Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Request by Progeny LMS, LLC for Waiver of 
Certain Multilateration Location and Monitoring 
Service Rules 
Progeny LMS, LCC Demonstration of 
Compliance with Section 90.353(d) of the 
Commission’s Rules
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
WT Docket No. 11-49
ORDER
Adopted:  June 5, 2013     Released:  June 6, 2013
By the Commission:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. This Order addresses the request by Progeny LMS, LLC (“Progeny”) that we allow it to 
commence commercial operations of its position location service network.
1
Progeny, a multilateration 
location and monitoring service (“M-LMS”) licensee, plans to deploy a highly accurate location service, 
which it states will provide both precise outdoor and in-building location information, including improved 
delivery of E 911 emergency services that can bring significant public safety benefits.
2
  Progeny has 
submitted field tests to meet the condition associated with its licenses to demonstrate that its planned 
commercial operations will not cause “unacceptable levels of interference” to unlicensed devices 
operating under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules in the 902-928 MHz band.
3
  Based on our review of 
these field tests and the record before us, and consistent with previous Commission decisions with respect
to use of this spectrum by M-LMS licensees (including specific decisions regarding Progeny) and 
unlicensed operations, we conclude that Progeny may commence commercial operations of its position 
location service network.  We will monitor ongoing developments as Progeny continues to deploy its 
network and commences commercial operations, and condition our approval of commercial operations on 
Progeny’s providing public notifications concerning its ongoing deployment; establishing processes for 
addressing interference concerns that may arise; and submitting reports over the next 18 months regarding
any interference complaints that it may receive.  Commission staff will closely monitor progress on an 
ongoing basis and stand ready to take any steps necessary to promote the co-existence of M-LMS and 
unlicensed operations in this band.
                                                     
1
See, e.g., Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, “Progeny LMS, LLC Demonstration of Compliance with Section 90.353(d) of the 
Commission’s Rules, WT Docket No. 11-49” (Jan. 26, 2012) (Progeny Request); Response of Progeny LMS, Inc., 
WT Docket No. 11-49 (Jan. 11, 2013) (Progeny Response).  
2
See, e.g., Progeny Response at ii.
3
47 C.F.R. § 90.353(d). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
2
2. Progeny is deploying a wide-area positioning system to provide more precise location 
services in areas where Global Positioning System (“GPS”) and other existing services may not work 
effectively, particularly indoors and in urban canyons.
4
  Progeny’s system is intended to serve both public 
safety and commercial market needs.
5
  Operating at the power levels prescribed by the Commission for 
M-LMS service but only using approximately half of Progeny’s eight megahertz of licensed spectrum, 
Progeny’s network employs a highly synchronized beacon system to transmit signals to mobile devices 
(such as cell phone handsets) that can compute more precisely the user’s indoor or outdoor location.
6
  
3. Working Group 3 of the Commission’s Communications Security, Reliability and 
Interoperability Council (“CSRIC”), which has been examining emergency location technologies for 
indoor wireless E 911, recently conducted location accuracy testing of Progeny’s location technology 
(among others).
7
  The working group’s report found that Progeny’s system demonstrated improved indoor 
location capabilities, including improved accuracy in the horizontal dimension and, for Progeny’s system 
in particular, substantial progress in the vertical dimensions (approximate floor-level accuracy), which 
could be an important factor in locating indoor callers in urban and dense multistory buildings.
8
  In 
addition, a number of public safety organizations, including NENA: The 911 Association, the 
International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, and the International 
Association of Firefighters, have made filings stating that indoor location technology is critical to first 
responders.  They argue that improved location service could provide rapid and accurate location 
information for callers in large, multi-story buildings, including floor elevation information, which could 
speed response and help keep first responders safe.
9
  NENA states that technologies such as Progeny’s 
represent a tremendous opportunity to enable immediate and dramatic improvements in wireless location 
accuracy.
10
A coalition of national consumer advocacy organizations for the deaf and hard of hearing also 
encourages the Commission to promote improved location technologies that can significantly increase the 
                                                     
4
See generally Progeny Request, Attachment 1 at 1-2; Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, 
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Ex Parte, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Mar. 21, 
2013) at1 & Slides at 2-3.  
5
See, e.g., Progeny Request, Attachment 1 at 8-9.
6
See id. at 1-4 & Attachment 1 at 1-6.
7
See CSRIC Working Group 3 E9-1-1 Location Accuracy, Indoor Location Test Bed Report (Mar. 14, 2013).  In 
the report, Progeny’s system is referenced as the NextNav system.
8
Id. at 8-9 & 24-39. 
9
See, e.g., Letter from Bart R. Johnson, Executive Director, International Association of Chiefs of Police, to Julius 
Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Mar. 29, 2013); Letter 
from Adam D. Kennard, Executive Director, National Sherriffs’ Association, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, 
Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Apr. 3, 2013); Letter from Harold A. Schaitberger, 
General President, International Association of Fire Fighters, to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal 
Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Mar. 25, 2013); Letter from Lisa Hoffman, Deputy Director, 
Division of Emergency Communications, San Francisco Department of Emergency Management, to Julius 
Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Mar. 25, 2013); Letter 
from Dominick Marino, President, Professional Firefighters Association of New Jersey, to Julius Genachowski, 
Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Apr. 3 2013).  
10
See Letter from Telford E. Forgety, III, Director of Government Affairs & Regulatory Counsel, NENA: The 9-1-1 
Association, to Julius Knapp, Chief Engineer, Office of Technology, Federal Communications Commission, WT 
Docket No. 11-49 (Mar. 25, 2013).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
3
effectiveness of 911 for Americans who are deaf, deaf-blind, hard of hearing, or deaf with a mobile 
disability who make emergency calls over voice and text.
11
II. DISCUSSION
4. The 902-928 MHz band is used by a variety of licensed and unlicensed operations. 
Recognizing this diversity and the unique challenges it presented, the Commission has provided a 
framework to promote the use in the band of the various permitted operations. In this Order, the 
Commission addresses M-LMS licensees and Part 15 users of this spectrum.  As we discuss below, the 
Commission expects M-LMS licensees and Part 15 users of this spectrum to work cooperatively to 
identify and take reasonable steps to mitigate interference so that both licensed and unlicensed operations 
can continue to use the band.
5. In this Order, we first describe the Commission’s framework for M-LMS operations in 
the 902-928 MHz band.  We then discuss the 2011 Limited Waiver Order, issued by the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau (“WTB”) and Office of Engineering and Technology (“OET”), which, by 
granting a limited waiver of the rules, lowered the potential for interference from Progeny’s operations in 
the band while also establishing a transparent process for ensuring that Progeny meets the Commission’s 
field testing requirement prior to commencing commercial operations.
12
  We next describe the results of 
the field testing.  Finally, we discuss our decision to condition approval of Progeny’s request on its 
compliance with certain reporting requirements and our monitoring of Progeny’s commercial deployment.   
6. Framework for M-LMS Operations in the 902-928 MHz band.  In the 1995 LMS Report 
and Order, the Commission established M-LMS as a new radio service to be licensed in certain portions 
of the 902-928 MHz spectrum band where it would operate along with other users in the band.
13
  
