WPCc 2?BJZECourier3|j#Xj\  P6G;3XP#J4/LJ_HP4_2000M_440_1nal)HPLA4ADD.PRSx  @\ 8gX@ X-#Xj\  P6G;3XP#2,qKXCourierTimes New Roman"i~'^:DPddDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppX|pDL|pp||D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lD4l\DDD4DDDDDDDDd8XXXXXX|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXlX~|X|X|X|XdddldldD8DdDDDdplld|8|P|D|D|8dvddddDDDpLpLpLpl|T|8|\ddddddl|X|X|Xd|DdpL|Dd~4ddC$CWddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddNHxxH\dDXddddd8@d<@d<DDXXdDDxddzHxxHwppDXd<"dxtldpxxdl?xxx,:Wx6X@`7X@ 7jC:,3Xj\  P6G;XPZQ Courier6543210?>N:\WINAPPS\WPC\\winapps\wpc\2O^<nK Z3|jTimes New RomanTimes New Roman BoldTimes New Roman Italic"i~'^09CSS999S]+9+/SSSSSSSSSS//]]]Ixnnxg]xx9?xgxx]xn]gxxxxg9/9MS9ISISI9SS//S/SSSS9?/SSxSSIP!PZ9+ZM999+99999999S/xIxIxIxIxIlnIgIgIgIgI9/9/9/9/xSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxSxIxSxRxSxSxS]SxIxIxInInInZnIxigIgIgIgIxSxSxSxZxSxZxS9/9S999Su]ZZxSg/gCg9g9g/xSbxSxSxSxSxn9n9n9]?]?]?]ZgFg/gMxSxSxSxSxSxSxxZgIgIgIxSg9xS]?g9xSi+SS88WuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN(#x a1Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers:`S@ I.  X(# a2Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers C @` A. ` ` (#` 2    ] a3DocumentgDocument Style Style B b  ?  1.  a3Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers L! ` ` @P 1. ` `  (# a4Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers Uj` `  @ a. ` (# a5Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbers _o` `  @h(1)  hh#(#h 2tta6Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph Numbersh` `  hh#@$(a) hh#((# a7Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumberspfJ` `  hh#(@*i) (h-(# a8Right ParRight-Aligned Paragraph NumbersyW"3!` `  hh#(-@p/a) -pp2(#p Tech InitInitialize Technical Style. k I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 Technical2 -ba5TechnicalTechnical Document Style)WD (1) . a6TechnicalTechnical Document Style)D (a) . a2TechnicalTechnical Document Style<6  ?  A.   a3TechnicalTechnical Document Style9Wg  2  1.   2;)a4TechnicalTechnical Document Style8bv{ 2  a.   a1TechnicalTechnical Document StyleF!<  ?  I.   a7TechnicalTechnical Document Style(@D i) . a8TechnicalTechnical Document Style(D a) . 2$3 e$}$Doc InitInitialize Document Stylez   0*0*0*  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)DocumentgPleadingHeader for Numbered Pleading PaperE!n    X X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:iTG?^H@OJA jKheader2>I ` hp x`    #FxX  Pg9CXP# heading 3?F` hp x #FxX  Pg9CXP# footer!@!!#d\  PCP#CitatorFormat Secretary's Citator Output FileAW r5-#d6X@`7Ͽ@# XX  X B r5-S  B2NBLCrjMDMErnNFormat DownloadFormat Downloaded DocumentBiޛ r5- XX    \ #d6X@`7Ͽ@#a2AgendaCa1AgendaAgenda ItemsD7D yP ) I. a3AgendaE2PFXOGrjOHrOIrNPa1IndentFa2IndentGa3IndentHa4IndentI2TJrPKrdQLrQKHRa5IndentJa6IndentKa7IndentL"i~'^#)0<8HH"&H>XHH8HB8>HH^HH>"".2",2,2,"222N2222"&22H22,006"6."""""""""""2H,H,H,H,H,XAB,>,>,>,>,""""H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H2H,H2H1H2H2H282H,H,H,B,B,B6B,H?>,>,>,>,H2H2H2H6H2H6H2""2"""2F866H2>>(>">">H2;H2H2H2H2XHB"B"B"8&8&8&86>*>>.H2H2H2H2H2H2^HH6>,>,>,H2>"H28&>"H2?22!!WFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddN$<<$.2",2222`2 LL2 LL2L"",,2d""would provide the kinds of communications capabilities currently available only with wired  xnetworks. WINForum further states that SUPERNet devices would support highspeed wireless  xKlocal area networks, provide wireless access to broadband networks such as the NII and allow for  X4- x\ad hoc networking among end users. It submits that SUPERNet devices would provide the  xmobility, flexibility, increased data rates, and enhanced computer network facilities needed to  X- xadvance education and business.K@' yO-ԍ See WINForum Petition at 4.K WINForum also notes that its SUPERNet proposal would be  xcompatible with the High Performance Radio LAN (HIPERLAN) standard being developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI).   x4. WINForum specifically requests that we allocate 250 megahertz of spectrum at 5.10 x5.35 GHz for SUPERNet devices. It further recommends that this spectrum be divided into  X~- x=approximately 10 wideband subchannels; that transmissions be limited to packetized data with  xprotocols set by industry consensus; and, that certain minimum technical standards be imposed  x!to help reduce the probability of interference and to facilitate frequency reuse between  xSUPERNet devices. WINForum also states that it believes that SUPERNet devices can share the  x5.15.25 GHz band with Mobile Satellite Service (MSS) feeder links and government radiolocation operations on frequencies above 5.25 GHz. ",-(-(ZZ<"Ԍ  0ԙx5. On May 24, 1995, Apple filed a Petition for Rule Making requesting that we establish  xa new unlicensed wireless radio service to promote the full deployment of the NII and that we  xallocate 300MHz of spectrum at 5 GHz for its operation. Apple states that its unlicensed "NII  x<Band" proposal would make possible highspeed, wideband wireless access to the NII and other  xcomputer networks. Apple indicates that unlicensed NII band devices could provide data  xztransmission capabilities of 24 Mbps or higher. It further states that this new service would  Xv- x>support ad hoc peertopeer communications, wireless local area networks, and community  xnetworks and other communications over 10 to 15 km (6.2 to 9.3 miles). Apple submits that its  xproposal will ensure that access to the NII is available to all segments of the population and especially to core public institutions such as schools, libraries, hospitals and government agencies.   x6. Apple recommends that we allocate 300 megahertz in the 5.155.3 GHz and 5.725 X - x5.875 GHz bands for the NII Band.H ' yOg -ԍ See Apple Petition at 1.H Apple also suggests that minimal technical rules govern the  xluse of the NII Band and that NII Band devices be limited to asynchronous packetbased  xtransmissions. Apple also proposes that the NII Band be regulated under a new "Part 16"  xstructure. Under this approach, unlicensed devices would be treated as a recognized radio service,  xwould operate in a protected spectrum band reflected in a Part 2 allocation, and would share  xallocated frequencies pursuant to an etiquette designed to ensure that all devices have fair and  xequitable access to the spectrum. Apple also suggests that the NII Band service include the  xzcapability for communications on the order of 1015 km, without the need for and the delays  xassociated with licensing. It indicates that this longer range capability would create new  x{possibilities for unlicensed community networks. Apple also suggests that we allow the  xinformation industry to develop appropriate spectrum sharing etiquette and operating conventions.  xKFinally, Apple states that NII Band operations will be compatible with other uses of the spectrum.  xIt submits that acceptable sharing criteria can be developed with MSS feeder links at 5.155.25 GHz and industrial, scientific and medical (ISM) applications at 5.7255.875 GHz.   x7. In response to the Apple and WINForum petitions for rule making, the Commission  xreceived approximately 175 comments and 17 reply comments. Most commenters support an  xunlicensed broadband 5 GHz allocation; however, several incumbents and potential users of this  xspectrum express concern about the feasibility of spectrum sharing between these new unlicensed devices and incumbent and proposed primary services.   Cx8. On November 2, 1995, the National Telecommunications and Information  xyAdministration ("NTIA") submitted a letter addressing the WINForum and Apple petitions. In  x>its letter, NTIA states that the Administration strongly supports spectrum policies that will  x0promote affordable, highbandwidth wireless computer networks and that the proposed  xZWINForum and Apple devices could provide an important means of unlicensed access to the NII.  xIt recommends that we proceed with a Notice of Proposed Rule Making so that the important  xpolicy and technical issues raised by the petitions may be addressed. To protect public safety,  xNTIA indicates, however, that consideration of the 5.0 5.15 GHz band is not feasible at this"j$X,-(-(ZZF#"  X-time due to the need for this band to remain fully available for air traffic control operations.' yOy- xԍ See Letter from the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information, United States Department of Commerce, to Chairman Hundt, received November 2, 1995.  X-  |x9. On February 29, 1996, Apple and WINForum submitted a letter to this Commission  x[indicating that they have been working together to accommodate the different features of their  X- xyproposals.dX ' yOu- xԍ On March 12, 1996, Loral/QUALCOMM, Inc., the licensee of the Globalstar nongeostationary mobile satellite  xsystem, submitted an opposition to the Apple/WINForum letter. It raises concerns regarding the sharing of spectrum between unlicensed devices and satellite uplink operations.d In light of the comments by the Federal Aviation Administration and NTIA, Apple  xyand WINForum note that it has become apparent that the 5.15.15 GHz band is not available for  xunlicensed use. Accordingly, WINForum has modified its spectrum request to match the lower  x/boundary of 5.15 GHz specified in Apple's petition. Apple and WINForum also support an  xadditional allocation of spectrum above 5.3 GHz for unlicensed systems, to be shared with  xgovernment radiolocation operations. In addition, both Apple and WINForum now support the  xkconcepts of very high data rate local systems and of relatively longer range, or "community network" products.  