Industry Association Roundtable Spectrum Management 2006 Industry Association Roundtable Paul J. Sinderbrand Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 202.783.4141 psinderbrand@wbklaw.com

Wireless Communications Association Represents Wireless Broadband Service Providers and Manufacturers Primary Current Focus 700 MHz WCS BRS/EBS 24 GHz, LMDS and 39 GHz Above 70 GHz What I am going to do for the next few minutes is focus on 3 proceedings where the FCC has addressed spectrum management issues in ways that I think will have some broader applicability.

2004 2.5 GHz Restructuring FORMER PLAN

2.5 GHz – Benefits of Rebanding Accommodate demand for high-power video and data transmissions in MBS De-interleaved Lower Band Segment (LBS) and Upper band Segment (UBS) provide large, contiguous blocks of spectrum with good upstream/downstream separation and natural pairings Separate video from cellularized data to protect both against interference Flexible use technical rules allow FDD and TDD to coexist but require innovative approaches to avoidance of interference WCA/NIA/CTN 2002 proposal advanced two new concepts for managing spectrum usage. We recognized that FDD/TDD co-existence is problematic, as is TDD/TDD coexistence where the two systems are not clock synchronized. The most serious problem, in either case, is the potential for base-to-base interference that occurs when one base is transmitting either cochannel or adjacent channel while the other base is receiving. The FCC’s 2004 decision didn’t fully adopt the WCA’s proposals. And, in the Reconsideration Order released on April 27, the FCC held firm. The result, unfortunately, is a missed opportunity to provide incumbent operators with the interference protection they and their customers need.

Flexibility/Protection Adjacent Channel Interference Standard 43 + 10 log (P) spectral mask not sufficiently protective when non-synchronized technologies involved WCA proposed dual mask 43 + 10 log (P) certification mask 67 + 10 log (P) dB operational mask measured 3 MHz and beyond, but only upon request of other licensee in market, who must also meet tighter mask FCC adopted dual mask, but 4/27/06 Reconsideration Order confirms protection only upon showing of “documented interference” and after day 60 period And, FCC limited complaints to first adjacent channel licensee despite acknowledging that threat can come from beyond first adjacent channel

Flexibility/Protection Cochannel Interference Limiting signal strength at boundary to 47 dBµV/m does not protect base station from interference by non-synchronized cochannel base station Height benchmarking provides additional protection against base-to-base interference If height of antenna above average terrain along the radial between stations exceeds D²/17, station is outside of height benchmark Base station exceeding benchmark must restrict received signal level to -107 dBm or less at base station that is within benchmark 4/27/06 Reconsideration Order fails to address debate over process for relief – how long must interference be suffered? WCA proposed that if station outside benchmark was built first, it has 60 days to cure But if station was built second, it must cure within 24 hours of request

2.1 GHz BRS Relocation Relocation of BRS 1 and 2 – 4/21/06 Ninth Report and Order in ET Docket No. 00-258 FCC limits relocation obligation to cochannel AWS Adjacent channel interference must be cured by AWS, but only after the fact – jeopardizing existing operations! Comparable facilities need not be wireless Rules do not sunset for 15 years, but BRS is not compensated for increase in throughput during interim Nor can BRS self-relocate and then increase throughput Responsibilities governing involuntary relocation are not clearly spelled out Relocation of BRS 1/2 represents first time a consumer-based, point-to-multipoint service has been involuntarily relocation, and here it is being done by a potential competitor protection of consumer relationship While Ninth R&O purports to modify prior Emerging Technologies decisions to account for unique nature of service, reality is that FCC has shown a slavish devotion to the old PCS/microwave rules, even when clearly inappropriate. Responsibilities not clear who does subscribers how does operator get compensated how do you prevent anticompetitive conduct.

3650-3700 MHz 3/16/05 R&O in ET Docket No. 04-151 Innovative licensing system Unlimited number of nationwide licenses for entire 50 MHz Equipment must employ some “contention based protocol” Each higher power fixed and base station must be registered with FCC prior to use Unregistered low power mobile and portable stations permitted but must be authorized by a registered base station

3.6 GHz Interference Rules Gov’t radiolocation 80 km coordination zones FSS 150 km circular protection zones Intra-service protection Each terrestrial licensee must consult database prior to registration and make “every effort to ensure that [contemplated location and parameters] will minimize the potential to cause and receive interference” Yet, no terrestrial licensee is entitled to interference protection from another And, each terrestrial licensee must cooperate to avoid interference to others, even those that come later in time

3.6 GHz – The Problems FSS protection too conservative “Contention based protocol” requirement doesn’t avoid interference Interference rules deter investment “every effort” vs. no protection Obligation of first in to resolve interference to newcomers The interference protection rules are worse than being secondary Public is increasingly demand high QoS services that cannot be provided under the 3.6 GHz band licensing regime Solution is to provide for exclusive licensing of at least some of the band.

THANK YOU! Paul J. Sinderbrand Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP 202.783.4141 psinderbrand@wbklaw.com