules." As we indicated in the Spectrum Cap Report and 
Order, reconsolidation would prompt concern about reductions in competition and attendant increases in 
prices and diminution in the quality of services provided. 119 We deem it appropriate to provide 
additional spectrum for incumbent providers to implement broadband CMRS services, provided this can 
be accomplished without sacrificing the substantial benefits that the public has realized from competition 
in CMRS sen ices We believe that excluding this spectrum from the cap will not result in any additional 
concentration, or reduce competition in the CMRS marketplace. Correspondingly, keeping the cap in 
place on present CMRS bands, at least for the time being, will help to ensure that the competitive market 
structure is maintained.
3. Size of Service Areas for Geographic Area Licensing
54. Background. In the past, Part 27 spectrum has been licensed based on one of two kinds of 
service areas:'" tueKe Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAs) 121 or 52 Major Economic Areas 
(MEAs). RE As and ME As are based on the 172 Economic Areas (EAs) defined by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, as modified by the Commission. Licensing Part 27 spectrum using REAs and MEAs 
allowed us to balance various specific competing needs. 1 "2 In the 220 MHz auction, we auctioned 
spectrum in six Economic Area Groupings (EAGs) which were also based on EAs as defined by the 
Department of Commerce. I2j In the NPRM, we requested comment on the type of service area or areas 
that should be used to license the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands.
11S See, e.g., L.\fDS Second Report and Order at pages 12634-12639. 
See Spectrum Cap Report and Order at paras. 33-36.
120 Section 27.6 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.6: see also. Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 
10785,10814-16 (paras. 54-60) (1997).
121 "REAs" (Regional Economic Areas) refer to the 12 regions established in the WCS auction, which at that time 
were known as Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs). See OET mapping information on the FCC website 
<www.fcc.gov/oet/info/maps/areas/>.
122 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10814-15 (para. 55).
u See Appendix C. The 220 Third Report and Order established groupings of EAs into six regions of 
approximately equal population size based on the 1990 census. See, In the Matter of Amendment of Part 90 of the 
Commission's Rules to Provide for the Use of the 220-222 MHz Band by the Private Land Mobile Radio Service, 
PR Docket No. 89-552, RM-8506, Implmentation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, GN Docket 
No. 93-252, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile Services Implementation of Section 309(j) of the Communications Act 
- Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, FCC 97-57, Third Report and Order; Fifth Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red. 10943, (Appendix E) (1997) (220 Third Report And Order).
498
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
55. The majority of commenters tended to recommend larger geographic sizes for this spectrum 
band.124 Those parties advocating CMRS use for the spectrum generally tended to recommend larger 
geographic areas. They contend that the trend in the marketplace toward the development of nationwide 
footprints by CMRS carriers demonstrates that CMRS is increasingly a nationwide service and should be 
licensed on that basis. 123 Some companies proposing innovative technologies argued for a nationwide 
license divided into narrow bands at different frequencies, which would enable them to bypass 
incumbent TV stations. 126 A larger geographic licensing area, it is argued, would also allow these new 
service providers to build-out over large regions reaching rural areas in a cost-effective manner by taking 
advantage of the long-distance propagation characteristics of this UHF band. 127 Other reasons given by 
commenters for larger geographic area licensing include the economies of scale needed to lower 
equipment costs 128 and to deploy innovative services rapidly; 129 advantages in facilitating interoperability 
and standards; 130 the simplification of interference coordination; 131 and lowered-cost pricing plans by 
minimizing roaming costs132 or allowing for single-rate pricing plans. 1"1'' A few commenters argued for 
much smaller geographic licensing areas (172 EAs or smaller) in order to be affordable for rural areas, 1''4 
to enable reuse of existing tower sites, 135 or to better serve smaller market areas. 136
124 See, e.g., US WEST Comments at 2; Freespace Oct. 13; 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 2-3, 11-13.
125 See AirTouch Comments at 19-20; BAM Reply at 10; FreeSpace Oct. 13; 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 11-12 
(referring to AT&T, Sprint, Vodafone-AirTouch/Bell Atlantic merger, Nextel, VoiceStream buying up Omnipoint 
and 360  Comm); US WEST Comments at 3 (arguing for 24 megahertz national and 12 megahertz in areas no 
smaller than MEAs in order to offer a 3G migration path for wireless companies now holding 10 megahertz 
broadband PCS licenses).
126 See FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 2-3.
127 See FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 6-7.
128 AirTouch Comments at 18-19; BAM Reply at 9-10; FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 11.
129 AirTouch Comments at 18-19; BAM Reply at 9-10; FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 12.
130 AirTouch Comments at 18-19; BAM Reply at 9-10.
131 AirTouch at Comments 18-19; FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 12 (noting the difficulty of 
coordination in this band already encumbered with existing TV licensees).
132 AirTouch Comments at 18-19.
133 BAM Reply at 9-10; FreeSpace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 11.
U4 RTG Comments at 3 (seeking to enable rural providers who have extensive physical plant requirements, to 
afford to bid for a manageable sized region).
135 SBC Comments at 3 (noting that licensing by SMAs and RSAs would enable reuse of existing towers 
constructed for build-out of cellular service).
KM Comments at 3-4 (pointing out that local stations are essential to broadcasting); MSTV at 11 (arguing that 
broadband providers attempt to reach a market which shares similar regional interests and concerns).
499
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
56. Discussion. We have determined to license both the 20 megahertz and the 10 megahertz 
licenses according to the six Economic Areas Groupings (EAGs). lj7 We believe that auctioning both 
licenses on the same geographic basis will enable aggregation into a 30 megahertz band needed for 
certain applications, for example, for high-speed data.
57. In reaching our conclusion on the appropriate service area size for this spectrum, we have 
considered several factors. First, we have assessed the use or uses to which this spectrum is likely to be 
put and determined the geographic scope that, based on the record, would best facilitate rapid 
deployment. 138 Second, Section 309(j) of the Communications Act includes as objectives for 
competitive bidding the avoidance of excessive concentration of licenses and the dissemination of 
licenses among a wide variety of applicants. 139 Third, we are mindful of our statutory obligation to 
conduct the auction for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands to ensure that all proceeds are 
deposited by September 30, 2000140 and of our experience in previous auctions, which has shown that 
simultaneous multiple-round auctions for a larger number of licenses are more complex and take longer 
to complete than similar auctions involving fewer licenses. Fourth, while individual parties will be able 
as part of the auction process to aggregate service areas141 or to join bidding consortia to obtain spectrum 
rights to areas smaller than the Commission's licensing areas, there are risks and costs associated with 
attempting to do either. This is particularly true when there are a large number of small geographic 
areas. Thus, we think the best approach is for the Commission to attempt to determine as a starting point 
the most efficiently sized geographic areas. Finally, as discussed below, to the extent that our decision 
does not result in optimally sized initial areas for all licensees, we are also allowing for post-auction 
partitioning and aggregation of licenses for those bidders whose business plans require smaller or larger 
geographic areas. These rules should allow post-auction transactions to facilitate the most efficient 
distribution of licenses.
U7 For the purposes of the 220 MHz Auction, the Economic Area Groupings did not include the Gulf of Mexico. 
For the current auction, we will divide the Gulf by a line of demarcation which corresponds to the boundary 
established for the "Western Gulf Planning Area" as mapped by the Mineral Management Services Bureau of the 
Department of Interior (MMS). All services to east of that line of demarcation (MSS's Eastern and Central 
Planning Areas) will be part of the Southeast EAG (EAG 3) and all services to the west (MSS's Western Gulf 
Planning Area) will be part of the Central/Mountain EAG (EAG 5). Having the service area extend into the Gulf 
will provide service for oil rigs and other mining installations located there without the difficult interference issues 
that have arisen in the past when one licensee served the Gulf and different licensee the adjoining land. See, In re 
Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No. 97-112, 
Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of Applications for 
Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, CC Docket No. 90-6, Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Red 4578 (1997). MMS's boundaries were selected because they are the 
basis for the leased mineral rights areas which are the major economic divisions in the Gulf and because the 
mapping data is public information available on their website. See 
<www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html>
138 Supra, notes 130-142.
139 See 47 U.S.C. § 309G)(3)(B).
See Consolidated Appropriations, Appendix E, Sec. 213. See also 145 Cong. Rec. at HI 2493-94, (Nov. 17, 
1999).
141 See WCS R&O, FCC 97-50, at n. 139 (citing as examples the auctions for PCS Narrowband and Broadband 
A/B blocks).
500
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
58. We concur with the comments advocating that we use the same geographic licensing areas 
for various segments of the band to permit flexibility in the use of this spectrum. For instance, as Cisco 
argues, regardless of the geographic area, having both licenses (10 and 20 megahertz) auctioned for the 
same sized regions would enable aggregation into a 30 megahertz band in a particular region. This 
bandwidth is needed for certain applications, especially as a third pipe for broadband connection to the 
Internet. 142 Recognizing the significance this capability would add to the flexible uses for this spectrum, 
we have determined to license both the 20 megahertz and the 10 megahertz licenses according to the 
same license areas and have opted for the six Economic Areas Groupings (EAGs).
59. In reaching the decision for two sets of six EAG licenses (twelve total), we have ruled out 
MEAs or EAs recognizing the overall advantages of larger-sized areas for this band:
  To provide optimum opportunity for alternative aggregation approaches to suit a wide variety of 
possible services and business plans such as building a nationwide footprint or acquiring both 
licenses in a particular region. 14j
  To allow the growth of existing technologies while encouraging the development of new
applications. When areas are inefficiently small, the costs of aggregation during or after the auction 
in terms of delay and transaction costs may harm both service providers and customers alike. 144
  To take advantage of opportunities afforded by economies of scale: for developing standard 
protocols for particular applications and for manufacturing equipment to operate at specific 
frequencies of the spectrum. 145
  To help address the problems associated with incumbent TV stations in this band, which operate in 
fairly large areas protected from interference. To license new spectrum in smaller areas would create 
many situations in which the protection zone would overlap the incumbent license areas or create the 
need for complicated protection agreements.
   To facilitate conducting the auction in a timely manner.
60. These large geographic areas would readily allow aggregation into a nationwide service area 
and would enable multiple parties to bid on this spectrum for the provision of high-speed wireless data 
services. Given the existing build-out of CMRS carriers on a national level, new providers entering this 
competitive market or existing carriers adding new services to their growing customer base may wish to
142 Cisco Nov. 10, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 2.
143 See infra, Competitive Bidding Section.
144 For example, this may be what has happened in CMRS where a combination of very large number of small 
license areas and multiple standards has led to difficult roaming issues and operational inefficiencies (e.g., the need 
for multiple mode phones) which, in turn, has led to greater costs in the form of higher roaming rates.
These geographic areas should permit industry to internalize the costs of developing its own standards. We 
find that the REA licenses purchased as a 10 megahertz block with the capability of aggregating to nationwide 
build-out is a sufficient segment to help facilitate the standard-setting process. Smaller regions could hinder the 
evolution of appropriate standards.
501
____________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
aggregate either the 10 or 20 megahertz regional licenses into a nationwide footprint. 146 Others, 
following the Cisco proposal, for exclusively fixed high-speed wireless data, may wish to aggregate the 
two bands within a single region to increase bandwidth to the 30 megahertz to provide high-speed 
Internet access, resulting in different service providers for different regions. 147 However, in light of the 
variety of potential services proposed in the record, including for emerging technologies or next- 
generation applications, the most desirable or efficient scale of service area varies according to the 
business plans of the particular commenting party. Some may need less spectrum as well as smaller 
geographic area. 148
61. In addition, we conclude that the six EAGs, as opposed to a nationwide license, will more 
easily allow partitioning where appropriate to serve the needs of smaller users and rural communities. 
Partitioning - which could be conditionally agreed upon prior to the auction or arranged post-auction - 
will also allow start-ups and rural-based companies additional opportunities to acquire spectrum for the 
provision of service. 149 Thus, we decide to use EAGs for all licenses but allow licensees to partition 
them into smaller areas, as well as to aggregate them into larger geographic areas. This approach should 
provide maximum flexibility to the parties to adjust their operating area most efficiently given 
marketplace and technological needs.
4. Foreign Ownership Restrictions
62. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed means for implementing the foreign ownership 
provisions set forth in Sections 310(a) and 310(b) of the Communications Act. l:>0 Section 310(a) 
prohibits any foreign government or representative from holding a station license. Section 310(b) 
prohibits certain defined foreign ownership interests in broadcast, common carrier, aeronautical en route 
or aeronautical fixed radio station licenses. One comment, supporting our proposal, was received on this 
portion of the NPRM. m
63. Discussion. We have determined that Section 27.12 of the Commission's Rules, which 
implements Section 310 of the Act,152 should apply to applicants for licenses in the 747-762 MHz and 
777-792 MHz bands. A nonbroadcast applicant requesting authorization only for non-common carrier 
services will be subject to Section 310(a) but not to the additional prohibitions of Section 310(b). An 
applicant requesting authorization for common carrier services will be subject to both Section 310(a) and 
Section 310(b).
64. In the case of Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS), satellite service, or Local Multipoint
146 US WEST Comments at 4-6.
147 Cisco Nov. 10, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 3.
148 See Southern Reply at 7 (advocating licensing on the basis of EAs) and Freespace Oct. 13, 1999 Ex Parte 
Filing at 2 (proposing a system requiring as little as 4 megahertz of spectrum).
14 See infra. Competitive Bidding Section regarding bidding credits.
150 47U.S.C. §§310(a), 310(b).
151 See AirTouch Comments at 25.
152 47 C.F.R. § 27.12. See also Section 27.302 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 27.302.
502
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
Distribution Service (LMDS), the Commission requires an applicant electing non-common carrier status 
to submit the same information that common carrier applicants submit to address the alien ownership 
restrictions under Section 310(b) of the Act. 153 In light of Part 27 licensees' ability to provide common 
carrier and non-common carrier services, Commission rules require all licensees, even non-common 
carriers, to report alien ownership on a consistent basis, to enable the Commission to monitor compliance 
more effectively. As we proposed in the NPRM, we will follow the same approach in the case of 
applicants for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz spectrum. Common.carriers and non-common 
carriers will not be subject to varied reporting obligations, but will be required to file changes in foreign 
ownership information to the extent required by Part 27 of our Rules. By establishing parity in reporting 
obligations, however, we do not establish a single substantive standard for compliance. Thus, we do not 
and would not disqualify an applicant requesting authorization exclusively to provide non-common 
carrier services from a license simply because its citizenship information would disqualify it from a 
common carrier license.
65. The statutory foreign ownership restrictions are applicable to licensees to the extent they 
apply to a particular service being offered in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands.However, we 
note that, in response to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecommunications Agreement, 
we have liberalized our policy concerning foreign ownership of common carrier radio licensees under 
Section 310(b)(4). We now presume that ownership by entities from countries that are WTO members 
serves the public interest. Ownership by entities from countries that are not WTO members continues to 
be subject to the "effective competitive opportunities" test established by the Commission. ' 34
5. License Term; Renewal Expectancy
66. Background. In the NPRM we proposed to adopt the license term and renewal provisions in 
Part 27 of the Commission's Rules, for other than new broadcast-type services. Section 27.13 limits the 
license term to 10 years from the date of original issuance or renewal. 135 Section 27.14(c) establishes a 
licensee's right to a renewal expectancy. 156 Most commenters addressing the issue endorsed this 
approach.' 37 However, one commenter, in addressing the issue of performance requirements, expressed 
concern that new licensees might not be able to comply with performance requirements in some markets,
153 47 U.S.C. § 310(b). See Revisions to Part 21 of the Commission's Rules regarding the Multipoint Distribution 
Service, CC Docket No. 86-179, Report and Order, 2 FCC Red 4251,4253 (para. ] 6) (1987) (MDS Report and 
Order); Streamlining the Commission's Rules and Regulations for Satellite Application and Licensing Procedures, 
IB Docket No. 95-117, Report and Order, \ 1 FCC Red 21581, 21599 (para. 43) (1996) (Satellite Rides Report and 
Order); LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12651 (para. 243).
154 See Rules and Policies on Foreign Participation in the U.S. Telecommunications Market, IB Docket No. 97- 
142 , Market Entry and Regulation of Foreign-Affiliated Entities, IB Docket No. 95-22, Report and Order and 
Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Red 23891, 23935-47 (paras. 97-132) (1997). We did not amend our rules for 
broadcast licenses, which are not covered by the WTO Basic Telecommunications Agreement.
155 47 C.F.R. §27.13.
156 47 C.F.R. §27.14(b).
137 See, e.g., AirTouch Comments at 26; SBC Comments at 4; but see AMTA Comments at 9; MSTV Comments 
at 14.
503
___________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC 00-5
given the continued existence of incumbent broadcasters until 2006. 15S
67. Discussion. The Communications Act imposes no time limit on licenses issued by the 
Commission, other than those for broadcast services, which are limited to an eight-year license term.' 59 
Although we proposed a ten-year license term in the NPRM, we are concerned that the continued 
existence of incumbent broadcasters in the licensed spectrum may retard a licensee's development and 
use of the spectrum. Thus, we are modifying the license term as it relates to the 747-762 MHz and 777- 
792 MHz bands, to accommodate licensees' need for additional time to develop and use this spectrum, in 
light of its continued use by broadcasters until 2006. Based on our estimate that an average of eight years 
additional time is a reasonable time period in which to comply with the performance requirements set 
forth below, 160 we have determined that a license issued to a winning bidder for this spectrum will extend 
eight years beyond the year 2006, the date as of which incumbent broadcasters are required to have 
relocated to other portions of the spectrum, that is, until January 1, 2014, for a total of approximately 14 
years. 161 However, if a licensee commences new broadcast-type operations on or before January 1, 
2006, the licensee will be required to seek renewal of its license at the end of the eight-year term 
following commencement of such broadcast operations.
68. We adopt these license provisions for all licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz 
bands, as well as the right to a renewal expectancy established in Section 27.14(b), for nonbroadcast 
services. In the event that a license is partitioned or disaggregated, as discussed below, any partitionee or 
disaggregatee is authorized to hold its license for the remainder of the original licensee's term, and the 
partitionee or disaggregatee may obtain a renewal expectancy on the same basis as other licensees in the 
band. All licensees meeting the substantial service requirement discussed below will be deemed to have 
met this element of the renewal expectancy requirement regardless of which of the construction options, 
described below, the licensee has chosen. This approach is appropriate because a licensee, through 
partitioning, should not be able to confer greater rights than it was awarded under the terms of its license 
grant.162 In addition, we conclude that, to claim a renewal expectancy, a renewal applicant involved in a 
comparative renewal proceeding must include, at a minimum, the showing required in Section 27.14(b) 
of the Commission's Rules. 163
158 AirTouch Comments at 25-26.
159 See 47 C.F.R. §73.1020(a).
160 See Section III.B.6., infra.
161 This date may be extended under particular circumstances set forth in 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)( 14)(B) including for 
those markets where 15 percent or more households do not have access to either DTV-equipped receivers or multi 
channel video. In addition, given the large geographic licensing areas, each with a number of incumbent 
broadcasters, we are setting a definite license term, rather than one dependent on the date on which incumbent 
broadcasters complete their digital television transition.
162 See Section 27.15(e) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(e); see also Part 27 Report 
and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10840, para. 106.
163 47 C.F.R. §27.14(b). See also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10840-41, 10843-44, paras. 106- 
107, 113.
