Enterprise Wireless Insider® Volume 8, Issue 2

Securing a Valid License Would be a Good Start

The Township of Elizabeth, in Buena Vista, Pennsylvania received a Notice of Violation for operating a fixed repeater station utilizing unlicensed frequencies and at a location for which it did not hold a valid license. Elizabeth Township was provided twenty days to submit a statement to the Commission in response to these violations, and to report on specific actions it will take to remedy these infractions. 

No Statute of Limitations for Unlicensed Use

The FCC issued a $10,000 fine to Lubbock Aero, Lubbock, Texas for operating on an unlicensed frequency from January 1, 2008 to March 31, 2009.  Aero admitted it operated on 123.300 MHz without the proper authority but claimed that it ceased operations after receiving notice from the FCC, and requested cancellation of the proposed forfeiture asserting that it “may not have operated a radio station at all”. Aero argued that, in any event, the violation period falls under the statute of limitations thus prohibiting the FCC from issuing a fine. The Commission declined Aero’s cancellation request noting that the forfeiture was justified given the particular facts and circumstances, and that Aero provided no arguments to convince the FCC otherwise.

FCC Grants Band Edge Waiver

The FCC granted Mobile Relay Associates’ (MRA) waiver request to use unallocated 6.25 kHz frequency pairs for control channel purposes in 450 MHz trunked systems in Colorado, California, Nevada and Florida. EWA had previously supported this request. The frequencies are located immediately adjacent to, but do not overlap GMRS and BAS channels. The Commission granted the request stating that “the public interest would be served by permitting the assignment of these frequencies to alleviate PLMR congestion” and “it would further the purpose of the narrowbanding rules to permit the efficient use of scare PLMR spectrum”.

Need Assistance in Registering Your Part 90 Class B Signal Booster?

In order to address potential interference issues, Federal Communications Commission policy now requires that all existing and future Part 90 Class B signal booster installations are to be registered, for which they maintain a database of registrations. EWA will be pleased to assist you if you have this obligation.

FCC Meeting Pending to Review 800 MHz MOA

The LMCC has provided the FCC with the current unexecuted version of the LMCC’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that suggests pre-coordination procedures necessary to address the potential for competing 800 MHz Expansion Band and Guard Band applications. The LMCC concurrently requested a meeting with FCC representatives to review the MOA and alternative coordination approaches.

Non-Interconnected Carriers are All Common Carriers

The FCC has spoken, and EWA neither agrees with the logic nor the result. In response to EWA’s effort to have the FCC unequivocally agree to classify non-interconnected private carriers/SMR as non-common carriers, the FCC recently stated that there is no hope for such a policy decision despite, in EWA’s opinion, the fact that there are specific provisions in the Communications Act that state otherwise. EWA has since requested further detailed information from the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau as well as confirmation that this classification applies only to licensees labeled as an SMR, which are commercial licensees operating in the 800/900 MHz band, and not to commercial service providers in the bands below 800 MHz.

Making Things Up - Somerset County’s Waiver Request

EWA filed comments in response to a waiver request processed by AASHTO on behalf of Somerset County, Maine that included some pretty color pictures as the basis to seek authority to use 173.210 MHz for a county wide VRS system. Surprisingly, this frequency is not one of six other 173 MHz channels that may be allocated for shared, controlled use with data telemetry systems (see above article). The County’s waiver request stated that 173.2375 MHz was “unavailable” for the County’s VRS operations, but EWA’s research indicated that there were only two entities in the entire State of Maine licensed to use 173.2375 MHz for data telemetry purposes, namely the City of Bangor and Bath Water Treatment, both of which are public safety entities that operate at only 8 ERP at a substantial distance from the County. EWA suggested that the FCC should conduct its own investigation.

Hassle Free Channels for VRS?

Vehicular repeater systems are an important technology for many public safety and business enterprises. However, finding hassle free channels for these systems has been and remains another story. The FCC has asked stakeholders to consider permitting the use of VRS systems on six 173 MHz channels that are currently available only for data telemetry systems. This is where advocates for VRS and data telemetry disagree on the merits. It is EWA’s view that there is a real potential for interference between data telemetry systems and voice VRS operations if they are operating anywhere near each other. None of these systems monitor, routinely provide station IDs, or are provided guaranteed exclusive areas of operation. The Commission’s ULS database identifies approximately 2,400 active telemetry systems operating on these six frequencies throughout the United States. Some two-thirds of those systems are licensed as I/B users and one-third as PS, although a number of municipal entities such as water districts have dual I/B and PS eligibility and have elected to operate as I/B licensees.

The FCC has asked whether the use of “exclusion zones” around telemetry systems would reduce the likelihood of interference since VRS systems are not fixed operations. Perhaps, but what about new data telemetry systems? Should there be protection areas for VRS systems when new data telemetry systems are proposed?  In Reply Comments filed last week, EWA agreed that establishing such zones is an appropriate way of minimizing interference to telemetry facilities, and recommended that the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) work collaboratively to consider the appropriate standard for protecting these facilities, as well as the protection criteria from future telemetry operations to authorized VRS systems given their inherently limited coverage. Somehow, someway, rules of the road should be established that do not prejudice either technology.