*Pages 1--72 from _* REPORT TO CONGRESS ON THE STUDY TO ASSESS SHORT- TERM AND LONG- TERM NEEDS FOR ALLOCATIONS OF ADDITIONAL PORTIONS OF THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM FOR FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS Submitted Pursuant to Public Law No. 108- 458 FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION Kevin J. Martin, Chairman December 19, 2005 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Heading Paragraph # I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................... 1 II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 3 III. DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................................................... 10 A. Section 7502( c)( i): The Operation and Administration of a Potential Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Mobile Communications Network (Based Upon Input from Federal, State, Local and Regional Emergency Response Providers) ........................................... 10 1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 10 2. Proposals Regarding the Requirements and Architecture of a Potential Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Mobile Communications Network ................................................. 11 3. Practical Considerations .......................................................................................................... 20 4. Findings................................................................................................................................... 26 B. Section 7502( c)( ii): Consider the Use of Commercial Wireless Technologies to the Greatest Extent Practicable ............................................................................................................ 32 1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 32 2. Comments from Public Safety Entities ................................................................................... 33 3. Comments from Commercial Entities ..................................................................................... 38 4. Findings................................................................................................................................... 45 C. Section 7502( a): The Short- Term and Long- Term Needs for Allocations of Additional Portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers, and Whether or Not an Additional Allocation of Spectrum in the 700 Megahertz Band Should be Granted by Congress to Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers........................................................................................................................ 50 1. Overview ................................................................................................................................. 50 2. Status of the 700 MHz Band ................................................................................................... 53 3. Critical Infrastructure and Other Emergency Response Providers.......................................... 61 4. Comments Favoring An Additional Allocation of Spectrum in the 700 MHz Band in Light of the Short- Term and Long- Term Needs of Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers .............................................................................................. 65 5. Comments Favoring Additional Allocations of Public Safety Spectrum in Bands Other Than the 700 MHz Band In Light of the Short- Term and Long- Term Needs of Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers ...................................................... 79 6. Comments Favoring Efficient Use of Existing Public Safety Spectrum and Opposing An Additional Allocation of Public Safety Spectrum in the 700 MHz Band.......................... 83 7. Findings................................................................................................................................... 91 IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................................. 101 Appendices 2 3 I. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. This report is submitted by the Chairman, Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission), 1 pursuant to Section 7502 of the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Intelligence Reform Act). 2 The Commission's strategic goal for homeland security is to provide leadership in evaluating and strengthening the nation’s communications infrastructure, in ensuring rapid restoration of that infrastructure in the event of disruption, and in ensuring that essential public health and safety personnel have effective communications services available to them at all times, and particularly in the event of an emergency. This report, which reflects analysis undertaken by the Commission staff, 3 is intended not only to address the questions posed by Congress, but also to consider the many thoughtful proposals submitted in the record for addressing the spectrum needs of traditional public safety entities and other critical first responders, as well as some lessons learned from the impact of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on our nation’s communications infrastructure. 2. In light of the information in the record and from practical experience wrought from the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, this report examines the spectrum needs of traditional public safety entities and other critical first responders. This report also considers proposals to enhance public safety interoperability, particularly broadband interoperability, ranging from the deployment of a nationwide, interoperable network to more easily achievable solutions that employ widely available commercial technologies. Based on a thorough examination of the record in this proceeding, this report reaches the following principal findings, which are discussed in greater detail below and in appendices to this report: o Emergency response providers would benefit from the development of an integrated, interoperable nationwide network capable of delivering broadband services throughout the country. o While commercial wireless technologies are not appropriate for every type of public safety communication, there may now be a place for commercial providers to assist public safety in securing and protecting the homeland. o Prior to undertaking the instant study, the Commission has endeavored to provide adequate spectrum to satisfy public safety’s spectrum needs, and the Commission’s actions evince its longstanding commitment to working closely with the public safety community to satisfy immediate and short- term spectrum needs. o While the effort to address the short- term spectrum needs of public safety is underway, attaining a wholesale assessment of long- term spectrum needs is an ongoing task. Mobile, broadband communications, implemented in combination with upgraded equipment, associated training and close coordination, could offer emergency response providers many important capabilities. To this end, and at the urging of public safety, the Commission will expeditiously examine whether certain channels within the current allocation of twenty- four megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band could be modified to accommodate broadband communications. 1 See 47 U. S. C. § 155( a) (stating that “[ i] t shall be the [Chairman’s] duty . . . to represent the Commission in all matters relating to legislation and legislative reports. . . .”). 2 See Pub. L. No. 108- 458, 118 Stat. 3638 (2004), codified at 6 U. S. C. § 413. 3 See 47 C. F. R. § 0.331( f) (providing delegated authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to develop responses to legislative inquiries). 3 4 II. BACKGROUND 3. Section 7502 of the Intelligence Reform Act directs that the Commission “shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration, conduct a study to assess short- term and long- term needs for allocations of additional portions of the electromagnetic spectrum for Federal, State, and local emergency response providers, including whether or not an additional allocation of spectrum in the 700 megahertz band should be granted by Congress to such emergency response providers.” 4 The Intelligence Reform Act also provides that the Commission shall: (1) seek input from Federal, State, local, and regional emergency response providers regarding the operation and administration of a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network; and (2) consider the use of commercial wireless technologies to the greatest extent practicable. 5 Finally, the Intelligence Reform Act requires that “[ n] ot later than one year after the date of enactment of this Act, the [Commission] . . . shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on such study, including the findings of such study.” 6 4. In light of this mandate, on March 29, 2005, the Commission issued a public notice soliciting comment from interested parties regarding the components of the required spectrum needs study. 7 To date, the Commission has received comments from approximately sixty entities, including emergency response providers, critical infrastructure entities, wireless telecommunications carriers, satellite providers, broadcasters, manufacturers and vendors serving the communications industries and others. 8 In addition, the Commission has met with a number of interested parties and received supplementary information on an ex parte basis. 9 5. Currently, more than ninety- seven megahertz of spectrum is allocated in support of 4 Intelligence Reform Act at § 7502( a), ALLOCATIONS OF SPECTRUM FOR EMERGENCY RESPONSE PROVIDERS. 5 Id. at § 7502( c)( 1)-( 2), STUDY REQUIREMENTS. 6 Id. at § 7502( d)( 1), REPORTS. Section 7502( d)( 2) defines the term “appropriate committees of Congress” to mean (A) the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs of the Senate; and (B) the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Select Committee on Homeland Security of the House of Representatives. 7 Federal Communications Commission Requests Comment on Spectrum Needs of Emergency Response Providers, Public Notice, WT Docket No. 05- 157, 20 FCC Rcd 7774 (2005). A summary of this notice was published in the Federal Register on April 13, 2005. See 70 Fed. Reg. 19467. Unless otherwise noted, the comments and ex parte presentations referenced herein are filed in WT Docket No. 05- 157. 8 A listing of parties participating in this proceeding is set forth in Appendix A. 9 See, e. g., Letter from Michael T. McMenamin, Lucent Technologies, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Nov. 10, 2005) (Lucent Letter); Presentation from Bill Butler, Washington, D. C. Office of Chief Technology Officer, to Angela E. Giancarlo, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Nov. 4, 2005) (OCTO Presentation); Letter from Ellen M. Kirk, Tropos Networks, to The Honorable Kevin J. Martin, Chairman, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Nov. 2, 2005) (Tropos Letter). 4 5 communications by public safety service providers, 10 as follows: Frequency Band (MHz) Megahertz (* denotes approximation) 25- 50 (VHF Low Band) 6.3* 150- 174 (VHF High Band) 3.6* 220- 222 (220 MHz band) 0.1* 450- 470 (UHF band) 3.7* 764- 776/ 794- 806 (700 MHz band) 24 806- 821/ 851- 866 (800 MHz band) 3.5 821- 824/ 866- 869 (NPSPAC 11 band) 6 4940- 4990 (4.9 GHz band) 50 6. As part of the transition of analog television broadcasting to digital television (DTV), broadcasters currently assigned Channels 60- 69 (sixty megahertz of spectrum referred to as the “Upper 700 MHz Band”) will be relocated to assignments below Channel 52, which will make this band available for new services. In connection with this action and as mandated by Congress, the Commission allocated 10 In 1997 amendments to the Communications Act of 1934, Congress defined public safety services as “services – (A) the sole or principal purpose of which is to protect the safety of life, health or property; (B) that are provided (i) by State or local government entities; or (ii) by nongovernmental organizations that are authorized by a governmental entity whose primary mission is the provision of such services; and (C) that are not made commercially available to the public by the provider.” 47 U. S. C. § 337( f)( 1). The Intelligence Reform Act uses the definition of emergency response providers set forth in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as follows: “‘ emergency response providers’ includes Federal, State, and local emergency public safety, law enforcement, emergency response, emergency medical (including hospital emergency facilities), and related personnel, agencies, and authorities.” 6 U. S. C. § 101( 6). 11 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 16 (Public Safety National Plan); see also Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rules and Technical Standards for Use of the 821-824/ 866- 869 MHz Bands by the Public Safety Services, Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 87- 112, 3 FCC Rcd 905 (1987). 5 6 twenty- four megahertz of the Upper 700 MHz Band for public safety services. 12 Additionally, Congress directed that the Commission auction the remaining thirty- six megahertz of the Upper 700 MHz Band for commercial services. 13 At the same time, however, Congress provided that the spectrum would not be available until completion of the digital television transition. 14 As a result, this spectrum is currently not available for public safety use in most areas of the country because of the presence of incumbent television stations. In the meantime, the Commission chartered a federal advisory committee, the Public Safety National Coordination Committee (NCC), to develop operational and technical recommendations for achieving nationwide interoperability in the 700 MHz band. At the recommendation of the NCC, the Commission designated 2.6 megahertz of spectrum for interoperability and adopted Project 25 Phase I as the interoperability digital standard for voice and low speed data communications on the interoperability channels. 15 Further, the Commission required that all narrowband voice and data radios used in the 700 MHz band include the capability of operating on these narrowband interoperability channels. 16 In addition, the Commission reserved 2.4 megahertz of 700 MHz spectrum, designed to support wide- area communications systems and which promotes interoperability, for state use. 17 Accordingly, the Commission is poised to move forward to implement nationwide interoperability for voice and low- speed data communications once these channels are clear and the transition is completed. 18 (continued….) 12 See Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105- 33, § 3004, 111 Stat. 252 (1997), codified at 47 U. S. C. § 337( a)( 1) (Balanced Budget Act). 13 See id. at § 337( a)( 2). Initial statutory auction deadlines (which have since passed) were revised by the Auction Reform Act of 2002. See Auction Reform Act of 2002 § 203( b), Pub. L. No. 107- 195, 116 Stat. 715 (Auction Reform Act) (amending section 309( j) of the Communications Act by adding at the end new paragraph (15)); Auction Reform Act § 3( b) (conforming amendment striking various statutory auction deadlines). 14 See Balanced Budget Act at § 337( a)( 2). Congress mandated that the transition from analog to digital television be completed by December 31, 2006, or until eighty- five percent of households in a given area are able to watch digital television programming. Congress envisioned that, until the transition to digital television is complete, television stations would continue to broadcast using both their digital and analog channels. 15 See The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Fourth Report and Order and Fifth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket No. 96- 86, 16 FCC Rcd 2020 (2001) (700 MHz Fourth Report and Order). The public safety spectrum designations in the 700 MHz band are as follows: (1) 12. 5 megahertz for general use; (2) 2. 6 megahertz for interoperability; (3) 0. 2 megahertz for secondary trunking; (4) 2.4 megahertz for state licensing; (5) 0.3 megahertz for low power operations; and (6) 6. 0 megahertz is reserved. See The Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State and Local Public Safety Communication Requirements Through the Year 2010, Fourth Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket No. 96- 86, 17 FCC Rcd 4736, 4763 App. D (2002). 16 See 47 C. F. R. § 90. 547. 17 The Commission has granted licenses for the 700 MHz State License channels to all fifty states, as well as the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U. S. Virgin Islands. In addition to designating specific channels for interoperability, the Commission’s rules allow public safety entities to establish a shared communications system or to designate a specific channel for interoperability. 18 We note that the Commission has taken steps to expedite the digital television transition by providing for all new TV receiver equipment to include digital reception capability as of March 1, 2007. See Requirements for Digital Television Receiving Capability, Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 05- 24, ___ FCC Rcd ___, FCC 05- 190 (rel. Nov. 8, 2005). We further note that the Commission has developed service rules for the non- public safety portion of the Upper 700 MHz band that accommodate new broadcasting, fixed, and mobile services for a broad range of flexible uses. The specific services offered through this band will in large part be determined by the efforts of new licensees to address demands of the communications marketplace. To date, the Commission has conducted 6 7 (Continued from previous page) 7. Simultaneous with the undertaking required by the Intelligence Reform Act, in August and September 2005, hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast. The destruction that hurricane Katrina caused to the facilities of communications companies, and therefore the services upon which citizens rely, was extraordinary. Hurricane Rita, which struck parts of Texas and Louisiana, also caused significant damage to communications facilities. As a result of the respective communications breakdowns, emergency workers and public safety officials had difficulty coordinating. In response to these disasters, the Commission has devoted significant time and resources to enable emergency response providers to communicate. For example, the Commission granted a significant number of requests, including special temporary authorities (STAs), to facilitate communications on the ground. Chairman Martin has established the Commission’s Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks -- an independent expert panel to review the impact of hurricane Katrina on the communications infrastructure. 19 The panel will be composed of public safety and communications industry representatives, and will make recommendations regarding ways to improve disaster preparedness, network reliability and communications among emergency response providers. 8. In conducting the instant study, the Commission has consulted with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). 20 At the outset, we note that the Federal Partnership for Interoperable Communications (FPIC), a federal wireless communications technical and operational advisor that includes DHS entities, 21 filed comments in the proceeding, as discussed below. In addition, the Commission’s Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) hosted two meetings with DHS and NTIA. 22 The Bureau also attended meetings hosted by DHS and NTIA regarding the DHS Spectrum Needs Plan mandated pursuant to Section 2( c) of the November 30, 2004, Executive Memorandum, Improving Spectrum Management for the 21st Century, 23 at which DHS provided status reports concerning its corresponding study required under Section 7502( b) the Intelligence Reform Act. 24 (continued….) auctions and awarded licenses for the six megahertz of the Upper 700 MHz band that functions as guard bands between commercial and public safety spectrum. 19 See Chairman Kevin J. Martin Names Nancy J. Victory as Chair of the Federal Communications Commission’s Independent Panel Reviewing the Impact of Hurricane Katrina on Communications Networks, News Release (Nov. 28, 2005). 20 See Intelligence Reform Act § 7502( a). 21 See FPIC Comments at App. See also id. at 2- 3 (noting that FPIC was formerly known as the Federal Law Enforcement Wireless Users Group (FLEWUG)). 22 See 47 C. F. R. § 0.131( f). 23 Section 2( c) requires DHS, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and others, by November 30, 2005, to “develop a comprehensive plan, the Spectrum Needs Plan, to address issues related to communication spectrum used by the public safety community, as well as the continuity of Government operations.” Presidential Determination: Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, Office of the Press Secretary, News & Policies § 2( c) (dated Nov. 30, 2004), located at http:// www. whitehouse. gov/ news/ releases/ 2004/ 11/ print/ 20041130- 8.html (President’s Executive Memorandum). We note that Section 3( b) of the President’s Executive Memorandum requires the Secretary of Commerce, by November 30, 2005, to “develop a plan for identifying and implementing incentives that promote more efficient and effective use of the spectrum while protecting national and homeland security, critical infrastructure, and Government services.” Id. at § 3( b). 24 Section 7502( b) of the Intelligence Reform Act requires DHS, in consultation with the FCC and NTIA, to “conduct a study to assess strategies that may be used to meet public safety telecommunications needs, including: (1) the need and efficacy of deploying nationwide interoperable communications networks (including the potential technical and operational standards and protocols for nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications networks that may be used by Federal, State, regional, and local governmental and nongovernmental public safety, 7 8 (Continued from previous page) 9. The discussion set forth below addresses each of the directives in Section 7502 of the Intelligence Reform Act that pertain to the FCC study. First, the report discusses and contains findings regarding the operation and administration of a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network. Second, the report discusses and contains findings regarding the use of commercial wireless technologies. The first two areas of inquiry – the need for a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network and the use of commercial wireless technologies – are directly related to an assessment of the spectrum needs of emergency response providers. For this reason, the report concludes with a discussion of and findings relating to the short-term and long- term needs for allocations of additional portions of the electromagnetic spectrum for federal, state and local emergency response providers, and whether or not an additional allocation of spectrum in the 700 MHz band should be granted by Congress to these emergency response providers. III. DISCUSSION A. Section 7502( c)( i): The Operation and Administration of a Potential Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Mobile Communications Network (Based Upon Input from Federal, State, Local and Regional Emergency Response Providers) 1. Overview 10. With respect to the operation and administration of a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network, a number of commenters offer varied objectives and criteria for, as well as potential spectrum requirements associated with, this proposed network. Further, a number of commercial entities report their products could service in place of, or supplement, this potential network. Moreover, a broad array of entities suggests that operating and administrating this proposed network would entail considerable coordination among potential users. Finally, a number of commenters cite the need for Congress to provide the funding necessary to build and deploy this network. 2. Proposals Regarding the Requirements and Architecture of a Potential Nationwide Interoperable Broadband Mobile Communications Network 11. A number of commenters offer varied objectives and criteria for, as well as potential spectrum requirements associated with, a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network. First, FCC Regional Planning Committee 8 (RPC 8) asserts that an interoperable nationwide broadband network requires a considerable amount of spectrum dedicated solely to public safety, and “shared by all Government levels.” 25 RPC 8 further stresses that the Commission should not permit non- public safety operations in this spectrum, “even on a secondary or shared basis.” 26 According to RPC 8, thirty megahertz of spectrum located in the Upper 700 MHz band and currently homeland security, and other emergency response personnel); (2) the capacity of public safety entities to utilize wireless broadband applications; and (3) the communications capabilities of all emergency response providers, including hospitals and health care workers, and current efforts to promote communications coordination and training among emergency response providers.” Intelligence Reform Act at § 7502( b). The DHS report is also due to Congress by December 17, 2005. 25 RPC 8 Comments at 11. We note that a Regional Planning Committee (RPC) is responsible for planning, administrating and coordinating the use of public safety spectrum. The Commission adopted a regional planning approach to ensure broad coordination within the public safety community in particular geographic areas of the nation and established fifty- five regions roughly along state boundaries. See Development and Implementation of a Public Safety National Plan and Amendment of Part 90 to Establish Service Rule and Technical Standards for Use of the 821- 824/ 866- 869 MHz Bands by the Public Safety Services, Report and Order, GEN Docket No. 87- 112, 3 FCC Rcd 905, 906- 12 (1987). 26 Id. 8 9 allocated for commercial use would ideally satisfy the requirements for jurisdictional area networks. 27 Similarly, the State of Delaware (Delaware) reports that its strategic plan for the state’s first responders and federal and quasi- government partners is “predicated upon the availability of new LMR spectrum in both the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands.” 28 12. Management Communications Services (MCS), a communications consulting company in Guam, adds that “[ i] t is vital that any nationwide broadband mobile communications network for emergency response providers fully incorporate each of the U. S. territories and commonwealths,” 29 and contends that local public safety entities in those jurisdictions must have the ability to communicate with each other and with relevant federal, state, and other local government agencies. 30 In addition, Captain Sonja L. Owens of the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Police Department (Owens) asserts that emergency response providers’ future plans require the national interoperability associated with mobile broadband technologies, as well as the ability to integrate future innovative wireless technologies. 31 More specifically, commenter Andrew Seybold (Seybold) proposes establishing a nationwide Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) network that interconnects “all federal, state and local first responder agencies.” 32 Rather than utilize the Internet, Seybold proposes that the proposed nationwide network “should be a new, stand alone system that is secure and built to exacting standards.” 33 Seybold proposes that the nationwide IPv6 network would be the “first phase in providing interoperability by cross- connecting [all of the agencies] when working together.” 34 Seybold adds that systems existing in the 30, 150 and 450 MHz bands could be connected via a ‘Public Safety Internet’ in instances where 700 and 800 MHz propagation is not economically feasible. 