Expensive Music
Responding to a complaint, Miami, Florida FCC enforcement agents used direction-finding techniques to locate the source of radio transmissions on 96.1 MHz. The agents determined the broadcast signals were exceeding limits for operation under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules, and that no licenses had been issued for such operation. Utilizing records from Facebook and other sources, the FCC determined that a Mr. Neal Harris, a.k.a. “DJ Shawnty Pimp”, was the source of the unlicensed radio station and issued a $10,000 fine. Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture
Category: Enforcement CornerWe own it! Why do you ask?
During a routine inspection of antenna structures in Los Angeles, California, the FCC noticed that P&Y Broadcasting had not properly updated ownership records of an antenna structure it purchased from AM radio station KMPC in 2008. Upon being contacted by the FCC, P&Y filed informational updates, however, the FCC was not satisfied and citing Antenna Structure Registration (ASR) ownership rule requirements, fined P&Y $3,000. Notice of Apparent Liability For Forfeiture
Category: Enforcement CornerAntenna Structures and Environmental Assessments
The FCC has extended the deadline for comments on the proposed modification of the Antenna Structure Registration Program (ASR EA Program) until November 2. In addition to current requirements not related to migratory birds, the proposed changes include: (a) requiring a 30-day public notice period (and potentially the filing of an environmental assessment (EA)) for all towers that are subject to the FCC’s ASR Rules – irrespective of whether the Federal Aviation Administration changes its obstruction lighting in order to eliminate red steady burning lights on antenna towers that are equipped with flashing red lights; (b) potentially requiring the filing of an EA for all new ASR registered towers that are located outside of an antenna farm, regardless of height, use of guy wires or lighting scheme, although alternative proposals would not limit EA requirements to towers of a certain size and those already subject to those requirements. Towers in an antenna farm would require an EA only if it involved a substantial increase in size over existing towers or a change in lighting to steady burning lighting. EAs would need to consider the effects on both migratory birds and non-migratory birds, so birds flying south won’t receive any more or less protection than those staying put over the winter.
Category: In the newsNarrowband Waivers
They have started arriving at the FCC, requests for waiver of the FCC’s narrowbanding rules. In this case, a number of public safety entities in the greater St. Louis, Missouri urban area, have requested the FCC to grant them a one-year narrowbanding extension to December 31, 2013. In support of their waiver request, the public safety licensees stated that they are in the process of constructing a multi-county, interoperable 800 MHz radio system and that funding is being provided through sales tax initiatives. The petitioners noted that they intend to eventually vacate their UHF and VHF authorizations. We predict that this narrowbanding waiver request will be granted by the FCC.
Public Notice
Promoting Broadband
In another FCC-produced promotional broadband advertising piece entitled “New FCC Infographic - "Spec It Out!" - Illustrates Consumer Impact of Mobile Broadband Explosion and Potential Benefits of Voluntary Incentive Auctions on U.S. Job Creation, Economic Growth & Innovation”, the public was referred to a link describing the need for additional broadband spectrum. We are not quite sure why FCC management feels compelled to assume the responsibility for a marketing campaign to publicly promote incentive auctions as a means of accessing spectrum for broadband purposes, but incentive auctions must first be approved by Congress, not the greater public. Perhaps the next FCC “Infographic” will promote the benefits sharing Federal Government spectrum to support broadband development.
Category:White Space Database "Worked!" And that means ...
The FCC’s Office of Engineering Technology announced last week that the testing of the first TV White Spaces database demonstrated that the database “worked.” Ok, a couple definitions of “worked” include that a certain activity performed a function as intended or operated as expected. In this case, we suspect that the FCC’s pronouncement presumably meant that the database accurately contained all incumbent facilities that are to be protected from white space devices. Not too difficult an exercise. But to really work, those of us that represent incumbent operations that reside within the TV White Spaces need to know whether any unlicensed white space devices had proven capable of accessing the database for the purpose of avoiding interference to incumbent, licensed operations. That’s why the database is being constructed by eight or nine providers in the first place. If that information were the FCC announcement, then the testing exercise would have truly “worked.”
As reported by EWA earlier this month, the FCC would be performing public testing of the first database until November 2. The FCC explained that the time-limited trial was to allow public access to the actual database, "to ensure that it correctly identifies channels that are available for unlicensed TV Band devices, properly registers those facilities entitled to protection, and provides protection to authorized services and registered facilities as specified in the rules.” Among the services identified as being entitled to protection are “private land mobile radio service and commercial mobile radio service operations.”
