*Pages 1--18 from Microsoft Word - 23906.doc* Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D. C. 20554 In the Matter of Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band ) ) ) ) ET Docket No. 02- 380 NOTICE OF INQUIRY Adopted: December 11, 2002 Released: December 20, 2002 By the Commission: Chairman Powell, Commissioners Abernathy, and Copps issuing separate statements; Commissioner Martin approving in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a statement; Commissioner Adelstein not participating. Comment date: [75 days from publication in Federal Register] Reply comment date: [105 days from publication in Federal Register] I. INTRODUCTION 1. We are initiating this inquiry to obtain comments from the public on the possibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in additional frequency bands. Specifically, we seek comments on the feasibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in TV broadcast spectrum at locations and times when spectrum is not being used, and on the technical requirements that would be necessary to ensure that such devices do not cause interference to authorized services operating within the TV broadcast bands. 1 We also seek comment on the feasibility of permitting unlicensed devices to operate in other bands, such as the 3650- 3700 MHz band at power levels significantly higher than the maximum permitted for unlicensed devices in other frequency bands, with only the minimal technical requirements necessary to avoid interference to licensed and incumbent services. We believe that these actions could have significant benefits to the economy, businesses and consumers by allowing the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed devices. II. BACKGROUND 2. Unlicensed transmitters may be operated under the provisions of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules. 2 Part 15 transmitters generally operate on frequencies shared with authorized services and at 1 The term “TV broadcast bands” refers to the 402 MHz allocated to the broadcast services at 54- 72 MHz, 76- 88 MHz, 174- 216 MHz, 470- 608 MHz and 614- 806 MHz. The band 470- 512 MHz is allocated to the land mobile and commercial mobile radio services in 13 cities, and the broadcast auxiliary service also operates on certain channels in the TV broadcast bands. As of September 30, 2002, there were 1,714 TV stations, 4,739 TV translators, 2,127 low power TV stations and 568 Class A TV stations. There are over 1.4 million fixed and mobile stations authorized in the 470- 512 MHz band, of which 96% are in the private land mobile service (equally shared between public safety and industrial/ business services) and the remainder are in the commercial mobile radio and broadcast auxiliary services. 2 See 47 C. F. R. Part 15. 1 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 2 relatively low power. Operation of a Part 15 transmitter is subject to the conditions that the device not cause interference to authorized services, and that the device must accept any interference received. 3 The Commission made two significant changes to Part 15 in the 1980’s that enabled the development of new types of unlicensed devices and led to increased use of these devices. 3. The first significant change, in 1985, was to permit spread spectrum transmitters to operate on an unlicensed basis in certain bands allocated for Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM) equipment. 4 Specifically, such transmitters are permitted to operate in the 902- 928 MHz, 2400- 2483.5 MHz and 5725- 5850 MHz bands. 5 Spread spectrum transmitters spread their energy over a wide bandwidth, which increases resistance to interference and can allow multiple transmitters to share the same spectrum. Such transmitters are permitted to operate with a power of up to one watt, which is considerably higher than the maximum power permitted for other Part 15 devices. 6 This allows for significantly greater transmission range than other Part 15 devices. In addition, the relatively wide bandwidth permitted for spread spectrum transmitters makes them useful for applications such as high speed data transmission. There are no limitations in the rules on the types of applications for which spread spectrum devices can be used, provided they comply with the technical requirements. The adoption of the spread spectrum rules was a major step in providing increased flexibility for unlicensed transmitters. Subsequent changes to these rules permit increased data speeds and higher gain antennas to allow greater transmission range, and apply to a broader range of spread spectrum transmitters. 7 4. The second significant change to Part 15 was a major revision in 1989. Under this revision, unlicensed transmitters are permitted to operate on almost any frequency, provided they meet relatively tight emission limits. 8 They are not permitted to operate in certain designated “restricted bands 9 ,” and are generally prohibited from operating in the TV broadcast bands, except for remote control devices and 3 See 47 C. F. R. § 15.5. 