Specifically, this band is allocated on a primary basis to federal radiolocation systems and Industrial, 
Scientific, and Medical (ISM) equipment.  Federal fixed and mobile services are allocated on a secondary 
basis to federal radiolocation systems and ISM equipment.  LMS licensees – including both M-LMS and 
non-multilateration LMS – are allocated on a secondary basis to federal users and ISM devices.  M-LMS 
is licensed in a total of 14 megahertz in two different portions of the 902-928 MHz band – the 904-909.75 
MHz and 919.75-928 MHz portions of the band.
14
  Amateur radio operations are allocated on a secondary 
                                                     
11
See Letter from Claude L. Stout, Executive Director, Telecommunications for the Deaf & Hard of Hearing, et al., 
to Julius Genachowski, Chairman, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Apr. 12, 2013).  
The coalition consists of: Telecommunications for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing, Inc. (TDI), Deaf and Hard of 
Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network (DHHCAN), National Association of the Deaf (NAD), Association of Late-
Deafened Adults (ALDA), Cerebral Palsy and Deaf Organization (CPADO), American Association of the Deaf-
Blind (AADB), California Coalition of Agencies Serving Deaf and Hard of Hearing (CCASDHH), and Technology 
Access Program at Gallaudet University (TAP).
12
See Request by Progeny LMS, LLC for Waiver of Certain Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service
Rules, WT Docket No. 11-49, Order (DA 11-2036), 26 FCC Rcd 16878, 16889 ¶ 29 (WTB/OET, rel. Dec. 20, 
2011) (Limited Waiver Order).
13
See generally Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicular 
Monitoring Systems, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 4695 (1995) (LMS Report and Order).  The Commission 
authorized M-LMS in a total of 14 megahertz of spectrum in the band.  Id.  
14
M-LMS and non-multilateration LMS both are authorized to use the 919.75-921.75 MHz portion of the band on a 
co-equal basis.  See LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4722-4723 ¶¶ 48-49.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
4
basis to LMS.  Finally, unlicensed devices are permitted to operate under Part 15 rules in the 902-928 
MHz band.
15
7. The diagram below illustrates the hierarchy of rights associated with the different users in 
the 902-928 MHz band.  As discussed more fully below, Progeny’s location service network is designed 
to operate on approximately half (~ four megahertz) of the M-LMS portions of the band between 
919.750-927.750 MHz where Progeny holds licenses, periodically transmitting two beacon signals (in the 
areas indicated in the diagram).
16
8. Unlicensed Part 15 operations were already permitted in the 902-928 MHz band by 1995, 
at the time that LMS rules were adopted. Specifically, in 1985, the Commission adopted rules to permit 
the operation of unlicensed spread spectrum systems, and, in 1989, it added rules to permit unlicensed 
non-spread spectrum operations in the band.
17
Together, these rules permitted a wide variety of 
unlicensed devices to be introduced in the 902-928 MHz band. Unlicensed devices operating under Part 
                                                     
15
See LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4699 ¶ 7.  Users of Part 15 devices do not have any allocation status 
in the Commission’s rules.    
16
See para. 17 & n.45; Progeny Request, Attachment 1 (Wide Area Positioning System Network Description).  
17
See Authorization of Spread Spectrum and Other Wideband Emissions Not Presently Provided for in the FCC 
Rules and Regulations, Gen Docket No. 81-413, 101 FCC 2d 419 (1985); Revision of Part 15 of the Rules 
Regarding the Operation of Radio Frequency Devices Without an Individual License, GEN. Docket No. 87-389,
First Report and Order, 4 FCC Rcd 3493 (1989). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
5
15 of the rules may not cause harmful interference to authorized radio services,
18
and any received
interference must be accepted by the operator of a Part 15 device, including interference received from 
authorized radio services, other Part 15 devices, and ISM equipment.
19
  In addition, parties operating Part 
15 devices have no vested or recognizable right to continued use of any given frequency by virtue of prior 
registration or certification of equipment.
20
9. In authorizing M-LMS use of the band in the 1995 LMS Report and Order, the 
Commission recognized the potential for M-LMS interference with the various unlicensed operations in 
the band and sought to balance the differing operational needs of both to enable them to operate in the 
band.
21
  In particular, the Commission adopted certain provisions designed to promote the coexistence of 
M-LMS and unlicensed operations in the band.  In the proceeding, Part 15 commenters were concerned 
that M-LMS operations and Part 15 devices could not co-exist in the band because of interference from 
higher powered M-LMS systems, while M-LMS commenters expressed concern about potential harmful 
interference from Part 15 devices.
22
  
10. In establishing the framework for promoting co-existence in the band, the Commission 
rejected proposals to elevate Part 15 devices to co-equal status with M-LMS.  Instead, the Commission 
sought to “balance the equities and value of each use without undermining the established relationship 
between unlicensed operations and licensed services.”
23
  In this regard, the Commission affirmed that 
unlicensed devices would continue to operate under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules in this band, and 
that persons operating unlicensed devices must accept interference from all other operations in the band, 
including M-LMS, and have no vested or cognizable right to continued use of any given frequency.
24
  To 
accommodate the concerns of unlicensed device operators within the framework of their Part 15 status, 
the Commission adopted a “safe harbor” rule for unlicensed devices that permits Part 15 operations that 
conform to specified technical standards to be deemed as not causing harmful interference to M-LMS 
systems.
25
  The Commission also established the field testing requirement as an additional means of 
promoting coexistence of M-LMS and unlicensed operations in the band.  Specifically, to ensure that this 
coexistence is “as successful as possible,” the Commission conditioned M-LMS licenses on the licensee’s 
ability to “demonstrate through actual field tests” that their systems do not cause “unacceptable levels of 
interference” to Part 15 devices.
26
  The Commission noted that M-LMS licensees could employ a number 
                                                     