35 13. Certain commercial entities report that their products could serve in place of, or supplement, this potential network. 36 First, the Satellite Industry Association (SIA), a trade association representing satellite operators, service providers, manufacturers, and other satellite industry stakeholders, contends that commercial satellite operators offer capabilities that meet critical emergency needs. 37 SIA reports that these capabilities include ubiquitous coverage of land, sky and water, and therefore offer a 27 See RPC 8 Comments at 11- 12. 28 See Delaware Comments at 2. 29 MCS Comments at 2. 30 Id. 31 Owens Comments at 1. Owens explains that her comments reflect her personal views rather than those of her employer, the Washington, D. C. Metropolitan Police Department. 32 Seybold Comments at 3. We note that IPv6 is described as the new proposed Internet Protocol designed to replace and enhance the present protocol, TCP/ IP or officially IPv4. See NEWTON’S TELECOM DICTIONARY 445 (20 th ed. 2004). 33 Seybold Comments at 3. 34 Id. (indicating that “this network [could] be used . . . to provide true interoperability between local agencies on a day- to- day basis”). 35 Id at 3. 36 We note that CTIA expresses support for the goal of a nationwide, interoperable broadband mobile network, and describes the fifty megahertz of spectrum in support of public safety located in the 4.9 GHz band and the twenty-four megahertz of public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band as suitable for this proposed network. See CTIA Comments at 4. 37 See SIA Comments at 3- 4 9 10 single point of contact for an interoperable communications network. 38 Moreover, SIA asserts that a satellite space infrastructure is immune from natural and manmade disasters. 39 SIA urges the Commission to “solicit comment on the potential for additional government [or] commercial satellite allocations that would allow satellites to communicate directly with existing and planned terrestrial public safety equipment . . . to extend and back- up terrestrial infrastructure during an emergency.” 40 14. In addition, MSS provider Iridium Satellite LLC (Iridium) asserts, “satellite technology should continue to play a critical role in emergency response communications.” 41 Iridium adds that its system “is independent from all terrestrial and foreign infrastructure and . . . relies solely on satellite- to-satellite crosslinks to provide voice and data communications anywhere that [DHS], law enforcement, and/ or first responders may conduct operations.” 42 Iridium contends that this independence allows communications “without having to rely on terrestrial systems that may be destroyed during a disaster.” 43 Further, Iridium represents that its system can connect with various other communications networks and thus connect diverse operating organizations on a single network during wide- area missions. 44 15. Mobile Satellite Ventures Subsidiary LLC (MSV), an operator of Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) in the L- band, 45 also discussed the potential for a nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network. MSV emphasizes that an optimal public safety architecture consists of a flexible system that incorporates traditional LMR systems into a broader architecture of satellite, terrestrial and emerging wireless broadband networks. 46 MSV contends that this broader architecture utilizes the MSS ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) and enables users to seamlessly roam between satellite and terrestrial networks. 47 Similarly, TerreStar Networks, Inc. (TerreStar), a prospective MSS provider, 48 asserts that MSS systems, especially those offering an ATC, can provide “ubiquitous, reliable, and interoperable broadband” to emergency response providers. 49 TerreStar adds that with ATC, users may access the network “even in ‘urban canyons, ’” 50 and explains that public safety agencies have started to incorporate satellite communications into emergency networks. 51 TerreStar also stresses that ATC-38 Id. 39 Id. at 10. 40 Id. 41 Iridium Comments at 5. 42 Id. at 2. 43 Id. 44 See id. at 3. 45 The “L- band” is a general designation for frequencies from 1 to 2 GHz. In the United States, the Commission has allocated L- band spectrum for MSS downlinks in the 1525- 1544 MHz and 1545- 1559 MHz bands and for MSS uplinks in the 1626. 5- 1645. 5 MHz and 1646.5- 1660.5 MHz bands. See 47 C. F. R. § 2.106. 46 See MSV Comments at 2- 9. 47 See id. at 9- 17. 48 TerreStar is the prospective assignee of the 2 GHz MSS authorization currently held by TMI Communications and Company Limited Partnership. See TerreStar Comments at 1, n. 1. 49 See id. at 1. 50 Id. at 2. 51 See id. at 2, n. 4 (citing the decision of the Connecticut Department of Health to acquire a satellite- based emergency dispatch network). 10 11 enhanced MSS can offer public safety agencies affordable access to a satellite network, 52 and reports that “the interoperability of an MSS/ ATC system was one of the Commission’s principal motivations in allowing MSS providers to integrate ancillary terrestrial capability into their networks.” 53 16. Manufacturers Ericsson, Inc. (Ericsson) and Lucent Technologies, Inc. (Lucent) each submitted a substantial proposal regarding a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network. Ericsson contends that public safety agencies should “incorporat[ e] commercial wireless technologies into public safety communications networks [to give emergency response providers] the tools to achieve interoperability.” 54 Ericsson argues that encouraging the public safety community to establish flexible spectrum management policies would lead to an interoperable nationwide wireless communications network. Ericsson explains that commercially available systems “allow integration of new technologies from multiple vendors and virtually limitless system expansion,” 55 and asserts, “commercial technology is . . . highly interoperable, built to allow communication between multiple networks operating on multiple frequencies and using different technology.” 56 Further, Ericsson suggests that public safety agencies should be encouraged to use standardized commercial wireless technologies and systems to the extent commercial solutions meet requirements. 57 17. Lucent reports that significant work is underway to ensure the coherent integration of “communication stovepipes” to serve the nation’s needs. 58 Lucent views this effort as focused primarily on narrowband voice communications, however, and thus submits that, given the importance of IP- based, data driven communications, there should be a similar focus on creating a “National Mobile Broadband Network.” 59 Lucent proposes that this “NMBN” operate on a dedicated network in an interoperable manner in order to satisfy emergency responders’ need for secure, highly reliable access. 60 Moreover, Lucent contends that the proposed NMBN should not replace current private voice/ dispatch networks, but should provide in- field data access to a “trusted information network” of responders. 61 Lucent further proposes that the network employ commercial broadband 3G technology. 62 Lucent claims that its version of a dedicated nationwide interoperable mobile broadband network would perform two essential interoperability functions: (1) act as “universal gateway” for public/ private networks using Wi- Fi, Wi-Max, MESH, and satellite technologies; and (2) employ capabilities like the National Incident Management System (NIMS) as a “universal service layer” for transmission of data and VoIP communications. 63 52 See id. at 3. 53 Id. at 3, n. 6. 54 Ericsson Comments at 12. 55 Id. at 13. 56 Id. 57 See id. at 19- 22 (reporting that “3G systems based on IMT- 2000 standards will likewise offer numerous end- user applications . . . for specialized or niche users such as public safety agencies”). Id. at 20. 58 See Lucent Comments at 4. 59 See id. 60 See id. at 5- 6. 61 See id. at 8. 62 See id. at 19. 63 See id. at 21. 11 12 18. Vendors ArrayComm, Inc. (ArrayComm) and Cisco Systems, Inc. (Cisco) also offer proposals regarding a potential nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network. ArrayComm, a vendor of smart antennas that employ Time Division Duplex (TDD) technology, asserts that the delivery of data requires a spectrum allocation sufficient to deploy high- speed wireless data services that use TDD. 64 ArrayComm contends that broadband data solutions, including those based on 802.16 and 802.11 protocols, should employ TDD. 65 Cisco asserts that it offers an IP- based product that allows interoperability for emergency personnel using diverse radio and wired communications systems. 66 Cisco contends that this system is spectrum efficient and will accommodate new spectrum allocations and radio technologies as they are implemented, without requiring the replacement of existing radio systems. 67 19. Finally, Speights Telecom, Inc. (Speights), a public safety consulting company, urges creation of what Speights refers to as a “National IO Band.” 68 Speights suggests that this network would add capacity for federal, state and local integrated voice and high- speed data and video, as well as provide compatible equipment designed for mission critical use across the user base. 69 In addition, Speights asserts that a broad base of emergency response providers must have access to the proposed National IO Band, including critical infrastructure entities. 70 3. Practical Considerations 20. A broad array of entities suggests that operating and administering this proposed network would entail considerable coordination. First, RPC 8 stresses that the proposed network requires “massive cooperation between the Federal, State and Local government layers in order to ensure . . . authentication and security.” 71 RPC 8 also recommends that both State Interoperability Executive Committees (SIECs) and RPCs should administer the nationwide network. 72 Similarly, the Missouri State Highway Patrol (Missouri SHP) suggests a role for SIECs “[ to] assist local and state entities with introducing and promoting [a] consistent . . . dialogue while providing a sounding board for the development of interoperability requirements within a region or state.” 73 Missouri SHP adds that states 64 ArrayComm Comments at 6. 65 See id. at 4- 5. In a TDD system, base station and mobile devices transmit and receive on the same channel but on different time slots. See id. at 2. 66 See Letter from Mary L. Brown, Cisco Systems, Inc., to Marlene H. Dortch, Esq., Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Dec. 8, 2005). 67 Id. In its comments, Cisco reports that the company has developed an 802. 11 product suitable to satisfy the broadband needs of public safety entities. Cisco explains that its Land Mobile Gateway “allows multiple public safety radio networks using different radio frequencies and . . . technologies to interoperate for voice communications.” Cisco Comments at 2- 3. 68 See infra § II. C. 69 See Speights Comments at 4- 5. 70 See id. at 5. 71 RPC 8 Comments at 4. 72 See id. The Commission has supported the creation of a SIEC (or other effective state level agency) to administer the interoperability channels. Although the formation of SIECs is not mandatory, the Commission adopted the NCC’s recommendation that if a SIEC or other state agency elects not to oversee the administration of its interoperability channels, the respective RPC would assume the responsibility. See 700 MHz Fourth Report and Order, 16 FCC Rcd at 2026 ¶ 13. 73 Missouri SHP Comments at 8. 12 13 and regions need a national repository within which to post interoperability plans. 74 21. Vendors Lucent and ArrayComm also provided input on this question. Like RPC 8 and Missouri SHP, Lucent asserts that discrete, regional entities must have responsibility for operating any nationwide interoperable network. 75 In addition, ArrayComm explains, “if the [public safety] user community determines that high speed mobile data should be an integral part of a national or regional public safety system, the Commission should actively assist in” achieving that objective. 76 22. Broadcaster Univision Communications Inc. (Univision) urges DHS to continue follow recent recommendations that the agency develop a “nationwide database of all interoperable public safety communications frequencies” and “establish a common nomenclature for those frequencies.” 77 Univision also asks DHS to: (1) consult with state and local governments to determine interoperability status; (2) provide guidance on funding grants that would assist state efforts to establish responsibility for interoperability matters; (3) approve grants only upon certification by the state that the proposal conforms with state plans; and (4) review interoperability mission and functions. 78 23. With respect to the interests of Critical Infrastructure (CI) entities, the United Telecom Council (UTC), which represents companies that own, manage, or provide telecommunications and IT systems in support of their core business, endorses a nationwide, interoperable broadband network as a commendable concept, and contends that the network should consist of licensees’ systems being shared with other eligibles and using open standards. 79 UTC stresses that “[ w] hile public safety response generally is local in nature, CI work during emergencies involves entities from across the country [and] therefore, [t] echnology standards and a nationwide allocation are critical for effective interoperability.” 80 24. A number of commenters suggest that this proposed network would require a significant level of funding from Congress. RPC 8 asserts that a nationwide interoperable mobile broadband network would require significant levels of funding commitments. 81 The New York Office of Technology- Statewide Wireless Network (NYOT- SWN), which is developing a wireless public safety network for the state of New York, states that “[ t] he degree to which a wide area interoperable land mobile communications network could be implemented is related to the funding available,” 82 and urges Congress to provide funding. 