4 ISM equipment uses RF energy to perform some sort of work, such as heating or lighting, and not to perform communications. Examples of ISM equipment include microwave ovens, RF lighting devices, ultrasonic cleaners and industrial heating and welding equipment. The technical requirements for ISM equipment are found in Part 18 of the Commission’s rules, 47 C. F. R. Part 18. 5 See First Report and Order in GEN Docket No. 81- 413, 1 FCC 2nd 419 (1985), 58 RR 2nd 251 (1985). 6 The maximum permitted output of most Part 15 transmitters is actually expressed in terms of field strength at a specific distance, which is a function of both the transmitter output power and the transmit antenna gain. These field strength limits correspond to relatively low transmitter output powers. For example, a non- spread spectrum transmitter in the 902- 928 MHz band has a field strength limit of 50 millivolts per meter at a distance of 3 meters. See 47 C. F. R. § 15.249. A power of only 152 microwatts into a dipole antenna is required to generate this field strength. 7 See 47 C. F. R. § 15.247. See also Second Report and Order in ET Docket No. 99- 231, 17 FCC Rcd. 10755 (2002). 8 See 47 C. F. R. § 15.207 and 209. 9 Specific frequency bands are designated as restricted bands in Part 15 to protect certain sensitive radio services from interference, such as those that protect safety of life or those that use very low received levels, such as satellite downlinks or radio astronomy. Only spurious emissions are permitted in restricted bands. See 47 C. F. R. § 15.205. 2 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 3 medical telemetry transmitters. 10 Specific types of unlicensed transmitters can operate in certain frequency bands. In addition to spread spectrum transmitters in the ISM bands, non- spread spectrum transmitters can operate in the ISM bands for any type of application at lower power levels than spread spectrum transmitters. The 1985 and 1989 revisions of Part 15 have provided substantially increased flexibility in the types of unlicensed devices that can be developed, and led to the large numbers of unlicensed devices currently available today. 5. The Commission’s Spectrum Policy Task Force conducted a comprehensive review of spectrum policy which included a public notice seeking comment on, among other issues, whether additional spectrum should be made available for unlicensed use. 11 In addition, the Task Force held a public workshop on unlicensed spectrum use. 12 In response to the public notice, a significant number of parties stated that additional spectrum should be made available for unlicensed use. 13 Further, these parties indicated a general perception that the creation of unlicensed bands has been very successful in allowing the introduction of new technology and that additional unlicensed bands would create more such opportunities. 14 III. DISCUSSION 6. The Commission’s rules for unlicensed transmitters have been a tremendous success. A wide variety of devices have been developed and introduced under these rules for consumer and business use, including cordless telephones, home security systems, electronic toys, anti- pilfering and inventory control systems and computer local area networks. Moreover, the past few years have witnessed the development of industry standards, such as IEEE 802.11b (Wi- fi), Bluetooth, and Home RF that have greatly expanded the number and variety of devices that operate in the 2.4 GHz ISM band. 15 This has provided for the introduction of wireless headsets and computer connections for cellular and PCS phones, wireless computer peripherals such as printers and keyboards, and a host of new wireless Internet appliances that will use all of the spread spectrum bands. Because of this, a large number of new devices have been developed and placed into operation in the ISM bands. 7. The success of our unlicensed device rules for the ISM bands shows that there could be significant benefits to the economy, businesses and the general public in making additional spectrum 10 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 15.209, 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242. Effective October 16, 2002, equipment authorizations will no longer be granted for medical telemetry transmitters that operate in the TV broadcast bands. See 47 C. F. R. § 15.37( i). 11 “Spectrum Policy Task Force Seeks Public Comment on Issues Related to Commission’s Spectrum Policies,” Public Notice, ET Docket No. 02- 135 (rel. June 6, 2002). 12 “Spectrum Policy Task Force Announces Panelists for the August 1st Public Workshop on Unlicensed Spectrum and Experimental Licenses and the August 2nd Public Workshop on Interference Protection”, Public Notice, ET Docket No. 02- 135 (rel. July 26, 2002). 13 For example, see the following comments in ET Docket 02- 135: Motorola comments at 14, Part- 15. org comments at 3, Personal Telecommunications Technologies, Inc. comments at 3, Microsoft comments at 4, Information Technology Industry Council comments at 7 and Consumer Electronics Association comments at 5. 