Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules
to Govern the Operation of Wireless
Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band
Establishment of Rules and Policies for the
Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the
2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 07-293
IB Docket No. 95-91
GEN Docket No. 90-357
RM-8610
REPORT AND ORDER
AND
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
Adopted: May 20, 2010 Released: May 20, 2010
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 5
A. SDARS Overview............................................................................................................................ 7
B. WCS Overview .............................................................................................................................. 11
C. Procedural History ......................................................................................................................... 16
1. 1997 Further Notice................................................................................................................. 16
2. 2007 Notice ............................................................................................................................. 20
III. REPORT AND ORDER IN WT DOCKET NO. 07-293..................................................................... 28
A. Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 28
B. Systems Descriptions ..................................................................................................................... 37
C. WCS Mobile and Portable Device Power Limits .......................................................................... 41
D. WCS Mobile and Portable Device Out-of-Band Emissions Limits............................................... 83
E. WCS Base and Fixed Station and Customer Premises Equipment Power and Out-of-Band
Emissions Limits.......................................................................................................................... 114
1. WCS Base and Fixed Station Power Limits (WCS Blocks C and D) ................................... 130
2. WCS Base and Fixed Station Power Limits (WCS Blocks A and B) ................................... 131
3. WCS Base and Fixed Station Out-of-Band Emissions Limit................................................ 135
4. WCS Customer Premises Equipment.................................................................................... 137
5. Notification Requirement ...................................................................................................... 144
6. Legal Issues Raised by Sirius XM......................................................................................... 154
F. Deep Space Network, Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry Service, and Amateur Service
Operations.................................................................................................................................... 161
G. Performance Requirements.......................................................................................................... 188
1. Background............................................................................................................................ 188
2. Discussion.............................................................................................................................. 191
a. Mobile and Point-to-Multipoint Service Performance Requirements............................. 197
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
2
b. Point-to-Point Fixed Service Performance Requirements .............................................. 206
c. Performance Penalties..................................................................................................... 214
d. Relationship of New and Original Performance Requirements...................................... 218
e. Compliance Procedures................................................................................................... 222
IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER IN IB DOCKET NO. 95-91 ...................................................... 225
A. Terrestrial Repeater Power and Out-of-Band Emissions Limits.................................................. 226
1. Power Limits ......................................................................................................................... 226
2. Out-of-Band Emissions Limits.............................................................................................. 248
3. Grandfathering/Transition Period.......................................................................................... 251
B. Licensing Regime for Terrestrial Repeaters ................................................................................ 266
1. Blanket Licensing Regime .................................................................................................... 266
2. Notification Requirements..................................................................................................... 276
3. Collocation of SDARS and WCS Stations............................................................................ 280
4. Eligibility to Operate Terrestrial Repeaters........................................................................... 284
a. Use of Repeaters with Non-SDARS Satellites................................................................ 284
b. Use of Repeaters Outside of SDARS Satellite Service Area.......................................... 288
5. SDARS Environmental Impact and RF Safety...................................................................... 290
a. Environmental Assessment............................................................................................. 290
b. Blanket Licensing for High-Powered Repeaters............................................................. 292
c. Radio Frequency Safety Requirements for Very Low-Powered Repeaters.................... 295
6. Compliance with International Agreements.......................................................................... 297
7. Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures........................................................................ 299
8. Equipment Authorization ...................................................................................................... 301
C. Other SDARS Repeater Issues..................................................................................................... 305
1. Local Programming Origination from SDARS Repeaters .................................................... 305
2. Use of SDARS Spectrum for Repeaters................................................................................ 309
3. Retransmission of Regional Spot Beams............................................................................... 312
D. Petitions for Reconsideration ....................................................................................................... 314
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS.............................................................................................................. 316
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES..................................................................................................................... 318
APPENDIX A: List of Parties Filing Pleadings
APPENDIX B: Rule Revisions
APPENDIX C: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-293
APPENDIX D: Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, Second Report and Order in WT Docket No. 95-91
APPENDIX E: Testing in Ashburn, Virginia (July 28-29, 2009)
APPENDIX F: Applications for Additional Time to Meet the 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service
Substantial Service Performance Requirement
I. INTRODUCTION
1. By our actions today, we make available an additional 25 megahertz of spectrum for
mobile broadband service in much of the United States, while protecting adjacent satellite radio,
aeronautical mobile telemetry, and deep space network operations. Although the current technical rules
for Wireless Communications Service (WCS) in the 2.3 GHz band effectively limit terrestrial operations
to fixed services, we find today that these technical rules can be changed without risking harmful
interference to neighboring operations, and that these changes will enable licensees to provide mobile
broadband services in 25 megahertz of the WCS band. To ensure that the promise of mobile broadband is
realized, we adopt new build-out requirements for WCS licensees. In addition, to make possible
high-quality satellite radio services to the American public, we adopt rules governing the use of terrestrial
repeaters by Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service (SDARS) licensees.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
3
2. The current Part 27 rules preclude WCS licensees from providing mobile broadband
services, and the current Part 25 rules do not provide technical rules or a licensing regime for SDARS
terrestrial repeaters, which are currently authorized via special temporary authority on a non-interference
basis. In the Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-293, we adopt final rules for the WCS that will
modify the technical parameters governing the operation of WCS mobile and portable devices and
thereby provide WCS licensees with the ability to offer mobile broadband services, while limiting the
potential for harmful interference to incumbent services operating in adjacent bands. In the Second
Report and Order in IB Docket No. 95-91, we adopt technical rules governing the operation of SDARS
terrestrial repeaters that will not impede their deployment or function, but will limit the potential for
harmful interference to adjacent bands’ WCS spectrum users, and adopt a blanket-licensing regime for
SDARS repeaters to promote their flexible deployment.
3. Specifically, the Report and Order we adopt in WT Docket No. 07-293 establishes a
regulatory framework for the co-existence of SDARS and WCS licensees in the 2305-2360 MHz
(2.3 GHz) frequency band.
§ The Report and Order modifies the rules governing WCS operations to allow the operation of
mobile and portable1 stations at power levels of up to 250-milliwatts (mW) average equivalent
isotropically radiated power (EIRP) per 5 megahertz in WCS Blocks A and B and in the portions
of WCS Blocks C and D that are separated by 2.5 megahertz from the edges of the SDARS band
at 2320-2345 MHz (i.e., 2305-2317.5 and 2347.5-2360 MHz). WCS mobile and portable devices
are not permitted to operate in the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C and D blocks closest to
the SDARS band (i.e., 2317.5-2320 and 2345-2347.5 MHz). WCS mobile and portable devices
using time division duplex (TDD)2 technology are limited to a duty cycle3 of 38 percent. WCS
mobile and portable devices using frequency division duplex (FDD)4 technology are limited to a
duty cycle of 25 percent in the lower WCS A and B blocks and 12.5 percent in the 2.5-megahertz
portion of the WCS C block furthest from the SDARS band edge, and are restricted to
transmitting in the 2305-2317.5 MHz band. WCS mobile and portable devices must also employ
automatic transmit power control (ATPC) when operating so the devices use the minimum power
necessary for successful communications.5
1 Under the Commission’s rules for radio frequency (RF) exposure evaluation, a mobile device is defined as a
transmitting device designed to be used in other than fixed locations and to generally be used in such a way that a
separation distance of at least 20 centimeters is normally maintained between the transmitter’s radiating structure(s)
and the body of the user or nearby persons. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1091. A portable device is defined as a transmitting
device where the radiating structure(s) of the device is/are within 20 centimeters of the body of the user.
47 C.F.R. § 2.1093.
2 TDD is a radio communications technology where a single radio frequency band is divided into timeslots and used
for uplink (i.e., user device) and downlink (i.e., base station) transmissions.
3 Duty cycle (also known as duty factor) is the percentage of a transmission frame that a WCS user device uses to
transmit uplink information to the base station (i.e., the “on time” of a WCS user device’s transmitter in a given
transmission frame).
4 FDD is a radio communications technology where two separate radio frequency bands are used for uplink and
downlink transmissions.
5 ATPC is a feature of a digital microwave radio link that adjusts the transmitter output power based on the varying
signal level at the receiver. ATPC allows the transmitter to operate at less than maximum power for most of the
time, thereby minimizing the potential for intra and inter-service interference; when fading conditions occur,
transmit power is increased as needed until the maximum is reached. An ATPC equipped system has several
potential advantages over a fixed transmit power system, including less transmitter power consumption, longer
amplifier component life, and reduced interference potential to other microwave radio systems. See National
Spectrum Managers Association Recommendation WG 18.91.032 Automatic Transmit Power Control (ATPC) at 1,
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
4
§ Additionally, under the new rules we adopt today, WCS mobile and portable devices’ out-of-band
emissions (OOBE), as measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth,6 must be attenuated
below the transmitter power P by a factor not less than 43 + 10 log (P) decibels (dB) on all
frequencies between 2305-2317.5 MHz and on all frequencies between 2347.5-2360 MHz that
are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band,
where P is the transmitter output power in Watts. OOBE must also be attenuated by a factor of
not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 and 2360-2365 MHz bands, not less than
55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2296-2300 MHz band, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2292-2296 MHz band, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2288-2292 MHz band, and not less
than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz and above 2365 MHz.
§ WCS base and fixed stations in WCS Blocks A and B (i.e., 2305-2315 and 2350-2360 MHz) will
be permitted to operate with up to 2 kilowatts (kW) average EIRP per 5 megahertz with a 13 dB
peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR). Base and fixed stations in WCS Blocks C and D
(i.e., 2315-2320 and 2345-2350 MHz) are limited to the 2 kW per 5 megahertz peak EIRP limit
currently specified in our Rules. WCS base stations supporting FDD mobile and portable
operations are restricted to transmitting in the 2345-2360 MHz band. WCS base and fixed
stations’ OOBE must be attenuated below the transmitter power P by a factor of not less than
43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305-2320 MHz and on all frequencies between
2345-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB
on all frequencies in the 2320-2345 MHz band, not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305
and 2360-2362.5 MHz bands, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2362.5-2365 MHz band, not
less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2287.5-2300 MHz and 2365-2367.5 MHz bands, not less than
72 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2285-2287.5 and 2367.5-2370 MHz bands, and not less than
75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
The Report and Order also establishes enhanced performance requirements to ensure that WCS licensees
use the spectrum intensively in the public interest.
§ For mobile and point-to-multipoint services, licensees must serve 40 percent of a license area’s
population within 42 months, and 75 percent within 72 months. For fixed point-to-point services,
licensees must construct and operate 15 point-to-point links per million persons in a license area
within 42 months, and 30 links within 72 months. Licensees will not be required to satisfy
submarket construction requirements.
§ In those license areas where licensees must coordinate with aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT)
receive sites to serve a significant percentage of a market’s total population, we establish
alternative requirements for mobile and point-to-multipoint services. Specifically, affected
licensees must serve 25 (rather than 40) percent of the population within 42 months, and
50 (rather than 75) percent within 72 months.
(Continued from previous page)
available at http://www.nsma.org/recommendation/WG18-91-032.pdf (last visited Oct. 21, 2009). In our Part 27
Rules, we currently require a WCS portable device operating in the 2305-2315 MHz band to employ ATPC.
47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(9)(iv).
6 Consistent with our existing Rules for the 2.5 GHz band in Section 27.53(m)(6), however, in the 1-megahertz
bands immediately outside and adjacent to the WCS frequency blocks (i.e., at 2304-2305 and 2360-2361 MHz), a
resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental emission of the transmitter
may be employed, provided the measured power is integrated over a 1-megahertz bandwidth.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
5
4. The Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 95-91 provides permanent rules for the
operation of SDARS terrestrial repeaters, including establishing a blanket licensing regime for repeaters
operating up to 12-kW average EIRP. As part of this Second Report and Order, we also deny the
petitions for reconsideration of the 1997 SDARS Order7 filed by the Consumer Electronics Manufacturing
Association (CEMA)8 and the Cellular Phone Taskforce.9
II. BACKGROUND
5. A principal challenge in establishing a permanent regulatory framework for the
2305-2360 MHz frequency band has been the difficulty of resolving potential interference among the
proposed operations of SDARS and WCS licensees in a manner that will permit the two services to
co-exist. These interference concerns arise from the fact that these two very different services – one
chiefly satellite-based and the other terrestrial-based – are allocated to adjacent frequency bands, with no
guard bands separating the services.
6. Specifically, the SDARS and WCS services occupy 55 megahertz of spectrum from
2305-2360 MHz, in a portion of the radio frequency (RF) spectrum frequently referred to as the “S-band.”
SDARS occupies the center portion of this band, 2320-2345 MHz, and this spectrum is divided evenly
between two separate, but co-owned, SDARS networks, Sirius and XM.10 The WCS service occupies
frequencies on either side of the SDARS allocation and consists of six blocks of 5 megahertz each in the
2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands.11 The figure below shows the spectrum allocations in the
2305-2360 MHz bands.
2305-2360 MHz Band Plan (not to scale)
7 Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz
Frequency Band, Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
12 FCC Rcd 5754 (1997) (“SDARS Order and FNPRM”).
8 Petition for Reconsideration of the Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association, IB Docket No. 95-91
(Mar. 27, 1997) (“CEMA Reconsideration Petition”).
9 Petition for Partial Reconsideration of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, IB Docket No. 95-91 (Apr. 9, 1997)
(“Cellular Phone Taskforce Reconsideration Petition”).
10 The 2320-2332.5 MHz band was originally assigned to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (Sirius) (formerly, Satellite CD
Radio, Inc.), and the 2332.5-2345 MHz band was originally assigned to XM Radio Inc. (XM) (formerly, American
Mobile Radio Corporation). As discussed below, Sirius and XM have since merged to form a single company –
Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (Sirius XM) – but the merged entity continues to operate the Sirius and XM systems as
separate networks and there is still a separate license for each system. See Applications for Consent to the Transfer
of Control of Licenses XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc., Transferor, to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Transferee,
Memorandum Opinion and Order and Report and Order, MB Docket No. 07-57, 23 FCC Rcd 12348 (2008) (“SDARS
Merger Order”). Sirius and XM were separate entities at the time they filed pleadings in this proceeding prior to the
merger, but filed as the combined entity, Sirius XM, subsequent to the merger. We shall refer to them as separate
entities or the combined entity, hereafter, as appropriate.
11 The WCS spectrum is separated into paired blocks (A and B) that have been allocated on a regional basis, and
unpaired blocks (C and D) that have been allocated over very wide service areas. For more on the WCS spectrum
blocks, see infra, Section III.A.
2332.5 2345 2360 2355 2350
WCS
A Block
WCS
D Block
WCS
B Block
2336.225 2341.285 2324.54 2327.96
Sirius
Repeaters
Sirius
SDARS
Sirius
SDARS
XM
Repeaters
XM
SDARS
WCS
A Block
2305 2310 2315
WCS
B Block
WCS
C Block
2320
XM
SDARS
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
6
A. SDARS Overview
7. The Commission's rules define SDARS – commonly known as “satellite radio” – as "[a]
radiocommunication service in which audio programming is digitally transmitted by one or more space
stations directly to fixed, mobile, and/or portable stations, and which may involve complementary
repeating terrestrial transmitters, telemetry, tracking and control facilities."12 Thus, SDARS is primarily a
satellite-delivered service in which programming is sent directly from satellites to subscriber receivers
either at a fixed location or in motion. Because a direct line of sight is generally required in order to
receive an acceptable satellite signal, ground-based terrestrial repeaters are used in many areas to
re-transmit the same signals provided by satellites directly to subscribers in order to maintain adequate
signal power.13 These areas include “urban canyons” between tall buildings, heavily foliaged areas,
tunnels, and other places where obstructions could limit satellite visibility or cause multipath interference
from reflected signals.14
8. Licenses to provide SDARS within the United States were awarded by auction in early
April, 1997.15 The two winners of the auction – XM and Sirius – were each assigned 12.5 megahertz of
spectrum for their exclusive use on a primary basis.16 XM and Sirius launched their satellites and began
commercial operations in 2001 and 2002, respectively.17 As of March 31, 2010, Sirius XM reported it
had 18,944,199 subscribers in the conterminous United States.18
9. On August 5, 2008, the Commission approved the merger of XM and Sirius, which have
subsequently combined to form a merged entity called “Sirius XM.”19 In the merger proceeding, the
Commission found that significant engineering differences in the XM and Sirius infrastructures make
12 47 C.F.R. § 25.201.
13 See Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications
Services in the 2.3 GHz Band and Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service
in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 07-293 and IB Docket No. 95-91, 22 FCC Rcd 22123, 22123 n.2 (2007) (we refer to
the item containing the two notices as the “2007 Notice”).
14 Id.
15 See Public Notice, “FCC Announces Auction Winners for Digital Audio Radio Service,” 12 FCC Rcd 18727
(Apr. 2, 1997). Sirius and XM Radio paid a total of $173.2 million for the 2 SDARS licenses.
16 See American Mobile Radio Corporation Application for Authority to Construct, Launch, and Operate Two
Satellites in the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 8829 (Int’l Bur. 1997)
(“1997 XM Authorization Order”), modified by 16 FCC Rcd 18484, application for review denied, 16 FCC Rcd
21431 (2001), aff’d sub nom. Primosphere Ltd. Partnership v. FCC (Case Nos. 01-1526 and 1527), 2003 WL
472239 (C.A.D.C. Feb. 21, 2003); Satellite CD Radio, Inc. Application for Authority to Construct, Launch, and
Operate Two Satellites in the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, Order and Authorization, 13 FCC Rcd 7971
(Int’l Bur. 1997) (“1997 Sirius Authorization Order”), application for review denied, 16 FCC Rcd 21458 (2001),
aff’d sub nom. Primosphere Ltd. Partnership v. FCC (Case Nos. 01-1526 and 1527), 2003 WL 472239 (C.A.D.C.
Feb. 21, 2003).
17 XM Radio commenced nationwide commercial service in September 2001. Sirius began commercial service in
February 2002.
18 Sirius XM’s SEC Form 10-Q, filed May 7, 2010, lists 18,944,199 total subscribers; 9,157,165 subscribers on the
SIRIUS system and 9,787,034 subscribers on the XM system, as of March 31, 2010. See Sirius XM’s SEC Form
10-Q, available at http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100507/SIRIUS-XM-RADIO-INC_10-Q/. The conterminous
United States consists of the contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.
19 SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12351-52 ¶ 1. See also Sirius XM July 29, 2008, Press Release.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
7
integration of the two systems difficult in the short term.20 In addition, the Commission noted that XM
and Sirius had each invested significantly in their existing infrastructure, with the expectation of operating
this infrastructure for years to come.21 Thus, despite the merger of the two companies, the XM and Sirius
satellite and repeater infrastructures will operate as separate, legacy systems, at least in the near term.22
10. Sirius XM offers hundreds of channels of music, entertainment, news, and sports
programming on the Sirius and XM satellite radio networks, as well as weather and data information
services for maritime, aeronautical, and other purposes.23 SDARS radio receivers are used in cars, trucks,
boats, aircraft, and homes – and are available for portable use.24 All of Sirius XM’s arguments about
interference have focused on protecting SDARS receivers located in close proximity to mobile WCS
transmitters, particularly in automobiles.25 Thus, we analyze this worst-case interference scenario and
make our determinations accordingly. Nevertheless, the 2.5-megahertz WCS guard bands and the limits
on WCS customer premises equipment and mobile and portable devices’ power, OOBE, and duty cycle
that we are adopting, along with the signal attenuation that is attendant with the propagation of a WCS
signal through the walls of a structure, will be sufficient to prevent harmful interference to in-home
SDARS receivers.
B. WCS Overview
11. The Commission’s rules define WCS as a radiocommunication service licensed pursuant
to Part 27 of the Commission’s rules in specified frequency bands, including the 2305-2320 and
2345-2360 MHz bands.26 The Commission established the WCS in February 1997.27 Licensees in this
service are permitted to provide fixed, mobile, portable, and radiolocation services.28 The Commission
found that allowing a broad range of services would permit the development and deployment of new
telecommunications services and products to consumers.29 Specific potential services advocated by WCS
proponents in 1997 included high-speed wireless Internet access, return links for interactive cable and
broadcasting services, mobile data, fixed terrestrial use, and the provision of wireless local loop
services.30 The Commission auctioned 128 WCS licenses in April 1997.31 In July 1997, the Commission
issued licenses to the WCS auction winners.32
20 SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12360-61 ¶ 24.
21 SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12361 ¶ 24.
22 SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12360-61 ¶ 23.
23 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12351-52 ¶ 2. In addition, Sirius offers streaming video services in
select vehicles. Id.
24 SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12351-52 ¶ 2.
25 See Sirius XM Ex Parte dated Fed. 9, 2009; Sirius XM Ex Parte dated Aug. 11, 2009.
26 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.4, 27.5.
27 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service,
GN Docket No. 96-228, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 10785 (1997) (WCS Report and Order).
28 See id. at 10797 ¶ 25. The Commission also permitted WCS licensees to provide SDARS in the 2310-2320 and
2345-2360 MHz bands that were previously allocated to SDARS. See id.
29 See id. at 10798 ¶ 26.
30 See id. at ¶ 27.
31 See “WCS Auction Closes, Winning Bidders in the Auction of 128 Wireless communications Service Licenses, ”
Public Notice, DA 97-886, 12 FCC Rcd 21653 (rel. Apr. 28, 1997).. Seventeen winning bidders won 126 WCS
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
8
12. WCS Blocks A and B. In 1997, the Commission awarded WCS licenses for 2 paired
5-megahertz-wide channel blocks (WCS Blocks A and B) in 52 Major Economic Areas (MEAs)
authorizing service on 10 megahertz of spectrum.33 WCS Block A is comprised of spectrum at
2305-2310 MHz paired with 2350-2355 MHz. The lower band edge of Block A (2305 MHz) is adjacent
to a 5-megahertz-wide Amateur Radio Service band at 2300-2305 MHz,34 and second adjacent to Federal
Deep Space Network (DSN) Receivers at 2290-2300 MHz. WCS Block B is immediately above Block
A, and is comprised of spectrum at 2310-2315 MHz paired with 2355-2360 MHz. The upper band edge
of Block B (2360 MHz) is adjacent to an Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT) Service band at 2360-
2395 MHz.
13. WCS Blocks C and D. The Commission also awarded WCS licenses for 2 unpaired
5-megahertz-wide channel blocks (WCS Blocks C and D) in 12 Regional Economic Area Groupings
(REAGs) separately authorizing service on 5 megahertz of spectrum.35 WCS Block C is located at
2315-2320 MHz and is adjacent to the lower band edge of the SDARS spectrum at 2320-2345 MHz.
WCS Block D is located at 2345-2350 MHz and is adjacent to the upper band edge of the SDARS
spectrum.
14. Although the Commission permitted WCS licensees to provide both fixed and mobile
services, it adopted different power and OOBE limits for these two classes of service.36 For WCS fixed
operations in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands, the Commission adopted a power limit of 2 kW
peak EIRP.37 The Commission also required WCS fixed stations’ OOBE to be attenuated below the
transmitter power (P) within the SDARS frequencies of 2320-2345 MHz by a factor not less than
80 + 10 log (P) dB).38 For WCS mobile stations, the Commission adopted a peak power limit of 20-W
EIRP39 and required an OOBE attenuation factor of not less than 110 + 10 log (P) dB within the SDARS
frequencies.40 The Commission adopted these power and OOBE limits, in part, to protect neighboring
SDARS operations from harmful interference.41
(Continued from previous page)
licenses with total net bids of more than $13.6 million. Two licenses did not receive bids after a standing high bid
was withdrawn.
32 See Public Notice, “FCC Announces the Grant of Wireless Communications Service (“WCS”) Licenses, Balance
of Winning Bids are Due by August 4, 1997,” 13 FCC Rcd 4782 (rel. Jul. 21, 1997).
33 See Public Notice, April 28, 1997, 12 FCC Rcd 21653. An MEA map is available at
http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/mea.pdf.
34 47 C.F.R. § 97.303(j)(2)(i).
35 A REAG map is available at http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/data/maps/REAG.pdf.
36 An out-of-band emission is an “[e]mission on a frequency or frequencies immediately outside the necessary
bandwidth which results from the modulation process, but excludes spurious emissions.” 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.
37 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(a)(1).
38 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(1).
39 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(a)(2).
40 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(2). The rules for WCS portable devices operating in the 2305-2315 MHz band were slightly
relaxed, however. Specifically, in the 2305-2315 MHz band, WCS portable devices’ peak transmitter output power
was limited to 200 milliwatts (mW) (25 mW average power), and their OOBE in the 2320-2345 MHz band must
have been attenuated by a factor of not less than 93 + 10 log (P) dB. 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(9) and (a)(9)(iii).
41 Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communications Service,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, GN Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Rcd 3977, 3991 ¶ 25 (1997)
(“WCS Reconsideration Order”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
9
15. Originally, the Commission’s rules required WCS licensees to make a showing of
substantial service in their license areas by the end of their initial 10-year license term, which commenced
on July 21, 1997.42 However, in December 2006, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (WTB)
granted a 3-year extension of the construction deadline for certain WCS licensees.43 WCS licensees
argued, among other things, that the uncertainty regarding the rules governing the operation of
adjacent-band SDARS terrestrial repeaters had hindered WCS equipment development, network design,
and facility deployment, and that an extension would allow them to deploy newly developed WiMAX44
technology in the 2.3 GHz band in the next few years.45 WTB found that the possibility of WiMAX
deployment warranted a 3-year extension of the initial 10-year construction requirement.46 Thus, the
current deadline for meeting the construction requirements set forth in Section 27.14 of the Commission's
rules was extended until July 2010 for WCS licensees.
C. Procedural History
1. 1997 Further Notice
16. Although the Commission adopted service rules for most aspects of SDARS operations in
1997,47 it did not adopt rules governing terrestrial repeater operations at that time. Instead, the
Commission concurrently issued a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (1997 Further Notice)
seeking comment on the proposed use and authorization of SDARS terrestrial repeaters.48 The
1997 Further Notice acknowledged the SDARS applicants' intention to use repeaters in conjunction with
their satellite systems and proposed authorizing deployment of SDARS repeaters on an “as-needed” basis
in order to meet service requirements.49 The 1997 Further Notice also invited comment to address any
potential impact that the operation of SDARS repeaters would have on the services of neighboring
countries and on any potential effects RF emissions from SDARS repeaters may have on the public.50 In
addition, the 1997 Further Notice sought comment on how the Commission’s Rules could ensure that any
use of SDARS repeaters remains complementary to the satellite service, as well as on the tentative
conclusion to prohibit the use of SDARS repeaters to transmit locally originated programming.51
42 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a).
43 Consolidated Request of the WCS Coalition for Limited Waiver of Construction Deadline for 132 WCS Licenses,
Order, 21 FCC Rcd 14134 (2006) (“WCS Extension Order”).
44 WiMAX (Worldwide Interoperability for Microwave Access) is a wireless broadband access technology based on
the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.16 standard which supports delivery of
non-line-of-sight connectivity between a subscriber station and base station with a typical cell radius of 3 to
10 kilometers. WiMAX can support fixed and nomadic, as well as portable and mobile wireless broadband
applications. The latest version of the standard on which WiMAX is based, IEEE 802.16(e), has specifications for
the 2 to 11 GHz range, uses scalable orthogonal frequency division multiple access (OFDMA), and supports both
FDD and TDD profiles. See generally http://www.wimaxforum.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions.
45 WCS Extension Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 14137 ¶ 5.
46 WCS Extension Order, 21 FCC Rcd at 14140-41 ¶ 12.
47 Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz
Frequency Band, Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
12 FCC Rcd 5754 (1997) (“SDARS Order and FNPRM” or “1997 Further Notice”).
48 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5810-12 ¶¶ 138-142.
49 See id. at 5812 ¶ 142.
50 See id.
51 See id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
10
17. In response to the 1997 Further Notice and later supplemental filings by Sirius and XM,52
the WCS licensees expressed concern about the possibility of harmful blanketing interference to WCS
base stations and customer premises equipment (CPE) from SDARS repeaters operating at more than
2 kW EIRP.53 In addition to WCS licensees, Broadband Radio Service (BRS) and Educational
Broadband Service (EBS) (formerly Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) and Instructional Television
Fixed Service (ITFS), respectively) licensees operating in the 2150-2162 and 2496-2690 MHz frequency
bands raised similar concerns.54 Specifically, WCS, BRS, and EBS licensees raised concerns over two
types of potential interference from SDARS repeater operations: “blanketing interference” and “third
order intermodulation distortion (IMD).”55 More recently, the WCS licensees have raised concerns
regarding overload and adjacent band OOBE interference to WCS base stations from SDARS terrestrial
repeaters.56
18. SDARS licensees generally acknowledged the possibility of blanketing interference and
IMD, but opposed placing a 2 kW EIRP limit on their repeater operations. SDARS licensees argued that
such a limit would impose substantial costs on SDARS licensees and that WCS and other terrestrial
wireless licensees could mitigate any potential interference from SDARS repeater operations,
respectively, by converting wireless operations from analog to digital, and by using WCS
down-converters that are sufficient to protect against interference from the proposed SDARS repeaters.57
52 See Letter from Robert D. Briskman, Chief Technical Officer, CD Radio Inc., to Rosalee Chiara, Deputy Chief,
Satellite Policy Branch, International Bureau, FCC, dated Nov. 14, 1997; Letter from William Garner, Chief
Scientist, American Mobile Radio Corporation, to Rosalee Chiara, Deputy Chief, Satellite Policy Branch,
International Bureau, FCC, dated Nov. 14, 1997; Supplemental Comments of Sirius Satellite Radio (filed
Jan. 18, 2000) (Sirius Supplemental Comments); Supplemental Comments of XM Radio Inc. (filed Dec. 17, 1999)
(XM Radio Supplemental Comments).
53 See WCS Coalition Comments (dated Dec. 14, 2001) at 3-4. Blanketing interference occurs when a receiver is
near a relatively high-powered adjacent-band transmitter and the high power overloads the components of the
receiver and prevents reception of the desired signal by the receiver. See Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., Application for
Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service Complementary Terrestrial
Repeaters, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 16773, 16774 n.5 (Int’l Bur. 2001) (“Sirius 2001 STA Order”);
XM Radio, Inc., Application for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service
Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 16781, 16782 n.5 (Int’l Bur. 2001)
(“XM Radio 2001 STA Order”).
54 See Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA) Comments (filed Feb. 22, 2000) at 2;
BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. Comments (filed Feb. 22, 2000) at 6-7. See also
Metricom, Inc. Reply Comments (filed March 8, 2000) at 2-3; MCI WorldCom, Inc. Reply Comments (filed March
8, 2000) at 2-3, and WCS Coalition Comments at 2-3 (filed Dec. 14, 2001) at 3-4.
55 The SDARS licensees operate their terrestrial repeaters in the middle of their authorized frequency bands
(i.e., 2324.54-2327.96 MHz for Sirius and 2336.225-2341.285 for XM). WCS licensees fear that the SDARS
repeater frequencies will cause IMD interference when they mix with WCS transmission frequencies to form higher
frequencies that will land directly in the WCS band and render WCS receivers inoperable. See WCS Coalition
Comments (filed Dec. 14, 2001) at 3-4.
56 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Reply Comments, WT Docket No. 07-293, filed March 17, 2008, at 18-26, and WCS
Coalition Comments, WT Docket No. 07-293, filed February 14, 2008, at 21-22. Overload interference, like
blanketing interference, occurs when a receiver is near a relatively high-powered adjacent band transmitter and the
high power from the transmitter overloads the components of the receiver and prevents reception of the desired
signal. See n.53, supra. Out-of-band emissions (OOBE) from an adjacent-channel licensee’s transmitter are
received in-band to the desired signal’s receiver and if over a prescribed limit, can interfere with and prevent the
reception of the desired transmitter’s signal.
57 See Reply Comments of Sirius Satellite Radio (filed Mar. 8, 2000) at 2-3; Consolidated Reply of XM Radio Inc.
(filed Mar. 8, 2000) at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
11
We note that since the inception of this proceeding, BRS and EBS licensees operating in the
2150-2162 and 2496-2690 MHz bands have converted from analog to digital technology. With this
transition, coupled with the large frequency separation between the SDARS operations and the BRS/EBS
operations, there have not been any complaints of interference to BRS or EBS operations from SDARS
terrestrial repeaters’ transmissions even though a substantial number of SDARS repeaters have been
operating with an EIRP greater than 2 kW.
19. Commission staff met with SDARS and WCS licensees several times in 2001 to
supplement the record on these issues. 58 In November 2001, the International Bureau sought comment on
various additional proposals to resolve interference (“2001 Public Notice”),59 but the supplemental record
developed in response to that Public Notice did not provide a basis for resolving these issues.60 Because
of the inability to reach a consensus on final rules, SDARS licensees have been operating terrestrial
repeaters pursuant to grants of special temporary authority (STA), which were granted on a
non-interference basis and subject to other conditions.61
2. 2007 Notice
20. In May 2002, at the request of SDARS and WCS licensees, the Commission decided to
refrain from adopting SDARS repeater rules and to allow SDARS and WCS licensees to attempt to
resolve the interference concerns privately.62 Although initially promising, the negotiations were
ultimately unsuccessful.63 After nearly 4 years of private negotiations, Sirius filed a White Paper in
which it examined the technical difficulties involved in SDARS and WCS co-existence in the S-band.64
In October 2006, Sirius filed a petition for rulemaking which included new proposals for resolving
interference issues between SDARS and WCS licensees.65 Sirius’ proposals were based chiefly on its
previously-filed White Paper. XM supported Sirius’ proposals and urged the Commission to seek
58 For example, the International, Wireless Telecommunications, and Media Bureaus of the Commission – together
with the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology – held industry meetings on January 11, 2001,
March 1, 2001, and August 30, 2001, with the SDARS licensees’ and WCS licensees’ representatives in an attempt
to craft solutions to the SDARS-WCS interference issues. See Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand, Counsel for WCIA,
to Secretary, FCC, dated Jan. 11, 2001; Letter from Carl R. Frank, Counsel for Sirius, to Secretary, FCC, dated
Mar. 2, 2001; Letter from Donald C. Brittingham, Director of Spectrum Policy, Verizon, to Secretary, FCC, dated
Aug. 31, 2001.
59 Request for Further Comment on Selected Issues Regarding the Authorization of Satellite Digital Audio Radio
Service Terrestrial Repeater Networks, Public Notice, Report No. SPB-176, 16 FCC Rcd 19435 (Int’l Bur., 2001)
(2001 Public Notice).
60 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22127 ¶ 10.
61 See generally Sirius 2001 STA Order and XM 2001 STA Order. Since 2001, both Sirius and XM have submitted
additional STA requests seeking to modify their repeater networks or to add new repeaters. A full list of SDARS
STA requests are available through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), which is available online at
http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs.
62 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22127 ¶ 10.
63 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22127 ¶ 10.
64 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22128 ¶ 12, citing White Paper: Interference to the SDARS Service from WCS
Transmitters, attached to Letter from Carl R. Frank, Counsel to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 05-256 and IB Docket No. 95-91 (Mar. 29, 2006) (“Sirius 2006 White Paper”).
65 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22128 ¶ 12, citing Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Petition for Rulemaking and Comments
(filed Oct. 17, 2006) (“2006 Sirius Petition for Rulemaking”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
12
comment on them expeditiously.66 In response to Sirius’ petition, WCS licensees offered their own
counter-proposals for the resolution of SDARS and WCS interference issues.67
21. The Commission determined that Sirius’ proposal and WCS licensees’ counterproposal
could provide a basis for resolving the ongoing issues of potential interference between SDARS terrestrial
repeaters and WCS stations.68 The Commission also decided to take the opportunity to update and refresh
the record on other issues raised in the 1997 Further Notice and the 2001 Public Notice.69 Accordingly,
in December 2007, the Commission issued a Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in
IB Docket No. 95-91, inviting comment on issues related to the operation of SDARS terrestrial repeaters.
In order to have the greatest flexibility in resolving interference issues between SDARS and WCS
licensees and develop a record that would enable the provision of innovative broadband services in the
2.3 GHz WCS band, the Commission also issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in a new docket
(WT Docket No. 07-293), which sought comment on proposals to make changes to the Commission’s
rules in Part 27 governing WCS operations.70 In response to the Commission’s notice, eight comments
were filed on February 14, 2008, and five reply comments were filed on March 17, 2008.71 Since the
closing of the comment periods, numerous ex parte presentations have been made in these proceedings.72
22. In a related matter, the current performance requirements (also known as “buildout” or
“construction” requirements) for all spectrum blocks in the 2.3 GHz WCS band is a substantial showing
at the end of the license term.73 On March 29, 2010, the Commission sought comment on whether, if we
alter the technical rules for this band, we should also revise the substantial service performance
requirements (WCS Performance Public Notice).74 Specifically, the Commission sought comment on
particular reliable signal and license area coverage benchmarks for WCS mobile and point-to-multipoint
services and possible alternatives, on particular link construction and operation benchmarks for WCS
66 See 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22128 ¶ 12.
67 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22128 ¶ 12, citing Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand, Counsel to the WCS Coalition, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, dated July 9, 2007 (“WCS July 2007 Letter”).
68 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22124 ¶ 2 and 22128-29 ¶ 14.
69 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22128-29 ¶ 14.
70 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22124 ¶ 3.
71 A list of these commenters and reply commenters is shown in Appendix A to this Order. Pleadings filed in
response to the 1997 Further Notice and the 2001 Public Notice are listed in Appendix A to this Order. In addition,
a number of parties in the SDARS Merger proceeding, MB Docket No. 07-57, filed arguments related to that
proceeding in these proceedings. In some cases, repeater issues were relevant to the proposed merger of Sirius and
XM. The Commission addressed those issues in the context of the merger, and we referenced those conclusions in
this proceeding. Other repeater issues that were raised in the context of the merger, however, were not relevant to
the merger. To the extent that those arguments were not also raised in these proceedings, they were filed in a
procedurally deficient manner, and therefore will not be considered further.
72 A list of significant ex parte presentations relied on in this Order is included in Appendix A.
73 Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's rules provides that 2.3 GHz WCS licensees “must, as a performance
requirement, make a showing of ‘substantial service’ in their license area within the prescribed license term set forth
in § 27.13.” 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a). The rule defines substantial service “as service which is sound, favorable and
substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.” Id. Section 27.14(a)
provides that failure by any WCS licensee to meet its performance “requirement will result in forfeiture of the
license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.” Id.
74 See Federal Communications Commission Requests Comment on Revision of Performance Requirements for
2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service, WT Docket No. 07-293, Public Notice, FCC 10-46, 75 Fed. Reg. 17349
(rel. Mar. 29, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
13
point-to-point services and possible alternatives, and on related construction notification filing
requirements.75 In response to the Commission’s WCS Performance Public Notice, six comments were
filed by April 21, 2010; seven reply comments were filed by May 3, 2010.76
23. On April 2, 2010, Commission staff issued a public notice seeking comment on draft
interference rules for the WCS and SDARS (WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice).77 Specifically,
Commission staff sought comment on provisions intended to minimize the risk of harmful interference
from WCS mobile and portable devices to SDARS, AMT, and DSN receivers. In addition, Commission
staff sought comment on draft technical rules for SDARS terrestrial repeaters intended to minimize the
potential for harmful interference to WCS receivers. Commission staff also sought comment on licensing
provisions for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, as well as rules regarding the use of terrestrial repeaters to
originate local programming.78 In response to the Commission staff’s WCS/SDARS Technical Rules
Public Notice, 14 comments were filed by April 23, 2010.79
24. In the mid-1990’s when the Commission allocated spectrum and adopted service rules for
WCS and SDARS, only general information was available on what new wireless applications might be
deployed in the WCS spectrum and minimal information was provided on how the SDARS licensees
intended to deploy terrestrial repeaters or gap-fillers. The wireless sector, however, has seen dramatic
growth in the past decade. Wireless subscribers grew from approximately 24 million subscribers in 1994
to more than 263 million by the end of 2007.80 The National Broadband Plan recognized that the
convergence of Internet computing and mobile communications is rapidly fueling the demand for mobile
broadband services.81 The 2.3 GHz WCS spectrum will help to increase the supply of flexible use
spectrum that can be used to address the explosive nationwide growth in consumer demand for mobile
broadband services.
25. The SDARS licensees have seen dramatic increases in subscribers since they initiated
service only a few short years ago. As of the end of 2009, there were over 18 million consumers
subscribing to SDARS throughout the conterminous United States, with the large majority of them using
the service while in their automobiles.82 To help improve the quality of the consumers’ audio experience,
the SDARS licensees have deployed significant numbers of repeaters mainly in large market areas83
where satellite coverage could be blocked or attenuated.
75 Id. at 2-3.
76 A list of these commenters is shown in Appendix A to this Order.
77 See Commission Staff Requests That Interested Parties Supplement the Record On Draft Interference Rules for
Wireless Communications Service and Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service, WT Docket No. 07-293, IB Docket
No. 95-91, GEN Docket No. 90-357, RM No. 8610, Public Notice, DA 10-592 (rel. Apr. 2, 2010).
78 Id.
79 A list of these commenters is shown in Appendix A to this Order.
80 See Implementation of Section 6002(b) of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, WT Docket
No. 08-27; Annual Report and Analysis of Competitive Market Conditions With Respect to Commercial Mobile
Services, Thirteenth Report, 24 FCC Rcd 6185, 6280-81 ¶ 197 (WTB 2009).
81 See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan at 75.
82 See Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for Fiscal Year Ended
December 31, 2009, Sirius XM Radio Inc. (filed February 25, 2010), at 2, available at
http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/SIRI/902162459x0xS950123-10-17181/908937/filing.pdf.
83 Today, the top 15 markets covered by repeaters include Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Detroit, Las Vegas, Los
Angeles, Miami, Minneapolis, New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, DC.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
14
26. Because both services target the same types of consumers (i.e., those who are mobile,
particularly in vehicles for long periods of time), the anticipated growth of these services presents the
potential for mutual interference under certain scenarios. For example, a mobile WCS transmitter may
cause interference to a mobile SDARS receiver when the SDARS receiver is in close proximity to the
WCS transmitter. Alternatively, when the SDARS terrestrial repeaters and WCS base stations are serving
the same geographic areas (i.e., in dense urban areas and along major corridors leading to and from those
areas), the relatively higher power repeaters have a potential to interfere with WCS mobile station and
base station receivers. Our objective in this proceeding is to foster the co-existence of these services
despite the technical difficulties that arise from them being in close proximity to each other, both
geographically and in the radio frequency spectrum.
27. Over the past several years, we have provided numerous opportunities for the parties to
come to an agreement that would facilitate Commission adoption of rules for both services and provide
for their deployment and growth without many of the uncertainties that still exist today. Our efforts to
persuade the parties to come to agreement have been unsuccessful, however, and the time to bring closure
to this long-standing rulemaking has arrived. Our approach to move forward is described in detail in the
following sections.
III. REPORT AND ORDER IN WT DOCKET NO. 07-293
A. Introduction
28. Our objective in this Report and Order is to craft WCS service rules that will allow the
WCS to co-exist with adjacent band SDARS without reaching the threshold of SDARS experiencing
harmful interference.84 The service rules we adopt today will not result in an environment where
interference will never occur under any circumstances. However, based on the technical record of this
proceeding, the results of several tests conducted by Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition,85 and FCC staff
observations of tests Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition each conducted in Ashburn, VA, we are confident
that the instances where WCS would seriously degrade or obstruct or repeatedly interrupt SDARS
reception will be rare. Furthermore, consistent with the Commission’s long-standing policies of
maintaining technical and service neutrality in its rules and allowing flexible spectrum use by licensees,
we adopt rules that remain technology neutral instead of adopting rules that mandate the use of a
particular technology or service. Our requirements for the WCS power limits and OOBE attenuation are
based on a balancing of the need to provide for multiple types of mobile broadband platforms and the
need to protect SDARS mobile receivers from harmful interference.
29. As explained below, we find that the public interest will be served by revising certain
WCS power and OOBE rules to enable the deployment of mobile broadband services in the WCS bands.
Balancing the competing interests of SDARS and WCS providers, considering commenters’ technical
proposals, and basing our decisions on the extensive technical record, as well as on the results of the
testing Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition each performed in Ashburn, Virginia,86 we are adopting rules,
as explained below, that are crafted to limit the potential for harmful interference to satellite radio users in
84 Harmful interference is defined as: “Interference which endangers the functioning of a radionavigation service or
of other safety services or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication service
operating in accordance with [the ITU] Radio Regulations. 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.
85 The WCS Coalition was founded by the Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (“WCA”) and
includes Horizon Wi-Com LLC (“Horizon”), AT&T Inc., Comcast Corporation, NTELOS Inc. and NextWave
Broadband Inc., who collectively hold virtually all the 2305-2320/2345-2360 MHz WCS spectrum within the United
States. See WCS Coalition Comments (dated Feb. 14, 2008) at 1, n.1.
86 See paras. 55-58 and 93-96, infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
15
the SDARS band and foster the provision of mobile services by WCS providers. Specifically, we
decrease the power limit for mobile device operations in WCS spectrum Blocks A and B, and the
2.5-megahertz portions of WCS Blocks C and D that are furthest removed from the SDARS band (i.e.,
2305-2317.5 and 2347.5-2360 MHz) from the current 20-W EIRP limit to a 250-mW average EIRP per
5 megahertz limit. Mobile and portable devices using TDD are limited to an uplink duty cycle of
38 percent. Mobile and portable devices using FDD technology are limited to an uplink duty cycle of
25 percent and are restricted to transmitting in the 2305-2317.5 MHz band.87 WCS mobile and portable
devices are not permitted to operate in the 2.5-megahertz portions of WCS Blocks C and D closest to the
SDARS band (i.e., 2317.5-2320 and 2345-2347.5 MHz). WCS mobile and portable devices must also use
ATPC when operating, so the device operates with the minimum power necessary for successful
communications.88
30. For mobile and portable WCS devices operating in the WCS A and B blocks and the
2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C and D blocks furthest removed from the SDARS band, we also
relax the OOBE attenuation factors of 110 + 10 log (P) dB and 93 + 10 log (P) dB, respectively, that
currently apply to these devices’ emissions into the 2320-2345 MHz SDARS band. Specifically, as
measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth, these WCS mobile and portable devices’ OOBE must
be attenuated below the transmitter power P by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all
frequencies between 2305-2317.5 MHz and between 2347.5-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band
of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, not less than
61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, and not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2328-2337 MHz band, where P is the transmitter output power in Watts.89 In addition, the OOBE from
WCS mobile and portable devices must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2300-2305 and 2360-2365 MHz bands, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2296-2300 MHz band, not
less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2292-2296 MHz band, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2288-2292 MHz band, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz and above 2365 MHz.
31. Furthermore, we relax the OOBE attenuation required for WCS customer premises
equipment (CPE) stations. Specifically, for fixed CPE transmitting with more than 2-W average EIRP,
the power of any emissions must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all
frequencies between 2305-2320 MHz and on all frequencies between 2345-2360 MHz that are outside the
licensed band of operation, not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies in the 2320-2345 MHz
band, not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 and 2360-2362.5 MHz bands, not less than
55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2362.5-2365 MHz band, not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2287.5-2300
MHz and 2365-2367.5 MHz bands, not less than 72 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2285-2287.5 and 2367.5-
2370 MHz bands, and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
32. For fixed CPE transmitting with 2 watts average EIRP or less, the power of any
emissions must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between
2305-2320 MHz and between 2345-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less
than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, and not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band. In
addition, OOBE must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 and
2360-2365 MHz bands, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2296-2300 MHz band, not less than
87 Average power is determined only when a device is transmitting and does not include periods of time when the
device is turned off.
88 See n.5, supra.
89 Under current Section 27.53(a)(9), portable devices in the 2305-2315 MHz band may operate subject to an OOBE
attenuation factor of 93 + 10 log (P) dB into the SDARS band, provided that they meet certain technical
requirements. 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(9).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
16
61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2292-2296 MHz band, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2288-2292 MHz
band, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz and above 2365 MHz.
33. For WCS base stations supporting WCS mobile, portable, and CPE devices, we adopt an
OOBE attenuation factor below the transmitter power P of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all
frequencies between 2305-2320 MHz and on all frequencies between 2345-2360 MHz that are outside the
licensed band of operation, not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies in the 2320-2345 MHz
band, not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 and 2360-2362.5 MHz bands, not less than
55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2362.5-2365 MHz band, not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2287.5-2300 MHz and 2365-2367.5 MHz bands, not less than 72 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2285-2287.5 and
2367.5-2370 MHz bands, and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
All of these emission limits will be measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth.
34. Moreover, we relax the current 2-kW power limit for base and fixed station operations in
WCS Blocks A and B90 by measuring the power on an average, rather than peak, basis and adopt a
peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of 13 dB to better enable the use of technologies such as Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA), Wideband CDMA (WCDMA), and Orthogonal Frequency Division
Multiplexing (OFDM).91 We also recognize that the OFDM-based technologies currently contemplated
for various fourth generation (4G) air interface technologies that could be deployed in this band are being
improved in order to reduce peak power and thus, by extension, the PAPR on the uplink, which is a
source of SDARS licensees’ concerns regarding interference from WCS operations. Further, to minimize
the potential impact on satellite radio users, we are retaining the more stringent 2 kW peak EIRP limit for
base and fixed station operations in WCS Blocks C and D, which are immediately adjacent to satellite
radio downlinks in the SDARS band.
35. As discussed in more detail below, we are also requiring that WCS entities coordinate the
deployment of their base stations with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA’s)
Deep Space Network Facility at Goldstone, CA, which operates below 2300 MHz, and with AMT
operations at various locations, which operate on frequencies above 2360 MHz.
36. In this Report and Order, we also seek to promote broadband competition and facilitate
the development and provision of innovative broadband services, including mobile broadband services, to
the American public in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands allocated to WCS.92 The actions we
90 47 C.F.R § 27.50(a)(1).
91 CDMA is a wideband spread-spectrum technology that, inter alia, employs a special coding scheme, with each
signal assigned a digital code. OFDM is a digital multi-carrier modulation scheme in which each signal is split into
multiple smaller sub-signals that are then transmitted simultaneously at different frequencies to the receiver. But
OFDM-based technologies can exhibit infrequent undesired power spikes. The larger the power spike, the greater
the magnitude of the PAPR. There are, however, a number of solutions, both theoretical and practical, that can be
used to substantially mitigate the effects of the PAPR. Examples of PAPR reduction include the use of
simultaneously transmitted independently modulated streams in the uplink, based on Discrete Fourier Transform
Spread-OFDM (DFTS-OFDM), as well as interleaved sub-carriers schemes that are currently being implemented in
long term evolution (LTE) networks. Although such schemes are not part of the IEEE’s 802.16e standard, the IEEE
802.16m study group is working on a similar scheme for its uplink/reverse link.
92 WCS licensees may provide any service for which their frequency bands are allocated, including fixed, mobile,
radiolocation, and audio broadcasting-satellite services. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.106, 27.2(a). WCS proposals are based
in large part on the desired use of the WiMAX, which is a protocol based on the harmonized IEEE 802.16/ETSI
High Performance Metropolitan Area Network (HiperMAN) standard. WiMAX is sometimes referred to as the
Wireless Metropolitan Area Network (WirelessMAN) standard and is used to provide fixed and mobile broadband
services over distances ranging up to 10 miles (16 km), with average cell ranges for most WiMAX networks in the
4-5 mile range (6.4-8 km), depending, inter alia, on the frequency. See “What is the Range of WiMAX?” at
http://www.wimax.com/education/faq/faq/31. In fixed WiMAX networks, both the base stations and subscriber
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
17
take in this order are designed to further our strategic broadband goal that “[a]ll Americans should have
affordable access to robust and reliable broadband products and services.”93 In achieving this critical
broadband goal, we must also safeguard the public’s interest in continuing to receive and enjoy diverse
satellite radio services, which are provided in the interstitial 2320-2345 MHz SDARS band. The relaxed
technical rules that we adopt today and other related actions are intended to limit the potential for harmful
interference to satellite radio users, while enabling WCS licensees to deliver mobile broadband services to
the public, including to individuals residing in rural and underserved areas of the United States.
B. Systems Descriptions
37. Descriptions of Satellite Radio Network Designs. Sirius XM operates two satellite radio
networks, the Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., network and the XM Radio, Inc., network. We will refer to
these as the Sirius network and the XM network, respectively. The Sirius network provides service
directly to subscribers via a fleet of three satellites in highly-elliptical orbits (HEOs) and a satellite in
geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) at the 96° West Longitude (W.L.) orbital location.94 Sirius has also
been granted authority to launch and operate a satellite to eventually replace two of its three in-orbit
non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) satellites,95 but has filed an application to convert this NGSO
replacement satellite into a GSO satellite.96 The Sirius network serves subscribers throughout the
conterminous United States and includes a network of terrestrial repeaters in urban areas to re-transmit
the SDARS signal to subscribers in areas where the satellite signal is blocked or degraded. That is, the
terrestrial repeaters are deployed in order to maintain adequate signal power in areas where there are tall
buildings, tunnels, heavy foliage, or other obstructions.97 The XM network provides its service directly to
(Continued from previous page)
stations are stationary during use. In mobile WiMAX networks, subscriber stations (mobile and portable devices)
may move during operation. Additional information regarding WiMAX technologies and their deployment is
available on the WIMAX Forum’s website. See http://www.wimaxforum.org/home/. See WCS Coalition
Comments at 4-7, 27-28, 30-32, 34; WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 2-8. Although the WCS Coalition has
indicated that WCS licensees would prefer to implement systems based on TDD technology, we are not prohibiting
the implementation of WCS systems based on FDD technology. See WCS Coalition Ex Parte dated
January 29, 2010, at 2.
93 See FCC Strategic Plan for FY 2009-2014 at 6, available at http://www.fcc.gov/omd/strategicplan/#goals. The
broadband goal also provides that our “[r]egulatory policies must promote technological neutrality, competition,
investment, and innovation to ensure that broadband service providers have sufficient incentive to develop and offer
such products and services.” Id.
94 The Commission originally licensed Sirius to launch and operate 2 satellites in geostationary orbit at the 80° and
110° West Longitude orbital locations. 1997 Sirius Authorization Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 7971, 7994. Sirius later
requested, and was granted, authority to change its satellite configuration from two geostationary satellites to three
satellites in a highly elliptical non-geostationary orbit (NGSO). Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Minor Modification of
License to Construct, Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service System, Order
and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 5419 (Int’l Bur. 2001). Sirius brought its first geostationary SDARS satellite, Sirius
FM-5, into operation on August 25, 2009. Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Application for Authority to Launch and
Operate SIRIUS FM-5, a Geostationary Satellite, to Provide Satellite Digital Audio Radio Services, IBFS File No.
SAT-LOA-20060901-00096 (granted April 16, 2007).
95 See Satellite CD Radio, Inc., Application for Modification of Authority, IBFS File No. SAT-MOD-20080521-
00110 (granted Sept. 17, 2008).
96 See Satellite CD Radio, Inc., Application for Authority to Launch and Operate the FM-6 Satellite, IBFS File No.
SAT-LOA-20100409-00072 (filed April 9, 2010).
97 See, e.g., Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., Application for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital
Audio Radio Service Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 16773 (Int’l Bur.
2001) (“Sirius STA Order”). See also Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Order, FCC 08-176 (adopted July 25, 2008)
(“Sirius Consent Decree Order”). Sirius states that it plans to deploy a significant number of additional terrestrial
repeaters in the future. See Sirius Form 10-K at 18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
18
subscribers via satellites located at the nominal geostationary orbit locations of 85° W.L. and 115° W.L.98
From these orbital locations, the XM network is able to provide service to the conterminous United
States, as well as parts of Alaska.99 The XM system also includes a network of terrestrial repeaters,
greater in number than those of the Sirius system, which are used to re-transmit XM’s signal in areas
where the satellite signal may be degraded or obstructed by tall buildings, heavy foliage, and/or
tunnels.100 Sirius XM operates all terrestrial repeaters pursuant to grants of special temporary authority
(STA), which authorize the operations of terrestrial repeaters while this rulemaking proceeding is
pending.101 Prior to September 11, 2009, neither Sirius nor XM operated repeaters outside the
conterminous United States.102 On September 11, 2009, however, Sirius XM was granted STA to operate
20 SDARS terrestrial repeaters in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for a period of 180 days.103
38. The Sirius and XM networks each use their full 12.5 megahertz of spectrum to deliver
content to their respective SDARS receivers. To overcome signal obstructions and impairments, both
networks transmit multiplexed digital data streams from their satellites to the users’ receivers using time,
frequency, and spatial signal diversity techniques. A terrestrial repeater channel may also be present if
the user receiver is in an area where repeaters are deployed. Each licensee’s network transmits
time-diverse satellite channels on multiple frequencies allocated within the SDARS licensee’s spectrum
from two spatially-separated satellites in view of the users’ locations.104 Signal diversity is necessary to
reduce outages due to a wide range of impairment factors that include electromagnetic interference and
signal obstruction by buildings, hills, and trees.105 The data streams transmitted by the satellites are
combined in the receivers to provide diversity gain. The satellite signals are designed such that reception
may be possible even when the signals from one of a licensee’s satellites are blocked. Thus, the two
98 1997 XM Authorization Order, 13 FCC Rcd at 8850 ¶¶ 51-52; 2005 XM Authorization Order, 20 FCC Rcd at
1620 ¶ 1.
99 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12355 ¶ 12..
100 Id. See also XM Radio Inc., Application for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital Audio
Radio Service Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 16781 (Int’l Bur. 2001)
(“XM Radio STA Order”); XM Radio, Inc., Order, FCC 08-177 (adopted July 25, 2008) (“XM Consent Decree
Order”).
101 Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc., Application for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital Audio
Radio Service Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 16773 (Int’l Bur. 2001)
(Sirius 2001 STA Order); XM Radio, Inc., Application for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Satellite Digital
Audio Radio Service Complementary Terrestrial Repeaters, Order and Authorization, 16 FCC Rcd 16781 (Int’l Bur.
2001) (XM Radio 2001 STA Order). Since 2001, both Sirius and XM have submitted additional STA requests
seeking to modify their repeater networks or to add new repeaters. A full list of SDARS STA requests are available
through the International Bureau Filing System (IBFS), which is available online at http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs.
102 Sirius sought authority to operate terrestrial repeaters in Alaska and Hawaii in 2006; that request remains
pending. See Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Request for Special Temporary Authority to Operate Four Satellite DARS
Terrestrial Repeaters in Alaska and Hawaii, IBFS File No. SAT-STA-20061107-00131, filed Nov. 11, 2006. In
addition, both Sirius and XM operate terrestrial repeaters in Canada through affiliated Canadian subsidiaries, but
these repeater operations are conducted pursuant to authorizations from the Canadian government, not through
Commission authorizations.
103 See Application of Sirius XM Radio Inc. For Special Temporary Authority to Operate Twenty SDARS
Terrestrial Repeaters in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, IBFS File No. SAT-STA-20081027-00210, Order and
Authorization, DA 09-2039, 24 FCC Rcd 11827 (rel. Sept. 11, 2009).
104 Letter from Terrence R. Smith, Sr. Vice President, Technology, and James S. Blitz, Vice President, Regulatory
Counsel, Sirius XM Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 13, 2008) (Sirius XM
Nov. 13, 2008, Ex Parte) at 2.
105 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
19
satellite feeds transmitted by the Sirius and XM platforms are not interchangeable, but instead are used in
complementary fashion to overcome outages due to various signal impairments to ensure that the required
service is provided to consumers.106 The Sirius XM networks rely heavily on the systems’ diversity
aspect to deliver high quality, continuous, broadcasts to low-cost mobile receivers from distant satellites
in order to avoid the need to build a large repeater network similar to the scope of terrestrial cellular
communications systems.107
39. Description of Anticipated WCS Deployments. WCS licensees have expressed a desire to
deploy mobile units using WiMAX technology. Since there have not been any WCS mobile systems
deployed in the United States, it is still unknown what types of mobile WCS devices and products will be
widely adopted by consumers. However, in the tests they have conducted, the WCS licensees have
placed an emphasis on using mobile handheld devices, such as cell phones, and data products, such as for
laptop computers, to provide service. Additionally, a WiMAX network can be deployed as a cellular
technology in FDD mode or TDD mode.108 The WCS Coalition has indicated their preference for TDD,
and asserts that a WiMAX mobile station’s transmit power level in TDD mode is a function of multiple
algorithms and parameters that are primarily designed to ensure that a mobile transmits at the lowest
possible power level necessary in order to minimize intra-system interference and maximize battery
life.109 Under real-world deployment conditions, the mobile device transmit power varies dynamically
over time and location. Moreover, the WCS Coalition contends that in a TDD configuration, the mobile
station would transmit only during the uplink portion of a frame and only when it has packets to transmit.