18
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b). 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.”  See 47 C.F.R. § 2.1.
19
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).  ISM equipment uses radiofrequency energy to perform work rather than 
communications.  See 47 C.F.R. § 18.107(c).  
20
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(a).
21
The Commission stated that its decision to permit licensed LMS in the 902-928 MHz band “balances the differing 
operational needs” of the varied types of uses in the band “so that most [LMS] systems and Part 15 devices will be 
able to achieve their objectives without impeding each other’s use of the spectrum.”  LMS Report and Order, 10 
FCC Rcd at 4695 ¶ 1. 
22
See LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4712-14 ¶¶ 32-34.
23
Id., 10 FCC Rcd at 4714 ¶ 35.  
24
Id., 10 FCC Rcd at 4708 ¶ 23 (citing 47 C.F.R. §§ 15.5 (a)-(b)).
25
Id., 10 FCC Rcd at 4715 ¶ 36.  See 47 C.F.R. § 90.361.
26
LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4737 ¶ 82.  This requirement is codified in section 90.353(d) of the 
Commission’s rules.  47 C.F.R. § 90.353(d). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
6
of technical refinements (such as limited duty cycle, pulse durations, etc.) to facilitate band sharing and 
minimize interference to Part 15 operations.
27
  The Commission also indicated its expectation that testing 
be accomplished through cooperation between M-LMS users and operators of Part 15 systems.
28
11. The Commission reaffirmed its decision to provide for licensed M-LMS service in the 
band, and clarified the purpose of the field testing requirements, in two reconsideration orders.  In the 
1996 LMS Order on Reconsideration, the Commission denied requests by Part 15 petitioners that the 
Commission establish specific or uniform guidelines for the field testing, concluding that no one testing 
method would adequately address the needs of either M-LMS, which permits different M-LMS system 
designs, or Part 15, where the industry has an “even greater array of technologies that fluctuate in 
response to the needs of the public.”
29
  The Commission again stated that through the field testing it 
sought to facilitate band sharing and minimize interference to Part 15 operations, and that as part of that 
effort it sought to ensure that LMS systems are not operated in such a manner as to degrade, obstruct, or 
interrupt Part 15 devices to such an extent that Part 15 operations will be negatively affected.
30
  At the 
same time, it continued to underscore that the M-LMS rules do not modify Part 15 rules by elevating the 
status of Part 15 users.
31
The Commission concluded that the testing requirement “is merely an attempt to 
achieve the most efficient coexistence possible among the various users in the band.”
32
  In the 1997 LMS 
MO&O, in response to a petition by an M-LMS licensee, the Commission reiterated that Part 15 devices 
were not entitled to protection from interference from M-LMS systems and noted that the purpose of the 
testing condition is to ensure that M-LMS licensees, when designing and constructing their systems, take 
into consideration a goal of minimizing interference to existing deployments or systems of Part 15 
devices, and to verify this through cooperative testing.
33
12. In 1997, shortly after adopting rules to permit M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz 
band, the Commission took additional steps to facilitate co-existence between Part 15 devices and M-
LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band.  Specifically, it reduced the minimum number of hopping 
channels required for spread spectrum devices operating in the 902-928 MHz band to make it easier for 
spread spectrum operators to avoid the bands used by the M-LMS.
34
  The Commission stated that “it is to 
the benefit of the spread spectrum operators to avoid using the wideband multilateration LMS channels in 
order to reduce the potential for received interference.”
35
  The Commission also allowed the use of 
                                                     
27
LMS Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd at 4737 ¶ 82.
28
Id., 10 FCC Rcd at 4737 ¶ 82.
29
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicular Monitoring 
Systems, Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd 16905, 16912 ¶ 16 (1996) (“LMS Order on Reconsideration”).
The Commission suggested that M- LMS and Part 15 operators work together to develop consensus on testing 
guidelines. Id.
30
Id. at 16911-12 ¶ 15.
31
Id. at 16912-13 ¶ 17.
32
Id.
33
Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Adopt Regulations for Automatic Vehicular Monitoring 
Systems, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 12 FCC Rcd 13942, 
13968 ¶ 69 (LMS MO&O) (1997).
34
See Amendment of Parts 2 and 15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Spread Spectrum Transmitters, ET 
Docket No. 96-8, Report and Order, 12 FCC Rcd 7488, 7503-7504 ¶¶ 27-28 (1997) (Spread Spectrum Report and 
Order).  
35
Id., 12 FCC Rcd at 7504 ¶ 27.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
7
technology that enables a spread spectrum device to detect occupied channels within its band of operation 
and then adapt its hopping channel sequence to avoid these channels.
36
  
13. Limited Waiver Order.  Over the past few years, Progeny has been developing a 
multilateration location service that employs beacon signals from fixed base stations.  Progeny’s proposed 
location service is consistent with the location service for which it first obtained licenses in 1999 through 
an auction
37
and would operate at the same power levels and operational characteristics authorized under 
the Commission’s rules in 1995.  In March 2011, Progeny filed a petition seeking a limited waiver of two 
existing M-LMS service rules to enable it to deploy this beacon system, which employs advanced 
technologies not available in the mid-1990s and is designed to operate in a manner that would reduce the 
number of transmissions on Progeny’s licensed spectrum.
38
  In December 2011, WTB and OET granted a 
limited waiver to permit Progeny to continue developing its proposed location service, based, in part, on 
the public interest benefits of facilitating the deployment of a multilateration location service that can 
provide more accurate location determinations, including more precise location information that can 
improve delivery of E 911 emergency services.
39
  This limited waiver did not create or establish a new 
service.  Rather, within the flexible framework of the existing location and monitoring service, the waiver 
effectively lowered the potential for interference from Progeny’s operations in the band.  In addition, the 
order granting the waiver established a transparent process for ensuring that Progeny meets the 
Commission’s field testing requirement prior to commencing commercial operations.  
14. Specifically, the limited waiver relieved Progeny of the requirement to employ two-way 
transmission paths, a change that effectively reduces the potential for interference by eliminating 
transmissions from portable devices that receive the location information.  While the 1995 M-LMS rules 
envisioned two-way operations that could use all of the M-LMS licensees spectrum bandwidth, under the 
limited waiver, Progeny would instead be utilizing substantially less of its licensed spectrum and would 
be doing so for one-way operations.  The limited waiver also relieved Progeny of the requirement that it 
provide service primarily to vehicles and allowed it to provide service to any device anywhere, a change 
that would have no appreciable effect on the number or deployment of Progeny’s transmitters, and which 
is central to Progeny’s ability to offer its location service via mobile devices to compute more precisely a 
user’s indoor or outdoor location for E 911 and other purposes.
40
  