14 Id. 15 These operating standards provide manufacturers with guidance for developing spread spectrum devices for the 2.4 GHz band. The IEEE 802.11b standard applies to direct sequence devices, while the Bluetooth and Home RF standards apply to frequency hopping devices. 3 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 4 available for unlicensed transmitters. We believe that the rules permitting unlicensed operation in the ISM bands have been successful for three reasons. First, because these bands are used primarily for ISM equipment which may not be impacted by interference from unlicensed devices, a significantly higher power can be permitted in these bands than in other unlicensed bands, allowing for the greater operational range of unlicensed devices. Second, the ISM bands have sufficient spectrum to permit wide bandwidth uses such as video and high speed data transmissions, and to permit multiple users to share the bands. The 900 MHz ISM band is 26 MHz wide, the 2.4 GHz ISM band is 83.5 MHz wide, and the 5.8 GHz ISM band is 125 MHz wide. Third, there are no restrictions placed on the applications of devices that operate in these bands, which permits the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed transmitters. 8. To ensure that any bands where expanded unlicensed operation is permitted are at least as useful as the ISM bands, we believe that we should use similar criteria in establishing requirements for new bands where unlicensed transmitters can operate. We believe that we should also consider permitting additional flexibility to help enable the development of new and innovative types of unlicensed devices, such as power levels greater than the one watt maximum currently permitted for Part 15 devices and/ or high gain antennas to enable greater transmission range. We have identified two possible candidate bands for such expanded unlicensed operation: the television broadcast bands and the 3650- 3700 MHz band. A. TV Broadcast Bands 9. Analog TV stations currently operate on 6 MHz channels designated 2- 69 (54- 72 MHz, 76- 88 MHz, 174- 216 MHz and 470- 806 MHz). 16 To prevent interference, the Commission’s rules require distance separations between co- channel and first- adjacent- channel TV stations. 17 In addition, distance separations are required between UHF TV stations up to 15 channels apart. 18 As a result of these rules, there are a number of vacant TV channels at any given location in the country because co- channel stations, adjacent channel stations, and some UHF stations cannot be located within certain distances of each other without causing interference, or because no licensee is using a given channel at a particular location. 19 10. The Commission is requiring analog television stations authorized under Part 73 of the rules to convert to digital transmissions. 20 To accomplish this, the Commission has developed a new table of allotments for digital television stations. 21 Because the new digital TV system is more spectrally efficient, 16 See 47 C. F. R. § 73.603( a). 17 Minimum separation distances are specified between analog TV stations. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.610. 18 To prevent undesirable signal interactions within analog TV receivers, minimum separation distances apply between analog UHF stations and other analog UHF stations 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 14 and 15 channels apart. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.698. 19 Co- channel distance separation requirements range from 248.6 to 353.2 kilometers, depending on the channel and the area of the country where the stations are located. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.610. First- adjacent- channel stations and stations at certain UHF channel separations must be separated by minimum distances ranging from 31.4 to 119.9 kilometers to avoid interference. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.698. 20 Advanced Television Systems and Their Impact upon the Existing Television Broadcast Service, MM Docket 87- 268, Sixth Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 14588 (1997). 21 See 47 C. F. R. § 73.622. In developing the initial table of allotments for digital TV stations, the required separations to prevent interference between digital stations and between analog and digital stations were determined using minimum D/ U ratios. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.623( c). New digital allotments added after the initial (continued….) 4 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 5 fewer channels will be needed after the transition to accommodate all existing television stations. Digital television stations will operate only on channels 2- 51 after the transition, and television channels 52- 69 have been reallocated for other uses. 22 During the transition to digital transmissions, each television station that was authorized before 1997 is being permitted to broadcast on two channels; one digital and one analog. At the end of the transition, each station will cease analog broadcasts and broadcast on a single digital channel. 