The length of these packets (bursts) is a function of the duty cycle (i.e., how much of a transmission frame
a mobile device has been allocated) and application model (traffic pattern), which is commonly biased
towards the downlink. According to the WCS Coalition, the result of these factors is that the mobile
station in a typical WiMAX deployment is almost always operating at power levels well below its
allowable maximum.110
40. These SDARS and WCS system descriptions identify several points such as satellite
diversity, ATPC, and duty cycle, among other things, that have been heavily debated by the parties in this
proceeding. The interference modeling results considered in this proceeding are affected by the
assumptions used to define the mobile device operation (and depending upon those assumptions, whether
a corresponding reduction in interference levels should be assumed). In addition to the analyses and
previous individual test results submitted by the parties, we also have the results of the testing Sirius XM
and the WCS Coalition each conducted in Ashburn, Virginia with FCC staff and interested parties
present. Below, we evaluate the potential interference that may be caused by a WCS mobile transmitter
106 Id.
107 See Sirius XM Nov. 13, 2008, Ex Parte. Sirius XM reiterates that the multiple satellite feeds are not for
redundancy and that the loss of one feed would degrade the service received by satellite radio subscribers. It points
out further its earlier objection to the proposal by the WCS Coalition to permit an out-of-band emissions (OOBE)
mask for WCS mobile devices that would allow higher levels of OOBE interference at the WCS/satellite radio band
edge and then require higher levels of attenuation deeper inside the satellite radio allocation.
108 FDD simultaneously provides separate radio transmission channels for the mobile device and the base station, so
that they both may constantly transmit while simultaneously receiving signals. With TDD, a single radio channel is
used a portion of the time to transmit from the base station to the mobile device, and the remaining time is used to
transmit from the mobile device to the base station.
109 See WCS Coalition Comments, Attachment B, at 6.
110 See WCS Coalition Comments, Attachment B, at 6. Sirius XM disputes this contention. See Sirius XM Ex
Parte, dated Sept. 8, 2008, Exhibit A at 14 (“Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte”), citing a trade magazine article:
Poulin, Darcy, “How to meet the design challenges of WiMAX power amplifiers,” Embedded.com, (June 10, 2008)
available at http://www.embedded.com/design/208403248.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
20
located in a vehicle to an SDARS receiver located in another nearby vehicle and base our decisions, in
large part, on the results of the Ashburn testing.
C. WCS Mobile and Portable Device Power Limits
41. Background. As noted above, the current rules permit WCS mobile transmitters to
operate with up to 20 W of power. However, the WCS licensees claim that no WCS mobile transmitters
have been deployed because the out-of-band emissions limit of -110 dBW for WCS mobile devices in the
SDARS band cannot viably be met in a mobile transmitter.111 Thus, two fundamental issues must be
considered relative to WCS mobile transmitter power as we consider revisions to the rules that would
facilitate deployment of mobile WCS operations. First, there exists a potential for overload interference
to the SDARS receiver that could be caused by a WCS mobile device operating in close proximity, both
physically and in terms of frequency separation. Overload occurs when a receiver is unable to reject
excessive energy outside its intended frequency band of operation. The second issue, which is equally
important, is the effect of the power limit on the viability of the WCS mobile service. As the power level
of the mobile device is reduced, the number of required base stations increases, which can make the
system impractical and uneconomical to deploy.
42. Sirius XM argues that, in order to protect satellite radio consumers from WCS
interference, the Commission should retain the current technical restrictions on WCS mobile and portable
devices for WCS Blocks C and D.112 Sirius XM claims that no WCS mobile or portable devices can
operate on WCS Blocks C and D without causing harmful interference to satellite radio devices and
argues that only WCS fixed operations should be allowed in WCS Blocks C and D.113 For WCS mobile
and portable devices operating in WCS Blocks A and B, however, in September 2009, Sirius XM
proposed a power limit of 125 mW.114
43. The WCS Coalition proposes that WCS mobile and portable devices operating in WCS
Blocks A and B be permitted to use an average EIRP of 250 mW.115 For WCS Blocks C and D, the WCS
Coalition proposes mobile and portable device EIRP limits of 50 mW/MHz (i.e., 150 mW per
3 megahertz) between the 2315-2318 and 2347-2350 MHz portions of the C and D blocks, and
111 See WCS Coalition Comments at 5.
112 See Sirius XM Sept. 3, 2009, Ex Parte presentation at 27. See also Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 3.
Sirius XM initially proposed limiting mobile and portable devices operating in WCS blocks C and D to 1 mW EIRP.
See Sirius Comments at 34; XM Comments at 31.
113 See Sirius XM Sept. 3, 2009, Ex Parte presentation at 27.
114 Id. Sirius XM initially proposed a limit of 10 mW EIRP for WCS mobile and portable devices operating in WCS
Blocks A and B.
115 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte presentation (dated Oct. 7, 2009) at 3. Previously, the WCS Coalition proposed that
all WCS mobile and portable devices that comply with its proposed out-of-band emissions limit should be allowed
to transmit with an average EIRP of 250 mW. See Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand, Counsel to the WCS Coalition,
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated July 22, 2008), at 4 (“WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte”). The
WCS Coalition also proposed that WCS mobile and portable devices should be required to employ automatic
transmitter power control (ATPC), which would generally reduce the EIRP to levels below the proposed 250-mW
average EIRP. See WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte at 4. NextWave suggested that WCS Blocks C and D
mobile and portable devices be limited to 150 mW in the 2315-2318 and 2347-2350 MHz sub-bands and to 60 mW
in the 2318-2320 and 2345-2347 MHz sub-bands. See Letter from Jennifer M. McCarthy, Vice President,
Regulatory Affairs, NextWave Wireless Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 16, 2008)
(“NextWave Nov. 16, 2008, Ex Parte”) at 2, and Letter from Jennifer M. McCarthy, Vice President, Regulatory
Affairs, NextWave Wireless Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 26, 2008) (“NextWave
Nov. 26, 2008, Ex Parte”) at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
21
30 mW/ MHz between the 2318-2320 and 2345-2347 MHz portions of the C and D blocks (i.e., 60 mW
per 2 megahertz). The WCS Coalition believes that there will be little or no muting of the SDARS signal
from WCS mobile and portable devices operating with these EIRP limits.116
44. Measurements and Technical Analyses. Sirius, XM, and the WCS Coalition each
conducted individual measurements and technical analyses to support their proposed WCS power levels
in their initial comments. Sirius and XM originally conducted tests with an SDARS receiver using an
antenna mounted on the roof of a vehicle and a WiMAX signal generator connected to an antenna
mounted at a height of 2 meters and attached to a cart so that the separation distance could be varied.
Sirius claims the tests it conducted indicated that overload interference that would block reception of (i.e.,
mute) the SDARS satellite signals would occur at a distance of up to 34 meters from a 250 mW WCS
signal in the C block and at a distance of up to about 20 meters from a 250 mW WCS signal in the A and
B blocks.117 XM claims the tests it conducted indicated that overload interference that would mute the
SDARS satellite signals would occur at a distance of up to 16 meters from a 112 mW WCS signal in
the D block and a distance of up to about 13 meters from a 112 mW WCS signal in the A and B blocks.118
Sirius’ tests also showed that interference to the SDARS terrestrial signals would occur at a distance of up
to approximately 23 meters from a 250 mW WCS signal in the C block and at a distance of up to
approximately 15 and 18 meters from a 250 mW WCS signal in the A and B blocks, respectively.119
45. The WCS Coalition originally conducted tests of overload interference only for the WCS
A and B blocks. For this testing, an SDARS antenna was mounted on the roof of a vehicle 48 inches
from the rear bumper of the vehicle. Out-of-vehicle tests used a WCS WiMAX consumer premises
equipment (CPE) device positioned in the same horizontal plane as the roof-mounted SDARS antennas at
varying distances. In-vehicle tests used WCS WiMAX CPE positioned inside the same vehicle
containing the SDARS equipment positioned either in the front passenger seat or the rear passenger seat.
During this testing, the WCS Coalition found that muting occurred at distances of 3 meters or less. The
WCS Coalition submits that these tests showed that in typical satellite-only coverage, the WCS CPE
devices induced muting at distances of 2 to 13 feet outside the vehicle. The Sirius receiver experienced
muting at 4 feet with the WCS WiMAX CPE at 250-mW average EIRP, and at 2 feet with the CPE at
100-mW average EIRP. The XM receiver experienced muting at 10 to 13 feet with the WCS WiMAX
CPE at 250-mW average EIRP, and at 7 to 10 feet with the CPE at 100-mW average EIRP. With the
WiMAX CPE antenna inside the vehicle, only one instance of muting of the XM receiver occurred with
the WiMAX antenna inside the same vehicle as the XM antenna and directly below it.120
46. There were a number of differences between the SDARS and WCS tests, such as the
power levels, bandwidths, duty cycle of the WCS signal, and various combinations WCS frequency
blocks. Much of the disagreement relative to potential overload interference also stems from different
findings about the path loss as a signal propagates between a WCS mobile device and an SDARS mobile
receiver. The WCS Coalition and Sirius XM both measured and modeled the propagation path loss from
a WCS mobile device to an SDARS mobile receiver input – with the SDARS antenna situated atop a car
116 See WCS Coalition Oct. 7, 2009, Ex Parte presentation at 3 and 15.
117 See Sirius Comments, Exhibit C at C8.
118 XM Comments, Exhibit C, at 8 and 9. We note that these distances are equivalent to distances of 24 meters from
a 250-mW WCS signal in the D block and 20 meters from a 250-mW WCS signal in the A and B blocks, given the
square root relationship between distance and power. (I.e., under Free Space Loss conditions, the ratio of two
distances is equal to the square root of the ratio of the two powers involved.).
119 See Sirius Reply Comments at 13.
120 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte dated May 9, 2008, WCS Test Report at 3-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
22
with a clear line of sight to the WCS transmit antenna – and obtained different results.121 The WCS
Coalition determined the path loss in decibels (dB) to be (50.9 + 21.8 log (Dmeters) dB), which is
approximately equal to Free Space Loss (FSL) + 12 dB at 3 meters, whereas Sirius XM determined the
loss to be (42.8 + 20 log (Dmeters) dB), or FSL + 3 dB, which is 9-dB lower than the WCS Coalition’s
determination. Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition each reference various technical papers in support of
their respective positions on the appropriate path loss.122
47. The WCS Coalition also made measurements to evaluate the additional attenuation for
the case when a WCS mobile device is held against the user’s head or lap while a user is sitting inside of a
vehicle. From these measurements, the WCS Coalition found that there was a combined additional
attenuation ranging from 4.8 dB to over 14.1 dB.123 In this testing, to determine the additional losses
expected when a WCS transmitter is operated in a vehicle and an SDARS receiver is in a different vehicle
or the same vehicle, the WCS Coalition placed the WCS test device inside a vehicle in a manner which
also incorporated head and body losses associated with use of the WCS device.124 The WCS Coalition
explains that the basic test set-up was the same as with previous testing, i.e., from the input of the transmit
antenna to the output of the SDARS receive antenna, on paths of varying distances, though now
obstructed by head and body and vehicle losses.125 The position of the WCS test transmitter was varied
between front and rear seats, left and right seats, ear and lap heights, with the WCS transmitting vehicle
behind and in front of the SDARS receive vehicle, and with the WCS transmitter and SDARS receiver in
the same vehicle.126 The position of the SDARS test receiving antenna mounting is similarly varied
between the front and rear of the roof of the vehicle, on the centerline of the roof, representative of OEM
installations. The WCS Coalition explains that a total of 20 scenarios were measured, each with multiple
frequency sweeps, with path distances varying from 4.4 to 7.2 meters to represent vehicles stopped at a
traffic signal or in traffic.127 The WCS Coalition calculates and displays the median measured path loss
results for the various separation distances, then subtracts the WCS Coalition Propagation Model (WPM)
path losses calculated for those distances, to arrive at the additional path losses by which these measured
path losses exceed the unobstructed WPM model path losses: 4.8 to 14.1 dB.128 The WCS Coalition
attributes these additional losses primarily to shielding of the WCS transmit antenna by the vehicle in
121 See WCS Coalition Reply Comments, Attachment B; Sirius Comments, Exhibit C.
122 Sirius XM frequently refers to a paper presented by a member of the staff of the National Telecommunications
and Information Administration at an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Vehicular Technology Society
Conference entitled “Propagation for Mobile-to-Mobile Communications.” See, e.g., Sirius Reply Comments at 23.
The WCS Coalition responds in its May 9, 2008, Ex Parte filing that Sirius XM’s conclusion is flawed because it is
based on a computational error and further, the findings of this study are based on free-standing antennas and follow
free space loss. The WCS Coalition goes on to cite other papers that it contends support higher path losses for
situations similar to the one at issue here where the SDARS receiving antenna is located on a ground plane (the roof
of a vehicle). See WCS Coalition May 9, 2008, Ex Parte at 7-9
123 See Letter from Mary N. O’Connor, Counsel to the WCS Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated
Aug. 1, 2008)(WCS Coalition Aug. 1, 2008, Ex Parte).
124 Id., Attachment at 4 and 7.
125 Id., Attachment at 4.
126 Id., Attachment at 3 and 6-8.
127 Id., Attachment at 8-11.
128 Id., Attachment at 14. The WCS Coalition measured the path loss between a WCS transmitting antenna and an
SDARS receiving antenna on a vehicle at various separation distances and found the path loss to be
50.9 + 21.8 log (Dmeters) dB (WCS Coalition Propagation Model, or WPM) for distances from 5 feet to 50 feet (1.5 to
15 meters). See ¶¶ 90-91, infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
23
which it is located from the external, roof mounted SDARS receive antenna, to head and body losses, and
to other propagation factors.129
48. The WCS Coalition and the SDARS licensees also offer different assessments as to the
capabilities of SDARS receivers to reject overload interference. Sirius XM claims that a received
interfering power level of -44 dBm from WCS operations in Blocks A and B and interfering power of
-55 dBm from WCS operations in Blocks C and D will cause muting of the SDARS receiver.130
According to the WCS Coalition, however, some SDARS receivers have a very steep front end filter
roll-off (i.e., attenuation of adjacent-bands’ signals) and are therefore better able to reject overload
interference.131
49. Furthermore, the WCS Coalition and the SDARS licensees provide different assessments of
the likelihood of receiver overload interference. The WCS Coalition argues that interference is highly
unlikely and would require the coincidence of a variety of conditions to occur: both devices are operating
in close geographic proximity and are stationary relative to one another; the WCS device is transmitting
and operating at or near the maximum permitted power; no obstructions exist between the transmitter and
receiver; there is good coupling between the antennas; and the WCS and SDARS devices are operating in
adjacent frequency bands.132 The WCS Coalition underscores that mobile handsets would operate at or
close to their maximum power only rarely and will operate at 3-4 dB133 less power 99 percent of the
time.134 Sirius XM denies each of these points claiming that devices will often be in close proximity, the
devices will be side by side and stationary in heavy traffic, and there will be a high degree of antenna
coupling as reflected in its testing.135 Sirius XM also disputes the WCS Coalition’s claim that WCS
devices will operate at 3-4 dB below maximum power 99 percent of the time and asserts that the WCS
device will often operate at its maximum power to achieve the highest available data rate.136 Sirius XM
claims that based on its analysis, up to 13 percent of SDARS users will experience interference in early
deployment of WCS and up to 24 percent in later stages of deployment.137 NextWave, a WCS licensee,
disputes the basis for this analysis and counters that the predictions of interference are grossly inflated due
to inappropriate assumptions, such as no consideration of ATPC or the required separation distances for
vehicles located in the same traffic lane.138 Sirius XM responds that the WCS Coalition’s analysis is
129 Id., Attachment at 13 and 14.
130 See Sirius Comments, Exhibit C.
131 See WCS Coalition Comments at 11, n.24, and Attachment A. See also WCS Coalition May 19, 2008, Ex Parte
at 7.
132 See WCS Coalition Comments, Attachment B at 19; see also, e.g., WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated
May 5, 2008.
133 A 3-dB reduction equates to reducing the transmitted power by one-half.
134 See WCS Coalition Comments, Attachment B at 19.
135 See Letter from Patrick L. Donnelly, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Secretary, Sirius Satellite
Radio Inc., and James S. Blitz, Vice President and Regulatory Counsel, XM Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC (dated May 9, 2008) (Joint Sirius/XM May 9, 2008, Ex Parte), Attachment at 35.
136 See Letter from James S. Blitz, Vice President, Regulatory Counsel, Sirius XM Radio, Inc., to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Sept. 8, 2008) (Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte) at 4, 13, and 14.
137 See Letter from Robert L. Pettit, Counsel to Sirius XM Radio, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated
Oct. 2, 2008) (Sirius XM Oct. 2, 2008, Ex Parte).
138 See Letter from Jennifer M. McCarthy, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, NextWave Wireless Inc., to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 16, 2008) (NextWave Nov. 16, 2008, Ex Parte), Technical Analysis at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
24
predicated on assumptions about the specific technologies that will be used and business plans that will be
implemented, which cannot be assured.139
50. Princeton, NJ Tests. In January of 2009, Sirius XM tested a WCS device’s potential to
cause interference to SDARS operations in Princeton, New Jersey. Sirius XM reported that it chose this
location for the testing because it receives strong satellite signals with minimal terrestrial repeater
coverage on the test route. As part of the test, Sirius XM outfitted one vehicle with test equipment that
generated a mobile WiMAX waveform in various WCS sub-bands and an in-vehicle antenna, and a
second vehicle with Sirius and XM satellite radio receivers and typical roof-mounted antennas. Sirius
XM tested the generated WiMAX test signals in the WCS D block at 150 mW transmit power and an
OOBE attenuation of 55 + 10 log (P) dB at the SDARS band edge, in the WCS C block at 150 mW
transmit power and an OOBE attenuation of 60 + 10 log (P) dB at the SDARS band edge, and in the
lower WCS B block (i.e., 2310-2315 MHz) at 250 mW transmit power and an OOBE attenuation of
60 + 10 log (P) dB at the SDARS band edge.140
51. During the testing, Sirius XM monitored an XM upper-ensemble channel141 and a Sirius
channel for muting while testing three different WCS use cases – handheld, laptop, and dashboard
installation – to simulate the WCS Coalition’s proposal for the WCS band emission levels. Specifically,
Sirius XM tested WCS handheld use in the WCS D, C, and B (lower) blocks, and laptop and dashboard
use in the WCS C block. Sirius XM reported that it observed severe interference from the WCS signal for
long durations over large distances and in typical traffic patterns. Sirius XM also reported that
interference occurred in typical mobile conditions where the satellite receivers had a clear view of the sky
without any obstructions. In addition, Sirius XM reported that the WCS mobile devices caused
interference in areas near Princeton where repeater coverage was present. In its report, however, Sirius
XM did not specify whether the WCS interference was attributable to overload or OOBE interference.142
52. The WCS Coalition filed ex parte comments on Sirius XM’s testing in New Jersey after a
meeting with Sirius XM representatives and Commission staff regarding the testing.143 In its filing, the
WCS Coalition alleged flaws in the testing that it contends had led Sirius XM to claim that its SDARS
receivers are vulnerable to interference from WCS mobile operations. Specifically, the WCS Coalition
argues in its March 9, 2009, ex parte filing that the testing Sirius XM conducted did not reflect “real
world” operating conditions for the WCS transmitters. As an initial matter, the WCS Coalition states that
Sirius XM did not employ the stepped OOBE limits that the WCS Coalition has proposed for all mobile
devices, which Sirius XM confirmed was true during the meeting. Also, the WCS Coalition noted that
Sirius XM stated that the mobile device it used during the testing did not employ ATPC, which the WCS
Coalition has proposed be required for all WCS mobile devices.144 We note also Sirius XM recently
139 See Letter from Terrence R. Smith, Chief Engineering Officer, and James S. Blitz, Vice President, Regulatory
Counsel, Sirius XM Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Nov. 20, 2008) (Sirius XM
Smith/Blitz Nov. 20, 2008, Ex Parte) at 4 (summarizing a meeting with Commission staff on Nov. 16, 2008).
140 See Sirius XM Ex Parte dated February 10, 2009. Sirius XM used a “flat mask” of 60 + 10log (P) dB, rather
than the WCS Coalition’s proposed stepped mask, because, it contends, two WCS Coalition members – Nextwave
Wireless and Horizon Wi-Com – believe that such a mask is roughly equivalent to the WCS Coaltion’s stepped
mask and is therefore an acceptable alternative to the stepped mask. See Sirius XM Ex Parte dated April 8, 2009,
at 3.
141 In the XM network, each of the two XM satellite and terrestrial repeater sub-bands are divided into separately
transmitted lower ensemble signals and upper ensemble signals.
142 See Sirius XM Ex Parte dated February 9, 2009.
143 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated March 9, 2009, at 2.
144 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
25
submitted an ex parte video that is contends demonstrates harmful interference will occur to SDARS
receivers under the WCS rules proposed in the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice.145 The
WCS Coalition believes that the demonstration is not representative of how an actual mobile WiMAX
system will perform, but instead, was designed and implemented to maximize potential interference.146
53. In addition, the WCS Coalition stated that Sirius XM also stated that it did not conduct
any testing over the A block or upper B block channels, which it concedes are less likely to interfere with
SDARS operations. The WCS Coalition further noted that Sirius XM stated that the test transmitter used
in New Jersey was operated with a 25-percent duty cycle, which the WCS Coalition contends is not
representative of how a WCS mobile would likely operate.147 Instead, as the WCS Coalition subsequently
noted, a duty cycle of at least 35 percent would be needed to facilitate the provision of a viable broadband
service.148 During the meeting, Sirius XM also conceded that it did not conduct the tests in a manner that
would permit the Commission to determine how much, if any, of the purported interference actually was
caused by OOBE. As a result, the WCS Coalition contends, the testing did not illustrate the need for the
onerous OOBE restrictions that have been proposed by Sirius XM. The WCS Coalition also contends
that Sirius XM implemented its test setup in such a manner that leakage from the power amplifier could
have been a material contributor to the interference.149
54. In light of these differences, Sirius XM urged the Commission to require additional
testing be performed by a third party or under Commission supervision that would examine various
combinations of conditions, including different SDARS receivers, an actual WCS mobile device, multiple
vehicles, stationary vehicles, and vehicles in motion.150 The WCS Coalition agreed to conduct further
tests with Sirius XM and FCC staff present during the testing. Consequently, on July 28 and 29, 2009, in
Ashburn, VA, Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition, with FCC staff present, each conducted testing of a
WCS signal’s potential to interfere with the reception of Sirius XM’s SDARS transmissions.151 The WCS
Coalition performed its testing on July 28 and Sirius XM performed its testing on July 29.152
55. Ashburn, VA Tests. During the tests it performed in Ashburn, the WCS Coalition
demonstrated actual WiMAX equipment under several use scenarios. Sirius XM states that the WCS
Coalition’s Ashburn testing demonstrates that a certain configuration of mobile WCS devices that are
operated under specific usage patterns will cause only limited interference to the reception of Sirius XM’s
signal. Sirius XM also states that although the operating parameters were not fully transparent, the WCS
mobile device’s signal transmitted at a variety of operating powers and WCS frequencies generally did
145 See Sirius XM Ex Parte filing dated May 6, 2010 at 2.
146 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte Presentation dated May 12, 2010, at 1-2.
147 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated March 9, 2009, at 2. The WCS Coalition subsequently stated that it is
common for commercial WiMAX systems to allocate approximately 38 percent of each frame to uplink (i.e., user
device) transmissions. See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated March 31, 2010, at 2.
148 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated January 29, 2010, at 4.
149 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated March 9, 2009.
150 See Sirius XM Ex Parte filings of May 9, 2008, May 19, 2008, May 20, 2008, June 4, 2008, June 13, 2008, June
16, 2008, and July 2, 2008.
151 We refer to these tests henceforth as the “Ashburn tests,” “Ashburn testing,” or “testing in Ashburn.”
152 See Sirius XM Ex Parte filing dated August 3, 2009, and WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated August 4, 2009.
See also WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated August 4, 2009. FCC staff from the Commission’s Office of
Engineering and Technology, the International Bureau, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau observed the
Ashburn, VA testing sessions. For a detailed description of the testing, see Appendix E.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
26
not mute Sirius XM’s audio channel signal in the other test vehicle.153 Sirius XM believes its own
Ashburn testing demonstrates how different mobile WCS configurations and use cases (such as those
proposed by the WCS Coalition) would cause muting of Sirius XM’s signal, even at transmitter/receiver
separation distances greater than 25 meters and in the presence of a Sirius XM terrestrial repeater. During
its testing, Sirius XM used test equipment to simulate WiMAX operations. Although Sirius XM believes
its testing showed that some mobile use of the WCS spectrum could be allowed, it believes that such use
must be strictly controlled and limited to certain technologies and test cases that can be demonstrated not
to prevent reception of the SDARS signal.154
56. The WCS Coalition states that its testing in Ashburn demonstrated that WCS interference
to SDARS will occur only in the rarest of real-world circumstances if the WCS Coalition’s proposed rules
for WCS are adopted, especially given that there was only one instance of muting of the SDARS receiver
during the WCS Coalition’s drive testing. The WCS Coalition also contends that Sirius XM’s testing in
Ashburn was not realistic and did not reflect how any practical two-way broadband system would operate
on the WCS frequencies. Specifically, the WCS Coalition believes that the SDARS muting that resulted
from Sirius XM’s use of a 5-megahertz WiMAX carrier in the WCS D block that was immediately
adjacent to the SDARS band edge is a worst-case scenario that would not occur with an operating WCS
system. The WCS Coalition states that it is unrealistic to expect an operational WCS two-way broadband
system to operate a full 5-megahertz carrier in the WCS C and D blocks because the resultant filter that
would be necessary to meet the proposed OOBE limits would be too large to include in a mobile device.
In summary, the WCS Coalition believes that the testing demonstrated that out-of-band emissions
interference from a WCS mobile device into an SDARS receiver will only occur under worst-case
artificial conditions.155
57. FCC staff observed Sirius XM’s test using test equipment to generate a WiMAX signal
and the WCS Coalition test using an actual WCS device communicating with a WCS base station. Both
individual tests were conducted while the simulated and actual WCS end-user device was operating in
close geographic proximity to an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) and aftermarket SDARS
receiver. FCC staff observed that test scenario employed by Sirius XM’s signal generator produced a
five-megahertz-wide WiMAX carrier in the WCS D block, immediately adjacent to the SDARS band
edge, which produced several instances of SDARS muting. Staff observed too that when Sirius XM
moved its test WCS signal two megahertz away from the SDARS band edge, only slight muting of the
SDARS signal occurred.
58. During the WCS Coalition’s testing, drive tests were performed for a total of six WCS
mobile device configurations; each configuration was tested at least once, and a few of the configurations
were tested two or more times. No muting was observed when the edge of the WCS signal was separated
from the SDARS band by 5 megahertz. Although the staff observed in one instance that the SDARS
signal was muted when the WCS mobile device was being operated with a 250 mW EIRP over
5 megahertz, ATPC employed, and a 2.5-megahertz guard band between the WCS signal and the SDARS
band, during the remainder of the WCS Coalition’s testing with these same operating conditions, no
muting of the Sirius or XM signal was observed even though there were hundreds of instances during the
drive tests when conditions were such that interference could have occurred.156 Significantly, no muting
153 See Sirius XM Ex Parte filing dated August 3, 2009, at 3-4.
154 Id.
155 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated August 4, 2009, at 1-2.
156 During the drive tests conducted in the two sedans rented by the WCS Coalition, FCC staff saw only a short
interval of satellite radio receiver muting during one test scenario, at a single location on the route, with the XM
original equipment manufacturer (OEM) satellite radio receiver. In this occurence, the WiMAX link was operating
with a 5-megahertz-wide signal comprised of 2.5-megahertz portions each of WCS Blocks D and A, the traffic
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
27
occurred even when the WCS mobile device was operating at full power without ATPC employed, with
the EIRP fixed at 24 dBm (i.e., 250 mW) over 5 megahertz. Moreover, although the WCS Coalition’s
tests showed that in a vehicular-mobile environment, muting could occur when the devices are within
3 meters of one another, the WCS device is transmitting with ATPC activated, only one SDARS satellite
is visible, only one satellite channel is available, and no terrestrial repeater is present at that same
moment, the tests showed muting is not inevitable in every instance when a WCS mobile or portable
device is in close proximity to an SDARS receiver.
59. Comments. In its comments on the Commission staff’s proposed interference rules in the
WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice, Sirius XM contends that the power limit for WCS mobile
and portable devices should be reduced to 150 mW average EIRP in the WCS C and D blocks,
recognizing that NextWave and Horizon previously informed the Commission that 150 mW, along with a
power density of 50 mW/MHz, should provide additional interference protection to Sirius XM but would
still enable WCS C and D block licenses to offer a viable two-way broadband service.157 Sirius XM
further contends that the Commission should adopt a variable duty cycle limit ranging from 12.5 to
35 percent for WCS mobile and portable devices, depending on the spectrum block, as in the Commission
staff’s recommended proposals shared with the licensees on March 2, 2010,158 and that the rules should
specify a duty cycle measurement frame of 5 milliseconds (ms). Sirius XM further argues that the power
level and duty cycle limitations would be controlled by the network and would require no special design
modifications for WCS mobile devices that would defeat standardization or otherwise delay
deployment.159 In addition, Sirius XM states that a reduction in the frame repetition rate from
transmissions every 5-ms frame to transmissions every other frame (i.e., activity over 10 ms) would
significantly decrease the potential for interference into an SDARS receiver from a WCS WiMAX signal
because there would not be any activity in consecutive transmit frames for any mobile device.160
Sirius XM also repeats its suggestion that the Commission set a ground-level emission limit of -44 dBm
per 100 meters on major and secondary roads.161 Sirius XM further argues that WCS rules should
establish a maximum occupied bandwidth of 5 megahertz because WCS transmissions that occupy 10 or
12.5-megahertz-wide channels would have a greater potential to interfere with SDARS receivers.162 In a
subsequent filing, a consultant for Sirius XM, Dr. Theodore S. Rappaport, P.E., recommends that WCS
(Continued from previous page)
generation software was performing a high-data-rate upload from the mobile device to the base station, and the
WiMAX mobile device, with ATPC turned on, was being held at lap height. No muting was observed for two
additional tests of a WCS signal composed of 2.5-megahertz portions of WCS Blocks D and A, when the
5-megahertz-wide WCS signal was centered in the lower WCS B block (i.e., 2310-2315 MHz), or that was
composed of 2.5-megahertz portions each of WCS Blocks B and C (i.e., 2312.5-2317.5 MHz).
157 See Comments of Sirius XM, filed Apr. 23, 2010, at 31.
158 On March 2, 2010, staff from the Commission’s Office of Engineering and Technology, the International
Bureau, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau met with representatives from Sirius XM and the WCS
Coalition to discuss its recommended proposals for 2.3 GHz WCS mobile and portable devices’ power and OOBE
limits that included a 2.5-megahertz WCS guard band, relaxed OOBE limits for WCS mobile and portable devices,
and a stepped maximum duty cycle requirement that would place greater restrictions on WCS mobile and portable
devices in the WCS blocks closest to the SDARS band than on those devices operating in WCS blocks further
removed from the SDARS band. Specifically, the Commission staff’s proposal included setting the maximum duty
cycle for WCS mobile and portable devices at 12.5 percent in the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C and D
blocks furthest from the SDARS band, at 25 percent in the inner WCS A and B blocks, and at 35 percent in the outer
WCS A and B blocks.
159 Id. at 30-31.
160 Id. at 30-31 and Appendix A, 7-8.
161 See Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc., filed April 23, 2010, at 32.
162 Id. at 35.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
28
mobile and portable devices’ EIRP be limited to 100 mW per 2.5 megahertz and that a 2.5-megahertz
guard band be established between the WCS and SDARS band edges. Dr. Rappaport believes this power
limit would provide sufficient protection to SDARS receivers while allowing WCS licensees to build out
a viable terrestrial mobile network.163
60. In its Ex Parte Letter of March 15, 2010, the WCS Coalition states that if the
Commission were to adopt a graduated duty cycle ranging from 12.5-35 percent, and A and B block
licensees simultaneously employed the outer 2.5 megahertz of the C or D block along with the A or B
blocks to provide for mobile handoffs, the duty cycle of all the channels would be reduced to the lowest
duty cycle of 12.5 percent. However, the WCS Coalition contends that the 12.5 percent duty cycle is not
supported by any fourth generation (4G) wireless communications standard. The WCS Coalition also
argues that the 5 ms frame for measuring the duty cycle was for a specific WiMAX protocol and that
other 4G standards utilize other frame rates. To maintain technology neutrality, the WCS states that any
duty cycle specification should be tied directly to the frame duration of the technology in use.164 In its
comments on the Commission staff’s proposed interference rules, the WCS Coalition states that although
the proposed power limits will not preclude the deployment of viable mobile broadband services, the
proposed technical rules are not the optimum from the perspective of one hoping to utilize the WCS
spectrum.165 However, Wolfhard J. Vogel, Ph.D., a satellite radio engineer, believes that to prevent
interference to SDARS receivers, WCS mobile devices should be limited to a duty cycle of
12.5 percent.166 On the other hand, Horizon Wi-Com, LLC (Horizon), a WCS licensee, disputes
Sirius XM’s assertion that using every other 5-ms frame for mobile device transmissions would be
consistent with current technology. Horizon submits that, in reality, a TDD frame consists of the
complete cycle of base station transmissions, transmit guard time, mobile station transmissions, and
receive guard time, not simply the portion of time in which a given device transmits. Horizon argues that
requiring WCS mobile devices to remain silent during every other transmit sub-frame would reduce the
duty cycle for a WiMAX system to 19 percent and cut the throughput capacity of the system in half,
depriving subscribers of adequate two-way speeds. As a result, Horizon contends, WCS would be
precluded from providing broadband services and from becoming a viable competitor in the
marketplace.167
61. The Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) believes that the Commission
staff’s proposals will adequately protect SDARS and AMT operations, but recommends that the
Commission abandon any WCS limitations based on duty cycle. If the Commission does impose duty
cycle limits, however, TIA contends that the Commission must ensure that these limits allow WCS
operations in a manner that enables service and device provision, and it should reconcile the discrepancy
between the proposed FDD and TDD duty cycle limits.168 Ericsson Inc. (Ericsson) believes that, in order
to avoid conflicts with the standards of Time Division-LTE169 (TD-LTE) and other technologies, the
163 See “Technical Analysis of the Impact of Adjacent Service Interference to the Sirius XM Satellite Digital Audio
Radio Services (SDARS)” by Theodore S. Rappaport, P.E., TELISITE Corp., submitted with Supplemental
Comments of Sirius XM, filed April 29, 2010, at 73.
164 See WCS Coalition Mar. 15, 2010, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
165 See Comments of the WCS Coalition, filed April 23, 2010, at 4-5.
166 See Wolfhard J. Vogel, Ph.D., President, Balcones Industrial R&D Corp., comments, filed April 21, 2010, at 3.
167 See Horizon Wi-Com May 12, 2010, Ex Parte Letter at 2-3.
168 See Comments of the Telecommunications Industry Association, filed April 23, 2010, at 2-4.
169 LTE (Long Term Evolution) is a new high performance wireless broadband technology developed by the Third
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP), an industry trade group. LTE, which supports both FDD and TDD modes of
operation, is based on Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access (OFDMA) and uses Internet Protocol (IP)
packets rather than a proprietary packet structure. LTE provides a framework for increasing data rates and overall
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
29
Commission should not specify any duty cycle limit. Ericsson contends that a network that can match the
uplink and downlink needs of users will use spectrum more efficiently, while placing the fewest
constraints on user data rates. If the Commission nevertheless adopts a maximum uplink duty cycle,
Ericsson argues that it should select a limit that imposes the fewest constraints on standards-based
technologies. Considering TD-LTE networks, Ericsson believes the minimum ideal duty cycle level
would be set above 63.333 percent to permit the use of all the current TD-LTE uplink-downlink
configurations. At the least, Ericsson argues, the minimum duty cycle should be raised above
43.333 percent, which corresponds to the 3:2 downlink-uplink ratio of TD-LTE configuration 1, which is
considered to be typical in many TDD networks and most appropriate for networks with nearly
symmetrical traffic.170 Alcatel-Lucent shares Ericsson’s concerns about the need to accommodate the
43.3-percent duty cycle for TD-LTE, and notes that the proposed limitations on FDD duty cycles could
preclude FD-LTE in the WCS band. Alcatel-Lucent contends that the Commission should refrain from
imposing duty cycle limitations to allow the greatest flexibility for WCS operators to maximize network
efficiency and capacity.171 In addition, Alcatel-Lucent submits that the Commission should reject Sirius
XM’s proposal to preclude mobile transmissions during every other frame, which would cut the uplink
speeds in half, and is not supported by any standard technology in existence.172 Alcatel also states that so
there is no impact on existing WCS point-to-point operations, the Commission should not bar WCS fixed
stations from transmitting in the 2305-2320 MHz band.173 In its May 12, 2010, Ex Parte presentation, the
WCS Coalition states that the Commission should not adopt any duty-cycle limitations, but if deemed
necessary, the duty cycle should be at least 43.333 percent to accommodate the use of TD-LTE
technology.174
62. Discussion. As an initial matter, our objective here is not to eliminate all interference,
but rather eliminate the potential for harmful interference – which we define as interference that
repeatedly disrupts or seriously degrades service. Upon careful review and consideration of all of the
information in the record, including the various analyses and test results, we conclude that an average
power level of 250-mW EIRP over 5 megahertz (50 mW/MHz) accompanied by ATPC and a duty cycle
limit of 38 percent is appropriate for mobile and portable devices operating in the WCS A and B blocks
and the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C and D blocks furthest removed from the SDARS band (i.e.,
2305-2317.5 and 2347.5-2360 MHz). Assessing the likelihood of interference from WCS to SDARS is
an extremely complex exercise because there are many variables involved and there is considerable
variability in each of the underlying assumptions. There were a number of differences between the
measurements and technical analyses submitted by Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition in their comments.
These include the power levels, duty factor or duty cycle of the WCS signal, WCS signal strength as a
result of propagation losses, WCS antenna heights and positions (outside and inside the test vehicle),
various combinations of WCS frequency blocks and SDARS receivers, and the use of actual WCS
equipment or WiMax signal generators and other test equipment.
63. Based on our thorough review of the record in this proceeding, the individual
measurements and technical analyses provided by the commenters, and the results of Sirius XM’s and the
(Continued from previous page)
system capacity, reducing latency, and improving spectral efficiency and cell-edge performance. See Agilent
Technologies LTE Overview, available at http://www.home.agilent.com/agilent/editorial.jspx?cc= US&lc=eng&cke
y=1803101&nid=34867.0.00&id=1803101.
170 See Comments of Ericsson, filed April 22, 2010, at 4-5.
171 See Alcatel-Lucent Ex Parte presentation, filed May 13, 2010, at 4.
172 Id.
173 Id. at 5.
174 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte presentation, filed May 12, 2010, at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
30
WCS Coalition’s testing in Ashburn, we conclude that the public interest will be served by significantly
lowering the current 20-W EIRP limit for mobile device operations in the WCS band.175 Specifically, we
are adopting a power limit of 250-mW average EIRP over 5 megahertz (i.e., 50 mW/MHz) for mobile and
portable devices operating in WCS Blocks A, B and the 2315-2317.5 and 2347.5-2350 MHz portions of
WCS Blocks C and D, respectively. These power levels, coupled with the other actions that we take
today, will protect satellite radio receivers from experiencing harmful interference while advancing our
goal of enabling mobile broadband service to the public in the WCS spectrum, while limiting potential
harmful interference to satellite radio reception. We also believe that our decision strikes the appropriate
balance between the WCS Coalition’s request that we adopt a 250-mW average EIRP limit for mobile and
portable stations in WCS Blocks A and B176 and a 150-mW average EIRP limit for mobile and portable
devices in the first 3 megahertz of WCS Blocks C and D, respectively (i.e., 50 mW/MHz),177 and the
SDARS licensees’ preference for a 150 mW (50 mW/MHz) power limit on WCS mobile and portable
devices operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions WCS Blocks C and D furthest removed from the SDARS
band.178 Overall, we find that the risk of harmful interference from WCS mobile and portable devices
operating in accordance with these power limits that would seriously degrade, obstruct, or repeatedly
interrupt SDARS service is low. To further reduce the risk of harmful interference, we restrict WCS
mobile and portable devices from operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions of WCS Blocks C and D
closest to the SDARS band, limit WCS mobile and portable devices’ duty cycle, and adopt a requirement
that WCS licensees expeditiously resolve any harmful interference caused to SDARS operations, should it
occur.
64. Although we rely heavily on the technical information provided by the commenters, we
have the benefit of Commission staff’s observations of Sirius XM’s and the WCS Coalition’s Ashburn
test results179 to raise our confidence that our decisions on final rules for mobile WCS operations will
reduce the risk of harmful interference to SDARS to a negligible level. During the WCS Coalition’s tests
of overload interference, muting of the SDARS signal only occurred during one test case. Specifically,
muting occurred when the WCS device was operating with an average EIRP of 250 mW for a
5-megahertz-wide signal spanning 2.5 megahertz each of the WCS D and A blocks (i.e., the edge of the
WCS signal was separated by 2.5 megahertz from the edge of the SDARS band), a duty cycle of
35 percent, and when located within 1 vehicle’s distance from the vehicle containing the SDARS receiver
using a rooftop mounted antenna (i.e., separated by at least 3 meters). Under this scenario, the WCS
mobile device was uploading a large file. Muting was not observed when the WCS mobile was
transmitting in the upper WCS A block. Thus, we believe that there will not be significant potential for
harmful interference to SDARS receivers from WCS mobile transmitters operating at the power limits we
adopt.
65. During the WCS Coalition’s test, FCC staff observed that operation of a WCS mobile
device at 250-mW average EIRP over 5 megahertz and a duty cycle of 35 percent in combination with a
frequency separation of 2.5 megahertz from the SDARS band sufficiently mitigated the impact of
overload interference to the SDARS receiver. Generally, the WCS Coalition’s tests revealed what one
may anticipate seeing, where additional signal attenuation was present due to the WCS device being used
inside a vehicle and either held in a user’s hand or on a lap, and where effects such as the difference in
height between the WCS transmitter antenna and SDARS receiver antenna, the vehicle attenuation, the
175 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(a)(2).
176 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Oct. 7, 2009, Ex Parte at 3.
177 See WCS Coalition Mar. 15, 2010, Ex Parte Letter at 2.
178 See Comments of Sirius XM, filed Apr. 23, 2010, at 31.
179 See paras. 55-58, supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
31
effect of head and body losses, multipath, and clutter from other nearby objects would all come into play
and have a mitigating effect on potential overload interference.
66. Also, although the Ashburn testing was not representative of a fully-deployed WCS
WiMAX network, we believe the WCS device’s interactions with the SDARS receivers demonstrate that
the potential for harmful interference is negligible even during the worst-case situations where a WCS
mobile transmitter is operating at full power without ATPC, is transmitting during the allocated transmit
sub-frame of each and every frame, and is in close proximity to an OEM or aftermarket SDARS receiver.
In a fully-deployed WCS network where multiple WCS mobile or portable devices are operating in close
proximity to one another, these devices share the available transmit sub-carriers in a particular channel’s
frame, and the base station will assign each device a specific portion of the available transmit sub-
carriers.180 In this manner, the potential for interference from multiple proximate WCS mobile and or
portable devices using their assigned portions of transmit sub-carriers will not be any greater than the
potential for interference from one device using all the allocated transmit sub-carriers of each and every
frame in a channel, as was demonstrated during the testing in Ashburn. In addition, not all of the WCS
devices using sub-channels of the same channel will be in close proximity to an SDARS receiver, which
would further lessen the potential for harmful interference to SDARS receivers. Furthermore, in a
fully-deployed WCS network where more base stations are deployed to provide improved coverage and
service to WCS users, WCS mobile and portable devices will experience fewer “edge-of-coverage”
situations where they must operate at maximum transmitter power; instead, they will be handed off to a
different base station before needing to operate at full power, thereby further reducing the potential for
harmful interference to SDARS receivers.
67. In support of the 250-mW power limit, as set forth above, our examination of the record
in this proceeding reflects that the potential for harmful interference to SDARS receivers from WCS
mobile transmitters operating at full power in close proximity is low. Despite Sirius XM arguments to the
contrary,181 we do not believe that the test scenario employed by Sirius XM during its testing in Ashburn,
in which it used a signal generator to produce a 5-megahertz-wide WiMAX carrier in the WCS D block,
immediately adjacent to the SDARS band edge, that was characterized by bursty signals,182 accurately
reflects how a practical WCS two-way broadband system would operate in the 2.3 GHz band. To the
contrary, as noted by the WCS licensee Horizon Wi-Com, a typical 5-ms TDD frame consists of base
station transmissions, guard time, mobile station transmissions, and guard time, not simply bursty
transmissions from a single mobile device that occupies every subcarrier of each 5-ms frame in a
5-megahertz-wide channel.183 Moreover, with regard to the video that Sirius XM submitted with its
May 6, 2010, ex parte, without knowing the test setup and technical parameters, the purported
demonstration has no probative value. Also, because the radio frequency filter necessary to meet the
WCS Coalition’s proposed OOBE limits would be too large for a mobile or portable WCS device if
operated in the manner assumed by Sirius XM, we do not expect a WCS device to operate in the WCS C
or D blocks in that manner once a WCS system is deployed. However, we note that when Sirius XM
180 See “Understanding OFDMA, the interface for 4G wireless,” Arnon Friedmann, Texas Instruments, Network
Systems Design Line, April 23, 2007, at 2-3; Agilent Technologies’ N1911A/N1912A P-Series Power Meters for
WiMAX™ Signal Measurements Demo Guide, at 4-5.
181 Sirius XM argues that there is no record evidence that justifies the technical limits identified in the Commission
staff’s April 2, 2010 WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice. It asserts that WCS interests have yet to provide
extensive and verifiable test data to demonstrate that mobile WCS operations will not cause harmful interference,
whereas Sirius XM has demonstrated that the proposed rules will cause harmful interference. See Comments of
Sirius XM, filed April 23, 2010, at 46-47.
182 A bursty signal is a method of transmission that combines a very high data signaling rate with very short
transmission times. See Newton’s Telecom Dictionary, 21st Edition, CMP Books, 2005, at 137.
183 See Horizon Wi-Com May 12, 2010, Ex Parte Letter at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
32
moved its test WCS signal 2 megahertz away from the SDARS band edge, only slight muting of the
SDARS signal occurred, which is consistent with the WCS Coalition’s test results that resulted in only
one instance of muting when the edge of the WCS signal was separated from the SDARS band edge by
2.5 megahertz. Thus, in order to further limit the potential for harmful interference to SDARS receivers,
we are prohibiting WCS mobile and portable devices from operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions of
WCS Blocks C and D closest to the SDARS band.
68. In establishing the allowable power level for WCS mobile and portable devices, along
with the need to limit the potential for harmful interference to SDARS receivers, we also consider the
impact of the mobile and portable devices’ power limit on the viability of deployment of mobile service
in the WCS band. We observe that mobile handheld devices operating in other services typically employ
a transmitter power level of up to about 250 mW. We also observe that the trend among commercial
radio services is towards the convergence of fixed and mobile services where the same network can serve
the needs of consumers and businesses for both types of services and synergies are created between fixed
and mobile applications. Accordingly, we believe that an average EIRP of 250 mW over 5 megahertz is
an appropriate permissible power level for WCS mobile and portable devices in the WCS A and B blocks
and the 2.5-megahertz portion of the WCS C and D blocks furthest removed from the SDARS band,
which, with the duty cycle limits we are adopting, we believe will be sufficient to protect SDARS
receivers from harmful interference while supporting the provision of WCS mobile services. For the
portions of the WCS C and D blocks immediately adjacent to the SDARS band (i.e., 2317.5-2320 and
2345-2347.5 MHz), however, WCS mobile and portable devices are not permitted to operate. Also, WCS
mobile and portable devices using FDD technology are restricted to transmitting in the 2305-2317.5 MHz
band.
69. We reject the 125-mW power limit suggested by Sirius XM for WCS mobile and portable
devices because it is not necessary to protect SDARS receivers from harmful interference and because
such limits could unnecessarily impede the provision of WCS mobile broadband services by forcing WCS
licensees to install many more base stations than would be needed with a higher power limit for mobile
and portable devices. We also reject the staggered power limits suggested by the WCS Coalition for the
WCS C and D blocks. Instead, we adopt a uniform power limit for the 2.5-megahertz portions of the
WCS C and D blocks that are furthest removed from the SDARS band, and prohibit mobile and portable
devices from operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions of WCS Blocks C and D closest to the SDARS
band. The 250-mW power limit and the 50 mW/MHz power spectral density limits we adopt will create a
uniform operating environment for WCS licensees to provide mobile broadband services and, combined
with the prohibition on mobile and portable devices operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS
C and D blocks closest to the SDARS band, will further limit the potential for harmful interference to
SDARS receivers.
70. In order to protect SDARS operations from harmful interference, it is also necessary that
we adopt a specific duty cycle that WCS devices must employ for TDD networks.184 Features such as
Discontinuous Transmission (DTX) and Discontinuous Reception (DRX), which are used to improve
battery life and minimize intra-system interference, can substantially contribute to the reduction of a
communications system’s in-band and out-of-band power, and thereby significantly reduce its potential to
184 In this case, we define duty cycle (also known as duty factor) as the percentage of a transmission frame that a
WCS user device uses to transmit uplink information to the base station (i.e., the “on time” of a WCS user device’s
transmitter in a given transmission frame). The activity factor is the portion of WiMAX transmission frames that the
base station has allocated for uplink traffic. See Sirius XM Ex Parte presentation, dated February 24, 2010, at 4.
See also “activity factor” and “duty cycle” definitions at Federal Standard 1037C Telecommunications: Glossary of
Telecommunication Terms at http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/fs-1037/fs-1037c.htm. The WCS transmitter the WCS
Coalition used in its testing in Ashburn, VA, employed a duty cycle of 35 percent. See WCS Coalition Ex Parte
filing, dated January 29, 2010, at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
33
cause harmful interference. During DTX and DRX, the number of sub-frames being exchanged on the
physical layer could be reduced or the user’s equipment could simply stay in the monitoring mode.
Because the duty cycle is relevant to particular air interface technologies such as WiMAX and LTE, and
cannot always be assured when licensees have the flexibility to select the technology of their choice, we
decide to adopt a rule limiting the maximum transmitter duty cycle of mobile and portable WCS devices
using TDD technology to 38 percent in the upper and lower WCS A and B blocks and the outer
2.5-megahertz portions of WCS blocks C and D (i.e., 2315-2317.5 and 2347.5-2350 MHz).185
71. The WCS Coalition also submits that it is common for commercial WiMAX systems to
allocate approximately 38 percent of each frame to uplink (i.e., user device) transmissions in order to
maximize throughput based on known user traffic patterns and customer experience expectations.186 It
explains that, only a limited number of duty cycles are supported by the vendor community and that there
is no support for the recommended 12.5-percent duty cycle. Thus, the entire C and D blocks will not be
available for mobile use if the staff’s proposal is adopted. And, the WCS Coalition continues, because
there is no support for the 35-percent duty cycle, operators would be required to limit mobile operations
to the 24.96-percent duty cycle that is the closest available, which does not violate the 35-percent limit.187
Ericsson, too, explains that there are a variety of TD-LTE uplink-downlink configurations that allow a
network operator to allocate the network’s capacity between uplink and downlink traffic to meet the
needs of the network. Although an examination of the uplink/downlink duty cycles of seven
configurations shows that three of the seven uplink/downlink configurations for TD-LTE set forth in the
global standard exceed the proposed uplink duty cycle limit of 38 percent (which are relatively
symmetrical configurations), the remaining configurations are highly asymmetrical in favor of downlink
traffic, with uplink duty cycles ranging from approximately 11.7 to 31.7 percent. Notably, the 38-percent
duty cycle exceeds the majority of the profiles in commercially available WiMAX systems 188 A network
that can match the uplink-downlink needs of users will use spectrum more efficiently, Ericsson contends,
and if a large proportion of a network’s traffic is uplinked such as video, a limitation of the uplink duty
cycle will cause uplink data sessions to be more congested and slower.189
72. We find that application of a 38-percent duty cycle to WCS mobile and portable
operations will not appreciably increase the potential for harmful interference to SDARS receivers even
though the 38-percent duty cycle limit is slightly higher than the 35-percent duty cycle demonstrated in
Ashburn, VA. Although a maximum duty cycle limit has been shown to be an important factor in
limiting a WCS mobile or portable device’s potential to interfere with SDARS receivers, we believe the
most critical factors in controlling the potential for harmful interference in this case are the relative power
of a WCS signal and the spectral proximity of the WCS signal to the SDARS band. Thus, in our
judgment, a 38-percent duty cycle limit coupled with the 250-mW EIRP over 5-megahertz
mobile/portable device power limit, the 2.5-megahertz WCS guard bands, and the requirement to employ
185 In support of this duty cycle limit, we note that in order for a 2.6 GHz WiMAX CPE device to obtain a 1 megabit
per second (Mbit/sec) uplink data rate with a 5-megahertz-wide Orthogonal Frequency Division Multiple Access
512 Fast Fourier Transform 64 Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (OFDMA 512 FFT 64 QAM) output signal (i.e.,
512 subcarriers), the typical duty cycle setting for the device is 37.4 percent. See Motorola, Inc.’s United States
Patent Application 20090295485, Dynamically Biasing Class AB Power Amplifiers Over a Range of Output Power
Levels, available at http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0295485.html, at 6.
186 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing dated March 31, 2010, at 2. The WCS Coalition test transmitter used in the
Ashburn, VA testing employed a duty cycle of 35 percent, and only caused the SDARS signal to mute in one
isolated instance. See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filing, dated Jan 29, 2010, at 4.
187 See WCS Coalition March 31, 2010 Ex Parte, at 3, and Attachment at 2.
188 See Comments of Ericsson Inc. filed April 22, 2010, at 3.
189 Id., at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
34
ATPC that we are adopting, will be sufficient to limit the potential for harmful interference to SDARS
receivers. We also believe that application of a 38-percent duty cycle to WCS mobile and portable
operations will allow for the majority of TDD WiMax and Long Term Evolution (LTE) profiles to be
implemented. Notwithstanding that this limit is applicable to, and was determined when testing WiMAX
equipment, we believe it is appropriate to apply it to other TDD technology, such as LTE. Granting that
some high data rate uplink applications such as video uploads would run more efficiently in a more
symmetrical configuration (i.e., with a higher uplink duty cycle), we find that application of a maximum
duty cycle setting of 38 percent strikes an appropriate balance between our goals of protecting SDARS
receivers from harmful interference and enabling the provision of WCS mobile broadband services using
different technologies.
73. We decline to adopt a frame repetition limitation as proposed by Sirius XM, whereby a
WCS mobile device would be limited to transmitting on every other 5-ms TDD transmit frame.190
Rather, we require WCS licensees to apply the duty cycle requirement in a manner that is referenced
directly to the frame duration for the technology in use in order to strike an appropriate balance
between our goals of protecting SDARS receivers from harmful interference and enabling the provision
of WCS mobile broadband services using different technologies.
74. We also permit WCS mobile and portable transmitting devices using FDD technology in
the 2305-2317.5 MHz band (and consequently FDD base station transmitters in the upper WCS blocks).
We restrict mobile transmitters to the lower WCS block to accommodate XM’s earlier proposal to limit
the upper WCS bands to base stations only, which, as they contend, would reduce the likelihood of
interference to legacy XM receivers.191 Restricting mobile transmitters to the lower WCS blocks would
also improve adjacent-band sharing with AMT and would accommodate the Aerospace and Flight Test
Radio Coordinating Council’s (AFTRCC’s)192 proposal to limit the use of the upper WCS bands to base
stations only.193 For WCS mobile and portable devices operating in the 2305-2317.5 MHz band using
FDD technology, we set the same transmitter power level of 250-mW average EIRP with ATPC. In order
to further limit the potential for interference to SDARS receivers from WCS operations, WCS mobile and
portable devices using FDD technology are restricted to transmitting in the lower WCS A and B blocks
and the 2.5-megahertz portion of the WCS C block furthest removed from the SDARS band (i.e.,
2305-2317.5 MHz). Recognizing that neither the WCS nor SDARS licensees provided analysis or testing
of FDD equipment, we rely heavily on the fact that mobile and portable device using FDD technology
will have a dedicated band for uplink transmissions rather than sharing a band with base stations’
downlink transmissions to establish this restriction. We also limit the duty cycle of WCS mobile and
portable devices using FDD technology to a duty cycle of 25 percent for the lower WCS A and B blocks
(i.e., 2305-2315 MHz) and maintain the 12.5-percent duty cycle for the 2.5 megahertz portion of the WCS
C block furthest from the SDARS band (i.e., 2315-2317.5 MHz). To treat the paired A and B block
licenses equitably, we adopt a duty cycle limit that is double the limit currently specified in our Rules for
WCS portable devices operating in the 2305-2315 MHz band.194 We note that Sirius XM did not object
to the graduated duty cycle levels proposed by the Commission staff which included a 12.5-percent duty
190 See Sirius XM Ex Parte, filed May 13, 2010, at 9-10.
191 See XM Reply Comments, filed March 17, 2008, at 33-36; Sirius XM Aug. 11, 2009 Ex Parte presentation at 27.
See also Sirius XM Jan. 22, 2010, Ex Parte presentation at 12.
192 AFTRCC, founded in 1954, is a not-for-profit organization of Radio Frequency Management Representatives
from major aerospace companies and is the Non-Federal Government coordinator for the shared
Federal/Non-Federal spectrum allocated for flight testing. See (last visited October 26,
2009).
193 See AFTRCC March 22, 2010 Ex Parte presentation at 15.
194 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(9)(i).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
35
cycle limit on mobile and portable transmitters operating in the 2.5-megahertz portion of the WCS
C block furthest from the SDARS band.195 By restricting the duty cycle of such devices, their potential
for interference to adjacent-band SDARS receivers will be limited even though these devices will be
operating with a 100-percent activity factor.
75. We will continue to require that WCS devices be ATPC-capable. The use of ATPC
(automatic transmit power control) by the WCS licensees will also help to mitigate the potential for
SDARS receiver overload interference.196 We note that ATPC has been, and will continue to be, an
integral feature of various commercial mobile service technologies. ATPC use is motivated by the need
to control interference within a licensee’s own system and by extension neighboring bands. We expect
that WCS licensees, no matter what technology they deploy, will implement ATPC to control self
interference. We therefore have no reason to believe that WCS networks will be configured to use
maximum power to achieve maximum data throughput at all times. This would run counter to the
principles of intra-system interference control. Moreover, operating all portable devices at full power all
the time would tend to sharply increase intra-cell and inter-cell interference, which would lead to capacity
reduction and would reduce battery life, although we recognize that there can be trade-offs on whether it
is best to transmit high data rates for short periods or lower data rates for longer periods. Consequently,
use of ATPC will make it unlikely that a WCS mobile or portable station’s transmitter power will be at its
maximum level of 250 mW at all times, which will further mitigate the potential for harmful interference
to SDARS receivers. Thus, we require that WCS mobile and portable devices include the capability for
ATPC, as proposed by the WCS Coalition and as currently required by Part 27 of our Rules for WCS
portable devices.197
76. We also will prohibit the use of vehicle roof-mounted antennas for WCS transmissions
and reception. The WCS Coalition’s Ashburn tests were performed with the WCS device in the vehicle.
