1. Industry Association Roundtable
Spectrum Management 2006
Industry Association Roundtable
Paul J. Sinderbrand
Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP

2. 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.

3. GHz Restructuring
FORMER PLAN

4. 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.

5. 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 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

6. 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

7. 2.1 GHz BRS Relocation
Relocation of BRS 1 and 2 – 4/21/06 Ninth Report and Order in ET Docket No
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.

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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.

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