504
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
6. Performance Requirements
69. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt the performance requirement in Section 
27.14(a) of the Commission's rules for licensees in the 746-764 and 776-794 bands. 154 Section 27.14(a) 
requires licensees to provide "substantial service" to their service area within 10 years of being 
licensed. 165 A failure to meet this requirement results in forfeiture of the license and in the licensee's 
ineligibility to regain the license. Although our proposal received general support, one commenter 
expressed concern thai the continued existence of incumbent broadcasters may make it difficult for new 
licensees to compK \v ith these performance requirements in some markets.166
70. Discussion. In light of the incumbents issue identified by one commenter, we are amending 
the performance requirement in Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's Rules as it relates to the 747-762 
MHz and 777-7Q2 MHz bands. Under the amended performance requirement, a licensee must provide 
"substantial sen, ice" to its service area no later than January 1, 2014, i.e., eight years after 2006, the date 
as of which incumbeni broadcasters are required to have relocated to other portions of the spectrum. 167
The Part 2~ Rc/\>r; unj' Order provided several examples of "safe harbors" that would demonstrate 
substantial sen-ice. which we will apply to licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. 168 
The "substantial >cr\ ice" construction requirement provides licensees with the flexibility to offer the full 
range of services under the allocations table and accommodate new and innovative services. 169 Licensees 
in the 747-762 MM/ and "77-792 MHz bands may avail themselves of any of the following "safe 
harbors" for the ~4"-"62 MHz and 711-192 MHz bands. First, for a licensee that chooses to offer fixed, 
point-to-point sen ices, the construction of four permanent links per one million people in its licensed 
service area at the license-renewal mark would constitute substantial service. Second, for a licensee that 
chooses to offer mobile services or fixed, point-to-multipoint services, a demonstration of coverage for 
20 percent of the population of its licensed service area at the license-renewal mark would constitute 
substantial sen ice We encourage licensees, however, to build out not only in urban areas and areas of 
high density population but in rural areas as well, or to partition their license to allow others to do so.
71. However, a licensee that limits buildout to urban areas and areas with high density 
population, will not necessarily be ensured of license renewal, even if otherwise compliant with the 
construction benchmarks. We believe that the "substantial service" standard requires the licensee to 
buildout in rural areas as well .
72. We conclude that the buildout requirement we are imposing for this spectrum fulfills our
164 NPRMatpara. 33.
165 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a). This section defines substantial service as "service which is sound, favorable, and 
substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal." See Part 27 Report 
and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10843-45, paras. 111-115.
166 AirTouch Comments at 25-26.
167 See Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a).
168 See Part 27 Report and Order, 1 2 FCC Red at 10843-44, para. 113.
169 See Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10843, para. 112.
505
____________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC 00-5
obligations under Section 309(j)(4)(B) of the Act, 170 and that the auction rules for this spectrum, together 
with the service rules adopted in this proceeding, and our overall competition and universal service 
policies, constitute effective safeguards and performance requirements for licensing this spectrum. 
However, we reserve the right to review our construction requirements in the future if we receive 
complaints related to Section 309(j)(4)(B), or if a reassessment is warranted because spectrum is being 
warehoused or is otherwise not being used despite demand. We will also reserve the right to impose 
additional, more stringent construction requirements on licenses in the future in the event that actual 
anticompetitive or universal service problems develop.
7. Disaggregation and Partitioning of Licenses
73. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to permit licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776- 
794 MHz bands to partition their service areas and to disaggregate their spectrum, and tentatively 
concluded that geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation can result in efficient spectrum use 
and economic opportunity for a wide variety of applicants, including small business, rural telephone, 
minority-owned, and women-owned applicants, as required by Section 309(j)(4)(C) of the 
Communications Act. 171 Although there is general support for our proposal to permit disaggregation and 
partitioning on these bands, several commenters argue that disaggregation and partitioning are rare and 
that they thus provide little opportunity for small entities to enter the market for telecommunications services. 172
74. Discussion. We continue to believe it advisable to permit licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 
777-792 MHz bands to partition their service areas and to disaggregate their spectrum. Despite 
assertions to the contrary, we believe that adopting this approach will improve smaller entities' ability to 
overcome entry barriers through the creation of smaller licenses that require less capital, and will thereby 
facilitate greater participation by rural telephone companies and other smaller entities, including those 
owned by minorities and women. 1 '3 With respect to the 10 and 20 megahertz licenses, to be auctioned 
on an EAG basis, there is an opportunity to partition into smaller regions. This allows bidders for the 10 
and 20 megahertz licenses maximum flexibility to partition the service areas so as to provide a particular 
type of service for a particular service area. As a corollary to this approach, we have also provided 
bidding credits to encourage participation in the development of this spectrum by rural telephone 
companies and small businesses.
75. Section 27.15 of the Commission's Rules, 174 to which licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777- 
792 MHz bands will be subject, permits licensees to partition their licensed geographic service areas or
170 See Part 27 Report and Order at 10844-45, paras. 114-115, citing 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
171 47 U.S.C. § 309G)(4)(C).
172 AMTA Comments at 8-9; RTG Comments at 6-7.
See Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation by Commercial Mobile Radio Services Licensees; 
Implementation of Section 257 of the Communications Act - Elimination of Market Entry Barriers, WT Docket No. 
96-148, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, \ 1 FCC Red 21831,21843-44, paras. 13- 
17, (1996) (Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order).
174 47 C.F.R. §27.15.
506
___________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
disaggregate their licensed spectrum at any time following the grant of their licenses. 173 We will permit 
geographic partitioning of any service area defined by the partitioner and partitionee, spectrum 
disaggregation without restriction on the amount of spectrum to be disaggregated and combined 
partitioning and disaggregation. 176 Pursuant to Section 27.15, the partitioning licensee must include with 
its request a description of the partitioned service area and calculations of the population of the 
partitioned service area and the licensed geographic service area, 177 and will be subject to the provisions 
against unjust enrichment set forth in Section 27.15(c). 178
76. As we proposed in the NPRM, parties to partitioning agreements may choose between two 
options for satisfying the construction requirement. 179 Under the first option, the partitioner and 
partitionee would each certify that it will independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its 
respective partitioned area. If a licensee fails to meet its substantial service requirement during the 
relevant license term, the non-performing licensee's authorization will be subject to cancellation at the 
end of the license term. Under the second option, the partitioner can certify that it has met or will meet 
the substantial service requirement for the entire market. If the partitioner fails to meet the substantial 
service standard during the relevant license term, only its license will be subject to cancellation at the 
end of the license term; the partitionee's license will not be affected by the failure.
77. We offer these two options to partitioning parties because we believe that Part 27 licensees 
in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands may be motivated to enter into partitioning arrangements 
for different reasons and under various circumstances. For example, a licensee might be motivated to 
partition its license in order to reduce its construction costs. In that case, the original licensee would 
have less population to cover in order to meet'its substantial service requirement and might find the first 
option more attractive. Under another scenario, a licensee that has met or is close to meeting its 
substantial service requirement may be approached by another entity interested in serving a niche market 
in a portion of the service area. Under these circumstances, the second option may seem more attractive 
to the parties. In either instance, the public interest is advanced by permitting that flexibility, in terms of 
service areas and niche markets, conducive to optimizing the viability and value of the licenses 
partitioned, while precluding circumvention of our construction requirements. 180
78. In addition, we will allow parties to disaggregation agreements to choose between two 
options for satisfying the construction requirement. 181 Under the first option, the disaggregator and 
disaggregatee would certify that each will share responsibility for meeting the substantial service
175 See Pan 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10836-39, paras. 96-103.
176 See Part 27 Report and Order at 10836-37, 10839, paras. 97-99, 102, citing Partitioning and Disaggregation 
Report and Order, 11 FCC Red at 21847-48, paras. 23-24.
177 47C.F.R. §27.15(b)(l).
178 47C.F.R. §27.15(c). SeealsoAl C.F.R. § 1.2111.
179 See Section 27.15(e)(l) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(e)(l). See also 
Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 1 1 FCC Red at 21857, para. 42.
180 See Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 FCC Red at 21857, para. 43.
181 See Section 27.15(e)(2) of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.15(e)(2). See also 
Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 FCC Red at 21865, paras. 62-63.
507
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
requirement for the geographic service area. If the parties choose this option, both parties' performance 
will be evaluated at the end of the relevant license term, and both licenses could be subject to 
cancellation, should the requirement not be met. The second option allows the parties to agree that either 
the disaggregator or the disaggregatee will be responsible for meeting the substantial service requirement 
for the geographic service area. If the parties choose this option, and the party responsible for meeting 
the construction requirement fails to do so, only the license of the non-performing parry will be subject 
to cancellation. As with partitioned licenses, providing these options preserves the public interest in 
developing the spectrum to the same degree as that required had the disaggregation (or partitioning) not occurred. 182
8. Public Notice of Initial Applications; Petitions to Deny
79. Background. Section 309(b) and Section 309(c) of the Communications Act require public 
notice for initial applications, and substantial amendments thereof. 183 These requirements provide that 
no such application shall be granted earlier than 30 days following the issuance of public notice by the 
Commission, and that the Commission may not require petitions to deny such applications to be filed 
earlier than 30 days following the public notice. The same provision also grants the Commission the 
authority to impose public notice requirements for other licenses, even though the statute does not 
require public notice. However, the administrative procedures for spectrum auctions adopted in Section 
3008 of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997184 and Consolidated Appropriations Act 185 permit the 
Commission to shorten notice periods in the auction context to five days for petitions to deny and seven 
days for public notice, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 309(b) of the Communications Act. In 
the Part 1 Third Report and Order, 6 the Commission exercised this statutory authority by amending 
Section 1.2108(b)and Section 1.2108(c) of the Commission's Rules 187 to provide fora five-day period 
for filing petitions to deny and a seven-day public notice period for all auctionable services. We received 
no comments on our proposal to adopt these deadlines for services in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz spectrum bands.
80. Discussion. We have determined to adopt for this spectrum the seven-day notice 
requirement for initial applications and the five-day deadline for petitions to deny. An applicant filing 
for both common carrier and non-common carrier authorizations in a single license and wishing to make 
subsequent status changes will also be subject to the seven-day public notice requirement.
I 0-) See Partitioning and Disaggregation Report and Order, 11 FCC Red at 21864-65 (para. 61).
183 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(b), 309(c). See also Section 309(d) regarding petitions to deny; 47 U.S.C. § 309(d).
184 47 U.S.C. §3090) nt. 3.
I Of See Consolidated Appropriations, Appendix E, § 213. See also 145 Cong. Rec. H12493-94 (Nov. 17, 1999).
1 Of Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules - Competitive Bidding Procedures, WT Docket No. 97-82, 
Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, 4660-4685 MHz, ET Docket No. 
94-32, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 374, 431 (para. 
98) (1997), recon. pending.
187 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2108(b), 1.2108(c).
508
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
C. Operating Rules
81. In the NPRM, we proposed to subject licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands 
to the Part 27 rules that govern operations, subject to any modifications adopted in this proceeding. We 
proposed operating rules for a full range of possible licensees, consistent with our stated intention to 
permit as much flexibility in the use of this spectrum as is consistent with the requirements of Section 
303(y) of the Act. The following discussion focuses on operating rules for licensees in the 747-762 MHz 
and 777-792 MHz bands to the extent that they offer common carrier services on these bands. We do not 
purport to survey at this time the range of statutory and regulatory provisions that may be relevant to any 
new service offerings on this band that qualify as new broadcast-type services. 188
1. Applicability of General Common Carrier Obligations; Forbearance
82. Background. In the NPRM, we reviewed our decisions respecting forbearance from the 
requirements of the Communications Act and interpreted the potential effect of these decisions on fixed 
common carrier services provided on the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. We noted that we 
have exercised our authority under Section 332(c)(l)(A) of the Communications Act to forbear for 
CMRS from certain of the obligations imposed on common carriers by Title II of the Communications 
Act, such as the filing of tariffs and intercarrier contracts and maintenance of certain records. I89 We 
have also extended the deadline for CMRS providers to support service provider local number portability 
(LNP) until November 24, 2002,' and have forborne from requiring CMRS providers to file tariffs for 
most international services, and from applying most of Section 226 of the Act, relating to telephone 
operator services. 191 We noted that we have also exercised our expanded forbearance authority' 92 in the 
case of wireline carriers, for the "complete detariffing" of interstate, interexchange services offered by
1JIX As with the licensing rules, there is little record comment on the appropriate treatment for new broadcast-type 
services operating in this spectrum. We have not attempted to anticipate the nature of services that may be 
developed under the service and technical rules adopted here, or to determine how the regulations discussed below 
would apply to new broadcast-type services. We remind potential applicants, however, that certain regulations are 
mandatory as a matter of statute and thus must apply to such services.
Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act - Regulatory Treatment of Mobile 
Services, GN Docket No. 93-252, Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Red 1411, 1463-90, paras. 124-213, (1994) 
(CMRS Second Report and Order) (authorizing forbearance from 47 U.S.C. §§ 203, 204, 205, 211 and 214), recon. 
pending.
1QO Cellular Telecommunications Industry Association's Petition for Forbearance from Commercial Mobile Radio 
Services Number Portability Obligations, WT Docket No. 98-229, Memorandum Opinion and Order, FCC 99-19, 
(rel. Feb. 9, 1999, 1999) WL 58618.
191 Personal Communications Industry Association's Broadband Personal Communications Services Alliance's 
Petition for Forbearance For Broadband Personal Communications Services, Biennial Regulatory Review- 
Elimination or Streamlining of Unnecessary and Obsolete CMRS Regulations, Forbearance from Applying 
Provisions of the Communications Act to Wireless Telecommunications Carriers, WT Docket No. 98-100, Further 
Forbearance from Title II Regulation for Certain Types of Commercial Mobile Radio Service Providers, GN Docket 
No. 94-33, GTE Petition for Reconsideration or Waiver of a Declaratory Ruling, MSD-92-14, Memorandum 
Opinion and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 16857 (1998).
192 See Section 10 of the Communications Act; 47 U.S.C. § 160.
509
____________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC 00-5
non-dominant interexchange carriers. I9:> In addition, we have eliminated Part 41 requirements applicable 
to franks, 194 as well as the prior approval requirements for most pro forma transfer applications involving 
telecommunications carriers.195
83. We also noted that, in the 47 GHz Notice, which proposed service rules for spectrum bands 
allocated to both fixed and mobile services, we sought comment on whether the exercise of our Section 
332(c)(l)(A) forbearance authority with respect to CMRS, in the CMRS Second Report and Order, 
should be extended to fixed wireless service carriers. 196 We sought comment in the NPRMfor this 
proceeding on whether we should exercise our authority under Section 10 of the Act to forbear, in a 
similar fashion, from applying to non-CMRS licensees of this spectrum the specific Title II requirements 
that the Commission has previously determined not to apply to CMRS licensees. However, cognizant of 
the fact that it will take longer for us to conduct a forbearance analysis than to adopt service rules for the 
746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, we proposed an interim solution for non-CMRS licensees of 
these bands. Section 214(a) of the Communications Act197 requires that no common carrier may
19j "Complete detariffmg" refers to a policy of neither requiring nor permitting non-dominant interexchange 
carriers to file tariffs pursuant to Section 203 of the Communications Act for their interstate, domestic, 
interexchange services. See, Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, 
Implementation of Section 245(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, 
Second Report and Order, 11 FCC Red 20730 (1996) (Detariffing Second Report and Order); stay granted, MCI 
Telecommunications Corp. v. FCC, No. 96-1459 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 13, 1997); Policy and Rules Concerning the 
Interstate, Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 245(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, As 
Amended, CC Docket No. 96-61, Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Red 15014, 15016, 15047-54 (para. 2 n.5, 
paras. 59-73) (1997) (Detariffing Reconsideration Order); Policy and Rules Concerning the Interstate, 
Interexchange Marketplace, Implementation of Section 254(g) of the Communications Act of 1934, As Amended, 
CC Docket No. 96-61, Second Order on Reconsideration and Erratum, 14 FCC Red 6004 (1999) (Detariffing 
Second Reconsideration Order).
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review   Elimination of Part 41 Telegraph and Telephone Franks, CC Docket No. 
98-119, Report and Order, 14 FCC Red 2379 (1999).
1 QŁ Federal Communications Bar Association's Petition for Forbearance from Section 310(d) of the 
Communications Act Regarding Non-Substantial Assignments of Wireless Licenses and Transfers of Control 
Involving Telecommunications Carriers and Personal Communications Industry Association's Broadband Personal 
Communications Services Alliance's Petition for Forbearance for Broadband Personal Communications Services, 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 13 FCC Red 6293 (1998); see also Biennial Regulatory Review -- Amendment 
of Parts 0, 1, 13, 22, 24, 26, 27, 80, 87, 90, 95, 97 and 101 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Development and 
Use of the Universal Licensing System in the Wireless Telecommunications Services, WT Docket No. 98-20, 
Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 21027; but see Rule Making to Amend Parts 1, 2,21, and 25 of the Commission's 
Rules To Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz Frequency Band, To Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, To 
Establish Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution Service And for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket 
No. 92-297, Petitions for Further Reconsideration of the Denial of Applications for Waiver of the Commission's 
Common Carrier Point-to-Point Microwave Radio Service Rules, Fourth Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 11655, 
11669-71, paras. 27-29, (1998). See also 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - Streamlining of Mass Media 
Applications, Rules, and Processes, MM Docket No. 98-43, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 11349, 
11376-79, paras. 72-82, (1998).
1 Oft CMRS Second Report and Order, 9 FCC Red at 1463-90, paras 124-213. The statutory sections identified in 
the Order include 47 U.S.C. §§ 203, 204, 205,211 and 214.
197 47 U.S.C. §214(a).
510
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
discontinue, reduce, or impair service without Commission approval. We proposed a discontinuance 
provision that is consistent with common carrier obligations set forth in Subpart E of Part 1 and in Parts 
61 through Part 64 of the Commission's Rules."8 We also proposed to apply other parts of the 
Commission's Rules to ensure compliance of fixed service common carriers operating in the 746-764 
MHz and 776-794 MHz bands with Title II of the Communications Act.
84. AirTouch supports the Commission's Part 27 approach to Title II forbearance. 199 AMTA 
urges the Commission to forbear from imposing its Title II common carrier obligations on non-CMRS 
licensees and on CMRS licensees that have been exempted from E911 and number portability 
requirements. AMTA argues that these carriers serve a more specialized business-oriented market 
oriented principally toward dispatch services and lack those technical capabilities that would permit them 
to compete in the broader CMRS marketplace.200
85. Discussion. Pursuant to our prior exercise of authority under Section 332(c)(l )(A) to 
forbear for CMRS from certain of the obligations imposed on common carriers by Title II of the 
Communications Act, common carriers classified as CMRS, including those providing mobile services in 
the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, will not be required to file contracts of service, seek 
authority for interlocking directors,2 ' or submit applications for new facilities or discontinuance of 
existing facilities, and are prohibited from filing tariffs for interstate service to their customers or for 
interstate access service. CMRS providers on this spectrum will be required to support service provider 
LNP by November 24, 2002. Such providers also will not be required to file tariffs for most 
international services or be subject to most of Section 226 of the Act, relating to telephone operator 
services. In addition, CMRS providers in the H41-162 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands will be subject to 
the Commission's complete detariffing of interstate, interexchange services offered by non-dominant 
interexchange carriers, to our elimination of Part 41 requirements applicable to franks, and to our 
elimination of the prior approval requirements for most pro forma transfer applications involving 
telecommunications carriers.
86. Although we solicited comment on the proper application of our forbearance authority with 
respect to this spectrum, we received no comments on the appropriate interpretation of the forbearance 
criteria in this context and no proposals concerning additional forbearance from specific regulatory 
provisions otherwise applicable to fixed service providers operating on this spectrum. We continue to 
invite suggestions on ways in which we can alleviate or streamline regulations that would otherwise be 
applicable to fixed services provided on this spectrum. In the NPRMwe specifically addressed the 
requirements of Section 214(a) as they apply to licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands 
that voluntarily discontinue, reduce, or impair service to a community or part of a community and are
198 47 C.F.R. Part 1, Subpart E; 47 C.F.R. Parts 61-64.