15. The Limited Waiver Order did not waive the interference rules that the Commission 
established in 1995 governing M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band.
41
  In particular, the order 
made clear that Progeny remained obligated to satisfy the field testing requirement, set forth in section 
90.353(d) of the Commission’s rules, to demonstrate through actual field tests that its M-LMS system will 
not cause unacceptable levels of interference to Part 15 devices in the band.  As a condition of the order, 
Progeny was required, once it had completed design of its system but prior to commencing commercial 
                                                     
36
Id., 12 FCC Rcd at 7514 ¶ 51.
37
See “Location and Monitoring Service Auction Closes, Winning Bidders in the Auction of 528 Multilateration 
Licenses in the Location and Monitoring Service,” Public Notice, 14 FCC Rcd 3754 (1999); “VHF Public Coast and 
Location and Monitoring Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Winning Bidders Announced,” Public Notice, 16 FCC 
Rcd 12509 (2001). Progeny obtained most of its licenses in the 1999 auction.
38
See Petition for Waiver of the Rules and Request for Expedited Treatment, Progeny LMS, LLC (Mar. 8, 2011).    
39
See generally Limited Waiver Order, 26 FCC Rcd 16876.
40
See id., 26 FCC Rcd at 16884-16887 ¶¶ 14-23.
41
See id., 26 FCC Rcd at 16887-16889 ¶¶ 24-29.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
8
operations, to file a report describing its system and the field testing it conducted.  The order also stated 
that the report would be placed on public notice for comment.
42
16. Existing Deployments and Field Testing.  Progeny has deployed and operated its M-LMS 
network in the San Jose, California, area for the past three years, and has commenced initial deployment 
and operation of networks in 39 other Economic Areas across the country over the past several months.
43
  
To date, we have not received interference complaints that suggest that Progeny’s system is causing any 
significant impact upon Part 15 operations in the 902-928 MHz band.  While interference is often difficult 
to identify or trace to a particular source, the many devices using this spectrum have been designed to 
adapt to received interference, since they have no interference protection rights and are all capable of 
interfering with each other.
44
17. Progeny has submitted four sets of field tests to the Commission.  All of the tests were 
conducted around San Jose.  Progeny described its specific network design (e.g., transmitting two beacons 
using approximately four megahertz of its eight megahertz of licensed spectrum) and submitted the first 
set of field testing in January 2012, which was conducted by an outside consultant.
45
  We invited 
comment on these tests in February 2012,
46
and received several comments.
47
  Based on concerns raised 
by two manufacturers of automatic meter readers (AMRs) and by the Wireless Internet Service Providers 
Association (WISPA), Commission staff called upon Progeny and these parties to work together to 
conduct further tests.  Progeny and these parties submitted three sets of joint tests in October 2012.
48
  We 
                                                     
