SECTION 2: DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION

NTIA provided opportunities for Federal users, commercial entities, public-safety organizations, and other interested parties to submit comments and recommendations for the development of a final reallocation plan. Public notice of the Preliminary Report and deadlines for the submission of written comments were given on February 9, 1994 by notice in the Federal Register.[EN 1] NTIA received 51 responses to this public notice. For convenience, the comments have been categorized as Federal, amateur, commercial, public-safety/local government, utilities, and manufacturers/users of non-licensed devices. TABLE 2-1 gives an overview of the comments, including the source and the bands specifically discussed. In addition to the public comments, the Air Force, Army, and Navy submitted a joint Department of Defense (DOD) response to NTIA addressing the bands proposed for reallocation. The joint DOD response is treated separately from the other public comments, because it contains information that is for official use only and not available to the general public. NTIA also held two public meetings to discuss the Preliminary Report and the frequency bands proposed for reallocation. NTIA also held individual meetings with many of the commenters.

On May 17, 1994, the FCC published an NOI [EN 2] in the Federal Register that sought comments on potential applications for the 50 MHz of Federal spectrum proposed for immediate reallocation to the private sector.[The frequency bands released for immediate reallocation in NTIA's Preliminary Report were:2390-2400, 2402-2417, and 4660-4685 MHz. The FCC subsequently released a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (on October 20, 1994) concerning the three bands] Commenters were given 30 days from the publication date in the Federal Register to submit their comments. A 15-day period was then provided for reply comments. The FCC received 77 comments and 18 reply comments in response to its NOI. TABLE 2-2 gives an overview of the comments including the source and the bands specifically discussed.

=========================================================================================================
TABLE 2-1: Overview of Comments on the Preliminary Report
=========================================================================================================
                                             
                                                Bands Discussed in Comments
                                     1390  1427  1670  1710  2300  2390  2402  3650  4635  4660  
Commenters                           1400  1432  1675  1755  2310  2400  2417  3700  4660  4685  other
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  FEDERAL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway Admin.
Voice of America
Dep't of Veterans Affairs
Dep't of Health and Human Resources
Dep't of Interior                                        x
Dep't of Agriculture                                     x
Dep't of Justice                                         x
Dep't of Treasury                                        x                             x
Dep't of Energy                                          x                             x     x
Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Admin.                       x    x                              x
Dep't of Commerce                                   x    x
Dep't of Army                          x     x      x    x                             x     x      x
Nat'l Astronomy and Ionosphere Ctr.    x     x      x    x           x     x
Nat'l Research Council                 x     x           x    x      x
Nat'l Communications System                              x    x      x     x
Dep't of Transportation                x                 x                       x
Nat'l Science Foundation               x     x      x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------  
  AMATEUR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palomar Amateur Radio Club                                                 x
Gerald T. White, WB6IZE                                                    x
George E. Dew, KD6FDK                                                x
Joyce D. Shappee, KD6PNO                                      x      x     x
Cactus Radio Club, Inc.                                       x      x     x
San Bernardino Microwave Society, Inc.                        x      x     x
Amateur Television Network                                    x      x     x
Western States VHF-Microwave Society                          x      x     x
Radio Amateur Satellite Corp.                                 x      x     x
James W. Tittle, KC6SOE                                       x      x     x
Terry R. Young, KC6SOC                                        x      x     x
Amateur Radio Council of Arizona                              x      x     x
American Eadio Relay League, Inc.                             x      x     x                        x
S. Cal. Repeater and remote Base Assoc.                       x      x     x                        x
Kitchell F. Brown, WB6QVU                                     x      x     x                        x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  COMMERCIAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IVHS America
E.F. Johnson Co.
COMSAT World Systems                                                             x                  x
Loral/Qualcomm Partnership                                                             x     x      x
Digital Microwave Corp.                             x    x                             x     x
GTE Corp.                                                x    x      x     x
Motorola Inc.                          x                 x           x     x           x     x      x
Telecommunications Industry Assoc.     x     x      x    x    x      x     x     x     x     x      
American Mobile Satellite Corp.        x     x      x    x    x      x     x     x     x     x      x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  PUBLIC SAFETY/LOCAL GOVERNMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nat'l Hydrologic Warning Council
City of Martinez Police Dep't                                              x
Assoc. of Public-Safety Officals Intl                    x           x     x                 x
Florida Dep't of Transportation                                      x     x
Maine Turnpike Authority                                             x     x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  NON-LICENSED 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GEC PLessey                                                                x
Larus Corp.                                                                x
Western Muliplex Corp.                                                     x
IEEE Computer Society                                                      x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  UTILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities Telecommunications Council                     x                 x
=========================================================================================================
  COMMENTS PER BAND                    8     6      7    19   18     23    29    4     8     9      8
=========================================================================================================








 
========================================================================================================= 
TABLE 2-2: Overview of Comments on the Preliminary Report
=========================================================================================================
                                              
                                                Bands Discussed in Comments
                                     1390  1427  1670  1710  2300  2390  2402  3650  4635  4660  
Commenters                           1400  1432  1675  1755  2310  2400  2417  3700  4660  4685  other
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  COMMERCIAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Fruit and Vegtable Assoc.
Kerr-McGee Corp.
Pillsbury Co.
Ready Mix Concrete Corp.
Superior Asphalt Co.
Vann Gin Co., Inc.
John Eramo and Sons, Inc.
E.V. Williams Co.,Inc.
The Critical Care Telemetry Group
Assoc. for Maximun Service Television                                                        x
Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.                                                                     *
Nat'l Assoc. of Broadcasters                                                                 *
Nat'l Broadcasting Co., Inc.                                                                 *
Alcatel Network Systems, Inc.                                                                x*
GTE Service Corp.                                                    x     x                 x
COMSAT Corp.                                                         *     *                 *
Industrial Telecommunications Assoc. Inc.                            x*    x*                x
Southwestern Bell Corp.                                       x*     x*    x                 x
Loral/Qualcomm Partnership, L.P.                              *      x*    x*          x     x      x
Motorola, Inc.                         x                 x           x     x                        x
Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell           x     x                x      x     x           x     x
NABER                                  x     x      x    x    x*     x*    x*    x           x*
Telecommunications Industry Assoc.     x     x      x    x    x      x     x     x     x     x
American Mobile Satellite Corp.        x     x      x    x    x      x     x     x     x     x      x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  PUBLIC SAFETY/ LOCAL GOVERNMENT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Cities Police Chiefs Assoc.
North Carolina Smartnet User's Network
Visalia Fire Dep't
Maricopa County Adult Probation Dep't
County of Kern
The City and County of Durham, NC.
First Nations Development Inst.
Robert L. Greene
Assoc. of Public-Safety Officals Int'l                               x     x
COPE                                                                 x     x
Int'l Assoc. of Chiefs of Police                                     x     x                 x
New York City Transit Police Dep't                                   x     x                 x
American Assoc. of State Highway Trans                               x     x                 x
Count of Orange, California                                          x     x                 x
Forestry-Conservation Communications Assoc.                          x     x                 x
County of Tulare, General Services Dep't                             x     x                 x
Valley Communications Center-911                                     *     *                 *
King County, Washington                                              *     *                 *
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  AMATEUR
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herb D. Twitchell, W6BL
Kent Britain (North Texas Microwave Society)                  x
Western States VHF-Microwave Society                                 x     x
Northern Amateur Relay Council of California                  x      x     x
San Bernardino Microwave Society                              x      x     x
Amateur Radio Council of Arizona                              x      x     x
Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Assoc.           x      x     x
Utah VHF Society                                              x      x     x
James W. Tittle, KC6SOE                                       x      x     x
William A. Burns                                              x      x     x
Cactus Intersite System/Cactus Radio Club                     x      x     x
Rochester VHF Group                                           x      x     x
American Radio Relay League                                   x*     x*    x*
Radio Amateur Satellite Corp.                                 x*     x*    x*
Amateur Television Network             x     x                x      x     x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  NON-LICENSED
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 15 Coalition                                                          x
Apple Computer Corp.                                                       x
Interdigital Communications Corp.                                          x
ITRON, Inc.                                                                x
Symbol Technologies, Inc.                                                  x
The Southern Co.                                                           x
Int'l Business Machines Corp.                                              *
Metricom Inc.                                                              *
AT&T Corp.                                                                 x*
GEC Plessey Semiconductors                                           x     x
Western Nultiplex Corp.                                              x*    x*                x*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  UTILITIES
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mitchell Energy and Development Corp.
Nat'l Utility Contractors Assoc.
Nat'l Propane Gas Assoc.
Phelps Sungas, Inc.
Weber Energy Fuels
Westbank Electric, Inc.
Sun Services Corp.
Utilities Telecommunications Council                                 x     x                 x
LEACO Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.                              x     x                 x
American Petroleum Inst.                                             x     x*                x
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  FEDERAL
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAIC                                                                 x     x
Nat'l Research Council                                               x     x
Nat'l Communications System                              x    x      x     x
=========================================================================================================
  COMMENTS PER BAND                    6     5      3    5    24     49    59    3     4     30     3
=========================================================================================================
                           x = Comments or Late Comments
                           * = Reply Comments
=========================================================================================================

The August 9, 1994 FCC Report submitted to the Secretary of Commerce [hereinafter FCC Report] satisfied Title VI, Section 113(d)(3), which required the FCC to analyze the public comments and provide any comments or recommendations to NTIA that it deemed appropriate in response to the Preliminary Report. The FCC Report included an analysis of the comments, a discussion of possible alternatives, and recommendations for an alternative spectrum reallocation plan.

The following is a band-by-band discussion of all comments received, including the public comments received in response to the Preliminary Report, the issues discussed during individual and public meetings, the analysis and recommendations in the FCC Report, and the comments submitted in response to the FCC NOI. The discussion focuses on the frequency bands identified for reallocation to non-Federal users, although additional bands that were discussed in the public comments are also addressed as appropriate. Federal agency comments regarding specific costs to implement the proposed reallocation plan are discussed in Section 3 and not included herein.

DISCUSSION OF COMMENTS

1390-1400 MHz

NTIA received eight responses on its Preliminary Report that addressed the reallocation of the 1390-1400 MHz band for non-Federal use: five Federal and three commercial (see TABLE 2-1). In addition to these public comments, the joint DOD response, and several FAA responses unrelated to the Preliminary Report, also addressed this band.[EN 3] Although it was not the subject of the FCC NOI, six parties filed comments that addressed this band: five commercial and one amateur (see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.

Federal. The comments submitted by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Research Council (NRC), and the National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center (NAIC) [The NRC and NAIC are not Federal agencies but are affiliated with federal agencies performing radio astronomy research] support the Preliminary Report's decision not to reallocate those portions of the spectrum currently allocated exclusively to the radio astronomy service.[EN 4] While recognizing the Congressional directives that require the reallocation of other portions of the spectrum, NRC and NAIC remain concerned about the potential impact on radio astronomy and remote sensing.[EN 5] In their comments, NSF, NRC, and NAIC urge NTIA to reiterate the proposed restrictions on reallocation of the 1390-1400 MHz band to protect the passive services.[EN 6] Provided that the restrictions identified in the Preliminary Report are observed, NSF expects no major operational or economic impact as a result of the reallocation.[EN 7]

The comments submitted by Army in response on the Preliminary Report address reallocation of the entire 1350-1400 MHz band (10% of a particular tactical radio 1350-1850 MHz tuning range), but do not specifically discuss the impact of reallocating the 1390-1400 MHz band segment. In their comments, Army states that "Propagation and technical factors support the 1350-1850 MHz band as the optimum band for area-wide network operation."[EN 8] Army also maintains that although tactical radios can tune over a wide range, the availability of authorized frequencies for Army operations has been dwindling.[EN 9] "Further loss or erosion of authorized frequency resources would adversely affect military land forces' ability to provide an adequate command, control communications network."[EN 10]

Department of Transportation (DOT) comments on the Preliminary Report state that joint DOD/Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) long-range radars operate in the 1390-1400 MHz band segment. DOT contends that modification or replacement of the long-range radars operating in the 1215-1400 MHz band will be necessary to preclude harmful interference to non-Federal operations in the 1390-1400 MHz band.[EN 11]

In the joint DOD response to the Preliminary Report, Air Force states that continued access to the 1215-1400 MHz band is essential for Air Force and FAA radars providing long-range anti-jam search and track functions, and to support defense of the national air space, and coastal civil air traffic control. "The 1215-1400 MHz portion of the frequency spectrum is ideal for long-range radar propagation and target detection. Other portions of the spectrum do not have the electromagnetic wave physics necessary to perform this function effectively."[EN 12] Based on importance to long-range radar operations, specifically the safety-of-life functions they provide and their air defense mission, and the potential for interference between Federal and non-Federal users, Air Force argues that the 1390-1400 MHz band segment should not be reallocated.

The comments submitted by Air Force stated that the jointly developed DOD/FAA Air Route Surveillance Radar Model 4 (ARSR-4) provides air defense and air traffic control for the continental United States, Guam, and Hawaii. Air Force further states that the ARSR-4 is being fielded through a $1 billion joint FAA and Air Force program established and funded by Congress. Air Force goes on to state that the ARSR-4 operates in the 1215-1400 MHz band and requires dual channel frequency hopping technology for its long-range search and track functions. Air Force estimates that reallocation of the 1390-1400 MHz band segment will at a minimum require software modifications, and if spectrum resources are not available, hardware modifications will be necessary.[EN 13] Air Force further adds that reallocation of the 1390-1400 MHz band segment will also degrade the radar's operational anti-jam capabilities. The comments submitted by Air Force also indicate that several radar systems operating in this band are in remote regions supporting defense of the northern national airspace. Because of the remote locations of these radars, Air Force states that continued operation in 1390-1400 MHz on a secondary basis is an acceptable option only if interference is not likely to occur.[EN 14]

The comments submitted by Air Force also address the Range Joint Program Office (RAJPO) Global Positioning System (GPS) data link. Air Force states that the RAJPO GPS data link is used on Air Force, Army, and Navy test installations to monitor manned and unmanned airborne platforms during testing and training operations. Air Force further states that "RAJPO is critical to ensuring the safety of personnel during training or test operations on ranges."[EN 15] Air Force believes that if additional spectrum is lost in the 1350-1390 MHz band, full scale training operations to verify combat readiness and equipment reliability cannot be adequately supported. Air Force adds that the RAJPO GPS data links also operate in the 1427-1435 MHz frequency band, because more than one channel is needed to ensure data availability in rugged terrain.[EN 16]

Navy states that many of the systems operating in the bands proposed for reallocation have a war reserve mode that is classified and cannot be reflected in the public records. "Consequently, the Navy and other elements of the DOD must be consulted, and must be involved in the selection of any non-Government services proposed for operation in the bands identified for reallocation."[EN 17] The FCC believes that the 1390-1400 MHz band segment could offer additional spectrum to implement emerging technologies, but adds that its small size may make the development of those new technologies difficult.[EN 18] The FCC maintains that non-Federal users must have access to sufficient spectrum in the 1350-1400 MHz band. Stating that allocating only 10 MHz of this band would severely limit potential uses, and suggesting that NTIA reevaluate this band with a view toward making more of it available for non-Federal use.[EN 19]

Commercial. In its comments on the Preliminary Report, Motorola recommended that NTIA reconsider its decision not to propose reallocation of the entire 1350-1400 MHz band.[EN 20] Although the 1390-1400 MHz band segment is proposed to be reallocated in 1999, the comments filed by Motorola and the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) stated that it is not clear why the remaining 1350-1390 MHz band segment cannot be reallocated for non-Federal use.[EN 21] Both commenters refer to an NTIA study released in May 1993 that analyzes the spectrum requirements for the fixed services.[EN 22] Motorola and TIA contend that this study indicates there are a total of 582 U.S. frequency assignments within the entire 50 MHz band with only a 1% expected growth rate for assignments in the band.[EN 23]

The comments filed by Motorola and TIA in response on the FCC NOI support the comments filed with NTIA recommending that the entire 1350-1400 MHz band be reallocated for commercial use. Comments submitted on the FCC NOI by the National Association of Business and Educational Radio (NABER) state that the 1390-1400 MHz band segment could be of some limited use for non-Federal applications, even with the constraints placed on it in the Preliminary Report.[EN 24] In its comments to the FCC NOI, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell disagree with NTIA's suggestion that the 1390-1400 MHz and 1427-1432 MHz band segments can be paired for commercial use.

