Before the

NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS

AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

Washington, D.C. 20230



In the Matter of                                                                 )
                                                                                         )
Mandatory Reimbursement Rules                                       )         Docket No. 001206341-0341-01
for Frequency Band or Geographic Relocation                   )
of Federal Spectrum-Dependent Systems                          )          RIN 0660-AA14
 


COMMENTS

Mobex Communications, Inc. (Mobex), by its attorneys, hereby files in Comments in response to the Administration's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in the above-captioned matter. In support of its position, Mobex shows the following.

Acting by its subsidiary, Regionet Wireless License, LLC (Regionet), Mobex operates Automated Maritime Telecommunications Systems (AMTS) in the 216-220 MHz band, serving the maritime and land mobile public across the United States. Accordingly, Mobex is vitally interested in the Administration's proposals concerning the future use of the 216-220 MHz frequency band.

Regionet is authorized to provide AMTS service to the Atlantic Coast from the State of Maine to Florida and around the Florida peninsula to Tampa, as well as to Puerto Rico. Regionet serves the Pacific Coast from the Washington to California. Regionet is also authorized to provide AMTS service to four of the five Great Lakes and to the Erie Canal. Inland, Regionet provides AMTS service to the Mississippi River System, the Gulf Coast, and the Gulf Intracoastal

Waterway. As the leading operator of AMTS systems, the parent of Regionet, Mobex is well positioned to inform and advise the Administration in the above captioned matter.

Mobex has four concerns in the instant matter. The first two concerns involve the speed of spectrum reallocation, the third concern involves the cost of relocation and reclamation to the non-Federal user, and the fourth concern is the treatment of classified and sensitive Federal operations.

The Federal Communications Commission has defined its policy objectives for assignment of licenses. The Commission has stated that "first, we seek to establish a flexible regulatory framework that will (1) provide opportunities for continued development of competitive new services, (2) expedite market entry through streamlined licensing procedures, (3) promote technical innovation, and (4) eliminate unnecessary regulatory burdens," Maritime Communications, _____ FCC Rcd. ______ at para. 3 (FCC 00-370 Released November 16, 2000); Multiple Address Systems, 15 FCC Rcd. 11956, 11957 (1999). In adopting its policies, the Administration should work in concert with the Commission to facilitate the success of the Commission's policies.

Relocation May Not Be Necessary

The NPRM seems to assume that all Federal agencies using the subject spectrum will desire to relocate to different spectrum, however, some agencies may have no intention to relocate or there may be no suitable alternative spectrum for their operations. To expedite the reallocation of each frequency band, the Administration should first ascertain whether each Federal agency has any intention of relocating, and if the agency using a certain band has no interest in relocating, the Administration should promptly notify so the Commission to allow the Commission to proceed directly to the licensing of non-Federal users. If the Administration first simply asks whether an agency intends to relocate, it may be able to save a substantial amount of time in the licensing process and save some agencies a substantial amount of unnecessary planning effort.

As an AMTS operator, Mobex operates on a secondary basis to the United States Navy's SPASUR system which operates in the band 216.880 MHz to 217.080 MHz. In more than 15 years of AMTS operation, Mobex has encountered no difficulty in sharing use of the band with the SPASUR system and does not anticipate any difficulty in the event that it obtains additional AMTS licenses. Because of the surveillance nature of the SPASUR system, there may be no other spectrum which would be suitable for the SPASUR purpose. If the Navy has no intention of relocating the SPASUR system or concludes that no other spectrum would serve the purpose, then the Navy should so inform the Administration now so that the Administration can sever the 216-220 MHz band from the above captioned proceeding and allow the Commission to proceed promptly to the granting of non-Federal licenses.

The Proposed Time Line Should Be Compressed

The time line suggested by the NPRM seems to be unduly long and would impair the FCC's objective of bringing new, competitive service to the public expeditiously. At paragraph 35, the NPRM suggested that Federal entities be required to provide NTIA with marginal cost information at least 240 days prior to an FCC auction and NTIA would provide that information to the FCC at least 180 days prior to an auction.(1)

In view of all of the periods required for notice and comment preparatory to an FCC auction and the time which must be provided for potential bidders to consider all relevant matters, the Administration's proposal could prevent an auction from occurring for as much as two years from the present time. Such a result would unreasonably frustrate the FCC's objectives and the objectives of the Strom Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (the Act). Since all Federal agencies can be deemed to have notice of the Administration's proposals now, they should be planning now, and NTIA should require the submission of the agencies' marginal cost data 30 days after the effective date of the NTIA order in the above captioned matter. NTIA should then provide that cost information to the FCC within 15 days after receiving it.


Both a Relocation Cost Cap and a Reclamation Cost Cap are Needed

Pursuant to the Act, NTIA has proposed to establish a Relocation Cost Cap, beyond which a non-Federal licensee would not be required to compensate a Federal user for frequency relocation. While Mobex certainly supports the establishment of a Relocation Cap, the NPRM did not discuss the obvious need for a cap on the costs to be imposed on a non-Federal user in the event that the Federal user desires to reclaim the original spectrum. If competitive bidding is to meet the financial objectives of Congress, then it is necessary for the Administration to provide not only a Relocation Cap, but a Reclamation Cap, as well. To determine whether to participate in competitive bidding and to establish a bidding strategy, a person desiring to bid competitively for a license needs to know all of the costs which the Federal Government may subject it before filing its auction application. Therefore, the Administration should require Federal agencies to ascertain the maximum amount of compensation which they might demand for reclamation of spectrum and the NTIA should inform the Commission of the cap on those potential costs.

Further with respect to reclamation, the Administration should require a Federal agency at the conclusion of negotiations with the non-Federal licensee to certify that the spectrum to which it intends to move will meet its needs. Thereafter, the Federal agency desiring to reclaim spectrum should have to meet a heavy burden to demonstrate that changed circumstances have overtaken its certification.


Mobex Supports the Proposed Treatment of Classified and Sensitive Assignments

Mobex supports the Administration's proposed method of dealing with Classified and Sensitive Government assignments. The proposed method would provide the Government with the necessary security, while providing the non-Government licensee with sufficient information to conduct its business in a reasonable manner.


Conclusion

For all the foregoing reasons, Mobex respectfully requests that the Administration take actions consistent with Mobex's suggestions herein.
 

Respectfully submitted,

MOBEX COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
 

______________________________
Dennis C. Brown

126/B North Bedford Street
Arlington, Virginia 22201
703/525-9630
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Dated: March 19, 2001

1. The NPRM did not make clear whether those periods of time would be concurrent or consecutive.