42
Id., 26 FCC Rcd at 16889 ¶ 29.
43
See Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, Ex Parte, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Mar. 21, 2013), Slide at 13; Letter from Bruce A. 
Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Ex 
Parte, WT Docket No. 11-49 (Feb. 19, 2013) at 2 (indicating that Progeny had constructed its initial M-LMS 
networks in a total of 19 Economic Areas to meet the Commission’s initial buildout requirements, and that these 
network were operational by July 2012; initial networks in 20 more Economic Areas were constructed and 
operational by November 2012).   Progeny’s M-LMS licenses are licensed by Economic Areas.  47 C.F.R. § 
90.353(d).  Progeny has completed initial launch of another Economic Area in recent weeks. 
44
See 47 C.F.R. § 15.5(b).
45
See Progeny Request, Attachment 1 (Wide Area Positioning System Network Description) & Attachment 2 
(Progeny/SMC Field Testing Report).  The system operates in the upper portions of the 902-928 MHz band, where 
Progeny holds both the B and C blocks of M-LMS spectrum.  Progeny’s network transmits using two beacons, each 
of which operates across 2.046 megahertz of spectrum, with a duty cycle of no more than 20%.  See id., Attachment 
1 at 4-5. The B and C block spectrum encompasses 919.750-921.750 MHz and 927.500-927.750 MHz (B block) 
and 921.750-927.250 MHz and 927.250-927.500 MHz (C block).
46
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology Seek Comment on 
Progeny’s M-LMS Field Testing Report, WT Docket No. 11-49, Public Notice, DA 12-209, 27 FCC Rcd 1579
(WTB/OET rel. Feb. 14, 2012).  
47
See, e.g., Comments of Itron, Inc. on Progeny’s Test Report (Mar. 15, 2012) (manufactures automatic meter 
reader equipment); Comments of Cellnet Technology, Inc., a Landis+Gyr Company (Mar. 15, 2012) (same);
Comments of the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association (Mar. 15, 2012); Comments of Kapsh TrafficCom 
IVHS Inc. (Mar. 15, 2012).
48
See Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, and Laura Stefani, Counsel for Itron, to Marlene 
H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Progeny/Itron Joint Field Testing Report (Oct. 31, 
2012); Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, and Lawrence J. Movshin, Counsel for 
Landis+Gyr, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Progeny/Landis+Gyr Joint 
Field Testing Report (Oct 31, 2012); Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, and Stephen E. 
(continued….)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
9
sought comment on these tests in November 2012.
49
A number of parties filed comments asserting that 
Progeny has not met its burden of satisfying the Commission’s field testing requirement
50
and that the 
tests show that Progeny’s system will cause unacceptable levels of interference to unlicensed devices, 
particularly to meter reading and other devices used by utilities, Wireless Internet Service Providers 
(WISPs), and various electronic products.
51
  Various of these commenters contend that the field testing 
conducted is not representative of Part 15 devices operating in the 902-928 MHz band,
52
that more 
devices or particular devices should be tested,
53
that Progeny’s system (higher power levels, duty cycle, 
and beacon density) would effectively reduce the amount of spectrum available for Part 15 operations in 
the 902-928 MHz band, require redesign of unlicensed devices or systems, and increase the potential for 
interference among Part 15 users,
54
and that Progeny’s network in San Jose may not be representative of 
the Progeny’s deployment and its potential impact on Part 15 operations elsewhere.
55
  The comment 
period closed in January 2013.  
18. In evaluating Progeny’s request, we implement the section 90.353(d) standard regarding 
“unacceptable levels” of interference that the Commission established when providing for M-LMS 
operations in the 902-928 MHz band.  A number of parties assert that the Commission should open a new 
(Continued from previous page)                                                            
Coran, Counsel for WISPA, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, 
Progeny/WISPA Joint Field Testing Report (Oct. 31, 2012).
49
The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Office of Engineering and Technology Seek Comment on 
Progeny’s Joint M-LMS Field Testing Reports, WT Docket No. 11-49, Public Notice, DA 12-1873, 27 FCC Rcd 
14461 (WTB/OET, rel. Nov. 20, 2012); Request by Progeny LMS, LLC for Waiver of  Certain Multilateration 
Location and Monitoring Service Rules, WT Docket No. 11-49, DA 12-1930, Order, 27 FCC Rcd 14968
(WTB/OET, rel. Nov. 30, 2012) (extending comment period).
50
See, e.g., Itron Comments (Dec. 21, 2012); Landis+Gyr Comments (Dec. 21, 2012).  See also, e.g., Google Inc. 
Ex Parte (Apr. 18, 2013).
51
See e.g., Itron Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (AMRs); Landis+Gyr Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (AMRs); Utilities 
Telecom Council (UTC) Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (utility grid operations); Wireless Internet Service Providers 
Association Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (WISPs); LakeNet, LLC Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (WISP); GE Digital 
Energy and GE MDS, LCC Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (equipment for electric utilities, oil and gas companies, and 
others); American Petroleum Institute Comments (Dec. 12, 2012) (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition 
(SCADA) systems, RFID, and various digitally modulated spread spectrum systems); Starkey Laboratories, Inc. 
(Dec. 21, 2012) (hearing aid accessories); Alarm Industry Communications Committee Reply Comments (Jan. 11, 
2013) (alarm systems); Inovonics Wireless Corporation Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (alarm systems); Plantronics, 
Inc. Comments (Dec. 21, 2012) (wireless headsets).  See also, e.g., Part 15 Coalition Ex Parte (Apr. 15, 2013).  We 
also received comments from representatives of non-multilateration LMS operations that operate in portions of the 
902-928 MHz band.  See, e.g., Kapsch TrafficCom IVHS Inc. Comments (Dec. 21, 2012); E-Z Pass Group 
Comments (Dec. 26, 2012).  The field testing requirement discussed herein does not apply to these licensed services, 
and the non-multilateration LMS and M-LMS licensees are subject to specified cooperation requirements under the 
Commission’s rules.  See 47 C.F.R. § 90.173(b).
52
See, e.g., Part 15 Coalition Comments (Dec. 21, 2102); UTC Comments (Dec. 21, 2012); GE Digital Energy and 
GE MDS, LLC Comments (Dec. 21, 2012). 
53
See, e.g., Plantronics Comments (Dec. 21, 2012); Plantronics Ex Parte (Apr. 17, 2013); Part 15 Coalition 
Comments (Dec. 21, 2012).  See also, e.g., Inovonics Wireless Corporation Ex Parte (Apr. 17, 2013).
54
See, e.g., Part 15 Coalition Comments (Dec. 21, 2012); RFK Engineering Solutions, LLC Comments (Dec. 21, 
2012); UTC Reply Comments (Jan. 11, 2013).
55
See, e.g., Itron Comments (Dec. 21, 2012); UTC Reply Comments (Jan. 11, 2013). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
10
rulemaking to specifically define “unacceptable levels of interference,”
56
yet this same argument was 
made and rejected by the full Commission in 1996.
57
  As the Commission noted, for purposes of 
determining “unacceptable levels of interference,” no uniform field testing method is appropriate 
considering the great array of devices that the Part 15 industry deploys in the 902-928 MHz, which are 
designed to address different needs and thus have no common design.  Nor has the Commission ever
determined technical criteria for evaluating interference to unlicensed devices, which operate on a non-
protected basis.
19. In assessing “unacceptable levels of interference” for the field test requirement, we seek 
consistency with the Commission’s clear and repeated pronouncements that unlicensed devices in the 
902-928 MHz band operate under the Part 15 rules that offer no protection from harmful interference.  
The Commission’s intent with regard to field testing was not to create and apply a specific minimum 
standard of interference protection to all unlicensed devices operating in the 902-928 MHz band, but 
instead to ensure more broadly that the various types of unlicensed devices permitted under the 
Commission’s Part 15 rules would continue to be able to operate in the band when potential interference 
from M-LMS was introduced.  The Commission expressly recognized that M-LMS potentially would 
cause interference to some of the various types of unlicensed operations in the band, and it modified the 
Part 15 rules to enable certain spread spectrum devices to avoid using M-LMS channels.
58
  The field test 
requirement does not create an obligation that M-LMS licensees protect particular unlicensed devices or 
models from interference, and it does not require an M-LMS licensee to avoid causing interference to 
particular unlicensed systems or to particular circumstances of their operation.
59
  To require this would 
elevate the status of Part 15 operations in the band and undermine the established relationship between 
licensed and unlicensed operations.
60
  Such an approach would effectively enable individual unlicensed 
operators to block the introduction of M-LMS on the basis of interference to their particular devices or 
models, or their particular systems or circumstances of operation, giving them greater rights against a 
licensed service than they have against other Part 15 operations in the band – a result that is 
fundamentally inconsistent with the Commission’s decision on the operating status of unlicensed devices 
in the band.  We conclude that the purpose of the field test is to promote the coexistence of M-LMS and 
unlicensed operations in the band by “minimizing” – not eliminating – the potential for M-LMS 
interference to Part 15 operations overall so that the band can continue to be used for unlicensed 
operations without significant detrimental impact, consistent with their Part 15 status. This conclusion 
strikes a sensible policy balance and rests on a reasonable interpretation of the Commission’s rules and 
prior orders.  Moreover, we find no evidence that the testing requirement was intended to re-open the 
issue of whether M-LMS should be authorized to operate in this spectrum.   
20. Under this framework, we evaluate whether Progeny has satisfied the field test 
requirement so that it may commence commercial operations.  In particular, an M-LMS licensee must be 
able to demonstrate that, in designing and constructing its particular M-LMS system, it has appropriately 
                                                     