Because of this, the WCS signal was attenuated by the glass windows and metal and composite structure
of the vehicle. If a WCS device was installed inside a vehicle but the device’s antenna was mounted on
the outside of the vehicle, however, this attenuation would not exist, and we would expect more SDARS
receiver muting to occur. Although we have not seen any evidence that such outside antenna installations
would be the predominant use of mobile WCS networks, in order to forestall the potential for interference
from such situations, we are adopting a rule to prohibit the use of vehicle roof-mounted antennas for WCS
transmissions and reception.
77. We believe that the 250-mW average EIRP limit over 5 megahertz we are establishing for
mobile and portable devices in the WCS Blocks A and B and the 2.5-megahertz portions of WCS Blocks
C and D furthest removed from the SDARS band, coupled with a duty cycle limit of 38 percent and the
prohibition of WCS mobile and portable devices operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C
and D blocks closest to the SDARS band, are sufficient to protect existing SDARS receivers from
harmful interference and at the same time provide as much flexibility as possible to WCS licensees to
provide mobile services. Nonetheless, we expect the two services to work together cooperatively and
take whatever additional steps are necessary to mitigate potential harmful interference and expeditiously
remedy harmful interference, should it occur.
195See Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc. filed April 23, 2010, at 30. In support of setting the duty cycle at 12.5
and 25 percent, respectively, we recognize that mobile and portable FDD devices’ transmitters typically employ a
100-percent activity factor (i.e., FDD-based networks employ a dedicated band for uplink transmissions and there is
no sharing of a band for uplink transmissions and downlink transmissions, as in a TDD network).
196 See n.5, supra.
197 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(9)(iv).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
36
78. We believe that the rules we adopt are sufficient to mitigate the risk of harmful
interference to SDARS to a negligible level. WCS licensees, however, are obligated to expeditiously
remedy harmful interference caused to SDARS. Harmful interference is that which seriously degrades,
obstructs or repeatedly interrupts SDARS reception (i.e. muting). We establish, below, a notification
process whereby WCS licensees and SDARS licensees are required to share sufficient information prior
to operation to provide an opportunity for licensees to analyze the placement of infrastructure, assess the
potential for harmful interference, and allow for modifications to mitigate interference risk prior to
operation. The notification process will also assist the licensees in identifying the cause of actual harmful
interference and lead to a timely resolution of such interference.
79. Prior notification of WCS information. We require prior notification to minimize the
potential for harmful interference between WCS and SDARS. Specifically, we require WCS and SDARS
licensees to share information regarding the location and technical parameters of their base stations and
terrestrial repeaters, respectively. WCS licensees must notify the SDARS licensee of the location of any
new or modified base stations that will operate in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands prior to
operation. Furthermore, WCS licensees must cooperate in good faith in the selection and use of new
station sites and new frequencies to minimize the potential for harmful interference and make the most
effective use of the authorized facilities. Notwithstanding the relatively short notification times we
establish below, we expect WCS licensees to provide Sirius XM as much lead time as practicable, under
non-disclosure agreements if appropriate, to provide ample time to conduct analyses and opportunity for
prudent base station site selection prior to WCS licensees entering into real estate and tower leasing or
purchasing agreements.
80. Pre-Commercial Service Operation. We anticipate that any interference problems will
become evident during the initial deployments and market trials of WCS mobile service. During the time
when market trials begin but full commercial service has not yet been initiated, the licensees will have an
opportunity to conduct further tests using actual WCS equipment in particular markets. We expect any
interference issues that arise during market trials to be resolved before the transition from market trials to
commercial service happens. We also expect that WCS licensees will have sufficient operational
flexibility in their network design to implement one or more technical solutions to remedy harmful
interference before it occurs in a fully loaded network offering commercial service. The notification
process will foster early collaboration at the network planning and deployment stages so licensees can
gain experience with the WCS network operations and gain confidence that harmful interference will not
occur. That experience could be valuable in streamlining the process further in other similarly situated
markets.
81. Post Operation. Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference must
cooperate in good faith to expeditiously resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If
the licensees are unable to do so, either licensee may file an interference complaint with the Commission.
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Engineering and
Technology and the International Bureau, will consider the actions taken by the parties to mitigate the risk
of and remedy any alleged interference. In determining the appropriate action, the Bureau is to take into
account the nature and extent of the interference and act promptly to remedy the interference. The Bureau
may impose restrictions including specifying the transmitter power, antenna height, or other technical or
operational measures to remedy the interference, and take into account previous measures by the licensees
to mitigate the risk of interference. WCS operators will have at their disposal various techniques (e.g.,
power reduction, duty cycle, etc.) that would not require specific end-user device modifications. WCS
licensees must use these network control capabilities to expeditiously remedy interference once notified.
82. In this connection, we recognize there are legacy SDARS receivers deployed in large
numbers, and that some of those receivers are more susceptible to interference than others. We note
Sirius XM’s assertion that the SDARS receivers were designed based on the existing FCC rules, which
effectively precluded mobile WCS operations. We observe that the rules we adopt today will now
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
37
provide for the deployment of wide area mobile networks and lead to the possibility of mobile devices
being in close proximity to SDARS receivers, albeit at much less power than 20 W. At the same time, we
are cognizant of the need to consider the potential impacts of our decision on existing SDARS receivers
and the resultant impacts on consumers, irrespective of Sirius XM’s assumptions as to the nature of the
operations in the adjacent WCS spectrum. On a going forward basis, however, Sirius XM will be able to
take into account the mobile WCS operating environment when designing new receivers, and we
anticipate that future deployments of SDARS receivers will be built consistently robust to interference
from mobile WCS operations.198 We believe that the introduction of a new class of interoperable SDARS
receivers presents an opportunity to also ensure that future SDARS receivers continue to exhibit state-of-
the-art filtering sufficiently adequate to accommodate the RF environment established by the rules we
adopt today for future adjacent-band WCS mobile stations’ operations. Although we conclude based on
our analysis of the extensive technical record and the results of the testing in Ashburn, VA that the WCS
mobile and portable devices’ limits we adopt herein will adequately protect legacy SDARS receivers from
harmful interference, we expect Sirius XM to adjust to the changed RF environment in the 2.3 GHz band
so that over time, the potential for interference to SDARS receivers will diminish even further as these
receivers’ susceptibility to interference decreases.
D. WCS Mobile and Portable Device Out-of-Band Emissions Limits
83. Our principal objectives in this proceeding are to mitigate the potential for harmful
interference that may be caused to adjacent-band services while at the same time enabling the provision of
promising new mobile broadband services to the public in the WCS spectrum to the maximum extent
practicable. For the reasons stated below, we adopt a revised OOBE attenuation factor to protect satellite
radio users, NASA Deep Space Network receivers, and AMT receivers. Specifically, we relax the
110 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation factor that currently applies to WCS mobile devices operating in
the WCS A and B blocks and the 2.5-megahertz portion of the WCS C and D blocks furthest removed
from the SDARS band (2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz)199 to the following factors: not less
than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, and not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band to
protect SDARS. Additionally, to protect the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Deep Space Network below the WCS band, mobile and portable stations’ OOBE must be attenuated by a
factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 MHz band, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in
the 2296-2300 MHz band, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2292-2296 MHz band, not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2288-2292 MHz band, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz.
To protect AMT operations above the WCS band, mobile and portable stations’ OOBE must also be
attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2365 MHz band, and not less than
70 + 10 log (P) dB above 2365 MHz. We revise the 110 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation in Section
27.53(a)(2) accordingly, and remove Section 27.53(a)(9), which provides that portable devices in the
2305-2315 MHz band may operate subject to an OOBE attenuation of 93 + 10 log (P) dB into the SDARS
band, provided that they meet certain technical requirements.
84. In the 2007 Notice, we sought comment on the costs and benefits of revising the OOBE
limits that currently apply to SDARS and WCS.200 We specifically asked interested parties to comment
198 See Fostering Innovation and Investment in the Wireless Communications Market, GN Docket No. 09-157; A
National Broadband Plan For Our Future, GN Docket No. 09-51, Notice of Inquiry, 24 FCC Rcd 11322, 11333 ¶ 36
(2009), where the Commission noted how receivers’ lack of rejection of adjacent-band signals could impede or
prevent effective operation of new services in the adjacent band or necessitate the imposition of limits on the types
of operations permitted in the adjacent band.
199 See 47 C.F.R § 27.50(a)(1).
200 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22142 ¶ 24.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
38
on the impacts (including interference, economic, and business) that any revision of the OOBE limits
would have on SDARS operations.201 We also requested parties to address how the WCS industry would
be affected if we were to retain the current OOBE limits.202
85. WCS licensees and other parties argue in the first instance that unless the OOBE limits
for mobile and portable devices in the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz WCS bands are relaxed they will
be unable to develop affordable equipment capable of providing mobile broadband services to
consumers.203 The WCS Coalition states that it seeks relief only for subscriber equipment operating at
lower power levels, including mobile stations transmitting at less than 2 W average EIRP.204 The WCS
Coalition further claims that the current 110 + 10 log (P) dB mask exceeds what is required to protect an
SDARS receiver by a margin of 50 dB.205 Accordingly, the WCS Coalition proposes that we adopt the
following OOBE attenuation factors for WCS mobile and portable devices: 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, and
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band.206 The WCS Coalition bases its proposed OOBE
attenuation factors of 55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB on their feasibility and the potential economic viability
they offer over the existing 110 + 10 log (P) dB mask currently required for WCS mobile devices in
Section 27.53(a).207 The emission mask proposed by the WCS Coalition would also require that all
devices use ATPC.208 The WCS Coalition, however, concedes that its proposal does not entirely
foreclose the possibility of potential interference from WCS to SDARS subscribers.209
86. On the other hand, Sirius and XM initially proposed that we relax the OOBE attenuation
factors for WCS mobile and portable devices from 110 + 10 log (P) dB to 103 + 10 log (P) dB for all
WCS spectrum blocks.210 Sirius asserts that the WCS Coalition’s proposal to reduce the OOBE
201 Id., at 22142-3 ¶ 25.
202 Id.
203 See WCS Coalition Comments at 4-5; Motorola Comments at 8-9. See also Bednekoff Comments at 1-2; WCS
Coalition Reply Comments at 7-9.
204 WCS Coalition Comments at 10.
205 Id. at 14. The WCS Coalition contends that an OOBE attenuation of 55 + 10 log (P) dB will sufficiently protect
SDARS receivers in such a way that the receiver’s noise floor does not rise by more than 1 dB for 94 percent of the
time. See WCS Coalition Comments at 11, 13, and Attachment B at 25. The WCS Coalition notes that the 1-dB
figure it uses is a typical industry value for noise floor protection. In addition, the WCS Coalition estimates the
noise floor of SDARS receivers to be -106.8 dBm/4MHz, or -112.8 dBm/MHz. See also WCS Coalition Reply
Comments, Attachment A. WCS calculates its noise floor using a thermal noise power of -108 dBm/4 MHz (based
on an antenna temperature of 290º K), or -114 dBm/MHz, and a receiver noise figure of 1.2 dB. We note that these
parameters, when used in a common formula for calculating the noise floor for a terrestrial receiver, produce the
noise floor calculated by the WCS Coalition.
206 See WCS Coalition Comments at 10. Henceforth, we refer to this OOBE mask as the 55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB
mask.
207 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 27.53(a). WCS Coalition Comments at 4-7.
208 Id. at 14. See n.5, supra, for a description of ATPC.
209 WCS Coalition Comments at 3 and 11. NextWave Wireless indicates that, alternatively, a “flat mask” of
60 + 10 log (P) dB, which is roughly equivalent to the WCS Coalition’s stepped mask proposal, would serve to
provide adequate protection to SDARS. See also NextWave Wireless Nov. 16, 2008, Ex Parte at 2.
210 See Sirius Comments at 34; XM Comments at 32, Exhibit A at 18 (proposing an OOBE attenuation factor of
102.7 + 10 log (P) dB). Sirius XM later adds that, based on its tests, satellite radio devices could experience
frequent muting under foliage or near reflective buildings if the OOBE attenuation factors were established between
97 + 10 log (P) dB and 92 + 10 log (P) dB, and complete muting if the OOBE attenuation factor was below
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
39
attenuation factor for WCS mobile devices to 55 + 10 log (P) dB would result in unacceptable
mobile-to-mobile interference, even if separated by a large distance from an SDARS receiver.211 XM
claims that, under the limits proposed by the WCS Coalition, a hypothetical mobile WiMAX device
operating in the WCS band could cause interference to satellite radio reception within a radius of 115
meters around the WCS device.212
87. Based on the same SDARS radio parameters in its previous filings213 and its contention
that a maximum receive interference power of -107 dBm/4MHz would produce muting of the SDARS
satellite receiver, Sirius XM later adjusted its proposed WCS OOBE attenuation factor to
86.5 + 10 log (P) dB.214 In its ex parte filing, Sirius XM added its calculated path loss of 56.7 dB to the
-107 dBm/4 MHz maximum interference power to obtain a maximum WCS mobile device OOBE level of
-50.3 dBm/4MHz (-56.3 dBm/MHz).215 Sirius XM explains that this level is equivalent to an emission
attenuation factor of 86.3 + 10 log (P) dB, which Sirius XM rounded to 86.5 + 10 log (P) dB).216
88. Measurements and Technical Analyses. The parties’ arguments relative to the WCS
OOBE limits are interwoven with their arguments relative to WCS signal attenuation and the SDARS
receiver parameters. In particular, path loss is central to their arguments about potential interference and
the interference criteria to use to determine the potential for harmful interference due to WCS OOBE has
been debated heavily. The WCS Coalition and Sirius XM conducted several individual measurements,
tested various SDARS receivers, and provided numerous technical analyses in their comments in an effort
to support their proposals. We describe these below.
(Continued from previous page)
92 + 10 log (P) dB. See also Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 13-15 and subsequent corrections to this filing
made on September 10, 2008, (“Sirius XM Sept. 10, 2008, Ex Parte”) and Sept. 18, 2008, (“Sirius XM Sept. 18,
2008, Ex Parte”).
211 Sirius Comments at 20-21.
212 XM Comments at 32.
213 Sirius XM Nov. 13, 2008, Ex Parte, Appendix at 6. These assumptions include a received interfering power of
-119 dBm/4MHz, or -125 dBm/MHz, causing a 1-dB rise in the noise floor of -113 dBm/4MHz, or -119 dBm/MHz;
a received interfering power of -107 dBm/4 MHz, causing muting of the SDARS satellite radio, given an average
serving signal level of -100 dBm/4 MHz; a carrier-to-interference-plus-noise (C/(I+N)) ratio of 6 dB required for
decoding the receive signal; a combined interference plus noise (I+N) level causing muting of the serving signal,
-100 dBm/4 MHz – 6 dB, or -106 dBm/4 MHz, which, when considered with the -113 dBm/4MHz noise floor,
necessitates the maximum -107 dBm/MHz receive interference power cited above to avert muting of the SDARS
receiver. See also Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit B.
214 Sirius XM applies a methodology consistent with that used by the Commission’s Office of Engineering and
Technology in its technical report on Advanced Wireless Services (AWS) interference, while maintaining the same
assumptions that underlie its previous recommendations. See Sirius XM Nov. 13, 2008, Ex Parte at 1, 4, Appendix
at 8 and 10. See also Advanced Wireless Service Interference Tests Results and Analysis, Federal Communications
Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, WT Docket No. 07 195 (filed Oct. 10, 2008). When
subtracting out 7.5 dB of losses due to head and body, antenna mismatch, and multipath/shadowing, in addition to
free space loss (FSL) at 3 m (49.2 dB), Sirius XM contends to show that its receiver will experience muting if the
WCS OOBE attenuation level in the SDARS bands is below 94 + 10 log (P) dB. See Sirius XM Nov. 13, 2008,
Ex Parte, Appendix at 13.
215 Sirius XM Nov. 13, 2008, Ex Parte at 10.
216 Sirius XM Nov. 13, 2008, Ex Parte at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
40
89. In an effort to bolster its arguments for its proposed stepped OOBE mask, the WCS
Coalition measured the noise floor associated with practical installations of SDARS antennas217 and
determined that to avoid raising the SDARS receiver’s noise floor by more than 1 dB (the interference
criteria initially proposed by the SDARS licensees), the maximum WCS OOBE received at the SDARS
receiver must not exceed a level approximately 6 dB below the noise floor.218 The WCS Coalition also
measured the path loss from a WCS transmitter to an SDARS receiver.219 To simulate a WCS device, the
WCS Coalition used a 30-kHz continuous tone and a WiMAX signal generator together with a ”chip”
antenna mounted to a cart with an elevated on a plastic pole at the same height as the SDARS test receive
antenna.220 The SDARS test receive antenna was mounted on a vehicle roof, and a spectrum analyzer was
used to measure the received signal.221 In its filing, the WCS Coalition displayed the results of its tests
and, using curve fit analysis, concluded that they yielded an aggregate Wireless Coalition Path Loss
Model (WPM) of 50.9 + 21.8 log (Dmeters) dB for distances from 5 to 50 feet (1.5 to 15 meters).222 The
WCS Coalition employed this aggregate WPM in subsequent showings and presentations.223 Using its
WPM, the WCS Coalition calculated the path loss at a separation of 3 meters to be 61.3 dB.224 In an
effort to show that its minimum proposed OOBE mask attenuation of 55 + 10 log (P) dB at the WCS
transmitter will protect SDARS receivers to 6 dB below their noise floor 94 percent of the time, the WCS
Coalition used a probabilistic simulation which incorporated its WPM-based path loss, ATPC (which the
simulation assumes exceeds 3 dB for 99 percent of the time), and increased OOBE attenuation resulting
from ATPC, owing to operation of the transmitter in its non-linear region.225
90. Taking a different approach, the WCS Coalition also measured the distance-to-mute of
the SDARS receiver due to OOBE produced by the complete proposed WCS OOBE mask attenuation of
55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB, together with duty cycles of 6 percent for such applications as VoIP calling,
217 The WCS Coalition measured the noise floor of SDARS antennas at -106.2 dBm/4 MHz (-112.2 dBm/MHz) in a
rural area and -96.4 dBm/4 MHz (-102.4 dBm/MHz) in an urban area. See WCS Coalition Reply Comments,
Attachment A.
218 WCS Coalition Comments at 13, Attachment B at 11. The WCS Coalition notes that the 1-dB figure is a typical
value used by industry for noise floor protection.
219 WCS Coalition Reply Comments, Attachment B at 4 and 25. The WCS Coalition completed measurements of its
WPM of (50.9 + 21.8 log (Dmeters) dB) between antenna connectors, i.e., from the input of the transmit antenna to
the output of the SDARS receive antenna, on unobstructed paths of varying distances. See also WCS Coalition
Reply Comments, Attachment B at 15, 20, and 24.
220 WCS Coalition Reply Comments, Attachment B at 14, 15, 20, and 24.
221 WCS Coalition Reply Comments, Attachment B at 14, 15, 20, and 24. A photograph of the test set-up suggests
that the tests were conducted with the WCS transmitter located to the side of the vehicle. Similar earlier tests were
conducted earlier with the WCS transmitter located to the front of the vehicle, at a 45-degree angle from the front,
and to the side of the vehicle, with similar results: an attenuation factor of 52 + 22 log (P) dB. See WCS Coalition
Comments, Attachment B at 12.
222 WCS Coalition Reply Comments, Attachment B at 4, 22, and 25. We observe that the WPM path loss can also
be approximated as Free Space Loss (FSL) + 12 dB.
223 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Aug. 1, 2008, Ex Parte at 2.
224 WCS Coalition Aug. 1, 2008, Ex Parte at 13.
225 WCS Coalition Comments, Attachment B at 16-25. The WCS Coalition notes that ATPC is considered a crucial
algorithm in many cellular technologies, such as WiMAX, as it minimizes intra-system interference and maximizes
battery life. The WCS Coalition also notes that it assumes a conservative 2-dB reduction in WCS OOBE for every
1-dB reduction in the fundamental WCS signal, and only for the first 5 dB of reduction in the fundamental,
thereafter assuming a 1-dB reduction in OOBE for every 1-dB reduction in the fundamental. WCS Coalition
Comments at Attachment B, 11 and 23. See also WCS Coalition Reply Comments at Attachment C, 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
41
and 43 percent for such applications as data uploads.226 The WCS Coalition measured the muting
distance to be less than 3 meters for the 6-percent duty cycle case, but approximately 6.4 to7.3 meters for
the 43-percent case.227 The WCS Coalition contends its analysis demonstrates that the extra attenuation
needed to ameliorate the 43-percent duty cycle case and reduce the separation distance to 3 meters can be
provided by accounting for vehicular-mobile obstructions such as tinted glass, body loss, and other
vehicles; for the low probability that a WCS user will actually be transmitting in proximity to the SDARS
receiver; for ATPC and increased OOBE attenuation as described above; and for the highly unlikely
expectation of WCS operation at 43-percent duty cycle.228
91. Sirius conducted tests on SDARS receivers and made path loss measurements as well. In
developing its original proposal for an OOBE attenuation factor of 103 + 10 log (P) dB to protect an
SDARS receiver (located in a vehicle at a minimum distance of 3 meters)229 from a WCS mobile
transmitter,230 Sirius modeled the path loss from a WCS transmitter to an SDARS receiver as (Free Space
Loss (FSL) + 3 dB) (SDARS Propagation Model).231 Sirius determined its SDARS Propagation Model
(SPM) of (FSL + 3 dB) by taking measurements between antenna connectors, i.e., from the input of the
transmit antenna to the output of the SDARS receive antenna, on an unobstructed path at varying
distances.232 In its model, Sirius attributes the additional 3 dB to various coupling losses.233 To simulate
a WCS device during its testing, Sirius used a WiMAX signal generator together with a dipole antenna
mounted on a cart and elevated on a pole 6 feet (approx. 2 meters) above ground, with a gain of 0 dBi
toward the horizon.234 The SDARS test receiving antenna was mounted on the rear portion of a sedan
roof with the receiver inside the vehicle, which Sirius explains is a typical OEM factory installation.235 In
226 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 13, Attachments B and C. The WCS Coalition used a white noise generator
at stepped power levels to simulate the WCS OOBE.
227 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 13; Attachment B at 19- 20; Attachment C at 3.
228 WCS Coalition Reply Comments, Attachment C at 4-7.
229 Sirius Comments, Exhibit A at A14. Sirius states that it believes this distance represents the absolute maximum
interference radius around WCS user terminals that SDARS service can tolerate without significant service
disruption. Sirius also relates this distance to the average lane widths of 3.3 meters to 4 meters for major roads,
from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Sirius Reply Comments, Exhibit B at 5; U.S. Department of
Transportation, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Journal of
Transportation and Statistics, Volume 7, Number 23, Development of Prediction Models for Motorcycle Crashes at
Signalized Intersections on Urban Roads in Malaysia, Table 1 - Description, Factor Levels, Coding System, and
Basic Statistics of the Explanatory Variables, Department of Transportation Statistics, available at
. We note that the mean lane width of 3.6 meters in the above reference agrees with the
predominant 12-feet (3.7 meters) lane width of “federal aid” highways in the United States. See U. S. Department
of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, table at
.
230 Sirius explained that to avoid raising the receiver’s noise floor by more than 1 dB, the maximum WCS OOBE
emissions received at the SDARS receiver must not exceed a level 5.9 dB below the noise floor, or
-124.9 dBm/MHz. Sirius XM also measured the noise floor of its receiver to be -119 dBm/MHz.
231 Sirius Comments, Exhibit A at A14; Exhibit C at C5-C9.
232 Id.
233 Sirius Comments, Exhibit A at A14.
234 Sirius Comments, Exhibit C at C5; Sirius Reply Comments, Exhibit C at 4.
235 Sirius Comments, Exhibit C at C5-C6. A photograph of the test set-up suggests that the tests were conducted
with the WCS transmitter located to the side of the sedan.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
42
its filing, Sirius displayed the results of its tests and concluded that they are in agreement with its SPM of
(FSL + 3 dB).236
92. At a distance of 3 meters and using its SPM, Sirius calculated a path loss of 52.2 dB. To
obtain the maximum permissible power of OOBE emissions at the WCS transmitter, Sirius added the
52.2-dB SPM path loss to the -124.9 dBm/MHz maximum power of OOBE interference at the receiver,
resulting in a maximum OOBE power of -72.7 dBm/MHz at the transmitter. Sirius explained that this
level is equivalent to an emission mask attenuation of 102.7 + 10 log (P) dB, which it rounded to
103 + 10 log (P) dB, where P is the average transmitter output power in Watts.237
93. Ashburn, VA Tests. In the testing in Ashburn, Virginia noted above, Sirius XM used a
signal generator and other test equipment to create what it argues is a signal that is representative of the
OOBE levels that would result from a WiMAX transmission in the WCS bands. The WCS Coalition
separately tested an actual WCS device operating with a WCS base station to produce the OOBE levels
that would be present in the SDARS bands.238 Both tests used OEM and aftermarket SDARS receivers in
order to determine the distance at which muting of the SDARS receiver would occur due to OOBE
interference.239 In the paragraphs below, we discuss the WCS Coalition’s and Sirius XM’s interpretation
of their respective test results.
94. The WCS Coalition asserts that its Ashburn tests show that the WCS Coalition’s
proposed OOBE limits and reduced mobile power levels, coupled with other vehicular-mobile parameters
that will attenuate the WCS signal, will be sufficient to protect SDARS operations from harmful
interference when the WCS and SDARS users are separated by only 3 meters.240 In support of its
position, the WCS Coalition points out that the SDARS signal experienced only slight muting even when
the WCS mobile device was operating with a fixed EIRP of 250 mW (i.e., without ATPC) and an OOBE
attenuation factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB, which was less restrictive than its proposal of 55 + 10 log (P) dB
in the 2320-2324 MHz and 2341-2345 MHz portions of the SDARS band. However, the WCS Coalition,
in addition to its earlier power/spectral mask proposal of 250 mW/55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB for all WCS
mobile and portable devices, proposes to apply the power/spectral mask of 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the first
4 megahertz of the SDARS band (i.e., 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz), 61 + 10 log (P) dB) in the next
4 megahertz of the SDARS band (i.e., 2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz), and 67 + 10 log(P) dB in the center
9 megahertz of the SDARS band (i.e., 2328-2337 MHz) to the following WCS devices: (a) battery-
operated (i.e., mobile and portable) user stations transmitting at no greater than 250 mW average EIRP on
the A and B blocks; (b) battery operated user stations transmitting at no greater than 50 mW/MHz average
EIRP between the 2315-2318 and 2347-2350 MHz portions of the C and D blocks, respectively; and (c)
battery operated user stations transmitting at no greater than 30 mW/MHz average EIRP between the
2318-2320 and 2345-2347 MHz portions of the C and D blocks, respectively. Under the WCS
Coalition’s proposal, the less restrictive spectral mask, which mirrors its previously proposed spectral
mask of 55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB, would be available only if the WCS device uses the power levels noted
236 Sirius Comments, Exhibit C at C9; Sirius Reply Comments, Exhibit C at 4.
237 Sirius Comments at 34 and Exhibit A at A16. See also Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 14, 15.
238 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte filed February 22, 2010.
239 See Appendix E of this Report and Order for a description of the test setups in Ashburn, VA.
240 See WCS Coalition Aug. 4, 2009, Ex Parte at Exhibit B.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
43
above and employs ATPC.241 With regard to the WCS Coalition’s most recent proposal, Sirius XM
believes that these power and OOBE levels would result in massive interference to SDARS operations.242
95. On the other hand, Sirius XM argues that because the Ashburn, VA test area receives the
strongest possible signals from Sirius XM’s satellites (as much as 6 dB greater in the mid-Atlantic area in
which the testing was performed than in other areas of the country) and did not have many obstructions
(foliage, buildings, or overpasses) that would attenuate the received satellite signal, the WCS Coalition’s
testing did not accurately reflect the potential for WCS transmissions to interfere with Sirius XM’s
transmissions in areas where the satellite signal strength is not as strong. Sirius XM states that even
though its testing was done in a geographic area that receives some of the strongest satellite radio signals
in the country and has little foliage or other obstructions to diminish reception of the satellite signal, the
WCS mobile device still interfered with Sirius XM’s signal.243 Sirius XM believes that its testing in
Ashburn shows that the WCS Coalition’s power/spectral mask proposal of
250 mW/55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB will cause harmful interference to SDARS operations, even at a
separation distance greater than 25 meters between the WCS transmitter and SDARS receiver and in the
presence of a terrestrial repeater.244 To prevent such interference, Sirius XM contends that WCS mobile
and portable devices should be restricted to the lower WCS A and B blocks (2305-2315 MHz) with a
maximum EIRP of 250 mW (i.e., no mobile devices would be allowed to transmit in the WCS C and
D blocks at 2315-2320 and 23450-2350 MHz, respectively, or the upper WCS A and B blocks at
2350-2360 MHz), with 150 mW not being exceeded more than 10 percent of the time, a duty cycle of
6 percent, and with OOBE attenuated by a factor of not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2320-2345 MHz band.245 Fixed WCS service would still be permitted in the WCS C and D blocks and
the upper WCS A and B blocks.
96. Commission staff observed that the SDARS receivers did not mute when only WCS
OOBE energy was transmitted by the Sirius XM signal generator in the SDARS band while the vehicles
hosting the devices were in very close proximity to one another (i.e., in adjacent parking spaces).
However, staff observed that the SDARS receivers did mute when a WiMAX signal was generated within
certain portions of the WCS bands in the absence of any OOBE energy from the signal generator. The
Ashburn tests appeared to show that the interference to SDARS receivers was dominated by overload
interference since the presence of OOBE did not seem to have any material effect on SDARS reception at
practical distances between the vehicle installations. Commission staff also observed that the WCS
interference primarily occurred from WCS mobile operations in the adjacent WCS C and D blocks,
however there was considerably less interference when the WCS mobile device’s transmitting frequency
was separated from the SDARS band edge by 2.5 megahertz or greater, or if the duty cycle of the WCS
device was lowered.
97. Comments. In its comments on the Commission staff’s proposed interference rules, the
WCS Coalition states that although WCS licensees would prefer less restrictive OOBE limits on WCS
user devices, the WCS OOBE limits proposed in the Commission staff’s WCS/SDARS Technical Rules
Public Notice will not preclude the deployment of viable mobile broadband services in the 2.3 GHz WCS
241 WCS Coalition Aug. 19, 2009, Ex Parte presentation at 14-20
242 See Sirius XM Sept. 3, 2009, Ex Parte presentation at 27, 29.
243 See Sirius XM Ex Parte filing dated August 3, 2009, at 3-4.
244 See Sirius XM Aug. 3, 2009, Ex Parte at 4.
245 See Sirius XM Jan. 22, 2010, Ex Parte presentation at 12. Previously, Sirius XM believed that WCS mobile and
portable devices should be restricted to operating in the WCS A and B blocks with an EIRP of 125 mW and OOBE
attenuated by a factor of not less than 90 + 10 log (P) dB, with fixed operations still permitted in WCS Blocks C
and D. See Sirius XM Aug. 11, 2009 Ex Parte presentation at 27.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
44
band.246 The WCS Coalition is concerned, however, that further restrictions on WCS OOBE levels in
excess of those proposed in the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice could substantially delay the
availability of equipment in the United States, or, at worst, prevent vendors from offering user devices
that meet the prerequisites – reasonably low costs, small form factors, and extended battery life – for
success in the U.S. market.247 To improve the measurement accuracy of OFDMA signals, however, the
WCS Coalition proposes that in the one-megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the WCS
frequency blocks, measurements for compliance with the WCS OOBE limits should be based on a
resolution bandwidth of one percent of the emission bandwidth, as provided under the existing procedures
for other bands, so long as the measured power is integrated over a one-megahertz bandwidth. The WCS
Coalition contends such an approach is needed in the first megahertz on either side of a frequency band
being used for wideband technologies that incorporate OFDMA technology, including WiMAX and TD-
LTE (Time Division-Long Term Evolution), due to the wideband nature and spectral roll-off
characteristic of the OFDMA signal.248
98. In its comments on the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice, Sirius XM argues
that the proposed reduction in the attenuation of WCS OOBE to as little as 55 + 10 log (P) dB would not
be sufficient to protect SDARS receivers. Further, Sirius XM contends that the proposed limits were
tested and shown to cause harmful interference. Also, although Sirius XM acknowledges that the effects
of overload interference are dominant, it contends that introduction of OOBE will exacerbate the impact
of this interference.249 Sirius XM also argues that the WCS demonstration was conducted in an area of
the country receiving the strongest possible signals for the Sirius XM satellites. 250 (In its comments on
the Ashburn testing, Sirius XM noted that other areas of the country receive signals that are as much as
6 dB weaker than the signal that is received in Ashburn.251) Sirius XM also filed supplemental comments
containing a technical analysis of the impact of WCS out of band emissions from WCS devices on
SDARS receivers by Dr. Theodore S. Rappaport, P.E. (Dr. Rappaport’s Study).252 Dr. Rappaport
compares existing interference protection rules that apply to services adjacent to broadcast services. He
also describes the Sirius and XM satellite systems with general consistency with the characteristics
provided by Sirius and XM in their earlier comments. Dr. Rappaport oversaw creation of a software
simulator to model the WCS OOBE impact on SDARS receivers. The details of the simulator, the
assumptions used and the results of the simulation are provided in the analysis. He concludes, based on
his simulation results in five cities, that to provide sufficient protection to SDARS receivers, WCS mobile
and portable devices must be limited to an OOBE attenuation of 75 + 10 log (P) dB.253
246 See Comments of the WCS Coalition, filed April 23, 2010, at 4-5.
247 Id. at 5.
248 Id., Appendix A at xi. See also WCS Coalition Ex Parte Presentation, filed April 30, 2010, at 2-3. TD-LTE uses
TDD unpaired spectrum channels, which alternately use the same channel for uplink and downlink, splitting
resources as necessary on the basis of real-time demand , whereas FDD-LTE uses the FDD paired spectrum with
two separate channels, one for the uplink and one for the downlink.
249 See Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc., filed April 23, 2010, at 12-13.
250 Id. at 26.
251 See Sirius XM Ex Parte filing dated August 3, 2009, at 3-4.
252 See “Technical Analysis of the Impact of Adjacent Service Interference to the Sirius XM Satellite Digital Audio
Radio Services (SDARS)” by Theodore S. Rappaport, P.E., TELISITE Corp., submitted with Supplemental
Comments of Sirius XM, filed April 29, 2010, at 73.
253 See “Technical Analysis of the Impact of Adjacent Service Interference to the Sirius XM Satellite Digital Audio
Radio Services (SDARS)” by Theodore S. Rappaport, P.E., TELISITE Corp., submitted with Supplemental
Comments of Sirius XM, filed April 29, 2010, at 73.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
45
99. Discussion. We have reviewed all of the various analyses and test results concerning the
risk of interference due to OOBE from a WCS device. Each side has taken a position which led, at least
initially, to a nearly 50-dB difference in their assessments of potential OOBE interference.254 Sirius XM
had maintained that the interference criteria should be no more than a 1-dB degradation of the SDARS
receiver’s noise floor. We recognize that its position is based on the need to preserve the maximum
margin possible in its link budget to deal with propagation phenomena such as shadowing from trees,
buildings, and other objects. The WCS Coalition’s position that interference should be based on muting
could, on the surface, appear to completely eliminate any margin to provide for reliable satellite reception.
We appreciate that such margins serve to provide reliable reception in difficult propagation environments.
Yet, consumers will not lose reception simply because of degradation in the link margin unless other
factors already are causing weak satellite signals. Moreover, given the complexity of these particular
satellite systems which are designed to use multiple satellite feeds and terrestrial signals, the degradation
of the margin to one satellite delivery path may have no material effect on the listener experience at
various locations. We note, too, that losses in addition to free space loss will exist in a vehicle-to-vehicle
scenario, as evidenced in the results from the Ashburn testing discussed earlier. These additional path
losses will help to offset the degradation of the satellite link margin and, consequently, mitigate the risk of
muting the SDARS receiver.
100. Accordingly, we conclude that it is appropriate to relax the current OOBE restriction.255
We require that WCS mobile and portable devices operating in the WCS A and B blocks and the
2.5-megahertz portion of the WCS C and D blocks furthest removed from the SDARS band attenuate
their out-of-band emissions, as measured over a 1-megahertz bandwidth, by a factor of not less than
43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305-2317.5 MHz and between 2347.5-2360 MHz that are
outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz
bands, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, and not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB) in the 2328-2337 MHz band. OOBE must also be attenuated by a factor of not less
than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 and 2360-2365 MHz bands, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in
the 2296-2300 MHz band, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2292-2296 MHz band, not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2288-2292 MHz band, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz
and above 2365 MHz. Several factors weigh in our decision. According to the measurements and
technical analyses provided by the commenters, the signal propagation loss will be greater than free space
loss between two vehicles. The exact signal attenuation will vary depending on many circumstances
including the distance between the vehicles, the use scenario (e.g., whether the transmitting WCS device
is held at head or lap height), and the orientation of the WCS antenna with respect to the SDARS receive
antenna (e.g., whether it is below, above or in the same plane as the SDARS antenna). Commission staff
observed from the Ashburn tests that when using an actual WCS device in a manner that a subscriber
would use the system (e.g., placing a VOIP call or uploading/downloading files), there were no
observations of muting due solely to OOBE. This indicates that signal attenuation plays a significant role
in mitigating the potential for WCS OOBE interference. The Ashburn tests also underscore the fact that
254 Based on Sirius XM’s filing prior to the Ashburn tests showing that its receiver would be muted if the WCS
OOBE attenuation level in the SDARS band were to reach 94 +10 log (P) dB, there was a difference of 39 dB in
attenuation between the positions of the parties. See Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte presentation at Exhibit B,
at 7.
255 Sirius XM argues that the lowering of the OOBE limit is arbitrary and capricious because it is a dramatic and
unsupported departure from the prior Commission conclusion that a highly restrictive OOBE limit is “required” to
protect SDARS spectrum, and that no technical explanation could justify this “complete about-face.” See
Comments of Sirius XM, filed April 23, 2010, at 44-45. However, it is well within our authority to change our rules
and standards in a rulemaking, so long as we provide a reasoned explanation for doing so. As detailed herein, we
believe that the OOBE limits we are adopting are appropriately tailored to accomplish our dual policy goals of
enabling the provision of mobile broadband services in the WCS spectrum, while protecting SDARS operations
from harmful interference.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
46
the satellite link margin was not entirely eliminated during the numerous test points since receiver muting
did not occur.
101. We note, however, that neither the Sirius satellites nor the XM satellites provide coverage
of the conterminous United States at a uniform power level. Under the Agreement Between the
Government of the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States
Concerning the Use of the 2310-2360 MHz Band, the power flux density level of the Sirius satellites at
the U.S.-Mexico border is limited to -126.5 dBW/m2/4 kHz, and the power flux density level of the
XM satellites at the U.S.-Mexico border is limited to -122.0 dBW/m2/4 kHz. These limits constrain the
power levels the SDARS satellites can transmit into the southwest part of the United States, while
allowing higher power levels further north. Sirius and XM have designed their geostationary satellites to
provide higher power levels into the heavily-populated areas of the East and West Coasts of the United
States than along the southern border. The physics constraints of satellite antenna design are such that the
power level of the Sirius and XM downlink signals must taper off gradually, rather than abruptly as the
downlink antenna patterns approach the southern border.
102. Although the power of Sirius XM's satellite signals in the southern portion of the United
States is lower than in the northern portion, we believe that the WCS mobile and portable devices' power
and OOBE limits we are adopting, coupled with the limits on these devices' duty cycle, the requirement
that they employ ATPC, and the 2.5-megahertz WCS guard bands on both sides of the SDARS band, will
be sufficient to limit the potential for harmful interference to SDARS receivers in those areas of the
United States that receive relatively lower-power satellite signals. In our judgment, because the testing
showed that potential for harmful interference from WCS mobile and portable devices is negligible, it is
reasonable to conclude that there will not be an appreciable increase in the potential for WCS mobile and
portable devices to interfere with SDARS receivers, even though Sirius XM’s signal level is less in some
portions of the United States.
103. In supplemental comments on the Commission staff’s WCS/SDARS Technical Rules
Public Notice, Sirius XM submitted an assessment on the probability of WCS interference to SDARS
service performed by Dr. Theodore S. Rappaport, P.E., of the Telisite Corporation.256 We commend
Sirius XM for supporting development of a Monte-Carlo model for analysis of Mobile Satellite reception.
As an initial matter, however, although Dr. Rappaport characterizes Sirius XM’s service as a broadcast
service, we believe that their service is more akin to a subscription-based direct broadcast satellite service
(DBS) offering.257
104. In Dr. Rappaport’s software simulator, he uses SDARS receiver parameters generally
consistent with what Sirius XM have provided in the record. With regard to path loss between the WCS
and SDARS terminals, he uses path losses with exponents of either 2.0 (free space, as suggested by
Sirius XM) or 2.18 (as suggested by the WCS Coalition) and an additional loss factor, described by a
Gaussian random variable having a mean of either 10 or 16 dB and a standard deviation of 0, 2, or 4 dB to
simulate different use cases;258 he indicates that both the Sirius XM and WCS propagation loss data are
well-matched by one of the resulting parameter combinations. The simulator permits the distance
between a WCS transmitter and an SDARS receiver to be as small as 3 meters (about 10 feet) to simulate
congested conditions across multiple traffic lanes. We believe that such conditions are most likely to
exist in urban areas. However, the model does not consider terrestrial repeaters, and apparently does not
256 See Supplemental Comments of Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed April 29, 2010.
257 Under the Commission’s Rules, a broadcasting-satellite service is a radiocommunication service in which signals
transmitted or retransmitted by space stations are intended for direct reception by the general public.
47 C.F.R § 2.1(c).
258 See Supplemental Comments of Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed April 29, 2010, Dr. Rappaport’s Study at 20.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
47
consider the 4-second buffer contained in SDARS receivers, which allows, for example, for uninterrupted
reception as a vehicle passes under an overpass resulting in momentary loss of the satellite signals. The
model also appears to assume that WCS transmitters operate in the frequency blocks nearest the SDARS
receiver259 (i.e., it is never assumed that a WCS transmitter in Block D (in the upper WCS band) could be
operating near a Sirius receiver (in the lower SDARS band) or that a WCS transmitter in Block C (in the
lower WCS band) could be operating near an XM receiver (in the upper SDARS band)). We believe that
this assumption overstates the likelihood of interference, since all SDARS receivers are always assumed
to be experiencing WCS transmissions that have the highest OOBE level. Finally, the model assumes
constant gain of the SDARS receive antenna with elevation angle. We note that Sirius XM appears to
have no gain specification within 20 degrees of the horizon for SDARS receive antennas, and that some
SDARS vehicular receive antennas have gains that are 7-10 dB below the nominal, specified value at
elevation angles within 15 degrees of the horizon.260
105. Other parameters can be adjusted by the user of the software, but for the simulations
submitted by Sirius XM, it is assumed that 34 percent of all vehicles on the road have on-board SDARS
receivers, which are in use 85 percent of the time, and that WCS transmitters are installed in 5 percent of
all vehicles and are transmitting 13 percent of the time. We note that the current number of Sirius XM
subscribers is less than 19 million,261 while there are over 240 million vehicles (of which 134 million are
cars).262
106. We believe that the assumed 3-meter separation between SDARS and WCS units
conflicts with the assumption of no terrestrial repeater service, since such repeaters are installed primarily
in urban areas where congested traffic across multi-lane roads is most likely to occur. Further, we note
that SDARS terrestrial repeaters transmit further into the SDARS frequency band that are also subject to
lower OOBE from WCS devices. We also believe that vehicle-mounted SDARS receive antennas will
generally provide significant isolation from WCS operations in nearby vehicles since the elevation angle
associated with reception of the WCS signal will generally be low (or nearly horizontal). Finally, while
reductions in link margin are useful indicators of reliability, we note that both parties have agreed that a
muted SDARS receiver defines interference and the simulations do not provide insight on whether or
when actual muting will occur.263
107. In our judgment, the modified WCS mobile and portable devices’ operating power and
OOBE limits we adopt will prevent interference to SDARS operations except in the rarest of instances
when a number of WCS and SDARS operating conditions coincide (e.g., WCS mobile device in close
proximity to SDARS receiver, high degree of mutual coupling between WCS and SDARS antennas, lack
of obstructions between WCS transmitter and SDARS receiver, WCS mobile device transmitting channel
is immediately adjacent to SDARS receiving channel, etc.).
259 See Supplemental Comments of Sirius XM Radio, Inc. filed April 29, 2010, Dr. Rappaport’s Study at 41.
260 Licul, S., et al., “Reviewing SDARS Antenna Requirements,” Microwaves and RF, September 2003, available
from http://www.mwrf.com/Articles/Print.cfm?ArticleID=5892
261 Sirius XM’s SEC Form 10-Q, filed May 7, 2010, lists 18,944,199 total subscribers; 9,157,165 subscribers on the
SIRIUS system and 9,787,034 subscribers on the XM system, as of March 31, 2010. See Sirius XM’s SEC Form
10-Q, available at http://www.faqs.org/sec-filings/100507/SIRIUS-XM-RADIO-INC_10-Q/.
262 http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/012439.html
(retrieved May 13, 2010)
263 See, e.g., Comments of Sirius XM , filed April 23, 2010, at 33; WCS Coalition Ex Parte presentation, filed
May 13, 2010, at 2-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
48
108. The arguments from Sirius XM for a more severe OOBE limit would, in effect, maintain
the de facto preclusion of mobile devices from operating in the WCS spectrum. Our current rules permit
mobile operations on their face but apply such a severe OOBE limit that no mobile operation is feasible.
As a result, there have been no mobile operations in the WCS spectrum and continuing to apply a severe
OOBE limit would surely perpetuate the status quo. We find this situation unacceptable because it
effectively makes valuable spectrum unusable for the provision of mobile broadband services, despite
results from the Ashburn tests that indicate that highly restrictive OOBE limits, such as the current OOBE
restriction or the limits proposed by Sirius XM, are not necessary to protect satellite radio operations.
109. In the past, the Commission has generally established OOBE limits based on factors such
as the impact on the viability of service and a general assessment of the risk of harmful interference.264
This approach has generally been successful. For example, the service rules adopted for the
1710-1755 MHz/2110-2155 MHz AWS-1 bands have fostered the nationwide provision of mobile
broadband services using that spectrum.265 The stepped emissions limit proposed by the WCS Coalition
is 12 dB more stringent for the outer satellite channels than our typical OOBE limit of 43 + 10 log (P) dB
and is 24 dB more stringent for the inner satellite channels. We note that Sirius XM is opposed to the
stepped OOBE limit approach recommended by the WCS Coalition because it claims this inappropriately
provides more protection to one satellite feed than another.266 We do not agree that this is a valid
objection. Because the WCS Coalition’s proposed OOBE attenuation factors will provide adequate
interference protection for the outer satellite channels of the SDARS band, due to the roll-off (i.e., further
attenuation) of a signal that is passed through a typical radio frequency filter, additional protection will be
available to the terrestrial repeater channels towards the middle of the SDARS band, and still further
protection will be available to the inner satellite channels in the middle portion of the SDARS band.
110. There is also precedent in the rules for a stepped OOBE limit. In establishing OOBE
limits for the BRS and EBS operating in the 2496-2500 MHz band, including OOBE limits to protect the
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operating below 2495 MHz, the Commission specified an emissions limit
of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at the channel edge and not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at
5.5 megahertz from the channel edge.267 Therefore, the limit proposed by the WCS Coalition is also more
stringent than the limit we have applied to adjacent band BRS and EBS operations in order to protect
Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) operations from harmful interference.
264 See, e.g., Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, Revision of
the Commission’s Rules to Ensure Compatibility with Enhanced 911 Emergency Calling Systems, CC Docket No.
94-102, Section 68.4(a) of the Commission’s Rules Governing Hearing Aid-Compatible Telephones, WT Docket
No. 01-309, Biennial Regulatory Review – Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize
Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket 03-264, Former Nextel Communications, Inc. Upper
700 MHz Guard Band Licenses and Revisions to Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 06-169,
Implementing a Nationwide, Broadband, Interoperable Public Safety Network in the 700 MHz Band, PS Docket No.
06-229, Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local
Public Safety Communications Requirements Through the Year 2010, WT Docket No. 96-86, Declaratory Ruling on
Reporting Requirement under Commission’s Part 1 Anti-Collusion Rule, WT Docket No. 07-166, Second Report
and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15418 ¶ 361 (2007) (Second Report and Order) recon. pending; Service Rules for
Advanced Wireless Services in the 1.7 GHz and 2.1 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-353, Report and Order,
18 FCC Rcd 25162 (2003) (AWS-1 Service Rules Order); Order on Reconsideration, 20 FCC Rcd 14058 (2005).
265 See 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, WT Docket No. 08-27,
Thirteenth Report, 24 FCC Rcd 6185, 6256 ¶ 140 (rel. Jan. 16, 2009).
266 See Sirius XM Ex Parte Presentation at 3 (filed November 13, 2008).
267 See 47 C.F.R. Section 27.53(l)(4).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
49
111. On balance, we conclude that the OOBE limits proposed by the WCS Coalition are
reasonable are sufficient to protect SDARS receivers from harmful interference without precluding the
operation of mobile and portable devices in the WCS spectrum. Thus, for WCS mobile and portable
devices operating in the WCS A and B blocks and the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C and D blocks
furthest removed from the SDARS band, we are adopting OOBE attenuation factors of not less than
43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies in the 2305-2317.5/2347.5-2360 MHz bands that are outside the
licensed band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, not
less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, and not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band. As indicated above, these stepped limits should provide
sufficient protection to the outer SDARS channels used at the satellites, slightly greater protection to the
SDARS channels used by the terrestrial repeaters, and still greater protection to the inner SDARS
channels used by the satellites. We anticipate that interference will occur very rarely under these limits.
For interference to occur, the WCS device would have to be transmitting at full power at the exact
moment that it is within a few meters of the SDARS receiver and there is no satellite diversity or
terrestrial repeater is present. As discussed in more detail below, in order to protect aeronautical mobile
telemetry (AMT) service operations in the adjacent 2360-2395 MHz band from harmful interference,
OOBE for WCS mobile and portable devices must also be attenuated by a factor of not less than
43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2365 MHz band and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB above 2365 MHz.
To protect deep space network (DSN) operations in the second adjacent 2290-2300 MHz band from
harmful interference, WCS mobile and portable devices’ OOBE must be attenuated by a factor of not less
than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 MHz band, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2296-2300 MHz band, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2292-2296 MHz band, not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2288-2292 MHz band, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz.
We believe that applying these stepped OOBE masks for the upper and lower adjacent spectrum will
allow for full use of the WCS A and B blocks and 2.5 megahertz of both the WCS C and D blocks with
equipment that is currently available, while also allowing for the interference potential with AMT and
DSN to be addressed with reasonable coordination requirements.
112. Although the typical measurement bandwidth used in measuring compliance with
specific OOBE attenuation factors is 1 megahertz, because we are requiring that WCS devices’ OOBE be
attenuated by a specific amount at the band-edge frequency, in the one-megahertz bands immediately
outside and adjacent to the WCS channel blocks at 2305, 2310, 2315, 2320, 2345, 2350, 2355, and
2360 MHz, measurements for compliance with the WCS OOBE limits may be based on a resolution
bandwidth of 1 percent of the emission bandwidth, so long as the measured power is integrated over a
1-megahertz bandwidth. As noted by the WCS Coalition, this should improve the OOBE measurement
accuracy for OFDMA signals in the one-megahertz bands immediately outside and adjacent to the WCS
frequency blocks.268
113. We will, however, also employ the same approach to OOBE interference protection of
SDARS operations that we apply to protect SDARS operations from overload interference. Specifically,
WCS licensees must cooperate in good faith in the selection and use of new station sites and new
frequencies to reduce interference and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities. Licensees
of stations suffering or causing harmful interference must cooperate in good faith and resolve such
problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and the
International Bureau, may impose greater OOBE attenuation than described above.269
268 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte Presentation, filed April 30, 2010, at 2-3.
269 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(n).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
50
E. WCS Base and Fixed Station and Customer Premises Equipment Power and
Out-of-Band Emissions Limits
114. In the 2007 Notice, we sought comment on the WCS Coalition’s proposal that we adopt a
2-kW EIRP average power limit for WCS fixed and base stations.270 We specifically asked interested
parties to address what impact, if any, adoption of an average, rather than peak, power limit for WCS base
stations would have on the ability of WCS licensees to deploy new services, and whether it would
increase the risk of interference with adjacent channel licensees outside of the 2305-2360 MHz range.271
We also requested comment on whether the Commission should adopt a 6-dB PAPR (peak-to-average
power ratio) proposed by the WCS Coalition, or whether a different PAPR, such as 13 dB, which the
Commission adopted for wireless services in the 700 MHz band272 and more recently for services in
certain PCS/AWS bands,273 would be more appropriate.
115. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission also invited comment on three proposals for power
limits for SDARS terrestrial repeaters and WCS transmitting stations. One proposal, from Sirius, is to
limit ground-level emission levels. The second, proposed by WCS licensees, is to limit average EIRP and
the ratio between average and peak EIRP. The third proposal is a hybrid of the ground-level emission
limit and the average EIRP limit. We discuss each of these proposals in more detail below.
116. In its 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Sirius asserted that the Commission could limit
interference between SDARS repeaters and WCS stations by establishing a “ground-level emission limit”
of -44 dBm for both SDARS terrestrial repeaters and WCS stations.274 To verify compliance, Sirius
proposes that the received power from either an SDARS repeater or a WCS base station would be
measured at a height of 2 meters above ground level, at a distance from the base of the antenna that is
equal or greater than the effective height above ground level of the SDARS or WCS station’s antenna.275
Additionally, under Sirius’ proposal, the average power received at a distance of 1 meter from a
transmitting WCS subscriber station’s antenna would also be limited to -44 dBm.276 In its comments on
270 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 22.
271 Id.
272 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8064, 8103-04 ¶¶ 105-06 (2007) (“700 MHz Report and Order”).
273 See Biennial Regulatory Review—Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27 and 90 to Streamline and Harmonize
Various Rules Affecting Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 03-264, Third Report and Order,
23 FCC Rcd 5319, 5336-37 ¶¶ 29-42 (2008) (“Streamlining Third Report and Order”).
274 2006 Petition for Rulemaking at 4-5, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22129 ¶ 15. XM and Sirius have
referred to the proposed “ground-level emission limit” as a power flux density (PFD) limit. Letter from Carl R.
Frank, Counsel for XM/Sirius, to Secretary, FCC (dated Aug. 14, 2006) at 1; Letter from Patrick L. Donnelly,
Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Sirius, and James S. Blitz, Vice President and Regulatory
Counsel, XM Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Sept. 19, 2007) at 7-8 and Annex 2. In the
2007 Notice, however, the Commission explained that the ground-level emission limit is actually a received power
limit (similar to the limits on incidental radiator emissions in Section 15.209 of the Commission’s Rules,
47 C.F.R. § 15.209). The Commission explained further that a rule incorporating Sirius’ basic idea could be
expressed as an equivalent power flux density (PFD) or electric field strength limit. Assuming a 0 decibel over
isotropic (dBi) measurement antenna (as Sirius does), the -44 dBm received power limit is equivalent to a PFD limit
of -45.3 dBW/m² or a field strength limit of 100.5 dBµV/m. 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22129 n.42.
275 See 2006 Sirius Petition for Rulemaking, Appendices A, proposed Section 25.214(d)(2)(A)(i), and B, proposed
Section 27.50(a)(1)(A), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22129 ¶ 15.
276 See 2006 Sirius Petition for Rulemaking, Appendix B, proposed Section 27.50(a)(1)(C), cited in 2007 Notice,
22 FCC Rcd at 22129 ¶ 15. SDARS subscriber units are receivers only and do not transmit. Therefore, Sirius did
not propose a similar provision for SDARS.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
51
the Commission staff’s WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice, Sirius XM reiterated its position on
ground-based emission limits as a means of limiting interference to SDARS. It also added that the
Commission should require that the WCS network be deployed with a cell density such that a power level
greater that -44 dBm would not be present for greater than 100 meters of continuous road surface.277
117. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission requested that interested parties discuss whether a
ground-level emission limit – of the kind proposed by Sirius – would facilitate the deployment of both
SDARS and WCS services to the public. Specifically, parties were requested to discuss the interference
potential of a -44 dBm limit on WCS and SDARS operations, and to balance that potential with the
economic and business impact of such a limit on WCS and SDARS operations. In addition, the
Commission sought comment on how easily it could verify compliance with and resolve disputes arising
under a ground-level emission limit requirement.278
118. The Commission also encouraged parties to propose alternative ground-level emission
limits, and to provide technical studies demonstrating the effect such alternative limits would have on the
ability of SDARS and WCS licensees to serve the public. Further, the Commission stated that it would
consider an equivalent power flux density (PFD) limit expressed in dBW/m2, or a field strength limit
expressed in dBµV/m, because such a limit would eliminate the need to make an assumption about
receiver antenna gain. The Commission asked parties to recommend the bandwidth to be used in
calculation of a PFD limit if it were to adopt such a limit.279
119. As an alternative to Sirius’ ground-level emission limit proposal, WCS licensees
proposed allowing both WCS base stations and SDARS repeaters to operate with an EIRP up to 2 kW,
based on average rather than peak power, per 5 megahertz, with a 6 dB PAPR.280 The WCS licensees
further proposed a power spectral density limit such that only 400 W average EIRP could be emitted per
1 megahertz, to ensure the transmitted energy is spread across the band.281
120. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission asked several questions regarding the WCS
Coalition’s proposal and the methodology on which it is based. For example, the Commission asked
whether the adoption of a 2-kW EIRP average power limit would permit the deployment of WCS services
to the public. The Commission also asked whether the adoption of an average rather than a peak power
limit for WCS stations would have any effect on the ability of the licensees to deploy their services. The
Commission also requested comment on whether to adopt the 6-dB PAPR suggested by the WCS
Coalition, or whether a different ratio may be more appropriate, such as a PAPR of 13 dB, which was
adopted for wireless services in the 700 MHz band. Finally, the Commission requested parties to discuss
whether an average, rather than a peak, power limit would increase the risk of interference with adjacent
channel licensees, whether they are WCS or SDARS licensees, or licensees outside of the
2305-2360 MHz range.282
277 See Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc., filed April 23, 2010, at 32.
278 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
279 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
280 WCS Coalition July 9, 2007, Ex Parte at 3-4, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 21. As proposed by
the WCS Coalition, average EIRP would be calculated using the average power of the transmitter measured in
accordance with the definition of "mean power" in Section 2.1 of the Commission’s rules.
281 WCS Coalition July 9, 2007, Ex Parte at 3, Appendix A, proposed Sections 27.50(a)(1) and 25.XX(a), cited in
2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 21.
282 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 22.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
52
121. Finally, the Commission invited interested parties to discuss whether a hybrid power
approach might be appropriate. The Commission explained that such an approach would give SDARS
licensees flexibility to place their repeaters on high towers and operate them with more power if they
meet a certain emission limit on the ground, while WCS would have the flexibility to meet an average
EIRP limit using towers lower to the ground.283 The Commission observed that it adopted a similar
approach for the lower 700 MHz band, where commercial base stations must meet an effective radiated
power (ERP) limit of 1 or 2 kW, depending on whether they are deployed in rural areas, but such stations
could also transmit at 50 kW ERP if they do not produce signals exceeding a PFD of 3 mW/m2 on the
ground within 1 kilometer (km) of the station.284 Further, the Commission invited commenters to suggest
specific power limits to be used in a hybrid approach if such an approach is adopted.285
122. The WCS Coalition states that allowing WCS base stations to operate with an average
rather than peak power limit of 2 kW EIRP will enable WCS licensees to match the power level of
SDARS terrestrial repeaters if necessary to avoid interference to WCS mobile stations.286 Motorola
supports the WCS Coalition’s proposal to apply average power,287 arguing that an average EIRP limit
would be consistent with the power limits that the Commission adopted for the 700 MHz band.288
Motorola asserts that applying a non-constant envelope to WCS would better accommodate transient
power surges of short duration.289
123. Sirius XM argues that the need to increase power limits for WCS base stations to a
maximum of 2 kW EIRP average power is not well documented, and appears to only function as a means
to achieve parity with SDARS technical standards.290 Moreover, it argues that increasing the base station
power limit to 2 kW EIRP average power would quadruple the amount of harmful interference to SDARS
receivers.291 Sirius also submits that the average power should be measured at the 0.01 percent
probability level.292 In response, the WCS Coalition argues that its proposal for use of average
measurements, coupled with a proposed power spectral density limit of 400-W average EIRP per
megahertz, will substantially reduce overload interference from WCS licensees.293 The WCS Coalition
asserts that under current Part 27 rules, a WCS licensee is free to transmit multiple narrow band
(including 200-kilohertz wide) carriers at 2-kW peak EIRP each; accordingly, its proposal results in less
potential for overload interference, not more.294 Sirius XM proposes to keep the technical rules as they
currently exist in Part 27 for WCS Blocks C and D, allow more flexibility to enable mobile operations in
283 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131-32 ¶ 23.
284 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131-32 ¶ 23, citing 47 C.F.R. §§27.50(c), 27.55(b).
285 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131-32 ¶ 23.
286 WCS Coalition Comments at 25-26.
287 Motorola Comments at 3-4.
288 Motorola Comments at 4. See also WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 44.
289 Motorola Comments at 4-5.
290 Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 18.
291 Sirius Comments at 19-20, Sirius Reply Comments at 30-32, XM Comments at 32-33.
292 See Sirius’ Reply Comments Technical Appendix in Support of Reply Comments IB Docket No. 95-91 and ET
Docket No. 07-293, Exhibit D at 5.
293 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 42-43.
294 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 43.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
53
WCS Blocks A and B provided that Blocks C and D serve as appropriate guard bands to satellite radio,
and that there are appropriate restrictions on WCS devices’ maximum power and OOBE limits.295
124. Finally, in the 2007 Notice, the Commission requested comment on the WCS Coalition’s
proposal to relax the base station OOBE attenuation requirement of 80 + 10 log (P) dB.296 Specifically,
the Commission sought comment on the WCS Coalition’s proposal to require WCS and SDARS licensees
to attenuate emissions into each other’s band by a factor of 75 + 10 log (P) dB.297 In response to the
2007 Notice, the WCS Coalition reiterated its support for a relaxed OOBE attenuation requirement of
75 + 10 log (P) dB.298 Sirius XM also supports relaxing the emission mask for WCS base stations. XM
proposed that we adopt an OOBE attenuation of 75 + 10 log (P) dB, measured in a 1-megahertz
bandwidth, with ground-level emission limits of 100 dBµV/m (-44 dBm isotropic equivalent power) for
WCS Blocks A and B and 90 dBµV/m (-55 dBm isotropic equivalent power) for WCS Blocks C and D.299
Sirius likewise urges us to relax the WCS base station’s OOBE attenuation factor to 75 + 10 log (P) dB,
measured over a 1-megahertz bandwidth, subject to ground-level emission limits.300
125. In its comments on the Commission staff’s proposed rules, Sirius XM contends that the
proposed rules will not prevent interference from WCS base stations. Sirius XM submits that this is why,
in 2006, it urged the Commission to impose ground-based emissions levels limits on all 2.3 GHZ
licensees to avoid the creation of “hot spots” that would result in overload interference to adjacent-band
receivers. Sirius XM claims its study of 2.5 GHz-band WiMAX devices currently operating in
Philadelphia showed large areas surrounding base stations where the base station power level would mute
satellite radio receivers. Further, Sirius XM argues that the proposed rules only obligate WCS licensees
to select base station sites and frequencies that will minimize the potential for harmful interference to
SDARS receivers, but do not provide any meaningful opportunity for Sirius XM to work with WCS
licensees to mitigate interference from WCS base stations.301 To limit the potential for harmful
interference from WCS base stations, Sirius XM requests that the Commission set ground-level emissions
limits near WCS base stations. Furthermore, Sirius XM believes that the Commission should require that
the WCS network be deployed with a cell density such that a power level greater than -44 dBm would not
be present for greater than 100 meters of continuous road surface on major and secondary roads.302 Sirius
XM also urges the Commission to require WCS and SDARS licensees to negotiate and enter into a
written coordination agreement governing base station deployment, defining harmful interference to
SDARS to mean muting of SDARS receivers, obligating WCS licensees to resolve harmful interference if
it occurs, establishing an expedited procedure for Commission adjudication in the event of disputes, and
imposing significant penalties on WCS licensees who cause interference to SDARS receivers.303 In
addition, Sirius XM asserts that more specific processes are needed to define and assess interference, to
295 Sirius XM Nov. 6, 2008, Ex Parte at 8.
296 See 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22142 ¶ 24.
297 See id.
298 WCS Coalition Comments at 21.
299 XM Comments at 34-35, Exhibit A at 7.
300 Sirius Comments at 25, Exhibit A at A12. Although SDARS licensees initially supported the same OOBE limit
for both WCS base stations and terrestrial repeaters (see, e.g., Sirius Comments at 25, Exhibit A at A12; XM
Comments at 34-35, Exhibit A at 7), Sirius XM recently recommended the more stringent OOBE attenuation of
90 + 10 log (P) dB for SDARS terrestrial repeaters. See e.g. Sirius XM September 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 18.
301 See Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc., filed April 23, 2010, at 21-22.
302 Id. at 32.
303 Id. at 32-33.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
54
respond to interference claims, and to resolve interference complaints that the parties cannot resolve
themselves.304 In particular, it calls for at least 180-days notice prior to any WCS base station offering
service to the public.305
126. For WCS CPE, Sirius XM recommends that the OOBE on all frequencies in the
2320-2345 MHz SDARS band be maintained at the existing 80 + 10 log (P) dB limit. In support of this
recommendation, Sirius submits that WCS licensees have not submitted any data or analysis into the
record, such as the propagation losses associated with WCS CPE located within a home or apartment, as
opposed to a vehicular environment, that would warrant modification of CPE devices’ OOBE as proposed
by the Commission. Sirius XM also believes that the Commission should apply the proposed
2.5-megahertz WCS mobile and portable device guard band to include WCS fixed CPE. Finally, because
it contends that its technical study show a greater interference potential from wider bandwidth WCS
signals, Sirius XM believes that the Commission should establish a maximum occupied bandwidth of five
megahertz, which it contends is consistent with every technical submission filed by WCS licensees to
support their recommended rule changes.306
127. In its comments on the Commission staff’s proposed rules, the WCS Coalition submits
that because no party to this proceeding has suggested precluding point-to-point FDD links from
operating in the 2305-2320 MHz portion of the WCS band, the Commission should not restrict WCS
FDD fixed stations from transmitting in the 2305-2320 MHz WCS band. Thus, the WCS Coalition
suggests that the proposed rule be modified to reflect the Commission’s presumed intent to require FDD
systems to use the lower WCS bands for mobile-to-base station transmissions and use the upper WCS
bands for base station-to-mobile transmissions. If the Commission decides to prohibit fixed FDD
transmissions in the 2305-2320 MHz band, however, to avoid customer dislocation and stranded
investment, the WCS Coalition believes it should consider grandfathering existing FDD point-to-point
deployments constructed prior to adoption of the new technical rules.307
128. Stratos Offshore Services Company (Stratos) operates 200 WCS fixed point-to-point
transmitters on its WCS spectrum within the Gulf of Mexico service area that provide vital services to the
oil and gas industry.308 Because these station pair channels in the 2305-2320 MHz band for
communications in one direction with channels in the 2345-2360 MHz band for communications in the
reverse direction, Stratos submits that the Commission should not adopt a rule that precludes
point-to-point FDD fixed links in the lower WCS bands.309 However, if the Commission is disposed to
adopting such a requirement for mobile FDD systems, Stratos suggests that it should clarify in the rule
that mobile systems using FDD technology are restricted to utilizing the 2305-2320 MHz band for
mobile-to-base station transmissions and the 2345-2360 MHz band for base station-to-mobile
transmissions. Stratos contends that such a clarification would remove any risk of ambiguity as to
whether the Commission has eliminated the present ability of WCS licensees to deploy FDD
point-to-point systems utilizing both segments of the WCS band and provide Stratos with the regulatory
304 See Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc. at 2 (filed May 13, 2010).
305 Id., Attachment at 1.
306 Id. at 34-35
307 See Comments of the WCS Coalition, filed April 23, 2010, Appendix A at ix.
308 See Comments of Stratos Offshore Services Company, filed April 23, 2010, at 2
309 Id. at 3-4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
55
certainty it needs to continue operating and expanding its FDD point-to-point network to meet the needs
of the oil and gas industry in the Gulf of Mexico.310
129. Based on our analysis of the record before us and a balancing of the Commission’s
objectives in this proceeding, we adopt, in part, WCS Coalition’s proposal regarding base station power
limits in WCS Blocks A and B, and we adopt, in part, Sirius XM’s proposal regarding base station power
limits in WCS Blocks C and D. We conclude that the relative placement of the WCS spectrum blocks in
relation to SDARS operations requires that we establish different power level parameters for the A and B
blocks than for the C and D blocks. However, as we discuss below, the differing parameters we have
developed will provide WCS licensees with operational flexibility as well as safeguard SDARS
operations from harmful interference. We also clarify that fixed FDD transmitters are not prohibited from
transmitting in the 2305-2320 MHz WCS band.
1. WCS Base and Fixed Station Power Limits (WCS Blocks C and D)
130. Our analysis of the record leads us to conclude that, in order to appropriately balance the
interests of both SDARS and WCS licensees, we cannot revise the base station power limits for the WCS
C and D blocks as requested by the WCS Coalition. As noted above, WCS Blocks C and D effectively
sandwich the 2320-2345 MHz SDARS band. Accordingly, base station operations in WCS Blocks C and
D inherently pose more risk of potential interference to satellite radio users than would base station
operations in WCS Blocks A and B, which are separated from the SDARS spectrum by at least
5 megahertz. We agree with Sirius XM that a 2-kW average EIRP limit over 5 megahertz should not be
adopted for WCS Blocks C and D given the proximity of the C and D blocks to SDARS spectrum.311 A
review of the technical analyses submitted by the commenters leads us to conclude that, in light of the
sensitive nature of the SDARS receivers, applying base station power limits on an average versus peak
power basis in spectrum immediately adjacent to the SDARS band would unacceptably increase the
potential for harmful interference to satellite radio operations.312 Accordingly, we make no changes to the
2-kW peak power limit and OOBE limit for WCS base station operations in WCS Blocks C and D.
However, as noted by the WCS Coalition, Section 27.50(a)(1), as it exists currently, does not expressly
preclude WCS licensees from meeting the 2-kW EIRP peak power limit on a per emissions basis, which
could cause overload interference to SDARS receivers.313 Thus, in order to protect SDARS receivers
from overload interference, we are amending Section 27.50(a)(1) to clarify that WCS base stations in
WCS Blocks C and D are limited to 2-kW peak EIRP over 5 megahertz (i.e., 400 W/MHz).
2. WCS Base and Fixed Station Power Limits (WCS Blocks A and B)
131. Because WCS blocks A and B are separated from SDARS spectrum by at least
5 megahertz, we believe that the application of average power limits to these blocks of spectrum does not
raise the same interference concerns with regard to SDARS. The use of an average power limit, however,
will allow an increase in power levels for WCS operations, particularly those using non-constant envelope
310 Id. at 5-6.
311 Letter from Robert L. Pettit, Counsel to Sirius XM Radio, Inc, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Oct.
2, 2008), at 9 (Sirius XM Oct. 2, 2008, Ex Parte).
312 Even if the current “peak” EIRP limit of 2 kW was used on a per emission basis by four 1.25-megahertz-wide
emissions (i.e., the smallest bandwidth emissions that can be used for WiMAX, which is the projected use of the
WCS bands) over 5 megahertz, the horizontal separation needed to avoid harmful interference to SDARS operations
will be less than the separation needed if an “average” EIRP limit of 2 kW over 5 megahertz with a PAPR of 13 dB
were used in WCS Blocks C and D.
313 See WCS Coalition May 5, 2008, Ex Parte presentation at 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
56
modulation technologies.314 Given the sensitivity of SDARS receivers, we conclude that it is appropriate
to account for any resulting increased risk of overload interference to SDARS operations by limiting the
base station average power level in WCS Blocks A and B.315 Specifically, we find that it is appropriate to
modify the WCS Block A and B base station limit to 2-kW average EIRP over 5 megahertz (400 W/MHz)
with a PAPR of 13 dB when measured at the 0.1-percent probability level.316 This approach should
provide the technical flexibility for WCS licensees in these blocks to feasibly deploy mobile broadband
services to the public with minimal impact on SDARS users.
132. We agree with commenters who state that applying an average power approach would be
beneficial in situations where wideband non-constant envelope technologies are used. The Commission
permits licensees in other wireless services flexibility to meet radiated power limits on an average
basis.317 In other proceedings, the Commission noted that a number of the newer non-constant envelope
technologies, such as OFDM-based technologies, can produce an emission with transient power spikes.318
The Commission concluded that limiting power on an average basis would more accurately predict the
interference potential for such technologies, and that using peak power measurements for non-constant
envelope technologies inaccurately suggests a much higher overall operational power, compared to actual
power levels, due to the power spikes.319 Because average power is a more accurate measure of
interference potential with respect to technologies that are likely to be deployed in the WCS spectrum, we
conclude that we should adopt this mode of operation for the WCS A and B blocks.
133. In addition, we conclude that the use of a PAPR of 13 dB will provide an additional
flexibility to WCS licensees without causing greater risk of interference to SDARS operations. The
Commission found in other proceedings that limiting that PAPR to 13 dB strikes the right balance
“between enabling licenses to use modulation schemes with high PAPRs (such as OFDM) and protecting
other licensees from high PAPR transmissions.”320 Further, commenters agree that the use of a
314 Non-constant envelope modulation, as used in wideband Code Division Multiple Access (W-CDMA) networks,
is characterized by high PAPRs and requires both the phase and the amplitude of the signal to be modulated, as
opposed to constant envelope modulation, as used in GSM networks, which only involves the phase.
315 Based on the mobile receiver overload parameters (-44 dBm in the WCS A and B blocks, and -55 dBm in the
WCS C and D blocks) submitted by Sirius (Sirius Comments, Exhibit C.) and the WCS Coalition (WCS Coalition
Comments at 15), we illustrate a horizontal separation needed to avoid overload interference caused to an SDARS
receiver from a WCS base station. Assuming a WCS base station height of 30 meters (approximate height for
cellular-type architectures), with peak EIRP of 8 kW (2 kW per 1.25 megahertz-wide emissions, with 4 carriers in a
5 megahertz block), as currently allowed under Section 27.50(a)(1), an SDARS receiver overload level of -55dBm,
an SDARS receiver height of 1.5 meters, flat terrain, and an empirical path loss model suitable for an urban area
under these conditions, namely COST-231 Hata Model, the separation distance for the WCS C or D block would be
347 meters if the current peak power limit for the WCS C and D blocks were to be retained. Using the -44 dBm
overload threshold agreed upon by the parties for the A and B blocks, we find that permitting an average EIRP of
2 kW over a 5-megahertz bandwidth (or 400 W/MHz) in the WCS A and B blocks will result in a separation
distance of less than 347 meters.
316 In radio networks, the PAPR is measured at a particular probability level to restrict how often the peak power is
above the specified average power level.
317 See Streamlining Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd 5336-5337 ¶¶ 40-42; 700 MHz Report and Order,
22 FCC Rcd at 15417-18.
318 See Streamlining Third Report and Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 5334 ¶ 34.
319 See id. at 5337 ¶ 40.
320 See 700 MHz Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8104 ¶ 39; Streamlining Third Report and Order,
23 FCC Rcd at 5337 ¶ 42.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
57
13-dB PAPR will provide technical flexibility, and maintain consistency with other services.321 We
believe that the application of a 13-dB PAPR limit in this matter furthers the Commission’s goal of
facilitating the deployment of advanced technologies, while limiting the potential for interference that
might result from high PAPR transmissions.
134. We believe that, in light of the sensitivity of SDARS receivers to overload interference, it
is in the public interest to apply a power spectral density formulation as proposed by the WCS
Coalition.322 We conclude that in WCS Blocks A and B, specifying the bandwidth over which power is to
be limited is appropriate because it could otherwise be assumed that the power limit applies on a “per
emission” basis. For example, a licensee employing one variation of WiMAX might only transmit one
emission within its five-megahertz bandwidth, while another variation of WiMAX or other technologies
with narrower emissions might employ multiple emissions over that bandwidth, each at the maximum
power level allowed. Such a result would increase the likelihood of interference to SDARS receivers.
Accordingly, the power limit for WCS base stations operations in Blocks A and B will be expressed as
average EIRP of 2,000 W (2 kW) over a 5-megahertz bandwidth (400 W/MHz), with a 13-dB PAPR.323
To further limit the potential for interference to SDARS receivers, WCS base stations supporting FDD
mobile and portable operations are restricted to transmitting in the 2345-2360 MHz band.
3. WCS Base and Fixed Station Out-of-Band Emissions Limit
135. We also find that the public interest would be served by adopting an OOBE attenuation
factor for WCS base and fixed stations below the transmitter power P, as measured over a 1-megahertz
resolution bandwidth, of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305-2320 MHz and
between 2345-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB
in the 2320-2345 MHz band, not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 and 2360-2362.5 MHz
bands, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2362.5-2365 MHz band, not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB in
the 2287.5-2300 MHz and 2365-2367.5 MHz bands, not less than 72 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2285-2287.5
and 2367.5-2370 MHz bands, and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above
2370 MHz.
136. As noted above, both WCS and SDARS licensees urge us to lower the current
80 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation factor by 5 dB to 75 + 10 log (P) dB. Although the SDARS
licensees also request that we establish ground-level emission limits, we decline to adopt ground-level
emission limits for WCS base stations as proposed by Sirius XM because of the difficulties associated
with characterizing and quantifying the case-specific propagation environment’s effects on an RF signal’s
field strength that could influence the interference potential at each fixed site. The rules that would result
from an attempt to deal with the anomalies associated with field strength levels, moreover, would be
overly complex and difficult for licensees to comply with and would be difficult, at best, for the
Commission to enforce. Furthermore, we believe that the revised power limits that we are establishing,
together with a 75 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation factor, will provide SDARS operations reasonable
interference protection while affording WCS licensees additional flexibility to offer mobile services to the
public. We therefore are revising Section 27.53 of our rules to reflect the relaxed OOBE attenuation
requirements outlined above. Below in Section F, we will discuss the impact of these emission limits on
the sharing environment relative to AMT and DSN operations.
321 Motorola Comments at 5; WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 54-55.
322 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 41-44; WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte Exhibit A.
323 The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) measurements should be made using either an instrument with
complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) capabilities to determine that the PAPR will not exceed
13 dB for more than 0.1 percent of the time or another Commission approved procedure. The measurement must be
performed using a signal corresponding to the highest PAPR expected during periods of continuous transmission.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
58
4. WCS Customer Premises Equipment
137. Background. The WCS Coalition proposes that WCS fixed CPE devices be limited to an
average EIRP of 20 W, with the average EIRP calculated by using the average power of the transmitter
measured in accordance with the definition of mean power in Section 2.1 of the Commission’s Rules.324
The WCS Coalition also proposes attenuating the OOBE for such CPE devices by a factor not less than
75 + 10 log (P) dB below the transmitter output power P on all frequencies in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
Alternatively, for WCS fixed CPE devices transmitting at no greater than 2 W average transmitter output
power, the WCS Coalition proposes that the OOBE be attenuated by a factor of 55 + 10 log (P) dB on all
frequencies in the 2320-2324 and 2341-2345 MHz bands, by a factor of 61 + 10 log (P) dB for
frequencies in the 2324-2328 and 2337-2341 MHz bands, and by a factor of 67 + 10 log (P) dB for
frequencies in the2328-2337 MHz band. In other words, the WCS Coalition believes that the stepped
OOBE mask of 55/61/67 + 10 log (P) dB that it proposes for WCS mobile and portable devices should
also apply to WCS CPE transmitting at 2 W or less.
138. Regarding the frequencies above and below the WCS band, originally, the WCS
Coalition proposed that WCS fixed CPE devices’ OOBE be attenuated by a factor of 70 + 10 log (P) dB
for all frequencies below 2300 MHz and above 2370 MHz. For all frequencies in the 2300-2320 and
2345-2370 MHz bands that are outside the licensed bands of operation, the WCS Coalition proposed that
WCS fixed CPE devices OOBE be attenuated by 43 + 10 log (P) dB. In addition, the WCS Coalition
proposes that in complying with its proposed OOBE limits, WCS fixed CPE devices that use opposite
sense circular polarization from that used by SDARS systems in the 2320-2345 MHz band shall be
permitted an OOBE allowance of 10 dB.325 However, on March 15, 2010, the WCS Coalition submitted
an ex parte presentation amending their proposal for CPE OOBE limits. Specifically, they now propose
that WCS fixed stations be attenuated by 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305-2320 MHz
and on all frequencies between 2345-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less
than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz, not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 and 2365 MHz, not less
than 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2367.5 MHz, and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB at 2370 MHz.326
139. Sirius XM, on the other hand, proposes that all WCS fixed CPE devices’ OOBE outside
the 2305-2320 and 2345-2360 MHz bands be attenuated by 75 + 10 log (P) dB over a 1-megahertz
resolution bandwidth, regardless of the device’s operating power.327 Sirius XM also proposes that WCS
fixed CPE devices operating with an EIRP greater than 2 W be subject to ground level-based emission
limits of 100 dBµV/m (-44 dBm isotropic equivalent power) for the WCS A and B blocks (2305-2315
and 2350-2360 MHz) and 90 dBµV/m (-55 dBm isotropic equivalent power) for the WCS C and D blocks
(2315-2320 and 2345-2350 MHz).328 In addition, Sirius XM proposes that WCS fixed CPE devices
operating at 2 W EIRP or less be exempt from the ground level-based emission limits requirements, so
long as they also meet the 75 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation requirement.329 In its comments on the
Commission staff’s proposed interference rules, Sirius XM reiterated its position on CPE devices. It
added however, that, at a minimum, the required OOBE attenuation for fixed CPE devices should be
324 In the Commission’s Rules, mean power (of a radio transmitter) is defined as the average power supplied to the
antenna transmission line by a transmitter during an interval of time sufficiently long compared with the lowest
frequency encountered in the modulation taken under normal operating conditions. See 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.
325 WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit A at 1-2.
326 See WCS Coalition March 15, 2010, Ex Parte, at 8.
327 Sirius Comments, Exhibit A at 4.
328 Sirius Comments, Exhibit A at 13.
329 Id. See also Sirius Comments at 31-32.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
59
maintained at the existing 80 + 10 log P dB level on all frequencies between 2320-2345 MHz.330
Sirius XM also expressed concern about there not being any prohibition on the use of external antennas
with WCS CPE or on outdoor CPE installations. In addition, Sirius XM stated that the Commission
should apply the proposed WCS 2.5-megahertz mobile and portable device guard band to CPE devices by
prohibiting the operation of WCS CPE in the 2.5 megahertz closest to the SDARS band.331
140. Discussion. Although we are establishing guard bands for the 2.5-megahertz portions of
the WCS C and D Blocks immediately adjacent to the SDARS band because this portion of spectrum is
currently not viable for full power mobile and portable device operations in close proximity to an SDARS
receiver,332 we believe that this spectrum can still play an important role in providing broadband service
to the public. Because of the likely physical separation of a fixed WCS transmitter from an SDARS
receiver, we expect WCS licensees will be able to use these portions of the WCS C and D Blocks to
provide fixed operations, including CPE and backhaul operations, with little impact on SDARS reception.
Thus, we decide that we should adopt the current mobile transmitter power limit of 20 watts per
5-megahertz peak EIRP for WCS fixed CPE devices.333 WCS CPE devices should also employ ATPC, so
the transmitted power is limited to the maximum necessary for successful communications. For fixed
customer premises equipment (CPE) transmitting with more than 2-W per 5-megahertz average EIRP, we
also decide to adopt the OOBE attenuation factors that we are adopting for WCS base stations of not less
than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305-2320 MHz and on all frequencies between
2345-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB on
all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz. These WCS CPE’s OOBE must also be attenuated by a
factor of not less than 43 + 10 log P dB at 2305 and 2360 MHz, 55 + 10 log P dB at 2362.5 MHz,
70 + 10 log P dB at 2300 and 2365 MHz, 72 + 10 log P dB at 2287.5 and 2367.5 MHz, and
75 + 10 log P dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
141. An examination of the Commission’s Equipment Authorization Database shows that
although most 2.3 GHz WCS fixed CPE devices are authorized to use significantly lower EIRP levels
(e.g., in the 1 to 2 W range), some WCS fixed CPE devices are authorized to operate up to the 20-W
EIRP currently allowed for WCS mobile devices.334 Authorized WCS fixed CPE devices have been
operating at EIRPs up to 20 W for some time in the 2.3 GHz band, but SDARS licensees have not
reported any instances of interference. We expect that if we were to continue to allow WCS fixed CPE
devices to use up to 20 W per 5-megahertz peak EIRP, SDARS operations would not experience any
appreciable increase in interference from these WCS operations. Moreover, continuing to allow WCS
fixed CPE devices to use up to 20 W per 5-megahertz EIRP will enhance the provision and quality of
service in rural areas, where subscribers are often located significant distances from WCS licensees’
serving base stations. Furthermore, as discussed in paragraph 136, supra, we decline to adopt the ground
level-emission limits proposal of Sirius because of the difficulties associated with characterizing and
quantifying the case-specific propagation environment’s effects on an RF signal’s field strength that could
influence the interference potential at each fixed site.
142. In a fixed scenario, there exists an increased separation distance between WCS CPE and
SDARS receivers than would exist in a vehicle-to-vehicle scenario. Furthermore, structural blockages are
330 See Comments of Sirius XM, filed April 23, 2010, at 34-35.
331 Id.
332 Based on the results of the Ashburn, VA tests, to prevent SDARS receivers from receiving harmful interference,
WCS mobile and portable devices are prohibited from operating in the 2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS C and D
blocks closest to the SDARS band (i.e., 2317.5-2320 and 2345-2347.5 MHz).
333 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.50(a)(2).
334 See, e.g., FCC Identifier AEZCPE-310-230.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
60
more likely to exist between fixed WCS CPE devices and SDARS receivers. The increased propagation
losses that result from these factors allow for greater flexibility in establishing technical limits for WCS
fixed CPE devices operating at or below 2-W per 5-megahertz average EIRP. We therefore adopt the
stepped OOBE attenuation factors proposed by the WCS Coalition for mobile and portable devices’
OOBE into the SDARS band. Specifically, for fixed CPE transmitting with 2-W per 5-megahertz average
EIRP or less, OOBE emissions must be attenuated by a factor of 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies
between 2305-2320 MHz and on all frequencies between 2345-2360 MHz that are outside the licensed
band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324/2341-2345 MHz bands, not less than
61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328/2337-2341 MHz bands, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2328-2337 MHz band, where P is the transmitter output power in Watts. To protect DSN operations at
2290-2300 MHz and AMT operations at 2360-2395 MHz, OOBE of CPE transmitting at 2 W per
5-megahertz average EIRP or less must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB 2305
and 2360 MHz, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz band, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB at
2296 MHz band, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB
below 2288 MHz and above 2365 MHz.
143. We agree with the WCS Coalition that these emission limits – which we also adopt today
for WCS mobile and portable devices – will provide reasonable protection to SDARS licensees, while
affording much needed operational flexibility to WCS licensees.335 Although SDARS licensees oppose
the stepped OOBE limits and instead336 advocate a reduced OOBE attenuation requirement of
75 + 10 log (P) dB, the SDARS licensees note that current fixed WCS deployments pose no or little
interference concerns to SDARS operations.337 In addition, the SDARS licensees recognize that WCS
fixed CPE devices operating at or below 2 W per 5-megahertz average EIRP do not require the same
safeguards against interference to SDARS operations as fixed stations transmitting at higher power
levels.338 As we have concluded supra that the stepped OOBE attenuation factors for WCS mobile and
portable devices will provide sufficient protection to SDARS operations, we conclude that WCS CPE
operating at 2 W per 5-megahertz average EIRP or less with these same attenuation factors will provide
SDARS operations sufficient protection from harmful interference. Thus, we find that it is appropriate to
adopt the stepped OOBE attenuation factors for WCS fixed CPE operating at 2-W per 5-megahertz
average EIRP or less that we are adopting for WCS mobile and portable devices. To further limit the
potential for harmful interference from WCS CPE to SDARS receivers, however, we restrict WCS CPE
devices operating at 2 Watts per 5-megahertz or less average EIRP to the use of indoor antennas and
indoor installations. We also require WCS CPE to employ ATPC to limit their transmitted power to that
which is necessary for successful communications. Because we believe the increased propagation losses
associated with the increased distances between WCS CPE and SDARS receivers and structural
blockages will be sufficient to limit the potential for harmful interference from WCS CPE, we will not,
however, apply a 2.5-megahertz guard band to WCS CPE and prohibit their operation in the
2.5-megahertz portions of the WCS band closest to the SDARS band. For WCS CPE using TDD
technology, we set the maximum duty cycle to 38 percent; for WCS CPE using FDD technology, we set
the maximum duty cycle to 12.5 percent in the WCS C block (i.e., 2315-2320 MHz) and to 25 percent in
the lower WCS A and B blocks (i.e., 2305-2315 MHz).
335 See WCS Coalition Comments at 11-12.
336 Sirius Comments at 31-32, XM Comments at 35, Exhibit A at 15.
337 XM Comments at 33, Exhibit A at 14.
338 Although the SDARS licensees argue that WCS fixed terminals/stations operating above 2 W should be subject
to the 75 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation level as well as a ground-based power limit to protect SDARS
operations, the SDARS licensees support exempting WCS fixed CPE devices operating at a lower power from a
ground-based power limit. Sirius Comments at 31-32 (supporting an exemption so long as the WCS fixed CPE
devices employ power control and a guard band for the C and D blocks), XM Comments at 35, Exhibit A at 15.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
61
5. Notification Requirement
144. Background. In the 2001 Public Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether to
require WCS licensees to exchange information with SDARS licensees regarding WCS station
deployments.339 This information would include the number of base stations, their locations and technical
characteristics, and the estimated reasonable cost to resolve interference to any WCS station receiving
blanketing interference from a specified SDARS repeater.340
145. In its 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Sirius proposed that we require both SDARS and
WCS licensees to maintain certain information regarding their transmitter deployments, and to require
that it be made available to other licensees via a secure Internet website.341 Specifically, Sirius urged the
Commission to require sharing of the following information: (1) a list of all operating transmitters and
their technical parameters; (2) telephone and email address of emergency contacts to investigate
complaints of harmful interference; and (3) the radiation patterns for all transmitting antenna types,
including manufacturer name and model number.342 Sirius also recommended that we require licensees to
post a predictive analysis on the website, showing that a transmitter will meet the applicable power limits,
no later than 90 days before it begins commercial operations.343
146. In the 2007 Notice, we invited comment regarding the extent to which WCS licensees
should be required to notify SDARS licensees of the deployments of base stations.344 We solicited
comment on the proposals discussed above, and asked parties to discuss which proposal would provide
the most effective and efficient means for parties to exchange information necessary to avoid interference
and co-exist in adjacent spectrum.345 We specifically asked whether the Sirius website proposal is
necessary to provide notice to all licensed radio stations potentially affected by WCS base station
deployments, and whether the proposal should be considered only if we adopt Sirius’ ground-level
emission limits proposal.346
147. In response to the 2007 Notice, Sirius reiterated its proposal to require all SDARS and
WCS licensees to maintain an Internet-accessible database of all their deployed and planned repeater and
base station operations, respectively, noting that such information could enable licensees to mitigate any
out-of-band interference that they might experience.347 XM asserted that SDARS operators and WCS
licensees can resolve interference issues between themselves in coordination.348 XM supported
notification and record-keeping requirements to facilitate coordination, provided that the requirements are
339 2001 Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 19441-42, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22134 ¶ 30.
340 Id.
341 2006 Petition for Rulemaking at 6, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22134-35 ¶ 31.
342 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Appendix A, proposed Section 25.214(d)(6), and Appendix B, proposed Section
27.50(l), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22134-35 ¶ 31.
343 Id. Sirius proposed that we exempt SDARS licensees from these requirements for repeaters operating with an
EIRP of 10 W or less, and repeaters deployed before the date the rule would become effective. See 2006 Petition for
Rulemaking, Appendix A, proposed Section 25.214(d)(6), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22134-35 ¶ 31.
344 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22135 ¶ 32.
345 Id.
346 Id.
347 Sirius Comments at 9-10.
348 XM Comments at 38-39.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
62
narrowly tailored to minimize administrative burdens.349 XM also suggested that this information be
maintained by a third-party frequency coordinator.350 In its comments on the Commission staff’s
proposed interference rules, Sirius XM argues that the revised WCS rules should also require WCS and
satellite radio licensees to negotiate a coordination agreement governing WCS base station deployment,
define harmful interference to satellite radio to mean “muting” of satellite radios, obligate WCS licensees
to resolve harmful interference to satellite radio by immediately ceasing operations, establish an expedited
procedure for FCC adjudication in the event of disputes, and, in any event, should impose significant
penalties on WCS licensees who cause interference to satellite radio. Sirius XM contends that including
such requirements in the WCS rules would ensure that future WCS licensees are fully aware of their
obligations to satellite radio.351
148. While the WCS Coalition generally supported measures that encourage SDARS and
WCS licensees to share certain technical information, it argued that requiring the provision of such
information 90 days before operating a new facility would be unduly burdensome. According to the
WCS Coalition, WCS licensees will need to adjust their base stations frequently to provide optimal
coverage to the public, and a 90-day notice requirement would severely impede that process.352 The WCS
Coalition argues further that there is no reason to require such reporting unless the Commission assumes
that there will be a problem with complying with the rules.353 Sirius responds that both SDARS and WCS
licensees would be subject to its proposed 90-day notice requirement, and questioned why the WCS
Coalition would oppose the proposal while advocating coordination of repeaters exceeding 2-kW average
EIRP limit.354
149. In its comments on the Commission staff’s proposed interference rules, the
WCS Coalition states that although it supports the 10-day notification period for new WCS base stations,
it believes the requirement to give 5 days notice before modifications are made to existing WCS base
stations is problematic, given the manner in which ubiquitous cellular networks are constantly being
adjusted to assure consumers the best quality of service. As an alternative, the WCS Coalition proposes
that notice of any modification to a WCS base station, other than a change in location, be given within
24 hours of the modification being made. The WCS Coalition contends that this approach would assure
that SDARS licensees have current data regarding the configuration of WCS facilities and would facilitate
future cooperation between WCS and SDARS licensees, but would allow modifications not related to
locations to be made within the timeframes dictated by marketplace realities.355 Sirius XM, on the other
hand, states that the 10-day and 5-day notice periods in the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice
are insufficient.356 It claims that 10 days is too short to review and process information about a
potentially large number of new base station sites and to raise concerns about potential interference.357
Sirius XM also asserts that more specific processes are needed to define and assess interference, to
respond to interference claims, and to resolve interference complaints that the parties cannot resolve
349 Id. at 39.
350 Id.
351 See Comments of Sirius XM, filed April 23, 2010, at 32-34.
352 WCS Coalition Comments at 38-40.
353 Id. at 40.
354 Sirius Reply at 34-35.
355 Id. at 14-16.
356 Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc. at 2 (filed May 13, 2010).
357 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
63
themselves.358 In particular, it calls for at least 180-days notice prior to any WCS base station offering
service to the public.359 In response to this proposal, the WCS Coalition argues that if WCS licensees are
required to give 180 days advance notice prior to deploying new base stations, they will be incapable of
responding within the time frames demanded by the marketplace, particularly as dead zones within
existing markets are identified.360 In addition, the WCS Coalition contends that such a requirement for
WCS licensees would hardly be fair and balanced given that Sirius XM has proposed that it be exempt
from providing any advance notification of the location of its terrestrial repeaters. 361
150. Discussion. Based on the record before us, we find that the public interest will be served
by requiring WCS licensees to notify SDARS licensees prior to deploying new or modified base stations.
We note that all parties addressing this issue support requiring coordination in some form. The
notification requirements that we adopt below are intended to enable SDARS licensees to minimize the
potential for harmful interference to their services without imposing undue administrative burden, while
ensuring that the public continues to enjoy those services without disruption. We decline, however, to
adopt Sirius’ 2006 proposal that would require 90-day prior coordination. We agree with the WCS
Coalition that a 90-day notice requirement is unnecessary, and with XM’s assertion that any notification
requirements should be designed to minimize administrative burdens for licensees.
151. Our review of the record indicates that the potential for interference between WCS and
SDARS can be mitigated by a streamlined notification process, whereby WCS licensees share
information regarding new or modified WCS base station operations. Specifically, we will require WCS
licensees to provide informational notifications as specified in those rules, as set forth in new
Section 27.72 in Appendix B.362 The rules we adopt today will require WCS licensees to share with
SDARS licensees certain technical information at least 10 business days before operating a new base
station, and at least 5 business days before operating a modified base station. We also will require all
WCS licensees and WCS spectrum lessees to provide Sirius XM an inventory of their deployed
infrastructure in accordance with and within 30 days of the effective date of new Section 27.72 in
Appendix B to this Order. Although we do not require this information to be provided to the Commission
when it is provided to SDARS licensees, a WCS licensee must maintain an accurate and up-to-date
inventory of its base stations, including the information set forth in Section 27.72(c)(2), which shall be
made available upon request by the Commission.363
152. We also find that the public interest will be served by requiring parties to cooperate in
good faith in the selection and use of station sites and frequencies to reduce interference and make the
most effective use of the authorized facilities. Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful
interference must cooperate in good faith and resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory
arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in
consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and the International Bureau, may impose
restrictions on WCS licensees, including specifying the transmitter power, antenna height, or area or
hours of operation of the stations. Similarly, the International Bureau, in consultation with the Wireless
358 Id.
359 Id., Attachment at 1.
360 See WCS Coalition Ex Parte presentation, filed May 13, 2010, at 3.
361 Id.
362 We note that if a WCS licensee is party to a de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangement under Part 1, Subpart
X of the Commission’s rules, its lessee will be required to comply with new Section 27.72, in Appendix B to this
Order.
363 See infra, Appendix B, at § 27.72(c)(3).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
64
Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology, may impose such
restrictions on SDARS licensees. We note that Sirius XM proposed specific metrics for defining harmful
interference and crafted a comprehensive process for exchanging information among the licenses,
analyzing the potential for harmful interference and specific steps for remedying harmful interference.364
Although we do not adopt these specific proposals in Part 25 or Part 27 of our Rules, we refer
Commission staff to the comments for consideration in resolving interference issues as they arise.
153. We note that in today’s companion Second Report and Order in IB Docket 95-91, we are
requiring SDARS licensees to provide WCS licensees an inventory of their already-deployed
terrestrial-repeater infrastructure.365 Provision of this information will provide WCS licensees a baseline
from which to plan their network deployments. In the companion order, we also are adopting streamlined
notification procedures that are designed to help ensure that new or modified SDARS terrestrial repeaters
will not cause harmful interference to existing WCS base stations, and to facilitate future WCS network
deployments. Specifically, the new rules will require SDARS licensees to provide WCS licensees certain
technical information prior to deploying new or modifying existing repeaters.366
6. Legal Issues Raised by Sirius XM
154. Sirius XM alleges that adoption of WCS rules as proposed in the WCS/SDARS
Technical Rules Public Notice and the resulting interference will improperly modify its licenses, and limit
Sirius XM’s utilization of its licensed spectrum in violation of its statutory, constitutional, and contractual
rights. At the outset, we continue to reject Sirius XM’s assertion that the changes to the WCS technical
rules will necessarily result in harmful interference to SDARS operations. The rule changes that we are
adopting to enable the provision of mobile broadband services in the 2.3 GHz band are tailored to avoid
harmful interference to SDARS operations, and, as a result, will not hamper Sirius XM’s ability to utilize
its spectrum. Moreover, as explained below, we find that Sirius XM’s legal arguments lack merit.
155. Section 316 Modification. Sirius XM asserts that any Commission action allowing
additional interference to a licensee constitutes a modification of license under Section 316 of the
Communications Act.367 Sirius XM states that, because the proposed rules “reverse” the Commission’s
current OOBE protections and will cause significant interference to Sirius XM’s operations, the proposed
rules constitute a modification of Sirius XM’s licenses under Section 316, and thus Sirius XM is entitled
to that section’s procedural protections, including an adjudicatory hearing.368
156. Section 316 of the Act provides for an adjudication process before the Commission may
modify a particular license.369 That provision, however, does not deprive the Commission of its authority
to establish rules of general applicability to an industry through its notice-and-comment rulemaking
authority.370 Sirius XM acknowledges that the Commission may adopt rules of general applicability that
364 See Sirius XM Ex Parte Communication, filed May 13, 2010, Attachment at 1-2.
365 See infra ¶ 278.
366 See § 25.263 in Appendix B to this Order.
367 Sirius 4.23 Comments at 49.
368 Id. at 50-51.
369 47 U.S.C. § 316.
370 See Committee for Effective Cellular Rules v. FCC, 53 F.3d 1309 (D.C.Cir. 1995); Upjohn Co. v. FDA, 811 F.d
1583 (D.C. Cir. 1987); WBEN, Inc. v. FCC, 396 F.2d 601, 618 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 914 (1968) (stating
that “[a]djudicatory hearings serve an important function when the agency bases its decision on the peculiar
situation of individual parties who know more than anyone else. But when, as here, a new policy is based upon the
general characteristics of an industry, rational decision is not furthered by requiring the agency to lose itself in an
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
65
affect a class of licensees, but states that the Commission must conduct a Section 316 adjudication when
an individual licensee’s interests are at stake.371 Sirius XM argues that the proposed rules do not directly
apply to a broad class of licensees, but affect only Sirius XM.372 While Sirius XM is correct that it is the
only entity holding SDARS licenses involved in this proceeding, it neglects to note that it constitutes the
entire class of SDARS licensees. To the extent that the revised WCS technical rules have any effect on
SDARS rights, such effect is applicable to all current or future SDARS licensees. We therefore reject as
unfounded Sirius XM’s argument that our actions are directed solely to the licenses of an individual
licensee. As explained above, the purpose of the Commission’s actions here is to establish revised
technical rules that will foster the provision of new services without causing harmful interference among
a number of adjacent services, including SDARS, WCS, and AMT. Thus, our new rules are based on the
general characteristics of a number of services, and adjudicatory hearings concerning the impact on Sirius
XM would be inappropriate.
157. Retroactivity. Sirius XM also asserts that the proposed rules would improperly result in
both primary and secondary retroactive changes to satellite radio licenses Sirius and XM acquired at
auction.373 Sirius XM argues that the proposed rules would have primary retroactive effect because they
“significantly impair” the rights provided by Sirius XM’s licenses.374 It is unclear, however, how
adoption of the proposed technical rules would constitute primary retroactivity. Primary or direct
retroactive application of a rule is limited to situations in which an agency “alter[s] the past legal
consequences of past actions.”375 Application of a rule is impermissibly retroactive when it “would
impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party's liability for past conduct, or impose new
duties with respect to transactions already completed.”376 In contrast, application of the revised WCS
technical rules would have a prospective effect only. Even if the revised technical rules somehow affects
Sirius XM’s operations or planned use of its spectrum going forward, Commission action that upsets
expectations held by Sirius XM based on existing rules is not impermissibly retroactive.377 Moreover,
(Continued from previous page)
excursion into detail that too often obscures fundamental issues rather than clarifies them”); Revision of Part 22 and
Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Facilitate Future Development of Paging Systems, WT Docket No. 96-18,
Implementation of Section 309(J) of the Communications Act -- Competitive Bidding, PR Docket No. 93-253,
Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Third Report and Order, 14 FCC Rcd 10030, 10096
¶ 123 (1999) (Paging MO&O on Reconsideration and Third R&O); 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, Further Memorandum and Opinion on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2109, 2127-28, ¶ 37
(1997); and Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service, Report and Order, 11 FCC
Rcd 9712, 9766, ¶ 139 (1995) (stating that “the Commission may modify any station license or construction permit
if in its judgment such action will promote the public interest, convenience, and necessity, and, ... such modification
may appropriately be accomplished through notice and comment rulemaking”).
371 Sirius 4.23 Comments at 50-51.
372 Id. at 52.
373 Sirius 4.23 Comments at 53-54.
374 Id. at 54.
375 See Celotronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585, 588 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing Bowen v. Georgetown
University Hospital, 488 U.S. 204, 219 (Scalia, J., concurring)).
376 Celotronix Telemetry, Inc., 272 F.3d at 588 (citing Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994)).
377 See National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. FCC, 567 F.3d 659, 670 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (citing Mobile
Relay Assocs. v. FCC, 457 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2006)); Chemical Manufacturers Ass'n v. EPA, 869 F.2d 1526,
1536 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (stating that “[i]t is often the case that a business will undertake a certain course of conduct
based on the current law, and will then find its expectations frustrated when the law changes. This has never been
thought to constitute retroactive rulemaking, and indeed most economic regulation would be unworkable if all laws
disrupting prior expectations were deemed suspect”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
66
Sirius XM could not have had any reasonable expectation that the Commission would refrain from
exercising its regulatory power to change the operational requirements of a service in cases where the
public interest is best served by such change, given that the Communications Act prohibits the grant of
any license without a waiver by the licensee in the use of the spectrum “as against the regulatory power of
the United States because of the previous use of the same, whether by license or otherwise.”378 Similarly,
Sirius XM’s argument conflicts with an underlying policy of the Act, discussed below, that no person is
to have anything in the nature of a property right as a result of the granting of a license.
158. We also reject Sirius XM’s claim that the revision of the WCS technical rules will have
harmful, secondarily retroactive effects. Sirius XM argues that the proposed rules may result in
secondary retroactivity because bidders relied on Commission rules protecting SDARS spectrum from
interference from mobile WCS operations, and spent billions of dollars to deploy satellite networks and
equipment based on rules in existence when they purchased their licenses.379 An agency must balance
harmful “secondary retroactivity” of an action that upsets prior expectations or existing investments
against the benefits of applying rules to those preexisting interests.380 Secondary retroactivity will be
upheld if it is reasonable.381 As discussed above, we reject Sirius XM’s premise that changes to the WCS
technical rules will result in harmful interference, so the effect on Sirius XM’s investment or Sirius XM’s
use of its licensed spectrum does not rise to the level of harmful secondary retroactivity. In any event,
even if there is harmful secondary retroactivity, we find that the rules we adopt here reasonably balance
the public interest in establishing revised technical limits to facilitate the provision of mobile broadband
services and Sirius XM’s interest in maintenance of the status quo.
159. Fifth Amendment Taking. Sirius XM further argues that interference resulting from the
relaxation of OOBE limits likely constitutes a taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment.382 It asserts
that government regulation that burdens property in a manner that unfairly interferes with the owner’s
investment backed expectations constitutes a regulatory taking.383 For it to prevail on this takings claim,
however, Sirius XM must show that it has a protected property interest in the spectrum licensed to it.
However, the Communications Act is clear that there can be no ownership interest in the spectrum
licensed to Sirius XM.384 The courts have long held that “[t]he policy of the Act is clear that no person is
to have anything in the nature of a property right as a result of the granting of a license,”385 and that “[n]o
licensee obtains any vested interest in any frequency.”386 The Commission has previously upheld this
378 47 U.S.C. § 304.
379 Sirius 4.23 Comments at 54.
380 See National Cable & Telecommunications Assn., 567 F.3d at 670 (citing Bergerco Canada v. U.S. Treasury
Dep't, 129 F.3d 189, 192-93 (D.C.Cir.1997)); Mobile Relay Assocs., 457 F.3d at 11.
381 Mobile Relay Assocs., 457 F.3d at 11.
382 Sirius 4.23 Comments at 56-57.
383 Id. at 57.
384 See , e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 301 (providing that it is the purpose of the Communications Act “to provide for the use of
. . . channels [of radio transmission], but not the ownership thereof, by persons for limited periods of time, under
licenses granted by Federal authority, and no such license shall be construed to create any right, beyond the terms,
conditions, and periods of the license”); 47 U.S.C. § 304 (indicating that “[n]o station license shall be granted by the
Commission until the applicant therefore shall have waived any claim to the use of any particular frequency or of the
electromagnetic spectrum as against the regulatory power of the United States because of the previous use of the
same, whether by license or otherwise”).
385 FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475, 60 S. Ct. 693, 697, 84 L. Ed. 869 (1940).
386 Ashbacker Radio Corp. v. FCC, 326 U.S. 327, 331, 66 S. Ct. 148, 150, 90 L. Ed. 108 (1945). See also Mobile
Relay Associates v. FCC, 457 F.3d at 12 (holding that licenses confer only “the right to use the spectrum for a
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
67
principle,387 as well as rejected the argument that a post-auction rulemaking change that may affect the
value of an auctioned license should be considered a taking under the Fifth Amendment.388 Accordingly,
Sirius XM does not have a property interest in the spectrum covered by its SDARS licenses such that any
rule change that might affect the licenses could be considered a Fifth Amendment taking of Sirius XM’s
property.
160. Contractual Rights. Finally, Sirius XM argues that adopting the proposed rules may
breach the “existing contractual relationship” established when the Commission granted satellite radio
licenses to Sirius and XM. Sirius XM argues that spectrum auctions create binding contracts between the
Government and the winning bidder.389 Sirius XM argues that revising the WCS rules to allow harmful
interference and thereby reducing the value of Sirius XM’s licenses would breach the contract established
at the spectrum auction.390 However, the Commission has previously rejected the notion that rule changes
affecting a licensee constitutes a breach of the license contract.391 It is well established that the
Commission retains the power to alter the terms and conditions of existing licenses by rule making.392
Further, the Communications Act makes clear that the auction mechanism for assigning licenses was not
intended to change the Commission’s basic regulatory role or otherwise provide additional rights to
auction-winning licensees.393 Thus, no auction bidder, including Sirius or XM, could have assumed that it
was buying a license containing terms that the Commission could not revise.
(Continued from previous page)
duration expressly limited by statute subject to the Commission’s considerable regulatory power and authority” and
“[t]his right does not constitute a property interest protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
387 See e.g. Amendment of Parts 73 and 74 of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Rules for Digital Low Power
Television, Television Translator, and Television Booster Stations and to Amend Rules for Digital Class A Stations,
MB Docket No. 03-185, Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 19331, 19359 n.166 (2004); Allocations and Service Rules
for the 71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz and 92-95 GHz Bands, WT Docket No. 02-146, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd
23318, 23346 n.184 (2003); Paging MO&O on Reconsideration and Third R&O, 14 FCC Rcd at 10095-96 (1999).
388 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Maritime Automatic Identification Systems, WT Docket
No. 04-344, Petition for Rule Making Filed by National Telecommunications and Information Administration, RM-
10821, Emergency Petition for Declaratory Ruling Filed by MariTEL, Amendment of the Commission’s Rules
Concerning Maritime Communications, PR Docket No. 92-257, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making and Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, 21 FCC Rcd 8892, 8926-27 ¶ 46 (2006); Facilitating the
Provision of Spectrum-Based Services to Rural Areas and Promoting Opportunities for Rural Telephone Companies
to Provide Spectrum-Based Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket
No. 02-281, 19 FCC Rcd 19078, 19126 ¶ 84 (2004) (Rural Report and Order).
389 Sirius 4.23 Comments at 54-56.
390 Id. at 55-56.
391 Rural Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd at 19126 ¶ 84.
392 See, e.g., United States v. Storer Broadcasting, 351 U.S. 192, 205 (1956); Committee for Effective Cellular Rules
v. FCC, 53 F.3d at 1319-20.
393 See 47 U.S.C. §§ 309(j)(6)(C) (stating that nothing in the auction statute or use of auctions shall “diminish the
authority of the Commission under the other provisions of [the Communications] Act to regulate or reclaim
spectrum licenses”); cf.47 U.S.C. § 309(j)6)(D) (stating that nothing in the auction statute or in the use of auctions
shall “be construed to convey any rights, including any expectation of renewal of a license, that differ from the
rights that apply to other licenses within the same service that were not issued pursuant to this subsection”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
68
F. Deep Space Network, Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry Service, and Amateur Service
Operations
161. Overview. The 2360-2395 MHz band is allocated on a primary basis for Federal and
non-Federal AMT use.394 The 2360-2390 MHz band is the part of the 2310-2390 MHz band that
remained allocated for AMT after the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference allocated spectrum
to satellite audio broadcasting. The Commission allocated the spectrum 2320-2345 MHz on a primary
basis to the SDARS and the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands to the WCS thereby reducing
the available spectrum for AMT in the United States in this band from 80 megahertz to 30 megahertz.395
In 2004, as a partial replacement for the spectrum that was allocated for the WCS and SDARS, the
Commission allocated the 2390-2395 MHz band for AMT use, thereby increasing to 35 megahertz the
amount of spectrum available for AMT.396
162. In allowing WCS licensees additional technical flexibility to facilitate the operation of
mobile services, we must consider potential effects on other spectrum users above and below the WCS
bands. Five megahertz below the 2305 MHz lower WCS band edge, in the 2290-2300 MHz band, NASA
operates its Deep Space Network (DSN), which is vital for communications supporting space exploration.
Additionally, above the 2360 MHz upper WCS band edge, AMT operations are conducted by Federal and
non-Federal aviation entities in numerous areas throughout the country, collecting real-time data for the
purposes of aircraft and missile flight testing. Also, in the 2300-2305 MHz band, immediately below the
lower WCS band edge, radio amateurs conduct technical investigations using weak-signal operations.
The Commission has also asked whether Medical Body Area Networks (MBANs) should be permitted to
operate in the 2300-2305 MHz band.397
163. All of these services operate with highly sensitive receivers and high gain antennas in
order to receive very weak signals. Although the weak signals and highly directional antennas could
increase instances of interference, these services are also operated by persons with specialized technical
expertise, and have different types of geographical deployments, so the interference considerations are
somewhat different for these services, compared to those for the much more ubiquitous SDARS, which is
used by consumers. The DSN is located at Goldstone in California's Mojave Desert. AMT receiving
antennas are deployed in many areas that often have controlled boundaries, such as Federal and
non-Federal facilities and airports. The number of amateur stations conducting weak signal operations in
this band is relatively small, and they are often located in low-noise areas that provide favorable
conditions for experimentation. As outlined below, we believe that reasonable rules can be devised to
allow WCS mobile operations to commence without causing harmful interference to DSN, AMT, or
amateur operations.
164. Amateur and Deep Space Network (DSN) operations below the WCS bands. Amateur
station weak-signal operations in the 2300-2305 MHz band are clustered around 2304 MHz.398 Amateurs
394 47 C.F.R. § 2.106, US276.
395 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish Part 27, the Wireless Communication Service, Report
and Order, GN Docket No. 96-228, 12 FCC Rcd 3977 (1997).
396 See Amendment of Part 2 of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Spectrum Below 3 GHz for Mobile and Fixed
Services to Support the Introduction of New Advanced Wireless Services, Including Third Generation Wireless
Systems, ET Docket No. 00-258, Seventh Report and Order, 19 FCC Rcd 21350, 21351 ¶ 3 (2004) (AWS 7th R&O).
397 See Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Provide Spectrum for the Operation of Medical Body Area
Networks, ET Docket No. 08-59, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 24 FCC Rcd 9589 (2009).
398 The 2300-2305 MHz band is allocated to the amateur radio service on a secondary basis. There is no
non-government primary allocation for this band.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
69
use this frequency to experiment with home-built and adapted commercial microwave equipment and
they employ special techniques to communicate across large distances. Some amateur stations operating
in this band are designed to transmit signals that reflect off the surface of the moon and back to a
receiving station on Earth. DSN operations are conducted in the 2290-2300 MHz band. The NASA DSN
is an international network of antennas that support interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar
astronomy observations for exploration of the solar system and the universe. The DSN consists of three
communications facilities spaced approximately 120 degrees of longitude apart around the world: at
Goldstone, CA; near Madrid, Spain; and near Canberra, Australia. This strategic placement permits
constant observation of spacecraft as the Earth rotates, and makes the DSN the largest and most sensitive
scientific telecommunications system in the world. 399
165. The comments are mostly silent on protection of the DSN and amateur operations below
2305 MHz. However, on May 4, 2010, the National Telecommunications and Information
Administration (NTIA) submitted a letter to the record expressing concern that the DSN be protected
from interference from WCS operations.400 NTIA proposes a relaxation of the WCS mobile/portable
stations’ OOBE limits and a tightening of the WCS base stations’ OOBE limits (to account for equipment
that is currently available) combined with an increase in the coordination distance for WCS base stations.
Specifically, NTIA suggests that WCS base stations’ OOBE should be attenuated by a factor of not less
than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 MHz band segment, 70 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2287.5-2300 MHz band segment, 72 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2285-2287.5 MHz band segment, and
75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz.401 NTIA also suggests that WCS mobile/portable devices’ OOBE
should be attenuated by a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2300-2305 MHz band segment,
55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2296-2300 MHz band segment, 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2292-2296 MHz band
segment, 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2288-2292 MHz band segment, and 70 + 10 log (P) dB below
2288 MHz. Further, NTIA requests that the coordination distance for WCS base stations be increased to
145 kilometers (km) around the DSN site located in Goldstone, CA, from the existing 50-km coordination
distance.402 The current rules require a WCS OOBE attenuation of 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2300-2305 MHz amateur band and 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2300 MHz where the DSN operates,
combined with a 50-km coordination distance around the Goldstone, CA DSN Facility.403
166. We believe it is important to ensure that the lower WCS spectrum is usable for broadband
mobile deployment, while also protecting the DSN facility at Goldstone, CA. We find that the best way
to achieve this is through the adoption of reasonable OOBE limits combined with an adequate
coordination distance for WCS base stations located near the Goldstone Facility. Therefore, we will
adopt the OOBE limits suggested by NTIA for WCS base, mobile, and fixed operations into the lower
adjacent band to protect adjacent-band services operating below 2305 MHz, which also appear to be
achievable with existing equipment designs and are not opposed by the WCS Coalition.404 We will also
399 The NASA Deep Space Network (DSN) is an international network that supports interplanetary spacecraft
missions and radio and radar astronomy observations for the exploration of the solar system and the universe. See
http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/dsn/ (last visited October 27, 2009).
400 See May 4, 2010, letter to Julius Knapp, Chief, Office of Engineering and Technology, from Karl B. Nebbia,
Associate Administrator, Office of Spectrum Management, National Telecommunications and Information
Adminstration, at 4 (NTIA May 4, 2010 Letter).
401 Id.
402 Id.
403 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.106 fn US338, 27.53(a)(3).
404 See WCS Coalition April 30, 2010 Ex Parte Letter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
70
adopt NTIA’s proposed coordination distance of 145 km for WCS base stations.405 We note that this
coordination distance is based upon a line of sight calculation assuming a WCS antenna with a height of
300 meters, which could occur particularly in mountainous terrain but is not likely for the type of mobile
applications that are being considered by WCS licensees. We also acknowledge that a coordination
distance of 145 km is a significant increase from the requirements in footnote US338 of the U.S. Table of
Frequency Allocations, which requires WCS licensees within 50 km of the Goldstone Facility to
coordinate their facilities to minimize interference with DSN.406
167. Nevertheless, because there is only one DSN location within the United States, we
believe this increased coordination distance is an additional precautionary measure that will ensure that
the work at the Goldstone Facility is not interrupted. We also fully anticipate WCS base stations can be
deployed well within the coordination distance once WCS licensees demonstrate that adequate shielding
and engineering practices are being implemented to protect the DSN. The coordination for the DSN
facility at Goldstone, CA, will be between NASA and the WCS licensees. Given that there is only one
location in a relatively remote area, we do not anticipate that the 145-km coordination distance will
impact the deployment of WCS. Additionally, if WCS equipment is manufactured with better OOBE
attenuation in the lower adjacent band, then WCS licensees will likely be able to coordinate base-station
locations that are closer to the Goldstone Facility.
168. Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry Service operations above the WCS bands. The AMT
Service’s 2360-2390 MHz band is immediately adjacent to the upper 2360 MHz WCS band edge. AMT
is used by the aerospace industry to collect critical data generated during flight testing of aircraft and
missiles, such as stresses on control surfaces, engine temperatures, fluid pressures, and many other
measurement points.407 WCS mobile and base stations are currently subject to an OOBE attenuation
requirement of 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2370 MHz band and 70 + 10 log (P) dB above
2370 MHz.408
169. In response to the 2007 Notice, AFTRCC filed comments requesting that the currently
required OOBE attenuation factor of 110 + 10 log (P) dB into the SDARS band not only be retained, but
formally extended to protect the AMT band as well.409 AFTRCC admits that it has benefited from the
current 110 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation factor afforded to SDARS, which have effectively
precluded mobile use of the WCS spectrum.410 It claims that, under more relaxed rules that would
facilitate the deployment of mobile and portable WCS stations and associated base stations, the signals
from these WCS operations would raise the noise floor of AMT systems and cause data dropouts.411
AFTRCC contends that AMT receivers are sensitive and use highly directional eight-foot or larger
antennas because AMT telemetry signals are frequently very weak and fluctuate due to the distance of the
405 We note that some amateur stations operating around 2304 MHz may experience an increased antenna noise
temperature caused by the implementation of mobile WCS operations, and will have to tolerate this change in the
RF environment. Due to the technical flexibility allowed to amateur stations in Part 97 of our rules, however, we
believe that operators of these stations may be able to offset or mitigate the effects of this change by relocating or
redirecting their antennas, or by making other permitted technical adjustments.
406 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.106 footnote US338, 27.53(a)(1).
407 AFTRCC Comments at 2.
408 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(3).
409 AFTRCC Comments at 5.
410 See Letter from William K. Keane, Counsel for Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated November 17, 2008) at 2 (“AFTRCC Nov. 17, 2008 Ex Parte”).
411 Id. at 7.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
71
aircraft from the receiving antenna, the low power of the aircraft transmitter, and the extreme maneuvers
of the aircraft being tested, and therefore, these signals are vulnerable to increases in the noise floor.412
AFTRCC contends that WCS interference will have a direct impact on the ability of AMT operators to fly
out to distances of up to 200 miles in order to comply with air traffic control requirements or to find
acceptable test conditions.413
170. To mitigate the risk of interference to AMT operations, AFTRCC suggests that if we
relax the OOBE attenuation requirements for WCS into the SDARS band, then we should increase the
OOBE attenuation to 70 + 10 log (P) dB between 2360-2370 MHz and 90 + 10 log (P) dB between
2370 2390 MHz for WCS mobile and portable stations and to 75 + 10 log (P) dB between
2360-2370 MHz and 95 + 10 log (P) dB between 2370-2390 MHz for WCS base stations.414 AFTRCC
also states that the WCS Coalition’s proposed attenuation of 75 + 10 log (P) dB for base station OOBE
into the SDARS band is designed to achieve this roll-off on the SDARS side of the band and OOBE
should achieve the same roll-off on the AMT side of the band. AFTRCC states that it would not object to
allowing a reasonable grandfathering period – one year, for example – for a limited deployment of WCS
equipment not meeting the OOBE attenuation levels that it suggests.415 AFTRCC later urged that WCS
licensees be limited to transmitting only from base stations using the upper WCS bands and that WCS
base stations be required to meet an OOBE attenuation of 70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2360 MHz band edge and
above.416 As an alternative to the limitation of base station-only transmissions in the upper WCS band,
AFTRCC urges the creation of a 2.5-megahertz-wide guard band at 2357.5-2360 MHz in addition to the
other technical limits it proposed on mobile WCS operations.417
171. Additionally AFTRCC requests that power and OOBE limits be measured on an EIRP
basis (i.e., after transmit antenna) rather than transmitter output power. Further, although AFTRCC
originally stated that if average power is allowed, then peaks should be limited to 6-8 dB for no more than
0.1 percent of the time, it later stated that all powers should be expressed as peak power as currently
outlined in Section 27.50(a).418 AFTRCC contends that allowing average power measurement instead of
peak power measurement would exacerbate WCS interference to AMT and, for 99 percent of the time,
would allow WCS OOBE levels into the AMT band corresponding to an attenuation of only
32 + 10 log (P) dB.419 In a subsequent ex parte filing, AFTRCC argues that allowing WCS to use average
power measurements with a peak to average ratio of 13 dB rather than specifying peak power
measurements will lead to a reduction of 13 dB in the level of OOBE interference protection afforded to
412 AFTRCC May 7, 2008, Ex Parte at 3.
413 AFTRCC April 23, 2010 Comments at 3.
414 AFTRCC Ex Parte of November 17, 2008 at 5-6. AFTRCC arrives at these mobile and portable OOBE
attenuation levels accounting for 16 dB to reduce the maximum single device interference to the noise floor of the
AMT receiver using free space propagation at a 1.5-mile (2.4 km) separation distance; 8 dB to account for aggregate
interference from multiple devices; and 3 dB to account for multipath and other non-line-of-sight enhancements to
interference signal strength. For base stations, AFTRCC includes an additional 5 dB to account for improved line of
sight from a tower-mounted antenna to the AMT receiver site.
415 See Letter from William K. Keane, Counsel for Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council, to The
Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, FCC (dated December 1, 2008) at 3 (“AFTRCC Dec. 1, 2008, Ex Parte”).
416 AFTRCC ex parte of March 19, 2010 at 15.
417 Id.
418 AFTRCC Comments at 6. In their Ex Parte filing dated September 15, 2009, at 15, AFTRCC suggests to retain
peak power measurement consistent with existing rules.
419 AFTRCC April 23, 2010 Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
72
AMT telemetry operations.420 In addition, AFTRCC submits that allowing average measurements would
result in a degradation of 8 dB from the current interference protection above 2370 MHz contained in the
Commission’s Rules.421 AFTRCC also suggests that we require ATPC be employed for WCS base,
mobile, and portable stations.422 AFTRCC claims that these additional protections are necessary to avoid
potential harmful interference to AMT operations.423
172. To further protect AMT receivers from harmful interference, AFTRCC suggests that the
75 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation for base stations should also be backed up by a coordination regime
for WCS base stations that would be located within line of sight of an AMT receiver.424 AFTRCC claims
that although the 43 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation level satisfies the ITU-R M.1459 power flux
density protection level of -180 dBW/m2/4kHz at distances over 100 km for an AMT ground receiving
antenna pointing at a WCS mobile transmitter,425 a single WCS device at a distance of 18.67 km from an
AMT receiver could cause interference to the receiver.426 Additionally, AFTRCC states that the WCS
Coalition’s proposed OOBE attenuation of 55 + 10 log (P) dB produces a separation distance of 32 km
from AMT receivers in order to avoid causing interference to the receivers, while an OOBE attenuation of
67 + 10 log (P) dB produces a separation of 8 km to avoid causing interference.427
173. In its April 30, 2010, comments, AFTRCC reiterates its opposition allowing WCS mobile
applications in the upper WCS band and support for its proposed technical constraints on WCS
operations. AFTRCC also states that if the WCS technical rules are established as indicated in the
WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice, then stringent coordination requirements would be needed,
coupled with an unconditional and immediate obligation for WCS licensees to shut down any upper
WCS-band base stations within line of sight of an AMT receiver upon receipt of a complaint of
interference to AMT operations.428 AFTRCC contends that even an expedited Commission procedure for
eliminating interference would be no substitute for such a procedure given the aviation safety issues at
stake. Boeing also requests that the WCS transmitters be shut down if they cause interference and seeks
more stringent coordination requirements; including the protection of mobile AMT receive operations and
the protection of future AMT deployments, even if it requires modifications to or relocation of WCS
operations.429 Boeing contends that the flexible use of mobile AMT sites is essential to effective and
efficient flight testing. Boeing also requests that WCS licensees be required to provide a list of WCS base
stations and their technical characteristics upon request by an AMT site operator.430
174. In its early comments in this proceeding, the WCS Coalition argued that its proposal to
relax the OOBE attenuation requirement in the 2320-2345 MHz band would not affect AMT
420 See Ex Parte Letter from William K. Keane, Counsel for Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council,
filed May 13, 2010, at 2.
421 Id., Attachment at 3.
422 AFTRCC Nov. 17, 2008, Ex Parte at 5.
423 AFTRCC Comments at 2-3.
424 AFTRCC Comments at 6.
425 AFTRCC Comments at 5.
426 AFTRCC August 14, 2009, Ex Parte detailing its conclusion to the tests conducted by WCS and SDARS.
427 AFTRCC Comments at 5.
428 AFTRCC April 23, 2010 Comments at 6.
429 Boeing April 23, 2010 Comments at iii, 2, 4.
430 Id. at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
73
operations.431 Also, NextWave Wireless (NextWave) contends that the OOBE attenuation factors of
43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2370 MHz band and 70 + 10 log (P) dB above 2370 MHz were
established in 1997 and, although AFTRCC participated in the proceeding establishing the WCS rules, it
did not petition for reconsideration of the adoption of those OOBE attenuation requirements.432
NextWave continues that there has been no interference to AMT operations from existing fixed WCS
operations.433 Further, the WCS Coalition suggests that AFTRCC has failed to install appropriate filters
and take other steps to protect against WCS operations.434 AFTRCC dismisses these arguments, stating
that the only reason the aerospace companies have registered their concerns is because WCS licensees are
contemplating a radical change in their use of the band that was not practical under the rules adopted in
1997.435 AFTRCC also states that for filters to be effective against WCS OOBE, they would have to be
added to the WCS transmitter, not the telemetry receiver.436
175. In response to AFTRCC’s proposals, the WCS Coalition offered a more stringent
attenuation of OOBE into the AMT band in its March 15, 2010 Ex Parte filing.437 However, as a result of
negotiations with NTIA, on April 30, 2010, the WCS Coalition updated its proposal for even more
stringent OOBE attenuation into the AMT band if the OOBE attenuation into the lower adjacent band
could be relaxed for WCS mobile devices.438 Specifically, the WCS Coalition and NTIA now agree that
WCS base stations’ OOBE, as measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth, must be attenuated
below the transmitter power P by a factor not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2362.5 MHz band
segment, 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2362.5-2365 MHz band segment, 70 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2365-2367.5 MHz band segment, 72 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2367.5-2370 MHz band segment, and
75 + 10 log (P) dB above 2370 MHz. Additionally, they agree that WCS mobile/portable devices’
OOBE, as measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth, must be attenuated below the transmitter
power P by a factor not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2365 MHz band segment, and
70 + 10 log (P) dB above 2365 MHz.439 The WCS Coalition argues that adoption of AFTRCC’s proposed
OOBE limits at 2305 MHz and 2360 MHz could have a material adverse impact on the utility of the
lower A and upper B block channels for broadband and would effectively force WCS licensees to waste
2.5 megahertz of the lower A block and the upper B block closest to the band edges as guard band
431 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 52-53.
432 See Letter from Jennifer M. McCarthy, Vice President, Regulatory Affairs, NextWave Wireless Inc., to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated November 23, 2008) at 1 (“NextWave Nov. 23, 2008, Ex Parte”).
433 Id. at 2.
434 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 52.
435 AFTRCC Dec. 1, 2008, Ex Parte at 2.
436 AFTRCC May 7, 2008, Ex Parte at 3.
437 In its March 15, 2010 ex parte filing, the WCS Coalition updated its position regarding emissions above
2360 MHz, stating that, given the state of filter technology, it would be able to meet base station OOBE limits of
43 + 10 log (P) dB 2360 MHz, 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz, 70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz and at
2365 MHz, 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2367.5 MHz, and 75 + 10 log (P) dB at 2370 MHz. In addition, the WCS
Coalition submits that it would be able to meet mobile and portable OOBE limits of 43 + 10 log (P) dB at
2360 MHz, 45 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5, 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2365 MHz, 65 + 10 log (P) dB at 2367.5 MHz, and
70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2370 MHz. WCS Coalition March 15, 2010 Ex Parte presentation at 8-9.
438 See WCS Coalition April 30, 2010 Ex Parte letter at 2, 5.
439 WCS Coalition April 30, 2010 Ex Parte letter at 2, 5; and NTIA May 4, 2010 Letter at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
74
spectrum because practical filters could not achieve sufficient roll-off to meet the proposed mask absent a
guard band.440
176. The WCS Coalition also states that the single greatest impediment in the staff’s proposal
to achieving the objectives in the National Broadband Plan is the coordination proposal to protect AMT
facilities.441 The WCS Coalition contends that the proposed 45-km coordination distance could delay if
not preclude service to 25 percent of the population in the United States. Instead, they argue that even
under worst case conditions for the upper B block, a 10-km coordination distance would provide adequate
protection to AMT operations. The WCS Coalition states that it is difficult to square the proposed tighter
OOBE limits with a 45-km coordination distance, when the Commission required neither type of
protections for AMT operations when it reallocated the 2385-2390 MHz band in WT Docket 02-8.442 The
WCS Coalition adds that coordination works best when both services have to coordinate with each other
and there is an incentive to be reasonable. However, the WCS Coalition contends that even though the
Commission staff has rejected AFTRCC’s technical restrictions on WCS, the coordination requirement
will allow AMT interests to hold WCS deployment hostage absent compliance with the rejected limits.443
The WCS Coalition also states that the 45-km coordination distance ignores attenuation characteristics
that would minimize interference to AMT facilities and provides its own technical analysis supporting a
10-km coordination distance.444
177. GE Healthcare (GEHC) also asserts that the 45-km coordination distance is unnecessarily
large and could stifle the deployment of WCS and broadband services. GEHC contends that AFTRCC’s
reliance on ITU-R M.1459 for protection levels for AMT and the use of free-space propagation
assumptions are inappropriate and result in overly conservative assumptions that should not be applied to
the WCS interference analysis.445 GEHC contends that even if one uses the inappropriate
-180 dBW/m2/4kHz protection level, a more realistic path-loss calculation would only result in a
coordination distance of 17.8 km for a WCS base station meeting 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2360 MHz.446
GEHC suggests that a 10-km coordination distance would be more than adequate between these 2
services. GEHC also submits that AMT receivers close to populated areas are already subject to OOBE
from numerous uncoordinated radio sources, including unlicensed devices, which far exceed the
-180 dBW/m2/4kHz protection level on a regular basis. Therefore, it would be inconsistent to hold WCS
base stations to a higher standard than existing and ubiquitous unlicensed Part 15 and Part 18 devices
currently meet in the AMT band.447 GEHC also points out that AFTRCC regularly coordinates and
approves wireless video links in the AMT band to televise major sporting events and that these devices
transmit at 250 mW and 1.5 W from airborne transmitters at locations throughout the country on a
frequent basis. Finally, GEHC argues that the Commission staff’s proposed coordination requirement
lacks clarity with respect to the responsibility of both parties and urges that a deadline for resolution of
coordination be established.
440 Id.
441 WCS Coalition April 23, 2010 Comments at iii, 6-7.
442 Id. at 8. The WCS Coalition acknowledges that the referenced allocation was later rescinded, but the principle of
the finding remains valid.
443 Id. at 9.
444 Id. at 10 and Appendix B.
445 GEHC April 23, 2010 Comments at 2-3.
446 Id. at 4.
447 Id. at 5-6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
75
178. In its April 30, 2010 Reply Comments, AFTRCC continues to support the protection
levels in ITU-R M.1459 as being appropriate to address potential interference between WCS and AMT
operations. AFTRCC also disputes the technical analysis of GEHC and the WCS Coalition supporting a
10-km coordination distance and contends that the 45-km or line-of-sight coordination distance,
whichever distance is greater, is reasonable.448 AFTRCC also argues that it is not reasonable to compare
the emissions into the AMT band from Part 15 devices that are 10 megahertz above the upper edge of the
AMT band at 2390 MHz to the WCS emissions that are adjacent to the lower band edge at 2360 MHz.449
179. As indicated above, on May 4, 2010, NTIA submitted a letter to the record
recommending emission limits and a coordination requirement to allow broadband mobile applications
for WCS, while also ensuring interference protection for Federal and non-Federal AMT operations.450
NTIA contends that the existing WCS OOBE limits into the AMT band would not adequately protect
AMT operations unless there was 10 megahertz of guard band between the services, which would result
in a large amount of WCS spectrum being rendered unusable. Therefore, NTIA proposed emission limits
that should be achievable with existing technology combined with a requirement that WCS base stations
be coordinated when they are within 45 km or line of sight of an AMT receiver site, whichever distance is
greater.451 NTIA also contends there may be instances in which WCS facilities could be located on
towers higher than the 30-meters above ground that was assumed in setting the coordination distance, or
could be located on a mountain overlooking an AMT facility, and therefore interference to AMT receivers
beyond the 45-km coordination distance, but within line of sight, could occur unless coordinated
beforehand. Thus, NTIA expects that the WCS licensee will be immediately responsible for eliminating
any interference situations, even if they occur beyond the 45-km coordination distance, and requests that
WCS licensees be required to take all practical steps necessary to eliminate such interference.452 Also,
although the WCS Coalition and NTIA agree on the OOBE limits in the AMT band, they disagree on the
appropriate coordination distance.453
180. NTIA also recommends consideration of the following factors to reduce interference to
AMT receivers: using the channels in the lower portion of the WCS band (2305-2320 MHz) for base
stations that are located in areas with lower population densities; using lower antenna heights to minimize
base station coverage; using down-tilt antennas for base stations to minimize the signal level in the
direction of AMT sites; employing sector blanking to eliminate base-station coverage in the direction of
AMT sites; reducing the transmitter power to minimize the base-station coverage areas; and employing
terrain shielding where practical to reduce signal levels in the direction of AMT sites.454 NTIA also states
that if line of sight is involved, the coordination process should also take into consideration other
parameters of the AMT receiver (e.g., antenna height and gain, minimum elevation angle, and terrain
shielding). The operational area used for flight testing (e.g., test ranges located away from populated
areas or over the ocean) should also be considered in the coordination process. NTIA suggests that future
technology advances, including better filtering for WCS base stations, should also be considered to
facilitate coordination. NTIA also suggests that to minimize the need for coordination, WCS licensees
operating in the 2345-2360 MHz band should avoid locating base stations within radio line of sight of
448 See AFTRCC April 30, 2010 Reply Comments at 4-6.
449 Id at 9.
450 See NTIA May 4, 2010 letter at 1-3.
451 A listing of current and planned Federal and non-Federal AMT receiver sites can be obtained from the Aerospace
and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC).
452 See NTIA May 4, 2010 letter at 3.
453 See WCS Coalition April 30, 2010 Ex Parte letter at 2, 5.
454 Id. at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
76
AMT receive sites, and if during the coordination process a mutual agreement as to the protection of
AMT receivers cannot be reached, the FCC and NTIA should be notified to resolve any conflict. This
includes interference that could occur to AMT receivers from WCS bas stations operating outside of the
45-km coordination distance.
181. Discussion. We believe it is possible to establish reasonable WCS limits that will allow
mobile broadband operations, while also preventing harmful interference from occurring to AMT
operations in the adjacent spectrum. First, we find the OOBE attenuation factors suggested by AFTRCC
are overly stringent and would likely render a meaningful portion of the upper WCS blocks unusable for
effective mobile broadband applications. Therefore, we find that the best approach to address the
spectrum boundary at 2360 MHz is to adopt reasonable OOBE attenuation for WCS transmissions,
coupled with a coordination requirement for WCS base stations, so that effective engineering practices
can be applied in the design of WCS deployments around AMT installations. We agree with NTIA that
the coordination process will allow for the application of technical and operational techniques that take
into account the local surroundings of specific AMT sites, and will enable the protection of AMT
receivers while also allowing WCS deployments in those areas around AMT receivers to the greatest
extent possible.
182. Specifically, as outlined previously, we will tighten the OOBE attenuation approach for
WCS mobile and portable devices above 2360 MHz as follows: 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2360-2365 MHz, and 70 + 10 log (P) dB above 2365 MHz. Additionally, WCS base and fixed stations
will still be required to meet the OOBE attenuation of 43 +10 log (P) dB in the 2360-2362.5 MHz band,
55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5-2365 MHz band, 70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2365-2367.5 MHz band,
72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2367.5-2370 MHz band, and 75 + 10 log (P) dB above 2370 MHz. These limits are
consistent with the agreement between NTIA and the WCS Coalition on how best to address possible
interference into the AMT band.455 In our independent judgment, we find that these limits strike an
appropriate balance between our competing goals of protecting AMT operations and promoting provision
of broadband mobile services by WCS licensees. Although these limits are more stringent than we
typically require for mobile services, they appear to be achievable with currently available equipment
technology. These limits will also be accompanied by conservative coordination distances that will allow
the parties to engineer solutions to co-exist depending on the particular deployment scenarios for each
facility.
183. Regarding our decision to establish a coordination process between WCS base stations
and AMT receivers, we acknowledge that coordination between adjacent spectrum allocations is not the
norm.456 In this instance, however, the limited number of AMT installations nationwide and AFTRCC’s
experience as a frequency coordinator lead us to believe that coordination between WCS licensees and
AFTRCC could be effective in reducing interference between these services, without overly burdening
either service. While AMT interests make some effective arguments demonstrating that interference
could occur over longer distances (e.g., in situations where the main beam of the AMT receiver is pointed
at the horizon, directly at a WCS base station transmitter, when the aircraft is operating at the outer
fringes of its communications range), the WCS interests have equally demonstrated that WCS operations
can be deployed well within our adopted coordination distance when real world deployment factors are
considered (e.g., typical terrain obstructions, down-tilt antennas by WCS base stations, and side-lobe
suppression of AMT antennas will greatly reduce the interference potential). Therefore, although we are
adopting the 45-km coordination distance and/or line of sight (whichever is greater) approach supported
455 See WCS Coalition April 30, 2010 Ex Parte letter at 2, 5.
456 However, in some limited instances, we have required inter-service coordination or other interference avoidance
requirements to address possible interference scenarios between different services in adjacent spectrum. See, e.g.,
47 C.F.R. §§ 25.213, 25.254, 27.1131, and 95.861.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
77
by AMT interests,457 we want to be clear that we are adopting this conservative coordination trigger only
to allow thorough consideration of possible interference scenarios and it is in no way to be considered an
exclusion zone around AMT facilities.
184. Although this coordination distance is conservative in that it does not consider terrain
shielding or other propagation factors that would mitigate possible interference between these services
and such a large coordination distance could slow deployment of WCS base stations near AMT facilities
while coordination takes place, we find that adopting such a conservative coordination distance is
preferable to adopting too small of a coordination distance and then having to address instances of
harmful interference after the facilities are deployed and operational. We believe that in most cases, the
line of sight from a WCS base station to an AMT receiver will be less than 45 km, but to account for the
possibility that a WCS base station could be deployed on a mountain overlooking an AMT facility, we
will require coordination for a radius of 45 km or line of sight from the AMT receiver, whichever distance
is greater. In addition, we note that because the WCS Coalition is considering the use of TDD technology
for the WCS band, the lower WCS-band channels can be used in areas around AMT receivers even if use
of the upper WCS-band channels is hindered. Also, although the interference protection mechanism
outlined in Recommendation ITU-R M.1459458 has been used in the past for the coordination of base
stations and AMT receivers,459 we will rely upon the AMT entity and the WCS licensee to use accepted
engineer practices and/or standards to evaluate each AMT/WCS deployment based on the relevant
operating characteristics and to come to a mutually acceptable agreement. Although the line of sight
distance will be likely less than 45 km in most cases, to account for the possibility that a WCS base
station or AMT receiver could be higher than 30 meters above ground or deployed on a mountain
overlooking an AMT facility, we will require coordination for a minimum of 45 km or line of sight,
whichever is greater.
185. We will also require WCS licensees and AMT receiver operators to cooperate in good
faith in the coordination and deployment of WCS and AMT facilities. WCS licensees must also
cooperate in good faith in the selection and use of new station sites and new frequencies when within
radio line of site of AMT receiver facilities to minimize the potential for harmful interference and make
the most effective use of the authorized facilities. If the parties are not able to reach a mutually
acceptable coordination agreement in an acceptable timeframe, either party can approach the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau of the FCC, which, in cooperation with the Office of Engineering and
Technology and NTIA, may impose restrictions including specifying the transmitter power, antenna
height, or area or hours of operation of the stations. Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful
interference must also cooperate in good faith to resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory
arrangements. At this time, we decline to specify a specific timeframe within which parties must remedy
interference because we believe the complexity and demand on resources will vary from deployment to
deployment. The details for remedying interference should be thoroughly documented in the coordination
agreements between the WCS and AMT licensees. We would expect the agreements to contain sufficient
specificity as to the mechanism, response time, and points of contact needed to expeditiously remedy
harmful interference, should it occur. If it appears the parties are not able to work to a mutually
acceptable arrangement within a reasonable time period, we may reconsider this decision in the future and
457 We note that the 45-km coordination distance proposed by NTIA would be the line of sight distance for an AMT
receiver at a 30-meter height pointed at a WCS base station at a 30-meter height assuming a smooth earth with no
terrain obstructions.
458 See Recommendation ITU-R M.1459, "Protection criteria for telemetry systems in the aeronautical mobile
service and mitigation techniques to facilitate sharing with geostationary broadcasting-satellite and mobile-satellite
services in the frequency bands 1 452 1 525 and 2 310 2 360 MHz." This Recommendation provides the framework
for conducting sharing studies between the mobile aeronautical test service and the mobile satellite service.
459 See 47 C.F.R § 25.253(f)(2), Mobile Satellite Service Ancillary Terrestrial Component base stations.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
78
establish specific deadlines for remedying the interference. We also expect the coordinating parties to
share accurate and relevant information in a timely and efficient manner. This applies equally to the
AFTRCC on behalf of the AMT community, NASA, and the WCS licensees. This coordination also must
address instances where an AMT licensee wishes to deploy temporary or future AMT facilities.
186. We note that both of these services have primary status in their allocation, so we reject
the AMT interests’ request that mobile, transient, and future AMT deployments have priority status over
WCS deployments. We also reject their request that WCS operations be required to immediately cease
operation at the request of an AMT operator. Such requirements would essentially elevate the allocation
status of AMT over that of WCS and we are not persuaded that such action is appropriate or justified.
Further, as is typically the case when co-primary services coordinate, we find a first-in, first-protected
coordination approach is appropriate to address future AMT deployments. We will also require the
parties to resolve interference complaints swiftly and in a mutually acceptable manner or either party may
request intervention by the Commission. We also encourage the parties to work together to address any
special needs each party might have. Although we adopt a conservative coordination distance, we do not
anticipate the creation of large exclusion zones around AMT facilities or for WCS to lock out or impede
future AMT growth. Our analysis of the record leads us to believe that these two services are capable of
operating in adjacent spectrum if they consider real world factors and deploy facilities in consideration of
their environment. We will also require the parties in the coordination process to determine what
modifications to either parties’ facilities would be considered minor, and the modifications that would be
considered major and in need of subsequent coordination. We believe WCS mobile/portable operations
and base stations would likely be shielded by foliage, buildings, and other structures that would attenuate
the WCS emissions. We believe that WCS base stations should be able to operate within the coordination
area if they use sound engineering practices and take local conditions into account. We also reject the
idea of the exclusion zones around AMT test facilities because we believe any potential interference can
be better evaluated in light of the specific factors applicable at each specific AMT receive location and
mitigated with coordination between the parties.
187. Finally, we reject AFTRCC’s suggestions that we limit the use of the 2345-2360 MHz
portion of the WCS spectrum to fixed transmitters, and that power be limited to peak power because these
suggestions would unnecessarily limit the technology and service choices of the licensees. Although, as
AFTRCC notes, average power measurement instead of peak power measurement also influences the
amount of signal energy allowed outside of the band under our OOBE limits, we do not find it is
necessary to limit the technology choices of the WCS licensees to prevent WCS from causing harmful
interference to AMT receivers.460 As outlined above, we are adopting very conservative coordination
protections for AMT facilities that are more than adequate to allow for the consideration of the WCS
licensees' technology choices, including average power measurement and mobile device operations in the
2347.5-2360 MHz band.
G. Performance Requirements
1. Background
188. On March 29, 2010, the Commission issued a public notice requesting comment on
possible revision of the performance requirements (also known as buildout or construction requirements)
for the 2.3 GHz WCS band.461 In the public notice, we asked whether the Commission should replace the
460 See AFTRCC Ex Parte filing (filed May 13, 2010).
461 See “Federal Communications Commission Requests Comment on Revision of Performance Requirements for
2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service,” WT Docket No. 07-293, Public Notice, FCC 10-46 (rel. March 29,
2010) (WCS Performance Public Notice). A summary of the Public Notice was published in the Federal Register
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
79
current WCS substantial service performance requirement462 with enhanced performance benchmarks if
we decide to modify technical requirements for the WCS band.463 Specifically, we sought comment on
whether, for mobile and point-to-multipoint services, we should require a licensee to provide reliable
signal coverage to 40 percent of a license area’s population within 30 months, and 75 percent of a license
area’s population within 60 months.464 We also asked whether, for point-to-point fixed services, the
Commission should require construction and operation of 15 point-to-point links per million persons in a
license area within 30 months, and 30 point-to-point links per million persons within 60 months, together
with a minimum payload capacity to ensure that the spectrum is used intensively.465
189. In the public notice, we also asked whether the Commission should require WCS
licensees to satisfy submarket construction requirements in addition to satisfying the above construction
requirements for each license market area. For Major Economic Area (MEA) licenses, the submarkets
would be Economic Areas (EAs), and for Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) licenses, the
submarkets would be MEAs.466 Specifically, we asked whether for mobile and point-to-multipoint
services, in addition to the performance requirements for licensed market areas discussed above, we
should require licensees to serve 25 percent of each submarket’s population within 30 months, and
50 percent of each submarket’s population within 60 months.467 For fixed point-to-point systems, we
requested comment on the minimum number of links we should require licensees to construct and operate
in each submarket within 30 and 60 months, respectively.468 Finally, we sought comment on whether a
license should automatically terminate in its entirety if a licensee failed to meet either its license area
benchmark, or any related submarket benchmark.
190. Individual comments on the public notice were filed by Broadband South LLC, a WCS
spectrum lessee (Broadband South), WCS licensee Horizon Wi-Com, LLC (Horizon), WCS licensee
Stratos Offshore Services Company (Stratos), and Sirius XM. The WCS Coalition filed comments on
behalf of two AT&T WCS licensee subsidiaries (BellSouth Mobile Data, Inc., and AWACs, Inc.),
Horizon, NextWave–NW Spectrum Co (NextWave), and WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, Inc.
(Sprint).469 Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, Inc. and James McCotter (collectively,
Green Flag), which filed applications that compete with the renewal applications filed in 2007 by certain
WCS licenses, filed joint comments. Reply comments were filed by AT&T (on behalf of its WCS
(Continued from previous page)
on April 6, 2010. 75 Fed. Reg. 17349 (April 6, 2010). Comments and reply comments were due on or before April
21 and May 3, 2010, respectively.
462 Section 27.14(a) of the Commission's rules provides that 2.3 GHz WCS licensees “must, as a performance
requirement, make a showing of ‘substantial service’ in their license area within the prescribed license term set forth
in § 27.13.” 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a). The rule defines substantial service “as service which is sound, favorable and
substantially above a level of mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal.” Id. Section 27.14(a)
provides that failure by any WCS licensee to meet its performance “requirement will result in forfeiture of the
license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.” Id.
463 WCS Performance Public Notice at 1.
464 Id. at 2.
465 Id.
466 Id. The WCS A and B blocks are licensed in 52 MEAs, which are comprised of 172 EAs; the WCS C and D
blocks are licensed in 12 REAGs.
467 WCS Performance Public Notice at 2.
468 Id.
469 Sprint is the parent of WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, Inc.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
80
licensee subsidiaries, AWACs, Inc. and BellSouth Mobile Data, Inc.), Broadband South, WCS licensee
Comcast Corporation (Comcast), Green Flag; Horizon, the WCS Coalition, and Sirius XM.
2. Discussion
191. For the reasons stated below, we hereby adopt new performance requirements for the
2.3 GHz WCS band. The new requirements supersede the existing WCS substantial service performance
requirement, and will commence on the effective date of the revised WCS technical rules adopted
above.470
192. Request for Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. As an initial matter, we reject the
claim of the WCS Coalition and others that they could not file informed comments on performance
requirements due to uncertainty regarding the technical rule revisions we are adopting today.471 These
commenters argue that WCS licensees and the public had no clear guidance regarding which of the
technical proposals advanced in the record would be adopted by the Commission.472 The Commission
has provided WCS licensees more than adequate notice of the technical requirements under consideration.
In fact, on April 2, 2010, staff issued a public notice, which invited comment on the specific text of the
likely technical rules.473 Interested parties thus have had ample opportunity to analyze and comment on
the relationship of the technical and performance requirements under consideration.
193. We find that the record regarding performance requirements, as well as the technical
rules, is well developed and there is no need to issue a Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking as urged
by the WCS Coalition. Indeed, the WCS Coalition and others filed detailed comments seeking
adjustment of the proposed performance requirements, despite claiming that they lacked sufficient notice
of the likely technical rules to inform their comments.474 We note that in response to the detailed
comments of the WCS Coalition and others, we are easing performance requirements for license areas
where a substantial portion of the population is within an aeronautical mobile telemetry (AMT)
coordination zone.
194. Several parties also contend that delay is warranted because certain WCS renewal
applications are pending or subject to challenge by third parties.475 Today, we are adopting a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking that commences a proceeding to examine the Commission’s rules and policies
governing the renewal of wireless radio services authorizations. In a companion order to that notice, we
are granting all pending WCS renewal applications conditioned on the outcome of that proceeding.476 In
470 The revised technical rules will become effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register subject to
OMB approval for new information collection requirements.
471 AT&T Reply Comments at 2 (filed May 3, 2010); Horizon Comments at 4-5 (filed April 21, 2010); WCS
Coalition Comments at 7 (filed April 21, 2010).
472 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Comments at 7 (filed April 21, 2010).
473 See WCS/SDARs Technical Rules Public Notice, DA 10-592 (rel. April 2, 2010).
474 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Comments at 12-23 (filed April 21, 2010); WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 3-12
(filed April 29, 2010).
475 See Broadband South Comments at 5 (filed April 21, 2010); Horizon Comments at 6 (filed April 21, 2010); WCS
Coalition Comments at 11-12 (filed April 21, 2010).
476 See Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal,
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Policies and Procedures for
Certain Wireless Radio Services; Imposition of a Freeze on the Filing of Competing Renewal Applications for
Certain Wireless Radio Services and the Processing of Already-Filed Competing Renewal Applications, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order, FCC 10-86 (adopted May 20, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
81
view of the foregoing, we decline to postpone adoption of new performance requirements.477 We find
that such delay is unnecessary and would be contrary to the public interest.
195. Performance Requirements. Our adoption of enhanced performance requirements below,
together with today’s revision of certain technical rules, will further the public interest by promoting the
rapid deployment of new broadband services to the American public.478 Specifically, we find that
requiring WCS licensees to meet enhanced performance requirements will serve the public interest by
ensuring that underutilized spectrum will be used intensively in the near future. The new requirements
will provide licensees much needed certainty regarding their construction obligations and will help ensure
widespread system deployments.479
196. When the Commission originally adopted the 2.3 GHz WCS substantial service
requirement in 1997, it was “the most liberal construction requirement adopted by the Commission to
date.”480 The Commission reasoned that “[p]articularly in light of the technological uncertainties
associated with use of WCS spectrum to provide certain services consistent with the interference levels
we adopt today, we believe that stringent build-out requirements are not warranted.”481 The Commission
provided two examples of construction that would satisfy the substantial service requirement: (1) for
fixed, point-to-point services, construction of four permanent links per one million people in a licensed
service area; and (2) for mobile services, coverage of 20 percent of a license area’s population.482 Today,
we are reducing the technological uncertainties that existed in 1997 by revising technical restrictions to
enable WCS licensees to provide new high-value broadband and other innovative services in the band.
Accordingly, enhanced performance requirements are appropriate.483
477 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Comments at 3-12 (filed April 21, 2010).
478 See Connecting America: The National Broadband Plan, Recommendation 5.8.1 (“the FCC should accelerate
efforts to ensure that the WCS spectrum is used productively for the benefit of all Americans”). The National
Broadband Plan is available at http://www.broadband.gov/plan/.
479 The enhanced requirements also are consistent with Congress’ directive, under Section 309(j) of the Act, that we
adopt “performance requirements, such as appropriate deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to ensure
prompt delivery of service to rural areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or
permittees, and to promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 309(j)(4)(B).
480 See WCS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10843 ¶112.
481 Id.
482 Id., at 10844 ¶113.
483 We disagree with Sirius XM's contention that we are required to auction new spectrum licenses because the
revised technical rules afford WCS licensees enhanced spectrum rights. See Comments of Sirius XM on
April 2, 2010 WCS/SDARS Technical Rules at 57-59. Our overriding goal in this proceeding is to promote the
rapid deployment of innovative broadband services to the public in the WCS band. On balance, we believe that the
public interest is better served here by applying the new performance requirements to the incumbent WCS licensees,
within a more flexible technical regime, rather than attempting to displace the existing pool of WCS licensees or
otherwise to restructure license assignments in order to license new spectrum rights by auction (with or without
revised performance requirements). And it is the public interest that determines which mechanism should be used
for modifying licenses or licensing new rights. See, e.g., Amendment of the Commission's Rules Regarding
Multiple Address Systems, Report and Order in WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 16415 (2000) (holding that,
under the relevant circumstances, the public interest would be best served by adopting a mixed licensing regime
whereby certain types of MAS licenses would be subject to auction, but other types of these licenses would be
structured to avoid mutual exclusivity and any consequent requirement to issue them by auction). Accordingly, we
disagree with Sirius XM's contention that we are required to auction new spectrum licenses simply because the
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
82
a. Mobile and Point-to-Multipoint Service Performance Requirements
197. We find that to accomplish our goal of ensuring the rapid provision of innovative services
to the public, the performance requirements that we adopt must be ambitious, yet reasonable, both
temporally and quantitatively. Based on our analysis of the record in this proceeding and for the public
interest reasons discussed above, we conclude that WCS licensees that provide mobile or point-to-
multipoint services must provide reliable signal coverage to 40 percent of a license area’s population
within 42 months, and 75 percent of a license area’s population within 72 months. We are thus
extending by one full year the 30-month and the 60-month performance milestones that we proposed in
the public notice.
198. We conclude that the revised requirements will promote the public interest by ensuring
that there is meaningful deployment of new broadband services in the WCS band in the near future. The
new requirements also will afford WCS licensees bright-line certainty regarding their performance
obligations, and will facilitate Commission review of WCS performance showings.
199. The additional year that we are providing licensees to meet each performance benchmark
responds in a measured way to the comments of the WCS Coalition and others that additional time is
warranted to allow for the development and deployment of new equipment in the band.484 The record
demonstrates that it would not be difficult to modify existing equipment to meet the technical parameters
we are adopting today. The WCS Coalition, for example, foresees that it would take approximately 12 to
18 months to develop and commence deployment of mobile broadband service in the 2.3 GHz band.485
Based on the record, we believe that existing mobile WiMAX and other equipment can be adapted
efficiently to comply with the revised WCS technical rules, and that the construction deadlines of 42 and
72 months provide adequate time for licensees to obtain financing, and reasonably accommodate
equipment manufacturing and deployment cycles.
200. The 42- and 72-month milestones we are adopting today will accommodate the
development and deployment of a range of technologies in the WCS band, including WiMAX. We note
that according to the WiMAX Forum, there are currently 53 WiMAX systems deployed in the 2.3 GHz
band and 112 systems in the 2.5 GHz band.486 There are also numerous certified WiMAX mobile devices
that, with some modification, could be used in the 2.3 GHz WCS band under the revised technical rules
that we adopt today, including broadband dongles, handsets, and netbooks.487 There are many major
vendors of WiMAX equipment—including Airspan, Alcatel-Lucent, HTC, Huawei, Motorola, NEC,
(Continued from previous page)
revised technical rules afford WCS licensees enhanced spectrum rights. See Sirius XM Comments at 57-59 (filed
April 23, 2010).
484 Green Flag Comments at 4 (filed April 21, 2010); WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 6 (filed April 29, 2010).
Columbia Capital notes that while established service providers “have a realistic possibility of meeting the
Commission’s WCS [proposed] performance requirements,” doing so could be challenging for a new entrant that
seeks to obtain venture capital financing. See Letter from James B. Fleming, Jr., Partner, Columbia Capital to Julius
Genachowski, Chairman, FCC (dated May 12, 2010).
485 See Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand, counsel for the WCS Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT
Docket 07-293 (dated May 11, 2010). WCS Coalition Comments at 6 (filed April 21, 2010).
486 See WiMAX Forum® Industry Research Report April, 2010 at 3. The report is available at
http://www.wimaxforum.org/resources/monthly-industry-report (last visited May 14, 2010).
487 See http://www.wimaxforum.org/certification/certified-product-showcase (last visited May 14, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
83
Nokia, Samsung and Tellabs—and they sold more than $1 billion of equipment and devices in each of
2008 and 2009.488
201. Accordingly, we reject, as unsupported by the record, the WCS Coalition’s claim that it is
necessary to afford licensees a minimum of five years to serve 35 percent of a license area’s population,
489 and seven and one-half years to serve 70 percent of a license area’s population, which the WCS
Coalition argues will provide them with benchmarks comparable to certain 700 MHz requirements.490 In
the 700 MHz proceeding, the Commission applied these lower benchmarks to licensees that must meet
geographic, rather than population-based, performance requirements. We also are not persuaded by
TelCom Ventures’ claim that, based on the period it has taken Clearwire to develop and deploy WiMAX
in the 2.5 GHz band and its current level of service, we should provide WCS licensees five years to serve
35 percent of a license area’s population.491 Indeed, we believe that Clearwire’s trailblazing efforts to
deploy WIMAX in the 2.5 GHz band will facilitate expeditious deployment of WiMAX services in the
2.3 GHz band.
202. Submarket Performance Requirements. Based on the record before us, we find that it is
unnecessary to mandate specific construction requirements for each submarket within a WCS license area
(i.e., construction within each EA of an MEA license area and within each MEA of a REAG license area)
to ensure extensive system deployments in the public interest.492 We also note that this approach will
provide WCS licensees additional flexibility to design and deploy systems in their principal license areas.
We conclude that our general requirements to serve 40 percent of a license area’s population within 42
months and 75 percent within 72 months are adequate to ensure that licensees will promptly put their
spectrum to use and provide service to a significant portion of the population in their license areas.
203. AMT Coordination Zones. We adopt alternative performance requirements for
aeronautical mobile telemetry zones, but reject the call of the WCS Coalition and others to exempt AMT
coordination zones altogether from our revised performance requirements.493 While the requirement to
coordinate with AMT sites may slow deployment in these areas, we reiterate that such zones are not
exclusion zones. WCS licensees will be able to construct facilities within these areas.494 Instead, based
488 Infonetics Research: WiMAX equipment/device market up for third consecutive quarter, subscribers up
75 percent in ’09, Report Highlights at 1 (March 1, 2010), available at http://www.infonetics.com/pr/2010/4Q09-
WiMAX-Market-Highlights.asp (last visited May 14, 2010).
489 WCS Reply Comments at 8 (filed April 29, 2010). Cf. Green Flag Comments at 6 (filed April 21, 2010)
(proposing we adopt a 35 percent population coverage requirement at four years).
490 WCS Reply Comments at 8 (filed April 29, 2010).
491 Letter from Rajendra Singh, Chairman and President, Telcom Ventures, LLC to Julius Genachowski, Chairman,
FCC (dated May 11, 2010).
492 See WCS Performance Public Notice at 2 (proposing submarket construction requirements of 25 percent and
50 percent at 30 and 60 months, respectively). 700 MHz C block licensees must meet performance benchmarks for
each EA of a REAG. The 12 REAG license areas include 172 EA license areas.
493 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 6-8.
494 We note that approximately 25 percent of the U.S. population resides within AMT coordination zones. WCS
licensees can serve this population, without undertaking any prior coordination, using the lower five megahertz
portions of the WCS A and B spectrum blocks and the entire C spectrum block. There is thus 15 megahertz of
contiguous spectrum available in the band for which no prior coordination is required. For a list of the non-federal
AMT sites, see attachment to Letter from William K. Keane, Counsel for AFTRCC, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 07-293 (dated May 10, 2010). For a list of federal AMT sites, see attachment to Letter
from William K. Keane, Counsel for AFTRCC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket 07-293 (dated
May 12, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
84
on the record before us, we are adopting alternative performance requirements for those license areas
where WCS licensees that deploy mobile or point-to-multipoint systems in the upper five megahertz
portions of the A and B blocks or the D block must undertake substantial coordination with AMT receive
sites. We do so because in markets where a substantial portion of the population is within an AMT
coordination zone, licensees may require additional time and resources to design, site and deploy base
station facilities.
204. Therefore, to account for these considerations, we are reducing the construction
thresholds in any market (MEA or REAG) where a licensee can demonstrate that at least 25 percent of the
population is within an AMT coordination zone. Thus, in markets where at least 25 percent of the
population is within an AMT coordination zone, licensees must provide reliable signal coverage to
25 percent (rather than 40 percent) of a license area’s population within 42 months and 50 percent (rather
than 75 percent) of a license area’s population within 72 months. These alternative requirements do not
apply to spectrum block C, which is not subject to AMT coordination. These tailored requirements will
afford WCS licensees considerable leeway to deploy systems efficiently where they may face a challenge
meeting our general requirements to serve 40 percent of a license area’s population within 42 months and
75 percent within 72 months.
205. In sum, we find that based on the totality of the circumstances described above, the
performance requirements we are adopting strike an appropriate balance between our goal of enabling the
provision of timely, appreciable service to the public with accommodating the needs of licensees to secure
financing and equipment. The performance requirements are achievable without unduly burdening
licensees. Accordingly, we find that it is public interest to adopt the 40- and 75-percent performance
benchmarks as proposed in the WCS Performance Public Notice, but are extending the performance
periods to 42 and 72 months, respectively. The performance periods will commence on the effective date
of the revised WCS technical rules adopted above.
b. Point-to-Point Fixed Service Performance Requirements
206. Based on the record before us, we are modifying our proposal to require licensees that
provide point-to-point fixed services to construct and operate 15 point-to-point links per million persons
in a license area within 30 months, and 30 point-to-point links per million persons in a license area within
60 months, together with a minimum payload capacity to ensure that the spectrum is used intensively.495
The WCS Coalition supports the proposed 15 and 30-link benchmarks but urges us to apply them at 5 and
7 and one-half years, respectively.496 We believe that uniform performance milestones are desirable for
the 2.3 GHz WCS band. Therefore, consistent with our approach above governing mobile and point-to-
multipoint services in the band, we are extending each point-to-point fixed service milestone by 1 year, to
42 months and 72 months.
207. Accordingly, WCS licensees that provide a point-to-point fixed service must construct
and operate a minimum of 15 point-to-point links per million persons in a license area within 42 months
(one link per 67,000 persons), and 30 point-to-point links per million persons in a license area within
72 months (one link per 33,500 persons). The exact link requirement is calculated by dividing a license
area’s total population by 67,000 and 33,500 for the first and second milestones, respectively, and then
rounding upwards to the next whole number.497 For a link to be counted towards these benchmarks, both
495 WCS Performance Requirements Public Notice at 2.
496 WCS Reply Comments at 8 n.20 (filed April 29, 2010).
497 For example, if a license area’s population is 175,000, a licensee must construct at least 3 links
(180,000/67,000=2.68, rounded upwards to 3) within 42 months, and at least 6 links (180,000/33,500=5.37, rounded
upwards to 6) within 72 months.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
85
of its endpoints must be in the license area. If only one endpoint of a link is in a license area, it may be
counted as a half link towards the benchmarks. We find that these requirements are achievable, and will
further our goal of ensuring meaningful wireless deployment. Because it will be easier to coordinate
point-to-point systems in the vicinity of AMT receive sites,498 we find that it is not necessary to reduce the
applicable construction thresholds as we do above for mobile and point-to-multipoint systems in certain
license areas.
208. Submarket Performance Requirements. Based on the record before us, we find that it is
unnecessary to also mandate construction requirements for each submarket of a license area (i.e.,
construction within each EA of an MEA license area and within each MEA of a REAG license area) to
ensure widespread system deployments in the public interest. We find that our general requirements to
construct and operate a minimum of 15 point-to-point links per million persons in a license area within
42 months, and 30 point-to-point area within 72 months, are sufficient to ensure that licensees use their
spectrum intensively.
209. Minimum Payload Requirement. In the public notice, we also sought comment on
whether, for point-to-point services, we should adopt a minimum payload capacity requirement to ensure
that the WCS spectrum is used intensively.499 We find that a minimum payload capacity requirement will
serve the public interest by ensuring that point-to-point systems are constructed to provide robust services
to the American public. Second, and equally important, a minimum payload requirement will discourage
the construction of skeletal systems and fulfill Congress’ mandate that we adopt performance
requirements to help “prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or permittees, and to
promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.”500 Several parties
commented on this requirement and urged us to craft a minimum payload requirement that will achieve
these objectives while affording licensees flexibility to design and deploy systems efficiently.501
210. Based on the record before us, we find that our goal to ensure that the WCS spectrum is
used intensively in the public interest will be furthered by requiring that each point-to-point link have a
minimum payload capacity (megabits/second (Mbits/s) for a given bandwidth). We agree with the WCS
Coalition that the capacity requirements in section 101.141(b) of our rules—which require for nominal
bandwidths of 1.25, 2.5, 3.75 and 5 megahertz, a minimum payload capacity of 3.08 Mbits/s, 6.17
Mbits/s, 12.30 Mbits/s, and 18.5 Mbits/s, respectively—may require more construction than would be
necessary to ensure meaningful deployment in certain markets.502 Rather, we believe that the less
stringent payload requirement specified in section 101.141(a) of the rules503 is sufficient to ensure that the
valuable WCS spectrum is used efficiently and intensively, while affording licensees ample flexibility to
498 In a fixed point-to-point system deployment, communication signals are sent between two stationery facilities
using highly directional antennas, which focus the signal energy into a pencil beam. Mobile system deployments,
by contrast, typically require construction of multiple interdependent base stations, which communicate with
mobiles within a point radius of the base station's antennas to achieve service over a wide area. Fixed systems can
tightly control the direction of their signal and thus are better able to coordinate deployments near adjacent spectrum
users.
499 WCS Performance Public Notice at 2.
500 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
501 See AT&T Reply Comments at 3 (filed May 3, 2010) (supporting adoption of payload requirements based on
section 101.141(a); Letter from Christine Crowe, counsel for Stratos, to Secretary, FCC, dated Apr. 26, 2010 (same);
WCS Coalition Comments at 19-22 (same) (filed April 21, 2010); but, cf. Green Flag Comments at 7 (filed April 21,
2010) (opposing payload requirements).
502 WCS Coalition Comments at 20-21(filed April 21, 2010).
503 See 47 C.F.R. § 101.141(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
86
design fixed systems, and therefore adopt an analogous requirement here. Specifically, a fixed link must
provide a minimum bit rate, in bits per second, equal to or greater than the bandwidth specified by the
emission designator in Hertz (e.g., equipment transmitting at a 5-Mbits/s rate must not require a
bandwidth greater than 5 MHz), except the bandwidth used to calculate the minimum rate may not
include any authorized guard band.
211. Gulf of Mexico. We note that the deployment and provision of wireless
telecommunications services in the Gulf of Mexico presents unique circumstances, and we therefore tailor
the WCS point-to-point performance requirements accordingly. We also note that application of our
general performance metrics, which are based on population counts, would yield anomalous and
insubstantial performance benchmarks for Gulf of Mexico licensees.504 Accordingly and for the reasons
stated below, we will require the construction and operation of 15 point-to-point links at both 42 and 72
months from the effective date of the new WCS technical rules for each WCS spectrum block in the Gulf.
212. Stratos Offshore Services Company currently holds all four WCS licenses for the Gulf.505
Stratos has deployed and is operating 200 fixed point-to-point transmitters within its Gulf service area
(32 on the A block, 122 on the B block, and 23 on each of the C and D blocks).506 Stratos explains that
while its total link count is generally stable, it can vary as links are discontinued and replaced. On
average, 5 percent of Stratos’ links may be discontinued in a given month, and its link count on a given
day therefore may not reflect the level of service it has been providing.507 Stratos argues that given this
variability, we should allow it to count a link towards its performance requirements if it is either
operational on the performance date or, if discontinued, was operational within one year of the
performance date for 12 continuous months.508 We find it unnecessary to adopt such a requirement, and
note that even if its link-count were to decrease 20 percent, Stratos would still meet the performance
requirements for each of its spectrum blocks licensed in the Gulf.
213. We note that Stratos has used WCS and other spectrum solutions to provide service in the
Gulf for over a decade and now serves over 60 percent of the oil and gas platforms in the Gulf.509 We
also note that the market for communications services in the Gulf is generally limited. Because the
potential for increasing its coverage or customer base in the Gulf is limited and because Stratos already
provides significant services in the Gulf, we find that it would be inequitable to require the company to
meet performance requirements materially above its current level of service. Accordingly, we are
adopting the same performance requirement of construction and operation of 15 point-to-point links at
both 42 and 72 months for each of its WCS spectrum blocks in the Gulf of Mexico. These requirements
acknowledge the level of service that Stratos currently provides in the Gulf and provide Stratos certainty
regarding its minimum performance obligations.
504 See Stratos Comments at 4 (filed April 21, 2010) (based on an estimated population of less than 100,000 in the
Gulf of Mexico license area, a licensee would only have to construct one fixed link per spectrum block on a pro rata
basis).
505 Stratos’ WCS call signs are KNLB212, KNLB319, KNLB320 and KNLB321. The company serves over 100 oil
and gas exploration and production platforms in the Gulf, using microwave, satellite, and other forms of radio
communications. Stratos Comments at 1 (filed April 21, 2010).
506 Stratos Comments at 1(filed April 21, 2010).
507 Id. at 4.
508 Id. at 5.
509 Id. at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
87
c. Performance Penalties
214. Consistent with the WCS Performance Public Notice, we conclude that a WCS license
will automatically terminate without further Commission action if a licensee fails to meet a performance
benchmark.510 We disagree with the WCS Coalition and others who argue that this approach is unfair.511
In fact, the approach is entirely consistent with the approach adopted in the 1997 WCS Report and Order.
There, the Commission explained unequivocally that “[l]icensees failing to demonstrate that they are
providing substantial service will be subject to forfeiture of their licenses.” 512 This approach applies to
nearly all geographically-licensed wireless services. The wireless industry has invested tens of billions of
dollars over the past decade and thrived under this pragmatic approach. We are therefore not persuaded
that retaining the approach would deter capital investment.
215. We find no basis in the record to adopt a “keep-what-you-use” approach similar to that
adopted for certain 700 MHz licenses as urged by the WCS Coalition and others. 513 The approach, which
applies to select 700 MHz band licensees, is specifically tied to submarket performance requirements.
We note, for example, that 700 MHz C Block REAG licensees must meet performance requirements in
each Economic Area (EA) of their REAG license areas. In the 700 MHz proceeding, the Commission
provided that if a licensee failed to build a submarket, it would only lose that submarket. 514 We are not
requiring WCS licensees to undertake any submarket construction and find the keep-what-you-use
approach inapposite.
216. We also note that a central component of the keep-what-you-use paradigm used in the
700 MHz context cannot be applied to the 2.3 GHz WCS band. Under the paradigm, if a 700 MHz
C-block REAG licensee fails to meet its initial 40-percent performance requirement in even a single
Economic Area (submarket), its REAG license term would be reduced by two years and its end-of-term
construction requirement would be accelerated accordingly.515 The current WCS license term expires on
July 21, 2017. Thus, under keep-what-you-use, if a WCS licensee missed their first benchmark (at
5 years as urged by the WCS Coalition for example), it would then have to meet its accelerated end-of-
term requirement immediately. Such an approach is untenable.
217. Nor are we moved by the WCS Coalition’s claim that if a licensee were to serve
“74.49999 percent of the population of its authorized serve area,” it would “be forced to immediately
cease its service offerings” for noncompliance with the 75-percent population coverage requirement.516
The public interest requires that we closely examine such situations and, where appropriate, afford a
licensee a reasonable opportunity to fulfill their obligations.517 Further, as the WCS Coalition should be
510 WCS Performance Public Notice at 2.
511 See, e.g., WCS Coalition Comments at 18 (filed April 21, 2010); Horizon Comments at 5 (filed April 21, 2010).
512 See WCS Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 10843 ¶113. Section 27.14(a) codifies this penalty and provides that
failure by any WCS licensee to meet its performance “requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the
licensee will be ineligible to regain it.” 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(a).
513 Green Flag Comments at 6 (filed April 21, 2010); WCS Coalition Comments at 18-19 (filed April 21, 2010).
514 See Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, WT Docket No. 06-150, et al., Second
Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15356 ¶163 (2007) (subsequent history omitted).
515 47 C.F.R. § 27.14(h).
516 WCS Coalition Comments at 19 (filed April 21, 2010).
517 The Commission may grant a waiver where it finds that the purpose of a rule would not be served and that a
grant of the waiver would be in the public interest. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.925(b)(3)(i). See also 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(e)(1)
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
88
well aware, the Commission has consistently afforded licensees ample time to wind up operations where
they have had actual subscribers but materially failed to meet their performance requirements.518
Accordingly, we adopt our proposal that a WCS license will terminate automatically without Commission
action if a licensee fails to meet its performance requirements.
d. Relationship of New and Original Performance Requirements
218. The new performance requirements supersede the substantial service performance
requirement for all WCS licensees, including any licensee that previously filed a substantial service
demonstration.519 Thus, we hereby dismiss as moot all pending requests for an extension of time to
demonstrate substantial service.520 We also dismiss as moot an application for review of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau’s Horizon Order,521 jointly filed by Green Flag and James McCotter. In that
order, the Mobility Division dismissed as untimely a challenge to four substantial service performance
showings of Horizon for its 2.3 GHz WCS licenses, and denied a request to reconsider or rescind
acceptance of four other Horizon showings.522
219. Although Comcast acknowledges the Commission’s authority “to change a licensee’s
performance obligations under proper circumstances,” it claims that doing so here could undermine
investment in new wireless services.523 We disagree. Comcast and Broadband South both argue that any
licensee that demonstrates substantial service on or before July 21, 2010 should not be subject to further
performance requirements.524 Horizon likewise argues that we should exempt it from any new
performance requirements, noting that the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau accepted its substantial
service showings in 2007.525 We find that our goal of intensive use of the WCS spectrum in the public
interest will best be served by requiring all WCS licensees to meet the new performance requirements.
We also find that the public interest will be served by the regulatory certainty afforded by uniform
application of the performance requirements in the 2.3 GHz band.
220. However, to the extent that Horizon (or any other licensee or interested party) has
constructed and is operating facilities that meet the new performance requirements and provided that such
(Continued from previous page)
(“An extension request may be granted if the licensee shows that failure to meet the construction or coverage
deadline is due to involuntary loss of site or other causes beyond its control.”).
518 See, e.g., Comtec Communications, Inc., Request for Waiver of Automatic Cancellation of 900 MHz Specialized
Mobile Radio Service Licenses, Order, 23 FCC Rcd 8789 (WTB 2008) (providing licensee 180 days to facilitate
subscribers' transition to an alternate service provider); Pinpoint Wireless, Inc., Request for a Waiver and Extension
of the Broadband PCS Construction Requirements, Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1904 (WTB 2003) (same).
519 Substantial service demonstrations were filed for only 20 of 155 WCS licenses by the end of the initial 10-year
license term (July 21, 2007). In December 2006, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau granted a three-year
extension of the initial WCS construction deadline, until July 21, 2010, for certain WCS licensees. See Consolidated
Request of the WCS Coalition for Limited Waiver of Construction Deadline for 132 WCS Licenses, Order, 21 FCC
Rcd 14134 (WTB 2006).
520 A list of such requests is provided in Appendix F hereto.
521 Applications of Horizon Wi-Com, LLC, File Nos. 0003014435, 0003014449, 0003014463, 0003014470,
0003045272, 0003045277, 0003045282, and 0003067727, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 359
(WTB Mobility Div. 2009) (Horizon Order).