83 Westchester County, New York (NY Westchester County), a suburban county with a population of close to one million located just north of New York City, reports that, “[ b] ecause the absence of adequate financial resources is such a threat to progress,” 84 Congress should create trust funds for advancing the nation’s communications infrastructure. Missouri SHP proposes that users recoup the costs of constructing a nationwide network through subscriber fees based on usage, and 74 See id. 75 See Lucent Comments at 20. 76 ArrayComm Comments at 6. 77 Univision Comments at 7, n. 14. 78 See id. at n. 14. 79 See UTC Comments at 12- 13. 80 Id. at 13. 81 See RPC 8 Comments at 4. 82 NYOT- SWN Comments at 5. 83 See id. 84 NY Westchester County Comments at 9. 13 15 frequencies in multiple formats, so that different systems can connect with each other. Properly implemented, a system with adequate spectrum and smart radios would enhance the instantaneous transmission of both data and voice between agencies. 28. The underlying infrastructure of a nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network should include a mobility and satellite component to enable emergency response providers the capability of “rolling in” a mobile infrastructure that would quickly re- establish communications when permanent networks are temporarily incapacitated. Mobile antennas, including inflatable antennas, cell towers on wheels, high- altitude balloons, or other mobile facilities, would operate independent of the damaged local infrastructure and would facilitate communications as quickly as possible. Mobile transmission facilities would bring the critical flexibility component to a nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network, and would serve to augment the system beyond the normal coverage in a given region, or during a large- scale incident. Additional details regarding smart radios, mobile infrastructure and other commercial wireless technologies and services are set forth in Appendix B. 29. A robust interoperable network (whether commercial or private) should be able to function in all areas served by emergency response providers, including areas where most of the communications infrastructure is degraded or non- existent. Satellite services, which provide ubiquitous, reliable coverage throughout the United States and are generally immune from natural and manmade disasters, could be incorporated into traditional, private public safety networks or into a nationwide network. Additional details regarding the use of commercial satellite infrastructure for the provision of emergency communications are set forth in Appendix C. Likewise, IP- based technologies also may enhance the resiliency of either traditional, private public safety networks or a nationwide network by providing the dynamic capability to change and reroute telecommunications voice and data traffic within the network. Similarly, IP- based systems may also facilitate communications interoperability for emergency response providers generally, as well as their ability to communicate complex information between offices and the field. Other commenters point out that wireless mesh technology, which uses non- proprietary protocols that can be built into laptops, Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs), VoIP phones and other devices to promote interoperability across networks and devices. Appendix B also discusses mesh networks and IP- based systems. 30. In addition to adequate spectrum and efficient technology, the realization of a nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network also would require sufficient funding. While of significant benefit to public safety, implementation of such a network would likely be costly. Consequently, public safety entities would require adequate funding resources in order to deploy broadband communications systems. Without adequate funding – to purchase equipment and conduct the associated training and coordination – it is likely that public safety would be unable to implement a nationwide, interoperable broadband network. In addition, absent adequate funding, cash- strapped public safety entities could implement broadband systems that are less capable and efficient and do not include a nationwide interoperable feature, which could create gaps in a nationwide system. 31. In addition to the issues discussed above, we emphasize that the successful deployment of a nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network ultimately would be dependent upon a high degree of training, coordination and communication by emergency responders. Close organizational and personal coordination and communication would be necessary to make interoperable communications available in the times of greatest need. Coordination among federal, state and local emergency response providers would need to be achieved at virtually every level for an interoperable nationwide network to deliver on its promise. Emergency response providers must be familiar with the procedures for accessing the network and the capabilities of the communications equipment associated with the network. In particular, command level coordination should be emphasized. In all cases, the rights and responsibilities of each of the various stakeholders should be clearly defined to ensure seamless communications and facilitate compliance efforts. 15 16 B. Section 7502( c)( ii): Consider the Use of Commercial Wireless Technologies to the Greatest Extent Practicable 1. Overview 32. With respect to the use of commercial wireless technologies, public safety entities generally oppose reliance upon commercial services due to concerns over lack of coverage, reliability and security. There is a consensus among these entities, however, that commercial technologies may provide significant benefits, at least for non- mission critical applications. In some instances, commercial entities proactively address these concerns and assert a willingness to modify applications to resolve past deficiencies. The commercial entities also emphasize the beneficial economies of scale associated with greater use of commercial services and technologies. 2. Comments from Public Safety Entities 33. With respect to public safety entities, the Arizona Regional Review Committee (ARRC), an organization responsible for public safety spectrum planning in RPC 3, submits, “[ l] ack of suitable spectrum has forced many public safety entities to use the resources of commercial wireless providers, … a dangerous practice that has continued to expand and spread.” 93 ARRC contends, “[ c] ommercial wireless providers favor the masses and do not lend themselves to the same backup power, site security and redundancy measures employed by dedicated and closed public safety radio networks.” 94 Similarly, RPC 12 states that it repeatedly observes commercial wireless technologies rendered inoperable during critical events when reliance is most critical. 95 The group provides examples of events, such as the September 11th terror attack in New York City, the Oklahoma City bombing, and the Florida hurricanes in 2004, when commercial systems failed, “in some cases for many weeks.” 96 With regard to these challenges, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) submits that the use of commercial wireless technologies has two drawbacks: (1) a lack of support from generators during power outages, and (2) a limited footprint, which provides little coverage in rural areas. 97 34. Similarly, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Office of Public- Safety Radio Services (Penn. Public Safety) favors statewide systems that “provide the economy of scale and spectral efficiency of a commercial operation, while maintaining system control under governmental authority.” 98 In its brief comments, the Grundy County Emergency Telephone System (Morris, Illinois) (Grundy County) states, “public safety cannot rely on unlicensed or commercial technologies to meet [its] mission critical broadband applications,” 99 and submits that “experience shows that only dedicated communications systems designed specifically for public safety needs provide the reliability, features and flexibility [necessary] for critical internal communications.” 100 The Milwaukee Police Department (Milwaukee PD) also states that “[ c] ommercial service does not provide reliability and security necessary for mission critical . . . use.” 101 Milwaukee PD submits that “variants of 802.11 work, but demand heavy 93 ARRC Comments at 2. 94 Id. 95 RPC 12 Comments at 3. 96 Id. 97 NEMA Comments at 2. 98 See Penn. Public Safety Comments at 7. 99 Grundy County Comments at 1. 100 Id. 101 Milwaukee PD Comments at 1. 16 17 infrastructure investment due to limited range of 2.4 and 5.8 GHz allocations,” 102 and therefore suggests that emergency response providers need a “high- speed wireless service, under their control, that provides reliability and security . . . in a spectrum more conducive to wide area coverage.” 103 Finally, the City of Seattle (Seattle) reports the use of commercial services, which are not designed for high throughput applications or high capacity, large- scale emergencies, represent a significant expense. 104 Moreover, Seattle contends that the requirements for interoperable communications – high- speed data, VoIP, and video – “will far exceed the current data service infrastructure provided by third party commercial providers.” 105 35. A number of public safety and other entities report that commercial technologies may provide benefits for non- mission critical applications. With respect to state and local agencies, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) asserts that emergency response providers “would benefit from accessing existing wireless and public service communications networks to enhance essential communications links within regional public safety agencies.” 106 The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) states that it supplements its internal communications with commercial wireless service, however, the agency emphasizes that it “cannot consider commercial wireless service for primary mission critical communications [because] attempts in using commercial service proved unreliable during the four hurricanes . . . in 2004.” 107 Missouri SHP recognizes that “[ c] ommercial technologies will be utilized in many public safety applications, particularly in the new 4940- 4990 MHz band, provided they are designed, implemented and intended to provide public safety coverage.” 108 Missouri SHP adds, “public safety coverage requirements have to be considered in any design and implementation, which utilizes ‘commercial technologies. ’” 109 NYOT- SWN asserts that the use of advanced commercial technologies for non- mission critical tasks may significantly improve mobile data communications to the extent that public safety receives broadband spectrum allocations. 110 Similarly, NY Westchester County states that the “use of commercial services to supplement the capabilities of dedicated public safety systems may be appropriate, but only when it is strictly limited to non- critical applications.” 111 Owens reports that the “future needs of emergency response providers will require national interoperability of broadband mobile communications, along with the ability to grow with future developments in wireless technologies fueled by both public sector and commercial entities.” 112 102 Id. 103 Id. 104 See Seattle Comments at 1. 105 Id. 106 CHP Comments at 1. 107 Florida DOT Comments at 5- 6. 108 Missouri SHP Comments at 10 (emphasis in original). 109 Id. 110 See NYOT- SWN Comments at 6. NYOT- SWN also recognizes that these “networks are generally subject to unpredictable service outages due to traffic overload, severe weather conditions, labor strikes and other business disruptions.” Id. 111 NY Westchester County Comments at 6. We note that NY Westchester County describes the Capital Wireless Integrated Network (CapWIN), an application that offers interoperable first responder data communication and information sharing, as an “enormous success … even though … dependent upon a variety of commercial communications services.” Id. at 5. CapWIN is discussed in Appendix D. 112 Owens at 1. 17 18 36. The Spectrum Coalition for Public Safety (Spectrum Coalition), a non- commercial affiliation of thirty state, county and local government public safety organizations, asserts that commercial technologies provide significant benefits, including roaming, but “may require some modification to accommodate the public safety environment, supporting full ruggedization, enhanced uplink performance, [and] easily deployed vehicular transceiver systems.” 113 The coalition also suggests that that carriers could operate or lease back the networks built for public safety use, and these approaches would leverage expertise and share costs while allowing control by public safety. 114 The Spectrum Coalition stresses, however, that relying completely on commercial providers for wireless broadband would require frequent, costly equipment change- outs given that commercial carriers modify and upgrade technologies relatively frequently. 115 37. Finally, UTC notes that CI entities report their desire to build and operate systems that employ “multiple new technologies that can be used for upgraded services for private, internal applications.” 116 UTC cautions that commercial technologies are desirable where feasible, but commercial providers cannot meet critical criteria of reliability and ubiquity across service territories that include rural areas. 117 Seybold similarly contends that commercial networks are suitable only for secondary public safety communications and not for mission- critical dispatch operations. 118 Seybold adds that first responder networks cover areas that commercial networks do not, and that recent local regulatory decisions limit construction of new cell sites. 