Amateur. In comments submitted on the FCC NOI, the Amateur Television Network (ATN) suggested replacing the 2390-2400 MHz and the 2402-2417 MHz bands (identified for immediate reallocation) with the pair 1390-1400 MHz and 1427-1432 MHz. ATN also suggested that a 1-MHz portion of each band could be used for biomedical telemetry, especially in larger metropolitan areas.[EN 25]

Summary. The comments submitted by NSF, NRC, and NAIC indicate that they support the NTIA proposal to reallocate the 1390-1400 MHz band segment for non-Federal use as long as the restrictions protecting the radio astronomy service are included in the final report. The comments submitted by Army on the loss of the entire 1350-1400 MHz band are inconclusive in addressing the issue of reallocating the 1390-1400 MHz band segment. In its comments, DOT opposes reallocation of the 1390-1400 MHz band segment, citing possible loss of the ability to use equipment and restricted operational capability. Motorola's and TIA's comments recommend reallocating the entire 1350-1400 MHz band based on an NTIA fixed service study that indicates light Federal usage in the 1350-1400 MHz band. The FCC agrees with Motorola and TIA, and recommends that NTIA reexamine this band. TIA's comments also state that new equipment designed for use in the 1390-1400 MHz band must be capable, at some expense, of tolerating adjacent-band FAA and DOD high-power radar signals.

1427-1432 MHz

NTIA received six responses on its Preliminary Report that addressed this band: four Federal and two commercial (see TABLE 2-1). In addition to the public comments, the joint DOD response also addressed this band. Although it was not the subject of the FCC NOI, four parties filed comments that addressed this band: three commercial and one amateur (see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.[EN 26]

Federal. The comments submitted by NSF, NRC, and NAIC strongly support the Preliminary Report's proposed ban on airborne and space-to-Earth communications in this band. NAIC further advocates that ground-based services allocated to this band should not interfere with the radio astronomy observations.

Army stated that this particular frequency band is critical for Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) and Tri-Service Tactical Communications System (TRITAC) equipment that is used for communications in the tactical battlefield. At a minimum, Army states there is a requirement for secondary use of this band.[EN 27] Army further states that moving operations to one of the other bands is extremely difficult, not operationally sound, and that further loss or erosion of authorized frequency resources would adversely affect military land forces' ability to provide an adequate command and control communications network.[EN 28]

In the joint DOD response on the Preliminary Report, Air Force maintains that reallocation of this band would result in the need to retune or replace at least four of its video and data link communications systems, ten microwave telemetry and control systems for its Tethered Aerostat Radar Systems (TARS), over 100 Non-cooperative Airborne Vector Scorers (NAVS), eight remote recovery systems, and ten RAJPO [RAJPO receives GPS-based signals and transmits computed real-time position information for manned and unmanned airborne platforms during test and traning operations] data link units.[EN 29] Air Force believes that reallocation of the 1427-1432 MHz band segment will severely limit their ability to effectively schedule test-range events and that loss of frequencies in this band for RAJPO use will result in the need for modifications critical for the control of launched missiles and public safety.

The FCC agrees with commenters that the small size of this proposed allocation, as well as its remoteness from existing non-Federal services, will make it difficult to use this spectrum either as an adjunct to an existing service or to support a new service. "The Preliminary Report's suggestion that this band be combined with the 1390-1400 MHz band would yield an unbalanced allocation of one 5-megahertz wide block with a 10-megahertz block that would not be conducive to channel pairing arrangements and that might still be too small to promote development of new technologies."[EN 30]

Commercial. TIA, in its comments on the Preliminary Report, and NABER, in its comments on the FCC NOI, state that satisfying the conditions proposed for the protection of adjacent-band radio astronomy operations could make commercial use of this band difficult.

In their comments to the FCC NOI, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell point out that most mobile wireless services will require Frequency Division Duplexing (FDD), founded on the ability to balance the frequencies used for both directions of the service. Personal Communications Service (PCS), for instance, will need paired frequencies for the base-to-portable and portable-to-base directions. These services will need to be balanced and separated by a reasonable amount of spectrum for them to operate properly without restricting radio system design. The Pacific and Nevada Bell Companies believe that the 1390-1400 and 1427-1432 MHz bands are small and unbalanced and, for reasons discussed above, may not be capable of providing a commercially viable service using FDD technology. However, the commenters do indicate that certain stationary outdoor or in-building services may be conducive to a Time Division Duplex (TDD) service in this band.

The comments submitted by American Mobile Satellite Corporation (AMSC) on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI suggest that the mobile-satellite service (MSS) is prominent among the services requiring new accommodations, and that the frequencies proposed in the Preliminary Report are not useful for MSS systems. Specifically, AMSC points out that this band is not allocated internationally to MSS and would thus expose U.S. MSS systems operating in this band to interference from foreign systems. Furthermore, AMSC adds that U.S. MSS systems would be required to protect the foreign systems from harmful interference. AMSC also believes that this band is too narrow for accommodation of U.S. and foreign MSS systems, and so International Telecommunication Union (ITU) reallocation is not likely to be salable (some of the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) MSS allocations are 32-35 MHz wide). Even if this band were to be approved for MSS use, AMSC believes that systems using frequencies in the adjacent bands would interfere with MSS systems in the proposed band. Alternately, AMSC proposes two alternative Federal bands (1492-1525 MHz for downlinks and 1675-1710 MHz for uplinks) that its analysis indicates can be shared immediately by MSS systems and incumbent Federal users.[EN 31] AMSC claims that Mobile Aeronautical Telemetry (MAT) operations in the 1435-1535 MHz band would be fully protected by MSS downlink power flux-density limits and high satellite elevation angles. AMSC also believes that clustering MSS channels at the boundaries of each standard 1 MHz MAT channel will protect mobile earth station receivers by increasing the frequency dependent rejection. AMSC contends that MSS downlinks can share the upper portion of the 1492-1525 MHz band interstitially if the incumbent MAT service applications are restricted to 1 MHz-channelized narrowband operation.[EN 32] Moreover, AMSC believes that if it can secure a combined total of only 1 MHz of MSS-usable spectrum in the 1492-1525 MHz band through this type of sharing, the effort will have been worthwhile, considering the severe shortage of spectrum.

Motorola and TIA representatives indicate that limited commercial applications in this band are feasible.[EN 33]

Amateur. In its response to one of the specific questions in the FCC NOI, ATN indicated that the 1390-1400 MHz band paired with the 1427-1432 MHz band, or a 1-MHz portion of each band, could be used for biomedical telemetry devices, serving to relieve congestion of the existing spectrum currently used for these devices, especially in the larger metropolitan areas.

Summary. The comments submitted by NSF, NRC, and NAIC strongly support the Preliminary Report's proposed restrictions on airborne and space-to-Earth communications in this band. The comments submitted by the Army expressed concern with continuing loss of authorized frequency resources, and its adverse impact on their land force operations. The FCC Report stated that this band segment may be too small and segmented from existing non-Federal services to support new commercial applications. The comments submitted by Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell agree that this band is too small to provide a commercially viable service, even if paired with the 1390-1400 MHz band segment. In its comments to the Preliminary Report, AMSC proposed that the 1492-1525 and 1675-1710 MHz bands be allocated for MSS downlinks, which it claims can operate without causing interference to existing Federal aeronautical telemetry operations.

1670-1675 MHz

NTIA received seven responses on its Preliminary Report that addressed this band: four Federal and three commercial (see TABLE 2-1). In addition to the public comments, the joint DOD response also addressed this band. Although it was not the subject of the FCC NOI, two parties filed comments that addressed this band, both commercial (see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.[EN 34]

Federal. The comments submitted by NSF and NAIC strongly support the Preliminary Report's proposed ban on airborne and space-to-Earth communications in this band. NAIC further advocates that ground-based services allocated to this band should not interfere with radio astronomy observations.

In its comments, NOAA reports that most of the 111 frequency assignments in this band are for radiosonde stations operated by NOAA within the Department of Commerce. NOAA indicated that one limitation associated with relocating radiosonde frequencies is that the part of the allocated band above 1690 MHz is used by meteorological satellites (metsat) [downlinks], and is therefore largely unavailable for radiosonde use.[EN 35] NOAA further states that "Both radiosondes and metsats have allocations throughout the 1670-1700 MHz band, but a radiosonde flying through a ground station's antenna pattern would disrupt satellite reception. The result is a splitting of the band with radiosondes largely limited to the lower 20 MHz."[EN 36]

In order to achieve the increased frequency stability necessary to permit radiosonde operation in the smaller reallocated band, NOAA states the need to design new radiosondes using crystal controlled transmitters and a new type of modulation.[EN 37] NOAA further states that the technology needed to make these changes is available, but the increased cost has historically made the new technology impractical (see Section 3 for associated reallocation costs and plans). NOAA also notes in its comments that the impending presence of non-radiosonde emitters within what is now the radiosonde band requires replacement of the radiosonde ground tracking equipment as well. NOAA expects that the three types of radiosonde ground tracking equipment currently used in this band could be replaced by a common system.

NOAA stresses in its comments that continued protection of frequencies used at the Wallops Island, Virginia receive site, as proposed in the Preliminary Report, is "absolutely essential." NOAA also recommends that the other Geosynchronous Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES) earth station, at Fairbanks, Alaska, be given the same protection as is proposed for the GOES earth station at Wallops Island.[EN 38]

In the joint DOD response to the Preliminary Report, Air Force reports that it operates an undetermined number of radiosondes and seven MARK IVB Meteorological Satellite Ground Terminals in this band. In order to comply with the reallocation plan, Air Force will phase out of its inventory all radiosondes in this band prior to the planned reallocation date, and retune the MARK IVB receivers.

The FCC Report stated "... we believe that 5 megahertz may be too small an allocation to support development of new broadband technologies or wide-area operations and that this band is not located near enough to current non-Government operations for it to serve as an adjunct to them."[EN 39] The FCC also recommends changing the reallocation schedule for this band from delayed (1/1/99) to immediate. [No explanation was provided in the FCC Report for this proposed change]

Commercial. TIA, in its comments on the Preliminary Report, and NABER, in its comments on the FCC NOI, states that satisfying the conditions proposed for the protection of adjacent-band radio astronomy operations could make use of this band difficult. Also, "TIA believes that before non-Federal users can use this band, the Federal meteorological services will have to be redesigned or replaced."[EN 40]

Digital Microwave Corporation (DMC) expressed concern about the accommodation of incumbent microwave users who are expected to transition out of the 2 GHz band to make way for PCS and other technologies. DMC expects reallocation of incumbent 2 GHz users to be costly if relocating to the 6 GHz' band or higher. DMC maintains that use of the 1670-1675, 1710-1755, 4635-4660, and 4660-4685 MHz band segments for non-Federal operational-fixed use would minimize costs for some of those incumbents required to relocate from their present 2 GHz frequencies.

AMSC comments on the Preliminary Report and on the FCC NOI suggest that MSS is prominent among the services requiring new accommodations, and that the frequencies proposed in the Preliminary Report are not useful for MSS systems. Specifically, AMSC points out that this band is not allocated internationally to MSS and would thus expose U.S. MSS systems operating in this band to interference from foreign systems. Moreover, AMSC contends that the U.S. systems would be required to protect the foreign MSS systems. AMSC also believes that ITU reallocation is not possible because of incompatible aeronautical mobile allocations adopted by WARC-92.[The 1670-1675 MHz band was allocated worldwide for ground-to-aircraft communication to be paired with the 1800-1805 MHz band for aircraft-to-ground, but the U.S. will maintain these operations at 849-851 and 894-896 MHz] Even if this band were to be approved for MSS use, AMSC believes that systems using frequencies in the adjacent bands would interfere with MSS systems in the proposed band and MSS downlink sharing with radio astronomy below 1670 MHz would be problematic. Alternately, AMSC proposes two Federal bands (1492-1525 MHz for downlinks and 1675-1710 MHz for uplinks) that its analysis indicates can be shared immediately by domestic MSS systems and incumbent Federal users.[EN 41]

A Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) analysis of possible MSS interstitial sharing with Air Force radiosondes suggested that this type of sharing would be very difficult to achieve. AMSC therefore considers MSS sharing with radiosondes to be possible only in the 1690-1710 MHz segment of the proposed 1675-1710 MHz band.[EN 42]

Motorola and TIA representatives indicate that limited commercial applications in this band are feasible.[EN 43]

Summary. The comments submitted by NSF and NAIC strongly support the Preliminary Report's proposed restrictions on airborne and space-to-Earth communications in this band. The comments submitted by Army express concern with the continuing loss of authorized frequency resources, and the adverse impact on its land force operations. Most of the assignments in this band are for radiosonde stations operated by NOAA. In order to achieve the increased frequency stability necessary to permit radiosonde operation in the smaller reallocated band, NOAA would have to design new radiosondes using crystal-controlled transmitters and a new type of modulation. NOAA believes that the technology needed to make these changes is available, but the increased cost has historically made it impractical. NOAA anticipates replacing the three types of radiosonde ground tracking equipment with a common system. The FCC Report stated that the 5 MHz band segment proposed for reallocation is too small for the development of new broadband systems and is not located near enough to bands currently being used for the development of new technologies to support their development.

The comments submitted by AMSC indicate that the bands proposed for reallocation in the Preliminary Report will not help alleviate the MSS spectrum dilemma. However, AMSC does indicate that there are significant possibilities for MSS sharing with the meteorological services in the 1690-1710 MHz frequency range. AMSC recommends that NTIA consider making this spectrum available for MSS operations.

1710-1755 MHz

NTIA received nineteen responses on its Preliminary Report that addressed this band segment: twelve Federal, five commercial, and one each from utilities and public safety/local government (see TABLE 2-1). In addition to the public comments, the joint DOD response, and several FAA responses unrelated to the Preliminary Report, also addressed this band segment. Although it was not the subject of the FCC NOI, five parties filed comments that addressed this band segment: one Federal and four commercial (see TABLE 2-2). This band segment was also discussed in the FCC Report.

Federal. The majority of the Federal agency responses on the Preliminary Report discuss the reallocation issues in terms of both operational and cost impact. The cost impact is discussed in Section 3 of this report.

In its comments on the Preliminary Report, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) states that the Forest Service is one of the Federal Government's largest users of the 1710-1850 MHz microwave radio band. USDA further states that the reallocation will impact the microwave radio systems that provide the backbone communication links supporting land-mobile radio systems on National Forests and other lands managed by USDA for the public. USDA explains that these backbone links provide the primary radio interconnection between mountaintop radio repeaters and the base stations that interconnect with either mobile or portable hand-held radios. USDA adds that these systems are necessary for law enforcement, firefighting, and emergency disaster control (e.g., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and hurricanes) public-safety communications. "These microwave links provide substantial benefit to customers of the Forest Service and some links share channels with the U.S. Department of Justice/FBI and the U.S. Customs Service."[EN 44] USDA states that the proposed reallocation of 1710-1755 MHz will disrupt their fixed point-to-point microwave operations that support these essential functions. USDA asserts that the loss of this spectrum will impact 40% of the over 1,370 Forest Service microwave radio sites.[EN 45]

The comments submitted by DOT state that systems used in FAA and the United States Coast Guard (USCG) programs will be affected by the proposed reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment. DOT further states that currently USCG uses these frequencies for communications, and FAA uses them to link lower density communications facilities to its nationwide microwave communications system.[EN 46] DOT estimates that impact to these systems could be reduced if FAA and USCG were allowed to retain certain frequencies in the band to support safety-of-life operations.[The USCG also operates Vessel Traffic Systems (VTS) around harbours and coastal areas with a large amount of ship traffic. There are eight VTS locations including New York, Puget Sound, Houston, and San Francisco]

The comments submitted by the Department of Interior (DOI) include comments from the Bureau of Indian Affairs; the Bureau of Reclamation; the Bureau of Land Management; the National Park Service; and the U.S. Geological Survey, Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Engineering. In general, the comments addressed the reallocation options and cost that the various organizations are planning to use. However, several comments discussed mission impact. The Bureau of Reclamation states that the spectrum reallocation will impact their radio program in the Mid-Pacific, Great Plains, and Lower Colorado Regions. Reclamation further states that if their current request for a 15-GHz system is approved, it will eliminate the impact to the Lower Colorado Region. Reclamation also requests a waiver for the frequencies that it shares with the Department of Energy (DOE) Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), as WAPA is exempt from moving from this band because of the War Powers Act.[EN 47] The comments submitted by the National Park Service state that the reallocation will adversely impact their telephone and data transmission system which both rely on microwave links utilizing frequencies within the 1710-1755 MHz band segment.[EN 48] The comments submitted by the U.S. Geological Survey Office of Earthquakes, Volcanoes, and Engineering state that its microwave systems are used exclusively for earthquake monitoring and hazards mitigation. "These networks are monitored in real time and are required to be on-line at all times. Any modifications to these networks would require special consideration to assure no loss of data."[EN 49]

The comments submitted by the Department of Treasury (Treasury) discuss the impact to its operations resulting from the loss of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment. Treasury states that one of the affected systems is the Rainbow Microwave System operated and maintained by the United States Customs Service. Treasury further states that this system interlinks the Hawaiian Islands and supports multi-faceted safety-of-life functions. Treasury emphasized that the functions being performed by this system cannot be replaced by satellite operations. Moreover, Treasury had already reconfigured the entire system to the 1710-1850 MHz band from the original 7/8 GHz band where the reliability level proved unacceptable.[EN 50] Based on these arguments, Treasury has recommended in its comments on the Preliminary Report that NTIA include this system in the list of Federal microwave stations to be retained and fully protected from interference in accordance with the mixed use reallocation specified in Title VI.

The comments submitted by the Department of Justice (DOJ) represent those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). In its comments, DOJ stated that FBI, INS, and DEA make broad use of the radio frequencies in the 1710-1755 MHz band segment for Congressional and Federally mandated law enforcement programs, including continuity of law enforcement and national security and emergency preparedness telecommunications services.[EN 51] DOJ stated that FBI operates microwave equipment in the 1710-1755 MHz band segment to relay land mobile radio communications that support safety-of-life operations.[EN 52] The comments submitted by DOJ stated that INS also makes extensive use of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment to support the interconnect requirement of the INS Encrypted Voice Radio Program (EVRP).[EN 53] DOJ further states that DEA uses the 1710-1755 MHz frequency band to support its video transmission system. Although each department has submitted reallocation options, DOJ is concerned that the impact of the reallocation and subsequent spectrum loss is not completely understood. DOJ stated that it is concerned that "the long-term budgetary consequences of band displacement are not fully appreciated."[EN 54]

Army recommends in its comments that the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) be afforded the same protection that Title VI guarantees for the Federal Power Agencies (FPA).[EN 55] Although the ACE is not an FPA, Army states that the functions they perform and the types of areas they service are comparable to FPA functions and service areas.[EN 56] In addition to the point-to-point microwave systems operated by ACE, the comments submitted by Army stated that currently there are over 2,650 tactical radio relay systems operating in the 1350-1850 MHz band, which is one of the most important spectrum resources for the Army's area-wide integrated communications network.[EN 57] The comments submitted by Army further state that the continued loss of spectrum resources in this band is significant because "... it compresses the authorized frequency bands and complicates the tactical frequency assignments."[EN 58] DOE believes that there will be minimal impact on existing and planned operations as a result of reallocating the bands identified in the Preliminary Report.[EN 59] DOE also indicates that the reallocation can be accomplished within the time frame proposed in the Preliminary Report.[EN 60] However, there are several areas of concern that DOE indicates should be addressed regarding the reallocation of spectrum in the 1710-1850 MHz band:

>> DOE has formal sharing agreements with other Federal agencies, such as the Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, to transfer electrical power distribution information over its existing 1710-1850 MHz microwave systems. Title VI is not clear whether or not the FPA's exception includes these formal sharing agreements. "Therefore, the Department requires assurance that these systems are also included under the exception for FPAs and that they will receive the necessary protection from harmful interference."[EN 61]

>> Although the FPA's were granted an exception from reallocation in Title VI and will receive protection from the emerging wireless telecommunications technologies, "... increased usage in the 1710-1850 megahertz band by these new technologies in the future may require more effective national regulatory procedures to ensure continued use of this band."[EN 62]

NAIC and NRC comments on the Preliminary Report urge NTIA to consider improved protection or restrictive sharing requirements of the narrow 1718.8-1722.2 MHz band segment and a prohibition of airborne and space-to-Earth stations in this band, as well as in adjacent bands.

The National Communications System (NCS) [ The NCS is not a Federal agency but it is affiliated with Federal agencies] expressed concern that "essential operations in both the mixed use of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment and the remaining 1755-1850 MHz band segment following the reallocation will not be able to be carried out in an effective manner due to the crowded conditions that may exist." In its comments on the FCC NOI, NCS states its belief that NTIA has given proper consideration to the importance of this band and to the affected Federal agencies, and urge that the proposed minimum 10-year delayed effective date for reallocation for the 1710-1755 MHz band segment not be shortened.

Air Force states that the Space-Ground Link Subsystem (SGLS) operates in the 1761-1842 MHz band segment. The SGLS provides tracking, telemetry, and command (TT&C) for all operational military communications satellites of the United States and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The SGLS uplink in the 1761-1842 MHz band segment is used for command transmission to control over 90 satellites that are critical to national security. Air Force further states that it is not possible to change the frequency of satellites which have already been launched, and while it may be possible to change the frequency of satellites which have yet to be launched, in the near term this would be prohibitively expensive. "SGLS is the planned standard TT&C system for the next several generations of DOD satellites."[EN 63]

The FCC Report states that although this is a desirable band located relatively close to the 1850-1990 MHz PCS band, and it may be able to support wide-area operations, continued Federal use of this band will severely limit its usefulness for non-Federal operations.[EN 64] The FCC further states that it could not describe this level of usefulness because they lack sufficient information about the actual amount of continued Federal operations proposed for this band to compare the amount of proposed Federal use with potential non-Federal use and to gauge its usefulness for future non-Federal use.[EN 65] The FCC also states that non-Federal use of the 1761-1842 MHz band segment may be compatible with the limited Federal operation currently in the band. It also appears from the Preliminary Report that Government use is limited to less than 10 locations. These limited Government operations might be able to coexist with some non-Government use."[EN 66] The FCC also questions the guard band requirements for the 1761-1842 MHz band segment given in the Preliminary Report. "The 6 megahertz wide 1755-1761 MHz frequency range and the 8 megahertz wide 1842-1850 MHz frequency range appear to offer excessive protection for space operations."[EN 67]

DOD, however, states that its major concern with the reallocation of additional spectrum in the 1710-1850 MHz band is that high-power DOD satellite uplinks in the 1761-1842 MHz band segment will interfere with adjacent-band non-Federal operations. DOD further states that the FCC does not yet have standards for non-Federal receivers that would enhance sharing possibilities. DOD feels that the interference potential is only exacerbated if the FCC allows mobile systems in the transferred spectrum.

An additional concern expressed by DOD is the availability of spectrum to accommodate displaced Federal fixed point-to-point microwave users. DOD states that current fixed point-to-point systems require a 70 MHz spacing between the transmit and receive frequencies. DOD asserts that the proposed reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz segment, and possibly the 1845-1850 MHz band segment, will leave only 90 MHz of spectrum for these fixed point-to-point systems. DOD believes that this could make satisfying Federal requirements difficult, especially when multiple links or operation near DOD satellite uplinks are required.

Commercial. In its comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, Motorola indicated that the need to coordinate with and protect existing FPA microwave facilities, coupled with the 10-year delay in availability, significantly compromises the utility of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment for wide-area land mobile services.[EN 68] These views were also reflected in comments submitted by TIA, NABER, and the GTE Service Corporation (GTE). TIA further recommends that the remaining Federal users, particularly in urban areas, should be repacked into the remaining spectrum, and the band should be made available in three to five years rather than 10 years as proposed in the Preliminary Report.[EN 69] Alternatively, Motorola indicated that Federal agencies using fixed point-to-point microwave systems in the 1710-1850 MHz band could be reaccommodated in other bands.

In its comments on the Preliminary Report, DMC suggests that the 1710-1755 MHz band segment should be allocated for primary fixed use by microwave operations that were displaced from the 2 GHz band by the FCC PCS proceedings.[EN 70]

Public Safety/Local Government. In its comments on the Preliminary Report, the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials-International Inc. (APCO) stated that the 1710-1755 MHz band segment has significant potential for public safety and other private land mobile operations. According to APCO, the band is sufficiently large to accommodate wide-area mobile use of wide-band technology, and is in the same frequency range as the 1850-1970 MHz PCS band.[EN 71] However, APCO's comments also included some of the same concerns that were voiced by the commercial commenters relating to the decreased usefulness of the band caused by continued Federal use and the delayed effective date for reallocation. APCO claims to have no information that would question the need for restrictions, but feels it is difficult to gauge the viability of that band for other non-Federal operations without knowing the extent of the fixed microwave use or the levels of protection required for the military bases listed in the Preliminary Report.[EN 72]

Utilities. In contrast to the majority of commenters in this band, the Utilities Telecommunications Council (UTC) supports NTIA's proposed reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment on a mixed use basis only while protecting FPA-operated systems. However, UTC questions whether other existing systems in this frequency range should be grandfathered and argues this band can be made available at an earlier date.[EN 73]

Summary. The Federal agencies currently using the 1710-1755 MHz band segment, while not specifically opposing reallocation, expressed numerous concerns about the cost to, and operational impact on, their Congressionally mandated missions. The comments submitted by DOT, USDA, DOI, and DOJ describe the impact that the reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment will have on these missions. Several commenters indicated that specific operations within their agencies will have to be protected from reallocation. For example, Treasury requests that the Rainbow Microwave System be retained indefinitely and fully protected from interference. The comments submitted by DOE agree with those submitted by Army, which state that ACE systems should be offered the same exemption as FPA systems, since they have a formal agreement to share power distribution information. DOE, as well as several other agencies, expressed concern about the growing congestion in the 1710-1850 MHz band. The comments submitted by NCS urge NTIA not to shorten the 10-year scheduled availability date for the 1710-1755 MHz band segment.

The FCC Report states that the 1710-1755 MHz band segment can be used to support wide-area operations and that more consideration should be given to reallocating a larger portion of the band. The FCC expressed concern that the lack of information about the remaining Federal operations in the 1710-1755 MHz band could limit its usefulness for commercial and public-safety applications. The FCC also states that non-Federal operations may be compatible with the limited Federal use of the 1761-1842 MHz band segment. Moreover, the FCC questions the guard band requirements specified in the Preliminary Report for the existing Federal operations in the 1761-1842 MHz band segment.

In their comments, Motorola, TIA, GTE, and APCO agree that the 1710-1755 MHz band segment can be used for the development of commercial and public-safety applications. However, their comments expressed concern about the remaining Federal users in the band, particularly in the urban areas where they feel spectrum congestion is the greatest. The comments submitted by Motorola, TIA, and APCO also stated that the delay of the scheduled availability date for the 1710-1755 MHz band segment is too long and should be reduced. TIA's comments specifically recommend that this band segment be made available for non-Federal use in three to five years.

2300-2310 MHz

NTIA received seventeen responses on the Preliminary Report that addressed this band: three Federal, two commercial, and twelve amateur (see TABLE 2-1). Although it was not the subject of the FCC NOI, twenty-four parties filed comments that addressed this band: one Federal, fifteen amateur and eight commercial (see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.

Federal. While NASA and NRC have no operations within the 2300-2310 MHz band, they state that they do have extremely sensitive operations at 2290-2300 MHz such as the Deep Space Network (DSN) receiver located at Goldstone, California.[EN 74] In its comments, NASA explains how the round-trip transmit time is measured in hours for most of the space research operations and the signals detected are extremely weak.[EN 75] Unless great care is used in the implementation of a new commercial service in the adjacent 2300-2310 MHz band, NASA believes that Deep Space operations could be adversely impacted.[EN 76] NRC and NASA strongly support the restrictions proposed in the Preliminary Report, specifically those prohibiting airborne or space-to-Earth links in the 2300-2310 MHz band.[EN 77]

NASA and Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) representatives state that commercial low-power terrestrial applications could operate in the 2300-2310 MHz band with minimal coordination of operations at Goldstone.[EN 78] The Preliminary Report proposed a delayed effective date for reallocation of two years for the 2300-2310 MHz band "... to provide sufficient time to study and implement necessary upgrades to preclude adjacent band interference to the NASA Deep Space Network and planetary research radar receivers."[EN 79] Since the release of the Preliminary Report, JPL has investigated the use of filters to decrease adjacent-band saturation of the DSN amplifiers. JPL reported that such filters are not practical for Deep Space application, and cannot be developed without degrading the desired signal and significantly reducing the portion of the 2290-2300 MHz band available for Deep Space probe assignments.[EN 80] NASA and JPL both maintain that if the commercial service is compatible, then moving up the scheduled reallocation date for the 2300-2310 MHz band would not be a problem.[EN 81]

In the joint DOD response on the Preliminary Report, Air Force indicates that the 2300-2310 MHz band is used primarily for electronic warfare training and telemetry systems. Air Force explains that these operations are conducted at specialized training ranges frequently located in areas remote from the general public. Air Force further states that the systems operating in this band have unique frequency requirements which cannot be measured monetarily. "Of greater concern is the inability to perform realistic electronic warfare training due to loss of the reallocated frequencies. The loss of realistic training reduces the probability of survival for personnel in hostile situations."[EN 82] Air Force adds that systems supporting technological research functions require access throughout the radio frequency spectrum on a case-by-case basis. "Frequencies in reallocated bands necessary to support specific missions at specific locations will be requested on a case-by-case basis."[EN 83]

The comments submitted by Navy state that many of the systems operating in the bands proposed for reallocation have a war reserve mode that is classified and cannot be reflected in the public records. "Consequently, the Navy and other elements of the DOD must be consulted, and must be involved in the selection of any non-Federal services proposed for operation in the bands identified for reallocation."[EN 84] In its comments submitted on the Preliminary Report and on the FCC NOI, NCS supports continued use of this band by the amateur radio service, to provide valuable national security/emergency preparedness (NS/EP) services.

