1 Spectrum Management 2007 Industry Association Roundtable Paul J. Sinderbrand Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP

2 Wireless Communications Association Represents Wireless Broadband Service Providers and Manufacturers Primary Current WCA Focus 700 MHz WCS BRS/EBS MHz 24 GHz, LMDS and 39 GHz Above 70 GHz

3 WCS-DARS Coexistence WCS at / MHz) Is Poised To Become A Home To WiMAX e Services, but... DARS Terrestrial Repeater Technical Limits Must Be Adopted To Protect WCS From Interference. WCS OOBE Limits Are More Restrictive Than Necessary To Protect DARS And Must Be Loosened.

4 WCS ( / MHz) A BlockB BlockC BlockSirius XM D BlockA BlockB Block SDARS Repeater SDARS RepeaterSDARS 5 MHz 4.2 MHz4.1 MHz 4.2 MHz3.725 MHz 5.06 MHz MHz5 MHz Lower WCSUpper WCSDARS

5 DARS Terrestrial Repeaters Ten years after DARS first authorized to use “gap fillers,” FNPRM is still pending on technical rules. Evidence is clear that high-powered DARS repeaters can result in intermodulation and blanketing interference to WCS. In 2001, FCC granted XM and Sirius STAs allowing terrestrial operations (40,000 Watts EIRP in some cases), subject to obligation to cure interference to WCS. WCS is prepared to compromise in development of final rules that promote coexistence, but DARS insistence of grandfathering all existing repeaters, without protection obligation, is a non-starter.

6 WCS OOBE Limits OOBE limits between 2320 MHz and 2345 MHz were adopted in 1997 before WCS or DARS technologies were settled: Fixed stations: log (p) dB Mobile stations: log (p) dB FCC has indicated a willingness to revisit OOBE. Restrictions effectively preclude use of C and D Blocks for mobile and impose undue economic costs on A and B Blocks. Onerous limits are not necessary to protect DARS.

7 2.5 GHz Restructuring FORMER PLAN

8 2.5 GHz – Benefits of Rebanding Accommodate demand for high-power video and data transmissions in MBS Separate video from cellularized data to protect both against interference 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 Flexible use technical rules allow FDD and TDD to coexist but require innovative approaches to avoidance of interference

9 Flexibility/Protection Adjacent Channel Interference Standard log (P) spectral mask not sufficiently protective when non-synchronized technologies involved. WCA proposed dual mask: log (P) certification mask 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 protection only required 60 days after showing of “documented interference”. And, FCC limited complaints to first adjacent channel licensee despite acknowledging that threat can come from beyond first adjacent channel. WCA Petition for Reconsideration filed 7/16/06 and is pending

10 WCA Petition for Reconsideration Provide more rapid response to documented OOBE interference: Require compliance with the more restrictive mask within 24 hours where a new or modified base station interferes with an existing base station; Require a cure within 24 hours where an existing base station suffers interference from an outdoor user station and within 14 days where a new or newly-modified base station suffers such interference; Provide that in other cases of documented interference from a user station to a base station, both licensees have an obligation to cooperate in good faith to reasonably mitigate the interference. Provide all licensees, not just first adjacent channel licensee, with standing to submit documented OOBE interference complaint.

11 Flexibility/Protection Cochannel Interference Limiting signal strength at service area 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 (where D is distance to GSA boundary) 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?

12 WCA Petition for Reconsideration If interfering base station is new or newly- modified, it must limit received signal at victim base station to -107 dBm/5.5 MHz within 24 hours; If pre-existing base station causes interference to a new or newly-modified base station, it must limit received signal at victim base station to -107 dBm/5.5 MHz within 90 days.

13 BRS Relocation From MHz Ninth Report and Order in ET Docket No Fails To Protect Incumbents FCC imposes relocation obligation only on cochannel AWS Adjacent channel interference must be cured by AWS, but only after the fact – jeopardizing existing operations! FCC should require prior coordination by AWS with BRS under Section (d) notice and response system, just as AWS must do with point-to-point microwave

14 BRS Relocation From MHz Since AWS has 15 years to relocate BRS, FCC must permit BRS to increase throughput entitled to relocation during interim. BRS incumbents should be permitted to “self- relocate” just as point-to-point microwave can. Rules governing process must be revisited: Incumbent should be entitled to select and deploy comparable facilities (subject to pre- construction process to avoid gold-plating). Internal costs must be recoverable. Incumbent should get pre-payment to avoid having to fund its own involuntary relocation.

GHz BRS Relocation MHz cannot be shared with BAS – SBE and others have pending proposals for digitizing and repacking BAS in MHz band. Sharing with MSS FCC’s adoption of hard limits on satellite PFD using ITU coordination triggers designed for analog radio relay systems does not provide sufficient protection. US proposals in WRC process are more restrictive and should be adopted. Globalstar petition for rulemaking to allow ATC in MHz fails to provide protection for BRS channel 1. FCC denied BRS 1/2 ability to transmit on old and new channels simultaneously to provide seamless migration.

MHz 3/16/05 R&O in ET Docket No 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

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

GHz – The Problems FSS protection too conservative “Contention based protocol” requirement doesn’t avoid interference FCC reluctant to adopt a single CPB Even if and adopt CPBs, they will not avoid interference between Wi-Fi and WiMAX systems Interference rules deter investment – worse than being secondary “every effort” vs. no protection Obligation of first in to resolve interference to newcomers FCC may be poised to act on reconsideration Retain existing rules License some or all of band Adopt alternative “light license” approach

19 THANK YOU! Paul J. Sinderbrand Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP