NPSTC Regulatory Update September/October 2010

National Public Safety Telecommunications Council
Regulatory Update
September/October 2010

FCC Seeks Comment on 700 MHz Narrowband "Flexibility"
The FCC is seeking comment on whether or not to allow public safety agencies the flexibility to use the existing 700 MHz narrowband spectrum for broadband operations. The Public Notice observes that there is great interest in deploying broadband networks as evidenced by the many broadband early deployment waivers that have been filed over the past several months. While a few public safety representatives have indicated that the community could eventually migrate entirely to broadband technologies, the majority of the public safety community stress that access to sufficient narrowband spectrum is and will continue to be of critical importance to existing communications systems.

The Commission is seeking detailed, quantitative comments on the current and planned narrowband deployments at 700 MHz, and, if broadband were permitted, the potential for interference to those deployments, the impact on interoperability and equipment development in the band. The FCC is particularly interested in comments from states and Regional Planning Committees (RPCs).

Specific comment is sought on:

• How widely are the state license, the general use narrowband RPC-controlled frequencies and the interoperability frequencies being used?
• What are the plans for future deployments in the narrowband spectrum? What are the timeframes? Has funding been allocated?
• Are agencies planning both narrowband and broadband deployments in the same area?
• Will the systems share infrastructure or other resources? What are the cost differentials?
• Would flexibility to deploy broadband in the narrowband and/or guard band be a more efficient use of the 700 MHz spectrum? Could this flexibility help to meet the demand for broadband spectrum? Could it help to meet the demand for narrowband capacity over time?

If the Commission were to permit flexible use of the narrowband spectrum, would this cause interference to incumbent or future narrowband deployments? Would guard bands be necessary? What coordination or interference protection criteria would allow both narrowband and broadband systems to operate in adjacent spectrum in the same area; or co-channel in adjacent areas? Comments containing detailed technical information on likely interference scenarios as well as mitigation strategies are sought.

How would "narrowband flexibility" impact nationwide narrowband interoperability?
Would the 700 MHz band plan have to be reconfigured to move the interoperability frequencies to another portion of the band or would the narrowband interoperability frequencies as currently designated be sufficient to maintain interoperability? If an area does not deploy narrowband 700 MHz systems, could interoperability frequencies in other bands be used for narrowband interoperability?

If "narrowband flexibility" is permitted, should a certain portion of the narrowband and/or guard band allocation be retained exclusively for narrowband operations?

What role would the 700 MHz RPCs and states play in the deployment of "narrowband flexibility"? What's the proper jurisdictional level to decide whether or not to implement flexibility? How would flexibility impact existing 700 MHz Regional Plans? Should RPCs/states be required to coordinate flexible deployments?

What impact would flexible deployment have on the development of equipment in the 700 MHz public safety band? Would it create incentives for the development of devices capable of operating in either mode? Would such devices be software defined or programmable? How would interference and interoperability issues be addressed?

If flexible use of the narrowband spectrum is permitted, should the FCC re-address the existing narrowband 6.25 kHz efficiency deadlines?

Comments are due December 3; Replies are due January 7, 2011. The text of the PN is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0928/DA-10-1877A1.doc

700 MHz D Block Spectrum Call to Action
The public safety community has made significant progress recently in its initiative to have the 700 MHz D block spectrum reallocated for public safety broadband use. The next few weeks will be critical to overall success on this issue. Leading public safety and local/state government associations are urging cities, counties and states to contact their respective U.S. Senators now to support S. 3756, the Public Safety Spectrum and Wireless Innovation Act of 2010. This bill, recently introduced by Senator Jay Rockefeller, would reallocate the D block spectrum for public safety broadband use, provide $5.5 billion in funding to deploy public safety broadband systems nationwide, and up to an additional $5.5 billion for operations and maintenance. Unless Congress adopts legislation to reallocate the D block spectrum, it will be auctioned for commercial use.

Senator Rockefeller's bill builds on the growing support in Congress from Senators Joe Lieberman and John McCain who introduced S. 3625; Representatives Peter King and Yvette Clarke who introduced H.R. 5081, which now has more than 68 cosponsors; and Representative Henry Waxman, whose draft language was the catalyst for identifying funding to build out and maintain a nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network. Senator Rockefeller's bill S.3756 is expected to be the focal point for action since he chairs the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, which has jurisdiction over communications policy issues.

Additional information and resource tools to help you take action on this issue are available from the Public Safety Alliance at http://www.psafirst.org/

Comment Sought on 23 Additional Broadband Early Deployment Waivers
The FCC has placed 23 additional broadband early deployment waivers on Public Notice seeking comment on the merits of those waivers and specifically seeking comment on:

• Eligibility of the waiver applicants under the Section 337 of the Communications Act. How can the FCC address waivers where some of the waiver signatories are utilities or others whose "sole or principal purpose" is the protection of "life, health or property" and do not meet the other requirements of Section 337 (services not provided to the public for profit)?
• Geographic overlap: Some of the waiver requests overlap one another or previously granted waivers. How can the FCC ensure that any implementation conflicts are resolved? In the decision granting the original waivers, the FCC indicated its preference for state applicants and required non-state waiver grantees to obtain consent from and coordinate deployments with the states. Should similar requirements be imposed on the waiver applicants?
• Timing and volume of waiver requests received. Should the FCC limit the number of early deployment waivers granted? Number of waiver grantees impacts the number of Public Land Mobile Network (PLMN) IDs required. Should the FCC: Require waiver applicants to consolidate, or wait until interoperability rules are adopted before proceeding?
• Impact of additional waivers on PSST budget. How would additional waiver grantees impact the budget prepared by the PSST? Should new waiver grantees pay the same fees as the original grantees? Should a new or modified budget be submitted?

Comment is sought on the following waivers:

1. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Dept., Washoe County Sheriff's Department, the Washoe Regional Communications System, the Nevada Department of Transportation and NV Energy
2. Nassau County, NY
3. Georgia Broadband Alliance
4. Fairfax County, VA
5. The State of Maryland
6. City of Chicago, IL
7. State of Florida
8. Seattle Urban Area Partners, including the Cities of Seattle and Tacoma and surrounding counties and the State of Washington
9. State of Oklahoma
10. City of Tucson, AZ
11. Three in Texas: Greater Harris County TX 9-1-1 Emergency Network; Harris County, TX; State of Texas
12. Three in Louisiana: Louisiana Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee; New Orleans Urban Area Security Initiative Region 1; and City of Baton Rouge, LA
13. Eight in Pennsylvania: Adams, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Lebanon, Perry & York Counties, PA (the South Central Task Force); City of Philadelphia and counties of Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery, PA, (Southeastern Pennsylvania Regional Task Force); Delaware County, PA; Bucks County, PA; County of Chester, PA; City of Philadelphia, PA; and Lackawanna County, PA.


FCC Makes Unused TV Spectrum Available for Unlicensed Devices
In September, the FCC released a decision addressing several Petitions for Reconsideration filed in the "TV White Space" decision of 2008. In the News Release, the FCC announced that it had taken action to provide access to vacant TV channels - TV White Space - to unlicensed devices that could provide "super Wi-Fi", access to broadband in rural areas, support for the smart grid, wireless monitoring of water supplies as well as additional broadband capacity on campuses and in the home.

In any given area, there are usually several TV channels not in operation in order to prevent co- and/or adjacent channel interference or due to lack of demand or other factors. These unused TV channels could be used by other, lower powered devices using lower antenna heights without causing interference to operational TV stations. The trick is knowing which TV channels are not being used in a specific geographic area. The TV White Space Devices (TVBDs) are required to protect existing full power TV stations, low power TV stations, TV translators, TV booster stations, wireless microphone operators, wireless telemetry operations, wireless remote control operations, radio astronomy on Channel 37 and, in 11 cities, incumbent land mobile radio operations.

The FCC made the following decisions:

• Retain use of R6602 curves to calculate protected TV station contours
• Affirmed the decision to protect low power TV stations to the same signal contour as full-power TV stations
• Reserved two additional TV channels for wireless microphones
• Unlicensed wireless microphones and other low power auxiliary devices will not be registered in the TV bands database and will not be protected from interference from TVBDs. The Commission will develop a TV bands database registration form that can be filed using one of the FCC's electronic filing systems. Unlicensed wireless microphone sites can apply to register in the TV bands database if they cannot be accommodated in the available TV channels at the location. Must certify that they are using the reserved channels and all other available non-TVBD channels
• TVBDs may not operate within 1 km of low power auxiliary stations
• Clarified that all multi-channel video programming distributors (MVPDs) will receive protection not just cable headends
• Eliminated the requirement that TVBDs be able to sense analog and digital TV signals, wireless microphones, and other low power TV auxiliary stations. Is not necessary to protect wireless microphones because these can be registered in the database. The geo-location and database access method will provide sufficient protection.
• Retained the opportunity for authorization and operation of "sensing-only" devices under a proof of performance standard. Want to encourage develop of spectrum sensing technology
• Removing the minimum fixed antenna height requirement
• Adding a requirement that Mode I devices either contact or receive a signal from a fixed or Mode II device at least once a minute to verify that it is still operating on an available TV channel
• Adopting power spectrum density limits for TVBDs
• Restricting fixed TVBDs from operating at locations where the HAAT is greater than 76 meters(249 feet)
• Including Canadian and Mexican TV stations along the US border in the TV bands database so that TVBDs can protect their operations
• Declined to set aside TV channels for fixed license backhaul

The text of the News Release is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0923/DOC-301650A1.doc
The full text of the decision is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0924/FCC-10-174A1.doc


Eighteen Month Band Reconfiguration in Puerto Rico Began September 20
In May the Commission adopted the new 800 MHz band plan for Puerto Rico and tasked the Transition Administrator to develop a detailed implementation plan and timeline to accomplish band reconfiguration. The FCC has released a Public Notice adopting the TA's recommendations, announcing the start of 800 MHz band reconfiguration in Puerto Rico and establishing certain deadlines:

• The 18 Month Transition Period began September 20 and consists of two phases: Stage 1: Incumbents on Channels 1-120 will relocate to make room. Stage 2: NPSPAC incumbents relocate down 15 MHz; high-site incumbents will relocate from the ESMR band into the interleaved spectrum; site-based licensees that are part of an EA election relocate into the ESMR band; and Stage 3: (if necessary) Preferred Communications Systems Inc. and Preferred Acquisitions Inc. will be relocated to the ESMR band.
• Mandatory negotiations began September 20 and will end December 20, 2010
• Cost estimates provided to Sprint Nextel no later than October 20, 2010
• Mediation will begin December 21, 2010 and end on February 3, 2011
• The application freeze began on August 23 and will conclude on February 3, 2011
• Band reconfiguration is targeted for completion by March 19, 2012

The band plan for the Virgin Islands has not been finalized but licensees in the Virgin Islands were encouraged to submit cost estimates and begin negotiations at the same time as Puerto Rico. The text of the Public Notice is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0915/DA-10-1739A1.doc

800 News: Application Freeze Reinstated in Canadian Border Regions
In order to preserve vacant 800 MHz frequencies needed by licensees retuning their systems in accordance with the Canadian border band plan, the FCC has reinstated the application filing freeze in the following NPSPAC Regions (and sites within 70 miles of these Regions): Region 19 (New England); Region 21 (Michigan); Region 30 (Eastern New York State); Region 33 (Ohio); Region 36 (Western Pennsylvania); Region 43 (Washington State); and Region 55 (Western New York State).

The application filing freeze is in effect immediately and will last until either April 14, 2011 or until the FCC determines that accepting non-rebanding applications will have no effect on band reconfiguration efforts.

The filing freeze impacts applications for new systems as well as modifications to existing systems seeking to add frequencies or increase the existing coverage area. Applications for renewals, assignments of authorization, administrative updates will continue to be accepted. The Commission will closely monitor the progress of rebanding in the seven impacted Regions and will lift the freeze sooner than April 14, 2011 if conditions warrant. The FCC will also accept applications for Special Temporary Authorizations (STAs) to expand existing systems if sufficient justification is provided.

The text of the Public Notice is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0820/DA-10-1566A1.doc

Negotiations Extended for Wave 4 Incumbents on Mexican Border
Because an agreement with the Mexican government on a new 800 MHz band plan has not been reached, the FCC has again extended the 800 MHz rebanding negotiation periods for Wave 4 NPSPAC and non- NPSPAC incumbents located in the Mexican border as follows:
• Negotiation period will end on January 3, 2011
• Mediation will begin on January 4, 2011
• Application filing freeze will end on February 15, 2011

The text of the Public Notice is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0930/DA-10-1888A1.doc

Comment Sought on Cybersecurity Roadmap
The FCC is preparing a Cybersecurity Roadmap to identify the five most critical vulnerabilities in communications networks. The Commission plans to develop a two year Plan to address those threats. Public comment is sought on:
• What are the greatest cybersecurity threats and how can they be addressed?
• What role does the FCC play?
• If not the FCC, what federal agency should be involved?
Comments were due September 23, 2010. The Commission targets completion of the Cybersecurity Roadmap by November, 2010. The text of the Public Notice is available at:
http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0809/DA-10-1354A1.doc

700 MHz Regional Planning Update
The FCC placed three 700 MHz Regional Plans on Public Notice during September:
• Region 4 (Arkansas) on September 8. Comments were due September 28; Replies October 8. The text of the Public Notice is available at: http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0908/DA-10-1704A1.doc
• Region 23 (Mississippi) on September 28. Comments are due October 18; Replies October 28. The text of the Public Notice is available at: http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/db0928/DA-10-1878A1.doc
• Region 49 (Texas-Austin) on September 29, 2010 Comments are due October 19; Replies October 29. The text of the Public Notice is available at: http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-10-1879A1.doc

Until the Regions have developed their plans and had those plans approved by the FCC, no licenses (other than state-wide licenses on the 2.4 MHz state allocation at 700 MHz) can be granted at 700 MHz. The NCC Implementation Subcommittee Regional Planning documents can be found on the NPSTC website at www.npstc.org/documents/html. Fifty-four of the fifty-five Regions have either held or set the date for their first meeting. One Region has selected a convener but not yet set a date for the first planning meeting. Thirty-five Regional Plans have been approved; three Regional Plans are now pending.

---

NPSTC is a federation of organizations whose mission is to improve public safety communications and interoperability through collaborative leadership.

---

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials -- American Radio Relay League -- Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies -- Association of Public Safety Communications Officials -- Forestry Conservation Communications Association -- International Association of Chiefs of Police -- International Associate of Emergency Managers -- International Association of Fire Chiefs -- International Municipal Signal Association -- National Association of State Chief Information Officers -- National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials -- National Association of State Foresters -- National Association of State Technology Directors -- National Sheriffs' Association -- National Emergency Number Association