X -  ?x 10. The frequency bands under consideration in this proceeding are currently allocated  xdomestically as follows: the 5.00 5.25 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to the  x=aeronautical radionavigation, aeronautical mobilesatellite (R), fixedsatellite, and intersatellite  X- xkservices for both Government and nonGovernment operations;# @' yO- xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Table and notes 733 and 797. In addition, the 5.150 5.216 GHz subband is allocated  xon a primary basis to radiodeterminationsatellite (spacetoEarth) service and to the fixedsatellite (spacetoEarth)  xservice for feeder links used in conjunction with the radiodeterminationsatellite service for both Government and  yO-nonGovernment operations. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, notes 797A, US307. # the 5.25 5.35 GHz band is  xallocated to the radiolocation service on a primary basis for Government operations and on a  Xb- x.secondary basis for nonGovernment operations; Xb( ' yO;- xxԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Table. Additionally, in the 5.25 5.35 GHz band, radiolocation stations installed on  xJspacecraft may also be employed for the earth explorationsatellite and space research services on a secondary basis  yO-for both Government and nonGovernment operations. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, note 713.  the 5.650 5.925 GHz band is allocated on a  xprimary basis to the radiolocation service for Government operations and on a secondary basis  X4- xto the amateur service;* 4H ' yO-!- xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Table. Additionally, the 5.65 5.67 GHz and 5.83 5.85 GHz subbands are allocated  yO!-to the amateursatellite service on a secondary basis. See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, notes 664 and 808.* the 5.725 5.875 GHz band is designated for industrial, scientific and  X- xmedical ("ISM") applications and unlicensed Part 15 devices,a X' yOn$- xYԍ On January 30, 1996, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed Rule Making [FCC 96-36] in ET Docket  xhNo. 968 which proposed to amend the rules regarding the operation of spread spectrum transmission systems in the 902 - 928 MHz, 2400 - 2483.5 MHz, and 5725 - 5850 MHz bands. a and radiocommunication services  x?operating within this band must accept harmful interference that may be caused by ISM" ,-(-(ZZ "  X- xapplications;T ' yOy-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, note 806.T and the 5.850 5.925 GHz band is allocated on a primary basis to the fixed xsatellite (Earthtospace) service for nonGovernment operations and to the radiolocation service  X-for Government operations. X' yO- xԍ See 47 C.F.R.  2.106, Table of Frequency Allocations. In addition, the 5.850 5.925 GHz band is allocated on a secondary basis to the amateur service. x  X-  x 11. Finally, regarding international allocations in these frequency bands, the 1995 World  xjRadio Conference ("WRC95") modified some of the international spectrum allocations in the 5  Xv- xGHz frequency range.v' yO -ԍ See Final Acts of the World Radio Conference (WRC95), Geneva, 1995, Geneva, 17 November 1995. Of primary interest to this proceeding, WRC95 allocated the 5.091  x=5.25 GHz band on a primary basis to the fixedsatellite (Earthtospace) service ("FSS uplinks")  xto provide feeder links for nongeostationary satellite systems in the mobilesatellite service ("MSS").  X -( DISCUSSION ă  X -A. Need for Additional Unlicensed Spectrum  X -  x 12. Both WINForum and Apple state that a substantial allocation of spectrum at 5 GHz  xis needed for new wideband unlicensed wireless data systems. WINForum, in its petition,  xrequests an initial allocation of 250 MHz for use by SUPERNet devices. It also requests that an  x.additional 100150 MHz of spectrum be reserved to meet future growth. Apple requests that a  xtotal of 300 MHz be allocated for its proposed NII Band. Both Apple and WINForum argue that  xexisting allocations cannot support the wide bandwidth requirements of their proposals. In this  xregard, Apple states that existing allocations can satisfy some, but not all, demands for unlicensed  xwireless communications. Apple further indicates that traditional Part 15 devices, data personal  X- xcommunications services ("DataPCS") devices,x@' yO- xԍ Recently, the Commission allocated 30 megahertz of spectrum at 1910 1930 MHz and 2390 2400 MHz  xLto unlicensed personal communications services ("PCS") devices. Unlicensed PCS devices are expected to be  x;particularly useful for the transmission of high and lowspeed data between computing devices, cordless telephones,  yO8- xZand wireless private branch exchanges. See In the Matter of Amendment of the Commission's Rules to Establish  yO - xZNew Personal Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4957 (1994). See also In  yO - xZthe Matter of Allocation of Spectrum Below 5 GHz Transferred from Federal Government Use, First Report and  yO!-Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 10 FCC Rcd 4769 (1995).  NII Band devices, and devices deployed in the  xfrequency bands above 40 GHz each will be tailored to meet different communications needs.  xFor example, according to Apple, the DataPCS bands will not be capable of supporting the high data transfer rates required by new multimedia computer applications.  X|-  !x 13. WINForum argues that a wireless platform such as SUPERNet is needed to support  xemerging advanced computing applications. WINForum submits that today's wireless networks"e ,-(-(ZZ"  xydo not support recent developments in broadband network technology and that these wireless  xnetworks must evolve to meet the higher data rate needs of emerging multimedia computer  x[applications. According to WINForum, SUPERNet will provide the public with stateoftheart  xwireless access to the full capabilities of the broadband wired network, including data, voice,  xgraphics, teleconferencing, videoconferencing and other multimedia services. WINForum states  x.that highspeed wireless access is necessary to realize fully the goals of the NII. It argues, for  xexample, that wired solutions can never provide the flexibility needed in educational institutions.  xAccording to WINForum, highspeed wireless networks are the only costeffective systems that  xcan offer the mobility, flexibility and enhanced network capabilities needed to advance business,  xeducation and medical care. For example, WINForum states that broadband wireless networking  xholds significant potential to improve the quality, and reduce the costs, of medical care in the  xUnited States. In particular, it notes that the efficiency of medical staff could be improved by  x<providing them realtime access to patient data, including Xray and magnetic resonance ("MRI")  xZimages, video recordings, medical charts, and other records. Such real time access could facilitate  xygroup diagnoses, resulting in better and more efficient diagnosis of complex cases, without the need for the relevant medical experts to physically meet.  Xy-  x 14. Apple states that its NII Band proposal would provide all segments of society with  xaffordable access to the NII by extending advanced telecommunications offerings to schools,  x<libraries, hospitals, and government agencies, as well as providing new business opportunities in  xthe telecommunications marketplace. Apple estimates, for example, that the cost of wiring  xAmerica's K12 schools would be $30 billion, while equivalent wireless connections would cost  xsubstantially less. Apple adds that even though 30 to 50 percent of America's schools have access to the Internet, only two to five percent of America's classrooms have such access.  X-  }x15. Apple also states that the NII Band would promote full deployment of the NII.  xZAccording to Apple, the NII Band would extend the reach of the NII by providing wireless access  xLand interaction to the NII throughout a limited geographic area where mobility is important. In  xaddition, the NII Band would provide for unlicensed, wireless, wide area "community networks"  x<connecting communities, schools and other groups. Apple also states that its NII Band proposal  xwould advance a number of public policy objectives, including assuring that all segments of  xisociety have access to the "information superhighway"; extending advanced telecommunications  xservices to schools, libraries, hospitals, and government agencies; and promoting the participation  xof small businesses and pioneering firms in the advanced telecommunications marketplace. Apple  xalso indicates that since the NII Band would build upon and extend both the European  x.HIPERLAN effort and existing Part 15 unlicensed systems, it has the potential to increase U.S.  xjcompetitiveness and create new export opportunities for U.S. wireless products. Apple further  x.states that compatibility between the NII Band and HIPERLAN would further the creation of a Global Information Infrastructure, or GII.  Xh$-  {x16. As noted above, both WINForum and Apple now propose that we allocate 150MHz  xfor unlicensed wireless operations at 5.15 5.3 GHz. Both also request that additional spectrum  xlbe allocated above 5.3 GHz on a shared basis with government radiolocation operations.  xWINForum, in its petition, suggests that the band 5.3 5.5 GHz could be used for SUPERNet"#',-(-(ZZ%"  X- xdevices.' yOy- xhԍ WINForum initially proposed an allocation of 250 MHz in the 5.1 5.35 GHz band for SUPERNet operation. It also proposed that the 5.35 5.5 GHz band be reserved for possible future SUPERNet use. Apple, in its petition, requests that the 5.725 - 5.875GHz band be allocated for NII  x=Band operations. Apple also submits that this band could be used with the 5.155.3 GHz band to provide for duplex operation.  