The 50 MHz identified for immediate reallocation will not be impacted by these spectrum proposals. However, a discussion of NTIA and FCC responsibilities regarding the spectrum identified for immediate reallocation is provided below.
The proposals for the bands identified for reallocation by a delayed effective date will be discussed in this section. Proposals to modify the bands identified in the Preliminary Reallocation Plan will be discussed first, followed by proposals to add new bands to the bands identified in the Preliminary Reallocation Plan.
To implement the reallocation to non-Federal users, the Federal Government provisions of the National Table of Frequency Allocations were changed, effective August 10, 1994. As a result, all Federal allocations in the three bands were deleted. A special note was appended to existing Federal frequency assignments in those bands. This note indicates that the Federal assignments are permitted to remain in the reallocated bands on a non-interference basis to non-Federal operations.
On October 20, 1994, the FCC adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) that proposes allocations to the fixed and mobile services for all three frequency bands identified for immediate reallocation. The FCC believes such an approach allows for flexible use of these bands so that licensees would be able to offer a wide range of services, employing a variety of technologies. As stated in the NPRM, this approach would benefit the public by providing for the introduction of new services or the enhancement of existing services.
The FCC also believes that most of the services to be provided in this spectrum would likely meet the statutory criteria for auctions. Therefore, the FCC is proposing to make licenses for this spectrum available through competitive bidding to the extent practicable. Title VI requires the FCC to adopt rules by February 10, 1995, to allocate the spectrum identified for immediate transfer.
Proposed Modifications to the Bands Identified in the Preliminary Reallocation Plan 1390-1400 MHz. In their comments on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, both Motorola and TIA recommend that NTIA reconsider its decision not to propose reallocation of the entire 1350-1400 MHz band.[EN 1] Although the 1390-1400 MHz band segment is proposed to be reallocated, Motorola and TIA indicate that it is not clear why the remaining 1350-1390 MHz band segment cannot be reallocated for non-Federal use. Both commenters refer to an NTIA study released in May 1993 that analyzes the spectrum requirements for the fixed services.[EN 2] This study concludes that there are a total of 582 U.S. assignments within the entire 50 MHz band with only a 1% expected growth rate for assignments in the band.[EN 3]
The FCC Report supports the views expressed by Motorola and TIA, specifically recommending that "NTIA reevaluate this band with a view toward making more of it available for non-Government use."[EN 4]
The report referenced in both the Motorola and TIA comments addresses only the fixed service and does not include the other radio services that operate in this band. As discussed in detail in the Preliminary Report, the 1350-1400 MHz band is allocated in various parts to the fixed, mobile, radiolocation, fixed-satellite, mobile-satellite, space research, and earth exploration-satellite services.[EN 5] Moreover, the NTIA fixed service report does not include the 2,650 tactical radios reported by the Army to operate in the 1350-1850 MHz band or the current DOD and FAA radar usage in the 1350-1400 MHz band.[EN 6]
Two major systems currently being fielded that operate in this band are the joint DOD/FAA ARSR-4 and the RAJPO GPS data link. The ARSR-4 is a dual-channel, frequency-hopping system with a tuning capability of 1215-1400 MHz, that FAA and Air Force maintain is necessary to achieve its full operational capability. Air Force states that each channel pair requires 83 MHz of frequency separation to maintain its highest possible reliability. Air Force adds, "This requirement, the need to have frequency-hopping, anti-jam capabilities and the use of ATC and other radars will make retuning and/or restricted use extremely difficult if not impossible in some areas."[EN 7] The ARSR-4 was Congressionally mandated for national air defense surveillance and ATC missions and is currently being fielded at Joint Surveillance System sites around the perimeter of the United States. Loss of the 1390-1400 MHz band segment will require software and hardware changes, while further spectrum loss in the 1350-1390 MHz band segment would require that the ARSR-4 be completely redesigned.[EN 8]
In January 1994, Air Force began fielding of the RAJPO GPS data link, which operates in the 1350-1400 MHz and/or 1427-1435 MHz bands. A total procurement of 719 units have been authorized for use at 18 sites throughout the United States and possessions.[EN 9] This system is critical to ensuring the safety of personnel during training or test operations on ranges. Dual frequency operation is required to ensure data availability in rugged terrain and to overcome multipath problems encountered during combat training exercises. Air Force maintains that any additional loss of spectrum in the 1350-1390 MHz band would affect the future support of full scale training exercises necessary to verify combat readiness and equipment reliability.[EN 10]
The frequency 1381.05 ñ 12 MHz is allocated for the fixed- and mobile-satellite services (space-to-Earth) for the relay of nuclear burst data, in accordance with Federal Government footnote G114. Nuclear detonations around the world are detected by DOD satellites, relayed to Earth and received at numerous fixed, transportable and mobile locations. Recent improvements in technology and equipment modernization have reduced the bandwidth necessary for this function to 5 MHz, centered on the frequency 1381.05 MHz. Alternative frequencies for this function are not practical since the transmitters are located on satellites and cannot be changed.[EN 11] Reallocation of the entire 1350-1400 MHz band would disrupt the essential function performed by this system.
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.[EN 12] Reallocating the entire 1350-1400 MHz band would only intensify this problem, since FAA also operates approximately 200 high-power long-range air route surveillance radars in the adjacent 1215-1350 MHz band.[EN 13] Reallocating only the 1390-1400 MHz band segment does not eliminate the problem of high-power adjacent-band interference, but it does provide a guard band between new commercial users and the existing FAA radars. To achieve a satisfactory commercial service that is immediately adjacent to a band used by megawatt radar systems, the adoption of effective receiver selectivity and transmitter emission standards is essential to minimize interference to and from these radar systems.
In Section 2, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell state that most of the mobile wireless services will use FDD technology, which is based on the ability to balance the frequencies used for both directions of service. Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell maintain that the 1390-1400 MHz band segment would only be viable for technologies employing TDD.[EN 14] However, it may be possible to pair 5 MHz of the 1390-1400 MHz band segment with the 5 MHz in the 1427-1432 MHz band segment for FDD applications. The remaining 5 MHz in the 1390-1400 MHz band segment could then be used for applications employing TDD technology or Code Division Multiple Access technology since paired frequency bands are not required.
From the preceding discussion, it can be seen that there is a misunderstanding in the public's assessment of Federal usage in the 1350-1400 MHz band. It is anticipated that DOD and FAA radiolocation operations will continue in this band for at least the next 10 years.[EN 15] As stated in Section 3, the 1390-1400 MHz band segment also has a potentially high reallocation cost as compared with the other bands proposed for reallocation. We continue to believe that reallocation of a larger portion of the 1350-1400 MHz band is not a practical option and consequently retain the reallocation of the 1390-1400 MHz band segment as proposed in the Preliminary Report subject to the following constraints:
1427-1432 MHz. 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. Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell believe that the 1390-1400 and 1427-1432 MHz bands are too small and unbalanced to use in a channel-pairing arrangement and therefore may not be capable of providing a commercially viable service. The FCC Report supports these views and adds that the small size of this proposed allocation, as well as its remoteness from existing non-Federal services, will make it difficult to use either as an adjunct to an existing service or to support a new service. The FCC also states that the proposed continued Federal use of this band (at 14 sites for 15 years) could adversely affect the ability of non-Federal entities to use this spectrum.[EN 16]
======================================================================== TABLE 4-1. Sites at Which Federal Systems in the 1390-1400 MHz Band will be Continued for 14 Years ======================================================================== Radius of Location Coordinates Operation (km) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Eglin AFB, FL 30ø28 N 86ø31 W 80 Dugway Proving Grounds, UT 40ø11 N 112ø53 W 80 China Lake, CA 35ø41 N 117ø41 W 80 Edwards AFB, CA 34ø54 N 117ø53 W 80 Ft. Huachuca, Az 31ø33 N 110ø18 W 80 Cherry Point, NC 34ø57 N 76ø56 W 80 Patuxent River, MD 38ø17 N 76ø25 W 80 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 39ø29 N 76ø08 W 80 Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 39ø50 N 84ø03 W 80 Ft. Greely, AK 63ø47 N 145ø52 W 80 Ft. Rucker, AL 31ø13 N 85ø49 W 80 Redstone, AL 34ø35 N 86ø35 W 80 Utah Test Range, UT 40ø57 N 113ø05 W 80 White Sands Missile Range, NM 32ø10 N 106ø21 W 80 Holloman AFB, NM 33ø29 N 106ø50 W 80 Yuma, AZ 32ø29 N 114ø20 W 80 Pacific Missile Range, CA 34ø07 N 119ø30 W 80 ==========================================================================
Navy and Air Force have stated that reallocating the 1427-1432 MHz band segment will have a serious impact on the training of pilots in the use of sophisticated weaponry unless these frequencies are available for continued use at the test and training ranges specified in the Preliminary Report.
NTIA believes that the concerns expressed above and described fully in Section 2 have merit but fail to address the consequences in terms of how a new commercial service will impact incumbent Federal systems. NTIA selected the 1427-1432 MHz band for reallocation only after considerable analysis of existing Federal use of the entire 1400-1525 MHz band. The 1400-1525 MHz band falls between bands used for radio astronomy in the lower-adjacent band and aeronautical telecommand and telemetering systems in the upper-adjacent band. In addition, the 1400-1525 MHz band must also accommodate the RAJPO GPS data link system.
Because of the importance of the frequencies allocated on an exclusive primary basis in the lower-adjacent band for radio astronomy observations, and the extreme sensitivity of the receivers, reallocation of these bands for non-Federal use were found to have a significant detrimental effect on national radio astronomy operations.[EN 17] For this reason, the bands allocated for exclusive radio astronomy use were not considered for reallocation.
The upper-adjacent bands are co-equally shared between Federal and non-Federal users and are designated to support flight test telemetering for the military and aerospace industry. In recent years, the bands available to support these flight test telemetry operations have been reduced by over 30%. The cost and operational impact, to both Federal and non-Federal users, of any additional reallocation were found in the Preliminary Report to outweigh any positive public benefits. For this reason, these bands were not considered for reallocation.
An additional concern in reallocating the 1427-1435 MHz band involved the RAJPO GPS data link. To achieve the designed communications reliability under low-level flight conditions, simultaneous dual frequency operation is required, with adequate frequency separation to assure reliable communications. Since adequate frequency separation is not available solely within 1350-1400 MHz, continued primary access to a minimum of 3 MHz in the 1429-1435 MHz band is essential, if this $70 million Federal investment is to be preserved. Major redesign of this system to operate with the required reliability in alternative bands would cost an estimated $23 million [EN 18], but alternative bands allocated for Federal use at an acceptably low frequency may not be available. In balancing the public benefits and Federal impact, a feasible option was proposed in the Preliminary Report to reallocate the 1427-1432 MHz portion of this band for exclusive non-Federal use and retain the 1432-1435 MHz portion for continued primary Federal use.
As discussed in Section 2, Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell believe that most mobile wireless services will require FDD technology based on the ability to balance the frequencies used for both directions of service. Without sufficient balance and separation, the 1390-1400 and 1427-1432 MHz band segments would only be viable for other technologies such as TDD. They also point out that some stationary outdoor or in-building services may be conducive to a TDD service in this band. TDD technology currently presents a number of disadvantages in outdoor environments, including greater sensitivity to delay-spread and wide-area synchronization requirements. However pairing this band segment with 5 MHz in the 1390-1400 MHz band segment for FDD applications could still be a viable option.
For the reasons discussed above, NTIA reaffirms the choice made in the Preliminary Reallocation Plan to reallocate this band for exclusive non-Federal use on January 1999. In order to protect essential Federal operations, the final reallocation plan will retain the 14 sites listed in TABLE 4-2 for extended use until January 2004. Reallocation of the band for airborne and space-to-Earth links must still be avoided as stated in the Preliminary Report.