The FCC Report recommends that the reallocation schedule for the 2300-2310 MHz band match the schedule for the 2390-2400 MHz band. "These bands are two of the few bands identified in the Preliminary Report that readily lend themselves to paired operations and simultaneous reallocation of the bands would greatly facilitate paired use of these bands."[EN 85]

Commercial. In their comments on the Preliminary Report, GTE and TIA question the commercial viability of the 2300-2310 MHz band. GTE contends that although the 2300-2310 MHz band is located in close proximity to the 1850-2200 MHz band recently allocated by the FCC for PCS, the highly sensitive receivers of NASA's Deep Space Network in the 2290-2300 MHz band make the adjacent 2300-2310 MHz band "ill-suited for non-government use."[EN 86] TIA also cautions NTIA that these highly sensitive receivers may make this band difficult to use.[EN 87] Furthermore, both GTE and TIA expressed concern about sharing spectrum with the amateur radio service.[EN 88]

The comments submitted by Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell on the FCC NOI stated that the 2300-2310 and 2390-2400 MHz bands can be easily paired because they are balanced with sufficient frequency separation, making them appropriate for the development of commercial applications including PCS growth or public-safety services. However, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell indicate that the differential in timing availability will delay the development of these commercial applications. "The 2300-2310 and 2390-2400 MHz bands could be paired for public safety communications if they were made available for reallocation at the same time."[EN 89] The Southwestern Bell Corporation comments and reply comments on the FCC NOI also support making these bands available at the same time. "The use of the 2390-2400 MHz band, paired with the 2300-2310 MHz band for wireless local loop applications, can improve public safety communications."[EN 90] Along these same lines, the reply comments submitted by the Loral Qualcomm Partnership (LQP) suggest that replacing the 2402-2417 MHz band with the 2300-2310 MHz band could increase the usefulness of the 2390-2400 MHz band. "A paired band could be especially useful to provide additional uplink and downlink capacity in MSS systems."[EN 91] TIA and NABER also expressed concern that protecting NASA's Deep Space Network receivers in the adjacent band and sharing with the existing amateur users may limit commercial development in the 2300-2310 MHz band.

Amateur. The comments submitted by the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) and the Radio Amateur Satellite Corporation (AMSAT) indicate that the proposed plan will impact current and future amateur operations. In its comments on the Preliminary Report, ARRL states that three distinct obligations were specified by Congress for NTIA to follow in considering which bands to reallocate for non-Federal use in order to protect amateur use of shared bands. ARRL contends that the proposed reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz band violates the intention of Congress regarding the amateur service.[EN 92] In their responses on the Preliminary Report, ARRL and AMSAT describe the likely disruption to amateur operations in the 2300-2310 MHz band that include point-to-point linking and weak-signal operations.[EN 93]

The band plan submitted by the San Bernardino Microwave Society, Inc. (SBMS) for the 2300-2450 MHz band is given in Figure 2-1 and shows how the amateurs plan to use the 2300-2310 MHz band paired with frequencies in the 2390-2400 MHz band for point-to-point linking.[EN 94] SBMS states that the two bands are required because simultaneous transmission and reception from one site normally involves using different frequencies to increase the isolation between the transmitter and receiver. In this regard, some operators report to ARRL that it would be difficult to compensate for the loss of the 2300-2310 MHz band, since the required degree of frequency separation would not be available between 2417-2450 MHz.[EN 95] This point was further emphasized in ARRL's response on the FCC NOI. The Amateur Radio Council of Arizona adds in its response on the Preliminary Report, "There is no other wide band spectrum available that will accommodate multiple channel per frequency use such as the 2300 MHz band."[EN 96] The general consensus of the commenters on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI indicates that the amateurs believe they would not be able to continue point-to-point operations, as planned, if the 2300-2310 MHz band is allocated for commercial use, unless their status is elevated to co-primary.

FIGURE 2-1: 2300-2450 MHz Amateur Band Plan.

ARRL reports there are more than 200 stations in the United States that operate at or near the frequency of 2304.1 MHz. ARRL further stated that these amateurs are engaged primarily in the study of unusual over-the-horizon media, such as tropospheric ducting and communicating by reflecting signals off the urface of the moon, referred to as Earth-moon-Earth (EME) communications.[EN 97] In its comments on the Preliminary Report, AMSAT stated that currently most amateur weak-signal work is conducted in the vicinity of 2304 MHz, although in some countries other frequencies are employed due to the non-availability of the 2300-2310 MHz segment for amateur use.[EN 98] A country-by-country list of amateur allocations of the 2300-2450 MHz region of the spectrum is given in TABLE 2-3.[EN 99]

====================================================================================    
 
Table 2-3 National Implementations of the Amateur Service in the 2300-2450 MHz band
====================================================================================
          
                 Part of Band
                 Implemented
       Country      (MHz)
-------------------------------------------
     Austrilia    2300-2450
       Austria    2305-2322 & 2400-2450
       Belgium    2300-2450
       Denmark    2300-2450  
       Finland    2310-2450
        France    2300-2450
       Germany    2320-2450
       Ireland    2300-2450
         Italy    2303-2313 & 2440-2450      
         Japan    2400-2450
   Netherlands    2320-2450
   New Zealand    2300-2450
        Norway    2300-2450
        Poland    2319-2323
      Portugal    2300-2450
         Spain    2300-2450
        Sweden    2300-2450
   Switzerland    2300-2450
        Taiwan    2440-2450
United Kingdom    2310-2450
======================================================================================

In its responses on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, SBMS suggested that the spectrum from 2448 through 2450 MHz is also of particular interest to amateurs for weak-signal operation. "The use of easily available microwave oven magnetron tubes is fostering weak signal communications in another part of this band. Earth-moon-Earth communications is of particular interest to this service because it closely approximates the wavelength on which the tubes were intended to operate. Because of the large antennas (and associated narrow beamwidths), combined with the fact that these antennas are aimed up in the air, allows weak-signal activities to share this part of the band with residential microwave ovens."[EN 100] The comments submitted by the Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Association (SCRRBA) on the FCC NOI suggested that other bands may be more appropriate for weak-signal experimentation. "2320 MHz appears to be a center of internationally available amateur frequencies as listed in the ARRL comments appendix."[EN 101] In its comments on the Preliminary Report, ARRL maintains that moving weak-signal operations above 2390 MHz would result in the loss of some existing investment in equipment and antennas.[EN 102]

Almost all of the comments received from the amateur community express concern about sharing with a "yet-to-be-determined" commercial service. Many of the commenters refer to the problems currently encountered between amateurs and the Automatic Vehicle Monitoring (AVM) systems operating in the 902-928 MHz band as a typical example of how sharing with commercial applications simply will not work.[EN 103] In its comments, ARRL stated that Title VI requires the Secretary of Commerce to determine the extent to which, in general, commercial users could share the frequencies to be reallocated with amateur radio licensees. ARRL maintains that the Preliminary Report did not include such a sharing study.[EN 104] ARRL submits that until candidate radio services are selected or at least identified, it is difficult for NTIA to conduct the mandatory sharing study required by Congress in Title VI. In ARRL's opinion, the only practical means for the Secretary to discharge "NTIA's statutory obligation" is to conduct a preclusion study based on possible future amateur uses of the segments proposed for reallocation, and to determine sharing options involving a range of commercial uses.[EN 105]

ARRL further stated, "While there is a possibility of volunteer coordination between licensed commercial users and amateurs, even where there are mobile uses by both, or mixed fixed and mobile users, the fundamental ability of amateurs to continue to use the reallocated bands at all is dependent largely on the characteristics of commercial services to be added to the bands."[EN 106] ARRL and AMSAT both believe amateur operations can effectively share spectrum with low-power commercial services (e.g., some Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IVHS) applications [The Intelligent Vehicle Highway System is now called the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) in an effort to encompass the three basic categories of land transportation: highways, transit,and rail]) or fixed point-to-point microwave systems. ARRL further states that the amateurs currently have a successful sharing arrangement in this band with Federal users. However, ARRL indicates that practical problems are encountered when amateurs attempt sharing bands with commercial services having a relatively high transmitter power, a high number of stations in heavily populated areas, and/or high duty cycle (i.e., AVM systems).

In its comments on the Preliminary Report, ARRL stated that reaccommodation of amateurs displaced by the loss of the 2300-2310 MHz band would lessen the impact on the amateur service. While ARRL does not consider itself in a position to suggest alternatives to the first 50 MHz proposed for reallocation, it does believe there is available spectrum to reaccommodate displaced amateurs, such as 2360-2390 MHz band, which it indicates was removed from amateur allocations for aeronautical flight test telemetry.[EN 107] This point was again emphasized during a meeting with ARRL representatives and at the NTIA sponsored meeting between Federal users of the spectrum and commercial representatives, as well as in ARRL and AMSAT responses on the FCC NOI. "That there may not be alternative bands for reallocation to the private sector does not mean that there is not an innovative means of reaccommodating displaced amateur users, which would have the added benefit of increasing the utility of the reallocated spectrum to the private sector."[EN 108] SBMS suggests that one alternative may be to reallocate the 2417-2422 MHz band segment rather than the 2300-2305 MHz band segment and giving the amateur service a primary status in the 2300-2305 MHz band segment. SCRRBA proposes allocating spectrum in the 2360-2390 MHz band to accommodate amateur operations displaced by the proposed reallocation. "Should the NTIA find, and the FCC allocate, adequate replacement spectrum, we are quite certain that the vast majority of amateurs will support the reallocation plan, rather than strongly oppose it as we do now."[EN 109] AMSAT also urges that a small slice of spectrum (1 to 2 MHz) somewhere in the 2300-2400 MHz region be allocated to the amateur service on a primary basis to accommodate terrestrial and EME weak-signal operations.[EN 110]

Summary. The comments submitted by NASA and NRC indicate that they would support the NTIA's proposal to reallocate the 2300-2310 MHz band for non-Federal use as long as the restrictions protecting the Deep Space Network are included in the final report. If the new non-Federal service is compatible, NASA states that advancing the scheduled two year reallocation date for the 2300-2310 MHz band would not be a problem. DOD indicates that its use of this spectrum is largely at specific sites for limited time periods. The FCC recommends that the 2300-2310 and 2390-2400 MHz bands be reallocated at the same time to facilitate paired-use of the bands.

In their comments on the FCC NOI, several commercial commenters suggested reallocating the 2300-2310 and 2390-2400 MHz bands at the same time for the development of PCS applications, wireless local loop applications, and uplinks/downlinks for MSS.

The largest group of comments for the 2300-2310 MHz band were received from the amateur radio community. All of the commenters were concerned about the reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz band, claiming that it would disrupt current and future amateur point-to-point linking and weak-signal operations unless care is taken in the selection of the new commercial applications. ARRL and AMSAT both believe that amateur operations in the 2300-2310 MHz band can share with low-power commercial services; however, they state that sharing with high-power high-density commercial applications is not practical. Furthermore, ARRL's recommendation to reaccommodate amateur operations to other portions of the Federal spectrum (i.e., 2360-2390 MHz) is also seen by the amateur radio community as a viable alternative that is in accordance with Title VI. AMSAT concludes that if the spectrum is reallocated, amateur weak-signal communications will still require a 1 to 2 MHz primary allocation in the 2300-2400 MHz band.

2390-2400 MHz

NTIA received twenty-three responses on the Preliminary Report that addressed this band: three Federal, four commercial, three public-safety/local government and thirteen amateur (see TABLE 2-1). In addition, the joint DOD response also addressed this band in its comments. The FCC received forty-nine responses on its NOI that addressed this band: three Federal, fifteen amateur, fourteen commercial, eleven public-safety organizations, three non-licensed device, and three utility (see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.

Federal. In their comments on the Preliminary Report, NRC and NAIC express concern about the proposal to reallocate the 2390-2400 MHz band segment for commercial use. In its comments, NAIC stated that they perform important planetary radar research at 2380 MHz using facilities at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. As stated in NRC's response to the Preliminary Report, NASA also plans to move the Goldstone planetary radar to the same frequency. NRC and NAIC believe the proposal to reallocate the 2390-2400 MHz band segment poses a substantial threat to these facilities, and accordingly support prohibiting airborne or space-to-Earth links in the 2390-2400 MHz band segment and placing limitations on terrestrial operations in Puerto Rico in that band segment.[EN 111] In their comments on the Preliminary Report as well as those on the FCC NOI, NRC and NAIC urge NTIA to strongly recommend that the proposed conditions on reallocation of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment, designed to protect the passive services, be included in the final reallocation report.[EN 112] "In the case of the 2390-2400 MHz band, the limited restrictions proposed in the Report will have little impact on any new terrestrial uses of that band, but will produce the substantial benefit of protecting valuable planetary research facilities in Arecibo, Puerto Rico."[EN 113]

In the joint DOD comments on the Preliminary Report, Air Force indicated that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment is primarily used for electronic warfare training, telemetry or telecommand, and other scientific and technological research. Air Force further states that the equipment used to support these applications requires access throughout the spectrum. "Inability to accomplish special research projects impacts advances in science and technology for both the Government and non-Government sectors."[EN 114]

Navy adds that many of the systems operating in the bands proposed for reallocation have a war reserve mode that is classified and cannot be reflected in the public records. "Consequently, the Navy and other elements of the DOD must be consulted, and must be involved in the selection of any non-Government services proposed for operation in the bands identified for reallocation."[EN 115] The comments submitted by NCS on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI restate its view that the amateurs provide valuable NS/EP services in times of crisis, and they should continue to have access to 2390-2400 MHz (at least on a secondary basis) if it is reallocated for commercial use.

The FCC Report states that if the availability of the 2300-2310 MHz band is changed to match the schedule for the 2390-2400 MHz band it would better lend itself to paired commercial and public-safety applications. The FCC also agrees with many of the commenters that the reallocation of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment to commercial or public-safety use could cause serious disruption to amateur service use of this band.[EN 116]

Commercial. In its comments on the Preliminary Report, Motorola claims that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment suffers because of its close proximity to the 2450 MHz Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) band. "Thus devices operating in this band will also suffer a cost and size penalty with respect to other competing services."[EN 117] Motorola further states that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment may only be of practical use for low-powered localized systems, such as those currently occupying the adjacent ISM band, unless significant limitations are imposed on existing non-Federal users to make the band more suitable for wide-area communications.[EN 118] In their comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, GTE and TIA question the viability of developing commercial systems in the 2390-2400 MHz band segment. Both refer to the close proximity of NASA's highly sensitive receivers and the uncertainty of sharing the spectrum with the amateur radio service as possible deterrents.[EN 119] NABER's comments and reply comments on the FCC NOI reiterate the concerns expressed by GTE and TIA.

Many of the commercial commenters on the FCC NOI recommend that in order to increase the usefulness of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment, it should be paired with the 2300-2310 MHz band. In its comments and reply comments, LQP suggests that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment could be used for MSS uplinks. " this band may be more useful for new commercial communications service because it is not planned for use by the Part 15 systems under development and because it can be paired with the 2300-2310 MHz band, proposed by NTIA to be made available for commercial use in January 1996."[EN 120] COMSAT supports the comments of LQP, and urges that "... some portion of the initial 50 MHz be released by the Federal Government for use by Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) systems."[EN 121]

Several commenters also recommend licensing the 2300-2310 and 2390-2400 MHz bands for wireless local loop applications. "The wireless local loop system would also be highly resilient in situations of natural disasters, and repair or recovery time would be much faster. The application would also simplify the establishment of temporary high capacity access to the PSTN for public safety works, while still allowing those workers to be mobile."[EN 122]

The comments and reply comments submitted by the Industrial Telecommunications Association Inc. (ITA) on the FCC NOI suggest that privately operated emerging technology systems as proposed in the Coalition of Private Users of Emerging Multimedia Technologies (COPE) Petition for Rule Making will prove to be more compatible with the existing geographic restrictions affecting the 2390-2400 MHz band segment than commercial communications systems. "With commercial consumer-oriented systems, there are no restrictions on the size, intensity of use, and scope of system. Commercially operated systems grow in response to consumer demand. In contrast, privately operated communication systems do not expand beyond the licensee's internal needs. In situations where there are geographical limitations, that must be imposed, the Commission can simply require the licensee to abide by the geographic restrictions as a condition of licensing."[EN 123]

In addition, some TIA members believe that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment may be useful for short-range signaling or other communications integral to IVHS networks. However, TIA states that sharing with the amateur service could have a negative effect on public-safety use, particularly in larger urban areas. "It is apparent that amateur radio interest will oppose any reallocation of the band to new non-Federal services. Even if this opposition is not successful, it will be difficult to arrange sharing with amateur licensees in this band ..."[EN 124]

Amateur. The comments submitted by the licensees and organizations representing the amateur radio community oppose the reallocation of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment if the proposed new application disrupts existing amateur users. ARRL argues that while it is currently accurate to characterize this band as lightly used, the trend of amateurs migrating to higher frequencies as lower bands become congested is nevertheless clear.[EN 125] This point is further emphasized in the comments submitted by SBMS. "Since the new band plan for 2300 to 2450 was adopted an aggressive effort was made to encourage 420 to 431 MHz users to move up to the clear spectrum."[EN 126] SCRRBA contends that the band plan presented in Figure 2-1 shows that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment is required for the frequency pairing that is used in point-to-point linking. "The point-to-point allocation needs to be two portions of spectrum separated by at least 40 MHz and less than 140 MHz. These segments need to be at least 6 MHz wide each. If a few smaller segments are available, the spectral efficiency will be less but the task can be accomplished if the total amount of the spectrum is at least 6 MHz per region. The minimum effective size for a segment is 1 MHz."[EN 127] SCRRBA further states that the original band plan for the 2300-2450 MHz band became unusable for most point-to-point or fixed relay services with the loss of the 2310-2390 MHz band segment which was allocated to the amateur service on a secondary basis.[EN 128] In its comments on the FCC NOI, ARRL adds that while it is not an immediate disaster to lose this spectrum, it sets a precedent whereby more spectrum may be taken in the future.