X-  lx17. Both WINForum and Apple state that allocating the 5.15 5.3 GHz band would allow  x[compatibility with the HIPERLAN system being developed in Europe. They also state that the  xsimilarities of their proposals to the HIPERLAN standard suggest that unlicensed wireless  xoperations can successfully share spectrum with MSS feeder links at 5.15 5.25 GHz. For  xexample, WINForum notes that ETSI and the European Conference of Postal and  xxTelecommunications Administrations (CEPT) have analyzed cochannel operation of MSS uplinks  xand HIPERLAN systems and have concluded that the threat of interference from HIPERLAN  xsystems to MSS feeder links is negligible. Similarly, Apple states that because MSS systems  xioperate on a global basis, sharing between HIPERLAN and MSS systems will have to be resolved  xZin a manner that is mutually acceptable to users of both services and that similar accommodations  xcan be made for sharing between the NII Band and MSS. Both WINForum and Apple also state  xacceptable sharing criteria can be developed with regard to government radiolocation systems in  xthe 5.25 5.50 GHz band. WINForum notes that radiolocation systems in this band are typically  Xy- xlocated away from urban and industrial areas.By ' yOJ-ԍ WINForum Petition at 15.B It therefore claims that SUPERNet operations  xwould not cause detrimental interference to such systems. Apple states that existing services in  XK- xthe 5.725 5.875 GHz band are currently constrained by ISM operations.K' yO- xԍ As indicated above, all radio communications services using the 5.725 5.875 GHz band must accept any harmful interference from ISM devices. It therefore argues  xthat since NII Band operations generally will be a "more hospitable neighbor" than ISM devices,  xuse of this band by NII Band devices will not adversely affect existing radiolocation and amateur operations.  X-  mx18. Comments. Most comments were from potential users of NII/SUPERNet devices,  xand these parties generally support the Apple and WINForum proposals and cite the benefits of  xthis service to education, medical care and industry. For example, the American Educational  X- x-Research Association, et al. (Education Organizations) submit that schools and universities need  x>a broadband, flexible, affordable service that is accessible by all citizens, to satisfy learning  xneeds. They further state that the Apple and WINForum proposals would permit relatively easy  xand affordable installation of network equipment, without the delay and expense of wiring. The  xAmerican Library Association ("ALA") states that the proposed service is important to libraries,  x]schools, and other educational institutions as it will allow for networking and pooling of  xresources. The ALA emphasizes that access to the service should be affordable and available to  xiall and therefore supports the proposed unlicensed operations which would be free of connection charges or other fees. ",-(-(ZZ"Ԍ X-  |ԙx19. The National Educational Telecommunications Organization/Educational Satellite  xInstitute states that for educational institutions, unlicensed services offer a range of services at  xsubstantially lower costs than wired and licensedwireless networks. They argue that the  xproposed SUPERNet and NII Band concepts would provide users with greater flexibility and  X- xcontrol to design and implement networks that meet their unique needs.' yO-ԍ National Educational Telecommunications Organization/Educational Satellite Institute Comments at 23. The Council of Chief  xState School Officers states that schools require technologies that are broadband and capable of  xsupporting text, graphic, and interactive programs, including twoway video, and that the  X_-proposed service would provide an opportunity for such technologies to develop.__X' yOh -ԍ Council of Chief State School Officers Comments at 2._  X1-  >x20. The Center for Democracy and Technology ("CDT") believes that gatewayfree access  xto computer networks is in the public interest because access to cyberspace, currently available  x[only through commercial service providers, is currently too expensive for individuals, schools,  X - xand libraries.< ' yO-ԍ CDT Comments at 3.< It states that the proposed service would promote ubiquitous, affordable access  xfor citizens everywhere, would increase the diversity of information sources accessible via  xcomputer, and would form a new platform for public and political discourse at a local and national level.  Xy-  ^x21. Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") states that a wireless broadband network is  x\potentially the only economically practical means of disseminating multimedia data within a  x,classroom. It submits that such unlicensed systems could provide students with atthedesk access  X4- x-to the school library and to an array of multimedia services available on the Internet.B4x' yO]-ԍ Microsoft Comments at 3.B Microsoft  xNalso notes that wireless networks will enable physicians to immediately access digitally x.transmitted Xrays, computer aidedtomography, fullmotion ultrasound imaging studies, and  X- xMRI diagnostics.B' yO-ԍ Microsoft Comments at 3.B Microsoft states that the initial provision of spectrum at 5 GHz should be at  xleast 300 megahertz to assure adequate spectrum for immediate applications, and that at least an  X-additional 50 megahertz should be reserved for increased usage and high speed capacity.A' yO !-ԍ Microsoft Comment at 4.A  X-  x22. The Atlanta Veteran's Administration Rehab R&D Center ("Atlanta VA") believes  xthat the proposed service would be of great help to disabled people. Atlanta VA is currently  x-developing wearable computer technology that would provide wireless access to control devices  xsuch as crosswalk push buttons, audio access to pedestrian cross walk signal displays, voice  xaccess to elevator push buttons and controls, and wireless control of handicapped van doors, lifts,"7( ,-(-(ZZ"  X-and automatic door openers.E' yOy-ԍ Atlanta VA Comments at 13.E  X-  x23. Compaq Computer supports Apple's and WINForum's proposals for a substantial  xallocation at 5 GHz for unlicensed access to the NII. Compaq argues that the 5 GHz band is well  xsuited for an NII/SUPERNet band, which would bring the United States closer to the realization  xof the NII. Additionally, Compaq claims that the American economy, and its leadership position  xxin world markets for computers and computing applications, will be strengthened by the proposed  X_- xallocation.?_X' yOh -ԍ Compaq Comments at 3.? Compaq states that the recently established DataPCS service will have insufficient  x<bandwidth capacity to accommodate the proposed operations. Compaq also adds that DataPCS'  xoperating protocols, which are necessary to accommodate other spectrum users, are unsuitable for the proposed multimedia computerbased applications.  X -  x24. The Information Technology Industry Council ("ITIC") supports an allocation of from  x250 to 300 megahertz in the 5 GHz range for unlicensed wireless data networks. ITIC states that  xthe proposed allocations would support applications that cannot be satisfied using other frequency  xLbands or services and would build upon the European HIPERLAN allocation, thereby creating  X- xnew opportunities for U.S. manufacturers.=' yO)-ԍ ITIC Comments at 2.= Harris Corporation ("Harris") also supports both  xpetitions, submitting that the harmonization of U.S. allocations with European allocations is a  xhighly desirable objective and would benefit U.S. manufacturers. Similarly, Nortel states that  xObroadband networks will create jobs, foster economic growth, and improve access to  X4-communications by industry and the American public.?4x' yO]-ԍ Nortel Comments at 3.?  X-  x25. AT&T states that WINForum and Apple have demonstrated the public need for a 250  xito 300 megahertz allocation of contiguous spectrum for high speed wireless data communications.  x[However, AT&T opposes Apple's proposal to allocate the 5.725 5.875 GHz band on the basis  x0that Part 15 spread spectrum devices could not easily share this band with existing ISM  xoperations. Andrew Corporation ("Andrew") supports an allocation at 5.15 5.30 GHz for  xKunlicensed operations, but opposes Apple's proposed upper NII Band, arguing that this is one of  xthe few remaining spectrum locations fully available for spread spectrum and ISM operations.  xAndrew claims that recent Commission actions have caused the ISM and spread spectrum  xjindustry to focus on using the 5.8 GHz band and therefore predicts increased use of that band.  xAccordingly, Andrew contends that 150 megahertz at 5.15 5.30 GHz should be sufficient  x[initially for NII/SUPERNet services, adding that the benefits of making available 300 megahertz  xof spectrum are too speculative at this time to warrant disruption of existing services at 5.8 GHz.  x.Andrew suggests that the 5.725 5.875 GHz band could be considered in the future if the 5.15  x 5.30 GHz band becomes congested. The Fixed Point-to-Point Communications Section, Network" ,-(-(ZZ;"  xkEquipment Division of the Telecommunications Industry Association ("TIA") supports the  xconcept of establishing high-speed wireless digital services, but states that many issues, like spectrum sharing, need to be addressed before spectrum is allocated for such a service. x  X-  x26. Several incumbent and potential users of 5 GHz spectrum oppose the WINForum and  x-Apple proposals. Generally, they argue that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate a need for  xkunlicensed operations in the 5 GHz range and have not provided a sufficient analysis of the  xxspectrum sharing potential of such operations with existing or proposed services in the band. For  xexample, the American Radio Relay League, Inc. ("ARRL") opposes the allocation and contends  x<that this allocation is unnecessary because it duplicates other services, such as licensed PCS (for  xlonger range communications), microwave operations, and unlicensed PCS. In particular, ARRL  xiopposes Apple's allocation proposal for the 5.8 GHz band, arguing that Apple has not sufficiently  xaddressed the potential for harmful interference to amateur operations in the 5.650 5.925 GHz  xZband. Further, ARRL argues that Apple provides no technical showing to support the allocation;  xdoes not address how coordination between unlicensed users and incumbents would be done; and  xprovides no explanation of why spectrum above 40 GHz would not be better for its purposes.  