I QO AirTouch Comments at 26-27.
200 AMTA Comments at 10-11. UTC asks the Commission to forbear from requiring PMRS providers to obtain 
prior consent to pro forma transfers, as it has previously done with CMRS providers. UTC Comments at 4-5. Given 
the commercial nature of the spectrum, this request is beyond the scope of this proceeding.
201 We recently acted to forbear from requiring all common carriers to seek authority for interlocking directorates. 
Thus, common carriers that offer fixed services on the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands are also exempt from 
this requirement. See 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review of Part 62 of the Commission's Rules, CC Docket No. 98- 
195, Report and Order, FCC 99-163 (rel. Jul. 16, 1999).
511
____________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
subject to the prior authorization requirement in Section 63.71 of the Commission's Rules.202 Subsequent 
to issuance of the NPRM, we amended Section 63.71 to provide for the automatic grant of a nondominant 
common carrier's application for discontinuance after 31 days.203 We are adopting this approach for 
fixed service common carriers here, to ensure comparable regulatory treatment between wireline 
providers and fixed wireless providers operating on the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. 204
87. As we indicated in the NPRM, a non-common carrier licensee in the 747-762 MHz and 777- 
792 MHz bands that voluntarily discontinues, reduces, or impairs service to a community or part of a 
community will be required to give written notice to the Commission within seven days. However, 
neither a fixed service common carrier, nor a non-common carrier licensee need surrender its license for 
cancellation, if "discontinuance" is merely a change in common carrier or non-common carrier status.
88. \\'e do not find that the Commission's network reliability requirements will apply to fixed 
service common carrier licensees on this spectrum. Thus, if the service provided by a fixed service 
common carrier licensee is involuntarily discontinued, reduced, or impaired for a period exceeding 48 
hours, the licensee must promptly notify the Commission, in writing, of the reasons for the 
discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service, including a statement indicating when normal 
service is to be resumed. When normal service is resumed, the licensee must promptly notify the 
Commission.
2. F.qual Employment Opportunity
89. Background. In the NPRM, we noted that Part 27 does not include an explicit Equal 
Employment Opportunity (EEO) provision.205 We also noted that Parts 24 (PCS) and Part 26 (General 
Wireless Communications Service) similarly lack an EEO provision although specific EEO provisions 
exist in other pan> of cur Rules.206 We noted that we had initiated a rulemaking on our Part 73 EEO 
rules and sought comment on whether there are any reasons not to apply Part 73 rules to conventional 
broadcasters operating in these spectrum bands and licensed under Part 27. As to non-broadcast services 
on these bands, «e im ited comment on whether we should include a separate EEO provision in Part 27 
and, if so, which of our EEO rules we should adopt.207 No commenter addressed this issue.
90. Discussion. An applicant's EEO requirements will depend on the type of service the 
applicant chooses to provide. As previously stated, in the interests of flexibility and optimum spectrum 
use, we have enabled the provision of any service identified in Section 27.2 of the Commission's
202 47 C.F.R. §63.71.
20j Implementation of Section 402(B)(2)(A) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, Petition for Forbearance of 
the Independent Telephone & Telecommunications Alliance, CC Docket No. 71-11, AAD File No. 98-43, Report 
and Order, FCC 99-104 (rel. Jun 30, 1999).
204 See Section 27.66 of the Commission's Rules at Appendix B, 47 C.F.R. § 27.66. This approach is consistent 
with the modification of Section 101.305(c) of the Commission's Rules adopted for LMDS. See 47 C.F.R. § 
101.305(c); see also LMDS Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 12654-55 (paras. 252-55).
205 AWJA/atpara. 55.
206 Id
207 Id at para. 56.
512
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
Rules208 and this Order, so long as the licensee complies with the technical rules governing spectrum use. 
The Commission's EEO Rules are service-specific; different EEO Rules govern different services. Our 
modified FCC Form 601 requires an applicant to choose one, or several, of four regulatory statuses: (a) 
common carrier, (b) non-common carrier, (c) private, internal communications, or (d) broadcast.209 An 
applicant's election on its FCC Form 601 will determine the EEO Rules that apply to the applicant.
91. Allowing a licensee to self-characterize its regulatory status in this proceeding is consistent 
with the flexible approach that the Commission took in the DBS NPRM. 210 The Commission in the DBS 
NPRM proposed that DBS (direct broadcast satellite) service licensees have the choice of providing 
service on a broadcast, common carrier, or non-broadcast, non-common carrier basis with an applicant's 
self-characterization determinant of the applicable EEO rules. Licensees in the 700 MHz spectrum have 
the choice of providing any service authorized under Section 27.2 of the Commission's Rules2 " so long 
as the licensee complies with the technical rules governing spectrum use.212
92. We therefore conclude that that an applicant's EEO requirements are determined by the type 
of service an applicant chooses to provide. All commercial mobile radio service (CMRS) providers are 
subject to the Commission's EEO requirements,213 for example, see Parts 22 and 90 of our rules.214 
Similarly, a licensee that provides broadcast service will be subject to the Commission's EEO Rules 
contained in Section 73.2080.215 We also note that commercial mobile service providers are generally 
subject to the Commission's common carrier EEO obligations.216
208 47 C.F.R. § 27.2.
See FCC Form 601, item number 35.
210 See Policies and Rules for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, IB Docket 98-21, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 6907, 6924-6925 (1998) (DBS NPRM).
211 47 C.F.R. § 27.2.
212 See 47 C.F.R. Part 27, Subpart C - Technical Standards.
~ 13 See Implementation of Sections 3(n) and 332 of the Communications Act, Regulatory Treatment of Mobile 
Services, GN Docket 93-252, Third Report and Order, 9 FCC Red 7988, 8097-8100, paras 231-237 (1994) (CMRS 
Third Report and Order}.
214 Sections 22.321, 90.168 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.321, 90.168.
215 Section 73.2080 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.2080. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
Circuit has invalidated as unconstitutional the outreach portions of the Commission's EEO program requirements 
for broadcast stations and remanded to the Commission for a determination whether the non-discrimination rule is 
within its statutory authority. See Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod v. FCC, Case No. 97-1116, 141 F.3d 344, 
reh 'g denied, 154 F.3d 487 (D.C. Cir. 1998). We have initiated a rulemaking on our Part 73 Rules EEO Rules. See 
Review of the Commission's Broadcast and Cable Equal Employment Opportunity rules and Policies, MM Docket 
No. 98-204, and Termination of the EEO Streamlining Proceeding, MM Docket No. 96-16, Notice of Proposed 
Rulemaking, 13 FCC Red 23004 (1998).
216 See 47 U.S.C. 332(c)(l)(A) (stating in relevant part "[a] person engaged in the provision of a service that is a 
commercial mobile service shall... be treated as a common carrier for purposes of this Act"). See also 47 C.F.R. §
513
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
D. Technical Rules
93. All licensees in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, including licensees who acquire 
their licenses through partitioning or disaggregation. will be subject to the general provisions of Part 27 
relating to equipment authorization, frequency stability, antenna structures and air navigation, 
international coordination, environmental requirements, quiet zones, and disturbance of AM broadcast 
antenna patterns.217 In addition, the following technical rules will apply to these licensees.
1. In-Band Interference Control
94. Background. As we noted in the NPRM, a broad range of services and technologies will 
operate on this spectrum, and their nature will affect the potential for interference between licensees 
operating on the same spectrum in adjacent service areas. We noted that in other frequency bands 
various means have been employed to avoid interference when we have permitted flexibility in services 
and technologies. We tentatively concluded that either a coordination218 or a field strength219 method 
could provide a satisfactory means of controlling harmful interference between systems in the 746-764 
MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. We observed that a general coordination requirement may minimize the 
potential for interference to coordinated facilities, but may also impose unnecessary coordination costs 
for facilities with a low potential for interference and increase the potential for undesirable strategic or 
anti-competitive behavior.220 We also noted, however, that a field strength limit, while reducing the need 
for coordination by giving licensees the ability to unilaterally deploy facilities in boundary areas as long 
as the limit is met, may not provide sufficient assurance against interference to such facilities. We 
sought comment on the advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, and on any other approaches 
that would minimize interference among co-channel licensees.
95. No commenter favors the coordination approach for controlling in-band interference, but 
AirTouch and SBC endorse the use of the field strength method. AirTouch indicates that the field 
strength method is "particularly appropriate" for terrestrial mobile services in larger geographic areas."221 
SBC concludes that the field strength method is "the more efficient method of reducing the risk of 
interference across service areas," and suggests that licensees in adjacent service areas should be 
permitted to agree to alternative field strengths along their mutual border.222
1.815 (stating in relevant part"[e]ach common carrier licensee or permitee with 16 or more full time employees 
shall file with" the Commission ... an annual employment report").
217 See Sections 27.51, 27.54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27.61, 27.63 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.51, 
27.54, 27.56, 27.57, 27.59, 27.61, 27.63; see also Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10848-65, paras. 123- 
161.
In a "coordination" approach, licensees operating on the same spectrum in adjacent areas would coordinate the 
location of their stations in order to control interference.
1 1Q The "field strength" approach requires a licensee to limit the field strength of its station transmissions to some 
prescribed level at the licensee's geographic border.
220 NPRMalpara. 60.
221 AirTouch Comments at 29.
222 SBC Comments at 4-5.
514
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
96. Discussion. We agree with commenters that the field strength limit approach should be used 
to control co-channel interference in this band. That approach provides established, objective criteria for 
controlling in-band interference, and gives licensees the ability to construct and operate facilities in 
boundary areas so long as the limit is met. As discussed in the NPRM, a coordination approach, on the 
other hand, could impose unnecessary coordination costs for facilities that are not likely to cause 
interference, and could lead to possible anti-competitive activities. Furthermore, nothing in the record 
suggests that use of a field strength method would not provide adequate protection against co-channel 
interference. Therefore, we will require licensees to limit signals from all base and fixed stations 
operating in the 747-762 MHz band to a particular predicted or measured field strength at the licensee's 
geographic border.
97. Although commenters agree on the appropriateness of a field strength approach, they did not 
provide any guidance as to the proper field strength. In both 800 MHz EA-based and 900 MHz MTA- 
based SMR licensing,215 we employed a 40 dBu/m field strength at the geographic border. Because the 
types of services that will be provided in the 700 MHz band are likely to be similar to the types of 
services permitted in the 800 and 900 MHz bands,224 and because of its proximity to these bands, we 
conclude that the appropriate field strength for the control of in-band interference in the 700 MHz band 
is 40 dBu/m.225 We believe that use of the field strength procedure will satisfy the requirement in 
Section 337(d)(l) that the Commission establish "interference limits at the boundaries of the spectrum 
block and service area."226 The use of this procedure should enable licensees to deploy their facilities 
effectively, while minimizing interference to co-channel licensees in adjacent geographic areas. Finally, 
we agree with SBC's suggestion to permit licensees in adjoining areas to agree to alternate field strengths 
at their common border and therefore adopt this approach. It will provide licensees increased flexibility 
in implementing their systems without increasing the risk of harmful interference.
2. Out-of-Band and Spurious Emission Limits
98. Background. We noted in the NPRM that different kinds of technical criteria may be used 
to limit out-of-band and spurious emissions designed to protect services outside the licensee's assigned 
spectrum. We also noted Congress's concern,227 with ensuring that "public safety service licensees 
continue to operate free of interference from any new commercial licensees." We therefore proposed 
that licensees operating in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands be required to attenuate the power 
below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43+10 log,0 (P) dB, or 80 decibels, whichever is less ("43 + 
10 log P"), for any emission on all frequencies outside the licensee's authorized spectrum -- except for 
emissions that fall within the GPS band, which is addressed in Section III.D.4, below.228
223 See Sections 90.7, 90.689, and 90.671, 47 C.F.R. §§ 90.7, 90.689, and 90.671.
224 See Section 90.419(f), which permits SMR licensees to operate fixed services on a co-primary basis with their 
mobile operations. 47 C.F.R. § 90.419(f).
225 The predicted 40 dBu/v field strength shall be calculated using Figure 10 of Section 73.699 of this chapter, 
with a correction factor for antenna height differential of-9 dB. 47 C.F.R. § 73.699, Fig. 10.
226 47U.S.C. §337(d)(l).
227 H. Conf. Rep. No. 105-217, at 12 (1997, reprinted at 1997 U.S.C.C.A.N. 201.
228 AWWatpara.69.
515
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
99. Several commenters support our proposal that licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz bands be required to comply with the 43 + 10 log P attenuation requirement."9 APCO, however, 
points- out that interference exists in the 800 MHz band from "low-site, low-power commercial systems 
[that] are intermixed in a common area and operate on adjacent frequencies to public safety systems."230 
Motorola notes that such adjacent channel interference exists even though 800 MHz technologies are 
providing out-of-band emission characteristics "superior" to the 43 + 10 log P requirement.231 Motorola 
identifies several possible interference scenarios that could occur when both commercial and public 
safety base transmissions originate in the 746-776 MHz band (the "lower band") and commercial and 
public safety mobile transmissions originate in the 776-806 MHz band (the "upper band")   e.g., 
potential interference from commercial base transmitters to public safety mobile receivers at the 764 
MHz interface and potential interference from public safety base transmitters to commercial base 
receivers at the 776 MHz interface.2"2
100. In recent exparte filings, a number of parties addressed the subject of out-of-bound 
emissions ("OOBE"). For example, Motorola asserts that because of the interference scenario that exists 
at the 764 MHz interface,233 emissions from non-coordinated commercial base stations should be 
attenuated to -57 dBm in the first 6.25 kHz channel of the 764-776 MHz public safety band.234 
FreeSpace supports a requirement that a Guard Band licensee attenuate its out-of-band emissions by a 
factor of not less than 87 + 10 log P in a 6.25 kHz bandwidth.235 Bell Atlantic takes issue with 
Motorola's proposal, and believes that the Commission should establish an OOBE limit that is 
comparable to the 43 + 10 log P limit applied elsewhere in our rules for other commercial services.236 
Lucent, in comments attached by Bell Atlantic, indicates that the limits proposed by Motorola to protect 
public safety are "excessive," and concludes that the level of attenuation demanded by Motorola would 
"place an unwarranted burden on the CMRS provider, significantly reduce the useable spectrum, and 
reduce the value of the spectrum to potential bidders." Lucent suggests that we consider interference 
parameters that are consistent with those currently applied to other commercial services.2^7
101. Motorola subsequently suggests that switching both the commercial and public safety 
transmit bands, so that mobile transmissions originate in the lower band and base transmissions originate
97O IMSA/IAFC Comments at 2; Harris Comments at 2; SBC Comments at 5; AirTouch Comments at 29.
230 APCO Comments at 4.
231 Motorola Reply at 12.
232 id. at 15- 16.
233 Motorola describes this scenario as causing possible interference to public safety mobile receivers from 
emissions from commercial base transmitters. Motorola December 2, 1999 Łr Pane Filing at 1 .
Id. at 5 (unpaginated). This limit, as descriibed, is the equivalent to requiring that the out-of-band emission be 
attenuated by at least 87 + 10 log P in a 6.25 kHz bandwidth.
235 FreeSpace December 16, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 1 .
236 Bell Atlantic December 9, 1999 Ex Pane Filing at 3.
237 Mat 4.
516
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
in the upper band, "would provide better protection to public safety services."2j8 Motorola supports the 
following interference limits under its "reverse band" proposal: (1) limiting emissions from commercial 
base transmitters operating in the upper band to -57 dBm per 6.25 kHz into the 794-806 MHz public 
safety band;239 (2) limiting emissions from commercial base transmitters operating in the upper band to - 
62 dBm per 6.25 kHz into the 764-776 MHz band;240 and (3) limiting emissions from commercial mobile 
transmitters operating in the lower band to -35 dBm per 6.25 kHz into the 764-776 MHz band.241 APCO 
opposes the reversal of the commercial and public safety bands because it would impact the ability to 
"integrate 700 MHz public safety radio systems with the substantial number of public safety radio 
systems operating above 806 MHz."242 US WEST argues that the standards proposed by Motorola could 
"adversely affect commercial licensees' ability to utilize the spectrum won at auction."343
102. The Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), which consists of law 
enforcement and public safety officials from numerous federal agencies, recommends the following 
attenuation values to protect public safety receivers in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz bands: (1) 
for transmitters with power levels above 1 watt: 65 + 10 log P dB; and (2) for transmitters with power 
levels below 1 watt: 65 dBc (db relative to the carrier).244 Motorola, commenting on the FLEWUG 
proposal, and citing its earlier analysis, states that the 65+10 log P limit is only appropriate at the 
interface where commercial mobiles could cause interference to public safety base station receivers.245 
Motorola believes that the 87 + 10 log P protection limit it proposed for the interface where base-to-
238 Reversing the base and mobile transmit bands creates different interference scenarios at the 764 MHz, 776 
MHz, and 794 MHz interfaces than exist under the base/mobile configuration currently used in the 700 MHz public 
safety bands   in particular, replacing what Motorola considers to be a very undesirable "mobile-to-mobile" 
interference scenario at the 776 MHz interface with a "base-to-base" interference scenario at that interface. 
Motorola December 6, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 4-5 (unpaginated); Motorola December 13, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 2 
(unpaginated).
239
240
Motorola December 13, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 2 (unpaginated).
This limit is the equivalent to requiring that out-of-band emissions be attenuated by at least 92 + lOlog P in a 
6.25 kHz bandwidth. Motorola recommends that, in addition to applying this level of protection to public safety, 
commercial licensees operating in the upper band be required to "work with public safety operators to resolve 
instances of interference." Id. at 3 (unpaginated).
241 This limit is the equivalent to requiring that out-of-band emissions be attenuated by at least 65 + 10 log P in a 
6.25 kHz bandwidth. Id. at 4 (unpaginated).
242 APCO further notes that one of the principal reasons for adopting the current band plan for the 764-776/794- 
806 MHz public safety bands is the "potential for integrated and interoperable radio systems across the bands. 
APCO December 16, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 2.
243 US WEST December 21, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 1. US WEST anticipates that the proposed stadards would 
affect carrier's ability to provide viable wireless services using existing IS-95 CDMA technologies, and the impact 
of the standards on the use of wideband CDMA technologies "could even be more acute." Id. at 2.
244 FLEWUG December 9, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 5.
245 Motorola December 22, 1999 Ex Parte Filing at 2. Under Motorola's "reversed band" approach, this would be 
the 764 MHz interface. When the 746-764 MHz band is used for base transmissions and the 776-794 MHz band is 
used for mobile transmissions, this would be the 794 MHz interface.
517
______________________Federal Communications Commission_______________FCC 00-5
mobile interference could occur "results in the appropriate protection for public safety."246 Motorola also 
points out differences between its analysis and FLEWUG analysis of the mobile-to-mobile interference 
scenario that exists at the 776 MHz interface when the 746-764 MHz band is used for base transmissions 
and the 776-794 MHz band is used for mobile transmissions, but notes that under its reversed band plan 
this "extremely severe interference problem" would not exist.247 The National Telecommunications and 
Information Administration (NTIA) provides a technical analysis of the interference scenarios that could 
exist between commercial and public safety operations in the 700 MHz band, and concludes that, in 
order to protect public safety receivers, we should: (1) require that out-of-band emissions from 
commercial transmitters operating in the upper band be attenuated by 65 + 10 log P into the 764-776 
MHz public safety band, and by 70 + 10 log P into the 794-806 MHz public safety band; and (2) require 
that out-of-band emissions from commercial transmitters operating in the lower band be attenuated by 80 
+ 10 log P into the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands248
103. Discussion. We conclude that licensees operating in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 
MHz bands should, at a minimum, be required to attenuate the power below the transmitter power (P) by 
at least 43+10 log,0 (P) dB for any emission on all frequencies outside the licensee's authorized 
spectrum -- except for emissions that fall within the GPS band, which is addressed in Section III.D.4, 
below. We also provide additional measures of interference protection to operations in the public safety 
bands, as described below.