1670-1675 MHz. TIA and AMSC in their 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. The FCC 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 19] The FCC also suggests changing the reallocation schedule for this band from delayed (January 1999) to immediate.[EN 20]
==================================================================== TABLE 4-2. Sites at Which Federal Systems in the 1427-1432 MHz Band will be Continued for nine Years ==================================================================== Radius of Location Coordinates Operation (km) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Patuxent River, MD 38ø17 N 76ø24 W 70 NAS Oceana, VA 36ø49 N 76ø02 W 100 MCAS Cherry Point, NC 34ø54 N 76ø52 W 100 Beaufort MCAS, SC 32ø26 N 80ø40 W 160 NAS Cecil Field, FL 30ø13 N 81ø52 W 160 NAS Whidbey Is., WA 48ø19 N 122ø24 W 70 Yakima Firing Ctr AAF, WA 46ø40 N 120ø15 W 70 Mountain Home AFB, ID 43ø01 N 115ø50 W 160 NAS Fallon, NV 39ø24 N 118ø43 W 100 Nellis AFB, NV 36ø14 N 115ø02 W 100 NAS Lemore, CA 36ø18 N 119ø47 W 120 Twenty Nine Palms, CA 34ø15 N 116ø03 W 80 China Lake, CA 35ø29 N 117ø16 W 80 Yuma MCAS, AZ 32ø39 N 114ø35 W 160 ====================================================================
NTIA believes that the concerns expressed above and described fully in Section 2 have merit but fail to address the consequences in terms of how a new commercial service will impact incumbent Federal systems. NTIA selected the 1670-1675 MHz band segment for reallocation for non-Federal use only after considerable analysis of existing Federal use of the entire 1660-1710 MHz band. Arguments from the Preliminary Report that discourage expansion of the 1670-1675 MHz band include the need to protect the adjacent-band radio astronomy service, the inability to relocate the radiosondes to another band, and the resulting need for the radiosondes to share the 1670-1690 MHz band with the meteorological satellite service.
Because of the importance of the frequencies allocated on a primary basis in the lower adjacent-band for radio astronomy observations and the extreme sensitivity of the receivers, reallocation of this band for non-Federal use was predicted in the Preliminary Report to have a significant detrimental effect on national radio astronomy operations. For this reason, the bands allocated for exclusive radio astronomy use were not considered for reallocation.
Since there exists no alternative method to obtain the data provided by radiosondes, and the other band allocated for radiosondes is plagued with interference from weather radars, the radiosondes in the 1670-1690 MHz band cannot be replaced or moved to another band.[EN 21]
NOAA has stated 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 bands with radiosondes largely limited to the lower 20 MHz."[EN 22] 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.[EN 23] 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).
For the reasons discussed above, NTIA reaffirms the choice made in the Preliminary Report for this band which includes a reallocation availability date of January 1999 and protection of the GOES site at Wallops Island, Virginia. In addition, NOAA has recommended, and NTIA agrees, that a second GOES earth station at Fairbanks, Alaska be given similar protection.[EN 24] Reallocation of the band for airborne and space-to-Earth links must still be avoided and sites engineered to be fully compatible with all Federal operations may still be given immediate consideration as stated in the Preliminary Report.[EN 25] Non-Federal operations applying for immediate shared-use of this band must follow the criteria provided in Appendix C for sharing the band with Federal operations prior to January 1999.
1710-1850 MHz Band. The 1710-1850 MHz band is exclusively allocated for Federal fixed and mobile services on a primary basis, and in the 1761-1842 MHz band segment for space services and combat training systems. Because of the varying spectrum usage of the 1710-1850 MHz band, the band will be assessed in four segments: 1710-1755, 1755-1761, 1761-1842, and 1842-1850 MHz.
1710-1755 MHz Segment. The Preliminary Report identified the 1710-1755 MHz band segment for reallocation for non-Federal use on a mixed use basis available in January 2004. This band is used, in varying degrees, by all major Federal agencies for medium-capacity (e.g., 24-300 voice channels) fixed microwave communications, as well as a variety of special fixed and mobile applications. Tactical radio relay systems are also used extensively in this band to support proficiency training and maintain combat readiness. The majority of the fixed microwave systems operated by the Federal agencies for voice, data, and/or video communications are located in remote areas where commercial service is either unavailable, excessively expensive, or cannot meet the specified reliability requirements. Functions supported by the fixed microwave systems in the 1710-1755 MHz band segment include: national defense, law enforcement, provision of navigation services to ships and planes, management of public forests and parks, military command and control communications, tactical and air combat training, natural disaster response and recovery operations, and the control links for wide-area networks for various power, land and water management systems.
For currently available technologies many of the areas where Federal agencies require communication services to support Congressionally mandated missions are remote and logistically difficult to access with commercial communications services. Commercial service carriers generally require expansive, ubiquitous coverage in order to market their telecommunication services, and are unable to cost effectively provide communications services in these remote areas. OMB Circular No. A-76 establishes a Federal policy to assess if there are reasonable commercial services available in place of Federally owned and operated facilities. For example, USDA states that all of its fixed microwave systems meet the criteria for Federal owned procurement. According to USDA, the primary criteria used to determine whether or not it was eligible to operate its own communications system was that its systems operated in remote areas with single user control. Based on the comments submitted by USDA and other Federal agencies, many of the fixed microwave systems in this band are operated to support missions that must operate in remote, less populated areas where a leased commercial service would not be cost effective. The introduction of new technologies, such as satellite based communication services, will allow fixed microwave communications links to be reexamined in the future.
Twelve Federal agencies and seven non-Federal commenters submitted responses regarding the 1710-1755 MHz band segment in response to the Preliminary Report. In addition, five responses were received by the FCC in response to their NOI. The Federal agencies, while not specifically opposing the reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment, expressed a broad range of concerns about costs, reallocation time frame and operational impact to their Congressionally-mandated missions. Total estimated costs to the Federal agencies to effect the reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment were discussed in Section 3 and are reported to be in excess of $300 million.
Several of the public commenters expressed concern about the amount of continued operations of certain Federal systems and the protection to be afforded to these systems. They also emphasized that some of the 17 sites where Federal operations will continue are in or near metropolitan areas. Several commenters expressed concern that "grandfathering" these systems and the operations at the 17 sites will compromise and restrict the utility of this band for non-Federal use. Other commenters argued that by not knowing the amount and exact locations of the protected systems, they are unable to fully identify the scope of effort involved in sharing this spectrum with the incumbent Federal fixed and mobile services.[EN 26]
Another concern expressed by the public commenters is the 10-year availability date proposed in the Preliminary Report for the 1710-1755 MHz band segment. APCO with the support of Motorola and TIA contend that since this band segment is the largest spectrum block below 3 GHz, and the only reallocated spectrum that can potentially meet the partial requirements of wide-area mobile applications, it should be available sooner than the 10-year reallocation plan.[EN 27]
The FCC in its report reiterated many of the issues raised by the public commenters. The FCC stated, "NTIA has not indicated the locations and number of Federal power and safety-of-life microwave systems that must be protected. The lack of specific information on continued Federal use of this band makes it difficult for the FCC to determine whether this band should be counted toward the minimum spectrum requirements under the terms of Title VI."[EN 28]
In the Preliminary Report, NTIA recognized the potential value of this band to the public, noting, "This band would have a very high public benefit if reallocated to the private sector for non-Federal use ... Rapid adoption of existing technology for use in this band would be likely, leading to early marketing of equipment for any new technology."[EN 29]
In addressing the reallocation of spectrum in the 1710-1850 MHz band for non-Federal use, we recognize the opposing factors of the need for more rapid non-Federal access to the band while at the same time the very high cost of rapid removal of Federal systems and the potential disruption of the operations these systems support. As discussed in Section 2, several commercial and public-safety commenters suggested making the 1710-1755 MHz band segment available earlier than the proposed reallocation date of January 2004 (10 years from the release of the Preliminary Report). The FCC Report supports the views of the commenters and recommends that the 1710-1755 MHz band segment be made available for non-Federal use in January 1999 (5 years from the release of the Preliminary Report). The Federal agencies as a whole are opposed to accelerating the scheduled availability citing budget and personnel constraints as well as potential impact to their Congressionally-mandated missions. Moreover, the Federal agencies state that since the 1995 budget has already been submitted, they cannot request additional funding until the 1996 budget is submitted. This would reduce the time from 5 to 4 years to appropriate the necessary funding through the normal budget process to relocate their operations. In metropolitan areas it is possible that existing or emerging commercial technology and services may meet some Federal Government communication requirements. This may not be true in less populated areas where commercial service is generally not available and often unreliable. New and emerging commercial applications are on the horizon that could be used to facilitate the relocation of Federal users. However, these commercial services are generally not available and are not expected to be available within the accelerated time frame. Until these emerging services are available in remote areas, the Federal use of fixed microwave systems is expected to continue.
Several Federal agencies indicate that they may be able to vacate the 1710-1755 MHz band segment at specific locations sooner with some type of reimbursement. Early reallocation of this band may be a practical option if reimbursement of reallocation costs to Federal agencies is provided. New legislation would be necessary because the current law requires Federal agencies receiving non-appropriated funds to deposit the money in the U.S. Treasury rather than into agency accounts. The spectrum reimbursement proposal may make Federal spectrum available to non-Federal users more quickly than currently proposed in the Preliminary Report.
In addition to legislative initiatives that will permit non-Federal sources to reimburse Federal agencies for systems displaced by the accelerated availability dates, the agencies indicate that changes in the appropriation and acquisition procedures used by each agency must occur to make reallocation prior to the proposed date of 2004 possible. For example, USCG states that their appropriations process normally take three years, specification development one year, acquisition two years, and contract completion two years.[EN 30] USCG further states that these tasks must be accomplished serially. USCG, with the support of several other Federal agencies, stated that if it is determined to be in the national interest to reallocate spectrum proposed for delayed reallocation prior to the date proposed in the Preliminary Report, modifications will have to be made to each agency's appropriation and acquistion procedures, including possible relaxation of certain elements of Federal Information Resource Management Regulations (FIRMR) and Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
FAA agrees with the concern expressed by USCG and other Federal agencies, that the current acquistion process will not permit them to meet the requirements of the accelerated schedule for transfer of Federal radio spectrum.[EN 31]
Based on the comments submitted in response on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI, we recognize that the non-Federal need for spectrum is, and will continue to be, most acute in major urban areas. As a result, we are proposing a two-phase reallocation process wherein the 1710-1755 MHz band segment will be available for reallocation in the 25 largest cities in 1999, contingent on timely reimbursement of Federal costs directly from non-Federal sources. The 1710-1755 MHz band segment will then be available outside of the 25 largest cities in 2004 as proposed in the Preliminary Report. We believe this approach provides the best compromise of providing spectrum when and where it is needed, yet minimizing additional Federal cost. TABLE 4-3 lists the number of Federal frequency assignments on a per agency basis that will be impacted by the reallocation of the 1710-1755 MHz band segment. In cases where cities are within close proximity to each other, the frequency assignments listed in TABLE 4-3 for a city could be the same frequency assignments as listed for the other city (i.e., San Francisco and San Jose, Baltimore and Washington, DC). The only Federal systems that will continue operation within 150 km of the 25 largest cities will be stations operated by Federal power agencies as mandated by Title VI and Federal stations used for limited times during emergency and disaster response. In order to protect certain essential Federal operations outside these areas, including certain safety-of-life communications, Federal stations identified in Appendix E will continue operations and be protected from interference in the band.
1761-1842 MHz Segment. While this portion of the band is allocated and extensively used for fixed microwave systems, the dominant reallocation issues involve the mobile and space applications that currently operate throughout this band segment.
Air Combat Training (ACT) systems are used extensively in this band segment. ACT systems are more complex by the nature of their operations, as both fixed and aeronautical mobile equipment are used.[EN 32] ACT systems that operate in this band segment include: Air Force's ACMI and Navy's ACMR and TACTS. "These systems are in operation at all test and training ranges as well as other bases including Reserve and Air National Guard locations (i.e., civilian airports)."[EN 33] Air Force and Navy ACT systems employ factory preset frequencies throughout the 1761-1842 MHz band segment that are used to transmit information to and from training aircraft. DOD has stressed that training support systems such as these are key elements in the military's effort to provide realistic simulation and combat preparedness for pilot training in a peacetime environment.
The 1761-1842 MHz band segment also supports the tracking, telemetry and command (TT&C) for all DOD satellites, in addition to NATO and British military satellites, space and ballistic missile test programs, and telemetering reception for launches. The major system operating in this band segment that provides the TT&C functions is the Space Ground Link Subsystem (SGLS). SGLS is currently used
============================================================================================ TABLE 4-3. Total Number of Affected Federal Frequency Assignments in the 1710-1755 MHz Band Segment within a 150 km Radius of the 25 Largest United States Cities ============================================================================================ Frequency Assignments By Federal Agency -------------------------------------------------------------------- Rank City/State A AF Ar CG DOE FAA FPA I J N T Total -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 New York, NY 15 4 11 10 1 41 2 Los Angeles, CA 31 5 7 11 3 6 14 2 79 3 Chicago, IL 1 1 9 3 14 4 Houston, TX 1 1 1 9 9 21 5 Philadelphia, PA 28 4 12 8 1 53 6 San Diego, CA 3 1 1 7 2 19 9 42 7 Detroit, MI 1 8 9 8 Dallas, TX 2 4 15 10 1 32 9 Phoenix, AZ 30 6 5 11 1 2 2 57 10 San Antonio, TX 1 22 1 1 4 29 11 San Jose, CA 3 1 3 15 2 10 2 12 2 50 12 Indianapolis, IN 1 2 3 13 Baltimore, MD 19 8 10 9 46 14 San Francisco,CA 1 3 15 3 11 2 13 2 50 15 Jacksonville, FL 2 1 6 1 10 16 Columbus, OH 1 2 3 17 Milwaukee, WI 9 3 12 18 Memphis, TN 16 6 1 6 29 19 Washington DC 13 8 6 9 36 20 Boston, MA 2 2 9 2 15 21 Seattle, WA 18 14 5 4 3 44 22 El Paso, TX 6 1 13 3 14 37 23 Nashville, TN 7 5 1 13 24 Cleveland, OH 1 12 13 25 New Orleans, LA 5 18 5 4 2 34 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Total: 74 24 198 60 29 116 11 12 184 61 3 772 Key: A - Agriculture, DOE - Energy, J - Justice, AF - Air Force, FAA - Federal Aviation Administration, FPA - Federal Power Agency, N - Navy, Ar -Army, T - Treasury, CG - Coast Guard, I - Interior ================================================================================================
to support 96 DOD satellites valued at $115 billion that are critical to national security. To perform their mission SGLS uses 20 discrete, preset frequencies which are distributed within the 1761-1842 MHz band segment beginning at 1763.721 MHz and ending with 1839.795 MHz. Although the TT&C operations are provided at five fixed sites (i.e., Hawaii, New Hampshire, Colorado and two in California) within the United States, DOD also uses transportable SGLS-compatible earth stations to provide additional visibilities during launches, early orbit operations, and critical orbit insertion maneuvers.[EN 34] Air Force maintains it is not possible to change the frequencies for 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.[EN 35] Air Force adds that SGLS is the planned TT&C system for the next several generations of DOD satellites.
In addition to performing TT&C for military satellites, the 1761-1842 MHz band segment supports TT&C for the cooperative DOE/DOD Proliferation Detection Technology (PDT) Program. The PDT Program will demonstrate advanced system technologies for remotely monitoring declared nuclear facilities and for identifying and characterizing undeclared and clandestine nuclear facilities. Although this program is directed at nuclear proliferation monitoring, the technology could potentially serve a variety of other national security and civilian needs.[EN 36]
The Preliminary Report noted the extensive studies conducted on the possible interference to space research and space operations from terrestrial systems. These studies, which specifically included studies of interference to satellite uplinks, concluded, "that the introduction of ... land mobile systems in the frequency bands used by the space service would cause unacceptable interference to the space services."[EN 37] Although those studies were focused on the 2025-2110 MHz (uplink) and 2200-2300 MHz (downlink) bands, the results apply equally for the 1761-1842 MHz band segment.
We continue to believe that reallocation of this band segment, even on a mixed use basis, may jeopardize these important satellite and combat readiness functions and reaffirm the view expressed in the Preliminary Report that reallocation of the 1761-1842 MHz band segment is not a viable option.
1755-1761 & 1842-1850 MHz Segments. As stated in the Preliminary Report, NTIA did not propose reallocation of the 1755-1761 and 1842-1850 MHz band segments in order to provide "... a guard band around the 1761-1842 MHz band to provide adequate interference protection for Federal satellite and certain wideband mobile systems."[EN 38] While these two band segments are used extensively by the Federal agencies for various fixed and mobile applications, an adequate guard band from ubiquitous use typical of commercial land mobile systems was deemed necessary. The FCC Report notes the potential benefit to the public of access to the entire, or at least a larger portion, of the 1710-1850 MHz band and questions why such large guard bands are needed. The FCC includes the 1755-1760 and 1845-1850 MHz bands in its alternative spectrum reallocation plan.
In their comments to the Preliminary Report, Air Force reaffirmed its requirement for adequate guard band protection surrounding the 1761-1842 MHz band segment to provide adequate interference protection to the SGLS. The Air Force Satellite Control Network (AFSCN) frequently operates at low elevations in a high-power mode and often with mobile stations (over 30 systems in use). Air Force stresses that frequency separation is the primary method that can be used to ensure that relatively high-power transmissions do not interfere with each other. If adjacent-band non-Federal use results in either unacceptable interference to or from the space command links, Air Force estimates that necessary equipment modification costs could exceed $430 million. Air Force adds, "Of equal or greater concern is the possibility that reports of EMI to non-Federal receivers could lead to requests for reallocation of spectrum below 1842 MHz."[EN 39]
The Preliminary Report proposed guard bands of 6 and 8 MHz around the lower and upper frequency limits of the 1761-1842 MHz band segment. In Appendix D, NTIA further examines the issues surrounding the proposed guard bands. The study in Appendix D confirms the need for adequate guard bands to preclude interference to critical Federal space and mobile operations. Based on these results, we conclude that reallocating the 1755-1760 and 1845-1850 MHz band segments for non-Federal mobile applications could result in degradation to the uplink transmissions of transportable SGLS earth stations jeapordizing important satellite control functions.
Moreover, Air Force maintains that the loss of both the 1710-1755 and 1845-1850 MHz band segments will limit the effectiveness of ACT systems and could lead to a lack of proper training and a decreased level of preparedness for DOD combat pilots as well as reduced combat capabilities of operational units. Air Force further states, "Inadequate combat experience in air-to-air and air-to-ground tactics would severely endanger personnel. Continued access to this spectrum for use by ACT systems must be available."[EN 40] Air Force adds that a redesign of their ACMI system would take 10 years and cost an estimated $1.5 billion.
DOI strongly objects to the reallocation of the 1845-1850 MHz band segment, stating that if additional spectrum were taken from the 1755-1850 MHz band segment, it would render the remainder of the band virtually unusable for fixed microwave operations.
USDA also objects to reallocation of the 1845-1850 MHz band segment. "As one of the larger users of this band, USDA is acutely aware of the existing saturated assignment situation. We find it unrealistic to consider that there would be replacement spectrum available for all the Federal departments being displaced."[EN 41] Many of the Federal agencies agree with these comments and question whether suitable alternative radio spectrum exists to support Federal fixed microwave operations.
FAA does not support the addition of the 1845-1850 MHz band segment in the final reallocation plan. Furthermore, FAA questions the availability of alternate spectrum for displaced systems. "Based on FAA's preliminary assessment of point-to-point safety-of-life communications requirements, current FAA needs cannot be satisfied in the remaining segment of the 1755-1845 MHz band or the expansion band for point-to-point services, 7125-8500 MHz."[EN 42]
Based on the preceding discussion, the potential disruption to fixed microwave operations affecting most of the Federal agencies and the increased risk of interference to the SGLS uplink transmissions and ACT systems, we continue to believe that reallocation of the 1755-1760 and 1845-1850 MHz band segments is not a viable option. Therefore, NTIA reaffirms the choice made in the Preliminary Report for these band segments.
2300-2310 MHz. Several responses on both the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI indicate that greater commercial use could be made of the 2390-2400 MHz band (scheduled for immediate reallocation) if it were paired with the 2300-2310 MHz band (scheduled for reallocation in 1996).[EN 43] The FCC also recommends that the reallocation availability date for the 2300-2310 MHz band should be the same as the 2390-2400 MHz band. The FCC states that "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 44]
The main concern expressed by NASA regarding the reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz band is the risk of interference caused by operation of non-Federal systems in the adjacent-band. This risk cannot be evaluated at this time, since the type of non-Federal system has not been identified. NASA operates a Planetary Radar at 2320 MHz and the Deep Space Network receiver at 2290-2300 MHz, both located in Goldstone, California.[EN 45] The very-low received signal levels and the state-of-the-art sensitivity limits of these receivers make them extremely susceptible to interference from even low-level radio frequency signals. The high susceptibility to even distant interference must be taken into consideration when selecting the commercial applications that are to operate in the reallocated 2300-2310 MHz band.[EN 46] Currently, harmful interference is minimized during routine deep space communications at NASA's Goldstone Tracking Site, while none is permitted during critical activities. This is a direct result of extensive and effective coordination of activities by Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) staff and the Mojave Coordinating Group established by DOD and NASA.[EN 47]
NASA's position on this band continues to be that sharing with certain types of commercial applications is feasible. Representatives from NASA and JPL believe that there are four radio frequency interference (RFI) paths to the Goldstone receivers from an adjacent band source as shown in Figure 4-1.[EN 48]Figure 4-1.Goldstone RFI paths.
Transmissions from satellites and aircraft are considered the primary concern (Path A and B). A terrestrial signal that is reflected off an aircraft can also impact Deep Space Network antennas (Path C). Transmissions from a terrestrial source (e.g., mobile vehicle, hand-held portable, or a point-to-point fixed link) in general have less potential for causing unwanted interference since the RFI path is often blocked by terrain (Path D). In any event, limited coordination would still be required between these terrestrial non-Federal applications in the vicinity of Goldstone.[EN 49]
The Preliminary Report proposed a delayed reallocation date 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 NASA deep space network and planetary research radar receivers."[EN 50] Since the release of the Preliminary Report, JPL has investigated the use of filters to decrease adjacent-band interference. JPL has determined that the use of such filters for deep space application is not practical without degrading the desired signal and significantly reducing the band available for deep space probe assignments.[EN 51] Since filters will not solve the adjacent-band interference problem, NASA and JPL believe that if the type of commercial application is compatible, accelerating the scheduled availability date of the 2300-2310 MHz band should not be a problem. JPL also stated that restrictions would have to be placed on any commercial device operating in the 2300-2310 MHz band in the vicinity of Ft. Irwin itself.[EN 52]
The largest group of comments on the Preliminary Report for the 2300-2310 MHz band were received from the amateur radio community. Many 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 application.[EN 53] The sharing options for the amateur radio community are discussed in more detail in Appendix B. Taking the above factors into consideration, we are proposing to advance the reallocation schedule for the 2300-2310 MHz band from January 1996 to August 1995. Reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz band for exclusive non-Federal use must include the following constraints:
3650-3700 MHz. The Preliminary Report proposed reallocating the 3650-3700 MHz band segment for non-Federal use. "Reallocation of 50 MHz on a mixed use basis would be a reasonable compromise between providing the non-Federal users with additional spectrum resources while permitting continued Federal use of radars in this band."[EN 54] Expanding the reallocation of the 3650-3700 MHz band segment to include an additional 25 MHz (3625-3650 MHz) is under consideration because of the comments submitted in response to the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI. These commenters emphasized that there is a demand for fixed-satellite spectrum, and their international experience using 3625-3700 MHz has proven it to be technically feasible and commercially viable.[EN 55] Currently, 28 countries use frequencies in the 3625-3700 MHz band for the International Telecommunications Satellite Organization (INTELSAT) system[INTELSAT currently has satellites at three orbital locations visible to the U.S. that use frequencies in the 3625-3700 MHz band]. The FCC Report also recommends pairing the 3625-3700 MHz and 5850-5925 MHz bands for non-Federal fixed-satellite use.[EN 56] In addition to extending the reallocation of 3650-3700 MHz to include 3625-3650 MHz, another reallocation proposal suggested extending the mixed use sharing arrangement between non-Federal and Federal users to include the 3500-3600 MHz band. As stated in CWS's comments, "These frequencies already are allocated internationally to fixed, fixed-satellite, and mobile (except for aeronautical mobile) services on a primary basis and to radiolocation service on a secondary basis."[EN 57] The United States, however, limits non-Federal allocations in the 3500-3600 MHz band to the radiolocation service.
In the Fiscal Year 1992 Defense Appropriation Act, Congress directed DOD to study its long-term communications needs and to determine to what degree and how industry believes these needs could be met by projected commercial systems. In response, DOD carried out the Commercial Satellite Communications Initiative (CSCI) under the executive direction and management of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence (ASD(C3I)) during the period November 1991 to December 1993.[EN 58]
As a result of the CSCI, it was determined that industry's FSS and MSS network designs can be used to meet many of DOD's projected requirements. Furthermore, it was determined that significant opportunity exists to incorporate commercial satellite communications (SATCOM) as a major, cost effective component of its telecommunications investment strategy. Based on the recommendations of the CSCI, DOD, through ASD(C3I), established a policy on commercial SATCOM to integrate DOD's efforts in implementing commercial capabilities, guide its investment strategy, and ensure cost effective augmentation of military SATCOM capabilities.[EN 59]
To accomplish the goals established by the CSCI, DOD will require both commercial fixed-satellite and mobile-satellite communications services. The CSCI policy specifically requires that, to the extent practical, all new military transportable and deployable earth stations shall have access to the 6/4 GHz commercial frequency bands. In compliance with the CSCI's policy, DOD is developing the Light-Weight Multi-Band Satellite Terminal (LMST) and the Transportable TROJAN SPIRIT II Satellite Communications Terminal. As required by the CSCI, both of these satellite terminals access the 6/4 GHz commercial bands and can be configured to operate over military and commercial satellites.[The proposed frequency bands for the LMST and TROJAN satellite terminals are: 3625-4200, 5850-6425, 7250-7750, 7900-8400, 10950-12750, and 14000-14500 MHz.]