119 Likewise, commenter Andy Middlebrooks (Middlebrooks) reports that commercial wireless technologies are suitable for “some secondary” public safety communications. 120 Finally, the Progress and Freedom Foundation (PFF), a non- profit, non-partisan research institution, suggests that giving public safety licensees expanded rights to the spectrum they hold would provide these entities an opportunity to lease their spectrum on an “interruptible” basis while simultaneously retaining the right to use the spectrum in an emergency. 121 3. Comments from Commercial Entities 38. A number of commenters report general support for the use of commercial wireless technologies by emergency response providers. For instance, communications equipment manufacturer Motorola, Inc. (Motorola) states, “commercial services could be used for non- mission critical activities like communicating with the public or administrative and government services requirements,” 122 but notes the lingering need for dedicated systems to provide “the appropriate reliability, features, and flexibility 113 Spectrum Coalition Comments at 9. 114 See id. at 11. 115 Id. at 10. We note that we received additional data described as an update to the previous filing of the Spectrum Coalition and pertaining to spectrum needs of emergency response providers in the National Capital Region on December 14, 2005. See Letter from Robert LeGrande II, Deputy Chief Technology Officer, D. C. Government, to Marlene H. Dortch, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Dec. 15, 2005). 116 UTC Comments at 12 (emphasis in original). 117 See id. at 12- 13. 118 See Seybold Comments at 2. 119 See id. 120 See Middlebrooks Comments at 2. 121 See PFF Comments at 5. 122 Motorola Comments at 8. 18 19 needed by” public safety. 123 CTIA – The Wireless Association (CTIA), which represents carriers and manufacturers in the wireless communications industry, reports, “emergency response providers should continue to expand their use of commercially- supplied systems to the extent feasible.” 124 CTIA suggests that emergency response providers contract with commercial providers to utilize part of a commercial network for specific needs, especially in instances when circumstances warrant special capabilities not generally available to consumers. 125 Similarly, Enterprise Wireless Alliance (Enterprise), an association comprised of private wireless spectrum users, wireless service providers, radio dealers and technology manufacturers, contends that commercial systems currently approximate the coverage necessary for robust public safety operations due to improved technologies, as well as local radio dealers’ increased willingness to tailor systems to suit public safety needs. 126 Finally, the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), which represents manufacturers serving the information and communications industries, emphasizes that ubiquitous commercial provider networks can play a significant role, providing public safety agencies mechanisms for leveraging the benefits of those networks, including wireless broadband. 127 TIA states, “[ p] ublic safety agencies should be encouraged to explore the use of widely- available, standardized commercial wireless technologies (within the spectrum allocated for public safety services) even for mission- critical needs.” 128 39. Bizcom USA, Inc. d/ b/ a CX2Technologies (CX2), a licensee in the 200 MHz band, proposes public safety use of the 220- 222 MHz band for data transport. CX2 reports that this band “exhibits characteristics which make it ideally suited for public safety use and should be considered an integral part of any plan to meet spectrum needs for public safety,” 129 and that there are frequencies in the 220- 222 MHz band available for land mobile and fixed use for both government and non- government operations. 130 CX2 contends that the band is an excellent option for data networks addressing public safety needs, and asserts that the planned narrowband network will not compete for bandwidth with public safety requirements for two- way voice, paging or cellular service. 131 CX2 also asserts that its network offers a more expansive coverage footprint than other bands due to the lower frequency and lower foliage absorption of the RF signal and “could satisfy the data component of public safety strategy … leaving the voice and video applications to other networks.” 132 40. Ericsson contends that incorporating the use of commercial wireless handsets and other commercial wireless technologies into public safety communications networks will give emergency responder providers tools to achieve interoperability through the use of commercial handsets. 133 Ericsson states that an emergency response provider “could deploy a commercial system in public safety spectrum which would provide interoperability with other public safety and commercial networks, widespread 123 Id. 124 CTIA Comments at 6. 125 Id. 126 See Enterprise Comments at 6- 7. 127 See TIA Comments at 5 128 Id. 129 CX2 Comments at 4. 130 See id. 131 See id. at 7- 8. 132 Id. at 7. 133 See Ericsson Comments at 12- 13. 19 20 coverage, multiple levels of priority access to spectrum, and secure voice and data transmission.” 134 Ericsson adds that emergency response providers or commercial entities or both could own or manage this type of system. 135 Similarly, Qualcomm, Incorporated (Qualcomm) submits that commercial technologies would benefit emergency response providers “in countless ways.” 136 Qualcomm asserts, for example, that EV- DO (EVolution- Data Optimized) technologies enable commercial carriers to deliver ubiquitous, advanced, high- speed broadband. 137 Qualcomm contends, “[ e] mergency responders can use these interoperable networks for critical information sharing.” 138 Qualcomm further suggests that its Forward Link Only (FLO) technology is suitable for public safety application in the lower 700 MHz band and reports its intention to launch “MediaFLO” service -- a nationwide network on 700 MHz spectrum, Channel 55, to deliver multimedia content to wireless phones. 139 41. PacketHop, Inc. (PacketHop), a developer of mobile mesh networking software, contends, “[ u] se of standards- based commercial technologies will allow first responders and public safety personnel to reap the benefits of changing technical capabilities and new standards.” 140 PacketHop adds that widespread use of commercial technologies would render products affordable and “maximizes the number of first responders that can benefit from services using the spectrum.” 141 PacketHop advocates that use of commercial off- the- shelf equipment and wireless protocols would allow broadband communications using Wi- Fi capabilities in the 4.9 GHz band as hardware becomes available. 142 42. In addition, Access Spectrum, L. L. C. (Access Spectrum) and Pegasus Guard Band, L. L. C., (Pegasus) licensees of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz band, jointly filed a white paper in the instant docket, which proposes several options for rebanding the 700 MHz band. 143 Specifically, Access Spectrum and Pegasus jointly assert that a “‘ mixed- use’ block of spectrum, designed to be used by both public safety agencies and commercial users, may bring the benefits of broadband to the public safety community in an expeditious and cost- effective manner while protecting public safety operations against interference from commercial operations.” 144 The entities submit that “modern prioritization and virtual private network technology could provide public safety traffic the highest priority on shared- use commercial wireless networks.” 145 Access Spectrum and Pegasus emphasize that, implementing these 134 Id. at 13. 135 See id. 136 Qualcomm Comments at 6. 137 See id. at 6- 8. 138 Qualcomm Comments at 7. “The CDMA 2000 technologies include 1xEV- DO, the first version of which 1xEV-DO Release O, enables wireless downloads over licensed spectrum over average rates of hundreds of kilobits per second and peak rates of 2.4 megabits per second.” Id. at 6. 139 See id. at 8. 140 PacketHop Comments at 4. 141 Id. at 3. 142 See id. at 3- 4. 143 See Letter from Kenneth R. Boley, counsel to Access Spectrum, L. L. C., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Aug. 3, 2005) (appending White Paper, Implementing the Vision for 700 MHz: Rebanding the Upper 700 MHz A and B Blocks For Next- Generation Wireless Broadband) (Access Spectrum and Pegasus White Paper). 144 Access Spectrum and Pegasus at 18. 145 Id. 20 21 technologies would potentially permit public safety entities to “share with commercial users the costs of deploying next- generation wireless broadband infrastructure while still getting . . . priority and security.” 146 43. On the other hand, consulting firm Interoperable Wireless contends commercial wireless systems would require “hundreds of megahertz of spectrum” to achieve the quality of service expected by public safety. 147 According to Interoperable Wireless, a significant amount of spectrum is necessary to meet public safety’s unusual requirements because, as compared to a standard commercial wireless call that consists of one person communicating to another, public safety calls “may average one hundred users.” 148 Interoperable Wireless therefore suggests that commercial technologies are not suitable for public safety because commercial technologies would require use of “at least two megahertz of spectrum” to provide communication to and among a large group. 149 44. Finally, with respect to economic benefits associated with the use of commercial wireless technologies, CTIA suggests that public safety entities will benefit from synergies in economies of scale and equipment advances given that the twenty- four megahertz in the 700 MHz band allocated for public safety is proximate to the thirty- six megahertz allocated for commercial use. 150 CTIA further notes that the twenty- four megahertz in the 700 MHz band is proximate to newly cleared, consolidated spectrum available for public safety in the 800 MHz band. 151 Satellite service provider MSV contends that the use of MSS, in combination with the ancillary terrestrial component, would assure ubiquitous coverage, would more economically cover remote areas, and unlike most commercial networks, would be reliable when the power grid fails. 152 Enterprise stresses that the cost of commercial services has decreased and reports that SouthernLINC Wireless’s “advanced network has allowed public safety entities to avoid the costs involved in constructing and maintaining their own systems.” 153 4. Findings 154 45. While commercial wireless technologies are not appropriate for every type of public safety communication, there may now be a place for commercial providers to assist public safety in securing and protecting the homeland. Technological solutions are emerging that show significant promise for addressing interoperability, a multi- faceted concept that occurs across what DHS has dubbed the “interoperability continuum.” 155 Various commercial wireless technologies and services – from those 146 Id. 147 Interoperable Wireless Comments at 18. 148 Id. (emphasis in original). 149 Id. at 19. 150 See CTIA Comments at 5- 7. 151 See id. at 5. 152 See MSV Comments at 11. 153 Enterprise Comments at 5. 154 As noted in this report and as discussed in greater detail in the appendices, the use of commercial technologies, appropriately implemented, may provide significant benefits to emergency response providers. See Appendix B (discussing commercial wireless technologies and services) and Appendix C (discussing commercial satellite technologies and services). 155 See http:// www. safecomprogram. gov/ NR/ rdonlyres/ 72E16B22- 6928- 4676- A82A-B6858E7974FA/ 0/ InteroperabilityContinuum. pdf; see also Presentation from Bill Butler, Washington, D. C. Office of Chief Technology Officer, to Angela E. Giancarlo, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Nov. 4, 2005) (OCTO (continued….) 21 22 (Continued from previous page) that achieve a minimum level of interoperability to those that achieve an optimal level – are available to provide public safety with solutions at every step of the interoperability continuum. 46. It is important to note that there is a distinction between suggesting that public safety consider the use of commercial services and exploring the utility of deploying commercial technologies in public safety spectrum. In general, public safety commenters have expressed reluctance to rely on commercial services for mission critical communications because of lack of network control, security and reliability concerns, particularly during a crisis or disaster. Public safety commenters also noted that commercial service networks often provide only limited coverage in rural areas. Incorporating commercial technologies into networks operated by public safety may provide numerous benefits to the public safety community in terms of cost, access to technological advances and efficient spectrum use. Commercially proven, high- speed mobile data technologies can enhance public safety capabilities in both a timely and cost- effective manner. As to timeliness, public safety would benefit because technologies are already widely available in the commercial marketplace. Given this wide availability, therefore, public safety entities would benefit from the associated economies of scale in purchasing equipment and facilities. Further, given that certain of these technologies operate on non- proprietary standards, public safety entities would be in a better position to take advantage of technological upgrades. 