104. In establishing OOBE limits in the 700 MHz service, we are guided by Congress's 
concern that public safety service licensees be able to operate free of harmful interference from new 
commercial licensees. Parties to this proceeding also have made convincing engineering showings of the 
potential for interference to public safety licensees from commercial users in adjacent bands, and those 
showings are supported by independent evidence of increasing instances of actual interference between 
commercial and public safety operations in other parts of the spectrum, principally the 800 MHz band.249 
Against this backdrop, we recognize the need to adopt technical rules that provide adequate protection to 
public safety entities operating in this band. We are mindful, however, that Congress also intended that 
we establish rules that will enable viable commercial operations here. Thus, while we might set 
extremely stringent OOBE limits in an effort to afford maximum protection to public safety licensees, 
we conclude that, as a practical matter, at some point, the incremental benefits to protection of public 
safety from ever higher OOBE limits would be outweighed by the adverse effects on the commercial 
usefulness of the spectrum. Moreover, even the most stringent OOBE limits do not guarantee there will 
never be any interference under any circumstance between commercial and public safety licensees. We 
conclude, therefore, that we should set OOBE limits that, while achieving the primary goal of protecting 
public safety, also strike a reasonable balance between protecting public safety and maintaining the
246 id at 2. Under Motorola's "reverse band" approach, this would be the 794 MHz interface.
247 Mat 4.
248 See January 5, 2000 letter from William T. Hatch, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum 
Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Thomas Sugrue, Chief, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Federal Communications Commission.
?4Q Id. See also, e.g., Motorola December 2, 1999 Ex Parte Filing; FLEWUG December 9, 1999 Ex Pane Filing; 
Dary DeForest, Analysis into Potential Interference from Out-of-Band Emissions to Public Safety Operations in the 
821-824/866-869 MHz Band, Industry Canada, December 4, 1998; Joe Kuran, A Conflict of Public Interest, Mobile 
Radio Technology, March 1999.
518
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
commercial viability of this band. As explained below, we adopt OOBE limits for 30 megahertz 
licensees in the 700 MHz band that we believe will satisfy these dual objectives.
105. Some commenters believe that we should provide OOBE limits in line with the 43 + 10 
log P limits currently used to provide interference protection in other wireless services.250 Motorola 
believes that the appropriate OOBE limit needed to protect public safety receivers from commercial base 
stations, which will operate in the 747-762 MHz band,251 is a requirement to attenuate the power below 
transmitter pouer (P) operating in that spectrum by at least 87 +10 log P dB per 6.25 kHz in the 764-776 
MHz public safety band. :}: NTIA, however, favors an 80 + 10 log P attenuation of commercial base 
station transmissions in the 747-762 MHz band to protect public safety receivers in both the 764-776 
MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands, and FLEWUG supports a 65 + 10 log P dB attenuation 
requirement to protect public safety receivers in these bands. Similarly, Bell Atlantic, Lucent, and US 
WEST urge the adoption of a lower OOBE limit, arguing that Motorola's recommended limit could 
inhibit the utilit\ ot the spectrum for commercial use. As noted above, based on the record, we are 
persuaded that ue should adopt an OOBE limit higher than 43 + 10 log P in order to provide adequate 
protection to public safety. On the other hand, we are not persuaded that the 87 + 10 log P recommended 
by Motorola is nece^ary. and are concerned about the negative impact that standard could have on the 
viability of 30 megahertz systems operating in the 747-762 MHz band. While we believe that an OOBE 
limit in line with the 65 - 10 log P standard proposed by FLEWUG and others might well protect public 
safety licensees. \ve adopt a more conservative OOBE limit of 76 + 10 log P for emissions from 30 
megahertz base station transmitters into the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands.25j We 
conclude that thu limit strikes the proper balance among the competing recommendations of the various 
parties, is closely in line with 80 + 10 log P standard recommended by NTIA, and will adequately protect 
public safety \s hile maintaining the viability of the band for 30 megahertz users.
106. \\ ith regard to the appropriate OOBE limit for mobile and portable transmitters, which 
will operate in the """-792 MHz band, FLEWUG supports the adoption of a 65 +10 log P standard for 
mobiles transmitters. Motorola concurs with this OOBE limit for emissions from mobile transmissions 
into the 794-806 MHz public safety band. NTIA favors a 65 + 10 log P requirement for emissions into 
the 764-776 MHz public safety band, but supports a 70 + 10 log P standard for emissions into the 794- 
806 MHz band. Again, our goal is to adopt OOBE limits that will adequately protect public safety while 
enabling viable commercial operations. We therefore adopt a requirement to attenuate the power of 
mobile and portable transmitters operating in that spectrum by at least 65 + 10 log P dB per 6.25 kHz in 
the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands. We find that compliance with a more stringent 
OOBE limit could make it difficult to produce mobile and portable equipment to meet our base station
"   See, generally, Bell Atlantic Comments; Lucent Comments; IMSA/IAFC Comments; Harris Comments; SBC 
Comments; and AirTouch Comments.
51 We agree with APCO that reversing the mobile and base transmit bands, as Motorola proposes, would be in 
contradiction of our intention to provide for integratation of public radio systems across the 700 MHz and 800 MHz 
bands. See Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, 14 FCC Red 152, 168(1998). We therefore reject this 
proposal.
252 This assumes a band plan that would provide for base transmissions in the 747-762 MHz band and mobile 
transmissions in the 777-792 MHz band.
" J As recommended by NTIA, we restrict the out-of-band emissions from 30 megahertz base station transmitters 
into both the 764-776 MHz and the 794-806 MHz public safety bands.
519
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
standard while maintaining commercial viability in the 700 MHz spectrum band.254 In particular, the 
amount of frequency separation that would be required between a 30 megahertz mobile or portable 
transmission and the public safety bands if a more stringent standard were required could be so great that 
a significant portion of the 30 megahertz spectrum might become unusable. Because we permit fixed 
operations in the 777-792 MHz band, we also address the adoption of an OOBE limit for fixed 
equipment operating in this band. If fixed transmissions are employed in the 777-792 MHz band, then 
interference to public safety operations in the 764-776 MHz band from such transmissions would 
resemble the type of interference to that band that could occur from base stations transmitting in the 746- 
764 MHz band (and for which we have adopted a 76 +10 log P standard). In addition. Motorola 
indicates that if fixed operation is permitted in the band designated for mobile and portable 
transmissions, then a "base-to-base" interference scenario would occur, and that a 92 + 10 log P standard 
should be applied in this instance.235 We conclude that, to protect public safety operations from fixed 
equipment operating in the 777-792 MHz band, we should adopt the standard we have adopted for 
emissions from base stations operating in the 747-762 MHz band, i.e., a requirement to attenuate the 
power of fixed transmitters operating in the 747-762 MHz band by at least 76 + 10 log P dB per 6.25 kHz 
in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz public safety bands,.
107. Finally, we decide that where an emission from a 30 megahertz transmitter is found to 
cause harmful interference to public safety operations, at our discretion, we may require greater out-of- 
band attenuation from such transmitters.256 In conclusion, while no OOBE limits can guarantee non 
interference to public safety operations, we believe that the OOBE limits we adopt herein will limit such 
occurrences, and that in adopting these limits we have satisfied the Congressional concern to ensure that 
public safety licensees are protected from interference.
3. RF Safety/Power Limits
108. Background. Section 27.52 of the Commission's Rules237 subjects licensees and 
manufacturers to the RF radiation exposure requirements specified in Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 
2.1093 of the Commission's Rules, which list the services and devices for which an environmental 
evaluation must be performed.258 In adopting the rule, we concluded that routine environmental 
evaluations for RF exposure are required for applicants desiring to use the following types of
We believe that it would be more difficult for manufacturers to produce mobile and portable equipment that 
could meet astringent OOBE standard than it would for manufacturers to produce base station equipment to meet 
such a standard due to cost considerations and the need to minimize power consumption in mobile and portable 
equipment.
In our adopted band plan, this interference scenario would occur with respect to the 794-806 MHz public 
safety band. See Motorola Ex Pane Filing of December 22, 1999 at 5.
We note that historically-followed coordination procedures, requiring cooperation and accommodation by both 
commercial and public safety entities, may resolve many instances of potential interference.
257 47 C.F.R. § 27.52.
258 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093. The RF radiation exposure limits are set forth in 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1310, 
2.1091, and 2.1093, as modified in Guidelines for Evaluating the Environmental Effects of Radiofrequency 
Radiation, ET Docket No. 93-62, Report and Order, 11 FCC Red 15123 (1996); First Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 11 FCC Red 17512 (1997); Second Memorandum Opinion and Order, 12 FCC Red 13494 (1997) (RF 
Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order).
520
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
transmitters: (1) fixed operations, including base stations and radiolocation transmitters, when the 
effective radiated power (ERP) is greater than 1,000 watts; (2) all portable devices; and (3) mobile 
devices, if the ERP of the device, in its normal configuration, will be 1.5 watts or greater.239 In the
NPRM, we proposed to treat services and devices in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in a 
manner comparable to other services and devices that have similar operating characteristics, and 
tentatively concluded that the requirements in Section 27.52 for licensees in the 2.3 GHz band should 
apply to licensees in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. SBC supports this approach.260 In the
did not propose specific power limits for operations in the 746-776 MHz and 776-794 MHz 
bands.
1 09. Discussion. With respect to RF Safety, we adopt a threshold of 1 000 w ERP for 
categorical exclusion from routine evaluation for RF exposure for base and fixed stations. As in the 2.3 
GHz band, where we adopted an identical standard, this threshold recognizes the flexibility with respect 
to use, power, location, and other factors accorded licensees operating in this band. We determine that 
this power limit should be appropriate to ensure compliance with our RF exposure standards for most 
situations.26 '
110. Although we are adopting a maximum power limit of 30 w ERP for mobile transmitters 
in the 777-792 MHz band, the threshold for routine evaluation of these devices for RF safety purposes 
shall be 1.5 w or greater in conformance with Section 2.1091 of our Rules.262 For portable devices in 
these bands, we adopt a maximum power limit of 3 w ERP with the provision that these devices be 
evaluated for RF exposure in compliance with Section 2.1093 of our Rules.263 Thus we will modify 
Sections 1.1307(b), 2.1091, and 2.1093 of the Commission's Rules264 to include potential services and 
devices developed for use in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. As we have previously stated, 
we are providing guidance on acceptable methods of evaluating compliance with the Commission's RF 
exposure limits in OET Bulletin No. 65, which has replaced OST Bulletin No. 65.265
111. Turning to power limits, we adopt power limits that will provide for base-to-mobile and
259 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10861 (para. 154 n.344), noting that 1,000 watts ERP equates to 
1,640 watts EIRP. In the RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order, the Commission increased the exclusion 
threshold for mobile devices operating above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts ERP. RF Guidelines Second 
Reconsideration Order, 12 FCC Red at 13514 (para. 51).
260 SBC Comments at 5.
261 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10862, para. 154 n.345, noting that, in a pending petition for 
reconsideration of the RF Guidelines Report and Order, the Commission was considering whether to revise the 
threshold for requiring routine evaluation of mobile devices above 1.5 GHz from 1.5 watts to 3 watts. This change 
was made in the RF Guidelines Second Reconsideration Order.
262 47 C.F.R. §2.1091.
263 47 C.F.R. §2.1093.
264 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 2.1091, 2.1093.
265 Part 27 Report and Order, 12 FCC Red at 10862 (para. 154 n.346). OET Bulletin No. 65 (Edition 97-01) was 
issued on August 25, 1997, and is available for downloading at the FCC Web Site: www.fcc.gov/oet/rfsafety. 
Copies of OET Bulletin No. 65 also may be obtained by calling the FCC RF Safety Line at (202) 418-2464.
521
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
fixed-to-fixed communication in the 747-762 MHz band, and for mobile-to-base and fixed-to-fixed 
communication in the 777-792 MHz band. Specifically, we adopt the following power limits: (1) for 
base stations and fixed stations operating in the 747-762 MHz band, an ERP no greater than 1,000 watts 
and an antenna height above average terrain (HAAT) no greater than 305 m;266 (2) for mobile, fixed, and 
control stations operating in 777-792 MHz band, an ERP no greater than 30 watts; and (3) for portable 
stations operating in 777-792 MHz band, an ERP no greater than 3 watts. We believe that the adoption 
of these power limits will facilitate both mobile and fixed service operations in the 700 MHz band. The 
1000 w ERP power limit for base and fixed stations operating in the 747-762 MHz band should enable 
satisfactory coverage for commercial systems operating in this band. The 30 w ERP power limit for 
mobile, fixed, and control stations in the 777-792 MHz band is the power limit adopted for mobile and 
control station operation in the 700 MHz public safety band. And the 3 w ERP power limit for portable 
stations in the 777-792 MHz band is consistent with the power limit adopted for portables in the 700 
MHz public safety band.
4. Special Considerations for Use of Channels 65, 66, and 67
112. Background. The second harmonic transmissions267 of services that will be operating on 
TV channels 65-67 fall within a band used for radionavigation in the Global Navigation Satellite System 
(GNSS), which includes the Global Positioning System (GPS) at 1563.42-1587.42 MHz. 268 To protect 
this system and to ensure that equipment that operates in these bands does not cause radio interference to 
the GNSS,269 particularly when that system is used for precision approach and landing, NTIA 
recommended270 that the following out-of-band emission limits from fixed and mobile transmitters 
operating in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands be applied to all spurious emissions, including 
second harmonic emissions in the 1559-1610 frequency range: (1) for wideband emissions, -70 
dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP); and (2) for narrowband emissions,271 -80
266 Antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted in accordance with Table 1 in Section 27.50 of our 
Rules, as amended. 47 C.F.R. § 27.50.
267 Radio transmitters produce energy not only on the desired frequency (such as 784 MHz) but also lesser 
amounts of energy on multiples of the desired frequency, known as harmonics. In this example, the second 
harmonic (twice the desired frequency) would be 1568 MHz. Although most of the power generated is on the 
desired frequency, very sensitive receivers can detect the smaller amounts of power generated on the harmonic 
frequencies.
•yf o The GPS is in operation, and will be the United States component of the GNSS. GPS utilizes the lower portion 
of the Radionavigation-Satellite Service (space-to-Earth) allocation from 1559-1610 MHz on a primary basis, and is 
maintained by the United States Department of Defense. The other component of the GNSS is GLONASS, the 
Russian Federation Global Orbiting Navigation Satellite System, which will use the 1598-1605 MHz portion of that 
allocation (i.e., the second harmonic frequencies of TV channels 68 and 69) when the system reaches its final 
frequency configuration after 2005.
GNSS, as currently envisioned, will consist of the GPS and GLONASS systems that provide radionavigation 
satellite services (RNSS) worldwide.
270 See May 11, 1999 letter from William T. Hatch, Acting Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum 
Management, National Telecommunications and Information Administration, to Dale Hatfield, Chief, Office of 
Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission.
For purposes of NTIA's analysis, interference from wideband emissions was considered to have a bandwidth in 
the range of 100 kHz to 1 MHz; interference from narrowband emissions was considered to have a bandwidth less
522
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
dBW/700 Hz. NTIA also proposed trn adoption of the DTV out-of-band limit of-110 dBc for emissions 
in the 1559-1610 MHz band from broadcast transmitters operating in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz bands. Thus, in the NPRM we sought comment on the risk of harmonic interference to GNSS 
operations from systems licensed in the 776-794 MHz bands, and whether the emissions limits 
recommended by NTIA would provide the necessary protection for GNSS systems from anticipated 
fixed and mobile operations in these bands.
113. In addition, we sought comment on the impact of imposing the out-of-band emission 
limits proposed by NTIA on the design of equipment for use in the 776-794 MHz band. Noting that 
stringent OOBE"272 limits are generally more difficult to meet for mobile and hand-held transmitters than 
for base and control stations or for fixed service stations, we sought information on how our proposal 
might affect the cost, size, weight, and battery life for handheld or portable equipment, and whether the 
proposal could severely curtail the availability of the 36 megahertz of spectrum designated by Congress 
for commercial use.273
114. In response to the NPRM AirTouch states generally that the proposed OOBE limits could 
affect the production of portable units and thereby affect the availability of the commercial 700 MHz 
spectrum.274 In detailed comments, the U.S. GPS Industry Council ("USGPS"), on the other hand, 
asserts that the proposed OOBE standards do not sufficiently protect GPS receivers from the second 
harmonic emissions of systems operating in the 776-794 MHz band.275 USGPS contends that NTIA 
levels were developed solely to protect aircraft GPS receivers from interference from MSS Mobile Earth 
Terminals (METs) operating in the 1-3 GHz band.276 According to USGPS, if these levels are adopted 
for different types of services, "each one of those services would endanger the availability of GPS by 
itself, raising the noise floor above the level that GPS receivers can operate . .. and the cumulative effect 
from all services operating at emissions of-70/80 dBW/MHz would be devastating for critical safety-of- 
life GPS applications."277 USGPS argues that the only default level that can safely be established at this 
time, "absent case-by-case independent studies," is a wideband out-of-band emission threshold limit of-
than or equal to 700 Hz. The limits identified by NTIA are based on international recommendations by RTCA and 
ETSI for mobile earth terminals in the Mobile Satellite Service (MSS). See RTCA Inc. Special Committee 159, 
Assessment of Radio Frequency Interference Relevant to the GNSS, Document No, RTCA/DO-235, January 27, 
1997; European Testing and Standards Institute (ETSI) standards TBR-041 and TBR-042 for Mobile Earth 
Terminals in the 1.6/2.4 GHz and 2.0 GHz range, respectively.
272 The out-of-band emissions include both spurious and harmonic emissions.
We determined that the standard recommended by NTIA would require approximately 85-90 dB suppression 
for typical full-power mobile equipment and approximately 75-80 dB for handhelds and portables. For the purposes 
of the GLONASS standard, we assumed the narrowband limit of -80 dBW as sufficient for commercial services 
bandwidths of up to 150 kHz. NPRM& paras. 73-78.
274 AirTouch Comments at 30.
275 USGPS Comments at 3.
276 USGPS Comments at 4 n.4.
277 Mat 4.
523
___________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
100 dBW/MHz"278
115. Discussion. Like the concerns we addressed above in balancing public safety and 
commercial interests, we are similarly committed to ensuring that the GNSS is protected adequately 
against interference without adopting OOBE limits on equipment operating in the 777-792 MHz band 
that could effectively prohibit the use of this band by new 30 megahertz licensees. Rather, we seek to 
enable such licensees to implement new services in a timely manner. As discussed below, we believe 
that the proposed OOBE limits provide the appropriate balance to meet the needs of both of these 
competing requirements. Thus, we adopt the following OOBE limits for all spurious emissions, 
including harmonics, that fall within the 1559-1610 frequency range, from equipment operating in the 
747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands: (1) for wideband emissions, -70 dBW/MHz equivalent 
isotropically radiated power (EIRP); and (2) for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth, an 
absolute EIRP limit of-80 dBW. Outside of emissions into the 1559-1610 MHz RNSS band, the OOBE 
standards adopted in Section III.D.2 will apply.