Presently the fixed-satellite and mobile-satellite services in the bands 3600-4200 MHz are limited to non-Federal users. Therefore, Federal agencies that operate earth stations in this band are on an unprotected non-interference basis.[Except for frequency assignments with special note S164.] If there is interference to a non-Federal earth station from a Federal earth station, the Federal earth station is subject to immediate shut-down. Moreover, if a non-Federal terrestrial station goes into operation with a link co-channel to a Federal earth station, the requirement for solving any interference problem would be the responsibility of the Federal station.
Because of this allocation problem, the Federal agencies, while interested in using 4 GHz FSS, have made limited use of the band. Allowing Federal earth stations in this band on an equal basis with the non-Federal users would be advantageous to DOD as well as the commercial satellite providers. In the allocation to the mobile-satellite service for the Little and Big Low Earth Orbiting systems (LEOs) [LEO satellite systems have been grouped as the "Little LEOs", operating below 1 GHz and having less capacity and capability, (limited to non-voice services, such as data and mesage transmission) and the "Big LEOs", operating above 1 GHz, and having larger capacity and voice transmission capability.], an agreement between NTIA and the FCC to allow co-equal Federal/non-Federal earth station use of commercial satellite systems is under consideration.
To allow Federal use of commercial FSS services in many of the non-Federal FSS bands, including the 3600-4200 MHz FSS band, DOD has requested IRAC and NTIA support in pursuing with the FCC a means for Federal earth stations, as part of commercial satellite networks, to have a co-equal allocation status with respect to terrestrial non-Federal FSS stations. Federal earth station applicants would be required to comply with applicable parts (e.g., Parts 2 and 25) of the FCC rules. Furthermore, the operation of Federal satellites will not be permitted in this band. Moreover, DOD does not seek any modification of footnote US245 which limits use of the 3600-3700 MHz band FSS to inter-continental use subject to case-by-case EMC analysis.
Although interested in developing FSS systems for operation in the 3600-3700 MHz band, DOD does not want to disrupt existing Federal operations. As stated in the Preliminary Report, the 3600-3700 MHz band is allocated to the Federal Government on a primary basis for the radiolocation and aeronautical radionavigation (ground-based) services. The comments submitted by DOD and FAA indicate that reallocation of additional spectrum in this band could impact current and future Federal operations.
Navy currently uses this band for shipborne radars that serve as the primary air traffic control radar aboard aircraft carriers. The 45 operational radars in this band have a scheduled equipment life that extends to at least the year 2010 and are an essential element of Navy carrier-based operations.[EN 60] These radars have a tuning range of 3590-3700 MHz; however, Navy maintains that they almost exclusively operate the radars between 3640 MHz and 3670 MHz. Navy believes that the loss of additional spectrum in the 3600-3700 MHz band will degrade the functions performed by these essential air traffic control radars. Navy also states that the high-power multifunction radars employed by the AEGIS cruisers and destroyers operate in the adjacent-band. Navy is concerned that the high-power emissions of these radars could result in interference to inadequately designed non-Federal equipment. Navy believes that a 50 MHz guard band is needed as well as receiver interference rejection capability and possibly geographic restrictions on non-Federal equipment to achieve compatible sharing in this band.[EN 61]
FAA has indicated that they plan to use 3500-3700 MHz band as a future expansion band for ground-based stations in the aeronautical radionavigation service which could not be accomodated in the 2700-2900 MHz band.[EN 62] FAA is currently not using this band, but its comments submitted in response to the Preliminary Report indicate that future air traffic growth could require additional frequencies to support radar surveillance.[EN 63]
In addition, Air Force, on behalf of the entire DOD, states that the lower-adjacent spectrum is used for highly mobile extremely high-powered radar systems. Air Force contends that there are numerous documented cases of these radars causing interference to non-Federal 3700-4200 MHz satellite downlink receivers.[EN 64] Air Force believes that the problem will only worsen for any satellite receivers that operate below 3700 MHz. Therefore, Air Force recommends that a 50 MHz guard band in addition to implementation of strict non-Federal receiver selectivity and transmitter emission standards are the minimum measures necessary to minimize EMI to and from these radar systems.[EN 65]
Based on the preceding discussion, permitting Federal FSS operations in the 3625-3700 MHz band segment will give non-Federal entities the opportunity to provide commercial services that will meet the objectives established by the CSCI, thus benefiting both DOD and the private sector. Moreover, the use of commercial alternatives, whenever practical, is one of the band selection criteria specified in Title VI.[EN 66]
In order to consider the proposed reallocation options, several factors must be taken into consideration concerning present and future Federal operations in the 3500-3600 and 3600-3700 MHz bands. As stated earlier, this band is primarily used by Navy carrier-based air traffic control radars. The commenters indicate that it is reasonable to assume that since these radars are located on aircraft carriers operating at sea, there will exist a reasonable distance separation between these radars and the non-Federal FSS users in the band, thereby reducing the potential interference interactions. However, this is not necessarily the case, because the new Navy mission concept emphasizes "littoral" operations (i.e., operations close to land that is presumed to be occupied, at least in part, by hostile forces).[EN 67] This implies that much of Navy training exercises will include littoral operations that inherently require the aircraft carriers and the on-board radars to operate closer to land, reducing the distance separation and increasing the chance of interference with non-Federal FSS systems. To preclude such interference, a certain amount of frequency separation will be required between Navy radars and non-Federal FSS systems operating in the band. If the entire 3500-3700 MHz band is reallocated, Navy radars cannot operate because this would encompass their entire tuning capability of 3590-3700 MHz. As stated in the Preliminary Report, reallocating the entire 3600-3700 MHz band for non-Federal use would also limit operators of these radars to only 10% of their capacity, thus limiting their ability to perform their intended mission.[EN 68] Moreover, the potential future FAA usage of the 3500-3700 MHz band for air traffic control precludes reallocation of the entire band.
Air Force contends that the 3625-3650 MHz band segment should not be reallocated as part of the final spectrum reallocation plan.[EN 69] Air Force states that this band segment is utilized by several electronic countermeasure (ECM) devices. "These devices are crucial to maintain the combat readiness of our pilots."[EN 70] If the 3625-3650 MHz band segment is included in the spectrum reallocation, Air Force estimates that it will cost Edwards Air Force Base, $100,000 to "... perform the studies required to insure compatibility of conducting ECM in spectrum adjacent to reallocated spectrum."[EN 71] Another program that Air Force states will be impacted by the reallocation of the 3625-3650 MHz band segment is the Hypersonic System Technology Program (HySTP). Air Force explains that this program is used to help understand the technologies associated with hypersonic propulsion and aircraft systems. Air Force believes that the additional reallocation of the 3625-3650 MHz band segment will "... reduce the HySTP's ability to acquire data."[EN 72] Air Force also maintains that a 50 MHz guard band in additon to implementation of strict non-Federal receiver selectivity and transmitter emission standards are essential to minimize interference to and from the Federal radar systems in this band. Air Force adds that "the public and industry should be made very aware that the above measures will only reduce, not eliminate, all potential interference from high-powered DOD radars performing missions crucial to the national security and welfare of the Nation."[EN 73]
The Preliminary Report recommends reallocating 50 MHz (3650-3700 MHz) on a mixed used basis as "... a reasonable compromise between providing the non-Federal users with additional spectrum resources while permitting continued Federal use of radars in this band."[EN 74] Given the objectives of DOD's CSCI and the reallocation proposals of the private sector and the FCC, sharing the 3625-3650 MHz band segment for FSS operation would appear to be a reasonable arrangement should Federal earth stations be co-primary with non-Federal earth stations. This would allow DOD access to SATCOM services, a primary objective of the CSCI. The private sector will benefit since they will be the provider of these satellite services.
Taking the above factors into consideration, we are recommending that modifications to the proposed reallocation of 3650-3700 MHz be consistent with the outcome of the discussions between DOD, NTIA, and the FCC. The spectrum will be used for Federal/non-Federal FSS operations. Reallocation of the 3650-3700 MHz band segment as well as any modifications to the original reallocation proposal must include the following constraints:
=========================================================== TABLE 4-4. Sites at Which Federal Systems in the 3650-3700 MHz Band will be Retained Indefintely =========================================================== Radius of Location Coordinates Operation (km) ----------------------------------------------------------- St. Inigoes, MD 38ø10 N 76ø23 W 80 Pascagoula, MS 30ø22 N 88ø29 W 80 Memphis, TN 35ø03 N 89ø59 W 80 ===========================================================
4400-4990 MHz. As discussed in Section 2, comments from LQP, ALCATEL, and the FCC state that while the 4635-4660 and 4660-4685 MHz bands would be useful in providing some non-Federal services, NTIA should consider reallocating up to 150 MHz of additional spectrum adjacent to these band segments for MSS links, fixed microwave links, and new technologies, respectively. The FCC recommends that this adjacent spectrum should be for exclusive non-Federal use, while LQP offered to work with NTIA and the users of these adjacent bands to determine the feasibility and mechanisms for sharing. The FCC also urged NTIA to consider the potential for sharing the entire 4400-4990 MHz band with non-Federal services.
NTIA believes that the concerns expressed above and described fully in Section 2 have merit but fail to address the consequences in terms of the impact on incumbent Federal systems. NTIA selected the 4635-4660 and 4660-4685 MHz bands for reallocation to the private sector only after considerable analysis of existing Federal use of the entire 4400-4990 MHz band. NTIA's arguments against expansion of the proposed reallocation are based on the Preliminary Report findings which initially led to the selection of these specific bands. These findings are summarized below:
The 4400-4990 MHz band, in general, is one of the few bands allocated to the fixed and mobile services that are available to the military for tactical operations, in particular high-power tropospheric scatter operations. As such, the major users in this frequency range are the military services. The other significant users of the 4400-4990 MHz frequency range are DOE and Treasury.
Typical fixed uses include conventional point-to-point microwave, tactical radio relay and high-power tropospheric scatter systems. The latter systems use a transmitter power of up to 10 kilowatts and dual frequency operation for transmission over distances of 80 to 500 km. While most equipment is tunable over the full band, reallocation of any portion of this band increases spectrum congestion in the remaining portions and reduces flexibility for tactical training operations.
Mobile applications include control of remotely piloted vehicles (RPV), video and data telemetry links, target drone control links, and fleet defense systems. The tethered aerostat systems, at an altitude of approximately 15,000 feet above mean sea level, are an important part of drug interdiction efforts along the southern U.S. border.
The most significant and costly mobile applications are Navy systems required to support fleet defense operations. The operational LAMPS MK III system provides a full duplex wide-band link between helicopters and ships but does not use the frequencies between the ship-transmit and the air-transmit links (4660-4860 MHz). The system supports overall fleet defense and extensive training is required along coastal areas and shore installations to maintain operator proficiency. Navy adds that this system is also used to support drug interdiction efforts during peacetime. The total estimated investment in this system is nearly $270 million.[EN 75]
Navy also uses portions of the 4400-4800 MHz band for their Integrated Target Control System (ITCS). The ITCS is a radio drone control system which integrates the functions of command, control, tracking, and telemetry. In the upper 4800-4990 MHz portion, a similar system (PIONEER) was designed to provide commands to a RPV via relay pods carried aboard an aircraft. The areas of operation for both the ITCS and the PIONEER are on major Navy test range centers. New developmental aeronautical systems are being developed in this band that operate throughout the 4400-4990 MHz band for immunity from jamming and improved reliability. The center portion of the band near 4700 MHz, specifically the 4635-4685 MHz band, is not expected to be used by these new wide-band systems.