56
See, e.g., Public Knowledge Ex Parte (Mar. 11, 2013); GE Digital Energy Ex Parte (Mar. 13, 2013).
57
See discussion above, para. 11; LMS Order on Reconsideration, 11 FCC Rcd at 16912 ¶ 16.
58
See discussion above, paras. 9-12.
59
For example, a particular model of unlicensed device might not be able to avoid received interference due to its 
design or the specific circumstances of its operation, but that would not preclude operation of the M-LMS system. 
A number of design and operational factors may affect whether interference occurs to a given device at a given 
location.  These include a device’s frequency range of operation (including any ability to change frequencies), 
modulation type, separation distance from other devices, receive antenna height and directivity, and any intervening 
obstacles such as walls or terrain.
60
See discussion above, paras. 10-11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
11
taken into consideration this goal of minimizing interference to existing deployments or systems of Part 
15 devices.
61
In reviewing Progeny’s submissions, we examine whether Progeny’s M-LMS system has 
been designed in a manner that reasonably minimizes the potential for interference to Part 15 operations.
62
  
Because we conclude that the field test requirement does not require an M-LMS licensee to demonstrate 
that its system would protect each individual unlicensed operation from interference, not every unlicensed 
device operating in the 902-928 MHz band needs to be evaluated; it is sufficient that a representative 
cross-section of the various types of devices that may be authorized for operation under the Part 15 rules 
for this band are evaluated.  We also consider whether the particular types of unlicensed devices 
authorized under the Part 15 rules are able to make adjustments or take other steps to minimize or avoid 
receiving interference from the M-LMS system, as is incumbent with their unlicensed status.  For the 
various users of unlicensed Part 15 devices in the 902-928 MHz band, the potential for interference is 
ever present, and has been since they have operated in the band.  Such users have long been aware that 
not only are they not entitled to interference protection from other users in this heavily used band, 
including licensed users, but also that they can and do experience interference from other unlicensed users 
under the Part 15 rules,
63
and that, given their unlicensed status, they may need to find ways to make 
necessary adjustments to their systems.  Accordingly, equipment manufacturers and users of unlicensed 
devices have shown much creativity and resourcefulness in designing new technologies and products that 
can operate successfully in this and other bands.
21. We find that Progeny’s M-LMS system design and the different sets of field testing 
submitted – which cover a wide variety of Part 15 devices in different proximities and configurations vis-
à-vis Progeny’s actual beacon transmissions on a fully deployed network – provide significant and 
sufficient data for us to evaluate the potential for interference.  We recognize that the potential exists for 
interference to certain devices or systems, but also are cognizant that the potential for interference to these 
devices already exists because a variety of different users operate in this spectrum.  Based on the evidence 
before us, we find that the potential for increased interference within the 902-928 MHz band that could 
result from commercial operation of Progeny’s M-LMS system will not create a significant detrimental 
effect overall on unlicensed operations in the band, and that the band therefore can continue to be used for 
such unlicensed operations consistent with their Part 15 status.  We therefore conclude that Progeny has 
satisfied the field test requirement so that it may commence commercial operations. The four sets of field 
tests that Progeny submitted collectively included more than 20 devices that encompass a representative 
variety of Part 15 devices operating in the 902-928 MHz band – including AMR equipment, fixed 
wireless broadband, RFID, wireless phones, emergency pendants, wireless speakers, and baby monitors.
64
  
The tested devices include each of the three categories of Part 15 device technologies authorized by the 
Commission’s rules – frequency hopping spread spectrum devices under Section 15.247(a)(1) (8 devices); 
                                                     
61
See discussion above, para. 11; LMS MO&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 13968 ¶ 69.  
62
That the field test requirement focuses on the M-LMS licensee’s system design also is implicit in the standard, 
which concerns whether the licensee’s system does not cause “unacceptable levels of interference” (emphasis 
added), not whether its system might, in some particular situation, cause “unacceptable interference” to particular 
Part 15 devices.  
63
For instance, manufacturers of unlicensed automatic meter reading (AMR) devices, which use spread spectrum 
technologies, have complained about potential for interference from unlicensed wireless internet service providers 
(WISPs) that deploy digitally modulated systems in the band. See Modification of Parts 2 and 15 of the 
Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Devices and Equipment Approval, Memorandum Opinion and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 11383, 11387-88 ¶¶ 13-15 (2007) (the two AMR 
manufacturers that complained were Landis+Gyr’s predecessor Cellnet and Itron).  
64
See generally Progeny/SMC Field Testing Report; Progeny/Itron Joint Field Testing Report; Progeny/Landis+Gyr 
Joint Field Testing Report; Progeny/WISPA Joint Field Testing Report.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
12
digitally modulated spread spectrum devices under Section 15.247(a)(2) (6 devices), and devices that 
comply with Section 15.249 (8 devices) – and provide an appropriately representative cross-section of 
Part 15 devices and systems that operate in the 902-928 MHz band.
22. Some commenters have requested that Progeny conduct additional field tests on their 
specific unlicensed devices or specific types of unlicensed device applications.
65
  We believe that such 
additional testing is unnecessary because the tested devices are representative of the technologies 
typically employed for operation under Part 15 of the rules.  None of the commenters have shown that the 
additional devices for which they request testing are significantly different in technology from the 
previously tested devices, so testing these additional devices is unlikely to provide additional information 
pertinent to determining the potential of the Progeny system to cause unacceptable levels of interference.  
We also do not see the benefit of isolated field tests on numerous individual devices since thousands of 
unlicensed devices have been approved for operation in the 902-928 MHz band over the years,
66
and 
operational factors may affect whether interference occurs to a given device at different locations.
67
Testing more than a representative sample of unlicensed devices based on requests for testing of 
individual, but often similar devices could result in endless rounds of field tests and endless delays of
commercial M-LMS deployment.  Such testing would also effectively elevate unlicensed users to a form 
of interference protection that well exceeds their Part 15 status.
23. In evaluating whether Progeny’s network satisfies the field testing requirement, we first 
examine Progeny’s M-LMS system design.  Progeny is deploying a one-way beacon system that uses 
approximately half of its licensed spectrum (~four megahertz of its eight megahertz), which reduces the 
amount of spectrum its system uses and eliminates potential interference to Part 15 devices from the M-
LMS mobile transmissions that could have resulted from the two-way transmissions originally authorized 
under the rules.
68
  Each beacon in the Progeny network will not be transmitting continuously, thus 
providing opportunities for other spectrum users to access the spectrum.
69
  Further, Progeny plans to 
deploy a high site, low density network that would minimize the number of transmitters used in its 
network and potentially lower interference to many Part 15 devices.  Accordingly, we find that Progeny’s 
system design is consistent with core purposes of the field testing, which is to ensure that the M-LMS 
licensee has minimized, not eliminated, the potential for M-LMS interference to Part 15 operations 
overall so that the band will continue to be used for unlicensed operations consistent with their Part 15 
status.
70
                                                     