47. For example, smart radios are capable of operating on multiple frequencies in multiple formats so that different systems can connect with each other. IP- based systems are capable of enabling communications between diverse radio systems and frequencies without requiring the replacement of existing radios. These systems interconnect emergency personnel and other resources across existing radio networks and other communications networks, and thus can achieve immediate interoperability of existing push- to- talk radio systems operating in separate spectrum bands as well as commercial voice and broadband systems. Wi- Fi and Wi- Max technologies permit emergency response providers to communicate information between offices and the field, which is especially helpful in non- mission critical situations. Other commercial wireless services, including Wireless Priority Service (WPS), as well as cellular technologies that enable easy one- to- one and one- to- many half- duplex communications (e. g., “Push- to- Talk”) also may further the ability of emergency response providers to effectively communicate with each other. At a minimum, public safety entities may realize many benefits from entering into partnerships with commercial providers, especially with respect to non- mission critical duties, that allow public safety to leverage technological advances and increased competition. 48. Further, the incorporation of commercial satellite services into either a private public safety or commercial interoperable network that also includes terrestrial wireless systems would help to ensure that effective communication services are available to emergency response providers. Federal, state and local emergency response providers are already using commercial satellite services either as stand- alone platforms or as part of an integrated satellite terrestrial network to enable a range of voice, data, video and other services. 49. Finally, given the impact of hurricane Katrina on the communications infrastructure in the affected area, and the larger recognition that disasters often render communications infrastructure inoperable, an independent expert panel composed of public safety and communications industry representatives will analyze and make recommendations to the Commission regarding ways to improve network reliability, among other issues. 156 Hurricane Katrina severed communications links to multiple Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), the key facilities that handle local emergency and first responder calls. Going forward, we need to establish a process to work with states and municipalities to Presentation) (depicting the continuum of public safety wireless communications interoperability capabilities in the Washington, D. C. area); Motorola Oct. 27, 2005 Ex Parte (APCO Supported Interoperability Options). 156 See infra ¶ 7. 22 23 improve the redundancy of critical communications links that serve PSAPs. As part of this effort, the federal government should take a lead role to facilitate and encourage cooperation among local jurisdictions to address mutual restoration and redundant routing that will help create a more resilient network to aid emergency response providers. C. Section 7502( a): The Short- Term and Long- Term Needs for Allocations of Additional Portions of the Electromagnetic Spectrum for Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers, and Whether or Not an Additional Allocation of Spectrum in the 700 Megahertz Band Should be Granted by Congress to Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers 1. Overview 50. With respect to short- term and long- term needs for allocations of additional spectrum for federal, state and local emergency response providers, we initially note that while the completion of the DTV transition will provide a significant benefit to public safety entities, there are also a number of other initiatives underway to address public safety’s immediate spectrum needs. For example, the Commission has taken a number of actions to improve public safety communications in the 800 MHz band, as well as to promote the more efficient use of existing public safety spectrum. 51. In considering public safety’s short- term and long- term needs, a number of commenters urge a broad interpretation of the definition of “emergency response providers.” In connection with the inquiry, public safety and CI commenters generally contend that, even with the actions the Commission has taken to date, there is a need for additional public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz, 800 MHz and 4.9 GHz bands. These entities describe a need for more spectrum in the 700 MHz band to implement broadband data applications. 52. With respect to whether or not Congress should grant an additional allocation of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to federal, state and local emergency response providers, commenters favoring additional public safety spectrum cite increased demands on emergency response providers and urge Congress to grant additional allocations of ten to thirty megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. Certain commenters ask Congress to grant additional allocations of spectrum in the 700 MHz band, but do not specify an amount. In addition, some commenters urge Congress to grant additional allocations of public safety spectrum in bands other than the 700 MHz band. Finally, citing the need for spectral efficiency, a number of commenters argue that Congress should refrain from granting additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band until that band is cleared and services operating on the twenty- four megahertz public safety spectrum allocation are deployed. Wireless carriers, broadcasters, manufacturers and vendors generally assert that public safety entities must use spectrum more efficiently. In this regard, these entities argue that the existing 700 MHz allocation must be cleared and put to use prior to consideration of allocation of additional public safety spectrum and that public safety agencies do not need additional spectrum in the short- term. 2. Status of the 700 MHz Band 53. At the outset, we note that a broad array of entities urge Congress to establish a firm date for broadcasters to clear Channels 60- 69 in order to make available for public safety the spectrum associated with these channels. This discussion, along with a short summary of Congress’ recent activities in this area, follows. 54. A number of public safety commenters (and their representatives) urge expeditious clearing of the 700 MHz band. For instance, NEMA complains that the uncertain status of the spectrum “has compelled some states to purchase radios that work in both the 700 and 800 MHz bands.” 157 The 157 NEMA Comments at 2. 23 24 Spectrum Coalition supports “a date- certain for DTV transition, because without clearance of the analog TV signals, the spectrum will not be available for any use.” 158 The FRC reports that additional spectrum is crucial to achieving interoperability, and urges the Commission to ask Congress to accelerate the DTV transition by establishing a date certain for clearing the 700 MHz band. 159 55. Penn. Public Safety observes that emergency response providers cannot access the public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band until analog broadcasting ends and television channels are available. 160 Penn. Public Safety explains that the uncertainty surrounding the lower television channels has delayed the ability of RPCs 28 and 36 to undertake meaningful spectrum planning. 161 The Michigan Department of Information Technology (MDIT) urges Congress to expedite the availability of the 700 MHz band. 162 Milwaukee PD asserts, “[ v] irgin spectrum that can be rationally appropriated with wide area interoperability in mind demands the 700 MHz allocations be cleared as soon as possible.” 163 Grundy County contends that Congress and the Commission must take action this year to set a date certain to clear the 700 MHz band. 164 56. Certain public safety commenters urge that Congress establish a firm deadline by which the 700 MHz band be cleared. For instance, RPC 8 urges Congress “to set a date certain deadline to move all existing analog TV stations on Channels 60 through 69 off the air no later than January 2006.” 165 NYOT- SWN reports, “the [DTV] transition must be completed on its original schedule - December 31, 2006, with no exemptions.” 166 The City of New York (NYC) maintains that Congress should mandate clearing the spectrum by 2007 or very soon thereafter. 167 Similarly, FDOT submits that “any timetable much beyond the contemplated December 31, 2006 objective for clearing the band . . . will severely strain the operations of FDOT and other Florida emergency response providers with the result that pent- up demand for spectrum may affect available capacity.” 168 57. CTIA and T- Mobile also urge expeditious clearing of the 700 MHz band. CTIA “encourages the Commission . . . to support clearing the [700 MHz] spectrum as quickly as possible.” 169 T- Mobile adds, “[ t] he real obstacle to public safety operations is not inadequate spectrum allocation in the 700 MHz . . . , but rather the inability of public safety licensees to commence operations in the band at all.” 170 58. Finally, a number of communications industry manufacturers and vendors assert that 158 Spectrum Coalition Comments at 8 (emphasis in original). 159 FRC Comments at 4- 5. 160 Penn. Public Safety Comments at 3. 161 Id. at 3. 162 See MDIT Comments at 2. 163 Milwaukee PD Comments at 1. 164 Grundy County Comments at 1. 165 RPC 8 Comments at 8. 166 NYOT- SWN Comments at 2- 3 (emphasis in original). 167 NYC Comments at 3. 168 FDOT Comments at 6. 169 CTIA Comments at 5. 170 T- Mobile Comments at 3. 24 25 Congress must act to clear the 700 MHz band prior to making allocations of additional spectrum, and urge Congress to establish a firm deadline for clearing the band. For example, ITIC argues that the “opportunity cost of not promptly clearing the 700 MHz band of legacy analog television stations currently encumbering Channels 62- 69 is enormous because expeditiously clearing . . . the 700 MHz band would greatly advance spectrum efficiency.” 171 TIA “strongly urges the Commission to support a date certain of December 31, 2006.” 172 In addition, M/ A- COM Corporation (M/ A- COM), a developer and manufacturer of semiconductors and technologies serving the public safety and CI industries, reports that “large swaths” of the ninety- seven megahertz of spectrum designated by the Commission to support public safety communications remain unavailable. 173 In this regard, M/ A- COM suggests that the Commission work with Congress to “identify December 31, 2006, as [the] final deadline for the switchover to DTV.” 174 Although Motorola supports the imposition of a date certain, the company submits that the December 31, 2006, transition date remains unlikely given the “loophole . . . allowing TV broadcasters to remain indefinitely based on DTV availability.” 175 Finally, Qualcomm urges Congress to expedite clearing of all spectrum in the 700 MHz band by firmly establishing a “hard date of December 31, 2006,” for the end of the DTV transition. 176 59. On the other hand, two broadcasters allege that no reason to expedite clearing the 700 MHz band exists. First, Maranatha Broadcasting Company (Maranatha), which serves the Philadelphia area, contends that there is not “any short- term need for access to the [700 MHz] band whether by December 31, 2006 or, probably December 31, 2010, because the public safety agencies in its broadcasting service area have no short- term plans for new systems in the Upper 700 MHz band.” 177 Second, Univision cautions that proposals allowing public safety entities to begin planning for use of the twenty- four megahertz of spectrum set aside for public safety would dislocate up to seventy- five broadcast stations and “would be unfair to the broadcasters and their viewers.” 178 These stations, Univision notes, also broadcast weather, traffic, disaster, and other safety alerts, each of which is critical to public safety. 179 60. We note that Congress is actively considering legislation that would revise the timeline for completion of the digital television transition. 180 The current target for completion of the transition is the earlier of December 31, 2006, or when eighty- five percent of households are able to receive a digital 171 ITIC Comments at 9- 10 (emphasis in original). 172 TIA Comments at 4. 173 See M/ A- COM Comments at 3. 174 Id. at 4. 175 Motorola Comments at 5; see also id. at 4 (asserting that “full availability of additional spectrum allocated or identified by [the Commission] has been delayed because the spectrum remains encumbered by legacy users”). 176 Qualcomm Comments at 4- 5; see also id. at 2 (stating that “public safety entities have not yet been able to use the 24 MHz in the 700 MHz band because the DTV transition has not yet been completed”); Ericsson Comments at 6- 7 (reporting that “any additional spectrum in [the 700 MHz] band would be unavailable until the [DTV] transition is complete”). 177 Maranatha Comments at 3. 178 Unvision Comments at 3- 4. 179 See id. 180 At this writing, a conference committee has established February 17, 2009, as the date for the completion of the transition from analog to digital broadcast transmissions. See H. R. Rep. No. 109-___, 109 th Cong., 1 st Sess. 3 (2005). 25 26 broadcast signal. 181 3. Critical Infrastructure and Other Emergency Response Providers 61. As a preliminary matter, we note that a number of commenters urge a broad interpretation of the definition of “emergency response providers.” As addressed below, these commenters contend that the term “emergency response provider” should include entities that maintain the nation’s CI in emergencies, and government entities that coordinate emergency communications needs and operations at the local level. 62. First, UTC reports that CI entities are part of the emergency response community and should be included in the Commission’s spectrum needs study. 182 UTC submits that CI entities have no spectrum allocated exclusively for their use, the shared bands currently in use are degrading, and these entities need a flexible spectrum allocation that would permit voice and data applications. 