The next-generation anti-air warfare and ship defense systems are at the advanced development stage for operation in the 4400-4990 MHz band. These high-priority systems are intended to achieve multi-service coordinated response to a variety of threats to the fleet. Wide bandwidth is essential for high data transmission, rapid response and resistance to jamming. Navy considers these systems as essential for coordinating anti-air weaponry within the fleet in an era of Navy downsizing. System coordination is important because budget pressures are increasing the requirements for fleet exercises at near-in coastal areas. Navy's estimated investment in this system to-date exceeds $500 million.[EN 76]
There are military systems authorized to operate in the 4400-4990 MHz frequency range that typically have a tuning capability over the entire frequency range. These systems, which are normally fixed or transportable-fixed, have dual capability of line-of-sight operation at lower power or operationally selected to transmit at powers up to 10 kilowatts for tropospheric scatter modes over long distances. [Tropospheric scatter as a communication medium is only viable over a certain frequency range and works best over an even smaller range. New bands often mentioned as replacements for lost spectrum are in many cases unsuitable for tropo systems.] These systems are primarily used for joint and tactical training exercises. The central portion of the band near 4700 MHz is lightly used for these troposcatter operations in order to accommodate the required frequency separation between two-way communication links.
One of the reasons these band segments were proposed for reallocation was to take advantage of the light spectrum usage between the transmit and receive frequencies of the uplink and downlink channels of the existing and next-generation Federal systems in this band.[The middle of the band is more lightly used because of the required transmit/receive frequency separation required by the systems in this band.] Non-Federal use of spectrum outside the two specific bands proposed in the Preliminary Report would increase the risk of interference to the new user from these existing high-power systems, as well as from an electromagnetic environment increasingly congested with systems displaced from the reallocated portion of the band. Air Force states that loss of frequencies for its tropospheric systems will significantly increase congestion, reduce flexibility, make co-sited operations more difficult to support, and increase the potential for interference.[EN 77]
The critical nature and high cost of the Federal systems in this band and the increased risk of interference to new users as described above renders further reallocation of this band impractical. Therefore, NTIA reaffirms its choice made in the Preliminary Report for this band. Essential Federal operations at the locations listed in TABLE 4-5 will be continued and must be protected from interference for 15 years.
============================================================== TABLE 4-5. Sites at Which Federal Airborne Operations in the 4635-4660 MHz Band will be Continued for 15 Years. ============================================================== Radius of Location Coordinates Operation (km) -------------------------------------------------------------- Pico Del Este, PR 18ø16 N 65ø46 W 80 Dam Neck, VA 36ø46 N 75ø57 W 80 St. Thomas, VI 18ø21 N 64ø55 W 80 ==============================================================
In addressing spectrum below 1 GHz, Motorola specifically commented on reallocating portions of the 225-400 MHz band, which is used by DOD for military fixed and mobile communications and by FAA to provide air traffic control services to military aircraft, to satisfy spectrum needs for wide-area land mobile systems. Motorola reiterated the view expressed in the Preliminary Report that this band offers very desirable propagation characteristics for land mobile use and reallocating a portion could offer substantial benefits to the public. Motorola urged either consideration of this band in the final spectrum reallocation plan or to consider it in a new inquiry outside the scope of Title VI.
The FCC Report also discussed the desirability of the 225-400 MHz band for "creation of wide area networks in the land mobile service."[EN 80] Noting its on-going efforts in improving spectrum efficiency in use of non-Federal land mobile bands between 72 and 512 MHz, the FCC states that "Spectrum reallocated in the 225-400 MHz band could greatly facilitate our efforts by providing green space' in which to begin implementing spectrum efficient systems."[EN 81] The FCC Report also noted the actions in Europe to address limited civilian use of portions of the 225-400 MHz band are among the issues being addressed nationally in preparation for the 1995 World Radiocommunication Conference. The FCC Report specifically recommends an alternative spectrum reallocation plan including the 225-230 and 380-400 MHz band segments, possibly in the form of a joint Federal, state, and local government public safety network.
The Preliminary Report included a detailed assessment of spectrum below 1 GHz. Four bands, 138-144, 162-174, 220-222, and 406.1-420 MHz are the principal bands for supporting Federal land mobile communications. The Federal agencies will require continued access to these bands in order to, among other things, ensure national security; ensure safe travel within the National Airspace System; protect the U.S. borders from illegal entry; reestablish connectivity between disaster areas; protect the national forests and public lands; enforce Federal laws; maintain a preeminent position in space exploration; and ensure security of energy distribution networks. Much of these communications requirements directly support public-safety, at the national level.
The Preliminary Report noted that these bands are among the most heavily used by the Federal agencies. Within the 34 MHz of spectrum, the Federal agencies have over 60,000 land mobile frequency assignments. Reallocating a portion of this spectrum for non-Federal use would result in the loss of a portion of the over $4 billion invested in these systems and result in increased spectrum congestion in the remaining band segments. We continue to believe that because of the extremely high Federal investment in land mobile systems in these bands, the absence of alternative Federal bands, and their critical use in supporting communications for nearly all Federal missions, reallocation for non-Federal use is not a viable option.
Currently the Federal Government through, the Federal Wireless Policy Committee (FWPC), the Federal Wireless Users Forum (FWUF), the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG), and the Federal Wireless Review Office (FWRO), are examining the entire range of Federal use of wireless services, including the land mobile radio services. These groups are working to ensure that the emerging wireless services satisfy Government functional requirements. It is also the responsibility of these groups to ensure that Federal users of wireless services can smoothly transition to more spectrum efficient, interoperable, and cost-effective digital technologies.
The 225-400 MHz band is allocated and used for military fixed and mobile communications, military mobile-satellite communications, aeronautical radionavigation functions, and radio astronomy observations. The Preliminary Report provided an overview of the Federal use of the band for fixed, mobile and satellite applications. DOD stated that the 225-400 MHz band is the single most critical spectrum resource of the military tactical forces. There are estimated to be over 75,000 Federal air-to-ground and ground-to-air radio equipments alone operating in this band. This does not include mobile-satellite equipments and backbone point-to-point capabilities, such as the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment (MSE) system. DOD reports that extensive peacetime training and alert exercises using these equipments are conducted at military bases throughout the United States to maintain combat readiness. DOD asserts that the military use of this frequency spectrum is predicated on the same technical reasons as the non-Federal users: low atmospheric and foliage penetration losses, availability of inexpensive components, and the ability to use short whip antennas for omni coverage by hand-held units.[EN 82]
Navy states that by their very nature ships and aircraft are very crowded which results in considerable cosite problems that require all the frequency flexibility available to accommodate their requirements in this band. "Aboard ship the intermodulation products inevitably caused by exposure of metallic joints to salt spray combined with the requirement for dozens of UHF communications nets presents a major problem which has been the focus of major efforts for the past 30 years."[EN 83] Navy further states that the need to take these effects into account while various forces shift their tactical relationships and missions on a real-time basis has required a major effort to develop spectrum management programs for task force commanders. Navy contends that any reduction in the 225-400 MHz band available for this spectrum management will have serious consequences in training and operational capability, particularly in joint exercises and operations, such as Desert Shield and Desert Storm.
Subsequent to release of the Preliminary Report, DOD provided further amplification on use of this band.[EN 84] Reports from numerous military commands throughout the country expressed concern that loss of access to portions of this band would cause severe spectrum crowding in the remaining portions, leading to significantly increased training costs, degradation of command and control, and possible safety concerns. However, DOD stressed that the most serious factors affecting reallocation are the extensive use of radios having the HAVEQUICK II frequency hopping architecture, mobile-satellite communications, and backbone point-to-point transportable capabilities. Air Force further states that other uses of this spectrum include support of critical missile and Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) launch operations, test range telemetry, remote control of targets, communications supporting Air Defense Sectors, reliable training communications, and support of the President of the United States.
Air Force states that the HAVEQUICK family of radios is extensively deployed by the military services in a wide variety of fighter, tanker, close air support, reconnaissance, and bomber aircraft. Typical functions include approach/departure control at military airfields, air-to-air re-fueling operations, vectoring of fighter aircraft to engage hostile threats, and coordination between strike aircraft. Air Force reports that over 15,000 units are in their current inventory. The HAVEQUICK II radios have the capability of frequency hopping across many individual frequencies over the 225-400 MHz band. Air Force states that this basic architecture is necessary to provide two fundamental aspects that enhance the electronic countermeasures (ECM) resistance of frequency hopping radios: a large number of channels and a wide spread in the bandwidth covered by those channels. Air Force adds, "Interoperability between equipments is mandatory and frequency hopping radios must have the capability to hop on the same frequencies and under the control of a master clock."[EN 86] To maintain the necessary interoperability, Air Force asserts that all of the HAVEQUICK radios would have to be returned for reprogramming. Based on the conversion of HQI to HQII, Air Force maintains that such reprogramming is very costly and time consuming.[EN 87] Air Force indicates that to allow communications to continue while the modification is in progress, the modified radios must retain both the old and new capability until a specified change-over date. Existing radios without space for two sets of control software must be discarded. DOD expressed further concern over the loss of the anti-jam capability inherent to the HAVEQUICK II radios that would result from any loss of access to the full band. Reported costs from the various military commands that would result from reallocating any portion of the 225-400 MHz band total well over $1 billion.
The Air Force Satellite Communications System (AFSATCOM) and Milstar Satellite Communications System use the 225-400 MHz band, including the 380-400 MHz band segment, to provide survivable, jam-resistant communications for strategic and tactical military over the horizon requirements. Examples include communications to base from aircraft flying close to the ground to avoid hostile radar, over the ocean connectivity with cargo aircraft, extraction of personnel from areas far from friendly forces, and quick communications establishment with National authorities at the start of and during humanitarian missions. DOD reports that if reallocation of any portion of the 225-400 MHz band occurred, AFSATCOM and Milstar systems users would be subjected to interference from non-Federal users, severely reducing the usefulness of critical communications during certain missions. Air Force adds that the on-orbit and in storage satellites cannot be retuned and military missions must still be performed. In addition to unavoidable interference to non-Federal users, DOD investment in equipment estimated at over $1 billion would be jeopardized.
Army states that they are the primary user of line-of-sight multichannel radios in the 225-400 MHz band that are integrated as part of a theater wide network. Army uses these radios for terrestrial communications linking the functional areas of communications, command and control, intelligence, air defense, artillery fire support, aviation support, and logistical support. Army further states that this portion of the spectrum is critical to land force dominance.
From the preceeding discussion it can be seen that the 225-400 MHz band is crowded with many disparate kinds of military telecommunications systems. These systems are able to work in the same environment at the same time due to disciplined users operating in a hierarchical command structure, an acknowledgment by users that interference will occur, and a highly structured military spectrum management system. DOD believes that none of these conditions necessarily exist for non-Federal users. At the very least, military use of this spectrum indicates that sharing by dissimilar services is a possibility worth considering. As directed by Congress, NTIA has initiated a strategic planning program to develop long-term spectrum planning. The first effort of the strategic planning program will identify the long-term spectrum requirements of both the Federal agencies and the non-Federal users. The long-range spectrum requirements identified below 1 GHz will be considered together with various spectrum management options, and as necssary, reallocation decisions will be made.
Furthermore, the FCC has been directed by Congress to identify the spectrum needs of the public-safety agencies, and to report its findings to Congress. In response to this Congressional mandate, on February 9, 1995, the FCC released the "Spectrum Needs through the Year 2010" report. NTIA, as well as, the Federal wireless working groups (e.g., FLEWUG, FWPC, and FWRO) will consider these spectrum needs in their long-term spectrum planning programs.
While recognizing the pressing need for additional spectrum below 1 GHz, we continue to affirm, as stated in the Preliminary Report, that planning of the 225-400 MHz military communications band cannot be effectively accomplished within the rigid time and spectrum-sharing constraints imposed by Title VI. The conventional spectrum management process provides the additional time and essential flexibility needed to explore the very complex issues involved, and to arrive at solutions that are mutually beneficial without adversely impacting Federal operations. As the first step in the process, NTIA is establishing a senior level forum to address the criticality of all or parts of the band for national defense, air traffic control of DOD aircraft, the non-Federal needs for spectrum below 1 GHz, and the NATO and European developments.[EN 88]
1492-1525 and 1675-1710 MHz. In its comments on the Preliminary Report, AMSC proposed two alternative 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 89] AMSC adds that these bands were allocated to MSS at the 1992 World Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) and, if allocated domestically, will help ensure the continued growth of this new service. In the FCC Report, the FCC agreed that potential MSS operations in these bands hold great promise to provide a wide variety of new communications services both domestically and internationally.[EN 90] While the FCC recognizes the difficulties in reallocating these bands (as described in the Preliminary Report) they do not believe these problems fully preclude the possibility of shared Federal/non-Federal use.[EN 91] The FCC points out, for example, that the 1492-1525 MHz band occupies less than 28% of the total spectrum currently allocated for the mobile aeronautical telemetry (MAT) service. The FCC recommends that NTIA more closely examine the possibility of reallocating these bands for non-Federal MSS use, at least on a mixed use basis. The FCC adds that discussions between NTIA and the FCC on MSS use of these bands are continuing.[EN 92]
AMSC contends that a study included in its comments on the Preliminary Report shows how adjacent and co-channel sharing techniques could enable full protection of meteorological services from mobile earth station transmissions, and how power flux density limits and high satellite elevation angles could enable full protection of MAT services from MSS satellite transmissions.[EN 93] The study likewise provides the means for full protection of the MSS links. Figure 4-2 gives an overview of the desired signal and potential interference paths between AMSC's proposed MSS links and systems in the meteorological satellite, meteorological aids (Radiosonde), and MAT services. Also included in Figure 4-2 is a summary of the interference mitigation techniques suggested in the AMSC study.Figure 4-2.Overview of desired signal and interference paths and interference mitigation techniques from AMSC's 1675-1710 and 1492-1525 MHz proposals.
The AMSC study also shows that large separation distances are needed to protect mobile earth stations from co-channel MAT transmissions.[EN 94] Consequently, off-tuning of MSS frequencies from MAT carrier freqencies is necessary.[EN 95] AMSC stated 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 96] Specifically, AMSC states that this would require MAT system conformance with the standard and alternate channelizations specified for telemetry systems by the Range Commanders Council.[EN 97]
A separate analysis of possible MSS interstitial sharing with Air Force radiosondes in the 1670-1690 MHz band suggested that this type of sharing would be very difficult to achieve.[EN 98] For this reason AMSC considers MSS/meteorological sharing possible only in the 1690-1710 MHz segment of the proposed 1675-1710 MHz band.[EN 99] Substantial distance separations are required for concurrent co-channel operation of mobile earth stations and meteorological receivers and AMSC claims that the locations of meteorological receivers are not known in most cases; thus, this sharing approach has very limited feasibility.[EN 100] AMSC adds that implementation of an MSS allocation would be based on case-by-case coordination between the MSS operators and Federal incumbents.
The Federal agencies currently use the 1435-1525 MHz band to support aeronautical flight test telemetry at nine major military and NASA test ranges/centers and numerous smaller facilities. Aeronautical flight testing is expensive, technically sophisticated, and at times dangerous. A number of complex and organizationally independent functions must be successfully coordinated to complete a mission. Examples include: range safety, measurement support, and aeronautical telemetry. Because the successful scheduling of a mission relies on so many disparate factors, the availability of sufficient interference-free spectrum is essential. Loss of access to these bands to support flight test telemetering would have a significant operational impact and cost to the Federal Government.
The importance of these bands to DOD and to the aerospace industry was confirmed during the U.S. preparation for WARC-92. The U.S. position at that conference strongly supported the need for this spectrum for shared Federal and non-Federal aeronautical telemetry operations. At the recent 1993 World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) in Geneva, the United States formally restated its intention to maintain the current allocations in the 1435-1525 MHz band.[EN 101]
The current allocated uses for the 1435-1525 MHz band already provides considerable public benefit. The extensive airframe testing using telemetering equipment in this band has contributed to the U.S. leadership in the aerospace industry. Specific frequencies in this band are designated to support privately operated ELVs and are a key element in fostering the growth of this important new industry in the United States.
Outside of the United States, the 1435-1525 MHz band is used predominately for fixed microwave com- munications. However, recent international developments significantly affect these bands. At the WARC-92, the band 1452-1492 MHz was allocated worldwide, except in the United States, for the broadcasting-satellite (sound) service. At that conference, the United States chose to allocate the 2310-2360 MHz band for that purpose, thus giving up 50 MHz of spectrum that was previously available for flight test telemetry in the United States. Also at that conference, the band 1492-1525 MHz was allocated in Western Hemisphere nations, except for the United States, for the mobile-satellite service. Japan has also initiated a new land mobile development across the 1429-1525 MHz band for next-generation cellular and specialized mobile radio applications.[EN 102] The 1435-1525 MHz band is co-equally shared between Federal and non-Federal users and is designated for support of flight test telemetering for the military and aerospace industry. In recent years, the bands available to support these flight test telemetry operations have been reduced by over 30%. The cost and operational impact, to both Federal and non-Federal users, of any additional reallocation would appear to outweigh any positive public benefits. For this reason, the 1492-1525 MHz band is not considered for reallocation under Title VI.
Appropriate guidelines for protection of U.S. meteorological operations from foreign MSS systems are being developed in the ITU Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R), and may ultimately produce workable approaches to sharing the 1670-1710 MHz band, but the work is not yet complete. This, in conjunction with the significant amount of coordination and conditions that AMSC studies have shown to be required for effective sharing of this band, indicates to NTIA that the meteorological and mobile satellite services are not yet ready to share the band. For these reasons the 1670-1710 MHz band is not included in the final plan.
2400-2402 and 2417-2450 MHz. The 2400-2402 and 2417-2450 MHz band segments are part of the larger 2390-2450 MHz band that is allocated for Federal radiolocation on a primary basis, and the amateur radio service on a secondary basis. In addition to these allocations, the 2400-2450 MHz portion is used by non-licensed devices and microwave ovens under the FCC Part 15 and 18 Rules, as well as Industrial, Scientific, and Medical (ISM) devices. In the Preliminary Report, NTIA identified 2390-2400 and 2402-2417 MHz for immediate reallocation. As stated earlier, the FCC has proposed that these bands be allocated to the fixed and mobile services. The FCC believes that this will permit flexible use of the bands, and enable licensees to offer a wide range of services.
The Preliminary Report excluded the 2400-2402 MHz band segment from reallocation, because 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 103] In general, the comments submitted by national and regional amateur organizations in response to the Preliminary Report supported NTIA's proposal. However, many commenters stated that the 2 MHz band segment may be too narrow to accommodate the anticipated increase in demand for amateur-satellite operations.[EN 104]
As stated in the Preliminary Report, one of the most significant factors that had to be considered in the reallocation of spectrum in the 2400-2450 MHz band is the wide spread use of microwave ovens. Currently under the Part 18 Rules, microwave ovens can operate in the 2400-2500 MHz with no in-band emission constraints. Using extensive measurements of individual microwave ovens, in addition to open-air measurements in various urban/suburban locations, the Preliminary Report addressed the feasibility of spectrum sharing with microwave ovens. In general, these measurements indicated that the peak level of emissions at frequencies near 2400 MHz are much lower as compared to those at 2450 MHz.[EN 105] Based in part on these measurements, the Preliminary Report concluded that effective spectrum sharing with microwave ovens is a function of the portion of the band being used, the type of service, and the type of modulation employed (i.e., spread spectrum).[EN 106] Given the high level of ambient radio noise in the central part of the band, it was felt that the 2417-2450 MHz band segment could not be reallocated for a licensed service, hence it was not proposed for reallocation.
In 1985, the FCC authorized a new class of Part 15 devices using spread spectrum modulation for the 902-928, 2400-2483.5, and 5725-5875 MHz bands. As of June 1993, only four spread spectrum non-licensed devices were certified by the FCC in the 2400-2483.5 MHz band. This is in contrast to the over 120 non-licensed systems that were certified for use in the 902-928 MHz band. However, since the release of the Preliminary Report in February 1994, 13 companies have introduced wireless local area network (LAN) products that operate in the 2400 MHz band.[EN 107] Fourteen non-licensed device manufacturers also submitted comments in response to the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI regarding the reallocation of the 2402-2417 MHz band segment (see TABLE 2-1 and TABLE 2-2). In general those commenters were opposed to the reallocation of this band segment to a licensed commercial application that is incompatible with the existing non-licensed devices. Non-licensed devices in this band use either frequency hopping or direct-sequence spread spectrum technology. Most of the non-licensed device manufacturers that submitted comments believe their ability to successfully share the 2400-2450 MHz band with microwave ovens can be directly attributed to the use of spread spectrum technology.[EN 108] Several of the commenters stated that declining component cost and its world wide availability are two factors that make the 2400 MHz band attractive to non-licensed device manufacturers. Moreover, the IEEE has focused its initial standardization efforts on the 2400 MHz band, with the development of the IEEE 802.11 standard for wireless LANs. The European Telecommunication Standards Institute (ETSI) has already developed and approved a certification standard for wireless LANs operating in the 2400 MHz band. "As the IEEE 802.11 standardization work is compliant with the European regulations in the 2.4 GHz band, it is reasonable to assume that in the European market the IEEE standard will become the defacto functional standard in addition to the ETSI type approval standard because buyers want interoperable equipment."[EN 109] The general consensus among the non-licensed device manufacturers is that the 2400-2450 MHz band should remain usable by spread spectrum Part 15 devices.
As discussed in Section 2, current amateur-satellite and amateur-television operations in the 2400-2450 MHz band are light compared to other bands, but usage is expected to increase in the next few years.[EN 110] Appendix B examines the sharing options between the amateurs and possible commercial/public-safety applications. The amateurs currently share the 2400-2450 MHz band with Federal radiolocation operations and spread spectrum non-licensed devices. Based on the comments submitted by the amateur radio community and non-licensed device manufacturers this sharing arrangement has proven to be successful.
The general consensus among commercial commenters on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI is that microwave oven emissions and radio amateur operations will significantly limit the development of licensed commercial devices in any portion of the 2400-2450 MHz band.[EN 111] As discussed in Section 2, several commenters indicate that with the exception of non-licensed devices, there is no previous experience of commercial sharing with the amateurs. Both Motorola and TIA stated in their comments that the manufacturers of non-licensed devices have made possible a host of useful products for consumers, business and public-safety agencies. Moreover, the commercial commenters question whether any additional benefits could be gained as a result of reallocating any portion of the 2400-2450 MHz band for a licensed service.[EN 112]
As discussed in Section 2, the comments submitted by representatives of utilities expressed concern that the reallocation of any portion of the 2400-2450 MHz band segment for commercial use could be interpreted as a policy determination that this band should be allocated by the FCC for licensed radio services.[EN 113] In their comments, 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. UTC states that the 2400-2450 MHz band is already used for important applications, and should not "... be dismissed as unnecessary or unimportant merely because they are non-licensed.[EN 114] " UTC also questions the commercial viability of any portion of the 2400-2450 MHz band for a new licensed service, given the significant projected use of this band for spread spectrum operations under the Part 15 rules. API's comments on the FCC NOI reiterated UTC's concern that non-licensed spread spectrum operation in the 2400-2450 MHz range should not be curtailed.
APCO is also concerned that the emissions generated by wide spread microwave oven use will prevent the commercial development of wide-area mobile systems in the 2400-2450 MHz band. However, APCO suggests that the FCC explore the possibility of allocating the 2400-2450 MHz band or portions of the band for private fixed service microwave operation in rural areas.[EN 115] As discussed in Section 2, both APCO and COPE believe that this spectrum could be allocated for use by privately owned public-safety systems with technical parameters that are consistent with the existing Part 15 systems. COPE adds that many of the spread spectrum systems currently operating in the 2400 MHz band are primarily used by public-safety and industrial users.[EN 116]
Another factor that had to be considered in identifying spectrum for reallocation is the impact to Federal agencies in terms of mission, cost, and potential reduction of services to the public. As stated in the Preliminary Report, the 2360-2450 MHz band has an estimated Federal investment cost of $33 million. The band is primarily used by the military for radar testing systems such as target scattering and enemy radar simulation, and telemetry systems. While it is recognized that spectrum used for military testing is vital for future research and development, the use of this spectrum is primarily limited to military test ranges. In their comments on the Preliminary Report, DOD emphasized that they need to have "... continued access to this spectrum at specific locations for limited periods of time."[EN 117] The comments submitted by the amateur radio community, and the non-licensed device manufacturers indicate that they can effectively share the 2400-2450 MHz band with the current DOD research and development operations.
From the preceding discussion it can be seen that most of the parties submitting responses on the Preliminary Report and the FCC NOI agree that the 2400-2450 MHz band should not be used for a licensed commercial service. The majority of the commenters also believe that in order to use this band effectively, equipment manufacturers must use either frequency hopping or direct-sequence spread spectrum technology. Many non-licensed device manufacturers state that spread spectrum technology has been found useful particularly for error-free transmission in a noisy signal environment.[EN 118] This resistance to unwanted signals makes spread spectrum technology the optimum choice for devices that are to operate in the same band as microwave ovens and ISM devices.
Many of the commenters also state that non-licensed spread spectrum devices have made possible a host of useful products for consumers, businesses and privately owned public-safety applications. Practical spread spectrum applications are becoming better understood and are destined to play a significant role in a world increasingly dependent on wireless technology. Non-licensed spread spectrum devices are also expected to be a key factor in the development of untethered operations as part of the National Information Infrastructure (NII) initiative.
Reallocating the 2400-2402 and 2417-2450 MHz band segments for non-Federal use would give the FCC the opportunity to develop a comprehensive plan for the 2400-2483.5 MHz band. The relatively small size of the 2400-2402 MHz band segment and its location between two exclusive non-Federal bands (2390-2400 and 2402-2417 MHz) will limit its usefulness for future military applications. However, the 2417-2450 MHz band segment is a contiguous block of spectrum that is large enough to accommodate both Federal and non-Federal users. These band segments when combined with the adjacent bands could be used to provide a permanent home for the next generation of non-licensed devices as well as provide some relief for the migration of 902-928 MHz systems. Reallocation of spectrum in the 2400 MHz frequency range provides a reasonable balance between the benefits to be gained by the public and the potential impact to the Federal agencies.
Taking the above factors into consideration, we are proposing that the the 2400-2402 MHz band segment be reallocated for exclusive non-Federal use begining in August 1995. This band segment can be combined with the two adjacent non-Federal bands to provide 27 MHz of contiguous spectrum for exclusive non-Federal use. We are also proposing that the 2417-2450 MHz band segment be reallocated for mixed Federal and non-Federal use beginning in August 1995. A mixed use reallocation will allow continued Federal use of the band on a secondary basis or Federal use of non-licensed devices, while providing the FCC greater flexibility in developing a comprehensive plan to address the needs of the amateur service and the non-licensed device industry.
5000-5250 MHz. In its comments on the Preliminary Report, LQP urged NTIA to evaluate the feasibility of making the 5000-5250 MHz band available for MSS feeder uplinks on a dedicated or shared basis with the current Federal users.[EN 119] This band is currently allocated worldwide for aeronautical radionavigation, and footnote 796 of the ITU Radio Regulations states that "... the Microwave Landing System (MLS) requirements take precedence over all other users in the band." In the United States MLS is a joint development of DOT, DOD, and NASA under the management of FAA. Its purpose is to provide a civil/military, Federal/non-Federal standardized approach and landing system with improved performance compared to existing landing systems. MLS operates in the 5000-5150 MHz band with an associated distance measuring equipment (DME) link in the 960-1215 MHz band.
In 1978, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) selected MLS as the international standard precision approach system, with implementation targeted at all international airports by early 1998. FAA originally planned to procure approximately 464 MLS systems through the year 2000, and an additional 786 after 1999. DOD also planned to procure up to 405 MLS systems through the FAA. However, in June 1994, FAA cancelled MLS research and development contracts supporting category II and III service because of severe budget constraints. The United States has continued to implement MLS for Category I service and has plans to install 26 such systems.[EN 120] The Federal Radionavigation Plan (FRP) projects that MLS will be operational beyond the year 2025.[EN 121] FAA has indicated that if MLS Category II and Category III service is required in the future in order to satisfy national and international requirements, then these systems will be procured on the open market.[EN 122]
The FCC Report states that reallocation of the 5000-5250 MHz band, or a part of this band, could be useful for emerging non-Federal technologies.[EN 123] The FCC cites LQP's MSS feeder uplink request and recent European High Performance Local Area Network (HIPERLAN) proposals as evidence of the demand for non-Federal use of this spectrum. The FCC has also identified the 5000-5250 MHz band as a candidate band for Non-Geosynchronous-Orbit (NGSO) MSS feederlinks in its October 1994 Report and Order to amend its rules and policies pertaining to MSS.[EN 124] The Report and Order cites Doc 4-5/TEMP/38(Rev 1)-E, which recognizes the critical safety aspects of MLS.[EN 125] This study recommends that NGSO/MSS feederlink uplinks and MLS should use non-overlapping spectrum. The 5000-5250 MHz band is still being considered within various international fora.[EN 126]
FAA believes that the implementation of MSS feederlinks in this band could very well result in severe constraints on the implementation of MLS and other future [The FAA has submitted stage one spectrum support applications to the Spectrum Planning Subcommittee for the following additional aeronautical systems to operate in the 5000-5250 MHz band: Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD), Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE), Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR), Differential GPS (DGPS) Data Link, and an Automatic Dependent Surveillance (ADS) application. These applications are still under review by NTIA] aeronautical systems.[EN 127] In an airspace system that requires internationally agreed-upon standards, operating practices, and protection, FAA insists it is crucial that the U.S. continues to support MLS into the future. In its comments to NTIA's Spectrum Requirements Study, FAA states that:
"With the possibility that fewer MLS's will be installed, the FAA has begun investigating other applications for this spectrum to meet the needs of new aeronautical radionavigation systems and air traffic control concepts based on emerging technologies. Proposed uses of the band include weather radar, windshear radar, automatic dependent surveillance, GPS differential correction data link, and airport ground surveillance. The propagation characteristics of the 5000-5250 MHz band are ideally suited for these applications."[EN 128]
In addition to the studies performed by LQP, and the ITU working group discussions, FAA has conducted a study of MSS and MLS sharing in this band. FAA's study found that the use of aeronautical radionavigation spectrum in the MLS band for MSS feederlink uplinks will result in an exclusion zone of approximately 320 kilometers around each MSS ground earth station (GES) within which MLS operations could be subject to harmful interference.[EN 129] It is the position of FAA that the imposition of such large exclusion zones surrounding each MSS GES would cause an unacceptable restriction on the present and future expansion of MLS and other aeronautical systems in the United States.[EN 130]
As discussed briefly above, there is currently a considerable amount of national and international debate over whether MSS feederlinks should be allowed to operate in the 5000-5250 MHz band on a shared basis. This debate is being conducted in ongoing FCC proceedings, ITU working group discussions, and WRC-95 planning sessions. In addition, extensive studies examining the issues surrounding this band are not yet complete. It is evident to NTIA from the previous discussion that there are sufficient fora, all involving public participation, for resolution of this debate outside of the Title VI spectrum reallocation process. NTIA therefore has not included the 5000-5250 MHz band in the final spectrum reallocation plan.
5850-5925 MHz. Several commenters with interest in satellite services noted that some of the proposed spectrum in the Preliminary Report, particularly the blocks above 3 GHz, would be useful for FSS operations. These entities urged, however, that additional spectrum for satellite service is required.[EN 131] Furthermore, although Title VI requires that only spectrum below 5 GHz be considered toward fulfilling the 200 MHz minimum requirement, LQP recommends that NTIA consider spectrum above 5 GHz.[EN 132]
The FCC Report also discusses reallocating spectrum above 5 GHz for non-Federal use, stating that "Options for spectrum reallocation need not be limited to bands below 5 GHz. Since the Reconciliation Act [Title VI] does not foreclose reallocation of spectrum in excess of 200 megahertz, NTIA and the FCC should also explore options available for sharing spectrum, thereby providing greater benefit to both Government and non-Government users and greatly expanding the efficient use of spectrum."[EN 133] The FCC Report specifically recommends that the 5850-5925 MHz band be reallocated and paired with 3625-3700 MHz for non-Federal FSS, stating that "These bands are both currently allocated for use by the non-Government Fixed Satellite Service with one band allocated for use as an uplink and the other band allocated as a downlink. These bands might therefore be paired to provide usable spectrum for the Fixed Satellite Service."[EN 134]
The 5850-5925 MHz band is currently allocated for primary use by the military for radiolocation operations. However, this band is also allocated for primary use for non-Federal FSS (Earth-to-space) as well as for secondary use by the amateur service. Footnote US245 limits the satellite activities in the United States to international inter-continental systems and such activities are subject to case-by-case EMC analysis.[EN 135]
DOD indicates that they are performing advanced research in radiolocation in the 5255-5925 MHz band.[EN 136] Air Force states that this band is used extensively, especially in Western and Southwestern test and training ranges. The primary system used is the Vega-Hurley Target Control System (HVTCS). Air Force further states that operations supported include operational training of a U.S. and NATO air defense system, research and development of this system for advanced compatibility development, missile and aircraft tracking radars performing skin tracking, tracking airborne transponders on missiles and aircraft, and full scale and subscale target drone control links. Air Force indicates that these systems cannot operate in other radiolocation bands since these bands are used by the very radars the HVTCS is supposed to test. Air Force stresses that "Positive continuous control of unmanned targets is mandatory to insure safety of test range personnel and the nearby public and this spectrum provides an excellent buffer between high-power radars and satellite uplink receivers."[EN 137] Air Force maintains that this band is extremely important for test range instrumentation radars to track missiles and other targets, stating that "This band supports target control systems that are vital to maintain air defense and combat system readiness."[EN 138] Moreover, Air Force opposes the reallocation of this band for non-Federal use in conjunction with the Title VI spectrum transfer, stating:
"Title VI only covers reallocation of spectrum below 5 GHz. The Air Force feels that the inclusion of spectrum above 5 GHz in this reallocation would not be proper. In addition, any comments on the FCC's request for reallocation of the 5850-5925 MHz band should not be included in NTIA's final reallocation report. Any request to reallocate this band should be initiated by the FCC through normal spectrum management channels where they may be considered outside of Title VI discussions."[EN 139]
Navy also expressed concern that reallocation of this band may not be compatible with their shipboard radars when operating in coastal and inland waters. "The FCC proposal would increase instances of EMI to AN/SPS-10 and AN/SPS-67 radars, resulting in increased noise, decreased sensitivity, and reduced ability to detect surface craft and targets."[EN 140] Navy adds that equipment re-tunability to adjacent Federal portions of the spectrum cannot be accomplished without magnetron modifications.
As discussed earlier, DOD, through ASD (C3I) and the efforts of the CSCI, have established a policy whereby DOD will implement to the extent possible commercial SATCOM capabilities. "To the extent operationally and fiscally practicable, DOD will augment its military SATCOM capability with both domestic and international commercial services."[EN 141] In order to accomplish the goals established by the CSCI, DOD will require commercial fixed-satellite communications services. The policy established by the CSCI specifically requires that to the extent practical all new military transportable and deployable earth stations shall have access to the 6/4 GHz commercial frequency bands. In accordance with the CSCI policy, DOD is developing the LMST and the TROJAN SPIRIT II communications satellite terminals. As required by the CSCI, both of these satellite terminals access the 6/4 GHz commercial bands and can be configured to operate over military and commercial satellites.
Presently Federal agencies that operate earth stations in the 5850-7075 MHz band are on an unprotected, non-interference basis. With the background previously given on the CSCI and plans for a private satellite network, DOD is concerned over the secondary allocation status Federal earth stations would presently have as part of this network. To allow Federal FSS operations in the 5850-5925 MHz band, DOD has requested IRAC and NTIA support in pursuing with the FCC a means for Federal earth stations, as part of commercial satellite networks, to have a co-equal allocation status with respect to terrestrial non-Federal FSS stations. Federal earth station applicants would be required to comply with applicable parts (e.g., Parts 2 and 25) of the FCC rules and the operation of Federal satellites will not be permitted.
Although interested in developing FSS systems for operation in the 5850-5925 MHz band, DOD does not want to disrupt existing Federal operations. Air Force has stated that "Loss of this frequency band would be an impediment to range operations and would require an increase in time sharing."[EN 142] Furthermore, Air Force strongly believes that any discussion concerning this band should be handled outside of the Title VI spectrum reallocation process.
Based on the preceding discussion, permitting Federal FSS operations in the 5850-5925 MHz band will give the private sector the opportunity to provide commercial services that are envisioned to meet the objectives established by the DOD's CSCI. This is seen as a benefit for DOD since they will be permitted access to commercial SATCOM services as directed by Congress. The private sector will also benefit since the commercial satellite industry will be the provider of the service. On the other hand DOD is strongly opposed to addressing Federal/non-Federal use of this band in conjunction with the sharing constraints specified by the Title VI spectrum reallocation process.
Taking the above factors into consideration, we are not including the 5850-5925 MHz band in the final spectrum reallocation plan. However, direct discussions between NTIA and the FCC regarding this band and larger issues involving Federal use of commercial FSS systems will continue.