xAdditionally, ARRL notes that the proposed allocation would have to be coordinated  x-internationally because the International Telecommunication Union has not allocated the 5.8 GHz  xband to the fixed and mobile services. The Southern California Repeater and Remote Base  xAssociation ("SCRRBA"), an amateur organization, also opposes the allocation and states that any  xcommercial use will overpower the amateur operators on this band because so much equipment would be deployed that the amateurs would be driven off the band.  X-  x27. Constellation Communications ("Constellation") and Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership,  x L.P. ("Loral") oppose the allocation of the 5.15 5.25 GHz band, where feeder links for non X- xxgeostationary orbit mobilesatellite systems are planned.x' yO:- xԍ We note that Loral filed a Request for Waiver on March 7, 1996, requesting authority to construct, launch  xZand operate a lowEarth orbit satellite system with feeder links in the 5.091 5.250 GHz and 6.875 7.055 GHz  xhbands. In its request, Loral asks for a waiver of the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations pending Commission action  xto implement the Final Acts of the WRC95. The waiver would permit authorization of feeder links for its system  xconsistent with the outcome of the WRC95. The Commission has previously authorized Loral to construct, at its  xown risk, an MSS system with feeder links in the 5.0255.225 GHz frequency bands, subject to the outcome of the  yO-WRC95. See Loral/QUALCOMM Partnership, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 3926 (Intl. Bur. 1995). Constellation argues that the petitions  xylack technical information and do not provide any convincing sharing analyses to demonstrate  xcompatibility with feeder link operations. Constellation claims that WINForum's interference  xcalculation is insufficient and that the actual interference to feeder links would be much more  xsevere than is predicted by the petitioners. Constellation argues that petitioners must show that  x/the aggregate power transmitted by all possible unlicensed operations within the low earth  xyorbiting ("LEO") MSS receiving beam would be limited to acceptable levels. Constellation also  x.argues that FSS operations should not be required to protect unlicensed devices from harmful  xyinterference. Loral argues that substantial spectrum has recently been allocated for unlicensed  xjwireless data services and that the Commission should not consider further allocations for this  xpurpose. Loral also observes that WINForum's interference calculation used system parameters" ,-(-(ZZ"  x<for Loral's MSS system that have since changed, and that the new system design includes higher  x]gain satellite receiving antennas which would be more susceptible to interference. Loral  X- xmaintains that studiesK' yOK-ԍ See infra Appendix C.K showing sharing feasibility between MSS and HIPERLAN do not  X-necessarily apply to the WINForum and Apple proposals.gX' yO-ԍ See Loral's ex parte filing dated April 17, 1996.g  X-  x28. The Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") opposes any use of the 5.00  xj5.15GHz band for unlicensed SUPERNet devices, arguing that the Microwave Landing System  x("MLS") is not being phased out in favor of the differential Global Positioning System ("GPS").  x[On the contrary, the FAA states that it has plans for at least 26 MLS installations, and that the  xDepartment of Defense currently has a significant number of MLS installations in operation.  xiFurther, the FAA states that the International Civil Aviation Organization recently concluded that  xthe 5.00 5.15 GHz band should remain allocated for aeronautical radionavigation. Additionally,  xthe FAA opposes the use of the 5.15 5.25 GHz band for NII/SUPERNet devices until spectrum  x<sharing studies demonstrate that the devices can successfully share the band on an interferencefree basis with aeronautical safety services.  X-  |x29. The Federal Highway Administration ("FHWA") anticipates that the 5.850 - 5.925  xGHz band will be suitable for intelligent transportation systems ("ITS") technologies associated  Xb- xwith vehicle-to-roadside communications (e.g., automated toll collection) and supports its  XK- xallocation for that purpose. K' yO- xKԍ FHWA Comments at 1 and its attached "Overview of Spectrum Needs in the 5850 5925 [MHz] Band by  xthe ITS Program." In order to reduce the cost and complexity of the invehicle ITS communications equipment at  x,the consumer level (it is likely that this equipment will eventually be standard on all vehicles), the FHWA considers  xit essential that all ITS services be provided by a single transmitter in the same frequency band. The FHWA states  xthat the 5.850 5.925 GHz band is the lowest frequency band where 75 megahertz of continuous spectrum may be available in the near term. The FHWA asserts that ITS could share the band with existing services.  The FHWA notes that NTIA is considering the reallocation of the  x!5.850 - 5.925 GHz band from shared Government/nonGovernment use to exclusive non xjGovernment use and requests that NTIA do so with a recommendation to the Commission that  xITS be considered when making decisions as to future applications in this band. The FHWA  xnotes that Apple's proposal for the 5.725 5.875 GHz band overlaps with ITS use of the 5.850  x- 5.925 GHz band, but does not make a recommendation with regard to Apple's proposal and  xdoes not discuss whether ITS could share the 25 megahertz of overlap spectrum at 5.850 5.875 GHz with NII Band devices. x  X|-  x30. WINForum, in its reply comments, states that its proposed wireless multimedia  xservice cannot be provided by licensed services because: 1) licensed services cannot dedicate the  xZbandwidth necessary to offer such services on a widespread basis; 2) unlicensed devices are less  x.constrained by economics and can be deployed anywhere at any time; and 3) only unlicensed"7 ` ,-(-(ZZ"  X- xjdevices will provide virtually unlimited access without recurring costs.?!' yOy-ԍ WINForum Reply at 15.? WINForum reiterates  xits belief that unlicensed DataPCS does not have the spectrum to support the proposed data rates  xof the SUPERNet. Additionally, WINForum states that existing Part 15 bands cannot be used  x<because conventional Part 15 devices would not comply with a necessary spectrum etiquette and  xtherefore would be incompatible with SUPERNet devices. WINForum contends that though the  xKCommission's pending proposal to provide spectrum above 40 GHz for computer communications  xwill be necessary to meet future needs, current radio technology is not sufficiently advanced to  xpermit SUPERNet operations at millimeter wave frequencies. In its reply comments, Apple states  xthat the interservice sharing issue should be addressed as part of the rule making process. Apple  xydoes not propose that any existing or planned user be relocated from the 5 GHz band, nor does  xiit propose that NII Band technologies receive preferential treatment over any existing user or type of usage.  X -  mx31. Proposal. We recognize that recent developments in a number of different digital  xtechnologies have greatly increased the need for business, industry, and consumers to transfer  xlarge amounts of data from one network or system to another. Specifically, innovative  xtechnological developments now permit the digitization and compression of large amounts of  x-voice, video, imaging, and data information, which can be transmitted as "data packets" from one  xplace to another. Also, computers now have faster central processing units and substantially  xincreased memory capabilities, which have further increased the demand for devices that can  xmore quickly transfer larger amounts of data. Further, digital equipment is now capable of  x>switching and directing large amounts of information within networks. In addition to these  x<technical advances in hardware capability, there has been substantial growth in the use, size, and  xcomplexity of digital networks as well. Many of these networks are not only growing internally  xin the amount and types of data they contain, but are also beginning to be used in combination and interaction with other such networks.  X-  !x32. We believe that these dramatic developments in digital technology have stimulated  xa need for the availability of spectrum to be used for wireless interconnection within and among  xthese networks. We agree with WINForum that the spectrum currently allocated for existing  xZwireless services and devices is not adequate to meet the demands of today's broadband network  x[data transmission services. Generally, the available bandwidth in the current allocations is not  x\sufficiently wide to permit existing wireless services to take advantage of new technologies  xcurrently available on wired networks. For example, services developed for DataPCS devices  xwere not designed to handle broadband multimedia computer applications, and the spectrum  xavailable to those services would quickly be congested by any significant usage for such  xapplications. Therefore, we tentatively conclude that, to serve this need, sufficient spectrum in  xthe 5 GHz band should be made available to provide for a number of operations in each"! X!,-(-(ZZ "  X-geographical area to meet the growing demand for new high speed data services.6"X' yOy- xԍ Although the petitions and comments request an allocation of spectrum for unlicensed NII/SUPERNet devices,  x: we note that unlicensed Part 15 operations typically are not allocated spectrum, but are permitted to operate in certain bands. 6  X-  x 33. We believe that providing additional spectrum for unlicensed operation would benefit  x a vast number of users, including educational, medical, business, and industrial users. For  x!example, allowing unlicensed devices access to this spectrum would permit educational  xinstitutions to form inexpensive broadband wireless computer networks between classrooms,  xjthereby providing costeffective access to an array of multimedia services on the Internet. We  xjalso agree with the commenting parties who suggest wireless networks could help improve the  x[quality and reduce the cost of medical care. These systems could allow medical staff to obtain  x.onthespot patient data, Xrays, and medical charts. Diagnosis by a group of medical experts  xMcould be more rapidly and readily obtained, resulting in better and more efficient diagnosis,  xwithout the need for the relevant experts to be physically present at a common location. These  xtypes of applications may be especially useful to Americans who live in rural, insular, high cost or remote areas.  X -  x!34. Additionally, because we believe that elements of both Apple's NII Band proposal  xkand WINForum's SUPERNet proposal have merit, we propose that devices operating in this  x[unlicensed spectrum be called NII/SUPERNet devices after the proposals. While we recognize  xthat the proposals present some difficulties which need to be resolved in this proceeding, such  xLas spectrum sharing between incumbents and new users and the propagation of 5 GHz signals  xwithin buildings, we believe that the 5 GHz range is the appropriate spectrum for these proposed  xoperations. That is, spectrum below this range is too congested, and higher frequencies would  xboth increase the cost of equipment and would have even more limited propagation characteristics  xthan 5 GHz. Additionally, we believe, based on the comments, that sharing could be feasible,  x@particularly if we limit appropriately the authorized power for the unlicensed devices.  xAccordingly, we propose to make available 200 megahertz of spectrum at 5.15 5.35 GHz and  x150 megahertz of spectrum at 5.725 5.875 GHz for unlicensed NII/SUPERNet devices. We  xseek comment on whether 350 MHz of spectrum is necessary to provide this service in the 5 GHz  xrange. We believe that access to this spectrum by unlicensed wireless LANs and multimedia  xdevices is warranted by the growing demand for such operations by business, industry, medical and educational institutions, and consumers.  X -  x"35. We agree with NTIA and the FAA that air safety services must be protected from  x[harmful interference and therefore are not proposing to allow NII/SUPERNet devices access to  xthe 5.10 5.15 GHz band. However, we are persuaded at this time that NII/SUPERNet devices  xcould operate above 5.15 GHz without causing interference to aeronautical radionavigation if we  x\adopt appropriate outofband emission and power limits. Additionally, we believe that the  xNII/SUPERNet devices can successfully share spectrum with the MSS feeder links which are  xLexpected to operate in the 5.15 5.25 GHz band. As WINForum notes, the issue of HIPERLAN"" ",-(-(ZZ!"  xyand MSS feeder link sharing has been addressed in Europe, thus it appears feasible that similar  xoperations such as NII/SUPERNet devices should also be able to share spectrum with MSS feeder  X- xlinks.#' yOK- xԍ See CEPT Recommendation T/R 2206 (Madrid 1992); see also Proposed Modification of CEPT  yO-Recommendation T/R 2206; see also Appendix C. We also believe that the 5.725 5.875GHz band is appropriate spectrum for  xiNII/SUPERNet operations and that with appropriate technical constraints these devices can share  x[with existing amateur, unlicensed and ISM operations, as well as with FSS uplinks in the 5.850 x5.875 GHz band. Regarding FHWA's interest in the 5.850 5.925 GHz band, we note that at  xthis time the spectrum requirements for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and their  xpossible impact on other services are not clear. Accordingly, this issue is beyond the scope of  xythis proceeding and will be addressed in future rule makings as appropriate. As recommended  xby NTIA and others, we agree that additional studies of spectrum sharing between the proposed  xunlicensed operations and existing and other proposed operations in the 5.15 5.35 GHz and  xj5.725 5.875 GHz bands would be useful and request that interested parties address this matter in their comments. x  X -B. Technical Standards  X-  x#36. In their petitions, WINForum and Apple suggest that we adopt only the minimum  xtechnical standards needed to prevent harmful interference and that we provide a basic spectrum  xsharing protocol, or etiquette, to promote sharing among unlicensed devices. Both petitioners also  xindicate that such an etiquette should be developed by industry through a consensus process.  xThey further suggest that the sharing protocol should permit unlicensed devices to operate on a  xshared basis, permit different operational characteristics to meet varying user requirements, and  xnot restrict the purposes for which the proposed spectrum can be used. They state that this  xyapproach would foster flexibility in the types and designs of unlicensed devices that could use  X-this band.^$ ' yO-ԍ WINForum Comments at 1921 and Apple Comments at 28.^  X-  ]x$37. In its petition, WINForum proposes that SUPERNet devices operate at low power to  xlimit interference and to promote spectrum sharing. Although WINForum does not propose a  xspecific power limit or communications range in its petition, its interference analysis included in  xAppendix B to its petition uses a maximum transmitter power of 10 dBW and a communications  XN- xrange on the order of 50 meters.K%N' yO!-ԍ WINForum Petition at App. B at 3.K Apple suggests that we also permit higher power to enable  xunlicensed devices to cover distances of 10 to 15 kilometers (6.29.3 miles) or more, for its  X - x>proposed community networks.8&X @' yO%- xԍ Apple Petition at 18. In their joint letter of February 29, 1996, Apple and WINForum agree that the concepts  xof very high data rate local systems and of relatively longer range community network products are both necessary and desirable.8 Specifically, Apple suggests that transmitters should be" ` &,-(-(ZZz"  xpermitted to operate with up to 1 watt of power and should be permitted to use both  X- xKomnidirectional and directional antennas without EIRP limits.?'' yOb-ԍ Apple Comments at 23.? Finally, WINForum suggests that  xoutofband emissions limits be established to promote spectrum sharing with adjacent spectrum  X-users.B(X' yO-ԍ WINForum Petition at 19.B  X-  /x%38. With regard to a spectrum sharing protocol, WINForum states that unlicensed devices  xin this band should be subject to protocol standards similar in concept to the unlicensed DataPCS  xsharing protocol. Apple states that any industry developed standards should be minimal and  XH- xshould allow a variety of communications options.?)H' yO -ԍ Apple Petition at 25.? Apple argues that these rules should be  xflexible enough to encourage innovation and technological evolution, but not so broad as to  xpermit a mix of incompatible users with mutually exclusive operating characteristics. Both petitioners request that NII/SUPERNet operations be limited to packet based transmissions.  X -  0x&39. WINForum proposes that SUPERNet devices be permitted to operate under either a  X - xcentralized control scheme or a distributed control scheme.Z*X x' yO- xԍ In a centralized control scheme, one network node controls which of the other nodes is allowed to transmit  xat any given time. In a distributed control scheme, all nodes of the network simultaneously contend for access to the channel upon completion of each transmission.Z Apple argues that the rules should  xprohibit any operations that are based solely on a circuitswitched network or require centralized  xcontrol. Apple argues that the rules should provide all devices equitable rights to access and  Xy-share spectrum without any hierarchy among users regardless of transmission type.B+y' yO-ԍ Apple Petition at 2527.B  XK-  x'40. WINForum also requests that the proposed allocation be subject to minimal  xchannelization requirements, and both petitioners suggest that some compatibility in frequency  xassignment and channelization be afforded between NII/SUPERNet devices and the HIPERLAN  xLsystem. Specifically, WINForum suggests that the allocation be divided into approximately 10  xbroadband subchannels, each capable of supporting a data rate of 20 Mbps or more. Apple did  xnot make a specific recommendation with regard to a channeling plan, but states that while data  xrates of over 20 Mbps should be permissible, similar to the HIPERLAN system, the band should  X- xinot be limited to a narrow range of data rates or band subdivisions.B,( ' yO#-ԍ Apple Petition at 1517.B Apple states that the actual  xdata transfer rates for the proposed unlicensed devices will depend on the technical rules governing operation, the design of the particular device and the radio environment.  XN-  N x (41. Comments. The commenting parties generally agree that NII/SUPERNet operations"N ,,-(-(ZZ"  xshould be subject to the minimum technical standards necessary to prevent harmful interference,  xysuch as limits on maximum power and outofband emissions. They also generally support use  x-of a basic spectrum etiquette to promote sharing among unlicensed operations. The commenting  xparties further agree with the petitioners that the basic spectrum sharing rules governing the  xoperation of NII/SUPERNet devices should be established by industry consensus. A number of  xparties also support the adoption of standards that provide some degree of compatibility with  xHIPERLAN. In general, most commenters support a flexible channelization approach that would  xkallow the operation of both wideband and narrowband channels. Finally, while a number of  x=parties support permitting higher power community network operation, others argue that such higher power operations would increase the potential for interference to other services.  