Public Safety Rebanding Fears
APCO/IACP/IAFC have expressed their concerns about a recent FCC Order that suggested “in certain border area situations, Sprint’s ESMR operations can be assigned channels with less than 1 MHz separation from channels to which public safety licensees are being rebanded.” Without taking a position on the specific matter in which the issue arose, these public safety organizations noted that “Rebanding is based upon the principle that a minimum frequency separation between public safety and ESMR operations is necessary to prevent interference from occurring in the first instance. Rebanding rejects the principle that it is sufficient to correct interference to public safety systems after the fact.”
Category: In the newsData Bursts in Trunked Systems? Harmful Interference?
Icom America (Icom) filed a request for clarification with the asking whether a “250 millisecond data burst from a control channel idle message would represent harmful interference?” In support of its request, Icom stated that “its data burst would not impact the analog signal and be barely discernable white noise.” Relevant FCC rules in Section 90.187(b) provide that trunked systems “must employ equipment that prevents transmission on a trunked frequency if a signal from another system is present on that frequency.”
The FCC asked whether a blanket response would be appropriate, or whether the potential for harmful interference should be made on a case-by-case basis. Comments are due on November 25, 2011. Public Notice
Jobs Bill Supports Spectrum Use Fees
President Obama’s “American Jobs Act” includes proposals for auctioning wireless spectrum, public safety broadband expansion, and expanding wireless broadband to 98% of all Americans within five years. To achieve that, the administration proposes to have federal government agencies auction their unused spectrum, use spectrum more efficiently, and convince TV broadcasters to engage in “voluntary incentive auctions.” The Jobs Bill would also authorize the FCC to assess “spectrum use” fees from new and existing licensees to pay for the initiative. The Bill provides a minimum amount the Commission must collect, starting with $200 million in 2012 and $550,000 total in 2015 and each year thereafter, until 2021. The legislation provides a list of factors which the Commission may consider in assessing such fees, including the “highest value alternative spectrum use” and the level of demand for the particular license. If passed, the new spectrum fees could quintuple the amount of the fee due with each license renewal application.
It is proposed that only broadcasters and public safety entities would be exempt from this potential new assessment, broadcasters we assume are exempt for they shouldn’t be incentivized and subject to a spectrum use fee at the same time. If spectrum use fees were ever to be adopted, we suspect that other wireless user groups would seek exemptions from the fees as well, like maybe amateurs, family radio users, truckers who use citizens band radios, radio astronomers, commercial cellular providers and consumers who use devices like baby monitors and garage door openers that operate on unlicensed spectrum. It also isn’t particularly clear how or to what extent $200 million or so could be helpful or might be allocated to “support the initiative” which is not very well defined in the first place. Details, details.
EWA Files Second TETRA Clarification Request
The FCC has stated that licensees required to migrate to narrowbanding need not require frequency coordination for license modifications that “only reduce authorized bandwidth.” EWA agrees that is good policy. How that sound policy was translated by the FCC to accommodate those licensees who elect to transition systems to TETRA technology, however, is at best new calculus and not the same in any case.
In a recent Clarification Order, the Commission stated that “frequency coordination is not required for TETRA modification applications if the only proposed change to the station’s technical parameters is the emission bandwidth. For example, a change from emission designator 20k0D1W to a TETRA emission designator of 21k0D1W would not require coordination.” In the first example for narrowbanding purposes, a frequency coordination exemption is granted when licensees reduce only their bandwidth. With TETRA conversions, the bandwidth is increasing. It’s not apples to apples, but that isn’t even the point.
Noting that it is a bit more complicated than that, EWA offered the FCC the following recommendation, specifically, if “... a licensee that is currently operating a system utilizing 25 kHz channel bandwidth channels below 512 MHz in a shared spectrum environment, e.g., the system is licensed for station classes FB2, FB4, or FB6, must not only amend the emission designator to indicate TETRA use, but, in accordance with FCC Rule Section 90.187, must secure frequency advisory committee certification to operate exclusive use channels, e.g., an FB8 channel classification, for all 25 kHz channels used within the centralized trunked TETRA system. Similarly, only systems authorized for exclusive use of their 800/900 MHz channels would qualify to deploy TETRA technology.”
While the TETRA Association has stated that it presumed all prospective Part 90 users would be aware of these additional frequency coordination requirements, EWA does not share that same level of confidence, and requested that the Commission issue a “clear statement to that effect ... to provide necessary guidance to the Part 90 community about the conditions under which TETRA might be the optimal choice for potential licensees.”
We don’t mean to be such a pain in the neck about such licensing details, but in the case of potential TETRA deployments, the details are important and we need to be a pain in the neck. EWA TETRA Filing