65
See, e.g., Letter from Gordon Foyster and Chris Andrews, Taggle Systems, WT Docket No. 11-49 (April 15, 
2013); Letter from Laura Stefani, Counsel for Inovonics Wireless Corp., WT Docket No. 11-49 (April 16, 2013; 
Letter from David Malkin, GE Digital Energy, WT Docket No. 11-49 (April 26, 2013; Letters from Paul 
Sinderbrand, Counsel for Plantronics, Inc., WT Docket No. 11-49 (April 17, 2013; May 6, 2013).
66
Over the last five years (since May 2008), the Commission has approved approximately 2200 unlicensed devices 
for operation in the 902-928 MHz band.  Of these, approximately half are spread spectrum devices and half are 
lower power devices.  Over the last thirty years (since May 1993), the Commission has approved approximately 
6200 unlicensed devices for operation in the 902-928 MHz band. However, the Commission does not collect 
information on which approved devices (or the number of units of an approved device) actually enter the market or 
continue to be operated. 
67
See supra note 59.
68
Limited Waiver Order, 26 FCC Rcd at 16884-16885 ¶¶ 14-19.  
69
See Progeny Request, Attachment 1 at 1; see also note 45, above.
70
See discussion above, para. 11; LMS MO&O, 12 FCC Rcd at 13968 ¶ 69.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
13
24. The tests show that most unlicensed devices will continue to work as intended, even in 
cases where Progeny’s system can interfere to some degree.  Many unlicensed devices are already 
designed to adapt to interference by, for example, locating unoccupied bandwidth (either automatically or 
by re-tuning), reducing the distance between their transmitters and receivers, or adding additional 
transmitter links.  Further, Progeny’s system operates on only 4 (out of 26) megahertz in the band. 
25. The tests on frequency hopping spread spectrum devices (such as those used by AMR 
systems, Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems, and various alarm systems), show 
that in some instances there can be some reduction in the percentage of data packets successfully 
transmitted at a particular instant in time, but that the data packets get through over time because these 
devices are designed to operate on multiple channels and re-transmit as needed.  That is, these devices 
generally can adapt to the interference environment to function as intended by sending the data packets 
over available frequencies.  As discussed above, the Commission amended the rules for frequency 
hopping spread spectrum devices in 1997 to make it easier for manufacturers to develop devices that can 
avoid operating in the portions of the 902-928 MHz band used by the M-LMS.
71
26. As for digitally modulated devices, the tests also show that these devices continued to 
function.  For digitally modulated systems used by WISPs in particular, the tests show varying results but 
also continued functionality; for these systems, the worst-case scenarios occurred when WISP antennas 
were in close proximity to Progeny’s beacons.  WISP operations in rural and less dense areas are highly 
unlikely to be affected because Progeny is focusing its deployment in urban areas.  WISP deployments in 
urban areas may or may not be affected depending on the specific circumstances of the WISP 
communication link(s) and physical relationship to Progeny’s transmitters, and altering these specific 
circumstances and relationship to Progeny’s transmitters in order to address possible interference 
problems should be manageable in most instances.  The tested wireless broadband systems, for example,
had features that an operator can use to avoid received interference; specifically, both had the capability 
to select the operating frequency, and one had the capability to operate with different channel bandwidths.  
27. The tests also show that devices authorized under Section 15.249 of the rules, such as 
cordless telephones, baby monitors and wireless headphones and speakers, would continue to function in 
most cases.  In some instances audio noise could be heard in devices operating on the same frequency as 
the Progeny system at locations near a beacon.  However, the noise could generally be eliminated by 
changing a device’s channel if it had a tuning capability, or by moving the device’s transmitter and 
receiver closer together to provide a stronger desired signal at the receiver.
28. In sum, many Part 15 devices will adapt to Progeny’s operations because they are 
designed for operation in an interference environment.  We recognize that in certain instances some 
adjustments to a Part 15 system may be required.  Such adjustments are commonly required today in 
situations where new unlicensed devices begin operation in a frequency band with existing Part 15 
systems.  We also recognize that in certain instances a particular Part 15 device may not be able to operate 
in close proximity to a Progeny beacon and may lack the capability to tune to another frequency band 
because its manufacturer chose not to incorporate that capability.  Such devices may therefore require 
replacement with a device that operates on a different frequency.  However, the results showed that the 
three tested categories of Part 15 devices (frequency hopping spread spectrum devices under Section 
15.247(a)(1); digitally modulated spread spectrum devices under Section 15.247(a)(2), and devices that 
comply with Section 15.249) will generally coexist with the Progeny system and that Progeny has acted 
reasonably to minimize interference.  To reiterate, because the rules do not require Progeny to 
demonstrate that it has eliminated such interference, the continuing existence of some interference to 
                                                     