116. We are concerned about critical safety-of-life applications of GPS, particularly those 
systems that will use GPS for aeronautical radionavigation, and seek to ensure that the rules we adopt in 
this proceeding do not adversely affect these operations. NTIA, which represents the Federal 
Government's positions on spectrum management matters, has suggested specific OOBE limits for 
equipment operating in this band that it believes will sufficiently protect aeronautical radionavigation 
operations. We agree with NTIA that the proposed OOBE limits will "ensure that fixed and mobile 
equipment will not cause radio frequency interference to the GNSS when those systems are used for 
precision approach and landing" and we adopt NTIA's recommendations.279
117. We reject USGPS's argument that our proposed emission limits are insufficient to 
protect GPS operations.280 Similar arguments were raised by USGPS in a proceeding regarding an 
application by AirTouch Satellite Services U.S., Inc. for a license to construct and operate mobile earth 
terminals transmitting in the 1.6 GHz band. Consistent with the International Bureau's October 4, 1999 
Order,281 we find that the degree of precision needed to provide position updates for planes moving at 
high speeds is more rigorous than the precision that is needed for other GPS uses. Although GPS has and 
 will be used for a variety of non-aeronautical safety-of-life applications, USGPS has not established that 
such other uses of GPS will require the high level of protection from unwanted signals that we are 
adopting herein, much less a greater level of protection. We thus conclude that USGPS has not justified
"}7R USGPS incorporates by reference, and attaches its comments in the GMPCS proceeding. In that proceeding, 
USGPS further notes that USGPS and the United States, in ITU-R study group activities earlier in 1999, were 
prepared to accept the -70 dBW/MHz limitation, provided that it was made clear that this value would not be 
applied to any emitters other than 1-3 GHz MSS METs without independent studies. See USGPS Reply at 8.
779 NTIA Comments at 1. AirTouch suggests that our proposed OOBE emission limits could be difficult to meet 
for portable units, but does not suggest that they would be so difficult as to prevent equipment manufacturers from 
producing mobiles and portables meeting those limits. We have not received any indication from any potential 700 
MHz band equipment manufacturers commenting in this proceeding that it will be difficult to suppress wideband 
OOBE to the -70 dBW/MHz level.
280 USGPS Reply at 7.
•jc i AirTouch Satellite Services, Inc. Application For Blanket Authority To Construct And Operate Up To 50,000 
Mobile Satellite Earth Terminals Through The GLOBALSTAR Mobile Satellite System, Order and Authorization, 
PA 99-2010, October 4, 1999, paras. 10-13.
524
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
a need for a more stringent standard.
118. With regard to the tests USGPS conducted to determine the effects of unwanted 
emissions into the GPS band from emitters complying with the proposed limits, we believe that USGPS 
has not sufficiently demonstrated that signals from emitters meeting the proposed emission limits will 
cause interference to GPS receivers that will affect the ability of such GPS receivers to perform their 
functions.282 We recognize that in certain scenarios a 700 MHz emitter and a GPS receiver could be 
placed in very close proximity and that this could result in interference to the GPS receiver. We do not 
believe, however, that it is in the public interest to protect GPS receivers in every such possible scenario. 
Our analysis must be based on reasonable assumptions of emitter-receiver proximity. Specifically, we 
must balance the needs of competing requirements of the spectrum. In this case we must balance the 
needs of users of GNSS and future users of the 700 MHz band. We conclude that our proposed OOBE 
limit will be sufficient to protect critical GPS operations.
119. Contrary to USGPS' argument, we also find that our proposed -70 dBW/MHz wideband 
OOBE limit is not inconsistent with the United States' position in the ITU-R study group activities. Our 
decision in this proceeding is consistent with the decisions adopted on this matter internationally. 
Should future actions internationally result in conflicts between the decision we adopt here and 
international positions, we would consider those differences as part of a separate, future proceeding, if 
appropriate.
120. USGPS also asks us to adopt a harmonized spectrum policy that considers the 
cumulative impact on the GPS noise floor frorn all relevant services. The protection of GPS, as with all 
services, is an ongoing obligation of this agency. Nonetheless, even if we undertook a study to analyze 
the effects of various services on GPS, we believe it would be difficult to identify and consider all 
relevant services, as well as all possible future services. Therefore, we conclude that the protection of 
GPS is better handled on a case-by-case basis, in the context of each relevant proceeding. In this 
proceeding we have considered all relevant technical findings of interested parties and believe we have 
come to a reasonable balance ~ protecting GPS operations while proceeding expeditiously to make this 
spectrum available to the public.
Ł. Competitive Bidding
1. Statutory Requirements
121. Background. Most of the auctions the Commission has conducted to date have been 
simultaneous multiple-round auctions. In Section 3002 of the Balanced Budget Act, Congress directed 
the Commission to "provide for the design and conduct (for purposes of testing) of competitive bidding 
using a contingent combinatorial bidding system that permits prospective bidders to bid on combinations 
or groups of licenses in a single bid and to enter multiple alternative bids within a single bidding 
round."283 In the NPRM, we sought comment on whether the auction of the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz bands may present a suitable context for such combinatorial procedures, especially if our service 
rules provide for broadcast services. We also asked commenters to consider whether, absent the
•JOT USGPS testing concluded that under "co-location" conditions, wideband OOBE of-70 dBW/MHz completely 
prevented GPS receivers from tracking and securing fixes from GPS satellites.
283 Codified at 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(3).
525
__________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
application of combinatorial rules, the existing standardized auction rules in Part 1 are adequate.284 In 
addition, we sought comment on whether our statutory obligations prohibited public safety entities from 
participating in the auction of licenses for this spectrum.285
122. Those commenters who addressed the issue believe the auction of licenses for the 746- 
764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands presents a suitable context for using a combinatorial bidding system. 
AirTouch contends that while combinatorial bidding is not essential, it is suitable for the auction of the 
746-764 MHz and ^76-794 MHz bands.286 KM and MSTV also support the use of combinatorial 
bidding, but MSTV suggests as well allowing consortia of potential service providers to participate in the 
auction, with the expectation that, if a consortium won, the spectrum could be divided pursuant to a 
predetermined plan to accommodate the needs of each individual member. This would address the 
difficulties caused to some providers by the pairing of frequency blocks. 287
123. On the issue of public safety participation, we received little comment. APCO asserts 
that there is no rational reason to prevent a public safety entity from participating in the auction, and 
Southern similarly contends that public safety uses should be permitted, with public safety applicants 
subject to the same rules as commercial applicants.288
124. Discussion. We will not use combinatorial bidding procedures for the 747-762 MHz 
and 777-792 MM/ bands, although we believe that such procedures may well have certain benefits in the 
auction of licen>c> lor these bands. The primary benefit is that combinatorial bidding allows bidders to 
bid on licenses in packages rather than single units. This allows bidders to better express the value of 
any synergies that ma> exist among licenses, in this context, for example, it would be possible for a 
bidder to bid on several geographic area licenses as a package or on channels as either paired or 
unpaired. To date VM- have not yet tested or employed combinatorial bidding, which involves numerous 
complications for both the Commission and bidders. Consistent with Congress' directive, we are 
actively developing theoretical and applied combinatorial bidding approaches, but we have not yet
284 See NPRM ai para. 82.
285 Section 309(j)(2) of the Act, which exempts "public safety radio services" from competitive bidding, defines 
that term as including "private internal radio services used by State and local governments and non-government 
entities and emergency road services provided by not-for-profit organizations, that (i) are used to protect the safety 
of life, health, or properry; and (ii) are not made commercially available to the public." 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(2)(A). 
Section 337, which directs the Commission to allocate 24 megahertz of spectrum for "public safety services," 
defines that term as services 
the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health, or
properry; that are provided-- (i) by State or local government entities; or
(ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental
entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services; and
that are not made commercially available to the public by the provider.
47 U.S.C. §337(f)(l).
9RA AirTouch Comments at 30-31.
287 KM Comments at 3; MSTV Comments at 9-10.
288 APCO Comments at 6; Southern Comments at 4n.8, 8.
526
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
completed the development of a practical means of implementing such an auction design. We therefore 
find that we should not use this complex and untested auction design for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 
MHz bands, especially in light of the statutory deadline imposed here.289
125. We believe our existing competitive bidding rules generally will be adequate for the 
auction of licenses for all permitted uses in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands. As explained 
above, we have adopted a geographic area licensing scheme for licenses in these bands that we believe is 
appropriate in light of the services that may be provided consistent with our rules. There is nothing in 
the Commission's rules that would prevent any parties from participating as part of a consortium of 
service providers, so long as the consortium observes the Commission's rules. Section 1.2105(a) of the 
Commission's rules requires that applicants that have entered into consortia identify all consortium 
members and any agreements relating to the post-auction market structure, and consortia must comply 
with the anti-collusion provisions of Section 1.2105(c).290 Consortia may also qualify for bidding credits 
under our small business provisions. ' We also find that our partitioning and disaggregation rules offer 
licensees sufficient flexibility to assign unused spectrum to others.
126. We recognize that there may be entities whose business plans are such that they may not 
wish to acquire any licenses if they are unable to aggregate the 10 megahertz and 20 megahertz blocks to 
create a nationwide 30 megahertz license. Our current rules are designed to facilitate the aggregation of 
licenses, and bidders in a number of past auctions have been successful in putting together nationwide 
licenses through aggregation. We believe that our current rules are adequate to facilitate the aggregation 
of all 10 megahertz or all 20 megahertz licenses. The bid withdrawal provisions of our Part 1 rules 
could, however, potentially discourage bidders from attempting a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation 
in an auction where there are divergent business plans. This is because, were such an aggregation 
attempt ultimately to fail, a bidder might be left with a subset of licenses for which its bids exceeded the 
value it places on that subset absent the complete aggregation. The bidder would then be forced to 
withdraw any high bids it holds and pay a bid withdrawal payment, or perhaps retain licenses for which it 
cannot recoup the price paid. We therefore direct the Bureau to adopt, if operationally feasible, a 
nationwide bid withdrawal procedure for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands to limit the 
exposure of bidders seeking a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation. Pursuant to standard practice, in its 
public notice seeking comment on auction procedures, the Bureau will seek comment on whether to 
implement this procedure, and it will announce, prior to the filing of short-form applications for the 
auction, whether a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation subject to this procedure will be available to 
bidders.292 -
127. Bidders may still aggregate licenses pursuant to our standard bid withdrawal 
provisions.293 The following procedure would be available, however, to limit the exposure associated 
with bid withdrawal for those seeking a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation, while still discouraging 
insincere bidding. Under this approach, an applicant would be required to declare on its short-form
289 See Section I, supra.
290 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(a)(2)(viii); 47 C.F.R. § 1.2105(c).
291 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.502(a).
292 See Part I Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 374, 447-49, paras. 124-25.
293 47 C.F.R. § 1.2104(g).
527
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
application whether it is seeking a 30 megahertz nationwide aggregation and wishes to be subject to the 
nationwide bid withdrawal provisions. An applicant that chooses to be such a nationwide bidder would 
not be allowed to bid on anything other than all licenses comprising the 30 megahertz nationwide 
aggregation, and must win either this nationwide aggregation or no licenses at all. Thus, once such a 
nationwide bidder withdraws from a market, it must withdraw from all markets and will be ineligible to 
continue bidding for any licenses. The bid withdrawal payment for a 30 megahertz nationwide bidder 
that withdraws from the auction would be calculated as the difference between the sum of the withdrawn 
bids and the sum of the subsequent high bids on the withdrawn licenses. Calculating the payment this 
way may result in a payment that is lower than a payment calculated on a license-by-license basis. In 
addition, nationwide bid withdrawal payments would be limited to a certain percentage, such as 5 
percent, of the aggregate withdrawn bids. The withdrawn licenses would be offered in the next round at 
the second highest bid price, which may be less than, or equal to, the amount of the withdrawn bid, 
without any bid increment. The FCC would serve as the "place holder" on the license until a new 
acceptable bid is submitted. When a 30 megahertz nationwide bidder withdraws, eligibility and waivers 
for all other bidders would be restored to beginning auction levels, except for those nationwide bidders 
that have withdrawn from the auction by withdrawing their high bids. Without this restoration, few 
bidders may be eligible to bid on licenses withdrawn late in the auction.294 Finally, if the Bureau 
implements the bid withdrawal procedure outlined here, it will suspend the Part 1 bid withdrawal rule for 
those applicants that choose to become 30 megahertz nationwide bidders.
2. Incorporation by Reference of Part 1 Standardized Auction Rules
128. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to conduct the auction for initial licenses in 
the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands in conformity with the general competitive bidding rules set 
forth in Part 1, Subpart Q, of the Commission's Rules, and substantially consistent with the bidding 
procedures that have been employed in previous auctions.293 Specifically, we proposed to employ the 
Part 1 rules governing designated entities, application issues, payment issues, competitive bidding 
design, procedure and timing issues, and collusion issues.296 We further stated that these rules would be 
subject to any modifications that the Commission may adopt in the Part 1 proceeding. We sought 
comment on whether any of our Part 1 rules would be inappropriate in an auction of licenses for the 746- 
764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands.297 No commenters oppose the use of the Part 1 standardized auction 
rules.
129.. Discussion. We will use the competitive bidding procedures contained in Subpart Q of 
Part 1 of the Commission's Rules for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, including any 
amendments adopted in the ongoing Part 1 proceeding.298 As discussed above, however, we direct the
294 We adopted a similar rule for the General Wireless Communications Service. See Allocation of Spectrum 
Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, ET Docket No. 94-32, Second Report and Order, 11 FCC 
Red 624, 652-53, paras. 71-73 (1995).
295 See NPRM at para. 83.
296 Id.
297 Id.
"JQO The most recent comprehensive order in this proceeding was the Third Report and Order and Second 
Further 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making. See Amendment of Part 1 of the Commission's Rules   Competitive Bidding, WT 
Docket No. 97-82, Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, 4660-4685
528
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
Bureau to adopt a nationwide bid withdrawal procedure for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, 
if operationally feasible, to facilitate a 30 megahertz nationwide license aggregation. The Bureau will 
announce after public comment whether this procedure will be implemented.
130. We decline to follow TWDC's suggestion that, given the uniquely broad allocation of 
this spectrum, which will involve service providers traditionally subject to different regulatory 
requirements bidding against each other for the same spectrum for the first time, the Commission should 
explicitly state that implementing rules adopted in this proceeding will not be considered to be precedent 
in future rulemaking proceedings with respect to other spectrum auctions.299 Because we will use our 
standardized Part 1 rules for the auctioning of the spectrum, we find that it is inappropriate to adopt 
TWDC's suggestion. Moreover, to the extent we depart from the Part 1 rules, we cannot exclude the 
possibility that any such departure will be useful in future auctions.
3. Small Business Definitions
131. Background. In the NPRM, we proposed to adopt for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz bands definitions of small and very small businesses that the Commission also adopted for 
broadband PCS, 2.3 GHz, and 39 GHz applicants. J   Specifically, we proposed to define a small 
business as any entity with average annual gross revenues for the three preceding years not in excess of 
$40 million, and a very small business as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the three 
preceding years not in excess of $15 million.301
132. We sought comment on these definitions as they relate to the size of the geographic area 
to be covered and the spectrum allocated to each license. We also sought comment on whether the 
proposed designated entity provisions would be sufficient to promote participation by businesses owned 
by minorities and by women, and participation by rural telephone companies. We asked commenters, to 
the extent that they propose additional provisions to ensure participation by minority-owned and women- 
owned businesses, to address how such provisions should be crafted to meet the relevant standards of 
judicial review/02
133. Discussion. We will define a small business as an entity with average annual gross 
revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million. A very small business is an entity with 
average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million/ J Although we
MHz, ET Docket No. 94-32, Third Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 13 FCC 
Red 374 (1997) ("Part / Third Report and Order" and '"Second Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making'''), recon. 
pending.
299 TWDC Comments at 8.
300 See NPRM at paras. 85-86.
301 Id. See also 47 C.F.R. § 24.720(b); 47 C.F.R. § 27.210(b); 47 C.F.R. § 101.1209(b).
302 NPRM at para. 87. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995); United States v. Virginia,
518 U.S. 515(1996).
i
303 For the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands, the Commission is exempt from 15 U.S.C. § 632, which 
requires Federal agencies to obtain Small Business Administration approval before adopting small business size 
standards. See Consolidated Appropriations, Appendix E, Section 213(a)(4)(B). See also 145 Cong. Rec. at 
H12493,Nov. 17, 1999.
529
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
received no comments on the capital costs of operations in the bands at issue here, we believe that these 
two definitions will provide businesses seeking to provide a variety of services with opportunities to 
participate in the auction of licenses for this spectrum. In calculating gross revenues for purposes of 
small business eligibility, we will adopt our proposal to attribute the gross revenues of the applicant, its 
controlling interests and its affiliates. This approach is consistent with our proposal in the Part 1 Second 
Further Notice, 3^ and is similar to the attribution rules we have employed for the recent LMDS, 800 
MHz SMR, and LMS auction proceedings.305
134. We agree with Alaskan Choice that existing bidding credits should apply to this 
spectrum/06 We will therefore adopt tiered bidding credits for small and very small businesses, 
consistent with the levels adopted in the Part 1 proceeding.307 Accordingly, small businesses will receive 
a 15 percent bidding credit.308 Very small businesses will receive a 25 percent bidding credit.309 Bidding 
credits for small businesses are not cumulative.310 As noted in the Part 1 proceeding, we believe that this 
approach will provide adequate opportunities for small businesses of varying sizes to participate in 
spectrum auctions.3 "
135. We decline to adopt KM's suggestion that the Commission provide bidding credits to 
any LPTV licensee that has been or will be displaced by a DTV station.312 We do not believe that we 
have an adequate record regarding the legal and policy implications of such bidding credits. In addition, 
LPTV licensees have not established a record that they need bidding credits in order to be able to 
compete in the auction/13 As explained above, we are not permitting public safety entities as defined in
304 See Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 477-78, paras. 185-87.
305 See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-29.5 GHz 
Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed Satellite Services, CC Docket No. 92-297, Second Report and Order, 
Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Red 12545, 12692-93 (1997); 
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of SMR Systems in the 800 
MHz Frequency Band, PR Docket No. 93-144, Second Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 19079/19169 (1997); 
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicle Monitoring 
Systems, PR Docket No. 93-61, Second Report and Order, 13 FCC Red 15182, 15194 (1997).
6 Alaskan Choice Comments at 5.
307 See Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 403-04, paras. 47-48.
308 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(2)(iii).
309 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(e)(2)(ii).
Jl  In other words, very small businesses may not accumulate a 15 percent credit and a 25 percent credit.
311 See Part I Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 403-04, para. 47.
312 KM Comments at 4-5.
313 In the competitive bidding proceeding, the Commission concluded that the record clearly demonstrates that the 
primary impediment to participation by designated entities is lack of access to capital. See Implementation of 
Section 309(j) of the Communications Act   Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, Fifth Report and 
Order, 9 FCC Red 5532, 5537, para. 10 (1994) ("Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order"). Bidding credits,
530
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
Section 337(f) of the Act to participate in the auction of licenses for this spectrum. It is therefore 
unnecessary to address APCO's suggestion that state and local governments seeking spectrum for public 
safety communications should be given "auction credits" similar to the bidding credits offered to small 
businesses.314
136. We will not adopt special preferences for entities owned by minorities or women.315 No 
commenters submitted quantifiable evidence or data to support race- or gender-based auction provisions. 
Therefore, we conclude that we do not have an adequate record to support such special provisions at this 
time under the current standards of judicial review. We remain committed to meeting the statutory 
objectives of promoting economic opportunity and competition, avoiding excessive concentration of 
licenses, and ensuring access to new and innovative technologies by disseminating licenses among a 
wide variety of applicants, including small businesses, rural telephone companies, and businesses owned 
by members of minority groups and women. We believe the bidding credits we adopt here for small 
businesses will further these objectives because many minority- and women-owned entities, as well as 
rural telephone companies, are small businesses and will therefore qualify for these special provisions. 