The general consensus among the amateur radio commenters on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI is that sharing with commercial services will be difficult. Specifically, SCRRBA refers to the current problems with Pacific Teletrac in the 902-928 MHz band as a typical example of how sharing with commercial applications will not work. "Commercial entities see the Amateur Service as an easily ignored annoyance."[EN 129] SCRRBA describes the Pacific Teletrac system as an AVM system that uses high-power transmitters in high-density configurations. The potential problems of amateurs sharing with such commercial applications was also emphasized in a separate meeting with ARRL representatives. However, in ARRL's comments on the FCC NOI, they state that amateurs can share with certain types of commercial users. "The simplest type of commercial use to accommodate in these allocations would be licensed terrestrial point-to-point stations, or services not routinely located in, or proximate to, residential areas. Services with low duty cycles would be more likely to avoid interference to and from amateur operations in the same bands, and digital operations would be preferred over analog technologies. Wide bandwidth and spread spectrum users are particularly suitable to sharing with amateur operations in these segments."[EN 130] Several commenters on the FCC NOI stated that NTIA should consider the reaccommodation of amateurs displaced by the loss of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment.[EN 131] SCRRBA specifically suggests that amateur point-to-point operations be reallocated a portion of the 2310-2390 MHz band. "The guard band areas from 2300 through 2316 MHz and 2384 through 2390 MHz would seem workable."[EN 132] SCRRBA indicates that this would provide a controlled guard band for flight test telemetry operations without wasting spectrum on an empty guard band. Furthermore, SCRRBA suggests that point-to-point operations could also be placed in other guard bands which may exist in the 2200-2300 MHz region.[EN 133] In any event, ARRL recommends that if commercial users are added to the 2390-2400 MHz band segment, then the amateur status should be elevated to co-primary.

Public-Safety/Local Government. In general, APCO is concerned that NTIA's reallocation proposal does not include any frequencies below 1 GHz, where public-safety land mobile systems currently operate. "While spectrum above 1 GHz will provide frequencies for future public safety communications, especially new technologies, spectrum below 1 GHz is needed now to alleviate current spectrum shortages facing public safety communications."[EN 134] In addition to the reallocation of frequencies below 1 GHz, APCO states that NTIA should allow public-safety agencies to share certain Federal frequencies in the VHF and UHF bands which are adjacent to FCC-allocated land mobile frequencies.[EN 135] APCO also maintains that the preliminary reallocation proposal does not include sufficient blocks of contiguous frequencies below 3 GHz. "Larger frequency blocks and/or blocks adjacent to existing mobile bands would be more useful for wide-area mobile applications, especially for newer technologies (such as video and high resolution imagery) likely to require wide band channels."[EN 136] Furthermore, APCO contends that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment is subject to significant limitations on additional non-Federal use. APCO is particularly concerned that microwave oven emissions in the 2400 MHz bands will prevent significant wide-spread land mobile use.[EN 137] Taking the above factors into consideration, APCO suggests that NTIA revisit its proposal and reallocate Federal spectrum that would provide more immediate relief for State and local government public-safety agencies.[EN 138]

The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and the Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) support the reallocation of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment for IVHS use.[EN 139] FDOT conducted field performance evaluation of several automatic vehicle identification and electronic toll and traffic management systems (AVI/ETTM) technologies to determine the best features of those systems. In their comments, FDOT and MTA state that technologies operating in the 902-928 and 2435-2465 MHz bands were observed. FDOT states that a significant conclusion of its field performance evaluations was that the analysis of the spectrum around 915 MHz revealed that a great deal of electromagnetic interference already exists.[EN 140] On the other hand, FDOT states that an analysis of the spectrum around 2450 MHz revealed " little if any potential for interference."[EN 141] MTA adds that the analysis performed by its consulting engineers reached similar conclusions.[EN 142] Based on their analysis results, FDOT and MTA request that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment be reallocated to serve the needs of IVHS and they encourage NTIA to reallocate this band at the earliest possible date. "An early reallocation would facilitate our selection of frequency-specific technology currently under consideration in our SunPass [FDOT's AVI/ETTM system will be known as SunPass. The principal purpose of SunPass will be to operate as an electronic toll collection system augmenting conventional toll colection equipment.] procurement."[EN 143] Members of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Special Committee on Communications stated that the restrictions suggested in the Preliminary Report for the 2390-2400 MHz band segment appear to be reasonable and should not present a negative effect on competition or access to new services. In its comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, Motorola also supports reallocation of Federal spectrum for IVHS use.

Thirty-seven commenters on the FCC NOI supported the COPE request for 75 MHz of spectrum below 3 GHz to establish a Private Land Mobile Advanced Communications Service. In its comments submitted on the FCC NOI, COPE stated that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment can be used to meet some of its public-safety requirements. "Of the three bands recommended for immediate reallocation, it is believed that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment would best meet the needs of private system licensees as outlined in the COPE petition."[EN 144] COPE further states that this band is available in Region 2 for fixed, mobile, and radiolocation use and would therefore be available for the types of operations proposed by COPE. "Similarly, the restrictions proposed in NTIA's Preliminary Report for the 2390-2400 MHz band would not impose a significant limitation on the utility of this spectrum for private communication systems."[EN 145] The comments submitted on the FCC NOI by API, UTC, and APCO urge the FCC to begin the allocation process described in the COPE petition by allocating the 2390-2400 MHz band segment for non-Federal use.

Non-Licensed. The comments submitted by GEC on the FCC NOI suggest that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment be combined with the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for non-licensed device development. "Combining the two bands would increase the spectrum available offsetting some of the interference issues resulting from the ISM band."[EN 146] Furthermore GEC believes that combining the two bands would allow the development of more competitive applications, thereby enhancing the value of the spectrum. Western Multiplex Corporation (WMC) holds an opposing view, and feels that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment is unsuitable for the development of non-licensed devices. "Therefore, WMC proposes that this spectrum be made available for urgently needed new private services with channelization plans capable of multiple users."[EN 147]

Utilities. In its response on the FCC NOI, the Rural Telephone Cooperative (LEACO) maintains that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment is technically suitable for the provision of interactive video, voice and data services in rural areas. "The advantages of specifically allocating 2390-2400 MHz for interactive video, data, and voice use is that it is in close proximity to other compatible spectrum and could be used in conjunction with this existing spectrum to build a larger interactive network."[EN 148]

Summary. NRC and NAIC support the restrictions proposed in the Preliminary Report that prohibit airborne or space-to-Earth links in the 2390-2400 MHz band segment and limit terrestrial operations in Puerto Rico near the Arecibo Observatory. Motorola claims that due to its proximity to the 2450 MHz ISM band, the 2390-2400 MHz band segment is impractical for wide-area communications, and that commercial applications would be limited to low-powered localized systems. DOD indicates that its use of this spectrum is largely at specific sites for limited time periods.

APCO agrees with Motorola, and is particularly concerned that the wide-spread use of microwave ovens in the 2400 MHz band will prevent significant wide-spread land mobile use. On the other hand, public-safety users responding to the FCC NOI believe that the 2390-2400 MHz band segment would meet the needs of private system licensees as outlined in the COPE petition. ITA also suggests that privately operated emerging technology systems will prove more compatible with the existing operations and limitations of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment than commercial communications systems. The general consensus among amateur radio commenters is that sharing with commercial services will be difficult. However, several of the comments submitted by representatives of the amateur radio service indicate that they are able to share with certain commercial and public-safety applications. FDOT and MTA support the reallocation of the 2390-2400 MHz band segment for IVHS use.

2402-2417 MHz

NTIA received twenty-seven responses on the Preliminary Report that addressed this band segment: two Federal, four commercial, one utility, four non-licensed device, four public-safety/local government, and fourteen amateur (see TABLE 2-1). In addition, the joint DOD response also addressed this band segment in its comments. The FCC received 59 responses on its NOI that addressed this band segment: three Federal, fourteen amateur, eleven commercial, thirteen non-licensed, ten public-safety/local government, and two utilities (see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.

Federal. The comments submitted by NAIC expressed concern about the proposed reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for commercial use. NAIC states that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment is adjacent to the 2370-2390 MHz band used for planetary radar research at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico. NAIC's comments further state that this radar is considered a valuable research tool and is being upgraded to operate well into the next century.[EN 149] Therefore, NAIC requests that the final report contain specific assurances about the protection of the 2380 MHz band from out-of-band emissions generated by commercial applications in the reallocated 2402-2417 MHz band segment. NAIC recommends that restrictions on airborne and space-to-Earth transmission, as well as possible constraints on terrestrial operations near the Arecibo University, be included in the final report.[EN 150] In their comments on the FCC NOI, NAIC and NRC recommended that the reallocation constraints placed on the 2390-2400 MHz band in the Preliminary Report be extended to include 2402-2417 MHz.

In the joint DOD comments on the Preliminary Report, Air Force states that the 2402-2417 MHz band is primarily used for electronic warfare training, telemetry or telecommand, and other scientific and technological research. Air Force adds that the equipment used to support these applications requires access throughout the spectrum. "Inability to accomplish special research projects impacts advances in science and technology for both the government and non-government sectors."[EN 151]

The comments submitted by Navy state that many of the systems operating in the bands proposed for reallocation have a war reserve mode that is classified and cannot be reflected in the public records. "Consequently, the Navy and other elements of the DOD must be consulted, and must be involved in the selection of any non-Government services proposed for operation in the bands identified for reallocation."[EN 152]

In its comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, NCS supports the continued use of this band by the amateur radio community. The FCC Report states that use of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment by amateurs, ISM, and non-licensed devices will limit the possibility of implementing a licensed service in this band.[EN 153]

Non-Licensed. The 2402-2417 MHz band segment is a smaller portion of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that is authorized for the development and operation of spread spectrum non-licensed devices under the FCC's Part 15 rules. The general consensus among the non-licensed device manufacturers submitting comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, is that they are opposed to the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment if the proposed new application inhibits the existing non-licensed device users. The Part 15 Coalition, Symbol Technologies, Western Multiplex Corporation, and ITRON all stated in their comments that the FCC cannot allocate this band for a licensed service without disrupting the existing users and incurring unacceptable interference to proposed new services.[EN 154] "In fact, if an allocation was made to a licensed user in this band the Commission would find themselves in a situation similar to that currently encountered in the lower ISM band: 902-928 MHz "[EN 155] GEC states that both frequency hopping and direct sequence are used by the manufacturers developing spread spectrum systems in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band. Based in part on its experience with spread spectrum systems in the 902-928 MHz band, GEC believes that when there is an environment where power levels are different, frequency hopping systems can achieve a greater processing gain and perform better than direct sequence systems. Commenters on the FCC NOI agree that shared non-licensed frequency use under Part 15 has been highly successful, particularly with the advent of spread spectrum technology. "Spread spectrum communications are very successful at sharing spectrum with conventional communications."[EN 156] Moreover, the majority of the non-licensed device commenters on the FCC NOI indicate that co-existence between a new service and the incumbent non-licensed devices hinges on whether the new service complies with most of the existing FCC Part 15 spread spectrum rules.

Although the robust nature of spread spectrum systems allow non-licensed devices to share spectrum with other devices, GEC and Larus stated in separate discussions that they are apprehensive about the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment to a service that is incompatible with non-licensed devices. In its comments on the FCC NOI, GEC stated that a high-power system used in large numbers (e.g., AVM) would make the band unusable for the existing non-licensed device manufacturers as it did for those manufacturers in the 902-928 MHz band.[EN 157] "As an alternative, the Commission could permit only those new services capable of operating effectively subject to rules comparable to the present spread spectrum rules, thereby reducing the likelihood of harmful interference between such services and Part 15 devices."[EN 158] GEC believes that adopting spread spectrum rules similar to those employed by non-licensed devices should allow more services to operate concurrently in the same band. "Concurrent use of the band would foster competition among like services as well as different services to be offered."[EN 159]

In its comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, GEC stated that the reallocation and subsequent loss of 15 MHz in the 2400 MHz band is also an issue of global competitiveness. GEC maintains that reducing the available 83 MHz of spectrum by 15 MHz will result in a reduction of processing gain which could reduce the overall effective throughput, but the systems could still function. GEC is more concerned that the loss of spectrum will influence international sales and the ability to compete in foreign markets. "Reallocating a portion of this band will cause uncertainty on how this proposed reallocation may affect major current and future commercial investments in this emerging world-wide market."[EN 160]

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802 Committee is currently working on technical standards for non-licensed local, metropolitan, wide area and integrated voice/digital communications networks. As stated in its comments on the Preliminary Report, its efforts have focused on the 2400-2483.5 MHz frequency band because it is the only spectrum widely available on an international basis with reasonably consistent regulation. "The Committee is concerned that the intended use of this portion of the 200 MHz spectrum freed for non-Governmental use would form a threat to the current and millions of future users of this band because devices, built according to the Committee's standard, would be interferers to the users."[EN 161] The IEEE 802 Committee urges NTIA to reconsider reallocating the 2402-2417 MHz band segment and replace it with another band that does not conflict with existing ISM allocations.[EN 162] GEC and the Larus Corporation (Larus) stated that many of the non-licensed products that operate in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band are either in the early design/development stage or are in the process of being field tested. Many commenters on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI maintain that component costs are on the decline, making the 2400 MHz band even more attractive to companies developing non-licensed devices. Larus asserts that non-licensed devices could be developed in the 5725-5850 MHz band, but cost would be 20% to 30% more than devices in the 2400 MHz band. Larus also claims that they cannot use the FCC's newly allocated non-licensed PCS band for systems development, because the bandwidth and data rate requirements of its system are much greater than those envisioned for this band. GEC stated that its system architecture could be modified to operate in the newly allocated non-licensed PCS band, but it believes there is an overriding issue of global compatibility that must be considered. Regardless of the outcome, the majority of the commenters on the FCC NOI believe that use of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band for the development of spread spectrum communications will increase in the future. "... the Commission should authorize services at 2402-2417 MHz that are compatible with Part 15 spread spectrum operations -- which include virtually all conventional narrowband services -- and should refrain from authorizing services that cannot withstand even very slight interference potential of Part 15 spread spectrum technologies."[EN 163]

Commercial. TIA comments express concern that the microwave oven emissions in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment will limit its commercial usefulness. "TIA believes that the noise from ISM devices, including microwave ovens, and from non-licensed RF devices, makes NTIA's assessment, at best, overly optimistic."[EN164] Although the 2402-2417 MHz band segment is in a relatively quiet part of the microwave oven band, TIA maintains that the graphs shown in Appendix E of the Preliminary Report indicate a substantial noise floor. TIA agrees with the statements in the Preliminary Report that robust communications techniques may be available to overcome the noise in the band; however, these techniques are not without their costs. "TIA estimates that current and predicted future interference in the band will cause the infrastructure to cost between 2.2 and 50 times the cost of the same system implemented without interference."[EN 165] Motorola agrees with TIA, and further adds that the level of interference in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment will necessitate high-powered devices to overcome the ambient noise, reducing its utility for wide-area use. "The net result is higher cost and size of equipment and poorer quality communications services."[EN 166] GTE also believes that commercial applications in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment will be hampered by non-licensed devices and the noise generated by ISM devices.[EN 167] In their comments on the FCC NOI, TIA and NABER agree that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment has several inherent problems including: microwave oven emissions, sharing with the amateur radio service, and non-licensed device operation. However, NABER believes that some private users can coexist with the existing microwave oven and ISM equipment in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment.[EN 168]

TIA and GTE question the ability of commercial services to share spectrum with amateur radio licensees. Furthermore, with the exception of non-licensed devices, TIA is unaware of any previous experience of commercial sharing with amateurs.[EN 169] The 2402-2417 MHz band segment is a small portion of the 2400-2483.5 MHz band that is allocated on a secondary basis for use by the amateur service. As stated in the Preliminary Report and substantiated by ARRL, current amateur usage in the 2400 MHz band is light.[EN 170] However, TIA maintains that judging from the comments received from the individual amateur radio operators, this claim is not accurate and it is TIA's opinion that amateurs will oppose any reallocation of the band to new non-Federal services. "Even if their opposition is not successful, surely it will be difficult to arrange sharing with amateur licensees in this band."[EN 171] Moreover, GTE and Motorola reiterate their position that the amateur radio service will significantly hamper commercial applications in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment.