======================================================================================================= ENDNOTES FOR SECTION 4 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. See Comments filed in response to NAT'L TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFO. ADMIN. (NTIA), U.S. DEP'T OF COMMERCE, SPECIAL PUBLICATION 94-27, PRELIMINARY SPECTRUM REALLOCATION REPORT (Feb. 1994) [hereinafter NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT]; Motorola, at 14 (May 11, 1994); Telecommunications Industry Assoc. (TIA), at 15 (May 11, 1994). [hereinafter all comments cited refer to NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, unless otherwise stated.]. 2. Institute for Telecommunication Sciences, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, "A Preliminary Look at Spectrum Requirements for the Fixed Services", at 32-33 (May 1993). 3. Id. 4. REPORT FROM THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMM'N, to Ronald H. Brown, Secretary, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Regarding the NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, FCC 94-213, at 26 (Aug. 9, 1994) [hereinafter FCC REPORT]. 5. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-10. 6. Letter from Deborah R. Castleman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command and Control, and Communications, U.S. Dep't of Defense, to Richard Parlow, Assoc. Adm'r, Nat'l Te;ecommunications and Info. Admin., (Sept. 1, 1994) [hereinafter Joint DOD Response]; U.S. Dep't of Army Comments, at 2 (May 9, 1994); Dep't of Transportation (DOT) Comments, at 1 (June 1, 1994); U.S. Dep't of the Air Force Enclosure, at 13, A-9 (June 8, 1994). 7. Air Force Comments to the NTIA DRAFT FINAL REALLOCATION REPORT, (unpublished) (Dec. 6, 1994) [hereinafter NTIA DRAFT REALLOCATION REPORT], at 4 (Dec. 22, 1994) [hereinafter Air Force]. 8. Joint DOD Response, supra note 6, at 3. 9. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-11. 10. Joint DOD Response, supra note 6, at 6. 11. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-12. 12. TIA Comments, supra note 1, at 15. 13. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 2-5. 14. Comments filed in response to the FCC Notice of Inquiry, ET Docket No. 94-32, FCC 94-97, 59 Fed. Reg. 6005 (May 4, 1995) [hereinafter FCC NOI]: Pacific Bell and Nevada Bell, at 2 (June 15, 1994); Southwestern Bell, at 5 (June 15, 1994). 15. Nat'l Telecommunications and Info. Admin., U.S. Dep't of Commerce, U.S. Spectrum Requirements: Projections and Trends, at 129 (to be published in 1995). 16. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 14. 17. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-27. 18. Aeronautical Systems Center, Dep't of the Air Force, Potential Loss of Frequency Allocation - 1350-1400 MHz (June 24, 1993). 19. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 15. 20. Id. at 31. 21. Meeting between NTIA and Nat'l Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin. (NOAA) on June 27, 1994. 22. Memorandum from D. James Baker, Under Secretary and Adm'r, NOAA, to Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Info., NTIA (Oct. 18, 1993). 23. NOAA Meeting, supra note 21. 24. Id. 25. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 5-4. 26. Motorola Comments, supra note 1, at 11-12; TIA Comments, supra note 1, at 16. 27. TIA Comments, supra note 1, at 16. 28. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 15-16. 29. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-30. 30. Memorandum, from J. Hersey, Chief, Maritime Radio and Spectrum Management, U.S. Coast Guard to, W. Gamble, Deputy Assoc. Adm'r, Nat'l Telecommunications and Info. Admin. (Dec. 22, 1994). 31. Letter from Gerald Markey, Federal Aviation Admin., to W. Gamble, Chairman, Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee (Jan. 10, 1995). 32. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 2-27. 33. Air Force, supra note 7, at 5. 34. NTIA, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, NTIA Report 92-285, "Federal Spectrum Usage of the 1710-1850 MHz and 2200-2290 Mhz Bands" (March 1992); Air Force, supra note 7, at 5. 35. Air Force, supra note 7, at 5. 36. U.S. Dep't of Energy (DOE) Comments, at 5 (Dec. 30, 1994). 37. Int'l Telecommunications Union, Use by the Mobile Service of the Frequency Bands 2025-2100 MHz and 2200-2290 MHz, Resolution 211, WARC-92 (Malaga-Torremolinos, 1992). 38. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-30. 39. Air Force, supra note 7, at 5. 40. Id. at 6. 41. U.S. Dep't of Argic. (USDA) letter to Mr. Richard D. Parlow, Assoc. Adm'r, Nat'l Telecommunications and Info. Admin. (NTIA), U.S. Dep't of Commerce (Jan. 9, 1995). 42. Letter from Joaquin Archilla, Assoc. Adm'r for Airway Facilities, Federal Aviation Admin., to Richard Parlow, Assoc. Adm'r, NTIA (Dec. 1994). 43. Pacific Bell, supra note 14, at 3; Loral Qualcomm Partnership Reply Comments, at 3-5 (June 30, 1994), filed in response to FCC NOI, supre note 14. 44. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 32. 45. Nat'l Aeronautics and Space Admin. (NASA) Comments, at 3 (May 8, 1994). 46. Telephone Conference Between David Struba/NASA and Franz Borncamp/JPL, and NTIA, Subject: Protection of Goldstone from frequency interference resulting from the reallocation of the 2300-2310 MHz band (June 28, 1994). 47. Id. 48. Id. 49. Id. 50. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 5-7. 51. NASA, supra note 45, at 3. 52. NASA Telephone Conference, supra note 46. 53. American Radio Relay League (ARRL) Comments, at 14 (May 11, 1994); radio Amateur Satellite Corp. (AMSAT) Comments, at 9 (May 11, 1994). 54. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-18. 55. Communications Satellite Corp. (COMSAT) World Systems Comments, at 3-4 (May 11, 1994). 56. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 32. 57. COMSAT Comments, supra note 55, at 5-6. 58. Memorandum from IRAC Members: Neslon Pollack, Air Force; Bruce Swearingen Navy; and Frank Holderness Army; to the Executive Secretary of the IRAC, Doc. 28873. 59. Id. 60. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-18. 61. Navy Comments, at 22 (Jan. 4, 1994), filed in response to the NTIA DRAFT OF THE FINAL REALLOCATION REPORT, supra note 7. 62. Letter from G. Markey, Director, Office of Spectrum Policy and Management, to W. Gamble, Chairman Interdepartment Radio Advisory Committee, Nat'l Telecommunications and Info. Amin., at 3 (Jan. 24, 1995). 63. DOT, supra note 6, at 1. 64. NTIA, U.S. Dep't of Commerce NTIA Report 94-313, "Analysis of Electromagnetic Compatibility Between Radar Stations and 4 GHz Fixed-Satellite Earth Stations" (July 1994). 65. Memorandum from U.S. dep't of the Air Force, for Chairman of IRAC, Subject: AF Comments on Title VI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) of 1993, at 2-4 (Jan. 5, 1995); Air Force, supra note 7, at 6. 66. 47.U.S.C. Sec.901-904 (Supp. V 1993). 67. Fax from B. Swearingen, Navy IRAC representative, to E. Drocella, NTIA (Dec. 5, 1994). 68. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-18. 69. Air Force Comments on OBRA, supra note 65, at 2-4. 70. Id. 71. Id. 72. Id. 73. Air Force, supra note 7, at 7. 74. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-18. 75. Naval Sea Systems Command, Dep't of the Navy, LAMPS MK III Investment (March 1993). 76. U.S. Dep't of the Navy, CED Frequency band Usage (March 1993). 77. Joint DOD Response, supra note 6, at A-26. 78. Assoc. of Public-Safety Communications Officials-Int'l Inc. (APCO) Comments, at 5 (May 11, 1994). 79. Id. 80. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 24. 81. Id. 82. Air Force, supra note 61, at 22. 83. Navy Comments, supra note61, at 22. 84. Air Force Comments on OBRA, supra note 65, at 2-4. 85. Air Force, supra note 7, at 8. 86. Air Force Comments on ABRA, supra note 65, at 3-2. 87. Air Force, supra note 7, at 8. 88. Letter from Richard Parlow, Assoc. Adm'r, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, to Deborah Castleman, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Command, Control, and Communications. 89. American Mobile Satellite Corp. (AMSC) Comments, at 2 (May 11, 1994). 90. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 27. 91. Id. at 26-27. 92. Joint Letter from Reed E. Hundt, Chairman, Federal Communications Comm'n and Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Info., to Mr. Richard C. Beaird, Acting U.S. Coordinator and Director, Int'l Communications and Info. Policy, U.S. Dep't of State (Dec. 17, 1993). 93. AMSC Comments, supra note 89, Technical App. at 4-10. 94. Id. Annex 2, at 12. 95. Id. 96. Meeting between NTIA and AMSC on July 18, 1994. 97. AMSC Comments, supra note 89, Technical App. at 9. 98. AMSC Meeting, supra note 96. 99. Id. 100. AMSC Comments, supra note 89, Technical App., Annex 1 at 12. 101. Int'l Telecommunication Union (ITU), WRC-93, Statement by the United States of America for the Minutes of the Plenary Session (Nov. 18-19, 1993). 102. Letter from manager of Regulatory Programs, Motorola, INc., to NTIA Spectrum Planning and Policy Advisory Committee (Oct. 21, 1993). 103. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-17. 104. ARRL Comments, supra note 53, at 7; AMSAT Comments, supra note 53, at 2. 105. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at 4-17. 106. NTIA PRELIMINARY REPORT, supra note 1, at E-7. 107. Miles, J. B., "Wireless LAN Products", Government Computer News, at 55 (Dec. 12, 1994). 108. Comments filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 14: Part 15 Coalition Comments, at 4 (June 14, 1995), ITRON Comments, at 1 (June 15, 1994); GEC Plessey Semiconductors Comments, at 1 (Apr. 6, 1994); American Telephone and Telegraph (AT and T) Corp. Comments, at 3 (June 15, 1994). 109. Boer, Jan, Kruys, J. Links, C., "The Development of a Wireless 802.11 Standard for Wireless LANs is Close to Completion", Wireless Design and Development, at 15 (Oct. 1994). 110. ARRL Comments, supra note 53, at 8. 111. Motorola Comments, supra note 1, at 8; TIA Comments, supra note 1, at 7. 112. Motorola Comments, supra note 1, at 9; GTE Service Corp. Comments, at 5 (May 11, 1994). 113. Utilities Telecommunications Council (UTC) Comments, at 3 (May 11, 1994). 114. Id. at 4. 115. Comments filed in response to FCC NOI, supra note 14: The Assoc. of Public-Safety Communications Officials-Int'l Inc. (APCO) Comments, at 5-6 (June 15, 1994); The Coalition of Private Users of Emerging Multimedia Technologies (COPE) Comments, at 6 (June 15, 1994). 116. COPE, supra note 115, at 7. 117. Air Force Comments on OBRA, supra note 65, at 3-1. 118. Omura, K., "Emerging Commercial Application for Spread Spectrum Radio", Wireless Design and Development, at 25 (June 1994). 119. Loral Qualcomm Partnership (LQP) Comments, at 5 (May 11, 1994). 120. Letter from G. markey, Director, Office of Spectrum Policy and Management, Federal Aviation Admin., to R. Parlow, Assoc. Adm'r, Office of Spectrum Management, NTIA, at 1 (Oct. 11, 1994). 121. U.S. dep't of Transportation and Dep't of Defense, 1992 Federal Radionavigation Plan, at 3-29 (Jan. 1993). 122. FAA Letter, supra note 120, at 2. 123. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, t 29. 124. Amendent of the Commission's Rules Establishing Rules and Policies Pertaining to a Mobile Satellite Service in the 1610-1626.6/2483.5-2500 MHz Frequency Bands, FCC Docket 92-166, at 63 (Oct. 14, 1994). 125. Report from the June Meeting of the Task Group 4/5 of Radiocommunication Study Group 4 (Washinton, D.C. June 2-10 1994), ITU document 4-5/65-E, at 124 (Aug. 17 1994). 126. FCC Docket, supra note 124, at 63. 127. FAA Letter, supra note 120, at 2. 128. Letter from G. Markey, Director, Office of Spectrum Policy and Management, Federal Aviation Admin., to R. Slye, NTIA, Subject: FAA Comments on Drfat NTIA Document U.S. Spectrum Requirements: Projections and Trends, at 9 (Oct. 18, 1994). 129. FAA Letter, supra note 120, at 5. 130. Id. 131. LQP Comments, supra note 119, at 1-3; COMSAT Comments, supra note 55, at 2-8. 132. LQP Comments, supra note 119, at 3-6. 133. FCC REPORT, supra note 4, at 32. 134. Id. 135. NTIA, U.S. Dep't of Commerce, Manual of Regulation and Procedures for Federal Radio Frequency Management Sec. 4.1.3, at 4-106 (June 6, 1994). 136. U.S. Dep't of Defense Comments filed in response to the NTIA Notice of Inquiry in ET Docket No. 92053-2132, at 15 (Nov. 4, 1992). 137. Air Force, supra note 7, at 10. 138. Air Force Comments on OBRA, supra note 65, at 2-4. 139. Id. 140. Navy Comments to NTIA DRAFT FINAL REALLOCATION REPORT, supra note 61, at 5. 141. DOD Memorandum, supra note 58, at 4. 142. Air Force Comments on OBRA, supra note 65, at 3-11.