X -  x)42. AT&T, in its comments, states that technical standards for NII/SUPERNet devices  x.should be the minimum needed to prevent interference and that spectrum protocols should be  xjdeveloped through industry consensus. AT&T also agrees with WINForum that a broadband  xchannelization plan would optimize the usefulness of the spectrum and prevent scattered  xinarrowband operations from interfering with the intended use of this spectrum for wideband, high  X- xspeed digital services.?-' yO -ԍ AT&T Comments at 89.? The Part 15 Coalition, however, states that while extremely high data  xrates may be needed for some of the proposed unlicensed operations, they should not be  Xb- xygenerically required.J.bX' yOk-ԍ Part 15 Coalition Comments at 8.J It states that both narrowband and broadband transmissions should be  xpermitted in order to assure the provision of a wide variety of services, technologies and  X4- xapplications. Tetherless Access Ltd. argues that WINForum's proposal to establish a  xchannelization scheme is exclusionary and would prevent new technologies that may use  X- xLbandwidth in different ways.C/' yO-ԍ Tetherless Comments at 4.C Nortel supports a spectrum sharing protocol (analogous to the  X- xsharing plan for unlicensed PCS spectrum) that would be developed through industry consensus.Y0x' yO-ԍ See n. 15, supra.Y  xAndrew and others encourage the Commission to adopt technical standards consistent with those  xof the European HIPERLAN system and argue that inconsistent policies could lead to higher  X-costs and additional delays.?1' yOc -ԍ Andrew Comments at 8.?  X|-  x *43. Several parties support the petitioners' proposal that NII/SUPERNet devices be  xpermitted to provide longer range community network service. Duncan, Weinberg, Miller &  xPembroke argue that 1015 km (6.29.3 miles) links would be useful to local governments with  xxoffices scattered across a community and that other currently available long range alternatives are  xjtoo expensive or impractical for local government use. Daniel L. Green submits that long range  x-NII/SUPERNet devices would provide new possibilities for the creation of unlicensed community" 1,-(-(ZZ"  xnetworks and affordable data communications for residential, educational, business, community  x>and rural entities. Metricom also supports Apple's longer range communications proposal.  xzMicrosoft comments that the rules for power and antenna gain should be flexible enough to  xpermit both higher power operations that allow one device to fully serve a single neighborhood or campus and lower power operations for wireless LANs.  Xv-  x+44. ARRL, AT&T, Digital Microwave Corp. ("DMC"), Harris and others oppose the long  x[range community network aspect of Apple's NII Band proposal, claiming that links longer than  XH- x1 km (.62 miles) in length would have the potential to cause harmful interference.U2H' yO -ԍ DMC Comments at 2 and Harris Comments at 3.U ARRL  xargues that community networks could be provided by existing Part 94 services and should not  x.form the basis for a new unregulated service. AT&T states that Apple's proposed longrange  xjnetwork could interfere with MSS feeder links. Harris points out that the Commission typically  xlimits short distance microwave operations to spectrum above 10 GHz. The Southern California  xZRepeater and Remote Base Association (SCRRBA) opposes NII/SUPERNet paths longer than 500  xmeters (546.8 yards) and recommends power limitations similar to those applied to the unlicensed  X -PCS operations at 2.39 2.40 GHz.w3 X' yO-ԍ SCRRBA Comments at 15, see also 47 C.F.R.  15.319(c)(e).w  Xy-  x,45. Apple replies that its opponents' interference concerns are overstated because users  xzof longer links will not be mutually exclusive with one another or with other spectrum users.  xApple argues that both short and long distance NII/SUPERNet band devices will operate at low  xpower and pursuant to technical rules, such as listenbeforetalk, designed to promote spectrum  xsharing and equal access to the spectrum. In its reply comments, WINForum states that it  xsupports the use of highly directional receive antennas for longer range communications. It also  xstates that an etiquette governing the conditions of access to the spectrum is necessary and  xreiterates that this etiquette should limit interference caused by the devices and should ensure the  xspectrum is used efficiently. WINForum argues, however, that interoperability should not be  xrequired because it would limit innovation. WINForum further states that any differences between its petition and Apple's should be resolved through industry consensus.  Xe-   x-46. Proposal. If we make unlicensed spectrum available for NII/SUPERNet devices, we  x!believe that the rules should provide the maximum technical flexibility in the design and  xoperation of these devices. At the same time the rules must ensure that these devices do not  x<cause harmful interference to the incumbent and proposed operations in these or adjacent bands.  xWe agree with the petitioners that minimal standards would provide opportunity for the greatest  xvariety of unlicensed devices that may use these bands and would enable the maximum flexibility  xin the types of services that may be provided. We are proposing below the minimal technical  X - xregulations we believe are necessary to accomplish these goals.\4 ' yO]&-ԍ See infra Appendix A (Proposed Rules).\ These rules specify power  xlimits, outofband emission limits, and a basic "listenbeforetalk" protocol standard. We are"!x4,-(-(ZZ "  x>encouraging the industry to develop any further protocol standards or etiquette it believes necessary.  X-  X-  x.47. Specifically, we are proposing to limit the peak EIRP for NII/SUPERNet devices to  xlԩ10 dBW (0.1 watt). We believe this power level should provide typical communications  xdistances of 50 to 100 meters (54.7 to 109.4 yards) and will meet most of the high speed  xcommunications needs envisioned by the petitioners. We note that the low power (0.1 watt)  xNII/SUPERNet devices we propose would operate at a higher power (approximately 21 dB EIRP  xhigher) than existing nonspread spectrum Part 15 intentional radiators permitted in the 5.725  X1- x5.875 GHz band.J51' yO -ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  15.249.J We are not, however, proposing to accommodate the higher power, longer  xMrange communications links sought by the petitioners at this time. We are concerned that  X - xpermitting such higher power operations would pose unacceptable interference risks to other  xservices, such as fixed satellite service in the 5.105.35 GHz band, and would greatly limit the number of unlicensed operations within a local area.  X -  ?x/48. Nevertheless, we find merit in the concept of longer range community networks and  xseek comment on whether to permit such higher power operation at up to 1 watt of transmitter  x.output power within the 5.7255.875 GHz band. Are there any rule changes desirable for these  xor other licensed allocations, to broaden eligibility or expand flexibility or otherwise eliminate  x-regulatory barriers that may now prevent that spectrum from being used in community networks?  xWe note that antenna gain is an important factor in both the distance covered and the interference  x=potential of the system. We request comment on whether antenna gain should be limited and,  X- xyif so, to what level.6X' yO- xԍ We note that Apple proposes not to limit antenna gain. See Apple Submission titled Implementing the NII  yO-Band: Suggested Technical Rules. We believe that accommodating such higher power unlicensed operation  xin this portion of the spectrum may be appropriate since this band is already available for similar  X- x|higher power Part 15 spread spectrum operations.7' yO9- xwԍ See Spread Spectrum Transmitters, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, ET Docket No. 968, 11 FCC Rcd 3068, 61 Fed. Reg. 15206 (April 5, 1996). We also note that there may be a  xconsiderable difference between the interference potential of existing spread spectrum transmitters  xand the modulation systems contemplated by Apple. We seek comment on the similarities or  xdifferences in interference potential of these two types of devices. We believe that providing for  x>longer range operations may promote the development of community networks that would  x-provide users with affordable access to a broad range of data communications services. We also  xzrequest comment, however, on whether such community network operation would be better  xaccommodated on a licensed basis either in this band, as discussed below, or in other bands  x presently available for licensed use. For example, could such uses be implemented by PCS  xlicensees in the 2 GHz range or by providers soon to be licensed at 28 GHz, 38 GHz and above  x40 GHz? What would be the regulatory implications, if any, of such a longrange network if it  xwere connected to the public switched telephone network? If we were to permit these higher"7,-(-(ZZ"  xpower community networks in the upper band, is sharing with the proposed lower power devices feasible?  