We also believe that our standardization of the rules, through the Part 1 Third Report and Order, 
regarding eligible entities, unjust enrichment, and bidding credits will assist small and minority- and 
women-owned businesses because the resulting predictability will facilitate the business planning and 
capital fundraising process/ 16
IV. PROTECTION OF TELEVISION SERVICES
137. Background. In the AWJA/we discussed technical requirements for protecting 
incumbent broadcast licensees and planned DTV allotments against interference. In the DTVSixth 
Report and Order  we stated that all analog TV and DTV operations in the 746-806 MHz band would 
be fully protected during the DTV transition period. In the Reallocation Notice31* we noted that new 
licensees in the band will have to protect both analog TV and DTV operations from interference. We 
subsequently addressed the protection of TV and DTV operations in the 764-776 MHz and 794-806 MHz 
public safety bands in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, which adopted service rules for
established iivresponse to Congress' directive that such entities be given the opportunity to provide spectrum-based 
services, were designed in particular to ease the difficulties women and minorities often experience in gaining 
access to capital. Competitive Bidding Fifth Report and Order, 9 FCC Red at 5571 -79, paras. 93-110.
314 APCO Comments at 6-7.
315 See Alaskan Choice Comments at 4 (suggesting preferences for minorities, women, and underserved 
communities).
316 See Part 1 Third Report and Order, 13 FCC Red at 386, para. 14.
317 See Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact Upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM 
Docket No. 87-268, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Red 14588, 14626-27 (para. 80)(1997XD7TS«://j Report and 
Order).
•* IQ Reallocation of Television Channels 60-69, the 746-806 MHz Band, ET Docket No. 97-157, Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making, 12 FCC Red 14141, 14148, para. 17 (\997)(Reallocation Notice).
531
___________________Federal Communications Commission______________FCC 00-5
public safety uses of this spectrum.319
138. In reaching our decisions in that proceeding, we noted that land mobile and TV stations 
have successfully shared the 470-512 MHz band (TV Channels 14-20) in 11 major metropolitan areas of 
the United States.320 In the 470-512 MHz band, we relied on minimum separation distances based on the 
various heights and powers of the land mobile stations to prevent harmful interference/21 Because this 
method has been successful, we decided in the public safety proceeding to continue to administer 
protection criteria for these services in the 700 MHz band in this same manner.322 In making that 
determination, we examined the previous methodology with consideration of the more recent 
technological changes, the physical characteristics of the 700 MHz band, and the goals Congress 
established in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997.
139. Discussion. We conclude that the factors and considerations examined in the Public 
Safety Spectrum Report and Order with regard to the protection of TV and DTV operations should apply 
to the use of the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands.323 We note that Motorola, although seeking 
reconsideration of the television protection rules adopted in the public safety proceeding, believes that 
the sharing criteria for the public safety and the remaining portions of the 746-806 MHz band can be the 
same. 324 We will require licensees operating on the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands to comply 
with the provisions of Section 90.545 of our Rules and will incorporate those provisions into Part 27.j25
140. One commenter, the Association of America's Public Television Stations (APTS), 
expresses some concern over establishing interference criteria for an untested service such as DTV and 
suggests a trial period in which to test actual (or objectionable) interference on a case-by-case basis. 
However, APTS does not propose an objective standard by which TV licensees and commercial 
licensees could determine if, in fact, interference is being caused to an incumbent station. We believe 
that the engineering standards we adopt herein will effectively minimize interference and that testing of 
the type proposed by APTS will not be necessary.
141. Thus, licensees operating on the spectrum associated with Channels 60, 61, 62, 65, 66, 
and 67 must comply with the co-channel and adjacent channel provisions of Section 27.60 of our Rules.
319 See Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, 14 FCC Red. 152(1998) at 217-227, paras. 146-164. 
Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order, at 218, para. 148.
*~ ] See Further Sharing of the UHF Television Band by Private Land Mobile Radio Services, General Docket No. 
85-172, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 101 FCC 2d 852, 865 (1985), proceeding suspended, 2 FCC Red 6441 
(1987).
Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order at 220-227, paras. 150-164.
Certain of our decisions with regard to TV protection in the Public Safety Spectrum Report and Order are the 
subject of reconsideration. To the extent that our actions with regard to that reconsideration result in subsequent 
changes to the rules adopted in that proceeding, those changes may be reflected as they apply or are relevant.
324 Motorola Comments at 18.
325 The provisions of Section 90.545 of our Rules will be contained in Section 27.60 of our Rules. 47 C.F.R. § 
27.60.
532
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
For example, a licensee operating on any portion of the 10 megahertz block (i.e., between 752 MHz and 
762 MHz) that coincides with Channels 61 will have to provide co-channel protection to television 
stations operating on Channels 61 and adjacent channel protection to television stations operating on 
Channels 60 and 62: and any licensee operating on any portion of the 10 megahertz block that coincides 
with Channels 62 will have to provide co-channel protection to television stations operating on Channels 
62 and adjacent channel protection to television stations operating on Channels 61 and 63. Licensees 
operating on spectrum between 747 MHz and 752 MHz (Channel 60), in addition to providing co- 
channel protection to Channel 60 television stations, will have to provide adjacent channel protection to 
television stations operating on both Channel 61 and 59/26
A. Negotiations with Incumbent Broadcast Licensees
142. Background. We proposed in the NPRM to permit new licensees in this spectrum to 
reach agreements w ith licensees of protected, incumbent television stations that would compensate 
incumbents for: (1 > converting to DTV-only transmission before the end of the statutory transition 
period;^' (2) accepting higher levels of interference than allowed by the protection standards; or (3) 
otherwise accommodating new licensees/28 Various commenters have addressed the significant effect of 
continued television operations by protected incumbents on the usefulness of these spectrum blocks.329
143. Discussion. One of the spectrum management challenges in expeditiously achieving 
efficient and intensive commercial use of the 700 MHz bands is minimizing the operational difficulties 
presented by incumbent TV licensees to new wireless licensees, consistent with maintaining broadcast 
services through their transition. Promoting broadcasters' ability to build digital businesses, and continue 
their free programming service, requires both regulatory flexibility in their use of channels and the 
practical recognition that they may rely on revenue from existing, analog operations for some years. The 
extended license term specified for services on these bands in part reflects the recognition that incumbent 
television licensees on these frequencies may, under the statutory provision for DTV transition, continue 
to broadcast for some years, delaying the time when new licensees have uncompromised use of the 
spectrum resource. The Commission policy to promote broadcasters' ability to establish full DTV 
transmission by allow ing maximum flexibility in developing viable business plans during the transition 
period is consistent with many of the objectives for the long-term use of the 700 MHz bands.330
144. The joint license structure adopted for incumbent television operators, however,
j26 In addition, licensees operating fixed stations in the 747-762 MHz band must comply with the relevant 
provisions for "base stations" in Section 90.309 of our Rules; and licensees operating fixed stations in the 777-792 
MHz band must comply with the relevant provisions for "control stations" in Section 90.309 of our Rules. 47 
C.F.R. § 90.309.
327 47 U.S.C. 309(j)(14). See also DTV Proceeding 12 FCC Red 12809, 12832 (1997), para. 54 (outlining 
elements of the transition schedule "by the sixth year from the date of adoption of this Report and Order a 
requirement of 50% simulcasting of the video programming of the analog channel on the DTV channel; by the 
seventh year, a 75% simulcasting requirement; by the eighth year, a 100% simulcasting requirement, until the 
analog channel is terminated and that spectrum returned.").
328 AWJA/atpara. 99.
329 See, e.g., US WEST Comments at 10.
330 DTy Proceeding, 12 FCC Red 12809, 12834, para. 60.
533
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
potentially complicates this process. The Commission licenses both the NTSC and DTV facilities, once 
digital transmission begins, under a "single, paired license.'"0 ' While administrative efficiency is 
furthered by having one license for the purposes of revocation or non-renewal,"2 the unitary license may 
pose administrative complications if an incumbent wishes to consider accommodations to new licensees 
that affect only its analog, UHF operations.
145. The Congressional plan set forth in Sections 336 and 337 of the Act and in the 1997 
Budget Act is to transition this spectrum from its current use for broadcast services to commercial use 
and public safety services."3 Congress also has directed us to auction the 36 MHz spectrum for 
commercial use six years before the relocation deadline for incumbent broadcasters in this spectrum, 
while adopting interference limits and other technical restrictions necessary to protect full-service analog 
television service during the transition to DTV.3'4 In these circumstances, we will consider specific 
regulatory requests needed to implement voluntary agreements reached between incumbent licensees and 
new licensees in these bands. In considering whether the public interest would be served by approving 
specific requests, we would, for example, consider the benefits to consumers of the provision of new 
wireless services, such as next generation mobile services or Internet fixed access services. We would 
also consider whether such agreements would help clear spectrum for public safety use in these bands 
and could result in the provision of new wireless service in rural and other relatively underserved 
communities. On the other hand, we would also consider loss of service to the broadcast community of 
the licensee. For example, we would consider the availability of the licensee' s former analog 
programming within the service area, through simulcast of that programming on the licensee' s DTV 
channel or distribution of the programming on cable or DBS, or the availability of similar broadcast 
services within the service area, (e.g., whether the lost service is the only network service, the only 
source for local service, or the only source for otherwise unique broadcast service).
V. CANADIAN AND MEXICAN BORDER REGIONS
146. There are currently separate agreements with Canada and Mexico covering TV broadcast 
use of the UHF 470-806 MHz band. Such agreements do not reflect the additional use or services being 
adopted in this item for 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands. While the Commission staff has been 
involved in discussions with both countries regarding coordination or interference criteria for the use of 
fllese bands in the border areas for the additional services, agreements have yet to be reached/35 
Therefore, until such agreements have been finalized, we believe it necessary to adopt certain interim 
requirements for licenses in these bands along the Canada and Mexico borders.3""6 Accordingly, licenses
331 DTV Proceeding, 12 FCC Red 12809, 12834, para. 59.
332 DTV Proceeding, 12 FCC Red 12809, 12834, para. 57.
333 47 U.S.C. §§ 336-337.
334 See Consolidated Appropriations, Appendix E, Sec. 213. See also 145 Cong. Rec. at H12493-94, (Nov. 17, 
1999).
j35 Both Canada and Mexico have been notified that the Commission has changed the allocation of these bands, 
and the Commission has discussed with them the possibility of mutually compatible spectrum use in all three 
countries.
336 Many agreements have used the geographic distance of 120 km from the border as the coordination or effected 
area. We will apply this criterion until agreements are reached.
534
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
issued for these bands within 120 km of the borders will be subject to whatever future agreements the 
United States develops with these two countries. In that the existing agreements for the protection of TV 
stations in these countries are still in effect and must be recognized until they are replaced or modified to 
reflect the new uses, licenses in the border areas will be granted on the condition that harmful 
interference may not be caused to, but must accept interference from, UHF TV transmitters in Canada 
and Mexico. Furthermore, modifications may be necessary to comply with whatever provisions are 
ultimately specified in future agreements with Canada and Mexico regarding the use of these bands. 
Pending further negotiations, we also adopt the protection criteria for domestic TV and DTV stations as 
interim criteria for Canadian and Mexican TV and DTV stations as described herein.3j?
VI. PROCEDURAL MATTERS AND ORDERING CLAUSES
147. Authority. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 7, 10. 201. 202. 208. 214, 
301, 303, 307, 308, 309(j), 309(k), 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332 and 336 and 337 of the 
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 214, 301, 
303, 307, 308, 309(j): 309(k), 310, 311, 315, 317, 324, 331, 332, and 336, and 337 and the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2000, Pub. Law 106-113, 113 Stat. 1501, Section 213.
148. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Part 27 of the Commission's Rules IS AMENDED 
to establish service rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz bands, as set forth in Appendix B. and that, 
in accordance with Section 213 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act. 2000. Pub. Law 106-113, 113 
Stat. 1501 (1999), these Rules shall be effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
149. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 155(c), the Chief of the 
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau IS GRANTED DELEGATED AUTHORITY to implement and 
modify auction procedures in the Wireless Communications Service, including the general design and 
timing of the auction; the manner of submitting and withdrawing bids; the amount of any minimum 
opening bids and bid increments; activity and stopping rules; and application and payment requirements, 
including the amount of upfront payments; and to announce such procedures by public notice.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Magalie Roman Salas 
Secretary
3j7 See Section IV, supra.
535
____________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
APPENDIX A 
A. Comments
AirTouch Communications, Inc. (AirTouch)
Alaskan Choice Television (Alaskan Choice)
American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc. (AMTA)
ArrayComm, Inc.
Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)
Association of America's Public Television Stations (ARTS)
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International, Inc. (APCO)
BayCom Inc.
Bruggeman, Jeffrey A.
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)
Harris Corporation (Harris)
Houston 2-Way Radio (H2)
Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)
Intek Global Corp.
International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. and International Municipal Signal Association
(IAFC/IMSA) 
Jones, Charles 
Kemp, Edwin, F. 
KM Communications, Inc. 
Microradio Empowerment Coalition 
MRFAC, Inc. 
Motorola, Inc.
National Translator Association (NTA) 
Northside Plumbing Supply 
Palletized Trucking, Inc.
Personal Communications Industry Association, Inc. (PCIA) 
Rand McNally & Company 
Region 20
Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG) 
SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC) 
Shure Brothers Inc.
Southern Communications, Inc. (Southern) 
Telecommunications Industry Assn. (TIA) 
U S WEST, Inc.
U.S. GPS Industry Council (GPS Council) 
United Telecom Council (UTC) 
Utility Communications, Inc. 
Walt Disney Company (TWDC)
B. Reply Comments
AirTouch Communications, Inc.
American Mobile Telecommunications Association, Inc.
ArrayComm, Inc.
Association of American Railroads
536
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc. (MSTV)
Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials (APCO)
AT&T Corp.
Bell Atlantic Mobile, Inc. (BAM)
Clearwire Technologies, Inc. (Clearwire)
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)
DDI Pocket, Inc.
Fox Ridge Communications, Inc.
Harris Corporation (Harris)
Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA)
International. Inc.
KM Communications, Inc. (KM)
Metricom, Inc.
Motorola, Inc.
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)
New York State Technology Enterprise Corporation (NYSTEC)
Public Safety Wireless Network Program (PSWNP)
SBC Communications, Inc. (SBC)
Southern Communications Services, Inc. (Southern)
USA Digital Radio, Inc. (USADR)
US GPS Industry Council (GPS Council)
U S WEST, Inc.
Walt Disney Company (TWDC)
C. Ex Parte Communications and/or Late Filed Comments
Advanced Electronics
Alaska Digital, LLC
All-Corn Technologies, Inc.
Allcom Wireless, Inc.
American Mobile Telecommunications Association
APCO International
Arizona Department of Public Safety
ArrayComm, Inc.
Association for Maximum Service Television, Inc.
Associations of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International
AT & T Wireless
Atlanta Communications Company
Bair's Electronics Services, Inc.
BayCom, Inc.
BCI Communications
BearCom
Bell Atlantic
Bell Atlantic Mobile
Blair Communications, Inc.
Boeing Company
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Company
Burst Networks, Inc.
537
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
Bytel, Inc.
Canadian Pacific Railway
Cellular Telecommunications Industry Assn. (CTIA)
Centre Communications
Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco)
City of Chicago, Office of Emergency Communications-Mr. Donatelli
City of Chicago, Office of Emergency Communications-Mr. Nowakowski
City of El Cajon
City of Fort Lauderdale
City of Mishawaka
City of San Diego
Coastal Electronics, Inc.
Cole, Gordon
Coloma Wireless, LLC
Commercial Communications, LLC
Communications & Electronics, Inc.
Communications Electronics, Inc.
Communications Engineering Services
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association
Coosa Valley Communications
County of Charleston
CTI Products, Inc.
DATARADIO
Dataradio Group of Companies
Day Wireless Systems
Delta Radio Systems, Inc.
DFW Communications
Dorler Communications Co.
Douglas County Sheriff
EMCO, Inc.
Express Radio, Inc.
Ford Communications
FreeSpace Communications (FreeSpace)
Greer Communications, Inc
Hankey's Radio, Inc.
Hasty's Communication East, Inc.
Houston 2-Way Radio
Industrial Communications & Electronics LLP
Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc
Intel Government Affairs
Jackson Communications, Inc
Kay Communications, Inc.
KM Communications, Inc.
Leap Wireless International Inc.
Lucent Technologies (Lucent)
Macon Communications, Inc.
Maryland State Police
Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation
Maximum Service Television, Inc.
538
Federal Communications Commission FCC QO-5
McCord Communications
McDermott Communications Co., Inc.
Metropolitan Communications
Microradio Empowerment Coalition
Microsoft Corporation (Microsoft)
Mobex Communications, Inc.
Mobilcomm
Mobile Communications of Gwinnett, Inc.
Motorola, Inc.
MRFAC, Inc.
National Coordination Committee on Public Safety Spectrum (NCC)
National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA)
Nex-Tech
Nextel Communications, Inc. (Nextel)
North Carolina Smartnet Users Network
North County Dispatch J.P.A.
Office of Emergency Management
Ohio Valley 2-Way Radio, Inc.
P&R Communications, Inc.
PCT Communications
Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA)
Platte Valley Communications
PSINet
Puget Sound Instrument
QualComm Inc.
Regional Communications, Inc.
Rep. Bliley
Rural Telecommunications Group (RTG)
S&P Communications
Savannah Communications
SBC Wireless, Inc.
Senator Dorgan et al.
Sierra Electronics
Southern Communications Services, Inc. (Southern)
Spectrum
Spectrum Exchange
Supreme Radio Communications, Inc.
539
______________________Federal CommunicationsCommission_______________FCC 00-5
Talladega County Emergency Management Agency
TBA Communications, Inc.
Telcordia Technologies, Inc. (Telcordia)
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc. et al. (TDS)
Teletouch Communications, Inc.
Texas Communications
Two Way Radio Services, Inc.
U.S. West Wireless, LLC
Union Pacific Railroad Company
University of Maryland
Walt Disney Company
Western Communications
Whitten's 2-Way Services
Yahoo! Inc.
540
__________________Federal Communications Commission_____________FCC 00-5
Appendix B 
FINAL RULES
For those reasons discussed in the accompanying Order part 27 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 27 is revised to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154,301,302,303,307,309,332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
PART 27   WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE
2. The title for part 27 is amended to read as follows:
PART 27 - MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
3. The table of contents for part 27 is amended by adding a Sec. 27.10 at the beginning of subpart B, by 
adding Sees. 27.60 and 27.66 to subpart C, by amending the titles for subpart D and for Sec. 27.201, and 
by adding subpart F as follows:
PART 27 - MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
*****
Subpart B   Applications and Licenses 
Sec. 
27.10 Regulatory Status.
*****
Subpart C - Technical Standards
*****
Sec.
27.60 TV/DTV interference protection criteria.
*****
27.66 Discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service.
Subpart D ~ Competitive Bidding Procedures for the 
2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz Bands
Sec.
27.201 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.
*****
Subpart F -- Competitive Bidding Procedures for the 
747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz Bands
Sec.
541
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
27.501 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.
27.502 Designated entities.
4. Section 27.1 is amended in paragraph (a) by deleting the phrase "for the Wireless Communications 
Service (WCS)" and substituting the phrase "for miscellaneous wireless communications services 
(WCS)" in lieu thereof, and by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 27.1 Basis and purpose.
* * * * *
(b) Purpose. This part states the conditions under which spectrum is made available and licensed for the
provision of wireless communications services in the following bands.
(1) 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz.
(2) 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz.
*****
5. Section 27.2 is amended to read as follows: 
§ 27.2 Permissible communications.
(a) Miscellaneous wireless communications services. Subject to technical and other rules contained in 
this part, a licensee in the frequency bands specified in § 27.5 of this part may provide any services for 
which its frequency bands are allocated, as set forth in the non-Federal Government column of the Table 
of Allocations in § 2.106 of part 2 of this chapter (column 5).
(b) Satellite PARS. Satellite digital audio radio service (DARS) may be provided using the 2310-2320 
and 2345-2360 MHz bands. Satellite DARS service shall be provided in a manner consistent with part 25 
of this chapter.
6. Section 27.3 is amended by redesignating paragraph (e) as paragraph (f) and paragraphs (f), (g), and 
(h) as paragraphs (k), (1), and (m), respectively, and by adding new paragraphs (e), (g), (h), (i), (j) and (n) 
to read as follows:
§ 27.3 Other applicable rule parts.
*****
(e) Part 15. This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to certain radio frequency
devices.*****
(g) Part 20. This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to commercial mobile radio
service providers.
(h) Part 21. This part sets forth rules the requirements and conditions applicable to point-to-point
microwave services relating to communications common carriers.
(i) Part 22. This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to public mobile services.
(j) Part 24. This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to personal communications
services.
*****
542
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
(n) Part 101. This part sets forth the requirements and conditions applicable to fixed microwave services.
7. Section 27.4 is amended by revising the definition of "wireless communications service" and by 
adding a definition of "broadcast services" in alphabetical order to read as follows:
§ 27.4 Terms and definitions.
Broadcast services. This term shall have the same meaning as that for "broadcasting" in section 3(6) 
of the Communications Act of 1934, Le., "the dissemination of radio communications intended to be 
received by the public, directly or by the intermediary of relay stations. "47 U.S.C. § 153(6),
***** •
Wireless communications service. A radiocommunication service licensed pursuant to this part for the 
frequency bands specified in § 27.5.
8. Section 27.5 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) 
and (b) as paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2), respectively, by inserting the title "2305-2320 MHz and 2345- 
2360 MHz bands" at the beginning and then adding the phrase "in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 
MHz bands" at the end of newly-designated paragraph (a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:
§ 27.5 Frequencies.
(b) 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. The following frequencies are available for licensing
pursuant to this part in the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands:
(1) Two paired channels of 1 megahertz each are available for assignment. Block A: 746-747 MHz and
776-777 MHz.
(2) Two paired channels of 2 megahertz each are available for assignment. Block B: 762-764 MHz and
792-794 MHz.
(3) Two paired channels of 5 megahertz each are available for assignment. Block C: 747-752 MHz and
777-782 MHz.
(4) Two paired channels of 10 megahertz each are available for assignment. Block D: 752-762 MHz and
782-792 MHz.
9. Section 27.6 is amended by redesignating the introductory text as paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a) 
and (b) as paragraphs (a)(l) and (a)(2), respectively, by inserting the title "2305-2320 MHz and 2345- 
2360 MHz bands" at the beginning and then adding the phrase "for the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 
MHz bands" between the words "areas" and "are" in the first sentence of newly-designated paragraph
(a), and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 27.6 Service areas.
*****
(b) 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands.
(1)[Reserved.]
(2) Service areas for Blocks C and D in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands are based on 
Economic Area Groupings (EAGs) as defined by the Federal Communications Commission. See 62 FR
543
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
15978 (April 3, 1997) extended with the Gulf of Mexico. See also 62 FR 9636 (March 3, 1997), in which
the Commission created an additional four economic area-like areas for a total of 176. Maps of the EAGs
and the FEDERAL REGISTER Notice that established the 172 Economic Areas (EAs) are available for
public inspection and copying at the Reference Center, Room CY A-257, 445 12th St.. S.W., Washington,
DC 20554. These maps and data are also available on the FCC website at
www. fee. go v/oet/info/maps/areas/.
(i)There are 6 EAGs, which are composed of multiple EAs as defined in the table below:
Economic 
Area 
Groupings1
EAG001
EAG002
EAG003
EAG004
EAG005
EAG006
Name
Northeast
Mid-Atlantic
Southeast
Great Lakes
Central/Mountain
Pacific
Economic Areas2
1-11,54
12-26,41,42,44-53,70
27-40, 43, 69, 71-86, 88-90, 95, 96, 174, 
176(part)
55-68,97,100-109
87, 91-94, 98, 99, 1 10-146, 148, 149, 152, 154- 
159, 176(part)
147, 150, 151, 153, 160-173, 175
Note 1: Economic Area Groupings are defined by the Federal Communications Commission; see 62 FR 15978 
(April 3, 1997) extended with the Gulf of Mexico.
Note 2: Economic Areas are defined by the Regional Economic Analysis Division, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 
U.S. Department of Commerce February 1995 and extended by the Federal Communications Commission, see 62 
FR 9636 (March 3, 1997).
(ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this section, EA 176 (the Gulf of Mexico) will be divided 
between EAG003 (the Southeast EAG) and EAG005 (the Central/Mountain EAG) in accordance with the 
configuration of the Eastern/ Central and Western Planning Area established by the Mineral 
Management Services Bureau of the Department of Interior (MMS). That portion of EA 176 contained in 
the Eastern and Central Planning Areas as defined by MMS will be included in EAG003; that portion of 
EA 176 contained in the Western Planning Area as defined by MMS will be included in EAG005. Maps 
of these areas may be found on the MMS website. 
www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/offshore/offshore.html.
10. A new section 27.10 is added at the beginning of subpart B to read as follows: 
S 27.10 Regulatory status.
(a) Single authorization. Authorization will be granted to provide any or a combination of the following 
services in a single license: common carrier, non-common carrier, and broadcast. A licensee may render 
any kind of communications service consistent with the regulatory status in its license and with the 
Commission's rules applicable to that service. An applicant or licensee may submit a petition at any time 
requesting clarification of the regulatory status for which authorization is required to provide a specific 
communications service.
(b) Designation of regulatory status in initial application. An applicant shall specify in its initial 
application if it is requesting authorization to provide common carrier, non-common carrier, or broadcast
544
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
services, or a combination thereof.
(c) Amendment of pending applications. The following rules apply to amendments of a pending
application.
(l)Any pending application may be amended to:
(i) Change the carrier regulatory status requested, or
(ii) Add to the pending request in order to obtain common carrier, non-common carrier, or broadcast
status, or a combination thereof, in a single license.
(2) Amendments to change, or add to, the carrier regulatory status in a pending application are minor
amendments filed under § 1.927 of part 1 of this chapter.
(d) Modification of license. The following rules apply to amendments of a license.
(1) A licensee may modify a license to:
(i) Change the regulatory status authorized, or
(ii) Add to the status authorized in order to obtain a combination of services of different regulatory status
in a single license.
(2) Applications to change, or add to, the carrier status in a license are modifications not requiring prior
Commission authorization. The licensee must notify the Commission within 30 days of the change. If
the change results in the discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of an existing service, the licensee is
subject to the provisions of § 27.66 of this part.
11. Section 27.11 is amended by adding the following sentences to the end of paragraph (a), by revising 
paragraph (b), and by adding a new paragraph'(c) to read as follows:
§ 27.11 Initial authorization.
(a) * * * Initial authorizations shall be granted in accordance with § 27.5 of this part. Applications for 
individual sites are not required and will not be accepted, except where required for environmental 
assessments, in accordance with §§ 1.1301 through 1.1319 of part 1 of this chapter.
(b) 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands. Initial authorizations for the 2305-2320 MHz and 
2345-2360 MHz bands shall be for 10 megahertz of spectrum in accordance with § 27.5(a) of this part.
(1) Authorizations for Blocks A and B will be based on Major Economic Areas (MEAs), as specified in § 
27.6(a)(l) of this part.
(2) Authorizations for Blocks C and D will be based on Regional Economic Area Groupings (REAGs), 
as specified in § 27.6(a)(2) of this part.
(c) 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. Initial authorizations for the 746-764 MHz and 776-794 
MHz blocks shall be for 1, 2, 5, or 10 megahertz of spectrum in accordance with § 27.5(b) of this part.
(1) Authorizations for Block A, consisting of two paired channels of 1 megahertz each, will be based on 
those geographic areas specified in § 27.6(b)(l) of this part.
(2) Authorizations for Block B, consisting of two paired channels of 2 megahertz each, will be based on 
those geographic areas specified in § 27.6(b)(l) of this part.
(3) Authorizations for Block C, consisting of two paired channels of 5 megahertz each, will be based on 
Economic Area Groupings (EAGs), as specified in § 27.6(b)(2) of this part.
(4) Authorizations for Block D, consisting of two paired channels of 10 megahertz each, will be based on 
EAGs, as specified in § 27.6(b)(2) of this part.
13. Section 27.13 is amended by designating the present text as paragraph (a), by inserting the title
545
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
"2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands" and then the phrase "Except as provided in paragraph (b)" 
at the beginning thereof, and by adding a new paragraph (b) to read as follows:
§ 27.13 License Period.
* * * * *
(b) 746-764 MHz and 776-794 MHz bands. Initial authorizations for the 746-764 MHz and 776-790 
MHz bands, will extend until January 1, 2014, except that a Part 27 licensee commencing broadcast 
services, will be required to seek renewal of its license for such services at the termination of the eight- 
year term following commencement of such operations.
14. Section 27.14 is amended by deleting the phrase "ten years of being licensed" in paragraph (a) and 
substituting the phrase "the prescribed license term set forth in § 27.13 of this part" in lieu thereof.
15. Section 27.15 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding a new paragraph (e) to read as 
follows:
§ 27.15 Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation.
*****
(b) Technical Standards.
* * * * *
(4) Signal levels. For purposes of partitioning and disaggregation, Part 27 systems must be designed so 
as not to exceed the signal level specified for the particular spectrum block in § 27.55 of this part at the 
licensee's service area boundary, unless the affected adjacent service area licensees have agreed to a 
different signal level.
*****
(e) Compliance with construction requirements. The following rules apply for purposes of implementing 
the construction requirements set forth in § 27.14 of this part.
(1) Partitioning. Parties to partitioning agreements have two options for satisfying the construction 
requirements set forth in § 27.14 of this part. Under the first option, the partitioner and partitionee each 
certifies that it will independently satisfy the substantial service requirement for its respective partitioned 
area. If a licensee subsequently fails to meet its substantial service requirement, its license will be subject 
to automatic cancellation without further Commission action. Under the second option, the partitioner 
certifies that it has met or will meet the substantial service requirement for the entire, pre-partitioned 
geographic service area. If the partitioner subsequently fails to meet its substantial service requirement, 
only its license will be subject to automatic cancellation without further Commission action.
(2) Disaggregation. Parties to disaggregation agreements have two options for satisfying the 
construction requirements set forth in § 27.14 of this part. Under the first option, the disaggregator and 
disaggregatee each certifies that it will share responsibility for meeting the substantial service 
requirement for the geographic service area. If the parties choose this option and either party 
subsequently fails to satisfy its substantial service responsibility, both parties' licenses will be subject to 
forfeiture without further Commission action. Under the second option, both parties certify either that the 
disaggregator or the disaggregatee will meet the substantial service requirement for the geographic 
service area. If the parties choose this option, and the party responsible subsequently fails to meet the 
substantial service requirement, only that party's license will be subject to forfeiture without further 
Commission action.
546
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
16. Section 27.50 is amended by redesignating paragraphs (a) and (b) as paragraphs (b)(l) and (b)(2), 
respectively, deleting in both of these redesignated paragraphs the phrase "in the 2305-2320 MHz and 
2345-2360 MHz bands," by adding new paragraphs (a) and (b), and by adding Table 1 following 
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§ 27.50 Power and antenna height limits.
(a) The following power and antenna height limits apply to transmitters operating in the 747-762 MHz 
and 777-792 MHz bands:
(1) Fixed and base stations transmitting in the 747-762 MHz band must not exceed an effective radiated 
power (ERP) of 1000 uatts and an antenna height of 305 m height above average terrain (HAAT), except 
that antenna heights greater than 305 m HAAT are permitted if power levels are reduced below 1000 
watts ERP in accordance uith Table 1 of this section;
(2) Fixed, control, and mobile stations transmitting in the 777-792 MHz band are limited to 30 watts 
ERP;
(3) Portable station;, (hand-held devices) transmitting in the 777-792 MHz band are limited to 3 watts 
ERP;
(4) Maximum composite transmit power shall be measured over any interval of continuous transmission 
using instrumentation calibrated in terms of RMS-equivalent voltage. The measurement results shall be 
properly adjusted tor an\ instrument limitations, such as detector response times, limited resolution 
bandwidth capabilit> uhen compared to the emission bandwidth, etc., so as to obtain a true maximum 
composite measurement for the emission in question over the full bandwidth of the channel.
(b) The follow ing power limits apply to the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands.
(c) * * *
Table 1 - Permissible Power and Antenna Heights for 
Base and Fixed Stations in the 747-762 MHz Band
Antenna Height (AAT) 
in meters (feet)
Above 1372(4500)
Above 1220(4000) 
to 1372 (4500)
Above 1067(3500) 
to 1220 (4000)
Above 91 5 (3000) 
to 1067(4000)
Above 763 (2500) 
to 915 (3000)
Effective Radiated Power (ERP) 
(watts)
65
70
75
100
140
547
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
Above 61 0(2000) 
to 763 (2500)
Above 458 (1500) 
to 61 0(2000)
Above 305 (1000) 
to 458 (1500)
Up to 305 (1000)
200
350
600
1000
17. Section 27.51 is revised to read as follows: 
§ 27.51 Equipment authorization.
(a) Each transmitter utilized for operation under this part must be of a type that has been authorized by 
the Commission under its certification procedure.
(b) Any manufacturer of radio transmitting equipment to be used in these services may request 
equipment authorization following the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter. 
Equipment authorization for an individual transmitter may be requested by an applicant for a station 
authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
18. Section 27.53 is amended by revising paragraph (a), redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (f), and 
adding new paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) to read as follows:
§ 27.53 Emission limits.
(a) For operations in the bands 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz, the power of any emission outside 
the licensee's frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within 
the licensed band(s) of operation, measured in watts, by the following amounts:
*****
(c) For operations in the 747 to 762 MHz band, the power of any emission outside the licensee's 
frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed 
band(s) of operation, measured in watts, in accordance with the following:
(1) On any frequency outside the 747 to 762 MHz band, the power of any emission shall be attenuated 
outside the band below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43+10 log (P) dB;
(2) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a factor not less than 76+10 
log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment;
(3) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(l) of this section is based on the use of 
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 
100 kHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at 
least 30 kHz may be employed;
(4) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (c)(2) of this section is based on the use of 
measurement instrumentation such that the reading taken with any resolution bandwidth setting should 
be adjusted to indicate spectral energy in a 6.25 kHz segment.
548
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
(d) For operations in the 777 to 792 MHz band, the power of any emission outside the licensee's 
frequency band(s)of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power (P) within the licensed 
band(s) of operation, measured in watts, in accordance with the following:
(1) On any frequency outside the 777 to 792 MHz band, the power of any emission shall be attenuated 
outside the band below the transmitter power (P) by at least 43 -t- 10 log (P) dB;
(2) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a factor not less than 65 + 10 
log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for mobile and portable stations transmitting in the 777 to 792 
MHz band;
(3) On all frequencies between 764 to 776 MHz and 794 to 806 MHz, by a factor not less than 76+10 
log (P) dB in a 6.25 kHz band segment, for fixed stations transmitting in the 777 to 792 MHz band;
(4) Compliance with the provisions of paragraph (d)(l) of this section is based on the use of 
measurement instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 100 kHz or greater. However, in the 
100 kHz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the frequency block, a resolution bandwidth of at 
least 30 kHz may be employed;
(5) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of this section is based .on the use of 
measurement instrumentation such that the reading taken with any resolution bandwidth setting should 
be adjusted to indicate spectral energy in a 6.25 kHz segment.
(e) For operations in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands, emissions in the band 1559-1610 MHz 
shall be limited to -70 dBW/MHz equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) for wideband signals, 
and -80 dBW EIRP for discrete emissions of less than 700 Hz bandwidth. For the purpose of equipment 
authorization, a transmitter shall be tested with an antenna that is representative of the type that will be 
used with the equipment in normal operation.
(f) When an emission outside of the authorized bandwidth causes harmful interference, the Commission 
may, at its discretion, require greater attenuation than specified in this section.
19. Section 27.55 is amended to read as follows. 
§ 27.55 Field strength limits.
The predicted or measured median field strength at any location on the geographical border of a Part 27 
service area shall not exceed the value specified for the following bands, unless the adjacent affected 
service area licensees agree to a different field strength. This value applies to both the initially offered 
service areas and to partitioned service areas.
(a) 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands: 47 dBuV/m
(b) 747-762 and 777-792 MHz bands: 40 dBuV/m
20. Section 27.60 is added to read as follows.
§ 27.60 TV/DTV interference protection criteria.
Base, fixed, control, and mobile transmitters in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz frequency bands 
must be operated only in accordance with the rules in this section to reduce the potential for interference 
to public reception of the signals of existing TV and DTV broadcast stations transmitting on 
TV Channels 59 through 68.
(a) D/U ratios. Licensees must choose site locations that are a sufficient distance from co-channel and
549
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
adjacent channel TV and DTV stations, and/or must use reduced transmitting power or transmitting 
antenna height such that the following minimum desired signal-to-undesired signal ratios (D/U ratios) 
are met.
(1) The minimum D/U ratio for co-channel stations is 40 dB at the hypothetical Grade B contour
(64 dBuV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the TV station or 17 dB at the equivalent Grade B contour
(41 dBuV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV station.
(2) The minimum D/U ratio for adjacent channel stations is 0 dB at the hypothetical Grade B contour 
(64 dBuV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the TV station or -23 dB at the equivalent Grade B contour 
(41 dBuV/m) (88.5 kilometers (55 miles)) of the DTV station.
(b) TV stations and calculation of contours. The methods used to calculate TV contours and antenna 
heights above average terrain are given in §§ 73.683 and 73.684 of this chapter. Tables to determine the 
necessary minimum distance from the 747-762 MHz or 777-792 MHz station to the TV/DTV station, 
assuming that the TV/DTV station has a hypothetical or equivalent Grade B contour of 88.5 kilometers 
(55 miles), are located in § 90.309 and labeled as Tables B, D, and E. Values between those given in the 
tables may be determined by linear interpolation. The locations of existing and proposed TV/DTV 
stations during the period of transition from analog to digital TV service are given in Part 73 of this 
chapter and in the final proceedings of MM Docket No. 87-268. The DTV allotments on Channels 60 
through 68 are:
STATE
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
California
New Jersey
New Jersey
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico
Wisconsin
CITY
Concord
Long Beach
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Los Angeles
Riverside
Sacramento
Stockton
Newark
Vineland
Allentown
Philadelphia
Philadelphia
Aguada
Arecibo
Mayaguez
Naranjito
Ponce
Milwaukee
NTSC TV Ch.
42
18
2
11
13
62
10
64
13
65
39
6
10
50
60
16
64
7
18
DTV Ch.
63
61
60
65
66
68
61
62
61
66
62
64
67
62
61
63
65
66
61
ERP (kW)
61
413.6
865.9
688.7
679.7
180.1
1000
63.5
198.7
107.8
50
1000
791.8
50.1
55
50.1
50.1
407.4
519.8
HAAT (m.)
856
725
1107
896
899
723
595
874
500
280
302
332
354
343
242
347
142
826
307
DTV stations on Channel 59 must be considered even though they are not indicated in the above table. 
