Enterprise Wireless Insider, Vol. 10, No. 12

Really — How Many Channels Do You Need?

Last month, the Enterprise Wireless Alliance (EWA) filed a letter requesting clarification from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) seeking policy guidance regarding the number of channels that EWA should be authorized to certify when applicants seeking Business/Industrial Land Transportation (B/ILT) spectrum in the 800/900 MHz bands state that they intend to offer either a not-for profit, cost-shared Specialized Mobile Radio (SMR) service or plan to start a rental radio business. In the letter, EWA President Mark Crosby noted that, “Over decades, B/ILT applicants such as UPS, General Motors, American Airlines and even the local auto body shop generally have honored the FCC’s expectation that applicants not overstate the amount of spectrum they will need. . . . What is not clear is how those rules apply to B/ILT applicants that are proposing to provide service to eligible users on a not-for-profit or rental basis.” Hopefully, the FCC will require such applicants to prove that their businesses are reasonably successful before seeking additional spectrum capacity.

Why Not — FCC Denies Access to UHF Guard Band Channels

As part of a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) released this past August, the FCC has proposed to add certain UHF Guard Band channels that are situated between Private Land Mobile Radio Service (PLMRS) and Broadcast Auxiliary Service (BAS) spectrum and PLMRS and General Mobile Radio Service (GMRS) spectrum to the Part 90 Industrial/Business (I/B) frequency table. Prior to release of the NPRM, FCC had granted a number of waivers authorizing the use of these channels for narrowband operations that do not exceed 4 or 7 kHz and do not spectrally overlap adjacent BAS and GMRS channels. However, the FCC has also concluded that a number of other UHF Guard Band channels for which waivers were filed should not be made available for PLMR use. 

When comments are filed on November 22, EWA will suggest that any and all of the guard band channels should be made available subject to generally-accepted adjacent channel contour analyses conducted by reliable frequency advisory committees to protect incumbent operations from interference. 
  

Completing the Enforcement Bureau’s Top Ten List

This is the fifth and final installment of the Enforcement Bureau’s Investigations and Hearings Division “Top 10” issues that cause interference problems within the shared Part 90 bands.

#2    Control Channel Use in Trunked Systems on Shared Channels.... The control channel is perhaps the most critical piece of spectrum management within a centralized, hybrid or non-centralized trunked radio system.  Ideally, the control channel operates on an exclusive channel basis within fully-centralized or hybrid systems. When all of the channels within a trunked system are shared, recognized when no channels have the coveted FB8 code, serious interference to co-channel licensees sharing the control channel results, as no monitoring is taking place. 

#1    Monopolizing Shared Channels – Duty Cycles Greater than 95%.... If #2 above wasn’t a big enough issue in shared channel environments, excessive polling by a control channel on a shared channel is bad news.  The FCC has and will continue to issue fines for this practice.

FCC Seeks Comment on Sprint Waiver Request

On September 19, the FCC released a Public Notice seeking comment on a request for waiver of Section 90.209(b)(7) of the Commission’s rules filed by Sprint Corporation to permit 800 MHz broadband operations in portions of the Arizona National Public Safety Planning Advisory Committee (NPSPAC) Region (Region 3) before 800 MHz Band reconfiguration is completed. In the Waiver Request, Sprint seeks to use the 866-869 MHz portion of the band for broadband operations within eight NPSPAC Region 3 counties where Sprint claims the public safety licensees have or soon will successfully completed system retunes. Comments are due on October 19, and Reply Comments on November 3.

FCC Seeks Comments on FirstNet Opt-Out Procedures

On August 26, the FCC adopted a Report and Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in which it addressed several outstanding matters related to FirstNet. In addition to adopting rules governing the relocation of incumbent narrowband systems from what is now broadband spectrum, the FCC proposed opt-out procedures, including evaluation criteria and timelines, for states that wish to deploy their own Radio Access Networks (RANs). It also proposed criteria for considering FirstNet’s renewal application at the appropriate time. Comments on the NPRM are due on October 21 and Reply Comments on November 21.

Mexican Border Matters

On August 26, the FCC again extended until February 1, 2017, the freeze on the acceptance of new 800 MHz applications in the Mexican border region. Licensees seeking to add frequencies or expand contours on pre-rebanding frequencies may request Special Temporary Authority (STA), based on a public interest showing in accordance with the FCC’s previously announced standards. Those requesting additional channels or expanded contours on post-rebanding frequencies may request waivers of the freeze. In all cases, a letter of concurrence from the Transition Administrator (TA) is required in addition to other applicable licensing requirements.  To learn more about this process, please access “Can ‘Frozen’ Areas Thaw? Exploring the Use of Waivers.”

Thirteen Years Later

On September 1, in one of the longest-running Part 90 licensing disputes of all time, the FCC denied a National Science and Technology Network (NSTN) Application for Review, affirming the modification of certain NSTN licenses to delete T-Band frequencies that had been improperly coordinated back in 2003. No, that’s not a typo, the issue took thirteen years to address.  

False Distress Signals Receive Paltry Fine

There doesn’t seem to be a template that provides set forfeiture guidelines when the FCC issues Notices of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture (NALF). We have seen corporations trying to be good citizens receive fines in excess of hundreds of thousands of dollars, while citizens threatening public safety receive major financial consideration.  Consider the case against Daniel Delise. On August 31, the FCC issued a NALF against Mr. Delise who has been the subject of numerous complaints about his unlicensed use of amateur and other frequencies dating as far back as 2012.  In this particular case, he not only operated without authority but falsely transmitted officer-in-distress calls. The FCC noted that such a false report potentially impacts the safety of life and property and “places a strain on valuable resources of safety and rescue organizations.” The FCC fined Delise a paltry $23,000.