11. During and after the digital television transition, there will be a number of TV channels in a given geographic area not being used by full service analog or digital TV stations because such stations will not be able to operate without causing interference to co- channel or adjacent channel stations. For example, the rules for new digital TV allotments require minimum separations ranging from 196.3 to 273.6 kilometers for co- channel stations, and separations of 110 kilometers for adjacent channel stations that are not co- located or in close proximity. 23 These minimum separation distances between stations were determined based on the assumption that the stations will operate at maximum power. However, a transmitter operating on a vacant TV channel at a lower power level than a TV station would not need as great a separation distances from co- channel and adjacent channel TV stations to avoid causing interference to such stations. Thus, low power transmitters could potentially operate on vacant channels that could not be used by high power TV stations due to interference concerns. Also, in some areas channels that would otherwise be available for television service are not being used. 12. In addition to full service analog and digital TV stations under Part 73 of the rules, certain other TV broadcast services and unlicensed devices are permitted to operate on TV channels. Class A television stations operate under Subpart J of Part 73 of the rules. Low power TV stations, TV translator and TV booster stations under Part 74 of the rules are permitted to operate on a secondary basis to analog and digital TV stations, provided they meet technical rules to prevent interference to such stations. 24 Part 74 also permits TV broadcast stations to use TV channels 14- 69 for specified TV broadcast auxiliary stations on a secondary basis. 25 In addition, Part 74 permits certain entities to operate wireless microphones on vacant TV channels on a non- interference basis. 26 In 13 metropolitan areas, one or two channels in the range of 14- 20 are shared with the Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) under Part 90 of the rules and the Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) under Part 20 of the rules. In addition, medical telemetry equipment is permitted to operate on an unlicensed basis on vacant TV channels 7- 46, and remote control devices can operate on any TV channel above 70 MHz, except for channel 37. 27 (Continued from previous page) digital TV table of allotments must meet minimum separation distances to both digital and analog TV stations. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.623( d). Except for co- channel distance spacing requirements, digital TV stations alternatively may be co- located or separated by much shorter distances to analog or other digital TV stations. Generally, if such stations are separated by about 20 kilometers or less, the predicted signal levels have a sufficiently high D/ U ratio between signals to avoid interference. 22 See First Report and Order in WT Docket No. 99- 168, 15 FCC Rcd 476 (2000), Report and Order in ET Docket 97- 157, 12 FCC Rcd 22953 (1998) and Report and Order in GN Docket No. 01- 74, 17 FCC Fcd 1022 (2002). 23 These numbers are for separations between digital stations. See 47 C. F. R. § 73.623( d). The separations differ depending on the zone where the stations are located and whether the stations are in the VHF or UHF band. 24 See 47 C. F. R. Part 74 Subpart G. 25 See 47 C. F. R. § 74.602( h). 26 See 47 C. F. R. § 74.861. 27 See 47 C. F. R. §§ 15.231, 15.241 and 15.242. Effective October 16, 2002, the Commission will cease granting certification for new medical telemetry equipment that operates on TV channels, but there is no cutoff on the sale or use of equipment that was certified before that date. 5 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 10 Telecommunications and Information Administration (" NTIA") identified the 3650- 3700 MHz portion of this band for transfer, effective January 1999, from a Government/ non- Government shared use status to a mixed- use status. 42 A condition of the transfer allows Government radiolocation stations to continue to operate indefinitely in the 3650 MHz band at three locations with a "radius of operation" of 80 kilometers (49.7 miles). 43 18. In October 2000, the Commission allocated the 3650 MHz band for the fixed and mobile (base stations only) terrestrial services on a primary basis. 44 FSS operations in this band that were authorized, or for which an application had been filed, prior to December 1, 2000 were permanently grandfathered. New FSS operations in the band after that date are licensed only on a secondary basis to the newly allocated fixed and mobile services in the band. Simultaneously with this allocation decision, the Commission proposed, but has not yet adopted, rules for licensing the 3650 MHz band, including proposals on flexible use, geographic area licensing, and band managers. 45 A number of FSS stations operate in this band, and several satellite operators filed petitions for reconsideration, which are pending. 46 The satellite operators primarily seek relief from the growth restrictions placed on FSS users in this band. No licenses have been issued for new fixed and mobile services in the band. However, the Commission has issued authorizations for secondary FSS earth stations. 19. The 3650 MHz band allocation decision recognized that this 50 megahertz of spectrum could be used to fulfill a statutory mandate for assignment of licenses by competitive bidding. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 mandated the auction of 15 megahertz at 1990- 2110 MHz unless the President identified alternative spectrum. NTIA identified the 3650 MHz band as one possible substitute along with certain spectrum that the Commission recently allocated as part of ET Docket No. 00- 221 (“ 27 MHz proceeding”). 47 Thus, although the Commission found that allocation and subsequent auction of 3650 (Continued from previous page) 41 See Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (“ OBRA- 93”), Pub. L. No. 103- 66, Title VI, § 6001( a)( 3), 107 Stat. 312 (enacted August 10, 1993). See also H. R. Rep. No. 103- 213, 103rd Cong., 1st Sess. (1993). 42 See Spectrum Reallocation Final Report, Response to Title VI - Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, NTIA Special Publication 95- 3l2, released February 1995 (" Final Report"). Shared use means that a band of frequencies is generally available for both government and non- government use. See 47 C. F. R. § 2.105( b). Mixed use means that government use is limited by geographic area, by time or by other means so as to guarantee that the potential use by government stations is substantially less than the potential use to be made by non- government stations. See Section 113( b)( 2)( B) of OBRA- 93. See 47 U. S. C. § 923( b)( 2)( B). 43 The three locations are Pascagoula, Mississippi; Pensacola, Florida; and Saint Inigoes, Maryland. Any unlicensed operations in the 3650 MHz band would be required to protect Federal Government operations at these locations from interference. 44 See First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making in ET Docket No. 98- 237, 15 FCC Rcd 20488, 20489 (2000). 45 Existing FSS operations are grandfathered on a primary basis. 46 Several parties filed petitions for reconsideration of the allocation decision, arguing that satellite operations in the band after December 1, 2000 should not be secondary to the new allocation. These parties are EchoStar Satellite Corporation, Extended C- Band Ad Hoc Coalition, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and Inmarsat, Ltd. 47 See Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00- 221, 17 FCC Rcd 368 (2002). The bands 1390- 1395 MHz, 1427- 1432 MHz and 1670- 1675 MHz were identified as possibilities for meeting the statutory requirement contained in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Section 3002( c), Pub. L. 105- 33, 111 Stat. 251- 258 (1997) (" BBA"). Note that the statute stipulated that the criteria for substitution was based on a determination that the auction of other spectrum better services the public interest, convenience, and necessity and can reasonably be expected to produce comparable receipts at auction. 10 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 13 27. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection during regular business hours in the Reference Information Center (Room CY- A257) of the Federal Communications Commission, The Portals, 445 Twelfth Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20554. Copies of comments and reply comments are available through the Commission's copy contractor, Qualex International. 28. Alternative formats (computer diskette, large print, audio cassette and Braille) are available to persons with disabilities by contacting the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418- 2514, TTY (202) 418- 2555, or at fccinfo@ fcc. gov. The Notice of Inquiry can also be downloaded at: www. fcc. gov/ dtf/. 29. To make cited sources more easily available to the readers, we are testing the use of hyperlinks to some FCC documents that are cited in this document. The World Wide Web addresses/ URLs that we give here were correct at the time this document was prepared but may change over time. We also advise that the only definitive text of FCC documents is the one that is published in the FCC Record. In case of discrepancy between the electronic documents cited here and the FCC Record, the version in the FCC Record is definitive. V. ORDERING CLAUSES 30. IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 4( i), 302, 303( e), 303( f), 303( r) and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U. S. C. Sections 154( i), 302, 303( e), 303( f), 303( r) and 307, this Notice of Inquiry IS HEREBY ADOPTED. 31. For further information regarding this Notice of Inquiry, contact Mr. Hugh L. Van Tuyl, Office of Engineering and Technology, (202) 418- 7506, e- mail hvantuyl@ fcc. gov. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Marlene H. Dortch Secretary 13 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 14 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL K. POWELL Re: Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band Americans have always been pioneers. We have used technology to open up the West, to explore the seas, and to enter space. Just as the American entrepreneurial spirit compelled those new frontiers, so must the Commission explore new spectrum frontiers made possible by technological change. Today’s item does just that. Technological advances now allow “smart” low power devices to communicate in spectral open spaces that were previously closed to development. These technological advances are great news for the American people. Our goal in today’s item is to allow for the more efficient and comprehensive use of the spectrum resource while not interfering with existing services. The Commission’s Spectrum Policy Task Force Report provided some guideposts to achieving that goal. Among the Task Force’s key findings was the obvious success of our current unlicensed spectrum policy model. Indeed, unlicensed devices have become ubiquitous, with estimated sales of over $2 billion. With that lesson in hand, whether or not we put in place policies that build on that success is the question we begin to answer today. 14 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 15 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KATHLEEN Q. ABERNATHY Re: Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, Notice of Inquiry I believe the power of unlicensed spectrum services – and the corresponding rise in consumer welfare – is one of the great success stories of U. S. telecommunications policy. Unlicensed devices have rapidly become commonplace in the American home and office; they are relied upon for many everyday functions in consumers’ lives. Unlicensed devices include cordless phones, computers, baby monitors, garage door openers, PDAs, and wireless local area networks. I recently have spoken about the need for the Commission and industry to think creatively and explore ways to create new unlicensed opportunities. This NOI represents an important step in that direction. We are striving to promote two important interests: ensuring that incumbents are protected from harmful interference and allowing innovative technologies to take advantage of unused spectrum. Since we are charged with effectively and efficiently harnessing the spectrum resource, the Commission must explore new ways to tap into that resource, consistent with our core responsibility to protect licensed users from harmful interference. 15 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 16 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER MICHAEL J. COPPS RE: Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band We are all excited about the potential of unlicensed spectrum and the benefits it can bring to American consumers. There is no question that our Part 15 rules and unlicensed technologies are extremely important to the future. Hopefully they will contribute to more innovative management of the spectrum. So I most definitely support exploring ways to make more spectrum available for unlicensed devices. The Commission is struggling with how to address what looks like a spectrum crunch that gets more dire every day. Our Part 15 rules and unlicensed technologies are extremely important to the future of the Commission’s management of the spectrum because they may provide us with spectrum resources that our current spectrum management paradigm doesn’t recognize. At the same time, we must find a way to balance the need to provide spectrum resources for innovators, entrepreneurs, and new technologies with the equally important need to avoid unacceptable levels of interference to incumbent users and consumers. The Part 15 rules and the use of unlicensed devices will play a central role in addressing this challenge. I hope that we will be able to determine the wisdom of the suggestions in this NOI, and then move quickly from ideas to action. Thanks to OET for its role in getting us to today. I am pleased that the Commission is charting this new path. 16 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 17 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF COMMISSIONER KEVIN J. MARTIN, APPROVING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART Re: Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices Below 900 MHz and in the 3 GHz Band, Notice of Inquiry I strongly support making more spectrum available for unlicensed devices. Unlicensed devices have been a huge success story, from cordless phones to wireless broadband connections, such as 802.11b and Bluetooth. I am hopeful that unlicensed operations will, as some have suggested, eventually provide a last- mile application to connect people’s homes to the Internet, offering a real alternative to telephone wires, cable, and satellite connections. I thus believe the Commission should consider a range of additional allocations for unlicensed devices. I have reservations, however, with this item’s inquiry into permitting additional unlicensed devices to operate in the TV broadcast bands at this time. While I support making more spectrum available for unlicensed use, I am concerned that opening this inquiry into the TV broadcast bands at this time may create additional uncertainty and potentially delay the digital transition. Under Chairman Powell’s leadership, we have taken several steps in the last year to facilitate the digital transition. While still trying to build momentum to move broadcast stations from analog into digital, I am hesitant to inject the additional complications caused by significant unlicensed use in the broadcast bands at this time. First, I fear that these unlicensed devices will create additional interference problems when digital television gets underway. Interference already threatens to impede the introduction of digital television. Although digital television stations have begun operating only in the last twelve months, we have received several reports of interference problems. For example, we are currently adjudicating a claim that a digital station in Norfolk, Virginia (WHRO- DT) is causing interference to an analog station in Salisbury, Maryland (WBOC- TV). This claim has been pending since June 11, 2002, and is an example of how interference can create significant problems that need to be resolved. At the same time, difficulties have surfaced for the existing unlicensed devices operating in the broadcast bands. Wireless microphone users, for example, are finding it increasingly difficult to find available spectrum. In this environment, I am reluctant to open an inquiry into allowing more unlicensed devices in the broadcast bands. Such an inquiry risks causing significant uncertainty, as licensees must consider the potential for additional interference as well as a new class of users with expectations for spectrum in these already crowded bands. In my view, we ought to concentrate on providing more – not less – certainty, so that licensees can develop rational business plans and move forward expeditiously with the digital transition. At the same time, I am somewhat skeptical of the benefits of opening this inquiry. As part of the digital transition, we have dramatically increased the number of broadcast licenses in the broadcast bands. Particularly in urban areas, such as along the east and west coasts, there is much less broadcast spectrum available within which unlicensed devices could operate effectively. There is much more broadcast spectrum available in rural areas. But I am concerned about the impact of unlicensed devices on TV viewers in rural areas. It is viewers in rural areas that are most likely to be without access to cable and to receive their TV from over- the- air broadcast signals. Moreover, many rural viewers receive their TV signals from great distances, beyond the so- called “grade B” contour, outside of which TV signals would typically not be guaranteed protection against interference. I fear that such unlicensed devices could interfere with the broadcast stations many rural viewers watch and that 17 Federal Communications Commission FCC 02- 328 18 rural viewers would lose the few broadcast signals upon which they rely. Such an outcome seems particularly unfair in light of last year’s decision not to grant pending applications for new TV stations for many rural communities in the lower 700 MHz band. See Reallocation and Service Rules for the 698- 746 MHz Spectrum Band (Television Channels 52- 59), Report and Order, GN Docket No. 01- 74, Separate Statement of Commissioner Kevin J. Martin (rel. Jan. 18, 2002). That decision denied numerous rural communities – such as Franklin, North Carolina, Blanco, Texas, and Fairmont, West Virginia – the opportunity to receive locally originated broadcast stations for the first time. Having refused to allow these communities new local stations – because we were concerned that there was not enough room left in the broadcast bands and because of the potential impact on the digital transition – it seems particularly inequitable to place distant rural signals at risk. Finally, I question the timing of this item. This item is based around several recommendations of the Commission’s Spectrum Policy Task Force Report. We only recently put that Report out for comment, with comments not even due until January 9, 2003, and reply comments not due until February 10, 2003. It seems odd to me to initiate this proceeding before we even receive any comments on the Task Force’s recommendations. If the Task Force Report was unnecessary for this item, the Commission could have released this item months ago, instead of delaying action for the Task Force to write its Report. If, on the other hand, the Task Force’s work was instrumental to this item, it would make more sense to wait for comment on the Report before proceeding. Either way, after we have waited for the Task Force to finish its Report, it seems odd not to wait an additional month for the initial comments on the Report. On balance, the speculative benefits of opening the broadcast band up, the risk to the digital transition, the potential harm to rural areas, and the pending proceeding on the Spectrum Task Force Report weigh against conducting this inquiry at this time. Accordingly, for all of the reasons above, I respectfully dissent in part. 18