Motorola and TIA recognize that the manufacturers of non-licensed devices have made possible a host of useful products for consumers, businesses, and public-safety agencies. Given the fact that the 2400-2483.5 MHz band is already supporting a significant non-Federal industry, both Motorola and TIA question whether any additional benefits would be gained through the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment.[EN 172]

In its comments on the FCC NOI, LQP states that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment could be used for MSS uplinks. "LQP believes that its MSS uplinks would not be substantially affected by either ISM or Part 15 systems in the band."[EN 173] LQP bases this conclusion in part on tests conducted to determine the impact of ISM emissions on MSS downlinks. LQP also indicates in its response on the FCC NOI that they are planning to conduct tests in the near future to determine the impact of ISM or non-licensed devices on MSS uplinks. However, after reviewing other comments in this proceeding, LQP withdrew its support.[EN 174] LQP now believes that the spectrum proposed for immediate reallocation would be more useful for MSS if the 2300-2310 MHz band is substituted for the 2402-2417 MHz band segment. On the other hand, COMSAT supports LQP's original recommendation, adding that the 2390-2430 MHz band, which includes the 2390-2400 and 2402-2417 MHz band segments, was proposed by the U.S. delegation at WARC-92 for primary (Earth-to-space) MSS systems.

The comments and reply comments submitted by ITA on the FCC NOI state that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment will satisfy part of the future emerging technology requirements of private users. "With privately operated systems there is greater flexibility in use of the spectrum. Consumer-oriented services will find their greatest value in the urbanized areas of the country. However, urbanized areas will also tend to have the greatest concentration of microwave ovens and other non-licensed devices."[EN 175] ITA further states that by contrast, many private users will need to establish their own internal emerging technology systems away from the nation's largest population centers. "Historically, private users have always had a need to establish reliable communications systems in remote and sparsely populated areas. The band 2402-2417 MHz may be ideally suited to accommodate this need."[EN 176]

Amateur. The comments submitted on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI by ARRL, AMSAT, regional amateur groups, and several amateur operators oppose the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for commercial use if it disrupts existing amateur operations. In their responses, representatives from the amateur radio community describe the possible disruption to current and future amateur television (ATV) and amateur-satellite downlink operations if the 2402-2417 MHz band segment is reallocated. AMSAT confirms that although current ATV and satellite use may be light by standards used to judge other parts of the spectrum, it expects usage to increase in the next few years. "Like other users of the radio spectrum, amateurs tend to move from lower frequencies to higher frequencies as time passes and the state-of-the-art advances."[EN 177]

ARRL states in its comments on the Preliminary Report that ATV will occupy three channels: 2410-2427, 2427-2433, and 2433-2450 MHz (as shown in Figure 2-1). ARRL further states that television transmission often requires wider bandwidths than do other forms of amateur communication.[EN 178] For this reason, amateur television experimenters have an especially strong incentive to use the higher-frequency bands such as 2400 MHz [Amateurs transmit both AM and FM in this band. AM video has a bandwidth of approximately 6 MHz and FM video, approximately 17 MHz.]. ARRL also reports that ATV is currently being used in the Chicago area, northern and southern California, Arizona, and Nevada. In separate comments, the Chief of Police of Martinez, California describes the importance of his ATV repeater network to public-safety operations in his jurisdiction.[EN 179] The comments submitted by ATN on the FCC NOI also discussed the expanding public service applications of amateur television. "This is one of the best areas for the Amateur radio community to help the public safety workers to communicate by use of the Amateur Television Repeaters during disasters."[EN 180] ATN agrees that the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment will primarily affect the first ATV channel (2410-2427 MHz), but they are more concerned that a loss of spectrum at the lower part of the 2400 MHz band would force other displaced amateur activities into the ATV channels. "Although our repeater is on 2441.5 MHz, the loss of the lower part of the 2.4 GHz band would force other amateur mode activity that would be displaced to share the only clear repeater input channel suitable."[EN 181]

In its comments on the Preliminary Report, AMSAT supports NTIA's proposal to exclude the 2400-2402 MHz band segment from reallocation, stating that these frequencies are of vital importance to spacecraft operations in the amateur-satellite service, for satellites in current use as well as those under construction.[EN 182] However, in the readily foreseeable future, "AMSAT anticipates an increased demand for amateur satellite operations in this portion of the spectrum, far greater than can reasonably be accommodated within a 2 MHz band."[EN 183] AMSAT believes that the 2 MHz band segment is too narrow to accommodate such wide-band techniques as fast-scan television, even if compression techniques are employed. AMSAT hopes to employ such modes on future spacecraft. ARRL agrees with AMSAT, that while the 2400-2402 MHz band segment takes into consideration existing occupancy of the band by amateur satellites, it provides little room for future requirements, and does not satisfy the need to have comparable spectrum for uplinks and downlinks as indicated in the band plan shown in Figure 2-1.[EN 184] AMSAT argues that the 10 MHz-wide 1260-1270 MHz uplink-only amateur service allocation is available and a similar bandwidth is needed as a downlink at 2400 MHz.[EN 185] TABLE 2-4 lists the amateur satellites that use the 2400 MHz band.

============================================================
Table 2-4: Amateur Satellite Usage in the 2400 MHz Band
============================================================
        
Amateur Satellite      2400 MHz Band Usage
------------------------------------------------------------           
 AMSAT-OSCAR 13      downlink on 2400.711-2400.747 
                      & beacon on 2400.650 MHz
 UOSAT-OSCAR 11      beacon on 2401.5 MHz
 PACSAT (AO-16)      beacon on 2401.1 MHz
   DOVE (DO-17)      beacon on 2401.22 MHz
         Arsene      downlink on 2446.5 MHz
       Phase 3D      downlink on 2400.5-2400.9 MHz 
                      & uplink on 2400.1-2400.5 MHz
                      (scheduled launch on 4/96)
============================================================

In its comments on the Preliminary Report, AMSAT stated that the transmitter for the French-built Arsene amateur satellite failed several months after launch. However, before the failure, AMSAT states that a number of amateurs around the world reported hearing this downlink at 2446.5 MHz indicating that it may be viable to operate satellit downlinks and possibly uplinks in the upper portion of the 2400 MHz band.[EN 186]

The comments and reply comments submitted by the amateur radio community and in particular the amateur-satellite community on the FCC NOI expressed concern about the proposed reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for commercial use. ARRL and AMSAT stated that the 2400-2450 MHz band is primarily used for amateur-satellite operations and wide-band amateur television operations. In the Preliminary Report, NTIA's assessment of this band concluded that "... amateur use of these bands is believed to be very light in comparison to the lower amateur radio frequency bands."[EN 187] Several of the commenters agree with NTIA's initial assessment; however, the amateur commenters maintain that usage of these bands is expected to change in the future. In order to meet the anticipated near-term future needs of the amateur-satellite service, AMSAT recommends that a 10 MHz-wide portion of the existing amateur-satellite band from 2400-2410 MHz be allocated on a primary basis to the amateur service, with no sharing partners except for the existing ISM assignments.

The comments received from the amateur radio community on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI also expressed concern about the possibility of sharing the 2402-2417 MHz band segment with high-density commercial applications, referring to the on-going events in the 902-928 MHz band. However, AMSAT does believe that amateur-satellite operations could share with point-to-point microwave links, since interference could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. One commenter on the FCC NOI suggests that the proposed bands could be modified to 2393-2400 and 2409-2427 MHz, providing for both a 3 MHz high-band pairing slot and increased bandwidth for amateur satellite activities in the 2400-2409 MHz slot.[EN 188] Several commenters believe another viable alternative is to return several megahertz at the high end of the 2310-2390 MHz band to shared-use with the amateur radio service.[EN 189] "It was taken away to accommodate aeronautical flight test telemetry. To our knowledge, there is no current use of the spectrum for that purpose. The re-utilization of empty spectrum is clearly in the public interest."[EN 190]

Public-Safety/Local Government. In addition to the disruption of non-licensed device operation, APCO's comments on the Preliminary Report express concern that microwave oven emissions in the upper portion of the band will prevent significant wide-spread land mobile use in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment.[EN 191] The general consensus among the public-safety commenters to the FCC NOI is that microwave oven emissions will hinder to some extent the operation of wide-area mobile public-safety systems in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment. However, many of the commenters agree with the suggestion made by the American Petroleum Institute (API), that some public-safety use may be possible. "Some limited applications could possibly be met in the 2402-2417 MHz band although it is congested with Industrial, Scientific and Medical (ISM), and Part 15 devices."[EN 192] The comments submitted by APCO, COPE, and the Utilities Telecommunications Council (UTC) on the FCC NOI indicate that there may be methods to avoid microwave oven interference, either through geographic limitations, power levels, or advanced technological approaches such as spread spectrum. "APCO urges the Commission and the manufacturing community to explore these and other techniques that might expand possible uses of the 2.4 GHz band. This spectrum is too valuable to be left for the near exclusive use of microwave ovens."[EN 193] Moreover, APCO suggests that for the purpose of long-range planning " the Commission may also want to impose additional technical restrictions on microwave oven signal leakage to expand the potential for future use of the 2.4 GHz band."[EN 194]

The comments submitted by COPE suggest that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment may also be suitable spectrum for licensing certain types of private communications systems. "Whereas commercial carriers generally require expansive, ubiquitous coverage in order to market their services, private users are able to develop more localized systems and are therefore better able to engineer in their systems."[EN 195] APCO supports COPE's position, and suggests that the Commission explore the possibility of allocating the band for private operational fixed service (POFS) microwave operation. "While in urban areas POFS microwave may be difficult due to aggregate microwave oven interference, the band could be used for POFS microwave at isolated mountaintop transmitter/receiver sites with high elevation paths over sparsely populated areas."[EN 196] Commenters also suggest that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment could also be used to alleviate some of the public-safety microwave frequency shortages caused by the reallocation of the 2 GHz band for PCS applications. COPE adds that the spread spectrum systems currently operating in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment are primarily used by public-safety and industrial users. "It is therefore possible that this spectrum could be allocated for use by private users with technical parameters that are consistent with the existing Part 15 systems."[EN 197]

In their comments on the Preliminary Report, both FDOT and MTA supported the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for IVHS use. FDOT's comments indicate that this choice of bands was a result of field tests conducted using several AVI/ETTM systems operating within the 902-928 and 2435-2465 MHz bands. From these field tests, FDOT states that its consultants determined that the spectrum around 915 MHz was too congested and would only get worse over time. On the other hand, FDOT states that analysis of the spectrum around 2450 MHz revealed that there was little if any potential for interference.[EN 198] MTA stated that its consulting engineers came to a similar conclusion. Based on their analyses, FDOT and MTA recommend reallocating the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for use by IVHS. FDOT maintains that reallocation at the earliest possible date is important because it would facilitate their selection and procurement of equipment.[EN 199] In addition, Motorola's comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI recommend that Federal spectrum be reallocated to support the needs of IVHS. "In this regard, Motorola envisions IVHS will require spectrum to accomplish both wide area communications as well as limited or short range messages."[EN 200] Motorola further states that short range communications will be used for electronic fee payments at toll booths or parking lots, in-vehicle signing, and commercial vehicle clearances.

Utilities. The comments submitted by UTC on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI expressed concern that the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment to the private sector could be construed as a policy determination that this band should be allocated by the FCC for licensed radio services.[EN 201] UTC contends that many utilities currently employ spread spectrum equipment developed under the FCC's Part 15 rules for automatic meter reading, demand side management, and point-to-point communications to pipelines. "In short, the Part 15 spread spectrum bands, including the proposed 2402-2417 MHz, are used for important applications that cannot, and should not, be dismissed as unnecessary or unimportant merely because they are unlicensed."[EN 202] UTC therefore questions the commercial viability of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for new, licensed radio services given the significant current and projected use of this band by spread spectrum operations under Part 15 rules. API's comments on the FCC NOI reiterated UTC's concern that non-licensed spread spectrum operation in the 2402-2417 MHz range should not be curtailed.

LEACO suggests in its comments on the FCC NOI that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment could be used in conjunction with the existing spectrum to build a larger interactive network in rural areas. [The Multipoint Distribution Service (MDS) spectrum is located at 2150-2162, 2560-2656, 2662-2668, and 2674-2680 MHz;The Muntichannel Multipoint Distribution Service (MMDS) spectrum is located at 2596-2644 MHz and the Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) spectrum is located at 2500-2644 MHz.] "When considering spectrum suitable for rural areas, the distance a transmitter is capable of covering is critical since it is uneconomical to install large numbers of transmitters with small service areas in sparsely populated areas. The reallocated spectrum is both economically and technically suited for rural areas because the range of a single transmitter is far greater than the range of a transmitter operating at 28 GHz or greater spectrum. The typical range for the 28 GHz band is six miles while the typical range of the 2.4 GHz is thirty miles. Thus the reallocated spectrum is best suited for rural areas."[EN 203]

Summary. NAIC recommends that restrictions be added to the final reallocation plan to prohibit airborne or space-to-Earth links and to place constraints on terrestrial operations near the Arecibo University in the 2402-2417 MHz band segment. DOD indicates that its use of this spectrum is largely at specific sites for limited time periods. The FCC Report expressed concern about the disruption of present and future amateur operations in this band segment if allocated for commercial use.

The comments submitted by the non-licensed device manufacturers oppose the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment to licensed users not willing to adhere to rules comparable to the present Part 15 spread spectrum rules. The general consensus among commercial entities is that microwave oven emission, non-licensed device operation, and sharing with amateurs make this band difficult for a licensed service to use. However, ITA indicated that the 2402-2417 MHz band segment could satisfy part of the future emerging technology requirements of private users.

The amateur radio community is opposed to any reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment that disrupts its existing satellite and television operations. ARRL and AMSAT anticipate that the increased demand for amateur-satellite operations cannot be accommodated in the 2 MHz band segment reserved in the Preliminary Report. AMSAT recommends a primary allocation in the 2400-2410 MHz band for amateur-satellite operations. From the standpoint of the amateur community, sharing has not been successful with high-density commercial users under any circumstances. However, AMSAT does believe that amateur-satellite operations could share with point-to-point microwave links, since interference could be handled on a case-by-case basis.