183 Further, UTC asserts that the spectrum needs of CI entities will increase with the growth of infrastructure and homeland security responsibilities, and explains that CI entities face new state regulatory requirements for responding to power outages that “will increase [the CI entities’] dependence on private wireless systems.” 184 63. Likewise, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and MRFAC, Inc. (MRFAC), a frequency coordinator for the 30- 900 MHz bands, jointly contend that emergency response providers should include organizations in addition to those that traditionally serve public safety roles. 185 NAM- MRFAC argue that failure to include manufacturers and industrial entities, which serve as emergency response providers pursuant to mutual aid agreements with communities, would “preclude the ability to extend mutual aid agreements to [additionally allocated] frequencies,” thus hindering the assistance that manufacturers provide. 186 Motorola explains that, though the Commission’s primary focus “is appropriately placed on state and local emergency responders,” the Commission “should also consider the needs of critical infrastructure providers and non- governmental critical infrastructure personnel who respond in emergency situations to provide a more holistic understanding of spectrum needs.” 187 Similarly, Lucent submits that governmental responsibility must include “all response personnel . . . including law enforcement, military, emergency response, health care, public works, and environmental communities.” 188 181 See 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 14). 182 See UTC Comments at 3. 183 See id. at 9. 184 Id. at 10. 185 See NAM- MRFAC Comments at 3. 186 See id. at 3, 6 (citing examples of companies that coordinate with emergency response providers to design customized service capabilities). 187 Motorola Comments at 3. We note that Motorola also filed an ex parte presentation regarding public safety communications requirements, including the use of the spectrum allocated for public safety in the 700 MHz band. See Letter from Steve B. Sharkey, Motorola, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Oct. 27, 2005) (Motorola Oct. 27, 2005 Ex Parte). 188 Lucent Comments at 7- 8. We note that Lucent also filed an ex parte presentation regarding improving efficiency and capabilities, and promoting competition for emergency response providers. See Letter from Michael T. McMenamin, Lucent Technologies, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 (Nov. 10, 2005) (Lucent Nov. 10, 2005 Ex Parte). 26 27 64. In addition, Owens asserts that the scope of the term “emergency response provider” has expanded beyond inclusion of law enforcement, emergency medical services, fire and emergency management agencies, and that the term should now include “‘ part- time’ emergency response providers, such as school administrators, infrastructure providers and Citizen Corps.” 189 In discussing the proposed nationwide interoperable broadband mobile communications network, Speights asserts that a broad base of emergency response providers must have access to the network, including critical infrastructure entities. 190 Finally, the American Ambulance Association (American Ambulance) contends that government and non- government emergency medical services, including ambulance service providers, must have access to spectrum allocations designated for public safety use. 191 4. Comments Favoring An Additional Allocation of Spectrum in the 700 MHz Band in Light of the Short- Term and Long- Term Needs of Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers 65. Public safety commenters at all levels - federal, state, local and regional - contend that, even considering the actions the Commission has taken to date, a need for allocations of additional public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band remains. Likewise, critical infrastructure and other entities also indicate a need for allocations of additional public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band. 66. Citing the increased demands on emergency response providers, commenters favoring additional public safety spectrum recommend that Congress grant an additional ten to thirty megahertz (in addition to the current twenty- four megahertz public safety allocation) in the 700 MHz band. First, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department (L. A. Sheriff) contends that Congress should allocate an additional ten megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to public safety entities. 192 L. A. Sheriff asserts that the additional allocation would “be used to relieve congestion on existing systems and to address a pressing need for a new, county- wide, broadband mobile communications system.” 193 In addition, NYC supports an allocation of an additional ten megahertz in the 700 MHz band. 194 Northrop Grumman Information Technology, TASC, Inc. (Northrop Grumman IT) also recommends an additional allocation of at least ten megahertz in the 700 MHz band, asserting that the forthcoming twenty- four megahertz of spectrum “fails to facilitate use of today’s wireless broadband technologies and applications.” 195 The company proposes that an additional allocation of spectrum in the 700 MHz band would facilitate development of a nationwide broadband mobile network supporting interoperability and advanced applications, 196 and notes, “[ a] t a minimum, broadband applications require ten megahertz of contiguous spectrum.” 197 67. Lucent estimates that an allocation of an additional ten to fifteen megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band would support a nationwide interoperable mobile broadband network. 198 In 189 Owens Comments at 1. 190 See Speights Comments at 5. 191 See American Ambulance Comments at 1- 2. 192 See L. A. Sheriff Comments at 6- 7. 193 Id. at 6. 194 See NYC Comments at 11. 195 Northrop Grumman IT Comments at 7. 196 See id. at 7. 197 Id. at 10. 198 See Lucent Comments at 25. 27 28 addition, ARRC suggests that allocation of an additional twelve to twenty- four megahertz of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz band “would be desirable to make the current 700 MHz allocation and the current 800 MHz bands contiguous and eliminate the problems associated with the proximity of commercial providers.” 199 IPWireless, Inc. (IPWireless), a mobile broadband technology developer, reports that the current twenty- four megahertz allocation in the 700 MHz band does not “meet even current public safety needs.” 200 The company therefore urges the Commission to “recommend to Congress an additional allocation from the 700 MHz UHF band of at least twenty megahertz of contiguous spectrum, or alternatively, two paired ten megahertz blocks suitable for frequency division duplex (FDD) use.” 201 68. FPIC contends that, regardless of the Commission’s actions to date, a need for allocations of additional public safety spectrum remains. Specifically, FPIC submits that additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band would “meet a need for never before deployed interoperability among users on every side of the emergency response core groups.” 202 FPIC contends that this approach would permit federal, state and local emergency response providers to enjoy “full, core, data communications interoperability.” 203 FPIC recommends that Congress provide “an additional 30 MHz of public safety spectrum within the Upper 700 MHz band.” 204 Given this recommendation, FPIC further proposes that the Commission recommend to Congress the cancellation of Auction No. 31. 205 FPIC states that this spectrum should be a “shared, primary government/ non- government public safety allocation suitable for Federal, State, and local interoperable wideband data requirements.” 206 69. Similarly, Penn. Public Safety urges Congress to provide an additional allocation of spectrum in the 700 MHz band for emergency provider communications, and indicates its opposition to auctioning the remaining thirty- six megahertz of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz band. 207 Further, Penn. Public Safety proposes dividing this thirty- six megahertz of spectrum as follows: (1) ten megahertz for state and local internal operations, (2) fifteen megahertz for critical infrastructure agencies for internal operations, (3) five megahertz for state licensees, and (4) six megahertz for federal homeland security 199 ARRC Comments at 2. 200 IPWireless Comments at 2. 201 Id. 202 FPIC Comments at 5. 203 Id. 204 FPIC Comments at 4. 205 Id. Auction No. 31 will offer thirty megahertz of spectrum in the 747- 762 and 777- 792 MHz bands. Auction No. 31 had been scheduled to begin on June 19, 2002, and the Commission had established auction procedures and received auction applications before the auction was postponed, "to provide additional time for Congress to consider legislation affecting the timing of that auction and, accordingly bidder preparation and planning." Auction of Licenses in the 747- 762 and 777- 792 MHz Band (Auction No. 31) Postponed Until January 14, 2003; Auction of Licenses in the 698- 746 MHz Band (Auction No. 44) Will Proceed As Scheduled, Public Notice, 17 FCC Rcd 10108 (2002). With the enactment of the Auction Reform Act on June 19, 2002, Congress prohibited the commencement or conduct of Auction Nos. 31 and 44 on June 19, 2002. Auction Reform Act at § 3( a) (to be codified at 47 U. S. C. § 309( j)( 15)( B)). The Commission has not rescheduled Auction No. 31. We also note that Section 337( a)( 2) of the Communications Act provides that the Commission “shall allocate” thirty- six megahertz of spectrum in the Upper 700 MHz band for “commercial use to be assigned by competitive bidding.” 47 U. S. C. § 337( a)( 2). The 747- 762 and 777- 792 MHz band segments are part of the thirty- six megahertz of spectrum that the Commission reallocated for commercial use pursuant to Section 337( a)( 2). 206 FPIC Comments at 4. 207 Penn. Public Safety Comments at 2. 28 29 agencies’ internal operations. 208 Public safety consultant Speights urges Congress to reallocate the unauctioned portion of the Upper 700 MHz band, contending that this band “is more valuable . . . as a federal/ state/ local public safety interoperability band than as a commercial radio service band or for any other use.” 209 70. In addition, the Spectrum Coalition urges Congress to allocate additional spectrum for public safety in the 700 MHz band, because the band represents “the last spectrum with the desired propagation properties yet broad enough to support required data speeds.” 210 The group concludes that Congress should consider “up to the entire thirty megahertz upper 700 MHz block” for allocation to federal, state and local public safety entities. 211 The Spectrum Coalition adds that additional spectrum, particularly in the 700 MHz band, is necessary to implement broadband capabilities and increase interoperability, both of which are critical to public safety. 212 NEMA submits that additional spectrum should allocated in the 700 MHz band, adjacent to the current public safety band, in order to preserve recent investments in equipment that operates in both the 700 MHz and 800 MHz bands. 213 Finally, the FRC asserts that the Commission must make additional spectrum available soon, and states that the current spectrum allocated for public safety use is inadequate for use with next generation technologies. 214 71. Certain commenters urge Congress to grant additional allocations of spectrum in the 700 MHz Band, but do not specify an amount. For instance, the National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC), a federation of associations representing various law enforcement and emergency agency organizations, and the Association of Public- Safety Communications Officials- International, Inc. (APCO), a frequency coordinator and trade association that represents police, fire, emergency medical and other public safety agencies, jointly assert the need for additional allocations of spectrum in the 700 MHz band given the new and expanded tasks after 9/ 11. 215 NPSTC- APCO state that public safety entities need additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band for mobile broadband capability, including wideband data and video. 216 In a recent ex parte filing, NPSTC emphasizes the importance “that additional spectrum be allocated for public safety services, particularly for meeting expanding mobile broadband demands below 1 GHz. The current 700 MHz allocation, no matter what its structure, is not adequate to meet these requirements.” 217 72. With respect to statewide entities, the CHP also supports allocation of additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band given its interest in enhancing its video downlink. 218 Delaware asserts 208 See id. at 5. 209 Speights Comments at 4. 210 Spectrum Coalition Comments at 6. See also Spectrum Coalition White Paper at 4 (“ It is then recommended that 30 megahertz of additional spectrum, comprising the C and D blocks in the upper 700 MHz band, be permanently reserved and allocated for share use of local, regional and federal public safety use”). 211 Spectrum Coalition Comments at 15- 16. 212 See Spectrum Coalition Comments at 2- 3, 6. 213 NEMA Comments at 2. 214 FRC Comments at 2. 215 See NPSTC- APCO Comments at 4- 5. 216 See id. at 5- 8. 217 Letter from Vincent R. Stile, NPSTC, to Michael J. Wilhelm, FCC, WT Docket No. 05- 157 at 1 (Nov. 18, 2005) (NPSTC November Ex Parte Letter). 218 See CHP Comments at 1. 29 30 that “[ n] ew technologies in public safety will demand additional spectrum for LMR [Land Mobile Radio] and other communications applications,” 219 and adds that it has predicated communications planning “upon the availability of new LMR spectrum in both the 700 and 800 MHz bands.” 220 In addition, the Florida DOT asserts, “the 700 MHz band represents [the] best opportunity for an advanced, statewide system of communications supporting the safety of the motoring public.” 