522 Id.
523 See Comcast Reply Comments at 4 (filed May 3, 2010).
524 Id.; Broadband South Comments at 6-7 (filed April 30, 2010).
525 Horizon Comments at 3-4 (filed April 21, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
89
facilities are operational on any applicable future performance milestone, it will count towards meeting
the performance obligations. To the extent that Broadband South or another party has undertaken any
construction and operation towards meeting that standard, it too may be counted towards any future
performance obligation provided that it comports with the new performance standards.
221. The new performance requirements also supplant AT&T’s obligation to serve 25 percent
of the population for each of its WCS licenses for mobile or point-to-multipoint services, or to construct
at least five permanent links per one million people in the service area for fixed point-to-point services.526
Further, because the new performance requirements supersede the substantial service requirement for all
WCS licensees, it is unnecessary for the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to process any pending
substantial service demonstrations, and any such demonstrations and pleadings filed in opposition are
hereby dismissed as moot.
e. Compliance Procedures
222. Consistent with section 1.946(d) of the Commission’s rules, we will require WCS
licensees to demonstrate compliance with the new performance requirements by filing a construction
notification within 15 days of the relevant milestone certifying that they have met the applicable
performance benchmark.527 Each construction notification must include electronic coverage maps and
supporting documentation, which must be truthful and accurate and must not omit material information
that is necessary for the Commission to determine compliance with its performance requirements.528
223. Electronic coverage maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each license area
(REAG or MEA) in the licensee’s service territory. Further, REAG maps must depict MEA boundaries
and MEA maps must depict EA boundaries. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an
entire license area, its map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each license
area not being served. Each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of
service it is providing for each REAG or MEA within its service territory and the type of technology used
to provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create the
coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide reliable
service with the licensee’s technology.529
224. We note that the technical rules adopted today are technology neutral and will enable
licensees in the 2.3. GHz Band to select from a variety of technologies to provide a range of services.
Coverage determinations therefore may need to be made on a case-by-case basis to account for the variety
of services and technologies that may be offered in the band. We seek to ensure that the above
requirements are implemented consistently, and therefore we hereby delegate to the Wireless
Telecommunication Bureau the responsibility for establishing the specifications for filing maps and other
documents (e.g., file format and appropriate data) needed to determine a licensee’s compliance with the
new performance requirements. If the Commission determines that a licensee has not met its requirements
526 See AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corporation; Application for Transfer of Control, WC Docket No. 06-74,
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 5662, 5816 (2007).
527 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.946(d) (“notification[s] must be filed with Commission within 15 days of the expiration of the
applicable construction or coverage period”).
528 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 1.17 (Truthful and accurate statements to the Commission); 47 C.F.R. § 1.917(c) (“[w]illful
false statements . . . are punishable by fine and imprisonment, 18 U.S.C. 1001, and by appropriate administrative
sanctions, including revocation of station license pursuant to 312(a)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended”).
529 After a review of the record, we are persuaded that it is unnecessary to formally put the construction notifications
out for public comment as interested parties currently have the ability to comment on or oppose such filings.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
90
for a license area, the license will be deemed to have terminated automatically as of the applicable
performance benchmark deadline without further Commission action.
IV. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER IN IB DOCKET NO. 95-91
225. In this Second Report and Order, we adopt a framework for the regulation of SDARS
terrestrial repeaters. First, we adopt technical rules governing the operation of SDARS repeaters that will
not unduly constrain the deployment of SDARS repeaters, but that will, at the same time, limit the
potential for harmful interference to adjacent WCS spectrum users. Second, we adopt a blanket-licensing
regime to facilitate the flexible deployment of SDARS repeaters, which are necessary to ensure a high-
quality service to the public, while ensuring that such repeater operations comply with the Commission’s
rules regarding RF safety, antenna marking and lighting, and equipment authorization, as well as with
international agreements. Finally, we address other issues regarding SDARS repeater operations that are
not associated with the interference concerns raised by WCS licensees. Specifically, we adopt rules to
ensure that SDARS repeaters remain truly complementary to a satellite-based service, and that SDARS
terrestrial repeaters are not used to transmit local programming or advertising.
A. Terrestrial Repeater Power and Out-of-Band Emissions Limits
1. Power Limits
226. Background. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission invited comment on three proposals
for power limits for SDARS terrestrial repeaters and WCS transmitting stations. One proposal, from
Sirius, is to limit ground-level emission levels. The second, proposed by WCS licensees, is to limit
average EIRP and the ratio between average and peak EIRP. The third proposal is a hybrid of the ground-
level emission limit and the average EIRP limit. We discuss each of these proposals in more detail below.
227. In its 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Sirius asserted that the Commission could limit
interference between SDARS repeaters and WCS stations by establishing a “ground-level emission limit”
of -44 dBm for both SDARS terrestrial repeaters and WCS stations.530 To verify compliance, Sirius
proposed that the received power from either an SDARS repeater or a WCS base station would be
measured at a height of 2 meters above ground level, at a distance from the base of the antenna that is
equal to or greater than the effective height above ground level of the SDARS or WCS station’s
antenna.531 Additionally, under Sirius’ proposal, the average power received at a distance of 1 meter from
a transmitting WCS subscriber station’s antenna would also be limited to -44 dBm.532
530 2006 Petition for Rulemaking at 4-5, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22129 ¶ 15. XM and Sirius have
referred to the proposed “ground-level emission limit” as a PFD limit. See also Letter from Carl R. Frank, Counsel
for XM/Sirius, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Aug. 14, 2006) at 1; Letter from Patrick L. Donnelly,
Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary, Sirius, and James S. Blitz, Vice President and Regulatory
Counsel, XM Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Sept. 19, 2007) at 7-8 and Annex 2. In the
2007 Notice, however, the Commission explained that the ground-level emission limit is actually a received power
limit (similar to the limits on incidental radiator emissions in Section 15.209 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R.
§ 15.209). The Commission explained further that a rule incorporating Sirius’ basic idea could be expressed as an
equivalent PFD or electric field strength limit. Assuming a 0-dBi measurement antenna (as Sirius does), the
-44 dBm received power limit is equivalent to a PFD limit of -45.3 dBW/m² or a field strength limit of
100.5 dBµV/m. 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22129 n.42.
531 See 2006 Sirius Petition for Rulemaking, Appendices A, proposed Section 25.214(d)(2)(A)(i)) and B, proposed
Section 27.50(a)(1)(A), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22129 ¶ 15.
532 See 2006 Sirius Petition for Rulemaking, Appendix B, proposed Section 27.50(a)(1)(C), cited in 2007 Notice,
22 FCC Rcd at 22129 ¶ 15. SDARS subscriber units are receivers only and do not transmit, therefore, there is no
similar provision applicable for SDARS.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
91
228. The 2007 Notice invited interested parties to discuss whether a ground-level emission
limit of the kind proposed by Sirius would facilitate deployment of both SDARS and WCS services.533
Specifically, interested parties were invited to discuss the interference potential of a -44 dBm limit on
WCS and SDARS operations and to balance that potential with the economic and business impact of such
a limit on WCS and SDARS operations.534 In addition, the 2007 Notice sought comment on how easy it
would be to verify compliance with, and to resolve disputes arising under a ground-level emission limit
requirement.535
229. The 2007 Notice also invited parties to propose alternative ground-level emission limits
and encouraged them to provide technical studies demonstrating the effect such alternative limits would
have on the ability of SDARS and WCS licensees to serve the public.536 Further, the 2007 Notice stated
that it would consider an equivalent PFD limit expressed in dBW/m², or field strength limit expressed in
dBµV/m, because these alternative measurements would eliminate the need to make an assumption about
receiver antenna gain.537 The 2007 Notice also asked parties to recommend the bandwidth to be used in
calculation of a PFD limit if the Commission were to adopt such a limit.538
230. As an alternative to Sirius’ ground-level emission limit proposal, WCS licensees
proposed allowing SDARS repeaters to operate up to 2 -kW EIRP, based on average rather than peak
power, per 5 megahertz, with a 6 dB PAPR.539 The WCS licensees further proposed a power spectral
density limit such that only 400-W average EIRP could be emitted per 1 megahertz, to ensure the
transmitted energy is spread across the band.540
231. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission asked several questions regarding the WCS
Coalition’s proposal and the methodology on which it is based.541 For example, the 2007 Notice asked
whether the adoption of a 2-kW EIRP average power limit would permit the deployment of SDARS
services. It also asked whether the adoption of an average rather than a peak power limit for SDARS
stations would have any effect on the ability of the licensees to deploy their services. Finally, the 2007
Notice requested that parties discuss whether an average, rather than peak, power limit would increase the
risk of interference with adjacent channel licensees such as WCS or SDARS licensees, or licensees
outside of the 2305-2360 MHz band. It also invited comment on whether to adopt the 6 dB PAPR
suggested by the WCS Coalition, or whether a different PAPR would be appropriate.542 As an alternative,
the Commission noted that it adopted a PAPR of 13 dB for wireless services in the 700 MHz band.543
533 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
534 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
535 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
536 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
537 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
538 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22130 ¶ 18.
539 WCS July 9, 2007, Ex Parte at 3-4, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 21. As proposed by the WCS
Coalition, average EIRP would be calculated using the average power of the transmitter measured in accordance
with the definition of "mean power" in Section 2.1 of the Commission’s rules.
540 WCS July 9, 2007 Ex Parte, Appendix A, proposed Sections 27.50(a)(1) and 25.XX(a), cited in 2007 Notice,
22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 21.
541 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131¶ 22.
542 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 22.
5432007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131 ¶ 22, citing 700 MHz Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd at 8103-04 ¶¶ 105-06.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
92
232. The 2007 Notice further noted that the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) had
previously proposed a power limit of 1-kW equivalent radiated power (ERP) for SDARS repeaters, which
corresponds to 1.640-kW EIRP. NAB contends this limit is necessary to ensure that the repeaters are
used solely to fill in coverage in limited areas where the satellite signal cannot be received. The
2007 Notice invited comment on NAB’s proposal as an alternative to the proposed 2 kW limit discussed
above, and requested that such comments be supported with a technical analysis and a realistic assessment
of the impact of this limit on all relevant services.544
233. Finally, the 2007 Notice invited interested parties to discuss whether a hybrid power
approach might be appropriate. The Commission explained that such an approach would give SDARS
licensees flexibility to place their repeaters on high towers and operate them with more power if they
meet a certain emission limit on the ground, while WCS would have the flexibility to meet an average
EIRP limit using towers lower to the ground.545 The 2007 Notice observed that the Commission adopted
a similar approach for the lower 700 MHz band, where commercial base stations must meet an ERP limit
of 1 or 2 kW, depending on whether they are deployed in rural areas, but such stations could also transmit
at 50-kW ERP if they do not produce signals exceeding a PFD of 3 mW/m2 on the ground within 1 km of
the station.546 Further, the 2007 Notice invited suggestions regarding specific power limits to be used in a
hybrid approach if such an approach is adopted.547
234. After review of the comments received in response to the 2007 Notice, staff evaluated the
various proposals for establishing power limits for SDARS terrestrial repeaters. As a result of this
review, the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice proposed to limit SDARS terrestrial repeaters to
12 kW EIRP with a maximum PAPR of 13 dB.548
235. Position of the Parties. In their comments, the SDARS licensees have continued to
advocate ground-level emission limits as one of the appropriate metrics for SDARS terrestrial repeater
power limits.549 Specifically, Sirius XM advocates a maximum permissible average EIRP of 12 kW for
its terrestrial repeaters, and a field strength limit of 100 dBmV/m, measured 1.5 meters above the ground,
to be exceeded at no more than 5 percent of locations within a specified test area, for each of its
repeaters.550 Sirius XM has proposed a detailed procedure for a predictive analysis that could be used to
show that a new terrestrial repeater would satisfy the field strength requirements.551 Sirius XM points out
that WCS receivers operating in the WCS C and D blocks benefit from 4-megahertz guard bands that
separate the edges of the C and D blocks from the terrestrial repeater signals.552 Sirius XM also proposes
544 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131-32 ¶ 23.
545 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22131-32 ¶ 23.
546 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22132 ¶ 23, citing 47 C.F.R. §§27.50(c), 27.55(b).
547 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22132 ¶ 23.
548 WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice, Appendix A, proposed rule 25.214(d). The proposed rules would
also permit the operation of SDARS terrestrial repeaters at power levels higher than 12 kW EIRP, unless notified by
a “potentially affected WCS licensee” that it intends to provide commercial service within the following 365 days.
Id. We address possible operations of SDARS repeaters above 12 kW EIRP in the discussion of a
grandfathering/transition period in Part IV.A.3. below.
549 See, e.g., Sirius Comments at 25-31; XM Radio Comments at 21-27.
550 Sirius XM Sept. 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 17.
551 Sirius XM Sept. 10, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit D at 2-3.
552 Sirius XM Oct. 2, 2008, Ex Parte, Attachment at 2. Sirius XM claims these guard bands consist of the band
segment occupied by the satellite signals, which are very low in power as compared to the terrestrial repeater signals
in the vicinity of a terrestrial repeater.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
93
a PAPR of 13 dB for its terrestrial repeaters, to be exceeded no more than 0.1 percent of the time based on
the complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) of the signal measured at the transmitter
output.553
236. The WCS Coalition advocates a maximum average EIRP limit of 2 kW for both SDARS
terrestrial repeaters and WCS base stations.554 The WCS Coalition also advocates a PAPR of 13 dB for
SDARS repeaters.555 Motorola asserts that the average power criterion for a signal with non-constant
envelope modulation avoids the problem of short-duration peaks in signal power placing unnecessary
limits on the operating power of base stations and SDARS repeaters.556 Motorola also supports the WCS
Coalition's proposal to specify the power limit as a power spectral density limit.557 The WCS Coalition
states that based on testing of WiMAX prototype receivers by NextWave, it believes the receivers of its
user devices will suffer from overload interference from SDARS terrestrial repeaters at a received
undesired signal level of -44 dBm,558 not the -35 dBm overload threshold assumed by Sirius.559 The WCS
Coalition is also concerned that WCS base stations will suffer overload interference from SDARS
terrestrial repeaters’ signals that may be sufficiently attenuated by clutter two meters above ground level
(so they meet the ground-level emission limit proposed by Sirius XM), but are not sufficiently attenuated
at the height of the WCS base stations’ receiving antennas.560 The WCS Coalition objects to the field
strength limits proposed by Sirius XM, stating that a limit of 110 dBmV/m 561 measured near ground level
could result in field strength levels as high as 140 dBmV/m at the receiving antennas of its base
stations.562
237. To protect WCS base station receivers 30 meters above ground level – which WCS
licensees believe to be a reasonable compromise for the purpose of establishing a rule – the WCS
Coalition states that SDARS terrestrial repeaters should be limited to a field strength of 104 dBµV/m, the
level at which a WCS C or D-block base station receiver will overload, measured at 30 meters above
ground level (which converts to a receiver overload interference level of approximately -40 dBm).563 The
WCS Coalition also states that an SDARS repeater field strength limit of 64 dBmV/m, measured 2 meters
above the ground (for an approximately -80.6 dBm receiver overload interference level), would fully
protect WCS deployment plans.564 In addition, the WCS Coalition contends that the Commission should
553 Sirius XM Sept. 10, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit D at 2.
554 WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte at 3, Exhibit A at 3. Motorola also supports adoption of a 2 kW-average
EIRP limit for SDARS terrestrial repeaters. See Motorola Comments at 4-5.
555 WCS Coalition Comments at 24.
556 Motorola Comments at 4-5.
557 Motorola Comments at 5.
558 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 25.
559 Sirius Comments at 30.
560 WCS Coalition Comments at 33.
561 Sirius XM proposed the 110 dBmV/m field strength limit be met in 99 percent of the locations in a defined test
area, and the 100 dBmV/m field strength limit be met in 95 percent of the locations in the test area. Sirius XM
September 8, 2008, Ex Parte at 17.
562 Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand, Counsel to the WCS Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC
(May 5, 2008), Attachment at 8) (“WCS Coalition May 5, 2008, Ex Parte”).
563 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 28-29.
564 WCS Coalition May 5, 2008, Ex Parte, Attachment at 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
94
mandate that SDARS terrestrial repeaters be operated between 2324.2 and 2341.285 MHz so that Sirius
or XM will not be able to move transmissions closer in frequency to the WCS frequency bands edges,
which the WCS Coalition contends could worsen potential interference to WCS operations.565 Also, the
WCS Coalition argues that a ground-level field strength limit without an EIRP component is a very poor
predictor of interference to WCS,566 and that limiting EIRP is the best available mechanism for assuring
that WCS and SDARS can provide viable service offerings in their spectrum allocations.567
238. In reply, Sirius contends that the WCS Coalition fails to provide any information about
the performance of WCS mobile or base station receivers and provides very little evidence to support the
large zones of interference to WCS operations that the WCS Coalition contends would be caused by
SDARS terrestrial repeaters. Furthermore, Sirius argues that even a limited use of antenna down-tilt by
the WCS licensees could significantly reduce the actual zones of interference to “inconsequential”
sizes.568 In addition, XM contends that the WCS Coalition has disregarded the availability of band-pass
filters that would provide an additional 10 to 20 dB of protection to mitigate interference.569
239. In response to the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice, Sirius XM and the WCS
Coalition have stated that the proposal to limit SDARS repeaters to a 12-kW EIRP power level with a
maximum PAPR of 13 dB is a generally acceptable compromise.570
240. Discussion. We adopt a power limit of 12 kW average EIRP for SDARS repeaters, with
a maximum PAPR of 13 dB.571 We find that adoption of this power limit balances the objectives of
protecting WCS operations from harmful interference and avoiding unnecessary and costly re-configuring
of existing SDARS repeater networks, which could degrade service to the public.572 We note that both
Sirius XM and the WCS Coalition have accepted this power limit for SDARS repeaters.573
565 WCS Coalition Comments at 34-35; WCS Comments on WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice at 16 (filed
April 23, 2010).
566 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 26.
567 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 27.
568 Sirius Reply Comments at 32-33.
569 XM Reply Comments at 37.
570 Comments of Sirius XM Radio Inc. at 36 (filed April 23, 2010) (stating that the proposed 12-kW average EIRP
and 13-db peak to average power ratio limits are generally acceptable for most situations); Comments of the WCS
Coalition at 12 (filed April 23, 2010) (stating that, although the WCS community would prefer to see SDARS
repeaters’ power limits set at 2-kW EIRP, it is prepared to adapt to SDARS repeaters operating at up to 12-kW
(average) EIRP).
571 The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) measurements must be made using either an instrument with
complementary cumulative distribution function (CCDF) capabilities to determine that the PAPR will not exceed
13 dB for more than 0.1 percent of the time or another Commission approved procedure. The measurement must be
performed using a signal corresponding to the highest PAPR expected during periods of continuous transmission.
See infra, Appendix B, Section 25.144(e)(7)(ii).
572 We also note that Industry Canada has imposed a similar maximum power limit of 12.5 kW average EIRP on
SDARS repeater operations in Canada. See Industry Canada, Spectrum Management and Telecommunications,
Broadcasting Procedures and Rules, Part 9: Application Procedures and Rules for Terrestrial S-DARS Undertakings
(Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service), BPR-9, Issue 2 (January 2009), available online at
http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/smt-gst.nsf/en/sf08569e.html (last visited April 27, 2010).
573 See supra., n.570.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
95
241. Based on our evaluation of the record before us and the experience gained in this and
other proceedings involving advanced wireless communications, we find that SDARS repeaters operating
up to 12-kW average EIRP and a maximum PAPR of 13 dB will not cause substantially more interference
to actual WCS operations than repeaters operating at 2-kW average EIRP – the power limit proposed by
the WCS Coalition. In reaching this finding, we calculate that with a 2-kW average EIRP and a
maximum PAPR of 13 dB for the repeaters, coupled with the WCS mobile receiver overload interference
threshold of -44 dBm claimed by the WCS licensees, SDARS terrestrial repeaters would have to be
separated from WCS mobile receivers by a distance of 328 meters to avoid overload interference the
WCS mobile receivers. If SDARS repeaters operate at 12-kW average EIRP, with a 13-dB maximum
PAPR, and a WCS receiver overload interference threshold of -35 dBm is assumed (as suggested by the
SDARS licensees), the separation distance necessary to avoid overload interference from SDARS
terrestrial repeaters and WCS mobile receivers is calculated to be approximately 300 meters. We also
note that the AWS testing showed that the receiver overload interference improves with increased
frequency separation.574 Thus, the approximately 300-meters separation distance calculated using a
12-kW average EIRP, a maximum PAPR of 13 dB, a -35 dBm receiver overload interference threshold,
as suggested by Sirius XM, and no frequency separation is an upper bound on the separation distance.
Because the nearest WCS bands (Blocks C and D) are located approximately four megahertz from an
SDARS terrestrial repeater band, we expect that the separation distance will, in most cases, be
significantly less than the 300 meters. Thus, the interference environment from SDARS repeaters
operating at 12 kW average EIRP (with a 13 dB maximum PAPR) is no worse than that posed by SDARS
repeaters operating at 2-kW average EIRP, assuming that the overload interference threshold of WCS
mobile receivers is -35 dBm. We therefore conclude that adopting a power limit of 12-kW average EIRP,
with a maximum PAPR of 13 dB, for SDARS terrestrial repeater operations will not unduly impair
operations of WCS mobile receivers.
242. We find that adoption of a power limit of 12-kW average EIRP (with a maximum PAPR
of 13 dB) for SDARS terrestrial repeaters will not unduly impair the ability of WCS licensees to provide
mobile broadband services. The WCS Coalition does not object to the 12-kW level proposed in the
April 2, 2010 WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice.575 WCS licensees can initially deploy
currently available equipment and request that manufacturers design and produce WCS mobile devices
with more robust receiver overload interference tolerance (i.e., a level) that is better than -44 dBm.
243. We also conclude that SDARS terrestrial repeaters can operate at an average EIRP of
12 kW with a maximum PAPR of 13 dB without causing harmful interference to WCS base station
receivers. The WCS Coalition assumes that such base stations will operate with an overload interference
level of -40 dBm.576 As in the case of the WCS mobile receivers, however, we believe that because the
WCS is in its early stages of deployment, WCS licensees can request that manufacturers design and
produce WCS base stations with more robust overload interference thresholds. The ability to provide
more robust overload interference protection for base stations is supported by the fact that base stations
will not be as numerous as mobile devices and that they are not subject to the same size and cost restraints
as consumer mobile devices. An improved receiver overload interference threshold, combined with
judicious WCS base station site selection and receiving antenna down-tilting, would substantially reduce
the potential for SDARS terrestrial repeaters to cause harmful interference to WCS base station receivers.
574 See Advanced Wireless Service Interference Test Results and Analysis, Federal Communications Commission
Office of Engineering and Technology, at 11 (rel. Oct. 10, 2008), available at
http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-08-2245A2.pdf.
575 See Comments of the WCS Coalition at 12 (filed April 23, 2010).
576 See WCS Coalition Comments in response to 2007 Notice at n.106.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
96
244. Our adoption of a 12-kW average EIRP (with a maximum PAPR of 13 dB) for SDARS
terrestrial repeaters is consistent with our goal of reducing the potential for harmful interference to WCS
to negligible levels, and avoiding unnecessary and costly re-configuring of existing SDARS repeater
networks, which could degrade service to the public. The Commission has previously found that
terrestrial repeaters are needed to overcome multipath interference and signal blockage inherent to the
satellite radio service,577 and has permitted SDARS repeater networks to be constructed pursuant to grants
of special temporary authority while rules governing their long-term operations were being developed.
We do not expect there to be a significant change in the make-up of the SDARS repeater networks, since
the SDARS licensees have built out their networks substantially pursuant to grants of STAs. By
permitting an average EIRP level of 12 kW and a 13-dB maximum PAPR, we find that SDARS licensees
would not need to power down a large number of the existing terrestrial repeaters and supplement them
with substantial numbers of lower-power repeaters in order to maintain or improve the provision of a
high-quality service.
245. We will not adopt a rule restricting the operation of SDARS terrestrial repeaters to
between 2324.2 and 2341.285 MHz, as the WCS Coalition requests.578 We believe this to be
unnecessary. SDARS terrestrial repeaters already operate at least four megahertz from the edges of the
WCS frequency bands. Given the large deployed infrastructure of SDARS satellites, terrestrial repeaters,
and consumer receivers – all designed for the current SDARS licensees' band plans – we conclude that a
rule requiring SDARS repeater operations to stay within their existing band plans is not needed.579
246. We do not adopt the other proposals for power limits on SDARS terrestrial repeaters. In
particular, we decline to adopt the ground-level emission limit proposal of Sirius because of the
difficulties associated with characterizing and quantifying the case-specific propagation environment’s
effects on an RF signal’s field strength that could influence the interference potential at each terrestrial
repeater site. As the WCS Coalition contends,580 a ground-level signal strength limit is not a reliable
predictor of harmful interference. Because of the variety of obstructions close to the ground that could
significantly attenuate a RF signal’s field strength, the actual signal strength experienced by WCS base
station or user equipment receivers would, in many cases, be greater than the signal strength predicted at
ground-level. Furthermore, the rules that would result from an attempt to deal with the anomalies
associated with field strength levels would be overly complex and difficult for licensees to comply with
and would be difficult, at best, for the Commission to enforce.
247. We also decline to adopt the 1-kW ERP limit on SDARS repeater power, which NAB
states is necessary in order to ensure that the repeaters are used solely to fill in coverage in limited areas
where the satellite signal cannot be received. The restrictions adopted below prohibiting the use of
SDARS repeaters to originate local programming and advertising and establishing eligibility criteria for
operating SDARS repeaters will ensure that use of SDARS repeaters remains complementary to a
satellite-delivered service.581 In addition, the substantial expense of deploying repeaters is a substantial
deterrent against deploying them in areas where satellite signals can be adequately received.
577 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5810 ¶ 138.
578 Comments of the WCS Coalition at 16 (filed April 23, 2010).
579 We note that Sirius XM states that such re-deployment is purely hypothetical at the moment, since it would take
“many years before Sirius XM could even consider relocating its satellite downlink band” given the “tens of
millions of satellite radio receivers currently installed in late model cars and trucks.” Comments of Sirius XM Radio
Inc. at 7 (filed May 13, 2010).
580 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 26.
581 See infra, Section IV.B.4 and C.1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
97
2. Out-of-Band Emissions Limits
248. Background. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission sought comment on whether it should
require OOBE from SDARS repeaters to be attenuated by a factor of not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB, or
whether some other OOBE limit would be more appropriate.582 Comments were received from both
Sirius XM and WCS Coalition on this issue. The WCS Coalition supports the proposal of the
2007 Notice.583 Sirius XM is willing to accept a stricter OOBE attenuation factor of 90 + 10 log (P) dB in
a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth for SDARS terrestrial repeaters.584 Sirius XM, however, continues to
support an OOBE attenuation factor of 75 + 10 log (P) dB for SDARS terrestrial repeaters operating with
an EIRP of 2 W or less.585
249. Discussion. We adopt the stricter out-of-band emission limits agreed to by Sirius XM for
terrestrial repeaters operating at power levels greater than 2-W average EIRP. Thus, such repeaters will
be required to attenuate their OOBE by a factor not less than 90 + 10 log (P) dB over a 1-megahertz
resolution bandwidth. We believe that such terrestrial repeater OOBE attenuation levels will provide
WCS licensees sufficient protection from interference under almost all operating conditions and provide
SDARS licensees with achievable limits that can reasonably be attained with limited impact on system
capacity. SDARS licensees indicate that their repeaters are already capable of meeting this stricter
limit,586 and stricter OOBE limits are always preferable where economically and technically feasible.
250. We adopt the proposal to require repeaters operating at power levels of 2 W or less
average EIRP to attenuate their OOBE by a factor not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB over a 1-megahertz
resolution bandwidth. Sirius XM supports this proposal. Such devices are likely to be small in size and
used to increase SDARS signal strength inside of buildings. We find that this lower level of attenuation is
warranted for this class of repeaters, since walls, ceilings, and other materials will limit the range of
indoor transmissions and the number of potentially affected WCS stations will also be limited.
3. Grandfathering/Transition Period
251. Background. The SDARS licensees have deployed terrestrial repeaters pursuant to grants
of special temporary authority from the International Bureau. As the Bureau explained in its orders first
authorizing the terrestrial repeater networks in 2001, the grant of STA to operate such repeaters served the
public interest because the SDARS licensees were ready to commence commercial service, but no rules
were in place to govern the operations of terrestrial repeaters necessary to complete the SDARS
network.587 Some of these STAs authorized the operation of terrestrial repeaters up to 40 kW EIRP. The
International Bureau included explicit statements in its grants of STA that any actions taken under the
582 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22138 ¶ 25.
583 WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit A at 3 (proposing a draft rule requiring SDARS repeater OOBE
to be attenuated by a factor not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB outside of the SDARS frequency bands)
584 Sirius XM Sept. 10, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit D at 2.
585 Sirius XM Sept. 10, 2008, Ex Parte, Exhibit D at 5.
586 See Sirius Reply Comments at Appendix B to Exhibit A at 15 (“As previously indicated all Sirius current
repeaters (including, specifically, the ones used in the WCS Coalition prediction) meet an OOBE limit of 90+10log
(P) (1MHz BW)...”). See also XM Reply Comments at 39 (“Based on the specifications XM provides to equipment
manufacturers, current XM equipment attenuates [OOBE] by a factor of approximately 90 + 10*log (P) dB.”).
587 See generally Sirius 2001 STA Order, 16 FCC Rcd 16773; XM 2001 STA Order.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
98
STAs are “solely at [the licensee’s] own risk,” and that the grant of the STAs “shall not prejudice the
outcome of any final repeater rules adopted by the Commission.”588
252. Sirius proposes to exempt, or "grandfather," SDARS terrestrial repeaters from the rules
adopted in this proceeding, if those repeaters were deployed before those rules take effect.589 The
2007 Notice invited comment on Sirius’ proposal. In particular, the Commission invited SDARS
licensees and WCS licensees to discuss the specific economic and technical difficulties they would face if
currently deployed repeaters are or are not grandfathered.590 It also requested comment on whether the
Commission should adopt a limit or cutoff point at which a particular repeater will not be eligible for
grandfathering, or whether any grandfathering measure should be limited to the authorized parameters of
the SDARS licensees’ repeater STAs.591
253. The 2007 Notice also requested comment on the best transition period for the existing
SDARS terrestrial repeaters, in the event that it does not grandfather those repeaters.592 It asked if the
Commission should adopt the same transition period for all repeaters, or whether it should permit each
repeater to continue its existing operations until a WCS licensee requests the SDARS licensee to bring
that repeater into compliance with the rules adopted here.593 Commenters were encouraged to provide
quantitative analysis and technical studies in support of their comments.594
254. Sirius XM supports grandfathering of currently deployed repeaters, particularly if the
Commission were to adopt the WCS Coalition proposal to limit terrestrial repeater power levels to 2 kW
average EIRP. According to the Sirius XM, complying with such a limit would require it to install many
new repeaters,595 would cause disruption to existing service,596 and would increase the likelihood of
interference to WCS licensees.597 For example, XM contends that it would need to introduce 39 new
repeaters in the Indianapolis market to comply with an average EIRP limit of 2 kW and maintain existing
service coverage and quality.598 Sirius XM also argues that it will face unreasonable costs to re-configure
their existing repeater networks, absent grandfathering. It estimates that the equipment and construction
costs, site leases, utilities, and maintenance for each site, if it must comply with this limit, could amount
to tens of millions of dollars.599 XM also notes that each site would require 12 to 18 months for approval
588 See, e.g., Sirius 2001 STA Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 16779 ¶ 18; XM Radio 2001 STA Order, 16 FCC Rcd at
16787 ¶ 18. Since 2001, both Sirius and XM have submitted additional STA requests to modify their repeater
networks or to add new repeaters. See 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22127 ¶ 11. Many of those STA requests have
been granted, and all the STAs that have been granted were subject to conditions substantially similar to the
conditions included in the 2001 STAs. A full list of SDARS STA requests are available through the International
Bureau Filing System (IBFS), which is available online at http://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/
589 See 2006 Petition for Rulemaking at 6, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22135 ¶ 33.
590 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 35.
591 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 35.
592 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 36.
593 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 36.
594 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 36.
595 XM Comments at 25-26.
596 Sirius Comments at 36.
597 Sirius Reply Comments at 33-34.
598 XM Comments at 26.
599 Sirius Comments at 36; XM Comments at 27; Sirius Reply Comments at 34.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
99
and construction,600 and asks at a minimum that, if the Commission does not grandfather its existing
repeaters, that it be given adequate time to come into compliance with the new rules.601
255. The WCS Coalition opposes grandfathering, and recommends that all repeaters be
brought into compliance with any new rules within a year of adoption.602 As the WCS Coalition points
out, the STAs were expressly conditioned on compliance with any SDARS repeater rules that may be
adopted.603 The WCS Coalition further contends that when the SDARS operators deployed their repeater
networks pursuant to grants of special temporary authority, they accepted the risk that they would incur
costs in bringing their repeaters into compliance with future rules.604 Finally, the WCS Coalition argues
that developing a different set of rules for new and grandfathered repeaters would be confusing and
difficult to administer.605 However, the WCS Coalition has stated that it was willing to accept a scenario
where the SDARS operators could operate existing repeaters “so long as those operations continue to be
subject to the current absolute obligation to cure interference that might occur in the future to WCS
operations.”606
256. The WCS Coalition also criticizes XM and Sirius for deploying a number of repeaters
that did not comply with the technical parameters authorized pursuant to their grants of STA.607 The
WCS Coalition contends that greater scrutiny is required before grandfathering should be extended to
such repeaters.608
257. Discussion. We decline to adopt the grandfathering proposal proposed by Sirius.
Instead, we require terrestrial repeaters to be operated according to the power limits and out-of-band
emissions attenuation requirements adopted today in any area in which a WCS licensee would be
“potentially affected” and the potentially affected WCS licensee provides written notice to Sirius XM that
it intends to commence commercial service within the following 365 days. Sirius XM will have 180 days
from the date of this written notice to conform all repeaters in the area to the 12-kW average power limit
(with a maximum 13-dB PAPR) and out-of-band emissions attenuation requirements adopted for
terrestrial repeater operations. Until a WCS licensee so notifies Sirius XM and the 180-day period to
conform operations has passed, Sirius XM may operate terrestrial repeaters above these power limits or
with out-of-band emissions attenuation levels less than those established herein on an unprotected, non-
harmful interference basis with respect to all permanently authorized radiocommunication facilities.
258. We have previously concluded that the public interest is served by establishing power
limits and out-of-band emissions attenuation requirements for SDARS terrestrial repeater operations.609
600 XM Comments at 26.
601 XM Reply Comments at 40-41.
602 WCS Coalition Comments at 41-42.
603 WCS Coalition Comments at 47, citing Sirius 2001 STA Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 16777; XM Radio 2001 STA
Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 16787.
604 WCS Coalition Comments at 48-49; WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 48.
605 WCS Coalition Comments at 49-50.
606 WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte at 3. See also WCS Coalition May 5, 2008, Ex Parte, Attachment at 7.
607 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 45-46, 49. WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte at 3-4.
608 WCS Coalition Reply Comments at 46. But see WCS Coalition July 22, 2008, Ex Parte at 3-4 (noting that the
WCS Coalition takes no position as to whether the Commission should make a distinction between “grandfathering”
illegally constructed repeaters and those operations pursuant to the parameters of an STA.)
609 See supra, Section IV.A.1 and 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
100
We found that these power limits and out-of-band emissions attenuation requirements balance the
objective of protecting WCS operations from harmful interference with a desire to avoid costly re-
configuring of existing SDARS repeater networks, which could degrade existing service to the public.
Allowing SDARS repeaters to operate above these power limits or with lesser out-of-band emissions
attenuation levels in areas where WCS licensees provide service would upset this balance. Accordingly,
we find that Sirius’ proposal to permanently exempt all currently deployed terrestrial repeaters from the
rules we adopt today is not in the public interest, since there would be no requirement for such repeaters
to conform to the power limits and out-of-band emissions attenuation requirements adopted in this
proceeding. Although Sirius XM states that grandfathering is necessary to protect its investment in
existing repeater facilities, it had no reasonable expectation that repeaters built pursuant to STAs would
be able to continue to operate indefinitely, since the STAs explicitly state that any actions taken under the
STAs were solely at Sirius XM’s own risk, and that the grant of the STAs would not prejudice the
outcome of any final repeater rules adopted by the Commission.
259. We conclude, however, that the purpose of the power limits and out-of-band emissions
attenuation requirements is not undermined by allowing SDARS repeaters to operate at power levels
higher than 12 kW average EIRP, or with out-of-band emissions attenuation levels less than those
established herein, in areas where WCS facilities are not providing service. The adoption of power limits
and out-of-band emissions attenuation levels facilitates the introduction of WCS services in areas where
both SDARS and WCS seek to provide service to the public. There may be areas, however, in which
Sirius XM desires to operate repeaters, but in which no WCS licensees provide commercial service. If no
WCS licensees are providing commercial service in such areas, there is no public interest in prohibiting
SDARS repeaters from operating at power levels greater than 12-kW average EIRP, or operating with
out-of-band emissions attenuation levels less than those specified herein.
260. Because WCS is not yet widely deployed, we conclude that the public interest is not
served by requiring all SDARS terrestrial repeaters to meet power limits and out-of-band emission
attenuation requirements upon the effective date of this Second Report and Order.610 Instead, SDARS
repeaters may be operated at levels greater than 12-kW average EIRP, or with lesser out-of-band emission
attenuation levels, until Sirius XM is notified in writing by a potentially affected WCS licensee that it has
commenced commercial service already, or that it intends to commence commercial service within
365 days following the notice. This requirement is intended to restrict notice to only those areas where
WCS licensees have already commenced commercial service or have immediate plans to commence
commercial service, thus discouraging WCS licensees from simply sending notices for all areas that they
have licenses to operate, regardless of the timeframe in which service is contemplated in a particular area.
WCS licensees can provide this written notice at any time after the effective date of the rules adopted in
this Second Report and Order. Sirius XM will then have 180 days from the date it receives the written
notice to bring all repeaters in the area into compliance with the 12-kW average EIRP power limit and the
out-of-band emissions attenuation requirements adopted today. This 180-day period balances the need for
WCS licensees to commence commercial service expeditiously with the goal of avoiding unnecessary and
costly re-configuring of existing SDARS repeater networks, which could degrade existing service to the
public. Sirius XM may continue to operate repeaters previously authorized under STA – or to operate
new or modified repeaters – above the power limits or with lesser out-of-band emissions attenuation
levels than those specified herein, in areas for which it does not receive written notice from potentially
affected WCS licensees. In these situations, however, operations of such repeaters shall be on a non-
interference basis with respect to all permanently authorized radiocommunication facilities.
610 We note that repeater operations that do not comply with the power and out-of-band emissions limits adopted
herein are not eligible for blanket licensing, but must instead be licensed on a site-by-site basis. See infra,
Section IV.B.1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
101
261. For purposes of establishing whether a notifying WCS licensee is “potentially affected”
by a SDARS terrestrial repeater operating above the power limits or with lesser out-of-band emissions
attenuation levels than those set for such repeater operations, we will use a definition similar to the
definition of “potentially affected WCS licensee” set forth in the notification and information sharing
requirements that we adopt herein.611 Accordingly, a notifying WCS licensee is “potentially affected” by
SDARS terrestrial repeater operating above the power limits or with lesser out-of-band emissions
attenuation levels than those set for such repeater operations if it is authorized to operate a base station in
the 2305-2315 MHz or 2350-2360 MHz bands in the same Major Economic Area (MEA) as that in which
the terrestrial repeater is located, or is authorized to operate a base station in the 2315-2320 MHz or
2345-2350 MHz bands in the same Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) as that in which the
terrestrial repeater is located. In addition, a notifying WCS licensee is potentially affected if a SDARS
terrestrial repeater operating above the power limits or with lesser out-of-band emissions attenuation
levels than those established herein for such repeater operations is located within 5 kilometers of the
boundary of an MEA or REAG in which the notifying WCS licensee is authorized to operate a WCS base
station.
262. We decline to adopt the alternate definition of “potentially affected WCS licensee”
proposed by Sirius XM. Sirius XM argues that the definition of “potentially affected” that we adopt
today is overbroad, because REAGs are large service areas and may require Sirius XM to modify repeater
operations far outside of areas in which the WCS licensee intends to commence commercial service.612
Instead, Sirius XM urges adoption of a proximity-based approach – rather than a market approach based
on the market of the notifying WCS licensee – and proposes a distance of 5 km between an SDARS
repeater and a planned WCS base station before a WCS licensee is “potentially affected” by the
repeater.613 Sirius XM does not, however, provide an engineering basis for its proposed 5-km distance,
and the record does not provide sufficient evidence for establishing a proximity-based approach.
Furthermore, the approach based on the WCS licensing market we adopt today provides greater
regulatory certainty to SDARS and WCS licensees of which repeaters would be required to modify
operations in light of imminent WCS commercial deployments and is easier to administer. Although the
approach based on licensing market may over-include the number of repeaters that need to be modified,
this is consistent with the public interest in having as many SDARS repeaters as possible authorized
through a blanket license according to the power level and OOBE standards adopted today. These
standards are the most effective means of ensuring coexistence of SDARS and WCS operations in the
2.3 GHz band, and we prefer to err on the side of over-inclusion.
263. We also decline to require “potentially affected” WCS licensees to post with the
Commission, as part of the notification process, a performance bond that would be forfeited if the WCS
licensee does not actually commence commercial operations within 365 days of the notification.614
Although there may be instances where WCS licensees do not commence commercial operations within
this 365-day period, we do not expect bad faith on the part of the notifying WCS licensee to be the reason
for the failure to commence on time. We observe that, in the event that the notifying WCS licensee
subsequently fails to provide service in the notified area, or ceases to provide such service at a future date,
Sirius XM may seek a waiver of the power and OOBE standards adopted today to permit operations on
specific repeaters above 12-kW average EIRP or with lower OOBE attenuation levels.
611 See infra, Appendix B, at § 25.263(b)(1).
612 Sirius XM Comments at 38-40 (filed April 23, 2010). As an example, Sirius XM states that a WCS licensee
planning to commence service in San Diego, California could require Sirius XM to modify the operation of a
terrestrial repeaters outside Seattle, Washington, well over 1,000 miles away. Id. at 39.
613 Id. at 39-40.
614 Id. at 40.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
102
264. In order to effect an orderly transition from operations under grants of STA to permanent
authority to operate terrestrial repeaters, we instruct the International Bureau to extend all existing grants
of STA for SDARS repeaters for a period of 180 days from the release date of this Second Report and
Order.615 We also instruct the International Bureau to grant all requests for STA to operate repeaters
pending at the time this Second Report and Order is released. 616 We stress, however, that any operations
granted pursuant to a pending STA must be comply with the 12-kW EIRP limit and OOBE attenuation
standards within 180 days of notice that a potentially affected WCS license has already commenced
commercial service, or intends to commence commercial service with the 365 days following the notice.
In order that Sirius XM may continue to adjust its repeater network to meet subscriber needs, the
International Bureau may continue to grant STAs for new or modified repeaters in the period between the
release of this Second Report and Order and the date that any permanent authorization to operate SDARS
repeaters becomes effective. Any grant of STA to operate terrestrial repeaters shall terminate
automatically on the day that permanent authority to operate the covered repeater operations becomes
effective, without the need for further action by the International Bureau.
265. We note that the WCS concern regarding unauthorized operation of SDARS terrestrial
repeaters not in compliance with the terms of STAs was addressed in the context of the Consent Decrees
XM and Sirius reached with the Enforcement Bureau.617 Furthermore, the adoption of permanent rules
governing SDARS repeater operations will result in the eventual termination of operations of repeaters
pursuant to STAs. Because we are not exempting repeaters operating under grants of STA from the rules
we adopt today, compliance with the terms of prior grants of authority under STA will not affect the
interference environment in any areas where WCS licensees commence service to the public.
B. Licensing Regime for Terrestrial Repeaters
1. Blanket Licensing Regime
266. Background. In the 1997 Further Notice, the Commission sought comment on allowing
SDARS licensees to deploy an unlimited number of terrestrial repeaters under a single authorization,
based on a demonstration that all the repeaters will comply with the Commission's rules.618 The 1997
Further Notice did not specify the format of such a demonstration, or whether the authorization should be
in the form of a modification to the licensee’s space station authorization or through some other
procedural vehicle.619
267. In its 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Sirius proposed that the Commission allow SDARS
licensees to construct and operate an unlimited number of terrestrial repeaters under their existing SDARS
615 In the event blanket licenses are not issued within 180 days of the effective date of this Order, SDARS licensees
may file applications to extend the STAs for an additional 180 days, or until blanket licenses to operate SDARS
repeaters are granted, whichever comes first.
616 We note that that operation of all repeaters under grants of STA are on a non-interference basis with respect to all
permanently authorized radiocommunication facilities. In light of the rules adopted today, this non-interference
condition shall not apply to repeaters operating at 12-kW average EIRP or less, with a maximum 13-dB PAPR, since
the Commission has already found such operations to be in the public interest.
617 See Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Order, FCC 08-176 (rel. Aug. 5, 2008) (“Sirius Consent Decree Order”), XM
Radio, Inc., Order, FCC 08-177 (rel. Aug. 5, 2008) (“XM Consent Decree Order”).
618 See 1997 Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 5812 ¶ 142, 5845 (App. C); cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at
22138 ¶ 45.
619 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22138 ¶ 45.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
103
space station authorizations, so long as the repeaters meet all applicable Commission rules.620 In other
words, under Sirius’ proposal, the holder of a valid SDARS space station license would not need any
additional authorization or prior approval for operation of terrestrial repeaters.621 Sirius further proposed
allowing SDARS licensees to retain repeater authority indefinitely, as long as the licensee maintains a
valid space station license.622 In response, the WCS Coalition did not oppose blanket licensing of
SDARS repeaters per se, although it opposed many of the rules that Sirius proposed to govern operation
of such repeaters.623
268. The 2007 Notice invited comment on Sirius’ blanket licensing proposal.624 It also invited
comment on adopting a licensing procedure for SDARS repeaters like that prescribed for large networks
of very small aperture terminals (VSATs) in the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS).625 Under the VSAT
licensing procedure, the operator applies for an earth station license to operate up to a specific number of
remote terminals during a specific license term. 626 In addition, the 2007 Notice invited comment on using
an alternative licensing procedure patterned on the procedure for licensing Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) ancillary terrestrial components (ATCs) to operate in spectrum assigned for MSS operations by
FCC-licensed space stations, whereby the MSS licensee applies for modification of its space station
license.627
269. XM argues that blanket licensing is an efficient method for authorizing new facilities and
supports unlimited blanket licensing for repeaters under an SDARS space station license.628 Sirius
contends that applying for authority for each repeater individually is cumbersome.629 Sirius stresses that
authority for WCS operation is granted by blanket licensing and maintains that blanket licensing should
also be available for SDARS repeaters.630
270. Discussion. We conclude that SDARS licensees should be able to obtain blanket licenses
for terrestrial repeaters that operate in compliance with the rules governing such operation. The
Commission issues blanket licenses for earth stations in VSAT networks,631 for subscriber mobile devices
in MSS networks,632 and for the ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) to MSS networks.633 In those
620 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Appendix A, proposed Section 25.214(d)(1); cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at
22139 ¶ 46.
621 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 46.
622 Id.
623 WCS Coalition July 2007 Letter at 1 n.3; cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 46. The WCS Coalition
opposed many of the rules proposed by Sirius for operation of such repeaters, such as, among other things, the
proposal to operate repeaters at power levels greater than 2 kW average EIRP.
624 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 47.
625 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 47.
626 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 47, citing 47 C.F.R. § 25.134(d).
627 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 47, citing 47 C.F.R. § 25.149.
628 XM Comments at 41.
629 Sirius Comments at 7-8.
630 Sirius Comments at 9.
631 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.134.
632 See 47 C.F.R. §§ 25.135 and 25.136.
633 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.149.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
104
contexts, the Commission has found that blanket licensing is an efficient mechanism for issuing large
numbers of authorizations. There is nothing in the record that would warrant precluding SDARS
operators from obtaining blanket licenses for their terrestrial repeaters.
271. Our adoption of blanket licensing does not mean that SDARS licensees will be permitted
to deploy an unlimited number of terrestrial repeaters. SDARS licensees must specify, as part of their
blanket license application, the maximum number of terrestrial repeaters that they propose to operate at
power levels greater than 2 W, and the maximum number that they propose to operate at power level of 2
W or less. The Commission retains discretion to determine, when reviewing such applications, whether
allowing operation of the proposed maximum numbers of repeaters would be consistent with the public
interest. Operation of repeaters in excess of the number specified in the blanket license application would
constitute a violation of the license terms and subject the licensee to possible action by the Enforcement
Bureau.
272. For purposes of blanket licensing, we adopt a model based on our licensing of VSAT
networks. To obtain authority for terrestrial repeaters, SDARS licensees must file an earth station
application using Form 312, except that a Schedule B need not be filed since this form asks for technical
information that is either inapplicable to SDARS terrestrial repeater operations or immaterial to
determining whether such operations would serve the public interest. The application must also specify
the maximum number of repeaters that will be deployed under the authorization at 1) power levels equal
to or less than 2 W average EIRP, and 2) power levels greater than 2-W average EIRP (up to 12-kW
average EIRP). The application must also identify the space station(s) with which the terrestrial repeaters
will communicate, the frequencies and emission designations of such communications, and the
frequencies and emission designations used to re-transmit the received signals. The application must
include a certification that the proposed SDARS terrestrial repeater operations will comply with all the
rules adopted for such operations.634 The fees associated with SDARS terrestrial repeater filings shall be
those associated with filings for FSS VSAT systems in Section 1.1107 of the Commission’s rules.635
273. We conclude the blanket-licensing is inappropriate for repeater operations that do not
comply with the rules adopted for SDARS terrestrial repeater operations. Such non-compliant operations
may not be applied for, or authorized under, the same blanket authorization as compliant repeater
operations. Rather, the operation of such non-compliant repeaters must be applied for and authorized
under individual site-by-site licenses using Form 312, and appropriate waiver of the Commission’s rules
must be requested for non-compliant operations. For example, individual site-by-site licensing will apply
to any SDARS terrestrial repeaters that are proposed to operate at power levels greater than 12 kW
average EIRP (with a maximum PAPR of 13 dB), that do not comply with applicable OOBE attenuation
levels, that do not comply with the requirements of Part 1, Subpart I, and Part 17, or that do not meet the
requirements of all applicable international agreements. For each such repeater, the application for an
individual site-by-site license must contain, as an attachment to the application, the technical information
required to be shared with WCS licensees as part of the notification requirements adopted herein.636 Earth
station applications for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, under either a blanket or site-by-site approach, will
be subject to the Commission’s existing rules regarding public notice prior to agency action, which will
provide a procedure for interested parties to comment on the contents of specific applications.
634 See infra, Appendix B, § 25.144(e)(8)(iii).
635 47 C.F.R. § 1.1107.
636 See infra, Appendix B, § 25.144(c)(9).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
105
274. The license term for such repeater operations will be the same as for SDARS space
stations, i.e., 8 years.637 Authorization to operate such repeaters will terminate automatically, however, in
the event that programming retransmitted by the repeaters is not also being transmitted by satellite
directly to an SDARS licensee’s subscribers' receivers. As discussed below, it is our intent that terrestrial
repeaters be used solely to simultaneously re-transmit the complete programming, and only that
programming, that is also being transmitted by satellite directly to an SDARS licensee’s subscribers’
receivers, and may not be used to distribute any information not also transmitted to all subscribers’
receivers.638 If, during the term of the blanket license for repeater operations, the complete programming
re-transmitted by repeaters is not also being transmitted by satellite directly to an SDARS licensee’s
subscribers’ receivers, repeaters must cease operations until such time as the complete programming is
being transmitted directly to that SDARS licensee’s subscribers’ receivers.
275. We decline to adopt a licensing procedure modeled on that used for ATC operations.
MSS licensees with FCC-licensed space stations request authority for ATC operation by seeking
modification of their space station authorizations. Although SDARS licensees have operated terrestrial
repeaters pursuant to grants of space station STAs, it is not in the public interest to continue to use space
station authorizations as the vehicle for licensing SDARS terrestrial repeaters. As discussed below,
repeater operations are not tied to specific SDARS space stations, and we have concluded that it is
permissible for repeaters to re-transmit signals from sources other than SDARS space stations.639 As a
result, it is administratively difficult to tie repeaters to a specific space station authorization, since some
repeaters may not be communicating with any SDARS space station.640 Nor is there any need to do so in
order to prevent SDARS repeaters from operating as stand-alone facilities, since we determine below that
repeaters, regardless of the source of programming origination, are limited to re-transmitting the complete
programming, and only that programming, that is also being transmitted by satellite directly to SDARS
subscribers’ receivers.641
2. Notification Requirements
276. Background. As discussed above in Section III.E.5., we proposed requiring WCS and
SDARS licensees to notify potentially affected licensees in the other service prior to deploying new or
modified WCS base stations or SDARS terrestrial repeaters. As a result of these proposals, we have
adopted rules requiring WCS licensees to provide informational notifications, as set forth in new Section
27.72 in Appendix B.642 In addition, WCS licensees must share with SDARS licensees certain technical
information at least 10 business days before operating a new base station, and at least 5 business days
before operating a modified base station.643 All WCS licensees and WCS spectrum lessees must also
637 See infra, Appendix B, § 25.121. See also 47 C.F.R. § 25.145(d) (“The license term for each digital audio radio
service satellite shall commence when the satellite is launched and put into operation and the term will run for eight
years.”)
638 See infra, Section IV.C.1.
639 See infra, Section IV.B.4 (concluding that the use of non-SDARS satellites to feed programming to terrestrial
repeaters is reasonable and technically-justified).
640 See id. (observing that Sirius provides programming to its terrestrial repeaters through leased capacity on third-
party FSS space stations, not directly through its SDARS space station).
641 See infra, Section IV.C.1.
642 See supra, paragraph 146. For the sake of brevity, we will not repeat the background and discussion underlying
the adoption of these proposed rules here, but rather incorporate these background and discussion sections by
reference.
643 Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
106
provide Sirius XM an inventory of their deployed infrastructure in accordance with and within 30 days of
the effective date of new Section 27.72 in Appendix B to this Order.644 Although this information need
not be provided to the Commission when it is provided to SDARS licensees, a WCS licensee must
maintain an accurate and up-to-date inventory of its base stations, including the information set forth in
Section 27.72(c)(2), which shall be made available upon request by the Commission.645
277. Discussion. We adopt parallel requirements for SDARS licensees to notify potentially
affected WCS licensees prior to deployment of new or modified SDARS terrestrial repeaters. Our review
of the record indicates that the potential for interference between an SDARS repeater and a WCS base
station can be mitigated by a streamlined notification process, whereby the SDARS licensees share
information regarding new or modified SDARS repeater operations. Specifically, as set forth in new
Section 25.263 in Appendix B, we will require SDARS licensees to provide informational notifications as
specified in those rules.646 The rules we adopt today will require SDARS licensees to share with WCS
licensees certain technical information at least 10 business days before operating a new repeater, and at
least 5 business days before operating a modified repeater.647
278. In order to facilitate the efficient planning of robust WCS future network deployments,
we also require SDARS licensees to provide potentially affected WCS licensees an inventory of their
terrestrial repeater infrastructure, including the information set forth in Section 25.263 for each repeater
currently deployed. Although we do not require this information to be routinely provided to the
Commission when it is provided to WCS licensees, an SDARS licensee operating terrestrial repeaters
must maintain an accurate and up-to-date inventory of its terrestrial repeaters operating above 2 W EIRP,
including the information set forth in Section 25.263(c)(2) for each repeater, which shall be made
available to the Commission upon request.648 An SDARS licensee may satisfy this requirement, for
example, by maintaining this information on a secure website, which can be accessed by authorized
Commission staff at any time.
279. WCS and SDARS licensees are required to cooperate in good faith in the selection and
use of new or modified station sites and frequencies to reduce interference and make the most effective
use of the authorized facilities. Licensees suffering or causing harmful interference must cooperate in
good faith to resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to
do so, the International Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, may impose restrictions, including specifying transmitter power,
antenna height, and area or hours of operation of a station. Similarly, the Wireless Telecommunications
644 Id.
645 Id.
646 We note that if a WCS licensee is party to a de facto transfer spectrum leasing arrangement under Part 1, Subpart
X of the Commission’s rules, its lessee will be required to comply with new Section 25.263, in Appendix B to this
Order.
647 Specifically, SDARS licensees must share technical information with potentially affected WCS licensees. For
these purposes, "potentially affected" is defined in Section 25.263(b)(1) of the Commission's rules as set forth in
Appendix B to this Order. Potentially affected WCS licensees include those licenses authorized to operate base
stations in the same Major Economic Area (MEA) or Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) as that in which
the terrestrial repeater is to be located. In addition, in cases in which a terrestrial repeater is to be located within
5 km of the boarder of an MEA or REAG, the SDARS licensee must provide information to WCS licensees
authorized to operate base stations in that neighboring MEA or REAG. There is nothing in the record to suggest that
an SDARS repeater greater than 5 km from an MEA or REAG boarder is likely to cause harmful interference to a
WCS base station in a neighboring MEA or REAG.
648 See infra, Appendix B at § 25.263(c)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
107
Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and the International Bureau, may
impose such restrictions on WCS licensees.
3. Collocation of SDARS and WCS Stations
280. In the 2007 Second Further Notice, the Commission observed that Sirius proposed
requiring SDARS licensees planning to collocate a terrestrial repeater with a WCS base station or another
SDARS licensee's terrestrial repeater to demonstrate that the collocation would not cause more harmful
interference than a single repeater at that location.649 Sirius also proposed a similar rule for WCS
licensees planning to collocate with SDARS licensees or other WCS licensees.650 Alternatively, the WCS
Coalition maintained that a coordination requirement would be sufficient, and that no specific collocation
requirements are needed.651
281. The 2007 Notice sought comment on the need for collocation rules in general, and for
Sirius’ proposal in particular. It also invited parties to propose an adequate showing that collocation will
not increase aggregate interference. In addition, it invited comment on mechanisms for dispute resolution
if parties are unable to agree on a particular showing. Finally, it asked whether the use of multiple
sectorized antennas on SDARS repeaters ameliorates or exacerbates collocation concerns. Commenters
were encouraged to support their positions on this issue with detailed technical studies.652
282. XM maintains that SDARS operators and WCS licensees can resolve interference issues
between themselves in coordination, and asserts that restrictions on collocation are unneeded.653
Similarly, the WCS Coalition asserts that the Commission typically relies on licensees to work out
collocation issues privately, and that complex collocation rules are unnecessary for SDARS and WCS
base station facilities.654
283. Discussion. We agree that specific collocation rules are not required. We are adopting a
notification procedure that will substantially reduce the probability that SDARS and WCS will cause
harmful interference to each other. If SDARS operators and WCS licensees can agree to collocate
facilities, we see no public interest benefit in precluding them from doing so.
