On first examination of the Federal Communications Commission’s private land mobile radio refarming decision, released late last month, one is tempted to ask, “Just how much refarming did the FCC really do anyway?”
Based on outward appearances, it seems like not much at all. The new rules still have 20 radio services, just like the old ones. Look further, and one finds that the rules are still called Part 90, just like the old ones. The proposal to transfer all the private land mobile rules to a new Part 88 is a distant memory. There still are a bunch of itinerant frequencies, just like in the old rules. The similarities abound.
It wasn’t supposed to be like this. Part 88 was touted as a vehicle for completely reshaping the private land mobile services. There was supposed to be a “screwdriver adjustment” that would convert 25 kilohertz systems to narrowband operations. The 20 distinct radio services were supposed to disappear.
Appearances deceive. Notwithstanding the FCC’s disclaimer that “[we] are not pursuing*…*more fundamental changes,” there are enough changes in this decision for most of us-and too many changes for some.
The refarming decision is the product of two significant developments: first, the FCC “hung tough” on the time frame for introducing narrowband channels and on the wisdom of consolidating the existing 20 radio services into more manageable service groups; second, the FCC really seems to have learned a lot from the massive amount of comment material filed in the proceeding.
The final decision contains few traces of the naivete that marked the 1992 proposal. Gone is the insistence that screwdrivers are the key to narrower channels. Gone is the concept of “innovative shared use” channels. Gone also is the thought of rigidly spacing co-channel radio systems every 50 miles.
What we are left with is a document that is both aggressive and reasoned. The FCC’s decision anticipates that equipment manufacturers will have 6.25 kilohertz equipment in production by the year 2005. That’s aggressive. Nonetheless, the FCC wisely backed off from an earlier plan that was even bolder. At one point, the commission had sought to push 6.25 kilohertz equipment into the marketplace by the year 2000.
Consolidation of radio services
The FCC’s decision lays the foundation for consolidating the 20 different radio services into service groups that will number no more than four and no less than two. Aggressive again, and yet it had to be this way. The FCC’s staff resources have dwindled to the point that it no longer has the luxury of spending valuable time debating whether a petroleum pipeline company is eligible for frequencies allocated to the Power Radio Service.
More importantly, a structure that divides the private land mobile spectrum into 20 different blocks of frequencies is out of step with the times. Technology has rendered the differences between radio users moot.
There was a day when daily newspapers could argue that a morning newspaper could only share frequencies with an evening newspaper. This argument had some validity in 1949. Not anymore.
Even as the decision concludes that there should be a maximum of four service groups, it leaves room for the private land mobile community to determine the optimum grouping. The FCC has articulated its overriding objectives for the consolidation effort: (1) to distribute more evenly the available frequencies between low-use and high-use licensee groups; (2) to simplify interservice sharing procedures; (3) to organize channel allocations in a way that will facilitate the implementation of advanced technologies; and (4) to promote more efficient and flexible spectrum use.
It’s a reasoned approach. The FCC expects the industry to submit a comprehensive consensus plan for consolidation within three months of the effective date of the decision. The effective date occurs next month. The deadline for filing the consensus plan will be in November. That’s aggressive-in a positive way. The refarming proceeding has been lingering for the better part of four years. Clearly, the FCC is intent on making up for lost time.
Competitive coordination
In 1986, the FCC granted the existing frequency coordinators monopoly control over the coordination function for their respective radio services. In the intervening years, the commission has had to spend valuable resources defending its monopoly structure. Congressmen didn’t care much for the system.
The FCC’s Inspector General, responsible for guarding against abuses of the coordinators’ monopoly position, was probably not enamored with it either.
The refarming decision announces “it is our intention to create competition in the frequency coordination function by allowing users in the newly created service groups to use the services of any recognized frequency coordinator.” This determination should receive applause from many quarters. Congress and the Inspector General will no doubt be pleased. The loudest applause, however, should come from radio users. Experience with the general category channels at 800 MHz, where there is already competition, has shown that applicants tend to gravitate to the coordinator that has the fastest speed of service. It should be no different below 800 MHz. Price will be an inducement, but speed of service will likely dictate where applicants spend their coordination dollars.
Narrower channels
When it came to developing a framework for the conversion to narrower channels, there were no easy choices. All of the participants in the process, the FCC, industry and radio users, agreed that there had to be a graceful migration. Predictably, however, there was a wide range of views on what constituted a graceful migration.
A large segment of user associations defined “graceful” as being 26 years. There was some legitimacy to this view. It was not clear when the manufacturers could produce feature-rich equipment capable of operating on 6.25 kilohertz channels. The availability of 12.5 kilohertz equipment was much more predictable. Those users who did invest in 12.5 kilohertz equipment would require a reasonable period for full amortization of their purchase, generally between 10 and 15 years. In what was viewed as a representative case, a user might purchase 25 kilohertz equipment in 1995 and amortize that equipment over 13 years. By the year 2008, the user would be ready to convert to 12.5 kilohertz equipment. Thirteen years later, by the year 2021, the 12.5 kilohertz equipment would be fully amortized, paving the way for purchasing 6.25 kilohertz equipment.