221 MDIT submits that its statewide system is experiencing significant growth, 222 and urges the Commission to consider the urgent need for access to spectrum in the 700 MHz band. 223 NYOT- SWN indicates its interest in deploying wideband data requirements through “50/ 100/ 150 kHz channel width allocations in a portion of the additional 700 MHz spectrum.” 224 Penn. Public Safety states that the 700 MHz band provides a “means by which the public safety system’s use can be expanded to local governments (i. e., counties and townships), and is particularly suited to a statewide system like that of [Pennsylvania],” 225 and asserts that the 700 MHz spectrum will ensure “a truly statewide system.” 226 73. With respect to local entities, Grundy County reports that, in order to best serve emergency response providers, broadband applications require full motion driving speed capability, and mobility that would allow ubiquitous coverage over a wide area, and recommends allocation of an additional twenty megahertz of spectrum in the 700 MHz band to meet these requirements. 227 NY Westchester County stresses its immediate need for spectrum in the 700 MHz band and that the county “and similar communities . . . cannot wait for a years- long regulatory process.” 228 Likewise, Los Angeles County (L. A. County) contends that the already allotted twenty- four megahertz in the 700 MHz band will not address the need for high speed data broadband mobile communications, because that allocation is “for narrowband voice and ‘wideband’ (150 kHz channel) data.” 229 In its filing, L. A. Sheriff describes the need for more 700 MHz spectrum “for a new, county- wide . . . system [that can] transmit and receive high speed data and real time video images.” 230 The Milwaukee PD requests “additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band for wideband operation. A common spectrum for voice, data, and wideband services offers the potential for a common radio platform.” 231 74. NYC contends that “the implementation of urgently needed new generation anti- crime and anti- terrorism initiatives immediately requires an allocation of, and supplementary means for public 219 Delaware Comments at 1. 220 Id. at 2. 221 Florida DOT Comments at 6. 222 See MDIT Comments at 2 (reporting that “[ f] inding additional available frequencies within the NPSPAC band (821- 823/ 866- 869 MHz) is becoming a significant problem, especially in the Canadian border areas”). 223 See id. 224 NYOT- SWN Comments at 5. 225 Penn. Public Safety Comments at 4. 226 Id. (emphasis in original). 227 See Grundy County Comments at 1. 228 NY Westchester County Comments at 8. 229 L. A. County Comments at 3- 4; see also Grundy County Comments at 1. 230 L. A. Sheriff Comments at 6; see also id. at 3- 4 (explaining the advantages of the 2. 7 to 3.4 GHz and 3.4 to 3. 7 GHz bands for airborne video downlink). 231 Milwaukee PD Comments at 1. 30 31 safety to acquire suitable spectrum.” 232 NYC explains its current consideration of a citywide mobile wireless network that would potentially rely on mesh network- based, Wi- Fi and Wi- Max solutions, including “sharing” of wireless technologies. 233 In supporting the allocation of additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band, NYC explains that the city is “moving aggressively . . . to test and procure mobile broadband networks that will provide emergency responders in the field with access to [high- speed data capabilities].” 234 75. Similarly, Seattle reports a need for “wireless networking which supports propagation through buildings, real time video, large file transfers, enhanced mission- specific (police, fire, utility) applications, special geographic (map- based) presentations, simplified user interfaces, and use of Voice over IP (VoIP) for interoperability and redundancy.” 235 Moreover, Seattle suggests that the Commission should pursue rule modifications for reallocating spectrum in the commercial 700 MHz band for use by emergency response providers. 236 Seattle also states that dedicated spectrum can resolve existing problems concerning “use of standards- based technology (rather than proprietary ones), constant development of new wireless technologies and the need for multi- jurisdictional interoperability agreements.” 237 76. Three RPCs also report a need for allocations of additional spectrum. First, the Arizona Regional Review Committee (ARRC), an organization responsible for public safety spectrum planning in RPC 3, stresses that “[ t] he international border communities have the same spectrum needs for voice, and data communications as those that serve any large population centers in the center portion of the U. S. A,” 238 but are “forced to work with about [two thirds] of the 800 MHz spectrum found in the heartland area of the country.” 239 ARRC claims that “[ t] his limited amount of spectrum has already proven to be inadequate and impedes the implementation of interoperable systems that are planned.” 240 In addition, RPC 8 supports allocations of additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band given this spectrum’s ability to provide the coverage “necessary to support wide- area mobile data applications.” 241 RPC 12 states that its members’ “spectrum needs will only increase over time” 242 and that this area has “opted for 700 MHz as a result of it being clean spectrum that [Region 12 entities] could use immediately, and the possibility of gaining additional spectrum in the future.” 243 77. In addition, Seybold emphasizes, “an additional spectrum allocation in the 700 MHz band 232 NYC Comments at 9. 233 See id. at 9- 11. 234 Id. at 9. NYC describes a number of uses for these broadband networks, including the ability to access maps, building layouts, federal and state anti- crime databases, full- motion video to and from emergency scenes, and biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological monitoring and control. See id. 235 Seattle Comments at 1; see also FPIC Comments at 4- 5. 236 See Seattle Comments at 2. 237 Id. 238 ARRC Comments at 1. 239 Id. 240 Id. 241 See RPC 8 Comments at 8. 242 RPC 12 Comments at 2. 243 Id. 31 32 is absolutely necessary and now is the time to act.” 244 Similarly, Motorola asserts the need to allocate expeditiously spectrum dedicated for the provision of broadband services capable of transmitting data at high rates, including real time video, because “[ n] o spectrum currently available fully satisfies [those] requirements.” 245 Rosum Corporation (Rosum), a company that markets location positioning systems, contends that use of 700 MHz band spectrum “enables a more accurate, precisely timed positioning network that would support emergency services and homeland security operations.” 246 78. Finally, as referenced above, CI and other entities also indicate a need for allocations of additional public safety spectrum in the 700 MHz band. UTC submits that CI entities need a “spectrum home” given that CI industries have increased federal homeland security responsibilities (and a corresponding need to maintain high control over CI systems), as well as new state- imposed responsibilities pertaining to power and telecommunications outages. 247 In addition, UTC contends that because utility and public safety personnel work together during emergencies, they “share the need to expand the wireless infrastructure,” 248 and reports that “[ a] s needs increase, better communications interoperability among the larger response community, including both voice and data applications, would solve many problems.” 249 Similarly, NAM- MRFAC assert that the Commission should recognize the need for allocations of additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band for those manufacturers and industrial entities that provide first responder capability under mutual aid agreements. 250 Finally, Motorola asks the Commission to “update its information and analysis to reflect changed circumstances in technology and spectrum demand in the 700 MHz band.” 251 5. Comments Favoring Additional Allocations of Public Safety Spectrum in Bands Other Than the 700 MHz Band In Light of the Short- Term and Long- Term Needs of Federal, State and Local Emergency Response Providers 79. Certain commenters urge Congress to grant additional allocations of public safety spectrum in bands other than the 700 MHz band. For instance, commenter William J. Carter (Carter) contends that additional allocations of spectrum should not be limited to the 700 MHz or the 4.9 GHz bands, but should include the VHF, UHF and 800 MHz bands. 252 Similarly, Enterprise “urges the Commission to support all solutions and to identify approaches that might allow [Enterprise’s] members access to additional VHF and UHF spectrum, including Federal Government spectrum, for the express purpose of providing efficient and cost- effective service to emergency responders and other public safety entities.” 253 80. Commenters also indicate short- term and long- term needs for allocations of additional 244 Seybold Comments at 1. 245 See Motorola Comments at 6. 246 Rosum Comments at 2. 247 See UTC Comments at 10- 12. 248 Id. at 9. 249 Id. 250 See NAM- MRFAC Comments at 3, 6. 251 See Motorola Comments at 2- 4. 252 See Carter Comments at 1. 253 Enterprise Comments at 8- 9. 32 33 public safety spectrum in the VHF band, as well as the 900 MHz and 4.9 GHz bands. For instance, the State of Wisconsin asserts that the “largest shortfall in public safety spectrum in Wisconsin is in the VHF High Band.” 254 Further, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, Inc. and the International Municipal Signal Association (IAFC- IMSA) express a “need for additional spectrum in the VHF frequency band.” 255 In addition, IAFC- IMSA urge the Commission to “move forward with whatever sharing may be available in the 138- 144 MHz band,” 256 and assert that the VHF band provides the most effective coverage to meet dispersed geographic needs, and “the cost effectiveness so crucial to the Fire Service, especially in rural areas and to volunteer fire departments.” 257 Citing the fact that it has achieved statewide interoperability “almost exclusively within the … VHF High Band,” 258 Missouri SHP states that this band “is in need of structure to maximize the potential of this already allocated band.” 259 Similarly, L. A. Sheriff requests that the Commission “allocate at least [forty megahertz], primarily in the 3.4 GHz to 3.7 GHz band, or, in the alternative, in the 2.7 GHz to 3.4 GHz band, to public safety agencies . . . for tactical airborne video.” 260 L. A. Sheriff asserts that this allocation, which would require six to eight megahertz of spectrum, would provide sufficient coverage capability for major emergency events and satisfactory interference protection. 261 In addition, Milwaukee PD reports a need for short range, small area communications capability, adding that this need may be met through allocations of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band. 262 81. NPSTC- APCO jointly assert the need for public safety access to additional spectrum in the 900 MHz band. 263 Specifically, NPSTC- APCO recommend that the Commission make the Business, Industrial and Land Transportation (B/ ILT) pools in the 896- 901/ 935- 940 MHz (900 MHz) bands available to public safety agencies to use for paging systems. 264 According to NPSTC- APCO, public safety agencies are “exploring the option of digital one, and two way paging to support dispatch operations” because digital paging systems that incorporate computer- based, automated dispatching capabilities increase the timeliness and accuracy of dispatch functions. 265 Separately, Milwaukee PD contends that public safety entities require short range, small area communications capabilities that “may best be addressed through” allocations of spectrum in the 4.9 GHz band. 266 254 Wisconsin Comments at 1. 255 IAFC- IMSA Comments at 3. 256 Id. at 4. 257 Id. at 3. 258 Missouri SHP Comments at 2. 259 Id. at 5. 260 L. A. Sheriff Comments at 1. 261 See id. at 3- 4. 262 Milwaukee PD Comments at 1. The department also supports an expansion of the 700 MHz allocation for broadband wide- area services and requests maintaining without modification the fifty megahertz located in the 4.9 GHz band. See id. 263 See NPSTC- APCO Comments at 8. 264 See id. We note that the Commission is currently seeking comment on flexible use of certain portions of this spectrum. See Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules to Provide for Flexible Use of the 896- 901 MHz and the 930- 945 MHz Bands Allotted to the Business and Industrial Land Transportation Pool, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Memorandum Opinion and Order, WT Docket 05- 62, 20 FCC Rcd 3814 (2005). 265 See id. 266 Milwaukee PD Comments at 1. 33 34 82. Finally, American Ambulance seeks allocations of additional spectrum to satisfy the requirements of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) providers; however, the association does not indicate a band preference. American Ambulance explains that, “[ d] espite the spectrum documented by the [Commission], across the nation currently only two frequencies are dedicated to EMS (a local EMS frequency and a national EMS frequency).” 267 6. Comments Favoring Efficient Use of Existing Public Safety Spectrum and Opposing An Additional Allocation of Public Safety Spectrum in the 700 MHz Band 83. A number of commenters assert that public safety entities have a duty to use spectrum more efficiently rather than to seek allocations of additional spectrum. As discussed below, these entities explain that emergency response providers must demonstrate spectral efficiency prior to seeking allocations of additional spectrum in the 700 MHz band. 84. With respect to wireless entities, CTIA first states that “because of the difficulties of gaining access to newly available spectrum, new wireless communications capabilities are more often provided through increased efficient use of existing spectrum by deploying technological enhancements, rather than through access to