71
See discussion above, para. 12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
14
some Part 15 devices in some circumstances does not preclude our determination that Progeny has 
satisfied the Section 90.353(d) field test requirement.
29. Reporting and Monitoring Ongoing Deployment.  Based on the field testing before us, we 
permit Progeny to commence commercial operations.  At the same, given the heavy use of the 902-928 
MHz band by Part 15 unlicensed operations, particularly those that provide important services to the 
nation’s communications infrastructure, we believe it is important to monitor ongoing developments as 
Progeny continues to deploy its network and commence commercial operations.
72
  We are imposing 
certain conditions on Progeny that will help us to monitor these developments while also promoting the 
co-existence of its M-LMS operations in the 902-928 MHz band.  As we monitor commercial 
deployment, we recognize again that Part 15 users are permitted to operate in the band pursuant to the 
status associated with unlicensed use under our Part 15 rules, and that, as discussed above, particular 
unlicensed devices or systems are not entitled to interference protection from Progeny’s operations.
73
30. Progeny has offered certain assurances regarding steps it would take to address 
interference concerns that might arise as it deploys its commercial M-LMS network.
74
  Specifically, 
Progeny states that it will provide to the Commission reports every six months on the status of its buildout 
in each Economic Area license area, as well as on any complaints of unacceptable levels of interference to 
Part 15 devices and the steps that Progeny is taking (or has taken) to address these complaints.
75
  Progeny 
also states that it will create a website and toll-free help desk to enable Part 15 device users to notify 
Progeny and seek assistance in investigating and mitigating potential interference issues.  We agree that 
certain reporting requirements are appropriate, and that such a website would be helpful for both Progeny 
and unlicensed users.  In permitting Progeny to commence commercial operations, we require Progeny 
(1) to submit notification in this docket, by June 21, 2013, of the specific Economic Areas where Progeny 
already has completed the initial buildout of its network and is operating, and thereafter to submit such 
notifications for each additional Economic Area within 15 days after it begins operating,
76
(2) to establish 
a website and help desk (as described, above), and (3) to submit to us three reports over the next 18 
months – by December 6, 2013, June 6, 2014, and December 6, 2014 – regarding any interference 
complaints that it may receive.
31. Progeny also has stated that it will address potential concerns regarding unacceptable 
levels interference to Part 15 users at particular locations by working cooperatively with affected parties 
to mitigate the interference including potentially relocating M-LMS beacons (either horizontally, 
vertically, or to an entirely different location), substituting or modifying beacon antennas, or modifying 
antenna patterns, antenna heights, transmitter slot assignments, duty cycles, or a combination of these 
actions.
77
  Progeny also states that if it constructs beacons in rural areas, it will work directly with any 
WISP network operators utilizing the 902-928 MHz band to ensure that any interference is minimized and 
                                                     
72
We will monitor subsequent Progeny deployments to address the concern raised by commenters about the 
representative nature of Progeny’s network in San Jose, as well as concerns that may arise as Progeny deploys its 
network in additional areas of the country. See para. 16 & n.43, above.
73
See discussion in paras. 19-20 above.
74
Letter from Bruce A. Olcott, Counsel to Progeny LMS, LLC, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, Federal 
Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 11-49 (May 6, 2013) (Progeny May 6, 2013 Ex Parte).  
75
Id. at 2.
76
We define this initial buildout as the buildout necessary to meet the Commission’s initial construction benchmark 
for the licenses.  See C.F.R. § 90.155(d) (construct and place in operation a sufficient number of base stations that 
utilize multilateration location service to one-third of the Economic Area’s population). 
77
Progeny May 6, 2013 Ex Parte at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
15
does not preclude the continued provision of wireless broadband services to their customers.
78
  We expect 
commensurate levels of cooperation from unlicensed Part 15 users.  Specifically, we strongly urge 
Progeny and Part 15 users of this spectrum to work cooperatively to establish a process to identify and 
correct problems, consistent with the Commission’s framework for promoting use of the 902-928 MHz 
band by both M-LMS and unlicensed operations.  WTB and OET staff will closely monitor developments 
on an ongoing basis, and will assess what action, if any, would be appropriate under the circumstances for 
the parties to take to promote co-existence.  For example, we expect Part 15 users to take reasonable steps 
consistent with existing practice for unlicensed operations to remedy interference, such as adjusting the 
operating frequency of the device or adding additional links as necessary to achieve a desired level of 
performance.  Similarly, we expect Progeny to take reasonable steps to minimize, avoid, or remedy 
interference – such as adjusting the transmitter height, radiation pattern, reducing power, or altering duty 
cycle – at locations where a significant number of unlicensed users are affected.
32. Conclusion.  For the reasons discussed above, we find that Progeny has met the 
Commission’s requirements pertaining to field testing of Progeny’s M-LMS, as set forth in Section 
90.353(d), and we grant Progeny’s request to commence commercial operations of its M-LMS network in 
its license areas using the beacon network design tested in the field testing, subject to the conditions 
specified above. 
III. ORDERING CLAUSE
33. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 2, 4(i), 302a(a), 303(f), and 
303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 152, 154(i), 302a(a), 303(f), and 
303(r), and Section 90.353(d) of the Commission’s rules, 47 C.F.R. § 90.353(d), the request by Progeny 
LMS, LLC, to commence commercial operations of its M-LMS system is GRANTED to the extent 
discussed herein.
                                                     
78
Progeny May 6, 2013 Ex Parte at 2.  We also note that Progeny states that it will make its toll-free help desk 
available to non-multilateration LMS licensees, and in the event that non-mulilateration LMS licensees are utilizing 
the 919.75-921.75 MHz band, which is allocated both to M-LMS and non-multilateration LMS on a co-primary 
basis, Progeny will work with the non-multilateration licensees to ensure the cooperative use of the spectrum.  As 
we noted above, M-LMS and non-multilateration LMS licensees operating in this portion band are co-primary and 
already subject to specified cooperation requirements under the Commission’s rules.  See n.[51], above.  Because 
our rules already establish cooperation requirements applicable to these licensees, which continue to apply, we do 
not address issues relating to them in this order.  Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 13-78
16
34. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Progeny LMS, LLC, submit notification in this docket, 
by June 21, 2013, of the specific Economic Areas where Progeny already has completed the initial 
buildout of its network and is operating, that Progeny submit thereafter such notifications for each 
additional Economic Area within 15 days after it begins operating; that Progeny establish a website and 
toll-free help desk to enable users of unlicensed devices in the 902-928 MHz band to notify Progeny and 
seek assistance in investigating and mitigating potential interference issues; and that Progeny file three 
reports with the Commission – by December 6, 2013, June 6, 2014, and December 6, 2014 – regarding 
any interference complaints that it has received.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary