Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office of Economics and Analytics Seek Focused Additional Comment in 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Proceeding
| Published date | 23 July 2019 |
| Citation | 84 FR 35365 |
| Record Number | 2019-15749 |
| Section | Proposed rules |
| Court | Federal Communications Commission |
Federal Register, Volume 84 Issue 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 141 (Tuesday, July 23, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35365-35368]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15749]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1, 2, 25 and 27
[GN Docket No. 18-122; RM-11791; RM-11778; DA 19-678]
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, International Bureau, Office
of Engineering and Technology, and Office of Economics and Analytics
Seek Focused Additional Comment in 3.7-4.2 GHz Band Proceeding
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, we invite interested parties to supplement
the record to address issues raised by commenters in response to the
Commission's July 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Specifically,
among other issues, the Bureaus and Offices seek comment on proposed
auction-based approaches, other transition mechanisms to introduce new
[[Page 35366]]
flexible-use licensing in the band, appropriate repurposing
methodologies, Fixed Satellite Service earth station protection
criteria, and technical rules, as well as specifically seeking
additional comment on the recent filings by: ACA Connects--America's
Communications Association (ACA Connects), the Competitive Carriers
Association (CCA), Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter); AT&T; and
the Wireless internet Service Providers Association (WISPA), Google,
and Microsoft.
DATES: Comments are due on or before August 7, 2019; reply comments on
or before August 14, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by GN Docket No. 18-122,
by any of the following methods:
Federal Communications Commission's website: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: [email protected], phone: 202-418-0530
or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matthew Pearl of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at [email protected] or (202)418-2607.
For information regarding Initial Paperwork Reduction Act, contact
Cathy Williams, Office of Managing Director, at (202) 418-2918 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
document, DA 19-678, (WTB, IB, OET, OEA July 19, 2019), GN Docket No.
18-122, RM-11791, RM-11778. The complete text of this document, as well
as comments, reply comments, and ex parte submissions, is available for
public inspection and copying from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time
(ET) Monday through Thursday or from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. ET on Fridays
in the FCC Reference Information Center, 445 12th Street SW, Room CY-
A257, Washington, DC 20554. The complete text is available on the
Commission's website at http://wireless.fcc.gov, or by using the search
function on the ECFS web page at http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/.
Alternative formats are available to persons with disabilities by
calling the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530
(voice), (202) 418-0432 (tty).
Comment Filing Procedures
Pursuant to sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and replies on
or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document.
Comments and replies may be filed using the Commission's Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS).
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/. Filers
should follow the instructions provided on the website for submitting
comments. In completing the transmittal screen, filers should include
their full name, U.S. Postal Service mailing address, and the
applicable docket number, GN Docket No. 18-122.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number. Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery,
by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's
Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for
the Commission's Secretary must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445
12th Street SW, Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. The filing hours
are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. All hand deliveries must be held together
with rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be
disposed of before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail
must be addressed to 445 12th Street SW, Washington DC 20554.
People with Disabilities. To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 844-
432-2275 (videophone), or 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Initial Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Analysis
This document does not contain proposed information collection
requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law
104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Ex Parte Rules
Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this
document shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in
accordance with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex
parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with section
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by section 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Participants in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
[[Page 35367]]
Synopsis
1. By this document, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
International Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and Office
of Economics and Analytics (Bureaus and Offices) invite interested
parties to supplement the record to address issues raised by commenters
in response to the Commission's July 2018 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
in GN Docket No. 18-122 (33 FCC Rcd 6915) (Notice). In the document,
the Commission sought comment on several approaches, including auction-
based approaches, for making some or all of the 3.7-4.2 GHz band (C-
Band) available for terrestrial, flexible use. The Commission also
sought comment on other issues essential to the introduction of new
terrestrial wireless services in the band, including incumbent
protection criteria, technical and licensing rules, and appropriate
methodologies for transitioning or protecting existing Fixed Satellite
Service and Fixed Service operators in the band.
2. In response to the document, commenters proposed auction-based
approaches and other transition mechanisms to introduce new flexible-
use licensing in the band. Commenters also espoused different views on
appropriate repurposing methodologies, Fixed Satellite Service earth
station protection criteria, technical rules, and other issues raised
in the document. The Bureaus and Offices seek additional comment on the
recent filings by: (1) ACA Connects--America's Communications
Association (ACA Connects), the Competitive Carriers Association (CCA),
Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter) (collectively, ACA Connects
Coalition); (2) AT&T; and (3) the Wireless internet Service Providers
Association (WISPA), Google, and Microsoft.
3. The ACA Connects Coalition, which collectively represents both
incumbent C-band earth station users and wireless providers that seek
to use this spectrum to provide 5G services, recently submitted a joint
proposal for repurposing a large portion of the C-band for 5G use.
Their proposal consists of three key elements that would make 370
megahertz of C-band spectrum available for flexible wireless use on a
nationwide basis: (1) A Commission-driven auction that would award new
terrestrial licenses and assign obligations for transition costs; (2) a
plan to transition certain Fixed Satellite Service earth station
operators to fiber; and (3) a plan for satellite operators to repack
remaining earth station users to the upper portion of the band.
4. Implementing such a proposal would entail a multi-step,
Commission-driven transition process. First, the Commission would
conduct an auction to award new flexible-use licenses--this could be a
traditional auction, such as an auction of overlay license rights, or
potentially an incentive auction. Under such an approach, bidders
acquiring new terrestrial licenses through the auction would be
required by rule to contribute to a fund that would cover the costs of
the fiber transition, reimburse satellite operators and their
customers, and further compensate operators and users. Incumbent earth
stations would be mandatorily relocated and repacked.
5. The remaining elements of the ACA Connects Coalition proposal
involve using the common pool of funds for a combination of
transitioning certain earth stations to fiber, repacking remaining
earth station users to the upper portion of the band, and providing
compensation to satellite providers. Video programmers and multichannel
video programming distributors (MVPDs) would transition the delivery of
video programming to MVPDs from C-band Fixed Satellite Service use to
terrestrial fiber delivery. Simultaneous with the MVPD transition,
satellite operators would repack services used by non-MVPD earth
station users, such as radio and television broadcasters, to the upper
portion of the C-band, and resources would be made available to protect
these remaining C-band customers from harmful interference by out-of-
band 5G emissions, using interference prevention measures such as
installing antenna filters, repointing antennas, and changing antennas'
frequencies or polarization. The common pool of funds would be used to
further compensate satellite operators for lost revenue resulting from
the transition to fiber. In the document, the Commission sought comment
on a similar hybrid approach to transition the band, whereby satellite
operators would relinquish their rights to a certain amount of spectrum
that would then be made available for terrestrial use nationwide, and
additional spectrum could be made available on a geographic basis in
areas where it is cost-efficient to transition earth stations to other
forms of transmission, such as fiber. The Commission noted that fiber
is most prevalent in urban areas, and sought comment on whether it
would be feasible to transition certain regions based on the existence
of fiber, and if so, how such a transition could be accomplished. The
Bureaus and Offices seek comment on each of the elements of the ACA
Connects Coalition proposal, both individually and as a package, and
how each element could further the Commission's goal of maximizing the
terrestrial use of this spectrum while protecting incumbent earth
station users.
6. The Bureaus and Offices also seek comment on the viability of
variants on the ACA Connects Coalition approach. For example, the
Bureaus and Offices seek comment on mandatory relocation and repacking
requirements that would use fiber delivery (potentially redundant fiber
delivery) but maintain the C-band delivery of MVPD video programming
via non-urban ``super'' head-ends. How much spectrum could be cleared--
nationwide or regionally--using this approach? What transport
facilities would be required to transmit video content from
consolidated earth station receive sites (i.e., satellite dish farms)
to endpoints closer to existing receive-only earth stations or would
the data centers just bypass satellite dish farms? How would the number
and location of those consolidated receive sites be determined and who
would own and operate those sites? How would sufficient network
reliability be achieved? Is complete network redundancy necessary or
can required reliability levels be achieved through other means? Should
winning bidders have the option to build the redundant fiber themselves
(or agree amongst themselves on who should build the redundant fiber)
rather than contribute to a pool? The Bureaus and Offices seek comment
on the likely costs of constructing and maintaining fiber networks and
interconnecting the head-ends to ensure fiber delivery to the locations
of existing earth stations. To what extent is fiber readily available
to all affected end users? How and to what extent should the costs of
the fiber transition be addressed? How could the Commission best align
the incentives of those building any fiber delivery routes with those
required to pay for such routes? More broadly, what if any rights to
mandatorily relocate and repack existing earth stations should accrue
to any new terrestrial licensees? What obligations should redound with
such rights--for example, what costs must be covered by any such
licensees (and particularly are a lost opportunity to receive revenues
a valid cost for these purposes)? The Bureaus and Offices also seek
comment on how long it would take to implement this transition.
7. In addition, the Bureaus and Offices seek comment on appropriate
characteristics of the licenses that could be offered at auction to
promote a transition and accomplish the type of
[[Page 35368]]
geographic clearing and fiber transition described in the ACA Connects
Coalition Proposal or through centralized earth station receive sites.
Would these approaches work better with particular license parameters
(i.e., larger geographic license areas) and service rules that differ
from those proposed in the document? The Bureaus and Offices also seek
comment on how the Commission's approaches during the AWS-3 and 800 MHz
transitions might inform this proceeding. For example, should the
Commission designate a Transition Administrator or require the creation
of a clearinghouse to facilitate the sharing of the costs for mandatory
relocation and repacking? The Bureaus and Offices seek comment on these
and any other relevant issues in the record.
8. On May 23, 2019, AT&T submitted comments responding to the C-
Band Alliance's proposed technical criteria for operations in the band,
particularly with respect to co-existence with incumbent Fixed
Satellite Service earth stations. AT&T asserts that the C-Band
Alliance's proposed technical criteria would constrain 5G deployment,
and it proposes an alternate band plan to address its concerns. AT&T
recommends dividing the 3.7-4.2 GHz band into three segments: (1) A
largely unrestricted mobile terrestrial 5G segment in the bottom of the
band (``Unrestricted Licenses''); (2) ``Adjacent Licenses'' in the
middle of the band that would have to coordinate with or mitigate
impact on Fixed Satellite Service; and (3) remaining Fixed Satellite
Service spectrum in the top of the band. Unrestricted Licenses could
operate using full power and would not be obligated to coordinate with
Fixed Satellite Service earth stations; Adjacent Licenses would operate
using lower power or subject to other limitations, or would be
obligated to coordinate with nearby Fixed Satellite Service earth
stations. AT&T also describes a number of technical issues that would
benefit from further analysis in the record, including technical
criteria necessary to determine appropriate protection thresholds for
in-band and adjacent band Fixed Satellite Service earth stations,
receiver filter performance, the ongoing operational needs of Fixed
Satellite Service earth stations in the band, and out-of-band emission
limits for terrestrial wireless devices.
9. On July 15, 2019, WISPA, Google, and Microsoft filed a study
conducted by Reed Engineering, which analyzed Fixed Satellite Service
and fixed wireless point-to-multipoint co-channel coexistence in the
3.7-4.2 GHz band. Among other conclusions, the Reed Study suggests that
exclusion zones of about 10 kilometers are sufficient to protect most
Fixed Satellite Service earth stations from harmful interference caused
by properly-engineered co-channel point-to-multipoint broadband
systems. The propagation model used in the study relied on Fixed
Satellite Service earth station characteristics that require them to
point upwards towards the geostationary satellite arc. Thus, the earth
stations are specifically designed to mitigate their response to
signals arriving from the horizon, such as terrestrial point-to-
multipoint links. Additionally, the study relied on the directional
nature of fixed service antennas and clutter to assume reduced
emissions at earth stations.
10. The Bureaus and Offices seek comment on the technical issues
raised by the ACA Connects Coalition proposal, AT&T's proposal, and the
Reed Study, and on the questions raised therein. Specifically, what are
the appropriate interference thresholds and protection criteria, how
should they be modeled, and under what deployment assumptions? That is,
how should protection criteria be calculated and implemented to achieve
both in-band and adjacent band Fixed Satellite Service protections
through coordination or other protection mechanisms? Should these
criteria differ for telemetry, tracking, and command earth stations?
Given the needs of next-generation wireless networks and the need to
ensure continuity of service for current users of Fixed Satellite
Service earth stations, what are the appropriate technical parameters
for terrestrial base stations and end user devices in the band,
including transmit power limits and out-of-band emission limits? The
Bureaus and Offices also seek comment on suggestions by the ACA
Connects Coalition, AT&T, and the Reed Study on ways to increase
efficient shared use of the C-band through validation of earth station
filters, protection zones around stations, analysis of the relevant
parameters of earth stations for protection (e.g., elevation angles,
range of pointing angles, and frequencies that are used), and other
technical matters. For example, which filters are actually realizable
and available to achieve the sharing goals of the various proposals? Is
it possible to achieve the short-term sharing goals of the proposals
given the need to retrofit multiple types of Fixed Satellite Service
earth station front-end elements (e.g., Low Noise Block downconverter/
filter) and the susceptibility of Fixed Satellite Service receivers to
Passive Intermodulation?
11. The Bureaus and Offices also seek comment on appropriate
parameters to manage co-existence of terrestrial stations with earth
stations during any band transition where differing amounts of spectrum
might be cleared during different time periods for nearby geographic
areas. For example, ACA Connects suggests creating a zone where mobile
handsets may have operating restrictions and another zone where base
station power flux density would be limited. AT&T suggests that either
lower power terrestrial stations or coordination procedures could be
used to manage terrestrial operations on spectrum adjacent to fixed
satellite service operations. Under either of these proposals, what
technical parameters regarding power levels, power flux density levels,
and coordination procedures are appropriate to achieve co and adjacent
band operation during and after any transition period? The Bureaus and
Offices also seek additional quantitative analysis and over-the-air
field test results to strengthen the record on the service impact of
specific interference levels, with results that can be independently
reproduced by third parties.
12. Over the past year, a robust and diverse record has been
developed in this proceeding, providing new insights into the issues
raised in the document. To ensure that the Commission has the
information it needs to complete its deliberations, the Bureaus and
Offices seek comment on the specific questions raised above. To that
end, all commenters are encouraged to provide detailed proposals,
including technical assessments, cost benefit analyses, and projected
timelines to support their positions.
Federal Communications Commission.
Amy Brett,
Associate Chief, Competition and Infrastructure Policy Division,
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
[FR Doc. 2019-15749 Filed 7-22-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