Such logic notwithstanding, a 26-year timetable for the introduction of narrowband equipment was not politically palatable. Clearly, however, the FCC was mindful of its commitment to a graceful migration. Its solution was to mandate deadlines by which manufacturers would have to produce equipment capable of operating on narrower channels. The refarming decision announces two such deadlines:
First, all single bandwidth mode equipment that is type accepted on or after Aug. 1, 1996, will have to operate on channel bandwidths of 12.5 kilohertz or less. Manufacturers may produce multibandwidth mode equipment operating on 25 kilohertz channels if the equipment also is capable of operating on 12.5 kilohertz and/or narrower channels. Manufacturers also may type accept single mode 25 kilohertz equipment if the equipment meets a spectrum efficiency standard of one voice channel per 12.5 kilohertz of channel bandwith.
Second, all single bandwidth mode equipment that is type accepted on or after Jan. 1, 2005, will have to operate on channel bandwidths of 6.25 kilohertz or less. Manufacturers may produce multibandwidth mode equipment operating on 25 kilohertz and/or 12.5 kilohertz channels if the equipment also is capable of operating on 6.25 kilohertz or narrower channels. Manufacturers also may type accept single mode 25 kilohertz equipment if the equipment meets a spectrum efficiency standard of one voice channel
per 6.25 kilohertz of channel bandwidth.
Power/antenna limits
In its proposal, the FCC sought to implement power and height limits that would permit stations to be spaced at 50-mile intervals. The approach did not sit well with commenters. There was, the FCC found, a delicate balance between entities serving small areas, others needing large service areas and those, such as railroads and pipelines, operating elongated “ribbon” systems. The commission’s decision recognizes that each type of system must be accommodated.
The new rules contain tables for determining a station’s maximum effective radiated power. The power limits vary depending on a station’s height above average terrain and required service area. The power and height limits are premised on the belief that individual base stations operating in an urban environment should be designed primarily to serve local uses. Accordingly, the FCC will require special justification in cases where applicants desire to operate in the 150-174 MHz band using a service radius of more than 25 miles or, for the 450-470 MHz band, a radius greater than 20 miles.
Further NPRM
Tacked on to the end of the commission’s decision is a further proposal designed to explore three concepts: introducing exclusive channel assignments on the refarmed spectrum, implementing market-based user fees and using competitive bidding as an alternate mechanism for assigning frequencies in the refarmed spectrum. The deadline for comments on the proposals set forth in the Further Notice is Sept. 15.
Channel exclusivity
Under the proposed channel exclusivity rules, licensees would have the option of entering into contractual agreements with neighboring co-channel licensees to establish areas of exclusive assignment.
Once an agreement has been signed, the operating area covered by the agreement would be protected. The FCC would not authorize any more co-channel licensees without the consent of the parties to the exclusivity agreement. In return, all of the parties to the agreement would have to convert their systems to narrowband operations.
Licensees granted exclusivity would be permitted to lease any excess capacity created on their channels to other users.
This provision, the commission anticipates, would enable licensees to benefit from their investment in spectrally efficient technology. Furthermore, the FCC believes this provision would ensure that the spectrum is made available for other higher value uses.
Spectrum user fees
The commission believes there must be a direct economic incentive to induce licensees to make efficient use of their assigned spectrum. Spectrum user fees, in the FCC’s opinion, would provide such incentive. Accordingly, the FCC proposes to institute a system of user fees in which the amount assessed would vary in relation to a licensee’s bandwidth, area of operation and the population of the area served.
The Further Notice is quick to note the FCC does not currently have authority from Congress to impose user fees on the refarmed spectrum. However, the proposal observes, it appears likely Congress will give the commission expanded authority for using such economic measures as part of the fiscal year 1996 budget legislation.
Competitive bidding
The Further Notice also lays a foundation for the use of competitive bidding in lieu of user fees. If the FCC were to adopt competitive bidding as a device for assigning spectrum, it would create geographic overlays and then conduct an auction to determine the licensee. As with user fees, the FCC does not currently have the authority to conduct auctions on the refarmed spectrum. Clearly, however, the FCC expects Congress to grant this authority in the near future.
Just how much refarming did the FCC really do? A lot. And with the FCC’s obvious interest in cultivating the use of economic incentives, the transformation of the refarmed spectrum will likely continue for some time.
Frederick J. Day is executive director for government relations of the Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. in Arlington, Va. He is the author of two books on the private land mobile and microwave radio services, “Policies and Practices in the Regulation of Private Radio Communications Services” and “Private Land Mobile and Private Microwave Radio Decisions: A Chronology and Summary.”