UTC and APCO question the commercial viability of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for a licensed commercial service. UTC states that many utilities are planning to use non-licensed spread spectrum systems, and the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment would only serve to disrupt the services to be provided by these devices. APCO is concerned that the emissions generated by wide-spread microwave oven use will prevent the commercial development of wide-area mobile systems. However, APCO suggests that the FCC explore the possibility of allocating this band for private operational fixed service microwave operation in rural areas. COPE believes that this spectrum could be allocated for use by private users with technical parameters that are consistent with the existing Part 15 systems. FDOT and MTA support the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment for use by emerging IVHS technology.

3650-3700 MHz

NTIA received four responses on its Preliminary Report that addressed the 3650-3700 MHz band segment: one Federal and three commercial (see TABLE 2-1). In addition to the public comments, the joint DOD response discussed the reallocation of this band segment. Although it was not the subject of the FCC NOI, three parties, all commercial, filed comments that addressed this band segment(see TABLE 2-2). This band was also discussed in the FCC Report.

Federal. As stated in DOT's comments, the 3650-3700 MHz band segment is part of the larger 3600-3700 MHz band that the FAA was planning to use for expansion of the terminal radars used to support air traffic control at airports. DOT stated that the "FAA is not currently using this band, but future air traffic growth, which is likely, could require additional frequencies to support the radar surveillance that is critical to air traffic control."[EN 204]

In the joint DOD response to the Preliminary Report, Air Force states that this band is used for satellite augmentation and target cross section and scatter tests on military ranges. Air Force recommends a 50 MHz guard band for adjacent-band protection from mobile high-powered radar systems. Air Force believes that continued encroachment on the adjacent-band will increase potential electromagnetic interference (EMI). Air Force further states that non-Federal users will need to develop and promote strict receiver and transmitter standards to prevent EMI to or from critical radar systems in the adjacent-band.[EN 205]

Navy states that it has an extensive investment in air traffic control radars that operate in the 3500-3700 MHz band. This radar utilizes 15 or more channels throughout the 3500-3700 MHz band for optimum operation.[EN 206] Navy also states that its new mission concept emphasizes "littoral" operations (i.e., operations close to land that is presumed to be occupied, at least in part, by hostile forces). "Given the shift of Navy warfare doctrine into littoral operations which require locating ships closer to shore than blue water operations, it is expected that this vital system will experience a significant increase in interference."[EN 207] The FCC Report states that the reallocation of the entire 3600-3700 MHz band for non-Federal use could provide much needed spectrum for the fixed-satellite service (FSS). "Although this band is already used by non-Government users, we believe that elimination of allocation footnote US245, which limits FSS satellite use to international inter-continental systems subject to a case-by-case interference analysis, would provide potential for increased non-Government use."[EN 208] The FCC Report also states that reallocation of additional spectrum adjacent to this band is justified for non-Federal use. "We believe it would be very useful to fully examine the possibility of reallocating the entire band for non-Government use."[EN 209]

Commercial. In its response to the Preliminary Report, the Communications Satellite Corporation (COMSAT) World Systems (CWS) supports the reallocation of the 3650-3700 MHz band segment for commercial fixed-satellite use. CWS points out that the 3600-3700 MHz band is available internationally for fixed-satellite without the same constraints that confront domestic users. CWS states that within the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) system alone, 28 countries use the 3625-3700 MHz band.[EN 210] CWS asserts that its experience with international satellite operations in the 3500-3700 MHz band demonstrates that use of the 3650-3700 MHz band segment is technically feasible and economical, particularly for large earth stations, but also for Very Small Aperture Terminals (VSATs), in providing digital voice, video, and data services. At a minimum, CWS urges the reallocation of the 3650-3700 MHz band to non-Federal use with a primary allocation for FSS, and a secondary allocation for radiolocation services.[EN 211] CWS believes that the proposed January, 1999 time frame for such a reallocation is reasonable.

In addition, CWS recommends that NTIA consider the reallocation of the lower 50 MHz portion from 3600 to 3650 MHz, for non-Federal use with a primary allocation for FSS, and a secondary allocation for radiolocation services. The comments submitted by CWS emphasize "In view of the demand for C-band capacity, and the experience CWS and its customers already have had in using 3625-3700 MHz, use of this spectrum is clearly commercially viable."[EN 212] If reallocation for non-Federal use is not deemed feasible upon consultation with Federal users of the 3600-3700 MHz band, CWS believes NTIA should consider extending the current sharing between Federal and non-Federal users of the 3600-3700 MHz band to include the 3500-3600 MHz band as well.[EN 213]

Comments submitted by TIA and NABER on the FCC NOI recommend adopting regulatory or industry receiver standards for new equipment in the reallocated band to enhance sharing.

Summary. The comments submitted by DOT stated that the 3650-3700 MHz band segment is not currently being used. However, the anticipated growth in air traffic control could necessitate its use at a later date. Air Force emphasized the need of a 50 MHz guard band to prevent EMI to and from DOD radars that are adjacent to non-Federal applications. Air Force further stated that the adoption of transmitter and receiver standards for commercial equipment is essential. Navy indicates that its training operations will be moving closer to shore increasing the potential of interference with non-Federal users. The FCC Report recommends that the entire 3600-3700 MHz band be reallocated for non-Federal use in order to provide much needed spectrum for FSS. The FCC also recommends that allocation footnote US245 be eliminated.

CWS supports reallocation of the 3650-3700 MHz band segment for the FSS, citing the current technical and economical success of INTELSAT, indicating that its current international operations in the 3500-3700 MHz band are commercially viable. CWS also believes the proposed time frame for reallocation (5 years) is reasonable. In addition to the reallocation of the 3650-3700 MHz band segment, CWS suggests several other alternatives that would extend the reallocation to include 3600-3650 and 3500-3600 MHz. TIA and Naber recommend adopting receiver standards to enhance sharing in the band.

4635-4660 and 4660-4685 MHz

NTIA received ten responses on its Preliminary Report that addressed these bands: four Federal, five commercial, and one public safety/local government (see TABLE 2-1). In addition to the public comments, the joint DOD response discussed the reallocation of this band. The FCC received 30 responses on its NOI that addressed these bands: sixteen commercial, nine public safety/local government, three utilities, and two non-licensed (see TABLE 2-2). These bands were also discussed at separate meetings between NTIA and DOI as well as in the FCC Report.[EN 214]

Federal. In its response on the Preliminary Report, Treasury stated that it operates nine aerostat wideband downlinks in the 4635-4660 MHz band segment: four in Texas, and one each in Puerto Rico, Arizona, Louisiana, Florida, and the Bahamas. Treasury feels that the costs for changeout of frequencies at these sites will be negligible if substitute frequencies within the tuning range of the equipment can be successfully coordinated, as is anticipated.

DOE stated in its comments that it is authorized to use the 4400-4990 MHz band for the Nuclear Emergency Search Team (NEST) equipment in any operating environment throughout the United States. DOE further states that this team has the responsibility to search, detect, and locate nuclear materials, and to respond to nuclear-related emergencies to protect the safety and health of life and property. While the radio equipment is frequency agile and can be tuned to any frequency in the 4400-4990 MHz band, DOE maintains that operational use of this equipment should not be restricted in any operating environment if its use is required in response to emergencies. DOE stated that NEST currently coordinates on a case-by-case basis prior to the use of its equipment in any operating environment to avoid causing harmful interference to other operations. DOE adds that it has also received spectrum support for new microwave systems in support of a new, very large trunked land mobile system. DOE believes that these microwave systems can be reprogrammed to operate in the remaining portions of the 4400-4990 MHz band at negligible cost.

In its comments, NASA stated that it operates aeronautical video telemetry link transmitter equipment in the 4660-4685 MHz band that can be replaced for use in another band at a minimal cost.

The comments submitted by Army stated that its tactical radio relay systems are authorized in these bands and are extensively used within the United States for comprehensive realistic training, humanitarian relief, natural disaster operations, and for maintenance of combat readiness. Army's comments also stated that the 4400-4990 MHz band supports unmanned aerial vehicle and mobile video units, and is the only band used by the Army for transportable, fixed tropospheric scatter (troposcatter) communications systems. The comments submitted by Army also indicated several areas of concern regarding the reallocation of this band: "This band is an important spectrum resource for the Army's integrated communications networks. Of the 3 frequency bands used to link the integrated area-wide network, this band is used for major Army headquarters nodal connectivity. Previous reallocations have effectively removed land forces tactical networks from two of the 6 bands normally used. Options of moving operations into one of the other bands are extremely difficult and not operationally sound. Other frequency bands are fully used and very congested. Moving to a lower band creates technical problems from larger bandwidths and operational distance requirements. Moving to a higher band creates similar problems. Further loss or erosion of authorized frequency resources would adversely affect military land forces' ability to provide an adequate command, control communications network."[EN 215]

In the joint DOD response on the Preliminary Report, Air Force states that the reallocation of this band will result in the need to retune one video downlink communications system, ten microwave telemetry and control systems for its TARS, one over-the-horizon tropospheric radio system, an undetermined number of digital tactical tropospheric systems, and to relocate its Television Ordnance Scoring System (TOSS) equipment to the 7 GHz band, if possible. Air Force also states that dual channel operation of the digital tactical tropospheric systems will require at least 100 MHz of frequency separation. Moreover, Air Force stated that loss of frequencies for these tropospheric systems will significantly increase congestion, reduce flexibility, make co-sited operations more difficult to support, and increase the potential for interference.

Navy states in its comments that many of the systems operating in the bands proposed for reallocation have a war reserve mode that is classified and cannot be reflected in the public records.

DOI stated that the 4400-4990 MHz band was discussed as a possible alternative for reallocated 1710-1755 MHz Federal fixed point-to-point microwave systems, but indicated that there may not be many commercial systems available and that interference is possible because of the aeronautical mobile operations currently in the band.[EN 216]

The FCC Report states that although these bands are already allocated for non-Federal use for FSS (space-to-Earth) on a co-primary basis with Federal fixed and mobile use, there is currently no non-Federal use of these bands. The FCC believes that this spectrum would be useful in providing non-Federal services, provided that the domestic allocation footnote that limits use of these bands to international inter-continental systems be eliminated (although such use would still be constrained by the international allotment plan contained in Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations).[EN 217] The FCC also states that new technologies will likely require greater than the 50 MHz identified for reallocation. Specifically, "...it appears that significant opportunities for additional non-Government use exist, considering that many of the Government operations appear to be in either remote areas or at sea. Accordingly, further consideration should be given to reallocation of a significantly greater portion of the 4400-4990 MHz band for exclusive non-Government use as well as to the potential for sharing all of this spectrum with non-Government services."[EN 218]

Commercial. LQP suggests in its comments on the Preliminary Report that the 50 MHz segment of spectrum offered for non-Federal use in these bands could be used for MSS feeder uplinks, and could be even more useful if combined with 150 MHz of additional adjacent spectrum.[EN 219] In its comments on the FCC NOI, LQP expands the list of suggested uses for the band to include not only MSS feeder uplinks, but service and feeder uplinks and/or downlinks as well.[EN 220] As stated in LQP's comments on the Preliminary Report, the adjacent spectrum could be made available to commercial systems on either an exclusive or shared basis with Federal systems, and LQP would work with NTIA and the users of these bands to determine the feasibility and mechanisms for sharing. LQP believes that the few gateway earth stations (less than 10 in the U.S.) needed for its system could be located so as to prevent harmful interference to Federal operations.[EN 221] COMSAT also supports allocation of these bands for MSS use: "COMSAT agrees with LQP, and other MSS commenters ... that the 50 MHz of spectrum proposed for immediate transfer from the Federal Government to the private sector merits consideration by the Commission as candidate bands for additional global MSS spectrum ... [these bands] would be extremely useful for designation as non-geostationary satellite feeder link bands."[EN 222]

In its comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, AMSC states that MSS is prominent among the services requiring new accommodations, and that the frequencies proposed in the Preliminary Report are not useful for MSS systems. Specifically, AMSC points out that ITU reallocation of these bands is not feasible due to the need for and the use of current fixed-satellite service allocations and allotments in Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations.

In its comments on the Preliminary Report, Motorola contends that " due to its location in the spectrum, the 4660-4685 MHz band is not usable for cost-effective wide area mobile communications."[EN 223] Several other commercial, public safety/local government, and utilities commenters to the FCC NOI agree with Motorola indicating that the use of this band for wide-area private land mobile systems is well beyond the capabilities of the current technology.[EN 224] The comments submitted by TIA and APCO express concern about the limitations that were proposed in the Preliminary Report for the 4635-4660 and 4660-4685 MHz bands.[EN 225]

Several commenters to the FCC NOI and the Preliminary Report suggest that the 4660-4685 MHz band should be allocated for primary fixed use by microwave operations that were displaced from the 1.8 and 2.2 GHz bands by the FCC PCS proceedings.[EN 226] However, Alcatel warns that although the band is suitable for fixed microwave use, at least 100 MHz is needed for a viable microwave channel plan (transmitter and receiver channels each must be at least 10 MHz with a 5 MHz guard band) and that the proposed amount of spectrum (25 MHz initially) is therefore inadequate.

Several commenters on the FCC NOI agree that the 4660-4685 MHz band should be reserved for wide-band advanced digital video services (ATV) and allocated to the terrestrial fixed and mobile broadcas auxiliary service (BAS).[EN 227] "... the public faces a real risk of significant disruptions in the delivery of television news unless steps are taken to alleviate the BAS spectrum congestion, even before demand is increased precipitously with the advent of ATV services."[EN 228]

In their comments on the FCC NOI, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell state that the 4660-4685 MHz band is too close to the 4635-4660 MHz band to be easily paired and would have to be used as a contiguous block. Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell believe this arrangement could be useful for in-building, TDD applications, and limited outdoor applications such as wireless coin phones, but most mobile wireless services will require a paired-frequency FDD technology. The commenter insists that without pairing, many commercial applications will not be possible in this band.

Southwestern Bell Corporation (SBC) comments on the FCC NOI argue that use of the 4660-4685 MHz band for wireless local loop applications would present difficult coverage and servic problems. SBC states that equipment for this band is more expensive than the lower band equipment because it is not as available and it requires complicated high-frequency circuitry. SBC adds that such applications should operate below 3 GHz to take advantage of the favorable frequency propagation characteristics of that part of the spectrum.[EN 229]

NABER believes that new private services can obtain some shared use with the FSS in the 4660-4685 MHz band through exclusive use licensing on certain applications and by grandfathering existing and licensing future users.[EN 230]

Public-Safety/Local Government. Several public safety/local government, commercial, and utilities commenters to the FCC NOI agree with Motorola by stating that the use of this band for wide-area private land mobile systems is well beyond the capabilities of the current technology.[EN 231] APCO and TIA state in their comments on the Preliminary Report that they are concerned about the limitations that were proposed in the Preliminary Report for these bands.[EN 232]

Utilities. API and two commercial commenters on the FCC NOI and the Preliminary Report suggest that the 4660-4685 MHz band should be allocated for primary fixed use by microwave operations that were displaced from the 1.8 and 2.2 GHz bands by the FCC PCS proceedings.[EN 233] UTC agreed with Motorola and several public safety/local government and commercial commenters on the FCC NOI by stating that the use of this band for wide-area private land mobile systems is well beyond the capabilities of the current technology.[EN 234]

Non-Licensed. In its comments to the FCC NOI, WMC concludes that the 4660-4685 MHz band would not be suitable for non-licensed use and recommends allocation of this band to the fixed service for private land mobile communications applications.

Summary. Treasury, DOE, NASA, Army, and Air Force stated that they have operations in the 4635-4660 and 4660-4685 MHz bands. The reallocation of these bands will primarily affect the flexibility of Army and Air Force fixed troposcatter communications systems. Options of moving operations into other bands are viewed by Army personnel as extremely difficult. The FCC believes that these bands would be useful in providing non-Federal services; however, any new technology will likely require more than 50 MHz.

Several commenters suggested that these bands could be useful for MSS feeder uplinks, especially if combined with 150 MHz of additional adjacent spectrum. However, many of the commercial and public-safety commenters feel that use of these bands is not cost-effective for wide-area mobile communications. In addition, several commenters suggested that these bands could be reallocated to accommodate the fixed microwave operations that were displaced by the PCS proceedings.

   
=========================================================================================================================
ENDNOTES FOR SECTION 2

     
       Requests for copies of references from Federal departments and agencies should
       be referred to the originating organization. Parts of the reference material
       may be exempt from public release.
 
 



   1. 59 Fed. Reg. 6005 (1994).
   
   2. Allocations of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Trasnferred from Fed. Gov't Use, FCC Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket 
      NO. 94-32, FCC94-97, 59 Fed. Reg. 6005 (May 44, 1994) [hereinafter FCC NOI].
   
   3. Letter from Deborah R. Castleman, Deputy Assitant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, and 
      Communications, U.S. Dep't of Defense, to Richard Parlow, Assoc. Adm'r, Nat'l Telecommunications and Info.
Admin, 
      (Sept. 1, 1994) [hereinafter Joint DOD Response]. 
   
   4. See Comments filed in response to NAT'L TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFO. ADMIN., U.S. DEP'T OF
COMMERCE, SPECIAL 
      PUBLICATION 94-27, PRELIMINARY SPECTRUM REALLOCATION REPORT (Feb. 1994) [hereinafter
NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT]:Nat'l
      Astronomy and Ionosphere Ctr. (NAIC), at 1 (May 9, 1994); and Nat'l Research Council Comm. on Radio
Frequencies 
      (CORF), at 5 (May 11, 1994). [hereinafter all comments cited, refer to NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, unless
otherwise 
      stated].
   
   5. NAIC, supra note 4, at 3;CORF, supra note 4, at 9.

   6. NSF, supra note 4, at 1; NAIC, supra note 4, at 3; CORF, supra note 4, at 10.
   
   7. NSF, supra note 4, at 1.

8. U.S. Dep't of the Army Comments, at 6 (May 9, 1994) [hereinafter Army]. 9. Id. at 7. 10. Id at 6. 11. U.S. Dep't of Trans. (DOT) Comments, at 1 (June 1, 1994). 12. Joint DOD Response, supra note 3, at 2. 13. Id. at 3. 14. Id. at 2. 15. Id. at A-10. 16. Id. 17. Id. at 5. 18. REPORT FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, to Ronald H. Brown, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Regarding the NTIA PRELININARY REPORT, FCC 94-213, at 26 (Aug. 9, 1994) [hereinafter FCC REPORT].

19. Id. 20. Motorola Comments, at 14 (May 11, 1994). 21. Id.; Telecommunications Indus. Ass'n (TIA) Comments, at 15 (May 11, 1994). 22. Institute for Telecommunications Sciences (ITS), U.S. Dep't of Commerce, ITS Staff Study, "A Preliminary Look at Spectrum Requirements for the Fixed Services, (May 1993) [hereinafter ITS Study]. 23. Id. at 32-33. 24. Nat'l Ass'n of Business and Educational Radio Inc. (NABER) Comments, at 17 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 25. Amateur Television Network (ATN) Comments, at 2 (June 7, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 26. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 26. 27. Army, supra note 8, at 5. 28. Id. at 6. 29. Joint DOD Response, supra note 3, at ATTACHMENT 2, 6-7. 30. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 13-14. 31. American Mobile Satellite Corp. (AMSC) Comments, at 2 (May 11, 1994). 32. Meeting between NTIA and American Mobile Satellite Corp. (AMSC) on July 18, 1994. 33. Meeting between NTIA and Motorola on July 13, 1994. 34. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 14. 35. U.S. Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (NOAA) Comments, at 2 (May 11, 1994). 36. Memorandum from D. James Baker, Under Secretary and Adm'r, NOAA to Larry Irving, NTIA Assistant Secretary for Communications and Info., at 1 (Oct. 18, 1993). 37. Id. 38. Id. 39. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 15. 40. TIA, supra note 21, at 16. 41. AMSC, supra note 31, at 2. 42. AMSC Meeting, supra note 32. 43. Motorola Meeting, supra note 33. 44. U.S. Dep't of Argic. (USDA) Comments, at 2 (May 11, 1994). 45. Id. 46. DOT, supra note 11, at 2. 47. U.S. Dep't of Interior (DOI) Comments, at 2 (May 4, 1994). 48. Meeting between NTIA and Dep't of Interior on June 23, 1994. 49. DOI, supra note 47, at 3. 50. Meeting between NTIA and the Dep't of Treasury on June 28, 1994. 51. U.S. Dep't of Justice (DOJ) Comments, at 2 (May 31, 1994). 52. Id. 53. Meeting between NTIA and the Dep't of Justice on July 26, 1994. 54. DOJ, supra note 51, at 2. 55. Army, supra note 8, at 5-6; Meeting between NTIA and Dep't of the Army on June 28, 1994. 56. Army, supra note 8, at 5. 57. Id. at 12. 58. Id. at 7. 59. Dep't of Energy (DOE) Comments, at 1 (May 19, 1994). 60. Id. 61. Id. 62. Id. at 2. 63. U.S. Air Force Comments on the Space-Ground Link Subsystem, Air Force FRequency Management Office, Dec. 12, 1994. 64. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 15. 65. Id. at 16. 66. Id. at 27. 67. Id. 68. Meeting between NTIA and Motorola on June 29, 1994. 69. TIA, supra note 21, at 16. 70. Digital Microwave Corp. (DMC) Comments, at 2 (May 11, 1994). 71. Ass'n of Public-Safety Communications Officials-Int'l Inc. (APCO), Comments, at 6 (May 11, 1994). 72. APCO, supra note 71, at 7. 73. Utilities Telecommunications Council (UTC) Comments, at 3 (May 11, 1994). 74. Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Admin. (NASA), Comments, at 3 (May 8, 1994). 75. NASA, supra note 74, at 4. 76. Id. 77. Id.;CORF, supra note 4, at 14. 78. Protection of Goldstone from RFI Due to Reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz Band, David Struba, NASA Headquarters Office of Space Communications, June 1994. 79. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 4, at 5-7. 80. NASA, supra note 74, at 5-6. 81. Telephone Conference Between David Struba/NASA, Franz Borncamp/JPL, and NTIA, Subject:Protection of Goldstone from Radio Frequency Interference Resulting from the Reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz Band, June 28 1994. 82. Joint DOD Response, supra note 3, at ATTACHMENT 2, 6-7. 83. Id. at 1. 84. Id. 85. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 32. 86. GTE Service Corp. (GTE) Comments, at 4 (May 11, 1994). 87. TIA, supra note 21, at 17. 88. Id.;GTE, supra note 86, at 4. 89. Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell Comments, at 3 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 90. Southerwestern Bell Corp. (SBC) Comments, at 5-6 (June 15, 1994),filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 91. Loral Qualcomm Partnership (LQP) Reply Comments, at 3-5 (June 30, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 92. American Radio Relay League (ARRL) Comments, at 21 (May 11, 1994). 93. Id. at 14; Radio Amateur Satellite Corp. (AMSAT) Comments, at 9 (May 11, 1994). 94. San Bernardino Microwave Society (SBMS), Inc. Comments, at 7 (May 2, 1994). 95. ARRL, supra note 92, at 13. 96. Amateur Radio Council of Arizona Comments, at 2 (May 9, 1994). 97. ARRL, supra note 92, at 14. 98. AMSAT, supra note 93, at 9. 99. ARRL, supra note 92, at 23. 100. SBMS, supra note 94, at 3. 101. Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Ass'n (SCRRBA) Comments, at 18 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 102. ARRL, supra note 92, at 14. 103. Id. at 5;Southern California Repeater and Remote Base Ass'n (SCRRBA) Comments, at 3 (May 10, 1994). 104. ARRL, supra note 92, at 5. 105. Id. 106. Id. at 7. 107. Id. at 8. 108. Id. 109. SCRRBA, supra note 101, at 9. 110. AMSAT, supra note 93, at 11. 111. NAIC, supra note 4, at 5. 112. Id. 113. Nat'l Research Council Comments, at 6-7 (June 16, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 114. Joint DOD Response, supra note 3, at ATTACHMENT 2, 6-7. 115. Navy Comments, at 1 (May 18, 1994), in Joint DOD Response, supra note 3. 116. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 17. 117. Motorola, supra note 20, at 9. 118. Id. 119. GTE, supra note 86, at 4; TIA, supra note 21, at 17.

120. Loral Qualcomm Partnership (LQP) Comments, at 5 (June 15, 1994), filings in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2; Loral Qualcomm Partnership (LQP) Reply Comments, at 3 (June 30, 1994). 121. Communications Satellite Corp. (COMSAT) Reply Comments, at 1 (June 30, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 122. Southwestern Bell Corp. (SBC) Comments, at 11 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 123. Industrial telecommunications Ass'n (ITA) Comments, at 6 (June 15, 1994), filings in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2: Industrial Telecommunications Ass'n (ITA) Reply Comments, at 4-5 (June 30, 1994). 124. TIA, supra note 21, at 11; Telecommunications Industry Ass'n (TIA) Comments, at 10 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 125. ARRL, supra note 92, at 9-10. 126. SBMS, supra note 94, at 4. 127. SCRRBA, supra note 103, at 7. 128. Id. at 3. 129. Id. at 6. 130. American Radio Relay League (ARRL) Comments, at 14-15 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 131. ARRL, supra note 92, at 8. 132. SCRRBA, supra note 103, at 8. 133. Id. at 7. 134. APCO, supra note 71, at 5. 135. Id. 136. Id. at 6. 137. Id. at 7. 138. Id. at 8. 139. Florida Dep't of Transportation (FDOT) Comments, at 1 (May 17, 1994); Maine Turnpike Authority (MTA) Comments, at 1 (May 26, 1994). 140. FDOT, supra note 139, at 2. 141. Id. 142. MTA, supra note 139, at 1. 143. FDOT, supra note 139, at 3. 144. The Coalition of Private Users of Emerging Multimedia Technologies (COPE) Comments, at 5 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 145. Id. 146. GEC Plessey Semiconductors (GEC) Comments, at 1 (May 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 147. Western Multiplex Corp. Comments, at 8 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 148. LEACO Rural Telephone Coop. Comments, at 8 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 149. NAIC, supra note 4, at 5. 150. Id. 151. Joint DOD Response, supra note 3, at ATTACHMENT 2, 1. 152. Navy Comments, at 1 (May 18, 1994), in Joint DOD Response, supra note 3. 153. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 23. 154. Comments filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2:Part 15 Coalition Comments, at 4 (June 14, 1994); ITRON Comments, at 1 (June 15, 1994); Western Multiplex Comments, at 6 (June 15, 1994);METRICOM Inc. Reply Comments, at 5 (June 30, 1994). 155. Interdigital Communications Corp. Comments, at 4 (June 14, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 156. Symbol Technologies Comments, at 6 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 157. Telephone Conference between NTIA and GEC Plessey on May 27, 1994; Telephone Conference between NTIA and Larus on May 27, 1994. 158. American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) Corp. Comments, at 3 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 159. GEC, supra note 146, at 2. 160. GEC Plessey Semiconductors Comments, at 1 (Apr. 6, 1994). 161. The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Computer Society Comments, at 1 (July 25, 1994). 162. IEEE, supra note 161, at 2. 163. Symbol Technologies, supra note 156, at 9. 164. TIA, supra note 21, at 8. 165. Id. at 9. 166. Motorola, supra note 20, at 9. 167. GTE, supra note 86, at 4. 168. NABER, supra note 24, at 16. 169. TIA, supra note 21, at 10. 170. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 4, at 4-16; ARRL, supra note 92, at 9. 171. TIA, supra note 21, at 11. 172. Motorola, supra note 20, at 9; TIA, supra note 21, at 10. 173. LQP, supra note 91, at 5. 174. LQP, supra note 120, at 3. 175. ITA, supra note 123, at 7. 176. Id. 177. AMSAT, supra note 93, at 4. 178. ARRL, supra note 92, at 13. 179. City of Martinez Police Dep't Comments, at 1 (Mar. 21 1994). 180. ATN, supra note 25, at 2. 181. Amateur Television Network (ATN) Comments, at 1 (May 5, 1994). 182. AMSAT, supra note 93, at 2. 183. Id. 184. ARRL, supra note 92, at 18. 185. AMSAT, supra note 93, at 11. 186. Id. at 5. 187. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 4, at 4-16. 188. Northern Amateur Relay Council of California Comments, at 2 (June 13, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 189. Id. at 2; ARRL, supra note 92, at 8; SCRRBA, supra note 101, at 9. 190. ARRL, supra note 92, at 10; SCRRBA, supra note 101, at 7. 191. APCO, supra note 71, at 7. 192. American Petroleum Inst. (API) Reply Comments, at 7 (June 30, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 193.Ass'n of Public-Safety Communications Officials-Int'l (APCO) Comments, at 6 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 194. Id. 195. COPE, supra note 144, at 7. 196. APCO, supra note 193, at 7. 197. COPE, supra note 144, at 7. 198. FDOT, supra note 139, at 3. 199. Id. 200. Motorola, supra note 20, at 14.

201. UTC, supra note 73, at 3. 202. Id at 4. 203. LEACO Rural Telephone Coop. Comments, at 8 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 204. DOT, supra note 11, at 2. 205. Air Force Memorandum Commenting on the Draft Final Spectrum Reallocation Report, Doc. 29121, at 5 (Jan. 10, 1995). 206. Joint DOD response, supra note 3, at 7. 207. Dep't of Mavy Memo from Commander, Naval Air Systems Command, to Director, Naval Electromagnetic Spectrum Ctr., Subject:Ramification of Federal Communications Comm'n Request for Additional Spectrum Reallocation (Dec. 12, 1994). 208. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 28. 209. Id. 210. Communications Satellite Corp. (COMSAT) World Systems Comments, at 3 (May 11, 1994). 211. Id. at 4. 212. Id. 213. Id. at 7. 214. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 20. 215. Army, supra note 8, at 7. 216. DOI Meeting, supra note 47. 217. FCC REPORT, supra note 18, at 21. 218. Id. at 29. 219. Loral Qualcomm Partnership (LQP) Comments, at 2 (May 11, 1994). 220. LQP, supra note 120, at 6. 221. LQP, supra note 219, at 2-3. 222. Communications Satellite Corp. (COMSAT) World Systems Reply Comments, at 2 (June 30, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2. 223. Motorola, supra note 20, at 10. 224. Comments filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2: California Public-Safety Radio Assoc., Inc. Orange County Comments, at 1 (June 15, 1994); Industrial Telecommunications Ass'n, Inc. Comments, at 3 (June 15, 1994);Int'l Ass'n of Chiefs of Police Comments, at 2 (June 14, 1994); New York City Transit Police Dep't Comments, at 3 (June 15, 1994); Telecommunications Industry Ass'n Comments, at 18 (June 15, 1994); UTC, supra note 73, at 5. 225. TIA, supra note 21, at 7; APCP, supra note 71, at 18. 226. Alcatel Network Systems, Inc. Comments, at 3 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2; American Petroleum Inst. Comments, at 17 (June 15, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2; Digital Microwave Corp. Comments, at 5 (May 11, 1994). 227. Comments filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 2: Ass'n for Maximum Service Television, Inc. Comments, at 1 (June 15, 1994); National Broadcasting Co. Inc. Reply Comments, at 2 (June 29, 1994); National Ass'n of Broadcasters Reply Comments, at 3 (June 30, 1994). 228. Id. 229. SBC, supra note 122, at 4-5. 230. NABER, supra note 24, at 16. 231. Motorola, supra note 20, at 16. 232. California, supra note 224, at 1. 233. TIA, supra note 21, at 18; APCO, supra note 71, at 12. 234. Motorola, supra note 20, at 10.

Return to Report Table of Contents.
Proceed to Section 3, Federal Government Reallocation Costs and Operational Impact.