4. Eligibility to Operate Terrestrial Repeaters
a. Use of Repeaters with Non-SDARS Satellites
284. Background. The 2007 Notice sought comment on a proposal to prohibit the stand-alone
operation of SDARS repeaters by requiring the repeaters to transmit only in conjunction with an operating
SDARS satellite.655 The Commission reasoned that such a requirement would ensure that SDARS
repeaters are used to complement the end-user satellite service, and so would be consistent with the
649 See 2007 Second Further Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22123 ¶ 26.
650 See 2007 Second Further Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22123 ¶ 26.
651 See 2007 Second Further Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22123 ¶ 27.
652 See 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22123 ¶ 28.
653 XM Comments at 38-39.
654 WCS Coalition Comments at 35-37.
655 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139 ¶ 48, citing SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5811 ¶ 139; 2001
Public Notice at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
108
frequency allocation for SDARS. It also stated that such a requirement would ensure that there would be
no transformation of SDARS into an independent terrestrial network.656
285. The 2007 Notice also invited comment on whether SDARS licensees may use
non-SDARS satellites to feed terrestrial repeaters.657 For example, Sirius currently uses FSS VSAT
networks to send to its SDARS repeaters the exact same programming that is sent from Sirius through its
SDARS satellites to subscribers.658 Sirius states that this distribution method is necessary to avoid self-
interference, or “ring around,” which would otherwise be caused by the collocation of a receiver and
transmit antenna on the same repeater using adjacent frequencies.659 Sirius contends that placing
restrictions on its use of repeaters would preclude SDARS licensees from using those repeaters
efficiently.660 NAB opposes the use of non-SDARS satellites to feed repeaters, arguing that the
elimination of a requirement that repeaters be fed from a SDARS satellite paves the way for terrestrial
repeaters to act independently from the satellite-based network.661
286. Discussion. We adopt the requirement that only entities holding or controlling SDARS
space station licenses may construct and operate SDARS repeaters and only in conjunction with at least
one SDARS space station that is concurrently authorized and transmitting directly to subscribers. We
conclude that such a requirement is important in ensuring that SDARS repeaters remain complementary
to a satellite-based service and that SDARS repeaters are not transformed into terrestrial broadcast
network independent of the satellite-based service for which the 2320-2345 MHz band was allocated. We
also note the requirement, adopted in Section IV.C.1 supra, that SDARS terrestrial repeaters are restricted
to the simultaneous retransmission of the complete programming, and only that programming, transmitted
by the satellite directly to the SDARS subscribers' receivers, and may not be used to distribute any
information not also transmitted to all subscribers' receivers.662 Under such eligibility and programming
requirements, the operation of SDARS repeaters depends on the operation of the SDARS satellites.
Unless SDARS licensees have operational satellites, there will be no programming transmitted via
satellite directly to any SDARS subscriber's receiver. In situations where there are no operational
SDARS satellites, we prohibit the associated repeaters from transmitting as well.663 Thus, this
requirement prohibits stand-alone operation of terrestrial repeaters, absent operational SDARS satellites
providing service directly the public. Accordingly, if the same programming provided by terrestrial
repeaters is not also being provided to subscriber receivers directly from SDARS satellites, terrestrial
656 SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5811 ¶ 139.
657 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139-22140 ¶ 49.
658 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139-22140 ¶ 49. Sirius explains that each repeater is co-located with a VSAT
antenna, which receives transmissions in the Ku-band (11.7-12.2 GHz space-to-Earth) via a FSS satellite in
geostationary orbit. The repeater converts the Ku-band signal into S-band (2.3 GHz-band) frequencies used for
SDARS repeater transmissions. See id.
659 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22139-22140 ¶ 49. Unlike XM Radio, which has divided its center terrestrial
repeater spectrum into two equal segments, Sirius operates with a single center repeater segment. Sirius’ system
design will not permit its SDARS repeaters to receive a satellite signal from one of its outer segments of its assigned
band and re-transmit it in the center segment without generating self-interference into channels dedicated to
subscriber reception. Id. at n.131.
660 Sirius Comments at 37.
661 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22140 ¶ 49. See also NAB Comments at 5-6.
662 See infra Section IV.C.1.
663 We do not intend for this rule, however, to prohibit SDARS repeaters from operating during limited service
outages on SDARS satellites, where at least one SDARS satellite remains operational and transmitting directly to
some portion of the public.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
109
repeaters must cease operations until such time as the complete programming is restored and is
transmitted directly to SDARS licensee’s subscribers’ receivers.
287. We also find that it is not necessary to feed SDARS repeaters directly through SDARS
satellites. Under the facts presented by Sirius, we conclude that the use of non-SDARS satellites to feed
repeaters is a reasonable and technically-justified method to avoid self-interference. We emphasize that,
so long as the repeaters are restricted to the simultaneous retransmission of the complete programming,
and only that programming, transmitted by the satellite directly to the SDARS subscribers' receivers, and
are not used to distribute any information not also transmitted to all subscribers' receivers, the policy
objectives of the Commission regarding the appropriate use of SDARS terrestrial repeaters are met.664
b. Use of Repeaters Outside of SDARS Satellite Service Area
288. The 2007 Notice sought comment on whether we should adopt rules governing the ability
of SDARS licensees to deploy repeaters in geographic areas not within the service footprint of SDARS
satellites and the impact a prohibition on such terrestrial repeater deployments would have on the ability
of the American public residing in areas not within the service footprint of SDARS satellites to receive
satellite radio.665 The 2007 Notice observed that Sirius had filed requests for special temporary authority
to operate terrestrial repeaters in Alaska and Hawaii, where it is difficult to receive a signal directly from
the Sirius satellites.666 Sirius asserts that restricting its use of repeaters in this fashion would preclude
SDARS licensees from extending service to unserved areas.667 Sirius further maintains that using
repeaters to extend service to new areas is the same as using them to extend service to urban canyons and
heavily foliaged areas.668 NAB and the broadcasters’ associations of Alaska and Hawaii oppose such
operations, arguing that the repeaters in this instance are not complementary to a satellite service, but are
rather stand-alone terrestrial facilities.669 They also contend that allowing SDARS licensees to use their
repeaters in this manner would harm localism in broadcasting.670 We note that, as part of our review of
the merger between Sirius and XM, numerous parties called for equal provision of SDARS to all
consumers in the United States, regardless of their places of residence.671 Although we found in that
proceeding that expanded SDARS satellite coverage beyond the conterminous United States is not
technically feasible or economically reasonable at this time,672 we strongly encouraged service to Alaska,
Hawaii, the U.S. Virgin Islands and other territories of the United States, where technically feasible and
664 See infra, Section IV.C.1.
665 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22140 ¶¶ 50-51.
666 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22140 ¶ 50, citing Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., Request for Special Temporary
Authority to Operate Four Satellite DARS Terrestrial Repeaters in Alaska and Hawaii, IBFS File No. SAT-STA-
20061107-00131, filed Nov. 11, 2006. In this Order below, we conclude that SDARS licensees should be allowed
to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii, through the use of terrestrial repeaters. Since none of the requested
repeaters are proposed to be operated at power levels greater than 12-kW average EIRP, we instruct the International
Bureau to grant Sirius’ pending application to operate terrestrial repeaters in Alaska and Hawaii as part of the
framework for transition from STAs to blanket licensing adopted in Section IV.A.3 above.
667 Sirius Comments at 37-38.
668 Sirius Reply at 37-38.
669 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22140 ¶ 50. See also NAB Comments at 7-10; Alaska/Hawaii Broadcasters
Comments at 3, 5.
670 Alaska/Hawaii Broadcasters Comments at 3-5.
671 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12416 ¶ 148 and n.484.
672 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12417-18 ¶150.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
110
economically reasonable to do so.673 We also found in that proceeding that the public interest would be
served through a voluntary commitment by the merger applicants to provide the Sirius satellite radio
service to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico using terrestrial repeaters.674
289. Discussion. We find that the public interest favors the ability of SDARS licensees to
operate terrestrial repeaters in Alaska, Hawaii, and other U.S Territories and Possessions that are not
within the service footprint of SDARS satellites. We confirm that use of terrestrial repeaters is a
technically and economically feasible way to expand SDARS service to residents of Alaska, Hawaii, and
U.S. Territories and Possessions. The Commission has previously stated its commitment to supporting a
vibrant and vital terrestrial radio service for the public.675 Each time that the Commission has considered
the impact of SDARS on terrestrial radio service, it has found insufficient evidence that SDARS
necessarily harms the viability of local broadcasters or their ability to air locally oriented programming.676
We also find unconvincing the argument that operation of SDARS repeaters in areas not also served
through a SDARS satellite footprint transforms the repeaters into stand-alone terrestrial broadcast
stations, because the repeaters will not be transmitting content that is different from the content supplied
to subscribers in the conterminous United States via satellite. Accordingly, repeaters in Puerto Rico,
Alaska, Hawaii, and U.S. Territories and Possessions can be included as part of an application for blanket
authority to operate terrestrial repeaters.
5. SDARS Environmental Impact and RF Safety
a. Environmental Assessment
290. Background. Section 1.1307(b) of the Commission's rules requires almost all
Commission licensees to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) if a particular facility, operation, or
transmitter would cause human exposure to levels of RF fields in excess of certain specified limits.677 For
licensees subject to Part 25 and transmitting in frequency bands above 1,500 MHz, those limits are
5 mW/cm2 averaged over six minutes for the licensee's employees, provided those employees are “fully
aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure,” and 1 mW/cm2
averaged over 30 minutes for the general population.678 For terrestrial cellular and paging services, the
radiated power limit for categorical exclusion from the requirement to determine compliance with the
exposure limits (routine environmental evaluation) and preparation of an EA if the exposure limits are
673 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12416 ¶ 147, 12417-18 ¶ 150.
674 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12416 ¶ 147. Subsequent to the merger, Sirius XM applied for – and
was granted - STA to operate terrestrial repeaters in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. See Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
Order and Authorization, DA 09-2039 (Int’l Bur., Sat. Div. rel. Sept. 11, 2009).
675 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5769 ¶ 33.
676 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 6768 ¶ 31 (“In sum, although healthy satellite DARS systems are
likely to have some adverse impact on terrestrial radio audience size, revenue, and profits, the record does not
demonstrate that licensing satellite DARS would have such a strong adverse impact that it threatens the provision of
local radio service.”); SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12382-84 ¶¶ 73-74 , 12480 ¶ 155 (finding that even
when merged, SDARS will not necessarily harm the ability of local broadcasters to air locally oriented
programming).
677 Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at
22137-38 ¶¶ 41-42. The exception is "portable equipment" subject to the equipment certification requirement in
Section 2.1093 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.1093. We discuss equipment certification further below.
678 Sections 1.1307(b) and 1.1310 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307(b), 1.1310, cited in 2007 Notice,
22 FCC Rcd at 22137-38 ¶¶ 41-42. The Commission has included compliance with these limits as conditions on
Sirius’ and XM’s terrestrial repeater STAs. See, e.g., Sirius 2001 STA Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 16778 ¶ 16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
111
exceeded is set at 1,640 W EIRP, or 1,000 W ERP.679 The 2001 Public Notice sought comment on
requiring an evaluation and preparation of an EA if limits are exceeded only for SDARS terrestrial
repeaters intended to be operated at power levels over 2,000 W EIRP.680 In the 2007 Notice, the
Commission observed that Sirius did not address this issue in its petition for rulemaking.681 The first
RF-safety issue that we address in this Second Report and Order is the RF level at which we should
require SDARS terrestrial repeater licensees to perform a routine environmental evaluation to determine
compliance and prepare an EA if the exposure limits are exceeded.
291. Discussion. Sirius recommends requiring environmental evaluations for outdoor SDARS
repeaters operating at over 1,640 W EIRP, and for indoor repeaters operating at over 2 W EIRP.682
According to Sirius, allowing two watts for low power satellite radio repeaters would parallel its
recommendations for power limits on fixed WCS subscriber devices and should be sufficient for most in-
building satellite radio applications.683 We adopt Sirius’ proposal. Sirius’ proposed requirement would
be consistent with the Commission's proposal in the 2001 Public Notice.684 It is also consistent with the
Commission’s RF safety requirements for terrestrial cellular and paging services.685
b. Blanket Licensing for High-Powered Repeaters
292. Background. In the 1997 Further Notice, the Commission proposed to preclude SDARS
licensees from deploying any terrestrial repeater pursuant to a blanket license if the repeater requires an
EA pursuant to the rules limiting human exposure to RF energy.686 In other words, the Commission
proposed that authority for operation of SDARS repeaters that would generate cumulative radiation levels
in excess of the exposure guidelines in Section 1.1310 would have to be sought by filing an individual
license application for each such repeater. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission observed that Sirius did
not address this issue in its petition for rulemaking.687 Accordingly, we must determine whether to allow
blanket licensing for outdoor SDARS repeaters operating at over 1,640 W EIRP, and for indoor repeaters
operating at over 2 W EIRP.
293. Discussion. None of the parties filing comment in response to the 2007 Notice addressed
this issue. As discussed above, we decide to adopt a blanket-licensing procedure for SDARS terrestrial
repeaters.688 We also decide to model this blanket licensing on our licensing provision for VSATs.
Applicants seeking blanket licensing for VSATs must demonstrate that the terminals will comply with the
679 Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at
22137-38 ¶¶ 41-42.
680 2001 Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 19442, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137-38 ¶¶ 41-42. An EIRP of
2,000 watts is equivalent to an ERP of 1219.5 watts.
681 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137 ¶ 41.
682 Sirius Comments at 11.
683 Id.
684 See 2001 Public Notice, 16 FCC Rcd at 19442, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137-38 ¶¶ 41-42.
685 Section 1.1307(b)(1) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd
at 22137-38 ¶¶ 41-42.
686 1997 Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 5845 (Appendix C), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137 ¶ 40. See
also 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1301-1319.
687 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137-38 ¶ 42.
688 See supra, Section IV.B.1.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
112
Commission’s rules regarding environmental impact.689 Accordingly, to be consistent with the VSAT
blanket licensing provisions, we will require SDARS applicants seeking blanket licensing of terrestrial
repeaters to certify that those repeaters will comply with the environmental impact rules. Although we
will not require routine submission of a demonstration of compliance with the environmental impact rules
as part of a blanket license application to operate terrestrial repeaters, SDARS licensees must maintain
demonstrations of compliance with such rules and make such demonstrations available to the
Commission upon request within 3 business days.690
294. We conclude that a prohibition on blanket-licensed facilities that require an EA, as was
proposed in the 2007 Notice, is not necessary. In addition to specifying the RF level at which an EA is
needed, Part 1, Subpart I of the Commission's rules specifies procedures for ensuring that the Commission
considers any significant environmental impact that could result from granting any application.691 Those
procedures apply both to individually licensed facilities and to blanket-licensed facilities. There is
nothing in the record that would suggest that the RF safety standards and procedures currently in Part 1,
Subpart I are insufficient for blanket-licensed facilities. Therefore, we conclude that we need not adopt
any additional safeguards against RF exposure from blanket-licensed SDARS terrestrial repeaters, other
than the safeguards currently in Part 1, Subpart I.
c. Radio Frequency Safety Requirements for Very Low-Powered
Repeaters
295. Background. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission requested comment on whether to
adopt any additional RF safety measures for very low power repeaters, 10 W or less, deployed indoors
where members of the general public may be present. Specifically, the 2007 Notice asked whether
warning labels or a professional installation requirement might be necessary.692
296. Discussion. No comments were received on this proposal. The RF safety rules in Part 1,
Subpart I already take into account the need for warning labels or other mitigating factors in cases where
a transmitter may have a significant environmental impact.693 The record in this proceeding does not
provide any support for adopting additional labeling requirements for SDARS terrestrial repeaters.
6. Compliance with International Agreements
297. Background. The 2007 Notice sought comment regarding SDARS repeater operations
and obligations under international agreements between the U.S. Government and the administrations of
Canada and Mexico.694 The agreements specifically contemplate the use of SDARS repeaters as part of
the U.S.-licensed SDARS systems and establish maximum PFD levels for U.S. SDARS repeater
689 See 47 C.F.R. Section 25.134(d) (VSAT license applicants must filed applications on Form 312, which includes
Question 28, requiring the submission of a radiation hazard study).
690 See infra, Appendix B, at Section 25.263(c)(2).
691 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.1307, 1.1308.
692 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22138 ¶ 43.
693 See 47 C.F.R. § 1.1307(b).
694 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136-22137 ¶¶ 37-39, citing Agreement Concerning the Coordination Between
U.S. Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service and Canadian Fixed Service and Mobile Aeronautical Telemetry Service
in the Band 2320-2345 MHz (Aug. 25, 1998) (“U.S.-Canada Agreement”); Agreement Between the Government of
the United States of America and the Government of the United Mexican States Concerning the Use of the
2310-2360 MHz Band (July 24, 200) (“U.S.-Mexico Agreement”). The texts of these agreements are available via
the Internet at http://www.fcc.gov/ib/.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
113
operations in the vicinity of the U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Canada borders.695 The 2007 Notice noted a
proposal to require prior Commission approval of any SDARS repeater that exceeds the power levels
and/or proximity restrictions contained in these international agreements.696 It also observed that, as part
of its 2006 Petition for Rulemaking, Sirius proposed to require SDARS repeaters to conform to the terms
of the U.S.-Mexico Agreement entered into in 2000 (or any successor agreement), but was silent on
whether SDARS repeaters must conform with the agreement between the U.S. and Canada.697 The
2007 Notice sought comment on Sirius’ proposal and invited comment on any alternatives that may be
appropriate.698
298. Discussion. We adopt a rule requiring SDARS repeater operations to comply with these
agreements.699 Sirius and XM do not oppose requiring compliance with the international agreements
between the U.S. Government and the administrations of Canada and Mexico.700 Should an SDARS
licensee wish to operate SDARS repeaters that will not comply with the international agreements with
Canada and Mexico (or any successor agreements), it must seek a modification of its blanket license to
authorize such repeater operations and must seek a waiver of this rule. An SDARS licensee may not
operate repeaters that do not comply with international agreements unless the SDARS licensee has
received explicit authority from the Commission to do so.
7. Marking and Lighting of Antenna Structures
299. Background. Part 17 of the Commission’s rules701 requires all Commission licensees to
comply with Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements regarding the marking and lighting of
antenna structures that may become a menace to air navigation.702 In the 2007 Notice, the Commission
requested comment on whether SDARS licensees should be required to demonstrate compliance with
Part 17 as part of any request for blanket authorization of SDARS terrestrial repeaters.703
300. Discussion. XM and Sirius do not oppose the imposition of this requirement.704 We see
no reason to exempt SDARS repeaters from the Part 17 requirements that are generally applicable to all
Commission licensees. 705 Accordingly, we adopt the proposal from the 2007 Notice to require SDARS
695 See U.S.-Canada Agreement at 5 (coordination of terrestrial repeaters not necessary provided individual repeaters
do not exceed PFD limit of -119 dB (W/m2/4kHz) at and beyond common border); U.S.-Mexico Agreement,
Appendix I (setting PFD limit for terrestrial repeaters at -154 dB (W/m2/4kHz) at the U.S.-Mexico border). See also
2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 37.
696 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22136 ¶ 38.
697 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137 ¶ 39.
698 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22137 ¶ 39.
699 We note that this rule is the same as the condition regarding compliance with international agreements that has
been placed on all SDARS repeater STAs to date.
700 Sirius Comments at 38; XM Comments at 40.
701 47 C.F.R. Part 17.
702 See 47 C.F.R. § 17.1.
703 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22138 ¶ 44.
704 XM Comments at 40; Sirius Comments at 10.
705 We note that the existing STAs for SDARS repeater condition operations on compliance with Part 17 of the
Commission’s rules. See, e.g., Sirius 2001 STA Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 16780 ¶ 18.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
114
licensees applying for blanket terrestrial repeater authority to certify in their applications that they will
comply with the requirements of Part 17.706
8. Equipment Authorization
301. Background. The Communications Act authorizes the Commission to make regulations
to ensure that devices that emit radio-frequency (RF) energy comply with applicable technical rules to
ensure that they will not cause harmful interference before they enter the stream of commerce in the
United States.707 Pursuant to that authority, the Commission has adopted rules that require many types of
RF-emitting equipment to be authorized for importation or commercial distribution in accordance with
one of three procedures – Certification, Declaration of Conformity, and Verification – which are defined
in Part 2 Subpart J of the rules.708 Together, these procedures are commonly known as the equipment
authorization rules.709 The technical standards for equipment authorization vary by device, but today the
majority of radio transmitters that "intentionally radiate" radio waves must be found to be compliant with
the governing rules before being marketed, sold, or imported into the United States.710 In particular, the
Commission requires Certification of "portable earth station transceivers"711 and ATC transmitters.712
Under Part 27 of the Commission’s rules, WCS transmitters are subject to the Certification procedure
contained in the Commission’s equipment authorization rules.713 In the 2007 Notice, the Commission
questioned whether a Certification requirement should be adopted either for SDARS terrestrial repeaters
operating at very low power repeaters or for repeaters operating at higher power levels.714
302. Sirius supports an equipment authorization process for SDARS terrestrial repeaters that is
comparable to the process that has been required for WCS transmitters (i.e., Certification).715 Sirius XM,
however, requests that it be given at least a 24-month long window of time to complete Certification of
existing repeaters, or that it be allowed to use a procedure other than Certification – such as Verification
706 Sections 25.113(c), (d), and (e) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 25.113(c), (d), (e), state that all Part 25
licensees are subject to Part 17 of the Commission's rules. Because we have decided not to exempt SDARS
terrestrial repeater licensees from these requirements, it is not necessary to revise these rules.
707 47 U.S.C. § 302.
708 Certification is an equipment authorization issued by the Commission or by a recognized Telecommunication
Certification Body (TCB) on behalf of the Commission based on an application and test data submitted by the
responsible party (manufacturer or importer). Declaration of Conformity (DoC) is an equipment authorization
procedure that requires the responsible party to make measurements or take other necessary steps to ensure that the
equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.906, 2.909. Verification is an
equipment authorization procedure under which the responsible party makes measurements or takes the necessary
steps to ensure that the equipment complies with the appropriate technical standards. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 2.909(b),
2.953.
709 See 47 C.F.R. § 2.901 et seq.
710 See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.51, 27.51, which require that personal communications services (PCS) and WCS
devices be authorized under the Certification procedure, respectively.
711 Currently, Part 25 defines earth station transceivers as portable if the transceivers’ radiating element would be
used within 20 centimeters of the operator’s body while the devices are in use. See 47 C.F.R. § 25.129 (requiring
Certification for portable earth station transceivers).
712 See 47 C.F.R. § 25.149(c).
713 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.51, citing Part 2, Subpart J of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 2.901 et seq.
714 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22138 ¶ 43.
715 Sirius Comments at 10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
115
or Declaration of Conformity – to authorize makes and models of terrestrial repeaters currently in
operation.716 The WCS Coalition, in its ex parte filings, did not oppose the 24-month window proposed
by Sirius XM. The WCS Coalition also recommends imposing the same equipment authorization
procedure on SDARS terrestrial repeaters that has been imposed on WCS transmitters. According to the
WCS Coalition, Certification of SDARS terrestrial repeaters is necessary to ensure that the repeaters
being deployed are compliant with the Commission’s technical rules, especially given that XM and Sirius
have a track record of deploying equipment that does not meet the Commission’s technical rules.717
303. Discussion. We agree with Sirius and the WCS Coalition that requiring Certification for
SDARS terrestrial repeaters is in the public interest since it will create a parallel regulatory process for
both SDARS and WCS transmitters, and will help ensure compliance with the technical standards that are
necessary for co-existence of SDARS and WCS operations in the 2.3 GHz band. Accordingly, we require
that SDARS terrestrial repeaters be authorized under the Certification procedure before they are imported
or commercially distributed in the United States. In addition, to ensure that SDARS terrestrial repeaters
comply with the power, PAPR, and OOBE limits that we adopt in this Order, we require that the tests
performed as part of the Certification procedure be completed in accordance with prescribed
procedures.718
304. As such, Sirius XM must request Certification for any terrestrial repeater models that it
intends to deploy in the future, including models of repeaters that have been deployed previously in other
locations under an STA. An SDARS licensee applying for blanket authority to operate terrestrial
repeaters must certify, as part of its application, that each SDARS terrestrial repeater it plans to use has
been authorized by the Commission under its Certification equipment authorization procedure. We
recognize that it will take time to complete the Certification equipment authorization procedure for all
terrestrial repeater models that are to be deployed under the initial blanket license application that is
expected to be filed after adoption of this Second Report and Order. Accordingly, Sirius XM may
request a waiver, as part of its initial blanket license application, of the requirement that it certify that all
repeater models intended to be deployed have been authorized by the Commission under its Certification
equipment authorization procedure. Instead, Sirius XM may request that any grant be conditioned on
Sirius XM providing this Certification within 24 months of the grant of the authorization.719 This would
allow time sufficient time to establish and complete Certification procedures for the initial deployment of
terrestrial repeaters under the rules adopted today. This waiver request may also seek to exempt from the
initial blanket license application certification any models of terrestrial repeaters currently deployed, but
that are no longer being manufactured and that will not have additional deployments in the future. We
find that exempting such discontinued models from the Certification equipment authorization procedure
will not undermine the purpose of the rule, since the exemption is likely to cover a limited number of
already-deployed repeaters, and that it would be an undue hardship for Sirius XM to undergo the expense
of Certification for models of repeaters that it does not intend to deploy in the future. Such repeaters,
716 Sirius XM Comments at 38, filed April 23, 2010.
717 WCS Coalition, July 22, 2008, Ex Parte at 2, n.3.
718 The Commission's rules provide for "Commission-approved measurement techniques" in other contexts. See
Sections 24.232(d), 27.50(b)(12), and 90.542(a)(8)(ii) of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.232(d),
27.50(b)(12), 90.542(a)(8)(ii). See Section 25.144(e)(7) of the Commission's rules, in Appendix B to this Order for
the terrestrial repeater equipment authorization requirements we are adopting. Specifically, Sections 25.144(e)(7)(i)
and (iii) correspond to Sections 27.51(a) and (b), respectively. Section 25.144(e)(7)(ii) includes the new equipment
authorization procedures we adopt here.
719 Sirius XM requested this 24-month period to complete the equipment Certification procedures in comments in
response to the WCS/SDARS Technical Rules Public Notice. See Sirius XM Comments at 38, filed April 23, 2010.
No party opposed this request.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
116
however, must still meet the power, PAPR, and OOBE limits for SDARS terrestrial repeaters adopted in
this Second Report and Order.
C. Other SDARS Repeater Issues
1. Local Programming Origination from SDARS Repeaters
305. Background. The Commission tentatively concluded that a prohibition on the use of
terrestrial repeaters to originate local programming would serve the public interest as part of the 1997
Further Notice and the 2007 Notice.720 Terrestrial radio broadcasters support such a prohibition on
transmission of local programming by SDARS repeaters, arguing that absent such a prohibition, SDARS
licensees could compete with local radio for advertising, which in turn could limit local radio's ability to
provide valuable public services.721
306. Discussion. We affirm the Commission’s tentative conclusion to impose a prohibition on
the use of SDARS terrestrial repeaters to originate local programming and advertising. Since the release
of the 2007 Notice, the Commission has approved the merger of the two SDARS licensees, Sirius and
XM.722 As part of that merger proceeding, the Commission considered requests from terrestrial
broadcasters to prohibit the merged companies from carrying local programming and local advertising in
order to protect the ability of terrestrial broadcasters to provide free over-the-air radio.723 In response to
the concerns expressed by the terrestrial broadcasters, Sirius and XM reiterated their commitment not to
originate local programming or advertising through their repeater networks.724 In approving the merger
request, the Commission observed that the existing STAs to operate terrestrial repeaters prohibit the
licensees from using terrestrial repeaters to distribute localized content that is different from that provided
via satellite to subscribers in the conterminous U.S., and thus prohibits SDARS licensees from
distributing local programming as well as advertising.725
307. In order to effect the prohibition on the origination of local programming and advertising,
we are adopting as a rule the following rule for all SDARS repeater operations: “SDARS terrestrial
repeaters are restricted to the simultaneous retransmission of the complete programming, and only that
programming, transmitted by the SDARS licensee’s satellite directly to the SDARS licensee’s
subscribers' receivers, and may not be used to distribute any information not also transmitted to all
subscribers' receivers.” This language differs from the local programming restriction placed on SDARS
repeater STAs in that it adds the phrase “and may not be used to distribute any information not also
transmitted to all subscribers’ receivers,” which is not part of the repeater STA condition.726 The
additional phrase results from an agreement reached by NAB and XM Radio subsequent to the creation of
the SDARS repeater STA condition.727 Sirius XM states in recent comments that the additional phrase is
720 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5812; 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22142 ¶ 55.
721 NAB Comments at 10-12.
722 See Sirius XM Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12420 ¶ 155.
723 Id.
724 Sirius Comments at 38; XM Comments at 41-42.
725 See SDARS Merger Order, 23 FCC Rcd at 12420 ¶ 155.
726 The requirement we adopt today also slightly modifies the language of the condition placed on grants of STA to
operate terrestrial repeaters, in that we make explicit that the programming retransmitted by terrestrial repeaters
must be the same that is simultaneously transmitted to SDARS subscribers’ receivers by a satellite licensed to a
SDARS licensee, not just any satellite.
727 NAB Comments at 12-13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
117
unnecessary because it accomplishes the same objective as the STA condition: requiring Sirius XM offer
only programming stream nationwide, which is available to all satellite receivers, in order to prevent
Sirius XM from using terrestrial repeaters to originate local content to compete with terrestrial radio
broadcasters on a local basis.728
308. Sirius XM does not, however, identify any concrete harm from inclusion of this language.
It states that this additional phrase could cause confusion and harm if it were interpreted to restrict non-
programming related activities unrelated to the concerns of terrestrial broadcasters, such as the origination
and transmission of diagnostic data.729 In order to address this concern, we make clear that prohibition
applies only to subscriber-received programming and does not restrict Sirius XM from originating
internal diagnostic or network maintenance transmissions from terrestrial repeaters. Finally, XM asks us
to clarify that this language does not prohibit the slight delay caused by retransmission of the satellite
signal through a terrestrial repeater.730 We confirm that slight transmission delays inherent from RF
propagation delays, signal processing, and the use of time diversity techniques do not violate the
prohibition on the use of SDARS repeaters to originate local programming and advertising, so long as all
programming and advertising transmitted by the licensee’s SDARS repeaters is the same and complete
programming and advertising that is received from, and transmitted by, the licensee’s satellite to all end
users. Such technical delays do not violate our intent that the use of SDARS repeaters remains
complementary to a satellite service, and interpreting the prohibition not to cover such technical delays is
supported both by the SDARS operators and by NAB.731
2. Use of SDARS Spectrum for Repeaters
309. Background. In the 1997 Further Notice, the Commission proposed allowing SDARS
licensees to use their licensed spectrum for both satellite and terrestrial repeater transmissions.732 A
terrestrial broadcast radio licensee, Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, claimed that the Table of Frequency
Allocations permits SDARS spectrum to be used only for satellite transmissions, and that use of satellite
spectrum for terrestrial repeater transmissions would be inconsistent with the Table of Frequency
Allocations.733 In the 2007 Notice, the Commission invited interested parties to update the record on this
issue.734 No one commented on this issue.
310. Discussion. We disagree that SDARS operators should be required to operate their
repeaters in a frequency band different from that in which they operate their satellites. First, such a
requirement would be inconsistent with the international and domestic spectrum allocations for SDARS.
728 Sirius XM Comments at 41, filed April 23, 2010.
729 Id.
730 XM Comments at 42 n.95.
731 See XM Radio 2001 Public Notice Reply Comments at 22; NAB 2001 Public Notice Comments at 5.
732 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5845 (App. C), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at
22140-41 ¶ 52.
733 Mt. Wilson Further Notice Comments at 2, cited in 2007 Second Further Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 53. See
also Susquehanna Further Notice Comments at 5, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 53 (arguing that
diverting spectrum from SDARS satellite transmissions to terrestrial repeater transmissions would be inconsistent
with finding in the 1997 SDARS Service Rules Order, 12 FCC Rcd at 5776 ¶ 49, that the SDARS licensees will need
12.5 megahertz of spectrum to be economically viable).
734 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 53.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
118
Those allocations expressly state that SDARS spectrum is allocated “to the broadcasting-satellite service
(sound) and a complementary terrestrial broadcasting service” on a primary basis (emphasis added).735
311. In addition, as the Commission stated in the 1997 SDARS Order, satellite system design
requires a balancing of various factors that is best made by the system operators.736 In order to allow
SDARS licensees maximum flexibility to implement their satellite system designs, the Commission
adopted flexible technical rules for the service, which in turn has allowed the licensees to implement
robust systems that are both viable and competitive.737 Pursuant to this policy of permitting licensees
flexibility in designing their systems, licensees should have the ability to decide whether to use a portion
of their exclusively assigned spectrum to implement SDARS repeaters. In other words, the use of
spectrum within a particular system represents a decision best made by the licensee to maximize the
number of programming channels available and to provide a reliable, ubiquitous, and high quality
programming service to consumers represents a decision best made by the licensee.738
3. Retransmission of Regional Spot Beams
312. Background. In response to the 1997 Further Notice, one commenter urged the
Commission to prohibit SDARS repeaters from re-transmitting satellite spot beams, arguing that
providing localized programming via spot beams would in effect transform SDARS repeater networks
into terrestrial radio services and undermine the viability of terrestrial broadcasters.739 Similarly, NAB
has urged the Commission to prohibit SDARS licensees from delivering different programming to
consumers in different markets.740 The 2007 Notice invited commenters to update the record on this
issue, observing that no SDARS licensee has constructed, or has proposed to construct, regional spot
beams as part of its system.741
313. Discussion. No comments were received on this issue in response to the 2007 Notice.
We conclude that SDARS operators should not use their SDARS repeaters to retransmit regional spot
beams. Permitting SDARS licensees the ability to use their repeater networks to provide terrestrial radio
programming that varies by region, including via the incorporation of spot beam technology in its satellite
networks, would be in direct contradiction to the Commission’s intent for the use of terrestrial repeaters.
Restricting the SDARS repeater’s operations to transmitting only the programming transmitted from the
SDARS satellite directly to subscribers will more appropriately ensure that the Commission's stated
policy goals regarding a repeater’s ability to originate local programming, as discussed above in Section
IV.C.1., are met.
735 47 C.F.R. § 2.106 Footnote US 327 to U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations; International Telecommunication
Union, Radio Regulations, Article S5.393 to the International Table of Frequency Allocations.
736 See SDARS Order and FNPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 5800 ¶ 112.
737 Id.
738 Although SDARS licensees have the flexibility to determine whether to utilize their spectrum for use by
complementary terrestrial repeaters and to determine how much of their licensed spectrum to set aside for such use,
the rules we adopt in this Second Report and Order to minimize out-of-band emissions are premised on the location
of repeater frequency assignments in the center of each SDARS licensee’s exclusively licensed frequency band.
739 Mt. Wilson Further Notice Comments at 1, 5, cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 54.
740 Letter from Jack N. Goodman, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, NAB, to William F. Caton, Acting
Secretary, FCC (dated Mar. 14, 2002), cited in 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 54.
741 2007 Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 22141 ¶ 54.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
119
D. Petitions for Reconsideration
314. We deny the petitions for reconsideration of the 1997 SDARS Order742 filed by the
Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association (CEMA)743 and the Cellular Phone Taskforce.744
CEMA filed a petition for reconsideration of the 1997 SDARS Order urging the Commission to adopt
rules governing the build-out of SDARS repeaters and regulating the overall performance of SDARS
systems, particularly in urban and mobile environments.745 CEMA expresses concern that SDARS
licensees will resist bearing the costs associated with deployment of SDARS repeaters without the
imposition of specific repeater build-out requirements.746 We conclude that there is no need for additional
build-out, coverage, quality, or performance requirements for SDARS repeaters. We conclude that
competitive market forces will provide ample incentives for the SDARS licensees to deliver high quality,
nationwide service in a timely manner. This conclusion is supported by the fact that, since the filing of
CEMA’s petition for reconsideration, the SDARS licensees have in fact extensively built out their
repeater networks without the imposition of a build out requirement. Consequently, we deny CEMA's
petition and will not impose any mandatory build out requirements for the deployment of SDARS
repeaters.
315. The Cellular Phone Taskforce opposes licensing SDARS repeaters because of their
alleged environmental effects.747 In its comments, the Cellular Phone Taskforce does not raise specific
environmental concerns regarding our proposed rules for SDARS. Rather, it argues that the
Commission's environmental rules are generally inadequate. Because the Cellular Phone Taskforce did
not raise any specific concerns regarding SDARS repeater operations, we find that it is unnecessary and
inappropriate to impose additional environmental restrictions on the operations of SDARS repeaters based
on its petition. We also conclude that it is not appropriate to address its general concerns about the
sufficiency of the Commission’s environmental rules in this particular licensing proceeding.
V. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
316. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA),748 Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) for WT Docket No. 07-293 and IB Docket No.
95-91 were incorporated into the 2007 Notice.749 The Commission sought written public comments on
the possible significant economic impact of the proposed policies and rules on small entities in the 2007
Notice, including comments on the IRFAs. No one commented specifically on the IRFAs. Pursuant to
the RFA,750 Final Regulatory Flexibility Analyses are contained in Appendices C and D.
742 Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service in the 2310-2360 MHz
Frequency Band, Report and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
12 FCC Rcd 5754 (1997) (“SDARS Order and FNPRM”).
743 Petition for Reconsideration of the Consumer Electronics Manufacturing Association, IB Docket No. 95-91
(Mar. 27, 1997) (“CEMA Reconsideration Petition”).
744 Petition for Partial Reconsideration of the Cellular Phone Taskforce, IB Docket No. 95-91 (Apr. 9, 1997)
(“Cellular Phone Taskforce Reconsideration Petition”).
745 See id. at 7-8.
746 See CEMA Reconsideration Petition at 2.
747 See Cellular Phone Taskforce Reconsideration Petition at 1.
748 See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
749 2007 Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 22146-50 (Appendix A and Appendix B).
750 See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
120
317. Paperwork Reduction Act. This Order contains new and modified information
collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13. It will be
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d) of the PRA.
The Commission will publish a separate notice in the Federal Register inviting comment on the new or
revised information collection requirements adopted herein. The requirements will not go into effect until
OMB has approved it and the FCC has published a notice announcing the effective date of the
information collection requirements. In addition, we note that pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork
Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), we previously sought specific
comment on how the Commission might “further reduce the information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” In this present document, we have assessed the
potential effects of the various policy changes with regard to information collection burdens on small
business concerns, and find that these requirements will benefit WCS licensees with fewer than 25
employees. In addition, we have described impacts that might affect small businesses, including most
businesses with fewer than 25 employees, in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis in Appendix C,
infra.
VI. ORDERING CLAUSES
318. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i), 7(a), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g),
and 303(r), and 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 157(a),
303(c), 303(f), 303(g), 303(r), 307, that this Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-293 and Second
Report and Order in IB Docket No. 95-91 is hereby ADOPTED.
319. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the rules adopted herein WILL BECOME
EFFECTIVE 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register, except for Sections
25.144(e)(3), 25.144(e)(8), 25.144(e)(9), 25.263(b), 25.263(c), 27.14(p)(7), 27.72(b), 27.72(c), 27.73(a),
and 27.73(b), which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval
by the OMB under the PRA and WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after the Commission publishes a notice
in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant effective date.
320. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Section 1.115 of the
Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. § 1.115, the application for review of the Wireless Telecommunications
Bureau’s Horizon Order,751 jointly filed by Green Flag Wireless, LLC and James McCotter on February
10, 2009, IS DISMISSED AS MOOT.
321. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), the applications for additional
time to meet the 2.3 GHz Wireless Communications Service substantial service performance requirement
listed in Appendix F ARE DISMISSED AS MOOT.
322. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT, pursuant to Section 5(c) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 5(c), the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau IS GRANTED
DELEGATED AUTHORITY to implement the policies set forth in the Report and Order in WT Docket
No. 07-293 and the rules, as revised, set forth in Appendix B hereto.
323. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the International Bureau is instructed to extend all
grants of STA to operate SDARS repeaters currently in effect for a period of 180 days from the effective
751 Applications of Horizon Wi-Com, LLC, File Nos. 0003014435, 0003014449, 0003014463, 0003014470,
0003045272, 0003045277, 0003045282, and 0003067727, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 359
(WTB Mobility Div. 2009) (Horizon Order).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
121
date of this Order, or until the date on which the Commission grants blanket licenses to operate SDARS
repeaters, whichever comes first.
324. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the International Bureau is instructed to grant all
pending requests for STA to operate SDARS terrestrial repeaters for a period of 180 days from the
effective date of this Order, or until the date on which the Commission grants blanket licenses to operate
SDARS repeaters, whichever comes first.
325. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for reconsideration filed in
12 FCC Rcd 5754, IB Docket No. 95-91, GEN Docket No. 90-357, on March 27, 1997 by the Consumer
Electronics Manufacturers Association, and the petition for partial reconsideration filed in 12 FCC Rcd
5754, IB Docket No. 95-91, GEN Docket No. 90-357, on April 9, 1997 by the Cellular Phone Taskforce
ARE DENIED.
326. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission will send a copy of this Report and
Order and Second Report and Order, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Certification, in a report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
327. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 154(i), 303(r), and Sections 1.9030(c) and
1.9035(c) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.9030(c), 1.9035(c), that all licensees and de facto
transfer lessees of spectrum in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands are HEREBY
DIRECTED to provide Sirius XM Radio, Inc. an inventory of their deployed infrastructure consistent
with, and within 30 days of the effective date of, new Section 27.72(b).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
122
APPENDIX A
List of Parties Filing Pleadings
I. Pleadings Filed in IB Docket No. 95-91 in Response to the 1997 Further Notice
A. Comments (filed on or before June 13, 1997)
Alabama Broadcasters Association
American Mobile Radio Corporation (AMRC)
CD Radio, Inc. (CD Radio)
Consumer Electronics Manufacturers Association (CEMA)
Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc.
National Association of Broadcasters (NAB)
Susquehanna Radio Corp.
B. Reply Comments (filed on June 27, 1997)
AMRC
CD Radio
CEMA
NAB
Radio Operators Caucus
C. Ex Parte Filings (June 28, 1997 through December 17, 1999)
AMRC
CD Radio
CEMA
Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters, Inc
NAB
XM
II. Supplemental Pleadings Filed in IB Docket No. 95-91 1
A. Supplements to 1997 Filings
Supplemental Comments of XM, filed Dec. 17, 1999 (XM 1999 Supplement)
Supplemental Comments of Sirius, filed Jan. 18, 2000 (Sirius 2000 Supplement)
B. Comments (filed on February 22, 2000)
BellSouth Corporation and BellSouth Wireless Cable, Inc. (BellSouth)
NAB
Wireless Communications Association International, Inc. (WCA)
1 “Satellite Policy Branch Information,” Public Notice, IB Docket No. 95-91, GEN Docket No. 90-357,
rel. Jan. 21, 2000.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
123
C. Reply Comments (filed on March 8, 2000)
Aerospace & Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC)
MCI WorldCom, Inc.
Metricom, Inc. (Metricom)
Sirius
XM
D. Ex Parte Filings (from March 8, 2000 through December 13, 2001)
AFTRCC, Sirius, and XM
ATT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (ATTWS)
ATTWS, BeamReach Networks, Inc. (BeamReach), BellSouth, Metricom, WCA, and WorldCom
ATTWS, BeamReach, BellSouth, Metricom, Navini Networks Inc. (Navini Networks), Sirius, Verizon
Wireless, Inc. (Verizon Wireless), WCA, WorldCom, and XM
ATTWS, BellSouth, Metricom, Verizon Wireless, WCA, and WorldCom, Inc. (WorldCom)
ATTWS, BellSouth, Metricom, and WCA
ATTWS, BellSouth, Metricom, WCA, and WorldCom
ATTWS and Verizon Wireless
BeamReach
BellSouth, Metricom, Shell Offshore Service Company, Sirius, WCA, WorldCom, and XM
Fusion Lighting (Fusion)
Metricom
NAB
Navini Networks
Sirius
Sirius and XM
Spike Broadband Systems Inc.
Verizon Wireless
WCA
XM
III. 2001 Public Notice Pleadings Filed in IB Docket No. 95-91 (DA 01-2570) 2
A. Comments (filed on or before December 14, 2001)
ATTWS, BeamReach, BellSouth Corporation, Metricom, Verizon Wireless, WorldCom, and WCA
(WCS Coalition)
KJNP AM/FM
NAB
National ITFS Association
Sirius
S-R Broadcasting Co., Inc.
WCA
XM
2 “Request for Further Comment on Selected Issues Regarding the Authorization of Satellite Digital Audio Radio
Service Terrestrial Repeater Networks,” Public Notice, IB Docket No. 95-91, RM-8610, DA 01-2570,
16 FCC Rcd 19435 (2001).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
124
B. Reply Comments (due on or before December 21, 2001)
BeamReach
NAB
NIA
Sirius
WCA
WCS Coalition
XM
IV. Pleadings Filed between Dec. 22, 2001 and Feb. 12, 2008
A. Ex Parte Filings
ATTWS
BeamReach
BellSouth
Cox Radio, Inc. (Cox)
Fusion
Green Flag Wireless, LLC
NAB
NAB and XM
NextWave Broadband Inc. (NextWave)
XM
B. Selected Pleadings
White Paper: Interference to the SDARS Service from WCS Transmitters, attached to Letter from Carl R.
Frank, Counsel to Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (dated Mar. 29,
2006) (Sirius 2006 White Paper)
Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. Petition for Rulemaking and Comments, filed Oct. 17, 2006 (Sirius Petition for
Rulemaking)
Letter from Paul J. Sinderbrand, Counsel to the WCS Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC
(dated July 9, 2007) (WCS July 2007 Letter)
V. Pleadings Filed in Response to 2007 Notice
A. Comments in IB Docket No. 95-91 (due on or before February 14, 2008)
AFTRCC
Alaska Broadcasters Association and Hawaii Association of Broadcasters (Alaska/Hawaii Broadcasters)
Motorola, Inc. (Motorola)
NAB
Sirius
AT&T, Inc., Comcast Corporation (Comcast), Horizon Wi-Com LLC (Horizon), NTELOS Inc. and
NextWave Broadband Inc., WCA (WCS Coalition)
WiMAX Forum
XM Radio, Inc. (XM)
XM Supplement, filed Feb. 15, 2008
XM and Sirius Letter, filed Feb. 28, 2009
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
125
B. Comments in WT Docket No. 07-293 (due on or before February 14, 2008)
George Bednekoff (Bednekoff)
C. Reply Comments in IB Docket No. 95-91 (due on or before March 17, 2008)
NextWave Wireless, Inc. (NextWave)
Sirius
WCS Coalition
WiMAX Forum
XM
VI. Comments Filed in WT Docket No. 07-293 in Response to WCS Performance Requirements
Public Notice (FCC 10-46)
A. Comments (due on April 21, 2010)
Broadband South LLC (Broadband South)
Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, Inc. and James McCotter, Joint Comments of
Horizon
Sirius XM
Stratos Offshore Services Company (Stratos)
WCS Coalition
B. Reply Comments for WCS Performance Requirements Public Notice (due on or before
May 3, 2010)
AT&T Inc
Broadband South
Comcast
Green Flag Wireless, LLC, CWC License Holding, Inc., James McCotter
Horizon
Sirius XM
WCS Coalition
C. Late-filed Comments
Grid Net (Apr. 29)
VII. Filings in Response to Interference Rules Public Notice (DA 10-592 and DA 10-622) 3
A. Comments Filed in WT Docket No. 07-293 (due on or before April 23, 2010)
AFTRCC
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (filed under Robert Strassburger)
Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. (AIAM), Technical Affairs Committee of
Boeing Company, The (Boeing)
Ericsson Inc
GE Healthcare
3 The Commission extended the comment date to April 23, 2010. “Commission Staff Requests That Interested
Parties Supplement the Record on Draft Interference Rules for Wireless Communications Service and Satellite
Digital Audio Radio Service,” WT Docket No. 07-293, Order Extending Comment Period.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
126
Hyundai Motor America
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC
National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA)
Nissan North America, Inc.
Philips Healthcare Systems
Satellite Industry Association
Sirius XM
Stratos
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
Vogel, Wolfhard (Balcones Industrial R&D Corporation)
WCS Coalition
In addition, 353 short comments were filed in WT Docket No. 07-293 between March 6, 2010 and
April 26, 2010, from parties generally requesting that the Commission protect the reception of Sirius
XM’s programming.
B. Late-filed Comments
AFTRCC (“Reply Comments” filed on Apr. 30)
AIAM (Apr. 29)
American Trucking Associations (Apr. 26)
Chrysler (May 3)
Ford Motor Company (May 3)
Sirius XM (“Supplemental Comments” filed on Apr. 29; “Comments” filed on May 13)
VIII. 2010 Ex Parte Filings
AFTRCC
AFTRCC, Boeing, Raytheon Company, Textron Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, and
Dr. Jablonski
AFTRCC, Boeing, Raytheon Company, Textron Corporation, and Dr. Jablonski
Alcatel-Lucent
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
Anthony Weiner, Gary Ackerman, Joseph Crowley, Steve Israel, and Louise Slaughter – Members of
Congress
Boeing
Chrysler
Columbia Capital
Ford Motor Company
Fred Upton and Mike Rogers – Members of Congress
General Motors North American Operations
Horizon
Horizon, Kolodzy Consulting Inc., NextWave, NRTC, and WCS Coalition
Horizon and NextWave
Horizon, NextWave, National Rural Telecommunications Cooperative, and WCS Coalition
Hyundai Motor America
Kia Motors America, Inc.
Land Rover North America Inc.
NextWave
Olympia Snowe, United States Senator
Sirius XM
Sprint Nextel
Stratos
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
127
TIA
Toyota Motor Sales, USA, Inc.
Volvo Cars of North America, LLC
WCS Coalition
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
128
APPENDIX B
Rule Revisions
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission amends Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 2, as follows:
Part 2 – Table of Frequency Allocations
1. The authority citation for Part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Section 2.106 US338 to read as follows:
US338 The following provisions shall apply in the band 2305-2320 MHz:
(a) In the sub-band 2305-2310 MHz, space-to-Earth operations are prohibited.
(b) Within 145 km of Goldstone, CA (35° 25' 33" N, 116° 53' 23" W), Wireless Communications Service
(WCS) licensees operating base stations in the band 2305-2320 MHz shall, prior to operation of those
base stations, achieve a mutually satisfactory coordination agreement with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA).
NOTE: NASA operates a deep space facility in Goldstone in the band 2290-2300 MHz.
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission amends Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 25, as follows:
PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 701-744. Interprets or applies Sections 4, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, and 332 of the
Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, and 332, unless
otherwise noted.
2. Amend Section 25.121 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 25.121 License term and renewals.
(a) License Term. (1) Except for licenses for DBS space stations, SDARS space stations and terrestrial
repeaters, and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations licensed as broadcast facilities, licenses for facilities
governed by this part will be issued for a period of 15 years.
(2) Licenses for DBS space stations and 17/24 GHz BSS space stations licensed as broadcast facilities,
and for SDARS space stations and terrestrial repeaters, will be issued for a period of 8 years. Licenses for
DBS space stations not licensed as broadcast facilities will be issued for a period of 10 years.
* * * * *
3. Amend Section 25.144 by revising paragraph (d) and adding paragraph (e), to read as follows:
§ 25.144 Licensing provisions for the 2.3 GHz satellite digital audio radio service.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
129
(d) The license term for each digital audio radio service satellite and any associated terrestrial repeaters
are specified in § 25.121 of this chapter.
(e) SDARS Terrestrial Repeaters.
(1) Only entities holding or controlling SDARS space station licenses may construct and operate
SDARS terrestrial repeaters and such construction and operation is permitted only in conjunction with at
least one SDARS space station that is concurrently authorized and transmitting directly to subscribers.
(2) SDARS terrestrial repeaters will be eligible for blanket licensing only under the following
circumstances:
(i) The SDARS terrestrial repeaters will comply with all applicable power limits set forth
in § 25.214(d)(1) of this chapter and all applicable out-of-band emission limits set forth in
§ 25.202(h)(1) and (2) of this chapter.
(ii) The SDARS terrestrial repeaters will meet all applicable requirements in part 1,
subpart I, and part 17 of this chapter. Operators of SDARS terrestrial repeaters must maintain
demonstrations of compliance with part 1, subpart I, of this chapter and make such
demonstrations available to the Commission upon request within three business days.
(iii) The SDARS terrestrial repeaters will comply with all requirements of all applicable
international agreements.
(3) After [Insert release date of Order], SDARS licensees shall, before deploying any new, or
modifying any existing, terrestrial repeater, notify potentially affected WCS licensees pursuant to the
procedure set forth in § 25.263 of this chapter.
(4) SDARS terrestrial repeaters are restricted to the simultaneous retransmission of the complete
programming, and only that programming, transmitted by the SDARS licensee’s satellite(s) directly to the
SDARS licensee’s subscribers' receivers, and may not be used to distribute any information not also
transmitted to all subscribers' receivers.
(5) Operators of SDARS terrestrial repeaters are prohibited from using those repeaters to
retransmit different transmissions from a satellite to different regions within that satellite's coverage area.
(6) Operators of SDARS terrestrial repeaters are required to comply with all applicable
provisions of part 1, subpart I, and part 17 of this chapter.
(7)(i) Each SDARS terrestrial repeater transmitter utilized for operation under this paragraph
must be of a type that has been authorized by the Commission under its certification procedure.
(ii) In addition to the procedures set forth in subpart J of part 2 of this chapter, power
measurements for SDARS repeater transmitters may be made in accordance with a Commission-
approved average power technique. Peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) measurements
for SDARS repeater transmitters should be made using either an instrument with complementary
cumulative distribution function (CCDF) capabilities to determine that the PAPR will not exceed
13 dB for more than 0.1 percent of the time or another Commission approved procedure. The
measurement must be performed using a signal corresponding to the highest PAPR expected
during periods of continuous transmission.
(iii) 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
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
130
station authorization by following the procedures set forth in part 2 of this chapter.
(8) Applications for blanket authority to operate terrestrial repeaters must be filed using
Form 312, except that Schedule B to Form 312 need not be filed. Such applications must also include the
following information as an attachment:
(i) The space station(s) with which the terrestrial repeaters will communicate, the
frequencies and emission designators of such communications, and the frequencies and emission
designators used by the repeaters to re-transmit the received signals.
(ii) The maximum number of terrestrial repeaters that will be deployed under the
authorization at 1) power levels equal to or less than 2-watt average EIRP, and 2) power levels
greater than 2-watt average EIRP (up to 12-kW average EIRP).
(iii) A certification of compliance with the requirements of § 25.144(e)(1) through (7) of
this chapter.
(9) SDARS terrestrial repeaters that are ineligible for blanket licensing must be authorized on a
site-by-site basis. Applications for site-by-site authorization must be filed using Form 312,
except that Schedule B need not be provided. Such applications must also include the following
information, as an attachment:
(i) The technical information for each repeater required to be shared with potentially
affected WCS licensees as part of the notification requirement set forth in § 25.263(c)(2) of this
chapter.
(ii) The space station(s) with which the terrestrial repeaters will communicate, the
frequencies and emission designators of such communications, and the frequencies and emission
designators used by the repeaters to re-transmit the received signals.
4. Amend Section 25.202 by adding paragraph (a)(10), revising the introductory language of paragraph
(f), and adding paragraph (h), to read as follows:
§ 25.202 Frequencies, frequency tolerance, and emission limitations.
(a) * * *
(10) The following frequencies are available for use by the Satellite Digital Audio Radio Service
(SDARS), and for any associated terrestrial repeaters:
2320-2345 MHz (space-to-Earth)
* * * * *
(f) Emission limitations. Except for SDARS terrestrial repeaters, the mean power of emissions shall be
attenuated below the mean output power of the transmitter in accordance with the schedule set forth in
paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(4) of this section. The out-of-band emissions of SDARS terrestrial repeaters
shall be attenuated in accordance with the schedule set forth in paragraph (h) of this section.
* * * * *
(h) Out-of-band emission limitations for SDARS terrestrial repeaters.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
131
(1) Any SDARS terrestrial repeater operating at a power level greater than 2-watt average EIRP
is required to attenuate its out-of-band emissions below the transmitter power P by a factor of not less
than 90 + 10 log (P) dB in a 1-megahertz bandwidth outside the 2320-2345 MHz band, where P is
average transmitter output power in watts.
(2) Any SDARS terrestrial repeater operating at a power level equal to or less than 2-watt average
EIRP is required to attenuate its out-of-band emissions below the transmitter power P by a factor of not
less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB in a 1-megahertz bandwidth outside the 2320-2345 MHz band, where P is
average transmitter output power in watts.
(3) SDARS repeaters are permitted to attenuate out-of-band emissions less than the levels
specified in paragraphs (1) and (2) above, unless a potentially affected WCS licensee provides written
notice that it intends to commence commercial service within the following 365 days. Starting 180 days
after receipt of such written notice, SDARS repeaters within the area notified by the potentially affected
WCS licensee must attenuate out-of-band emissions to the levels specified in paragraphs (1) and (2)
above.
(4) For the purpose of this section, a WCS licensee is potentially affected if it meets any of the
following criteria:
(i) The WCS licensee is authorized to operate a base station in the 2305-2315 MHz
or 2350-2360 MHz bands in the same Major Economic Area (MEA) as that in which a SDARS terrestrial
repeater is located.
(ii) The WCS licensee is authorized to operate a base station in the 2315-2320 MHz
or 2345-2350 MHz bands in the same Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) as that in which a
SDARS terrestrial repeater is located.
(iii) A SDARS terrestrial repeater is located within 5 kilometers of the boundary of an
MEA or REAG in which the WCS licensee is authorized to operate a WCS base station.
5. Amend Section 25.214 by revising the title and adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§ 25.214 Technical requirements for space stations in the satellite digital audio radio service and
associated terrestrial repeaters.
* * * * *
(d) Power limit for SDARS terrestrial repeaters.
(1) SDARS terrestrial repeaters must be operated at a power level less than or equal to
12-kW average EIRP, with a maximum peak-to-average power ratio of 13 dB.
(2) SDARS repeaters are permitted to operate at power levels above 12-kW average EIRP, unless
a potentially affected WCS licensee provides written notice that it intends to commence commercial
service within the following 365 days. Starting 180 days after receipt of such written notice, SDARS
repeaters within the area notified by the potentially affected WCS licensee must be operated at a power
level less than or equal to 12-kW average EIRP, with a maximum peak-to-average power ratio of 13 dB.
(3) For the purpose of this section, a WCS licensee is potentially affected if it meets any of the
following criteria:
(i) The WCS licensee is authorized to operate a base station in the 2305-2315 MHz
or 2350-2360 MHz bands in the same Major Economic Area (MEA) as that in which a SDARS terrestrial
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
132
repeater is located.
(ii) The WCS licensee is authorized to operate a base station in the 2315-2320 MHz
or 2345-2350 MHz bands in the same Regional Economic Area Grouping (REAG) as that in which a
SDARS terrestrial repeater is located.
(iii) A SDARS terrestrial repeater is located within 5 kilometers of the boundary of an
MEA or REAG in which the WCS licensee is authorized to operate a WCS base station.
6. Add Section 25.263 to read as follows:
§ 25.263 Information sharing requirements for SDARS terrestrial repeater operators.
This section requires SDARS licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band to share information regarding the
location and operation of terrestrial repeaters with WCS licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and
2345-2360 MHz bands. Section 27.72 of this chapter requires WCS licensees to share information
regarding the location and operation of base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands
with SDARS licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
(a) SDARS licensees must select terrestrial repeater sites and frequencies, to the extent practicable, to
minimize the possibility of harmful interference to WCS base station operations in the 2305-2320 MHz
and 2345-2360 MHz bands.
(b) Notice Requirements. SDARS licensees that intend to operate a new terrestrial repeater must, before
commencing such operation, provide 10 business days prior notice to all potentially affected WCS
licensees. SDARS licensees that intend to modify an existing repeater must, before commencing such
modified operation, provide 5 business days prior notice to all potentially affected WCS licensees.
(1) For purposes of this section, a "potentially affected WCS licensee" is a WCS licensee that:
(i) is authorized to operate a base station in the 2305-2315 MHz or 2350-2360 MHz bands in the same
Major Economic Area (MEA) as that in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located; (ii) is authorized to
operate a base station in the 2315-2320 MHz or 2345-2350 MHz bands in the same Regional Economic
Area Grouping (REAG) as that in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located. (iii) In addition to the
WCS licensees identified in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section, in cases in which the SDARS
licensee plans to deploy or modify a terrestrial repeater within 5 kilometers of the boundary of an MEA or
REAG in which the terrestrial repeater is to be located, a potentially affected WCS licensee is one that is
authorized to operate a WCS base station in that neighboring MEA or REAG within 5 kilometers of the
location of the terrestrial repeater.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a business day is defined by § 1.4(e)(2) of this chapter.
(c) Contents of Notice.
(1) Notification must be written (e.g., certified letter, fax, or email) and include the licensee’s
name, and the name, address, and telephone number of its coordination representative, unless the SDARS
licensee and all potentially affected WCS licensees reach a mutual agreement to provide notification by
some other means. WCS licensees and SDARS licensees may establish such a mutually agreeable
alternative notification mechanism without prior Commission approval, provided that they comply with
all other requirements of this section.