The transition period is scheduled to end on December 31, 2006. After that time, unless otherwise 
directed by the Commission, 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz stations will no longer be required to 
protect reception of co-channel or adjacent channel TV/DTV stations.
(1) Licensees of stations operating within the ERP and HAAT limits of § 27.50 of this part must select 
one of three methods to meet the TV/DTV protection requirements, subject to Commission approval: 
(i) utilize the geographic separation specified in the tables referenced below;
(ii) submit an engineering study justifying the proposed separations based on the actual parameters of 
the land mobile station and the actual parameters of the TV/DTV station(s) it is trying to protect; or,
550
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
(iii) obtain written concurrence from the applicable TV/DTV station(s). If this method is chosen, a copy 
of the agreement must be submitted with the application. 
(2) The following is the method for geographic separations.
(i) Base and fixed stations that operate in the 747-762 MHz band having an antenna height (HAAT) less 
than 152 m. (500 ft.) shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations in 
accordance with the values specified in Table B (co-channel frequencies based on 40 dB protection) and 
Table E (adjacent channel frequencies based on 0 dB protection) in § 90.309 of this chapter. For base 
and fixed stations having an antenna height (HAAT) between 152-914 meters (500-3.000 ft.) the 
effective radiated power must be reduced below 1 kilowatt in accordance with the values shown in the 
power reduction graph in Figure B in § 90.309 of this chapter. For heights of more than 152 m. (500 ft.) 
above average terrain, the distance to the radio path horizon will be calculated assuming smooth earth. If 
the distance so determined equals or exceeds the distance to the hypothetical or equivalent Grade B 
contour of a co-channel TV/DTV station (i.e., it exceeds the distance from the appropriate Table in 
§ 90.309 to the relevant TV/DTV station), an authorization will not be granted unless it can be shown in 
an engineering study (see paragraph (b)(l)(ii) of this section) that actual terrain considerations are such 
as to provide the desired protection at the actual Grade B contour (64 dBfiV/m for TV and 41 dB(j.V/m 
for DTV stations) or unless the effective radiated power will be further reduced so that, assuming free 
space attenuation, the desired protection at the actual Grade B contour (64 dBjaV/m for TV and 
41 dBu.V/m coverage contour for DTV stations) will be achieved. Directions for calculating powers, 
heights, and reduction curves are listed in § 90.309 for land mobile stations. Directions for calculating 
coverage contours are listed in §§ 73.683-685 for TV stations and in § 73.625 for DTV stations, 
(ii) Control, fixed, and mobile stations (including portables) that operate in the 777-792 MHz band are 
limited in height and power and therefore shall afford protection to co-channel and adjacent channel 
TV/DTV stations in accordance with the values specified in Table D (co-channel frequencies based on 
40 dB protection for TV stations and 17 dB for DTV stations) in § 90.309 of this chapter and a minimum 
distance of 8 kilometers (5 miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV station hypothetical or equivalent 
Grade B contours (adjacent channel frequencies based on 0 dB protection for TV stations and - 23 dB for 
DTV stations). Since control, fixed, and mobile stations may affect different TV/DTV stations than the 
associated base or fixed station, particular care must be taken by applicants/licensees to ensure that all 
appropriate TV/DTV stations are considered (e.g. a base station may be operating within TV Channel 62 
and the mobiles within TV Channel 67, in which case TV Channels 61, 62, 63, 66, 67 and 68 must be 
protected). Control, fixed, and mobile stations shall keep a minimum distance of 96.5 kilometers 
(60 miles) from all adjacent channel TV/DTV stations. Since mobiles and portables are able to move 
and communicate with each other, licensees must determine the areas where the mobiles can and cannot 
roam in order to protect the TV/DTV stations.
(iii) In order to protect certain TV/DTV stations and to ensure protection from these stations which may 
have extremely large contours due to unusual height situations, an additional distance factor must be 
used by all base, fixed, control, and mobile stations. For all co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV 
stations which have an HAAT between 350 and 600 meters, licensees must add the following 
DISTANCE FACTOR to the value obtained from the referenced Tables in § 90.309 and to the distance 
for control, fixed, and mobile stations on adjacent TV/DTV channels (96.5 km).
DISTANCE FACTOR = (TV/DTV HAAT - 350) * 14 in kilometers, where HAAT is 
the TV or DTV station antenna height above average terrain obtained from its authorized 
or proposed facilities, whichever is greater.
For all co-channel and adjacent channel TV/DTV stations which have an antenna height above average 
terrain greater than 600 meters, licensees must add 18 kilometers as the DISTANCE FACTOR to the 
value obtained from the referenced Tables in § 90.309 and to the distance for control, fixed, and mobile 
stations on adjacent TV/DTV channels (96.5 km).
Note: The 88.5 km (55 mi) Grade B service contour (64 dBu,V/m) is based on a hypothetical TV station
551
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
operating at an effective radiated power of one megawatt, a transmitting antenna height above average 
terrain of 610 meters (2000 feet) and the Commission's R-6602 F(50,50) curves. See § 73.699 of this 
chapter. Maximum facilities for TV stations operating in the UHF band are 5 megawatts effective 
radiated power at an antenna HAAT of 610 meters (2,000 feet). See § 73.614 of this chapter. The 
equivalent contour for DTV stations is based on a 41 dBu.V/m signal strength and the distance to the 
F(50,90) curve. See § 73.625 of this chapter.
21. A new section 27.66 is added to read as follows:
§ 27.66 Discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service.
(a) Involuntary act. If the service provided by a fixed common carrier licensee is involuntarily 
discontinued, reduced, or impaired for a period exceeding 48 hours, the licensee must promptly notify 
the Commission, in writing, as to the reasons for discontinuance, reduction, or impairment of service, 
including a statement when normal service is to be resumed. When normal service is resumed, the 
licensee must promptly notify the Commission.
(b) Voluntary act bv common carrier. If a fixed common carrier licensee voluntarily discontinues, 
reduces, or impairs service to a community or part of a community, it must obtain prior authorization as 
provided under § 63.71 of this chapter. An application will be granted within 30 days after filing if no 
objections have been received.
(c) Voluntary act by non-common carrier. If a fixed non-common carrier licensee voluntarily 
discontinues, reduces, or impairs service to a community or part of a community, it must given written 
notice to the Commission within seven days.
(d) Notifications and requests. Notifications and requests identified in paragraphs(a) through (c) of this 
section should be sent to: Federal Communications Commission, Common Carrier Radio Services, 1270 
Fairfield Road, Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, 17325.
22. Section 27.308 is amended by deleting the phrase "WCS (see subparts C and D of this part as 
appropriate)" and inserting the phrase "applicable frequency band (see subparts C, D, and F of this part, 
as appropriate)" in lieu thereof.
23. A new subpart F is added to read as follows.
Subpart F - Competitive Bidding Procedures for the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz Bands.
§27.501 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands subject to competitive bidding.
Mutually exclusive initial applications for licenses in the 747-762 MHz and 777-792 MHz bands are 
subject to competitive bidding procedures. The procedures set forth in part 1, subpart Q, of this chapter 
will apply unless otherwise provided in this part.
§ 27.502 Designated entities.
(a) Eligibility for small business provisions.
(1) A small business is an entity that, together with its controlling interests and affiliates, has average 
gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years.
(2) A very small business is an entity that, together with its controlling interests and affiliates, has
552
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
average gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years.
(3) For purposes of determining whether an entity meets either of the definitions set forth in paragraphs
(a)(l) and (a)(2) of this section, the gross revenues of the entity, its controlling interests and affiliates 
shall be considered on a cumulative basis and aggregated. An applicant seeking status as a small 
business or very small business under this section must disclose on its short- and long-form applications, 
separately and in the aggregate, the gross revenues of the applicant (or licensee), its controlling interests 
and affiliates for each of the previous three years.
(4) Persons or entities that hold interests in an applicant (or licensee) that are affiliates of each other or 
have an identity of interests identified in § 1.2110(b)(4)(iii) of this chapter will be treated as though they 
were one person or entity and their ownership interests aggregated for purposes of determining an 
applicant's (or licensee's) compliance with the requirements of this section.
(5) Where an applicant (or licensee) cannot identify controlling interests under the standards set forth in 
this section, the gross revenues of all interest holders in the applicant, and their affiliates, will be 
attributable.
(6) A consortium of small businesses (or a consortium of very small businesses) is a conglomerate 
organization formed as a joint venture between or among mutually independent business firms, each of 
which individually satisfies the definition in paragraph (a)(l) of this section (or each of which 
individually satisfies the definition in paragraph (a)(2) of this section). Where an applicant or licensee is 
a consortium of small businesses (or very small businesses), the gross revenues of each small business 
(or very small business) shall not be aggregated.
(7) Designated entities must describe on their long-form applications how they satisfy the requirements 
for eligibility for designated entity status, and must list and summarize on their long-form applications 
all agreements that affect designated entity status such as partnership agreements, shareholder 
agreements, management agreements and other agreements, including oral agreements, establishing, as 
applicable, de facto or dejure control of the entity. Such information must be maintained at the 
licensee's facilities or by its designated agent for the term of the license in order to enable the 
Commission to audit designated entity eligibility on an ongoing basis.
(b) Controlling interest
(1) For purposes of this section, a controlling interest includes individuals or entities with either dejure 
or de facto control of the applicant. Dejure control is evidenced by holdings of greater than 50 percent of 
the voting stock of a corporation, or in the case of a partnership, general partnership interests. De facto 
control is determined on a case-by-case basis. An entity must disclose its equity interest and demonstrate 
at least the following indicia of control to establish that it retains de facto control of the applicant: 
(i) The entity constitutes or appoints more than 50 percent of the board of directors or management 
committee;
(ii) The entity has authority to appoint, promote, demote, and fire senior executives that control the day- 
to-day activities of the licensee; and
(iii) The entity plays an integral role in management decisions. 
(2) The following rules apply for the calculation of certain interests.
(i) Ownership interests shall be calculated on a fully diluted basis; all agreements such as warrants, 
stock options, and convertible debentures will generally be treated as if the rights thereunder already 
have been fully exercised.
(ii) Partnership and other ownership interests and any stock interest equity, or outstanding stock, or 
outstanding voting stock shall be attributed as specified below.
(iii) Stock interests held in trust shall be attributed to any person who holds or shares the power to vote 
such stock, to any person who has the sole power to sell such stock, and to any person who has the right 
to revoke the trust at will or to replace the trustee at will. If the trustee has a familial, personal, or 
extra-trust business relationship to the grantor or the beneficiary, the stock interests held in trust will be
553
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
attributed to the grantor or beneficiary, as appropriate.
(iv) Non-voting stock shall be attributed as an interest in the issuing entity.
(v) Limited partnership interests shall be attributed to limited partners and shall be calculated according
to both the percentage of equity paid in and the percentage of distribution of profits and losses.
(vi) Officers and directors of an entity shall be considered to have an attributable interest in the entity.
The officers and directors of an entity that controls a licensee or applicant shall be considered to have an
attributable interest in the licensee or applicant.
(vii) Ownership interests that are held indirectly by any party through one or more intervening
corporations will be determined by successive multiplication of the ownership percentages for each link
in the vertical ownership chain and application of the relevant attribution benchmark to the resulting
product, except that if the ownership percentage for an interest in any link in the chain exceeds 50
percent or represents actual control, it shall be treated as if it were a 100 percent interest.
(viii) Any person «ho manages the operations of an applicant or licensee pursuant to a management
agreement shall be considered to have a controlling interest in such applicant or licensee if such person,
or its affiliate, has authority to make decisions or otherwise engage in practices or activities that
determine, or significantly influence:
(A) The nature or t\ pes of services offered by such an applicant or licensee;
(B) The terms upon \\hich such services are offered; or
(C) The prices charged for such services.
(ix) Any licensee or its affiliate who enters into a joint marketing arrangement with an applicant or 
licensee, or its affiliate, shall be considered to have a controlling interest, if such applicant or licensee, or 
its affiliate, has authority to make decisions or otherwise engage in practices or activities that determine, 
or significantly influence:
(A) The nature or t\pes of services offered by such an applicant or licensee;
(B) The terms upon \vhieh such services are offered; or
(C) The prices charged for such services.
(c) Bidding credits. A winning bidder that qualifies as a small business or a consortium of small 
businesses as defined in this section may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(iii) of this 
chapter. A winning bidder that qualifies as a very small business or a consortium of very small 
businesses as defined in this section may use the bidding credit specified in § 1.2110(e)(2)(ii) of this 
chapter.
554
Appendix C 
Geographic Areas for Licensing in the 747-762 MHz & 777-792 MHz Bands
Central/Mountain - EAG 5
Not Depicted:
Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands - EAG 6
American Samoa - EAG 6 Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands - EAG 3
Alaska • EAG 6
Hawaii - EAG 6
{>
Wfestern Gulf Planning Area 
EAG 5
Central Gulf Planning Area 
EAG 3
Eastern Gulf Planning Area 
EAG 3
FCC - WTB 
MCD 01/06/2000
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER SUSAN NESS
Re: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168
I strongly support our action today, unleashing 30 MHz of prime spectrum for a variety of 
wireless services, including fixed and mobile Internet access. I am excited about the prospect of 
wireless alternatives to the local loop and/or Internet connections to mobile devices - as 
determined by a robust marketplace. Our decision best balances the needs of these competing 
demands for the same spectrum.
Our decision also recognizes the paramount importance of shielding the public safety bands from 
interference. Our further actions on the guard bands established in this order first and foremost 
should ensure the protection of public safety communications.
While I support the order, I would have preferred to act concurrently on the licensing and service 
rules for the 6 MHz of guard bands. These guard bands, which are adjacent to the public safety 
spectrum, also are adjacent to the spectrum allocated today. The licensing and service rules that 
will apply to the guard bands also may effect business strategies of those planning to bid on the 
30 MHz. Potential bidders therefore should have the opportunity to factor into their business 
plans the rules governing the guard bands when considering participation in the auctions 
governing this newly available spectrum.
Despite my regret that we have not acted concurrently on the full 36 MHz of spectrum, I do look 
forward to the expeditious resolution of the subsequent actions the Commission will take on 
these new commercial allocations. I await with anticipation the new advanced wireless services 
that will be provided to consumers as a result of our action today, and to the competition that will 
result in the marketplace from the initiation of these new services.
556
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER HAROLD FURCHTGOTT-ROTH,
Approving in Part, Dissenting in Part
Re: Service Rules for the 746-764 and 776-794 MHz Bands, and Revisions to Part 27 of the 
Commission's Rules, WT Docket No. 99-168
As an initial matter, I wish to applaud the Wireless Bureau and the Office of Engineering 
and Technology for their tireless work in producing this item. Recent legislation greatly 
expedited our consideration of these issues. The Bureau and OET have made every effort to give 
full and fair consideration to the positions of all of the parties in order to reach the best policy 
results. By and large, I believe they have succeeded in Grafting flexible and technology-neutral 
rules that will facilitate the prompt availability of significant spectrum for the highest valued 
uses.
The Order's approach to the primary spectrum blocks warrants particular praise. As the 
communications marketplace becomes increasingly competitive and dynamic, the Commission 
will be challenged to craft rules that allow for maximum flexibility in utilizing spectrum. This 
proceeding presented such a challenge. The sizing of spectrum blocks, the geographic licensing 
units, the aggregation and disaggregation rules, and the auction approach all have implications 
for the types of service providers that will succeed in the auction. Our task to balance the 
competing interests for the size and width of spectrum blocks has not been easy, but I believe we 
have done our best to preserve as many service and technology options as practicable in 
designing our rules for the primary spectrum blocks.
I must, however, part company with my colleagues on the item's approach to our 
statutory obligation to craft rules which protect public safety licensees from harmful interference.
Rather than creation of so-called "guard bands," I would have been inclined to resolve our 
mandate by establishing strict interference limits with significant penalties for noncompliance. 
This approach is consistent with our statutory charge to "establish interference limits at the 
boundaries of the spectrum block and service areas."338 I believe such a system would have 
appropriately left it to the marketplace to determine the appropriate uses of the spectrum and left 
to us the obligation to enforce rules that protect public safety licensees from interference. This 
approach would also have taken the Commission out of the difficult role of assessing the 
appropriate size and use of the guard bands. Nonetheless, there may well be some utility to the 
guard band concept as a basis for establishing boundaries and thresholds for interference. The 
creation of such bands alone may not have warranted a dissent.
However, even assuming "guard bands" are a necessary and appropriate convention, I am 
not convinced that a full 6 MHz is necessary to protect public safety. Indeed, it appears that 4 
MHz or less would have provided a sufficient guard band to protect public safety licensees. 
Some parties have suggested that 6 MHz is necessary based on some other factors - such as the 
need for additional private spectrum or the need to create a viable market for "guard band
338 47U.S.C. §337(d)(l).
557
Federal Communications Commission FCC 00-5
spectrum." It may indeed be true that private users need additional spectrum or that 6 MHz is 
necessary to create a thriving market in guard band spectrum - but I find neither of these 
priorities in the statute. Nor do I believe these goals necessarily further the statute's purpose. 
Thus, to the extent I acquiesce the creation of guard bands at all, I would do so based only on an 
interference rationale and allocate only 4 MHz for such bands.
Today's item stops there. It only establishes the size of the guard bands. However, I feel 
compelled to express some concerns about some proposals that have gained currency in recent 
months about potential restrictions on the use of the guard bands. These items will be resolved 
in our Second Report and Order, but I wish to take this opportunity to state clearly my view of 
these pending issues.
I believe these guard bands should be open to all bidders willing to accept our 
interference limits on these bands. Although I believe the band manager concept is an innovative 
and potentially useful spectrum management tool, I cannot support proposals that would limit 
eligibility to a particular type of licensee. It seems to me the Commission should not be dictating 
business models to our licensees. In essence this limitation would say, if you want this spectrum, 
here is what your company needs to look like. I see no basis for such a proposed limitation. In 
addition, there may be many licensees who can use the guard bands for higher valued purposes 
than the band manager concept will allow. If a licensee can protect public safety, win the 
auction, and offer wireless Internet access to underserved areas, who are we to stop that higher- 
valued use based on some interest in testing a spectrum management tool?
In addition, the statute specifically requires that this spectrum be put to "commercial 
use." Whether band managers even qualify as a "commercial use" has been the subject of 
substantial debate. These doubts are only magnified by proposals to limit eligibility to "band 
managers" and preclude traditional "commercial" licensees who are prepared to comply with our 
interference limits.
I am also unconvinced by those who argue that we must limit guard band auction 
eligibility in order to "test" the band manager concept. In my view, the concept can be tested 
when band managers compete against other licensees in an open auction. You cannot truly test 
the concept by fixing the result, so that only band managers can win. Moreover, we should not 
in good conscience adopt any proposals that eliminate an opportunity for legitimate commercial 
entities to compete for spectrum simply because they fail to meet newly-minted criteria for a new 
non-statutory licensee, the band manager.
558
Federal CommunicationsCommission FCC 00-5
There are other questions that remain about these band manager proposals. First, it is not 
clear how a band manager is different from any other licensee that can lease its spectrum to other 
users. Second, how would a band manager fit into our traditional common carrier jurisprudence?
What impact does that classification have on universal service? Although these regulatory 
issues may well be resolved, the band manager proposals create lingering doubts in my mind 
about the desirability of restricting eligibility to this class of new licensees.
My concerns about the various guard band proposals being considered in the Second 
Report and Order should not overshadow the overall strength of this item as an effort to permit 
market forces to determine the most-highly valued use of this spectrum. American business and 
consumers stand to gain significant benefits from this flexible, technology-neutral approach.
559