(2) Regardless of the notification method, notification must specify relevant technical details,
including, at a minimum: (i) the coordinates of the proposed repeater to an accuracy of no less than ± 1
second latitude and longitude; (ii) the proposed operating power(s), frequency band(s), and emission(s);
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
133
(iii) the antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above mean sea level, both to an
accuracy of no less than ±1 meter; (iv) the antenna gain pattern(s) in the azimuth and elevation
planes that include the peak of the main beam; and (v) the antenna downtilt angle(s).
(3) An SDARS licensee operating terrestrial repeaters must maintain an accurate and up-to-date
inventory of its terrestrial repeaters operating above 2 watts average EIRP, including the information set
forth in § 25.263(c)(2) of this chapter, which shall be available upon request by the Commission.
(d) Calculation of Notice Period. Notice periods are calculated from the date of receipt by the licensee
being notified. If notification is by mail, the date of receipt is evidenced by the return receipt on certified
mail. If notification is by fax, the date of receipt is evidenced by the notifying party’s fax transmission
confirmation log. If notification is by email, the date of receipt is evidenced by a return e-mail receipt. If
the SDARS licensee and all potentially affected WCS licensees reach a mutual agreement to provide
notification by some other means, that agreement must specify the method for determining the beginning
of the notice period.
(e) Duty to Cooperate. SDARS licensees must cooperate in good faith in the selection and use of new
repeater sites to reduce interference and make the most effective use of the authorized facilities.
Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference must cooperate in good faith and resolve
such problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the
International Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, may impose restrictions on SDARS licensees, including specifying the
transmitter power, antenna height, or area or hours of operation of the stations.
For the reasons discussed above, the Federal Communications Commission amends Title 47 of the Code
of Federal Regulations, Part 27, as follows:
PART 27 – MISCELLANEOUS WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES
1. The authority citation for Part 27 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302a, 303, 307, 309, 332, 336, and 337 unless otherwise noted.
2. Amend Section 27.14 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (p) to read as follows:
§ 27.14 Construction requirements; Criteria for renewal.
(a) AWS and WCS licensees, with the exception of WCS licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 698–704 MHz and 728–734 MHz bands, Block B in the 704–710 MHz and 734–740 MHz bands,
Block E in the 722–728 MHz band, Block C, C1, or C2 in the 746–757 MHz and 776–787 MHz bands,
Block D in the 758–763 MHz and 788–793 MHz bands, Block A in the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355
MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz
band, and Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band, must, as a performance requirement, make a showing of
“substantial service” in their license area within the prescribed license term set forth in § 27.13.
“Substantial service” is defined as service which is sound, favorable and substantially above a level of
mediocre service which just might minimally warrant renewal. Failure by any licensee to meet this
requirement will result in forfeiture of the license and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
* * * * *
(p) This section enumerates performance requirements for licensees holding authorizations for Block A in
the 2305-2310 MHz and 2350-2355 MHz bands, Block B in the 2310-2315 MHz and 2355-2360 MHz
bands, Block C in the 2315-2320 MHz band, and Block D in the 2345-2350 MHz band.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
134
(1) For mobile or point-to-multipoint systems, a licensee must provide reliable signal coverage
and offer service to at least 40 percent of the license area’s population by [42 MONTHS AFTER
THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER], and to at least 75 percent of the license area’s population
by [72 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER]. If, when filing the
construction notification required under § 1.946(d), a WCS licensee demonstrates that 25 percent
or more of the license area’s population for Block A, B or D is within a coordination zone as
defined by section 27.73(a) of this rule part, the foregoing population benchmarks are reduced to
25 and 50 percent, respectively. The percentage of a license area’s population within a
coordination zone equals the sum of the Census Block Centroid Populations within the area,
divided by the license area’s total population.
(2) For point-to-point fixed systems, except those deployed in the Gulf of Mexico license area,
a licensee must construct and operate a minimum of 15 point-to-point links per million persons
(one link per 67,000 persons) in a license area by [42 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF ORDER], and 30 point-to-point links per million persons (one link per
33,500 persons) in a licensed area by [72 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
ORDER]. The exact link requirement is calculated by dividing a license area’s total population by
67,000 and 33,500 for the respective milestones, and then rounding upwards to the next whole
number. For a link to be counted towards these benchmarks, both of its endpoints must be located
in the license area. If only one endpoint of a link is located in a license area, it can be counted as
a one- half link towards the benchmarks.
(3) For point-to-point fixed systems deployed on any spectrum block in the Gulf of Mexico
license area, a licensee must construct and operate a minimum of 15 point-to-point links by [42
MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER], and a minimum of 15 point-to-point
links by [72 MONTHS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER].
(4) Under subsection (2) and (3) above, each fixed link must provide a minimum bit rate, in bits
per second, equal to or greater than the bandwidth specified by the emission designator in Hertz
(e.g., equipment transmitting at a 5 Mb/s rate must not require a bandwidth of greater than 5
MHz).
(5) If an initial authorization for a license area is granted after [EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDER],
then the applicable benchmarks in subsections (1), (2) and (3) above must be met within 42 and
72 months, respectively, of the initial authorization grant date.
(6) Licensees must use the most recently available U.S. Census Data at the time of measurement
to meet these performance requirements.
(7) Licensees must certify compliance with the applicable performance requirements by filing a
construction notification with the Commission, within 15 days of the expiration of the relevant
performance milestone, pursuant to § 1.946(d). Each construction notification must include
electronic coverage maps, supporting technical documentation, and any other information as the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau may prescribe by Public Notice. Electronic coverage
maps must accurately depict the boundaries of each license area (Regional Economic Area
Grouping, REAG, or Major Economic Area, MEA) in the licensee’s service territory. Further,
REAG maps must depict MEA boundaries and MEA maps must depict Economic Area
boundaries. If a licensee does not provide reliable signal coverage to an entire license area, its
map must accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each license area not being
served. Each licensee also must file supporting documentation certifying the type of service it is
providing for each REAG or MEA within its service territory and the type of technology used to
provide such service. Supporting documentation must include the assumptions used to create the
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
135
coverage maps, including the propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide
reliable service with the licensee’s technology.
(8) If a licensee fails to meet any applicable performance requirement, its authorization will
terminate automatically without further Commission action as of the applicable performance
milestone and the licensee will be ineligible to regain it.
3. Amend Section 27.50 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§ 27.50 Power limits and duty cycle.
(a) The following power limits and related requirements apply to stations transmitting in the
2305-2320 MHz band or the 2345-2360 MHz band.
(1) Base and fixed stations.
(i) For base and fixed stations transmitting in the 2305-2315 MHz band or the 2350-2360 MHz band:
(A) The average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) must not exceed 2,000 watts within any
5 megahertz of authorized bandwidth and must not exceed 400 watts within any 1 megahertz of
authorized bandwidth.
(B) The peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of the transmitter output power must not exceed 13 dB. The
PAPR measurements should be made using either an instrument with complementary cumulative
distribution function (CCDF) capabilities to determine that PAPR will not exceed 13 dB for more than
0.1 percent of the time or other Commission approved procedure. The measurement must be performed
using a signal corresponding to the highest PAPR expected during periods of continuous transmission.
(ii) For base and fixed stations transmitting in the 2315-2320 MHz band or the 2345-2350 MHz band, the
peak EIRP must not exceed 2,000 watts.
(iii) Base stations supporting frequency division duplex (FDD) mobile and portable operations are
restricted to transmitting in the 2345-2360 MHz bands.
(2) Fixed customer premises equipment stations. For fixed customer premises equipment (CPE) stations
transmitting in the 2305-2320 MHz band or in the 2345-2360 MHz band, the peak EIRP must not exceed
20 watts per 5-megahertz. Fixed CPE stations transmitting in the 2305-2320 MHz band or in the
2345-2360 MHz band must employ automatic transmit power control when operating so the stations
operate with the minimum power necessary for successful communications. The use of outdoor antennas
for CPE stations or outdoor CPE station installations operating with 2 watts per 5-megahertz or less
average EIRP is prohibited. For WCS CPE using TDD technology, the duty cycle must not exceed
38 percent; for WCS CPE using FDD technology, the duty cycle must not exceed 12.5 percent in the
2315-2320 MHz band, and must not exceed 25 percent in the 2305-2315 MHz band.
(3) Mobile and portable stations.
(i) For mobile and portable stations transmitting in the 2305-2317.5 MHz band or the 2347.5-2360 MHz
band, the average EIRP must not exceed 250 milliwatts within any 5 megahertz of authorized bandwidth
and must not exceed 50 milliwatts within any 1 megahertz of authorized bandwidth. For mobile and
portable stations using time division duplex (TDD) technology, the duty cycle must not exceed 38 percent
in the 2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz bands. For mobile and portable stations using frequency
division duplex (FDD) technology, the duty cycle must not exceed 12.5 percent in the 2315-2317.5 MHz
band and must not exceed 25 percent in the 2305-2315 MHz band. Mobile and portable stations using
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
136
FDD technology are restricted to transmitting in the 2305-2317.5 MHz band. Power averaging shall not
include intervals in which the transmitter is off.
(ii) Mobile and portable stations are not permitted to operate in the 2317.5-2320 MHz and 2345-
2347.5 MHz bands.
(iii) Automatic transmit power control. Mobile and portable stations transmitting in the
2305-2317.5 MHz band or in the 2347.5-2360 MHz band must employ automatic transmit power control
when operating so the stations operate with the minimum power necessary for successful
communications.
(iv) Prohibition on external vehicle-mounted antennas. The use of external vehicle-mounted antennas for
mobile and portable stations transmitting in the 2305-2317.5 MHz band or the 2347.5-2360 MHz band is
prohibited.
* * * * *
4. Amend Section 27.53 by revising paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5), removing and
reserving paragraphs (a)(6) and (a)(9), and revising paragraph (a)(10) to read as follows:
§ 27.53 Emission limits.
(a) For operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band and the 2345-2360 MHz band, the power of any emission
outside a licensee's frequency band(s) of operation shall be attenuated below the transmitter power P
(with averaging performed only during periods of transmission) within the licensed band(s) of operation,
in watts, by the following amounts:
(1) For base and fixed stations’ operations in the 2305-2320 MHz band and the 2345-2360 MHz band:
(i) By a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305 and 2320 MHz and on
all frequencies between 2345 and 2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, and not less
than 75 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz;
(ii) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 MHz, 70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz,
72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2287.5 MHz, and 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz;
(iii) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log(P) dB at 2360 MHz, 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz,
70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2365 MHz, 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2367.5 MHz, and 75 + 10 log (P) dB above
2370 MHz.
(2) For fixed customer premises equipment (CPE) stations operating in the 2305-2320 MHz band and the
2345-2360 MHz band transmitting with more than 2 watts per 5-megahertz average EIRP:
(i) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305 and 2320 MHz and on
all frequencies between 2345 and 2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, and not less
than 75 + 10 log (P) dB) on all frequencies between 2320 and 2345 MHz.
(ii) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB) at 2305 MHz, 70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz,
72 + 10 log(P) dB at 2287.5 MHz, and 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz;
(iii) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2360 MHz, 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz,
70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2365 MHz, 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2367.5 MHz, and 75 + 10 log (P) dB) above
2370 MHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
137
(3) For fixed CPE stations transmitting with 2 watts per 5-megahertz average EIRP or less:
(i) By a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB) on all frequencies between 2305 and 2320 MHz and on
all frequencies between 2345 and 2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than
55 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2324 MHz and on all frequencies between 2341
and 2345 MHz, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2324 and 2328 MHz and on
all frequencies between 2337 and 2341 MHz, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between
2328 and 2337 MHz;
(ii) By a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 MHz, 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz,
61 + 10 log(P) dB at 2296 MHz, 67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz.
(iii) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2360 MHz and 70 + 10 log (P) dB above
2365 MHz.
(4) For mobile and portable stations operating in the 2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz bands:
(i) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305 and 2317.5 MHz and
on all frequencies between 2347.5 and 2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less
than 55 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2320 and 2324 MHz and on all frequencies between
2341 and 2345 MHz, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2324 and 2328 MHz
and on all frequencies between 2337 and 2341 MHz, not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies
between 2328 and 2337 MHz.
(ii) By a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 MHz, 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz,
61 + 10 log(P) dB at 2296 MHz, 67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and 70 + 10 log (P) dB below
2288 MHz.
(iii) By a factor of not less than: 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2360 MHz and 70 + 10 log (P) dB above
2365 MHz.
(5) Measurement procedure. Compliance with these rules is based on the use of measurement
instrumentation employing a resolution bandwidth of 1 MHz or greater. However, in the 1-MHz bands
immediately outside and adjacent to the channel blocks at 2305, 2310, 2315, 2320, 2345, 2350, 2355, and
2360 MHz, a resolution bandwidth of at least 1 percent of the emission bandwidth of the fundamental
emission of the transmitter may be employed. A narrower resolution bandwidth is permitted in all cases
to improve measurement accuracy provided the measured power is integrated over the full required
measurement bandwidth (i.e. 1 MHz or 1 percent of emission bandwidth, as specified). The emission
bandwidth is defined as the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center
frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, outside of which all emissions are attenuated at
least 26 dB below the transmitter power. With respect to television operations, measurements must be
made of the separate visual and aural operating powers at sufficiently frequent intervals to ensure
compliance with the rules.
* * * * *
(6) Reserved.
* * * * *
(9) Reserved.
(10) The out-of-band emissions limits in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section may be modified
by the private contractual agreement of all affected licensees, who must maintain a copy of the agreement
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
138
in their station files and disclose it to prospective assignees, transferees, or spectrum lessees and, upon
request, to the Commission.
* * * * *
5. Add Section 27.72 to read as follows:
§ 27.72 Information sharing requirements.
This section requires WCS licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands to share
information regarding the location and operation of base stations with Satellite Digital Audio Radio
Service (SDARS) licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Section 25.263 of this chapter requires SDARS
licensees in the 2320-2345 MHz band to share information regarding the location and operation of
terrestrial repeaters with WCS licensees in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands.
(a) WCS licensees must select base station sites and frequencies, to the extent practicable, to minimize the
possibility of harmful interference to operations in the SDARS 2320-2345 MHz band.
(b) Prior Notice Periods. WCS licensees that intend to operate a base station must, before commencing
such operation, provide 10 business days prior notice to all SDARS licensees. WCS licensees that intend
to modify an existing base station must, before commencing such modified operation, provide 5 business
days prior notice to all SDARS licensees. For the purposes of this section, a business day is defined by
§ 1.4(e)(2) of this chapter.
(c) Contents of Notice.
(1) Notification must be written (e.g., certified letter, fax, or email) and include the licensee’s
name, and the name, address, and telephone number of its coordination representative, unless the SDARS
licensee and all potentially affected WCS licensees reach a mutual agreement to provide notification by
some other means. WCS licensees and SDARS licensees may establish such a mutually agreeable
alternative notification mechanism without prior Commission approval, provided that they comply with
all other requirements of this section.
(2) Regardless of the notification method, it must specify relevant technical details, including, at a
minimum: (i) the coordinates of the proposed base station to an accuracy of no less than ± 1 second
latitude and longitude; (ii) the proposed operating power(s), frequency band(s), and emission(s); (iii) the
antenna center height above ground and ground elevation above mean sea level, both to an accuracy of no
less than ±1 meter; (iv) the antenna gain pattern(s) in the azimuth and elevation planes that include the
peak of the main beam; and (v) the antenna downtilt angle(s).
(3) A WCS licensee operating base stations must maintain an accurate and up-to-date inventory
of its base stations, including the information set forth in § 27.72(c)(2) of this chapter, which shall be
available upon request by the Commission.
(d) Calculation of Notice Period. Notice periods are calculated from the date of receipt by the licensee
being notified. If notification is by mail, the date of receipt is evidenced by the return receipt on certified
mail. If notification is by fax, the date of receipt is evidenced by the notifying party’s fax transmission
confirmation log. If notification is by e-mail, the date of receipt is evidenced by a return e-mail receipt.
If the SDARS licensee and all potentially affected WCS licensees reach a mutual agreement to provide
notification by some other means, that agreement must specify the method for determining the beginning
of the notice period.
(e) Duty to Cooperate. WCS licensees must cooperate in good faith in the selection and use of new
station sites and new frequencies to reduce interference and make the most effective use of the authorized
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
139
facilities. WCS licensees should provide SDARS licensees as much lead time as practicable to provide
ample time to conduct analyses and opportunity for prudent base station site selection prior to WCS
licensees entering into real estate and tower leasing or purchasing agreements. WCS licensees must have
sufficient operational flexibility in their network design to implement one or more technical solutions to
remedy harmful interference. Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference must
cooperate in good faith and resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees
are unable to do so, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in consultation with the Office of
Engineering and Technology and the International Bureau, will consider the actions taken by the parties
to mitigate the risk of and remedy any alleged interference. In determining the appropriate action, the
Bureau will take into account the nature and extent of the interference and act promptly to remedy the
interference. The Bureau may impose restrictions on WCS licensees, including specifying the transmitter
power, antenna height, or other technical or operational measures to remedy the interference, and will
take into account previous measures by the licensees to mitigate the risk of interference.
6. Add Section 27.73 to read as follows:
§ 27.73 WCS, AMT, and Goldstone coordination requirements.
This section requires Wireless Communications Services (WCS) licensees in the 2345-2360 MHz band to
coordinate the deployment of base stations with Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT) facilities in the
2360-2395 MHz band; and to take all practicable steps necessary to minimize the risk of harmful
interference to AMT facilities.
(a) Wireless Communications Service (WCS) licensees operating base stations in the 2345-2360 MHz
band shall, prior to operation of such base stations, achieve a mutually satisfactory coordination
agreement with the Aerospace and Flight Test Radio Coordinating Council (AFTRCC) for any AMT
receiver facility within 45 kilometers or the radio line of sight, whichever distance is larger, of the
intended WCS base station location. This coordination is necessary to protect AMT receive systems
consistent with Recommendation ITU-R M.1459. The locations of the current and planned Federal and
non-Federal AMT receiver sites may be obtained from AFTRCC.
(b) WCS licensees operating base stations in the 2305-2320 MHz band shall, prior to operation of such
base stations, achieve a mutually satisfactory coordination agreement with the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA) within 145 kilometers of the Goldstone, CA earth station site (35-25-33 N
116-53-23 W).
(c) After base station operations commence, upon receipt of a complaint of harmful interference, the
WCS licensee(s) receiving the complaint, no matter the distance from the NASA Goldstone, CA earth
station or from an AMT site, operating in the 2305-2320 or 2345-2360 MHz bands, respectively, shall
take all practicable steps to immediately eliminate the interference.
(d) Duty to Cooperate. WCS licensees, AFTRCC, and NASA must cooperate in good faith in the
coordination and deployment of new facilities. WCS licensees must also cooperate in good faith in the
selection and use of new station sites and new frequencies when within radio line of site of AMT receiver
facilities to reduce the risk of harmful interference and make the most effective use of the authorized
facilities. Licensees of stations suffering or causing harmful interference must cooperate in good faith
and resolve such problems by mutually satisfactory arrangements. If the licensees are unable to do so, the
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, in consultation with the Office of Engineering and Technology
and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration may impose restrictions including
specifying the transmitter power, antenna height, or area or hours of operation of the stations.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
140
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Report and Order in WT Docket No. 07-293
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),1 Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses (IRFA) were incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (2007
Notice),2 as well as the WCS Performance Public Notice3 in WT Docket No. 07-293. The Commission
sought written public comment on the proposals in the 2007 Notice and WCS Performance Public Notice,
including comment on the IRFAs. This present Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms
to the RFA.4
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Report and Order
2. In this Report and Order, the Commission takes a number of steps to facilitate
deployment of mobile broadband products and services in the 2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz
Wireless Communications Service (WCS) bands, while safeguarding from harmful interference satellite
radio services, which are provided in the interstitial 2320-2345 MHz Satellite Digital Radio Service
(SDARS) band. These steps are set forth below in paragraphs 3-10.
3. In this Report and Order, the objective of the Commission is to resolve the issue of
potential interference between the proposed simultaneous and potentially conflicting operations of
SDARS and WCS licensees by establishing a regulatory framework that allows such licensees in the
2305-2360 MHz frequency band to co-exist. Specifically, the Commission revises certain power and out-
of-band emissions (OOBE) rules applicable to WCS licensees.
4. Mobile and Portable (Handheld) Power Limits. Upon careful consideration of the
technical analyses submitted in the record, the Commission revises the power limits for mobile and
portable device operations in all WCS spectrum blocks. Noting that mobile handheld devices operating in
other services typically employ up to approximately 250 milliwatts (mW) of power, the Commission
establishes a power limit of 250 mW average equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) limit for the
WCS A and B blocks and for the lower 2.5 megahertz of the WCS C Block and the upper 2.5 megahertz
of the WCS D Block, limited to 50 mW/MHz of EIRP. The Report and Order, however, prohibits WCS
mobile and portable devices from operating in the upper 2.5 megahertz of the WCS C Block and the
lower 2.5 megahertz of the WCS D block in light of the immediate adjacency of those blocks to the
SDARS band. The Commission concludes that these restrictions are needed to provide added protection
to SDARS receivers in the 2320-2345 MHz band.
1 See 5 U.S.C. § 603. The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601 – 612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996).
2 See Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless Communications
Services in the 2.3 GHz Band and Establishment of Rules and Policies for the Digital Audio Radio Satellite Service
in the 2310-2360 MHz Frequency Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Second Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 07-293 and IB Docket No. 95-91, 22 FCC Rcd 22123, 22156-22159 (2007) (“2007
Notice”).
3 See “Federal Communications Commission Requests Comment on Revision of Performance Requirements for 2.3
GHz Wireless Communications Service,” WT Docket No. 07-293, Public Notice, FCC 10-46 (rel. March 29, 2010)
(WCS Performance Public Notice).
4 See 5 U.S.C. § 604. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 95-
91 is contained in a separate appendix.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
141
5. Mobile and Portable Emission Limits. Noting that the existing (110 + 10*log (P) dB)
out-of-band emissions (OOBE) attenuation applicable to WCS mobile equipment5 is so restrictive such
that, in effect, no mobile operation is feasible, the Commission lowers the applicable emission limits to
provide WCS licensees greater flexibility. The Report and Order revises OOBE rules to require that a
WCS mobile or portable device attenuate its output emissions below the transmitter power P by a factor
of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz bands on frequencies
that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 4 megahertz of
SDARS spectrum nearest the WCS band (i.e., 2320-2324 MHz and 2341-2345 MHz), 61 + 10 log (P) dB
in the center four megahertz of each SDARS assignment (2324-2328 MHz and 2337-2341 MHz), and
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the spectrum shared by SDARS operators (2328-2337 MHz). These revised OOBE
limits are intended to minimize the potential for interference to satellite radio users in the vast majority of
circumstances, while enabling WCS licensees to deliver vital mobile broadband services to the public. To
limit the potential for interference to Deep Space Network (DSN) operations in the 2290-2300 MHz band
and Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT) operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band, WCS mobile and
portable devices OOBE must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and
2360 MHz, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz, not less than 61 + 10 log(P) dB at 2296 MHz,
not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz and
above 2365 MHz.
6. Base and Fixed Station Power and OOBE Limits. In order to appropriately balance the
interests of both SDARS and WCS, the Commission concludes that base and fixed station power limits
for the WCS C and D blocks should not be revised. Because of the proximity of the C and D blocks to
the SDARS band, the Commission agrees with SDARS licensees that the current 2,000 Watts (W) peak
EIRP limit applicable to these blocks should be retained. However, the Report and Order revises the
power limit for base and fixed station operations in WCS Blocks A and B from the current 2,000 Watts
peak EIRP limit to 2,000 W over five megahertz (400 W/MHz), which will be measured on an average
basis with a maximum peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of 13 dB. This approach, combined with the
250 mW average EIRP limit for WCS mobile and portable devices and the related OOBE limit for
emissions into the SDARS band, will provide the technical flexibility for WCS licensees in these blocks
to deploy much needed broadband services to the public with minimal impact on satellite radio users.
7. Additionally, in the Report and Order, the Commission also seeks to provide WCS
licensees with greater flexibility with regard to emission limits by adopting an OOBE attenuation factor
of 75 + 10 log (P) dB below the transmitter power P, as measured over a 1-megahertz resolution
bandwidth, for WCS bases stations, on frequencies in the SDARS band at 2320-2345 MHz. In addition,
to protect DSN operations in the 2290-2300 MHz band and AMT operations in the 2360-2395 MHz band,
WCS base and fixed stations’ OOBE must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at
2305 and 2360 MHz, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz, not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB at
2300 and 2365 MHz, not less than 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2287.5 and 2367.5 MHz, and not less than
75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
8. Fixed Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Power and OOBE Limits. In the Report and
Order, the Commission maintains the current mobile transmitter power limit of 20 W per 5-megahertz
peak EIRP for WCS fixed CPE devices. The Commission notes that there have not been any significant
reports of interference to SDARS operations resulting from currently authorized equipment, and does not
expect SDARS operations to experience any appreciable increase in interference from these WCS
operations if the current limit is retained. Moreover, the Commission believes that continuing to allow
WCS fixed CPE devices to use up to 20 W per 5-megahertz EIRP will enhance the provision and quality
of service in rural areas, where subscribers are often located significant distances from WCS licensees’
serving base stations.
5 See 47 C.F.R. § 27.53(a)(2).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
142
9. Additionally, the Commission adopts, for WCS fixed CPE devices operating above
2 Watts per 5-megahertz average transmit power, an OOBE attenuation factor of not less than
75 + 10 log (P) dB , as measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth, on frequencies in the
2320-2345 MHz band, not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB on all frequencies between 2305 and 2320 MHz
and between 2345 and 2360 MHz that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than
43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and 2360 MHz, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz, not less than
70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 and 2365 MHz, not less than 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2287.5 and 2367.5 MHz,
and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
10. For lower power CPE devices operating at or below 2 W per 5-megahertz average EIRP,
the Commission further relaxes the OOBE attenuation levels measured over a 1-meghaertz resolution
bandwidth to the levels it adopts for mobile devices: not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2305-2320 MHz and 2345-2360 MHz bands on all frequencies that are outside the licensed band of
operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324 MHz and 2341-2345 MHz bands, not less
than 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328 MHz and 2337-2341 MHz bands, not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band, not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and 2360 MHz,
not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB at 2296 MHz, not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz and above
2365 MHz.
11. Notification Requirement. The Report and Order adopts new rule Section 27.72, which
will require WCS licensees to notify, and share certain technical information with, SDARS licensees 10
business days prior to commencing operation of a base station and five business days prior to
commencing operation of a modified base station, to avoid potential interference to SDARS operations.
The Report and Order also requires WCS licensees to provide SDARS licensees an inventory of their
deployed infrastructure consistent with, and within 30 days of the effective date of, new Section 27.72.
12. Protection of Deep Space Network and Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry Operations.
Further, the Commission adopts measures to protect Deep Space Network (DSN) operations in the
2290-2300 MHz band, as well as Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry (AMT) operations in the
2360-2395 MHz band. To protect DSN operations in the 2290-2300 MHz band, the Report and Order
adopts a combination of reasonable OOBE limits and a coordination distance of 145 km for WCS base
stations. Similarly, the Commission also adopts revised OOBE limits for emissions into the
2360-2395 MHz band, and requires WCS licensees to coordinate with AMT entities in circumstances
where a WCS base station is within 45 kilometers or line of sight from an AMT receiver, whichever
distance is greater. The Commission finds that these measures provide appropriate protection for
operations below 2305 MHz and above 2360 MHz yet give WCS licensees sufficient flexibility to deploy
mobile broadband services.
13. WCS Performance Requirements. The Commission also adopts enhanced performance
requirements, which will further the public interest by promoting the rapid deployment of new broadband
services to the American public. Specifically, WCS licensees providing mobile or point-to-multipoint
services must provide reliable signal coverage to 40 percent of a license area’s population within 42
months, and 75 percent of a license area’s population within 72 months. Further, the Report and Order
requires that WCS licensees deploying point-to-point fixed services construct and operate 15 point-to-
point links per million persons in a license area within 42 months, and 30 point-to-point links per million
persons in a license area within 72 months, together with a minimum payload capacity.
14. The Commission establishes alternative performance requirements for license areas
where WCS licensees providing mobile or point-to-multipoint services must coordinate with aeronautical
mobile telemetry (AMT) entities to serve a significant percentage of a market’s total population.
Specifically, in any license area where 25 percent or more the population is within an AMT zone, affected
licensees must serve 25 percent (rather than 40) of the population within 42 months, and 50 percent
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
143
(rather than 75) within 72 months. Because it will be easier to coordinate point-to-point systems in the
vicinity of AMT receive sites, the Report and Order does not find it necessary to reduce the applicable
construction thresholds for point-to-point facilities.
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
15. No comments were received in response to the IRFAs in the 2007 Notice and the WCS
Performance Public Notice.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Rules Will
Apply
16. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of
the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted. The RFA generally defines the
term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and
“small governmental jurisdiction.”6 In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the
term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.7 A small business concern is one which: (1)
is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).8 A small organization is
generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.”9 Below, the Commission further describes and estimates the number of small entity licensees
and regulatees that may be affected by the rules changes explored in the Notices.
17. WCS Licensees. The Wireless Communication Service in the 2305-2360 MHz (2.3 GHz)
frequency band has flexible rules that permit licensees in this service to provide fixed, mobile, portable,
and radiolocation services. Licensees are also permitted to provide satellite digital audio radio services.
The SBA rules establish a size standard for “Wireless Telecommunications Carriers,’ which encompasses
business entities engaged in radiotelephone communications employing no more that 1,500 persons.10
There are currently 155 active WCS licenses held by 10 licensees. Of these, 7 licensees qualify as small
entities and hold a total of 50 licenses.
18. RF Equipment Manufacturers. The Census Bureau defines this category as follows:
“This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and television
broadcast and wireless communications equipment. Examples of products made by these establishments
are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, pagers, cellular
phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and broadcasting
equipment.”11 The SBA has developed a small business size standard for Radio and Television
Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment Manufacturing, which is: all such firms having
6 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small business concern” in 15 U.S.C. § 632).
Pursuant to the RFA, the statutory definition of a small business applies unless an agency, after consultation with the
Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one
or more definitions which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
Federal Register.
8 See Small Business Act, 5 U.S.C. § 632 (1996).
9 See 5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
10 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 517110
11 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS Definitions, “334220 Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless
Communications Equipment Manufacturing”; http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF334.HTM#N3342.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
144
750 or fewer employees.12 According to Census Bureau data for 2002, there were a total of 1,041
establishments in this category that operated for the entire year.13 Of this total, 1,010 had employment of
under 500, and an additional 13 had employment of 500 to 999.14 Thus, under this size standard, the
majority of firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance
Requirements for Small Entities
19. The Report and Order imposes certain changes in projected reporting, record keeping,
and other compliance requirements. These changes affect small and large companies equally. With
respect to coordination requirements in circumstances where WCS licensees are within certain distances
from AMT operations, the Report and Order requires WCS and AMT entities to cooperate in good faith
in order to minimize the likelihood of harmful interference, make the most effective use of facilities, as
well as to resolve actual instances of harmful interference. The Report and Order also requires
coordinating parties to share accurate and relevant information in a timely and efficient manner. Parties
unable to reach a mutually acceptable coordination agreement may approach the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, which, in cooperation with the Office of Engineering and Technology and
the National Telecommunications & Information Administration (NTIA), may impose restrictions on
operating parameters such as the transmitter power, antenna height, or area or hours of operation of the
stations. Deadlines may also be imposed if it appears that parties are unable to reach a mutually
acceptable arrangement within a reasonable time period.
20. The Report and Order requires that WCS licensees demonstrate compliance with any
revised performance requirements by filing a construction notification within 15 days of the relevant
benchmark and certifying that they have met the applicable performance requirements. The Report and
Order requires that each construction notification should include electronic coverage maps and supporting
documentation, which must be truthful and accurate and must not omit material information that is
necessary for the Commission to determine compliance with its performance requirements. Further, the
electronic coverage maps must clearly and accurately depict the boundaries of each license area (Regional
Economic Area Grouping, REAG, or Major Economic Area, MEA) in the licensee’s service territory,
with REAG maps depicting MEA boundaries, and MEA maps depicting Economic Area boundaries. The
Report and Order provides that if the licensee’s signal does not provide service to the entire license area,
the map must clearly and accurately depict the boundaries of the area or areas within each license area not
being served. These procedures direct each licensee to file supporting documentation certifying the type
of service it is providing for each REAG or MEA within its license service territory and the type of
technology it is utilizing to provide such service. Further, the compliance procedures require the
supporting documentation to provide the assumptions used to create the coverage maps, including the
propagation model and the signal strength necessary to provide service with the licensee’s technology.
12 See 13 C.F.R. § 121.201, NAICS code 334220.
13 U.S. Census Bureau, American FactFinder, 2002 Economic Census, Industry Series, Industry Statistics by
Employment Size, NAICS code 334220 (released May 26, 2005); http://factfinder.census.gov. The number of
“establishments” is a less helpful indicator of small business prevalence in this context than would be the number of
“firms” or “companies,” because the latter take into account the concept of common ownership or control. Any
single physical location for an entity is an establishment, even though that location may be owned by a different
establishment. Thus, the numbers given may reflect inflated numbers of businesses in this category, including the
numbers of small businesses. In this category, the Census breaks-out data for firms or companies only to give the
total number of such entities for 2002, which were 929.
14 Id. An additional 18 establishments had employment of 1,000 or more.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
145
21. Other than these requirements, as well as the notification obligations discussed in Section
A, supra, there are no other specific reporting or recordkeeping requirements adopted in the Report and
Order.
E. Steps Taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and
Significant Alternatives Considered
22. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered
in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives: (1) the
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.15
23. The Commission’s principal objective in this proceeding is to enable the provision of
promising mobile broadband services to the public in the WCS spectrum to the maximum extent
practicable, while ensuring that satellite radio operations are not unreasonably impacted by the
Commission’s actions. Adopting overly stringent technical rules for WCS to protect SDARS operations
from interference will preclude WCS mobile operation, while liberalizing the WCS rules too much will
result in harmful interference and disruption to SDARS service. Such results would cause significant
adverse economic impact on either WCS licensees, which include small entities, or on SDARS
operations.16 Accordingly, the Commission has considered various alternatives, as described below, in
order to best provide WCS licensees, including small-entity WCS licensees, with the flexibility to provide
mobile service, while also protecting against disruptions to SDARS operations due to harmful
interference.
24. Mobile and Portable (Handheld) Device Power Limits. In response to the 2007 Notice’s
request for comment regarding applicable mobile and portable device power limits, the WCS Coalition
argues that, in conjunction with the use of certain OOBE limits (described below), mobile and portable
devices should be permitted to operate at a maximum of 250 mW average EIRP, and subject to the use of
transmit power control mechanisms. In contrast, SDARS licensees initially proposed that WCS mobile
and portable devices operating on WCS Blocks A and B should be limited to 10 mW EIRP, and that
mobile and portable devices operating in WCS Blocks C and D should be limited to 1 mW EIRP. More
recently, Sirius XM Radio, Inc., a SDARS licensee,17 advocates that no change be made to current
technical restrictions for mobile and portable devices on the C and D blocks. After a review of the
technical analyses submitted by the parties, the Commission determines that a power level of 250 mW
average EIRP for Blocks A and B and for the lower 2.5 megahertz of the WCS C Block and upper
2.5 megahertz of the WCS D Block, limited to 50 mW/MHz of EIRP, using ATPC and subject to the
OOBE limit discussed below, should allow adequate user reception of satellite radio, while also enabling
WCS licensees, including small entities, to provide valuable mobile services to the public. Further, the
Commission believes that prohibiting mobile and portable devices from transmitting in the 2.5 megahertz
portions of the WCS C and D Blocks closest to the SDARS band will further limit the potential for
harmful interference to SDARS receivers in the 2320-2345 MHz band. The Commission believes that its
overall approach strikes the appropriate balance between the WCS Coalition’s request that the
Commission adopt a 250 mW average EIRP limit for mobile and portable stations in WCS Blocks A and
B and the 2.5 megahertz portions of WCS Blocks C and D furthest from the SDARS band, and its
15 See 5 U.S.C. § 603(c).
16 There are no satellite radio licensees that are considered small entities for the purposes of the RFA.
17 Sirius XM Radio, Inc. (Sirius XM), formerly Sirius Satellite Radio, Inc.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
146
reduced stepped power levels for WCS Blocks C and D, and SDARS licensees’ proposals for the WCS
band.
25. Mobile and Portable Device Out-of-Band Emission Limits. In the 2007 Notice, the
Commission asked interested parties to address how the WCS industry would be affected if the
Commission were to retain the current out-of-band emission (OOBE) limits of 110 + 10 log (P) dB for
mobile and portable devices, and whether the limit should be revised. In response, the WCS Coalition
argues that the current limit is too restrictive, and proposes that the Commission adopt stepped OOBE
limits of 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324 MHz/2341-2345 MHz bands, 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2324-2328 MHz/2337-2341 MHz bands, and 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band. Another
WCS licensee, NextWave Wireless (NextWave), advocates relaxing the OOBE limit to
60 + 10 log (P) dB, while Sirius XM proposes an emission limit of 86 + 10 log (P) dB.
26. Based on its review of the record in this proceeding, the Commission determines that it
should require that WCS mobile and portable devices’ OOBE be attenuated below the transmitter power
P by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz bands on
frequencies that are outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the
2320-2324 MHz and 2341-2345 MHz bands, by 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328 MHz and
2337-2341 MHz bands, and by 67 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2328-2337 MHz band. In addition, mobile and
portable devices’ OOBE must be attenuated by a factor of not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and
2360 MHz, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB at 2296 MHz,
not less than 67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 and above
2365 MHz. In adopting these factors, the Commission believes that these limits will help avoid
significant adverse economic impact to both the WCS industry, as well as SDARS operations by enabling
WCS licensees to provide mobile services that were not viable under the existing rules, and by permitting
SDARS licensees to continue to operate without undue interference from the WCS band. In addition,
these OOBE attenuation factors will limit the potential for interference to Deep Space Network (DSN)
operations in the 2290-2300 MHz band and Aeronautical Mobile Telemetry operations in the 2360-2395
MHz band. In adopting the stepped OOBE limits, the Commission declines to adopt Sirius XM’s request
for a more restrictive OOBE limit because such limit would effectively preclude WCS licensees,
including small entities, from deploying mobile service. The Commission also finds that the proposal by
the WCS Coalition will provide greater overall protection to SDARS operations than the 60 + 10
log (P) dB) advocated by NextWave. Accordingly, adoption of the above-specified stepped OOBE limits
into the applicable portions of the 2320-2345 MHz SDARS band best minimizes significant economic
impacts on small, as well as larger, entities.
27. Base Station Power Limits. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission sought comment on the
WCS Coalition’s proposal that it revise the existing 2,000 W (2 kW) EIRP peak power limit with a 2 kW
EIRP average power limit for WCS fixed and base stations. The Commission asked interested parties to
address what impact, if any, adoption of an average, rather than peak, power limit for WCS would have
on the ability of WCS licensees to deploy new services. In response, the WCS Coalition reiterates its
support of a 2 kW EIRP average power limit, and states that applying a power limit on an average vs.
peak basis will provide greater interference protection to SDARS operations. In contrast, SDARS
licensees argue that applying an average power limit is not supported, and that such use will quadruple the
amount of harmful interference to SDARS receivers. Sirius XM prefers the use of ground-level emission
limits to govern transmitting facilities, but would accept retaining existing power limits measured on a
peak basis, or other traditional power restrictions that offer sufficient protection to SDARS.
28. Based on its analysis of the record and a balancing of its objectives in this proceeding, the
Commission adopts, in part, the WCS Coalition’s proposal regarding base station power limits for WCS
Blocks A and B, and also adopts in part Sirius XM’s proposal regarding base station power limits in WCS
Blocks C and D. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to modify the WCS Blocks A and B base
station limit to 2 kW EIRP over 5 megahertz (400 W/MHz), which will be measured on an average basis
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
147
with a maximum peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) of 13dB. The Commission finds that these
measures will adequately protect SDARS operations, and concludes that the ground-level emission limits
sought by Sirius XM would be overly complex and burdensome for WCS licensees, including small
entities, to comply with.
29. However, while the Commission concludes that adopting the WCS proposal is desirable
with respect to the A and B blocks, it retains the power limits for WCS operations in the C and D blocks
at 2,000 watts peak EIRP. Because base station operations in WCS Blocks C and D inherently pose more
risk of potential interference to satellite radio users than would base station operations in Blocks A and B,
which are separated from the SDARS spectrum by at least 5 megahertz, the Commission considers
maintaining the current limits appropriate in order to minimize interference into satellite radio operations.
30. The Commission expects that both approaches, combined with the 250 mW average
EIRP limit for WCS mobile and portable devices and the related OOBE attenuation factors of not less
than 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz bands on frequencies that are
outside the licensed band of operation, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324 MHz/2341-2345
MHz bands, 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328 MHz/ 2337-2341 MHz bands, and 67 + 10 log (P) dB in
the 2328-2337 MHz band, and not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and 2360 MHz, not less than
55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz, not less than 61 + 10 log (P) dB at 2296 MHz, not less than
67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and not less than 70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 and above 2365 MHz
should provide the technical flexibility for WCS licensees to deploy mobile service, and thereby avoid the
adverse economic impact to WCS licensees, including small entities, that would occur without the ability
to provide such service.
31. Base and Fixed Station OOBE Limits. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission sought
comment on whether Sirius’ proposal for a requirement to limit ground-level emissions would facilitate
the deployment of both SDARS and WCS services to the public. The Commission also sought comment
in the 2007 Notice on the WCS Coalition’s proposal to require both WCS and SDARS licensees to
attenuate base stations’ OOBE by a factor of 75 + 10 log (P) dB, as measured over a 1-megahertz
resolution bandwidth. In its comments on the 2007 Notice, the WCS Coalition reiterated its support for
the 75 + 10 log (P) dB attenuation requirement. Sirius XM also supported relaxing the OOBE attenuation
requirement for WCS base stations to 75 + 10 log (P) dB) but with a ground-level emissions limits of
100 dBµV/m for WCS Blocks A and B and 90 dBµV/M for WCS Blocks C and D.
32. The Commission finds it in the public interest to adopt an OOBE attenuation factor of
75 + 10 log (P) dB, measured over a 1-megahertz resolution bandwidth, for WCS base and fixed stations
on frequencies in the 2320-2345 MHz band. Both WCS and SDARS licensees urge us to lower the
current 80 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation factor by 5 dB. Although Sirius XM also requests that we
establish ground-level emission limits, we decline to adopt ground-level emission limits for WCS base
stations as proposed by Sirius XM because of the difficulties associated with characterizing and
quantifying the case-specific propagation environment’s effects on an RF signal’s field strength that could
influence the interference potential at each fixed site. The rules that would result from an attempt to deal
with the anomalies associated with field strength levels, moreover, would be overly complex and difficult
for licensees to comply with and would be difficult, at best, for the Commission to enforce. Furthermore,
we believe that the revised power limits that we are establishing, together with a 75 + 10 log (P) dB
OOBE attenuation factor, will provide SDARS operations reasonable interference protection while
affording WCS licensees additional flexibility to offer mobile services to the public. To protect DSN and
AMT operations, we find it is the public interest to adopt an OOBE attenuation factor of not less than
43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and 2360 MHz, not less than 55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2362.5 MHz, not less than
70 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 and 2365 MHz, not less than 72 + 10 log (P) dB at 2287.5 and 2367.5 MHz,
and not less than 75 + 10 log (P) dB below 2285 MHz and above 2370 MHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
148
33. Fixed Customer Premises Equipment (CPE) Power and OOBE Limits. The Report and
Order also resolves power and OOBE limits proposals relating to WCS fixed CPE devices. The WCS
Coalition requests that the Commission apply to WCS fixed CPE operations a power limit of 20 W
average EIRP, and an OOBE attenuation of 75 + 10 log (P) dB. For WCS fixed CPE devices transmitting
at no greater than 2 W average transmitter output power, the WCS Coalition proposes the same stepped
OOBE limit that it proposes for mobile devices. Sirius XM, on the other hand, proposes that WCS fixed
CPE devices operating above 2 W EIRP be subject to ground level-based emission limits, and proposes
that all WCS fixed CPE devices’ OOBE be attenuated by 75 + 10 log (P) dB regardless of the device’s
operating power.
34. The Commission finds it appropriate to maintain the current mobile transmitter power
limit of 20 W per 5-megahertz peak EIRP for WCS fixed CPE devices because it appears that the existing
limit has not resulted in interference to SDARS operation and also provides WCS licensees with
operational flexibility. Also, for WCS CPE operating with an EIRP above 2 W per 5-megahertz, the
Commission adopts the 75 + 10 log (P) dB OOBE attenuation factor for frequencies in the
2320-2345 MHz band, noting that both SDARS and WCS licensees propose that limit, and SDARS
licensees have indicated that they are amenable to a lowering of the OOBE limit because WCS fixed CPE
device operations pose less risk of interference and disruption to SDARS licensees. Further, in light of
the Commission’s finding that applying the stepped OOBE limits to WCS mobile and portable devices
will provide sufficient protection to SDARS operations, as well as the lower likelihood of interference to
SDARS receivers posed by WCS fixed CPE terminals operating at or below 2 Watts per 5-megahertz, the
Commission finds it appropriate to adopt the stepped OOBE limit that is applicable to WCS mobile
devices (i.e., 43 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2305-2317.5 MHz and 2347.5-2360 MHz bands on frequencies
that are outside the licensed band of operation, 55 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2320-2324 MHz/2341-2345
MHz bands, 61 + 10 log (P) dB in the 2324-2328 MHz/ 2337-2341 MHz bands, and 67 + 10 log (P) dB in
the 2328-2337 MHz band, and not less than not less than 43 + 10 log (P) dB at 2305 and 2360 MHz,
55 + 10 log (P) dB at 2300 MHz, 61 + 10 log (P) dB at 2296 MHz, 67 + 10 log (P) dB at 2292 MHz, and
70 + 10 log (P) dB below 2288 MHz and above 2365 MHz) for these WCS CPE as well.
35. Notification Requirement. In the 2007 Notice, the Commission invited comment
regarding the extent to which SDARS and WCS licensees should be required to coordinate deployments
of repeaters and base stations, respectively. Sirius XM supports a 90-day notice requirement. Although
WCS licensees support measures to encourage SDARS and WCS licensees to share certain technical
information, they oppose the adoption of a 90-day notice process. The Commission agrees with SDARS
licensees that the public interest will be served by requiring SDARS and WCS licensees to notify each
other prior to deploying or modifying repeaters or base stations, respectively, but believes that a 90-day
notice requirement as proposed by SDARS licensees to be unduly burdensome. Accordingly, the
Commission will require WCS and SDARS licensees to share certain technical information at least
10 business days before operating a new base station or repeater, and at least five business days before
modifying an existing facility. The Commission believes that adopting the streamlined notification
requirements rather than the 90-day prior coordination requirement previously advocated by Sirius XM
will enable SDARS and WCS licensees to minimize the potential for harmful interference between their
services while also reducing administrative as well as economic burdens on all parties.
36. Protection of DSN and AMT Operations. The Report and Order establishes revised
OOBE and coordination rules where WCS base stations are within certain distances from DSN and AMT
operations. The Commission imposes these requirements in recognition of the possible effects that WCS
operations may have on DSN and AMT entities, which use sensitive receivers and high gain antennas to
receive often weak signals. The Report and Order concludes that the adoption of reasonable OOBE and
coordination requirements will adequately protect DSN and AMT operations while enabling WCS entities
to construct and operate new broadband systems. The Commission has reviewed alternatives submitted
by commenters, which, for example, variously call for both more and less stringent OOBE limits and
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
149
coordination distances than those that are being adopted. The Commission concludes, however, that the
requirements that it is adopting best balance the interests of the interested parties.
37. WCS Performance Requirements. Further, in this Report and Order, the Commission
adopts revised performance requirements for WCS. The enhanced construction rules the Commission is
adopting replace the substantial service requirement previously placed on WCS licensees with specific
population-based benchmarks. In recognition of difficulties that may arise in license areas where WCS
licensees must coordinate their facilities with AMT receive sites, the Report and Order reduces the level
of construction required in such markets. The Commission seeks to establish a buildout requirement that
is reasonable and achievable for WCS licensees, including small entities, but which encourages rapid and
meaningful deployment of mobile broadband services. The Commission has considered alternative
performance benchmarks, including requirements using shorter timeframes, and lower percentages of
required construction. However, the Commission concludes that other alternatives would not strike the
appropriate balance. Further, with respect to the performance rules, all WCS entities will be required to
file construction notifications to inform the Commission that they have successfully met the performance
requirements described above. The Commission has reviewed whether there should be other
requirements, such as a formal procedure in which comment would be sought from the public regarding
the construction showings filed by licensees. The Commission determines, however, that it is not
necessary to include other requirements to the adopted construction notification procedure.
38. Report to Congress: The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order ,
including this FRFA, in a report to be sent to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act.18 In
addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof)
will also be published in the Federal Register.
18 See 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
150
APPENDIX D
Final Regulatory Flexibility Certification
Second Report and Order in IB Docket No. 95-91
1. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA)1 requires that a regulatory
flexibility analysis be prepared for rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that "the rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities."2 The RFA generally
defines "small entity" as having the same meaning as the terms "small business," "small organization,"
and "small governmental jurisdiction."3 In addition, the term "small business" has the same meaning as
the term "small business concern" under the Small Business Act.4 A small business concern is one which:
(1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any
additional criteria established by the Small Business Administration (SBA).5
2. The rules adopted in this Second Report and Order affect providers of Satellite Digital
Audio Radio Service (SDARS). With respect to providers of SDARS, i.e. providers of a nationally
distributed subscription radio service, no small entities are affected by the rules adopted in this Second
Report and Order. SDARS is a satellite service. The SBA has established a size standard for “Satellite
Telecommunications,” which is that any large satellite services provider must have an annual revenue of
$15.0 million.6 Currently, only a single operator, Sirius XM Radio Inc. (“Sirius XM”), holds licenses to
provide SDARS, which requires a great investment of capital for operation. Sirius XM has annual
revenues in excess of $15.0 million.7 Because SDARS requires significant capital, we believe it is
unlikely that a small entity as defined by the Small Business Administration would have the financial
wherewithal to become an SDARS licensee.
3. Therefore, since only one large entity is affected by the rules adopted in this Second
Report and Order, we certify that the requirements of the Second Report and Order will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Commission will send a copy
of the Second Report and Order, including a copy of this final certification, in a report to Congress
pursuant to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, see 5 U.S.C.
§ 801(a)(1)(A). In addition, the Second Report and Order and this certification will be sent to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration, and will be published in the Federal
Register. See 5 U.S.C. § 605(b).
1 The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. S 601 et. seq., has been amended by the Contract With America Advancement Act of
1996, Public Law No. 104-121, 110 Stat. 847 (1996) (CWAAA). Title II of the CWAAA is the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA).
2 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
3 5 U.S.C. 601(6).
4 5 U.S.C. 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of "small business concern" in Small Business Act,
15 U.S.C. S 632). Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies "unless an
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register."
5 Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. S 632.
6 See 13 CFR 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
7 Sirius XM reported annual revenue of over $2.47 billion in 2009. See Sirius XM Radio Inc., SEC Form 10-K at 25
(filed Feb. 25, 2010).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
151
APPENDIX E
Description of WCS/SDARS Testing in Ashburn, Virginia (July 28-29, 2009)
1. The WCS Coalition provided two four-door sedans for the Ashburn tests. One sedan was
equipped with a permanently-installed (OEM) Sirius satellite radio receiver and a portable (aftermarket)
Sirius satellite radio receiver. The other sedan was equipped with a permanently-installed XM satellite
radio receiver and a portable XM satellite radio receiver. Both vehicles had satellite radio antennas
installed on the centerline of the roof just forward of the rear window, with the antenna for the portable
receiver magnetically mounted between the rear window and the permanently-installed antenna. The
WCS WiMAX mobile signal was generated by an Alvarion, Ltd. (Alvarion) PCMCIA card plugged into a
notebook computer.1 The notebook computer ran software that could generate WiMAX traffic at
programmable rates, simulating voice and file-transfer modes, and could also monitor and record statistics
on WiMAX traffic that was transmitted by a WiMAX base station also provided by Alvarion. Similar
software was also run on the WCS WiMAX base station. The WiMAX base station included two
directional panel antennas located near the southwest corner of the roof of the building at 44675 Cape Ct.,
Ashburn, VA, at an elevation of approximately 7 to 8 meters above the ground. The base station antennas
were oriented toward the northeast. The WCS WiMAX mobile device and base station were operated in
time-division duplex (“TDD”) mode, and were tuned to frequencies in the upper A and lower B blocks for
tests with the Sirius receivers, and to a frequency centered on the boundary of the D and A blocks for tests
with XM receivers, and to a frequency centered on the boundary of the B and C blocks for additional tests
with Sirius receivers.
2. During the drive tests on the first day of testing (July 28, 2009), both WCS Coalition sedans
were driven around a test route located primarily on Beaumeade Circle in Ashburn, VA, with short
segments on Loudoun County Parkway and in the parking lot surrounding the base station location. The
distance from the WiMAX base station to the most distant point on the test route was approximately
440 meters, and the minimum distance was less than 20 meters. The two vehicles were driven at speeds
up to about 25 miles per hour. The vehicles remained within a maximum distance of few car lengths of
each other, and passed each other several times along the test route. Depending on the pre-planned test
scenario being executed, the notebook computer containing the WCS mobile device was held either on
the operator’s lap, to simulate laptop use by an occupant of the vehicle, or at head level, to simulate the
use of a WCS mobile telephone.
3. The WCS Coalition representatives ran two types of tests: one simulating a high-
bandwidth download, in which the WCS mobile device transmitter duty cycle was approximately
25 percent, and another simulating a voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) telephone call, with a much
lower transmitter duty cycle. A total of six configurations for the WCS mobile device were tested; a drive
test for each configuration was performed at least once; and a few of the configurations were drive tested
two or more times. Some of the WCS Coalition’s tests were run with the WCS mobile device using
automatic transmitter power control, and some were run with the WCS mobile device transmitting at a
fixed power level of 250 mW (24 dBm). To test the effect of a WCS mobile device’s out-of-band
emissions, during one test, the WCS signal was centered at 2347.5 MHz and only out-of-band emissions
were transmitted from the WCS mobile device. The WCS Coalition has submitted a test matrix that
shows the combinations of frequencies, Sirius and XM receivers, WiMAX traffic types, WCS mobile
1 The Alvarion, Ltd. PC card emissions accurately represented WiMAX in-band signals, but exceeded the WCS
Coalition’s proposed out-of-band emissions mask. The WCS Coalition has not provided to the Commission the
transmitted spectrum measurements of the Alvarion PC card or base station emissions, or the power level of the base
station transmitter.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
152
device positioning, and WCS mobile device transmitter power that were used during the drive tests.2
After observing tests with the WiMAX base station and mobile transmitting in the upper A block without
any muting of the SDARS signal occuring, Commission staff requested that certain test cases expected to
produce worst-case interference scenarios be run, with the understanding that if these cases resulted in
prolonged muting of the SDARS receivers, then it would be appropriate to run test cases expected to
produce less interference to the SDARS receivers.
4. Sirius XM demonstrated outdoor and indoor tests on the second day of the Ashburn tests
(July 29, 2009). Satellite radio signals and a low-level terrestrial repeater signal were available at the test
site. During the morning session, Sirius XM demonstrated interference into SDARS receivers from their
WCS signal simulator. This simulator comprised a laboratory-equipment-based WCS signal and
out-of-band noise generator mounted in the trunk of a four-door sedan, with a cable running from the
front passenger seat and connected to an antenna.3 An occupant of this vehicle held the transmitting
antenna at lap or ear height, depending on the test scenario being demonstrated. Sirius XM provided
another sedan with a factory installed XM satellite radio receiver. For the first portion of the morning
session, the sedan containing the WCS signal simulator remained stationary at a location in the parking
lot on the north side of the Homewood Suites building at 44620 Waxpool Road, Ashburn, VA. The sedan
carrying the satellite radio receiver was driven up and down an aisle of the parking lot to find a distance
between the two sedans at which satellite radio signal muting would occur. Sirius XM summarized the
results of the portion of these tests with the simulated WCS signal operating in the WCS D-block in a
table in the Engineering Appendix of its August 3, 2009, Ex Parte filing.4 For the second portion of the
morning session, both vehicles were parked adjacent to the building in order to block reception of one of
the XM satellite signals.
5. During the afternoon session on the second day of testing, Sirius XM demonstrated
interference into an XM receiver equipped for diagnostics and having an antenna module with a signal
input port that allowed it to be connected via a cable to the test equipment. For this test, Sirius XM used
simulated satellite signals generated by special test equipment and simulated WCS interfering signals
generated by laboratory test equipment.5 Sirius XM demonstrated the effects of varying simulated WCS
frequency offsets and signal power levels during both the morning and afternoon sessions. Sirius XM
summarized the results of these tests in tabular form in Exhibit A of the Engineering Appendix of its
August 3, 2009, Ex Parte filing.6
2 Letter from Mary N. O’Connor, Counsel to the WCS Coalition, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed
August 4, 2009) at Exhibit A p. 2 (WCS-SDARS Demonstration, Test Matrix).
3 This equipment setup is described on page 2 of the Engineering Appendix to Sirius XM’s Ex Parte letter dated
August 3, 2009. Letter from Terrence R. Smith, Corporate VP and Chief Engineering Officer and James R. Blitz,
Vice President, Regulatory Counsel, of Sirius XM Radio Inc. to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC (filed
August 3, 2009), Engineering Appendix at 2.
4 Id. at Engineering Appendix at 10.
5 This equipment setup is described on pages 10-11 of the Engineering Appendix to Sirius XM’s Ex Parte letter
dated August 3, 2009. Id. at Engineering Appendix at 10-11.
6 Id. at Engineering Appendix at 13-16.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
153
APPENDIX F
Applications for Additional Time to Meet the 2.3 GHz
Wireless Communications Service Substantial Service Performance Requirement
Applicant Name Call Sign File Number Receipt Date
CELLUTEC KNLB242 0003852958 5/29/2009
CELLUTEC KNLB216 0003852962 5/29/2009
NTELOS Inc. KNLB243 0003854302 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB200 0003855239 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB213 0003855241 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB217 0003855243 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB206 0003855240 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB218 0003855244 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB292 0003855248 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB293 0003855249 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB322 0003855251 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB323 0003855252 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB294 0003855250 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB255 0003855247 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB215 0003855242 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB219 0003855245 6/1/2009
NW Spectrum Co. KNLB220 0003855246 6/1/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL357 0003879254 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL350 0003879247 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL358 0003879255 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL351 0003879248 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL352 0003879249 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL359 0003879256 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL353 0003879250 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL360 0003879257 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL354 0003879251 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company KNLB232 0003879244 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL361 0003879258 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL355 0003879252 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company KNLB235 0003879245 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL362 0003879259 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPSL356 0003879253 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company KNLB205 0003879243 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPYP769 0003879261 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company KNLB291 0003879246 6/23/2009
Unrestricted Subsidiary Funding Company WPYP768 0003879260 6/23/2009
WaveTel NC License Corporation WPZA813 0003854544 6/1/2009
WaveTel NC License Corporation WPZA811 0003854803 6/1/2009
WaveTel NC License Corporation WPZA810 0003854841 6/1/2009
WaveTel NC License Corporation WPZA812 0003854706 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB208 0003855280 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB302 0003855288 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB303 0003855289 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB304 0003855290 6/1/2009
Federal Communications Commission FCC 10-82
154
Applicant Name Call Sign File Number Receipt Date
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB305 0003855291 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB306 0003855292 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB207 0003855279 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB307 0003855293 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB295 0003855281 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB296 0003855282 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB308 0003855294 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB297 0003855283 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB298 0003855284 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB299 0003855285 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB300 0003855286 6/1/2009
WCS Wireless License Subsidiary, LLC KNLB301 0003855287 6/1/2009