X-  x049. Regarding outofband emission limits, we are proposing to require that all emissions  x=occurring from NII/SUPERNet devices outside of the 5.155.35 GHz and 5.7255.875 GHz bands  X- xbe attenuated by at least 50 dB or to the radiated emission limits set forth in Section 15.209,J8' yO-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  15.209.J  xwhichever is the lesser attenuation. In addition, we propose that any emissions occurring in the  X_- xrestricted bandsJ9_X' yOh -ԍ See 47 CFR Section 15.205.J comply with the radiated emission limits set forth in Section 15.209. We  xybelieve that these outofband emission limits will provide sufficient protection against harmful  xinterference to adjacent band and harmonically related radio operations. Additionally, we propose  X - xto amend Section 15.205 to delete the listing of 5.15 5.25 GHz as a restricted band.:  ' yO- xԍ Only spurious Part 15 emissions are permitted in restricted bands. Restricted frequency bands are those  xallocated for services involving safetyoflife or for services that are required by the nature of their operations to use  yOC- xsignals received at very low received levels. See First Report and Order, GEN. Docket No. 87389, 4 FCC Rcd. 3493 (1989). Further,  x[to ensure that the emissions from digital circuitry employed with the NII/SUPERNet equipment  xKdo not cause harmful interference to lower frequency radio operations, we propose to require that  xany such emissions below 1000MHz comply with the general field strength limits set forth in  xSection 15.209. For any NII/SUPERNet devices that use an AC power line, we propose to  X -require such devices to comply also with the conducted limits set forth in Section 15.207.J; ' yO(-ԍ See 47 CFR Section 15.207.J  Xy-  Nx150. The outofband emission rules we are proposing are similar to those rules currently  Xb- xapplied to spread spectrum devices operating under Section 15.247 of our rules.J<b` ' yOs-ԍ See 47 CFR Section 15.247.J We have not  xNreceived any indication that there are any technical or economic difficulties in achieving  xycompliance with these limits. Comments are requested on these issues. However, commenting  xparties should note that any discussion proposing relaxation of these limits should also address the potential for increased interference to other radio services.  X-  x251. We are not at this time proposing a channeling plan as requested by WINForum. At  xthis time, we believe that a specific channel plan would unnecessarily limit the flexibility of  xequipment designers to develop devices and systems that will meet a wide variety of user needs.  x-However, to ensure that the spectrum is used efficiently and that users of NII/SUPERNet devices  xcan access the spectrum, we solicit comment on whether we should establish a maximum channel  xbandwidth for such equipment and/or limit the amount of spectrum that can be used by any one  xdevice at any given time. For example, should we establish a maximum channel bandwidth of  x.25 MHz for NII/SUPERNet devices? Further, should such devices be limited to using no more"7 <,-(-(ZZ"  xthan two or three channels at any given time? Such approaches would provide flexibility in the  xtypes of services that could be offered and at the same time ensure that one or a few devices do not use a disproportionate amount of the spectrum.  X-  x352. With regard to a spectrum sharing protocol, we believe that some basic sharing  xKprotocol is necessary to ensure that this spectrum is used by unlicensed devices in a manner that  xpermits these devices to share with one another. We encourage industry to develop appropriate  xetiquette protocols through a cooperative consensus process. We note that WINForum states that  xit has already begun setting the foundation for joint industry action in this area. We encourage  xall interested parties to take part in this process and to cooperate in good faith. Once consensus  xon an etiquette is reached, we will consider those protocols in this or a further rule making  xiproceeding. We recognize, however, it may take industry some time to develop such an etiquette.  xIn order to expedite the development and introduction of NII/SUPERNet devices, we propose to  x.adopt a basic "listenbeforetalk" standard similar to that established for unlicensed DataPCS  X - x\devices.Q= ' yO7-ԍ See 47 CFR Section 15.321(b)(f).Q This standard would serve on an interim basis until an etiquette is developed by  xindustry. Specifically, as set forth in Appendix A, we propose to require unlicensed devices: to  xxmonitor the frequencies they will occupy to determine if the frequencies are unused and available;  xto limit the maximum time unlicensed devices may transmit to 10 milliseconds; and to require  xMunlicensed devices to wait after ceasing transmission 50 microseconds before beginning to  xmonitor again. We request comment on whether these interim standards would be appropriate and invite interested parties to submit alternatives.  X-  x453. We also request comment on whether we should specify a minimum modulation  x.efficiency requirement for NII/SUPERNet devices to avoid inefficient use of this spectrum and  X- xhelp minimize the likelihood that a "tragedy of the commons"A> X' yO- xԍ See generally Hardin, The Tragedy of the Commons, 162 Science 1243 (1968); Pierce, State Regulation of  yO- xNatural Gas in a Federally Deregulated Market: The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited, 73 Cornell L.Rev. 15  yOq- xw(1987); Stewart, Environmental Regulation and International Competitiveness, 102 Yale L.J. 2039 (1993); Epstein,  yO9-The Moral and Practical Dilemmas of an Underground Economy, 103 Yale L.J. 2157 (1994).A would occur. Specifically, we  x solicit comment on a minimum modulation efficiency of 1 bps/Hz or higher. We note that 1  x>bps/Hz will provide a throughput of 25 Mbits/sec in a 25 MHz channel consistent with that  xrequested in the petitions and comparable to the HIPERLAN system and has several precedents  X|- xxin our rules.i?|@' yOm!-ԍ See 47 C.F.R.  21.122(a)(1) and 47 C.F.R.  94.94.i On the other hand, we note that technological advances would permit specification  xof a higher efficiency standard with little impact on equipment costs and availability. We solicit comment on what requirement would be both efficient and feasible.  X -  @x554. In the Location Monitoring Service ("LMS") proceeding, we established sharing  xcriteria for unlicensed Part 15 devices and licensed services in the 902928 MHz band.  X- xConsistent with our decisions in that proceeding, we propose to establish clear technical operating"?,-(-(ZZ<"  xparameters under which users of unlicensed NII/SUPERNet devices may operate without risk of  X- xbeing considered sources of harmful interference.@' yOb- xԍ See Report and Order, Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules to Adopt Regulations for Location Monitoring Service, PR Docket No. 9361, 10 FCC Rcd 4695 (1995). We are proposing that NII/SUPERNet devices  xnot be deemed to cause interference to licensed services, provided that they operate in accordance  xwith our technical rules and they are located indoors or employ an outdoor antenna that is  xmounted 15 meters (16.4 yards) or less above the ground. NII/SUPERNet devices with outdoor  xantennas higher than 15 meters would be required to cease operation or make some  xaccommodation, such as limiting power, to eliminate any harmful interference caused to a  xlicensed operation. We believe that this approach will promote effective use of the spectrum by  xboth licensed and unlicensed services. We believe that the relatively low power of  xNII/SUPERNet devices and low antenna height proposed for outdoor operations will minimize  x.the potential for these devices to interfere with other services. Finally, consistent with Part 15  xoperation, we also propose that NII/SUPERNet devices must accept any interference caused by  xlicensed services. We request comment on this approach. We specifically request comment on  xwhether an antenna height of 15 meters is the appropriate benchmark with regard to outdoor  X - xinstallations or whether additional power (EIRP) limits may be appropriate for outdoor use.A ' yO- xԍ See n.35, supra; see also ITU Radiocommunication Study Groups, Task Group 4/5, Document 4A/66E, February 10, 1995 (Appendix C). We  xnote an ITU study concluded that there was a greater potential for interference to HIPERLAN  xoperations from MSS feeder links than vice versa. We note that the ITU study assumed most  x/of the HIPERLAN use would be indoors. We request comment and further analysis on the  ximpact of varying amounts of outdoor NII/SUPERNet use. We also request further comment and  xanalysis on whether the ITU study could be applied validly to predict the potential of the proposed NII/SUPERNet devices to cause harmful interference to the MSS.  X-C. Alternative Regulatory Structure  X-  x655. We believe that the unlicensed regulatory structure we are proposing for  xNII/SUPERNet operations will promote effective use of the 5GHz spectrum. As indicated  xMabove, we believe that low power, unlicensed operation will allow for a great variety of new  xeducational, medical, business, and consumer applications. Further, we note that due to the  xincumbent use of this spectrum, particularly by high powered Government radar operations, this  x[spectrum may be of very limited use to licensed services. Nonetheless, we note that economic  xMtheory suggests that inefficient use of a resource is likely to occur where users perceive no  xjindividual economic benefit from their own investment in efficient use of that resource. This is  x-sometimes called the "tragedy of the commons." With regard to unlicensed operation, this might  xNtranslate to a situation where users have little or no incentive to make socially beneficial  xinvestments in technology or to use the spectrum in a more efficient manner if they do not derive  X- xa direct benefit from such investments. We believe that the limited range and low power aspects  x?of unlicensed operation generally avoid or minimize the likelihood that a "tragedy of the  x\commons" will occur. For example, because of the limited transmission range of unlicensed"!xA,-(-(ZZ "  xoperations, the parties affected by interference, who have an incentive to consider whether to  X- x{invest in more spectrum efficient technology, are likely to be related, i.e., within the same  x.business or organization, or close neighbors, rather than a large community of users. In these  xsituations, the affected parties are likely to work together to arrive at solutions that will provide individual users a direct benefit.  Xv-  x756. Nevertheless, if we were to change our current proposal in order to provide for higher  xpower community network operations in the 5.725 5.875 GHz band, with the attendant longer  xZrange and greater interference potential of these operations, it might be appropriate to license this  xkportion of the spectrum and, in the case of mutuallyexclusive applications, use competitive  X - xbidding to award such licenses.B(  ' yO - xwԍ See 47 U.S.C.  309(j)(2)(A). Section 309(j)(2)(A) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended , permits  xcompetitive bidding to be used "[i]f mutually exclusive applications are accepted for filing for any initial license or  xconstruction permit which will involve a use of the electromagnetic spectrum described in paragraph (2), then the  xCommission shall have authority, subject to paragraph (10), to grant such license or permit to a qualified applicant  xthrough the use of a system of competitive bidding that meets the requirements of this subsection." Additionally, "[u]se of the electromagnetic spectrum is described in this paragraph if the Commission determines that  mXx(A) the principal use of such spectrum will involve, or is reasonably likely to involve, the licensee receiving compensation from subscribers in return for which the licensee  Xx (i) enables those subscribers to receive communications signals that are  Xxtransmitted utilizing frequencies on which the licensee is licensed to operate; or(# x (ii) enables those subscribers to transmit directly communications signals utilizing Xxfrequencies on which the licensee is licensed to operate...."(#Ƃ We note that such pointtopoint operations are similar to  xLexisting licensed fixed operations and request comment on whether licensing may lead to more  xyefficient use of the spectrum. Under such an approach, service providers could be licensed for  xspecific portions of the 5.7255.875 GHz band, such as 25MHz channels, and specific geographic  X - x=service areas, such as Basic Trading Areas ("BTAs") or Major Trading Areas ("MTAs"). #Xj\  P6G;3XP#We  xKrequest comment on whether market forces under a licensing scheme would significantly increase  xspectrum efficiency, how licensing would impact longer range community networks envisioned  xZby the petitioners, and on any additional considerations or rules that might be desirable to ensure  Xb-that licensed and unlicensed operations could both operate in the same spectrum.  X4- D . New Part 16 Regulations  X-  x857. In its petition, Apple requests that we create a new "Part 16" of our rules to govern  X- xunlicensed NII Band operations.>C ' yOX"-ԍ Apple Comments at 5.> It urges that we adopt a new Part 16 paradigm in which  x>unlicensed devices are treated as a recognized radio service, operate in protected spectrum  xreflected in a Part 2 allocation and share allocated frequencies pursuant to an etiquette designed  xyto ensure that all devices have fair and equitable access to the spectrum. Apple argues that its  x-Part 16 concept is now well accepted, and states that while the Commission's DataPCS decisions  x-do not include a Part 16 designation, they incorporate the essential attributes of a Part 16 service. "|H C,-(-(ZZ"  x0Apple argues the unprotected status of Part 15 operations has constrained the types of  xcommunications for which unlicensed technologies could be used. It claims that because  x unlicensed technologies rest on the "bottom rung of the spectrum ladder," their continued  xexistence in particular bands often has been threatened by proposals to allocate those bands to  X-other, incompatible services.  Xv-  x958. Comments. Apple's proposal is supported by a number of parties who argue that a  xinew Part16 of the rules would provide these proposed unlicensed devices additional rights to the  XH- xspectrum while maintaining their unlicensed status. Nortel and the Part 15 Coalition support  x<Apple's proposal to apply a Part 16 regulatory regime to the proposed unlicensed band to protect  X -NII/SUPERNet devices from incursions by other services.`D ' yO -ԍ Nortel Comments at 5; Part 15 Coalition Comments at 6.`  X -  x:59. ARRL, however, opposes the establishment of a Part 16, arguing that there is no legal  x!authority provided in the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, for creating such a  x[regulatory regime. ARRL argues that the Communications Act of 1934 permits an allocation of  xspectrum for unlicensed devices only with respect to radio control and citizen's radio service  xjfacilities. It further argues that, as a matter of equity and fairness to licensed users, unlicensed  x.devices should not be entitled to both the protected status afforded licensed services and the  xadvantages inherent in unlicensed operations such as frequency agility, bandwidth variability, lack  XK-of eligibility requirements and flexibility of use.?EKX' yOT-ԍ ARRL Comments at 45.?  X-  x;60. Proposal. We tentatively conclude that the technical and operational flexibility  xafforded under Part 15, along with our proposed conditions under which unlicensed  x]NII/SUPERNet devices may operate without risk of being considered sources of harmful  xxinterference, is the appropriate structure for regulating these devices. Consistent with our actions  X- x>for unlicensed DataPCS and LMS, supra, we believe that Part 15 will provide the operating  xcertainty requested by Apple. Accordingly, we propose to codify the regulations governing  xNII/SUPERNet devices under Part 15 of our rules. We request comment on this approach and  xany alternatives. In particular, what higher status is desired than that currently afforded DataPCS  xat 1910 1930 MHz and 2390 2400 MHz, which are regulated under Part 15? If a higher  xstatus is requested, is existing Commission authority sufficient to grant it or is additional statutory authority from Congress required?  X - E. Other Matters  X-  x<61. ISM Regulations. Apple raises the issue of whether ISM devices operating in the  x5.7255.875 GHz band should be required to comply with more restricted emission limits or other  xjrequirements. Apple argues that more stringent regulation of ISM devices is needed to ensure"!E,-(-(ZZ "  X- xxthat such equipment does not preclude NII/SUPERNet or other uses of this spectrum.?F' yOy-ԍ Apple Petition at 33.? However,  xAndrew opposes additional restrictions on ISM operations because it anticipates an increase in  xthe implementation of ISM operations in the 5.7255.875 GHz band. It is not clear that sharing  x=between unlicensed NII/SUPERNet devices and ISM operations would require modification of  xthe ISM regulations to make them more restrictive. We tentatively believe that such restrictions  xwould be an unjustified burden on the ISM user community. Accordingly, we are not proposing any additional restrictions on ISM operations at this time. We solicit comments on this issue.  XH-  x=62. International Allocations. Finally, as a ministerial matter, we will update, at the  xReport and Order stage of this proceeding, the International Table of Frequency Allocations, 47  x@C.F.R.  2.106, and its associated footnotes with regard to the spectrum bands under  xconsideration in this rule making, in order to reflect decisions made at WRC95. As the  xiInternational Table is provided for informational purposes only, these changes to the rules do not  xrequire public comment. Domestic implementation of any of the international rules will be  xaddressed in a future rule making proceeding, or, as appropriate, in connection with specific  X -requests for authorizations.FG X' yO-ԍ See n.29, supra.F  Xy-    Xb-% PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ĐTP  X4-  nx>63. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory  xFlexibility Act, the Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)  xof the expected impact on small entities of the proposals suggested in this document. The IRFA  x?is set forth in Appendix B. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. These  xcomments must be filed in accordance with the same filing deadlines as comments on the rest of  x<the NPRM, but they must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to  xthe Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The Secretary shall send a copy of this NPRM,  xincluding the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the  xSmall Business Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory Flexibility  Xe-Act. Pub. L. No. 96354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. Section 601 et seq. (1980).  X7-   x?64. Ex Parte Presentation. This is a nonrestricted notice and comment rule making  X - xproceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, provided they are disclosed as provided in  X -Commission rules. See generally 47 C.F.R. Sections 1.1202, 1.1203, and 1.1206(a).  X-  x@65. Authority. This action is taken pursuant to Sections 4(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g) and  xl303 (r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g) and 303(r). x""G,-(-(ZZ!"Ԍ X-  xA66. Comment. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415 and 1.419  X- x-of the Commission's Rules, interested parties may file comments on or before [Sixty days after  X- xthe date of publication in the Federal Register] , and reply comments on or before [Ninety  X- xI days after the date of publication in the Federal Register ]. All relevant and timely comments  xzwill be considered by the Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file  xformally in this proceeding, participants must file an original and four copies of all comments,  xjreply comments, and supporting comments. If participants want each Commissioner to receive  xa personal copy of their comments, an original plus nine comments must be filed. Comments and  xreply comments should be sent to Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,  x.Washington, DC 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public inspection  x|during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239) of the Federal  xCommunications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554. Additionally, informal comments may be filed over the Internet to 96102@fcc.gov.  X -  xB67. Additional Information. For further information concerning this rule making  xproceeding contact Tom Derenge at (202) 4182451, internet: tderenge@fcc.gov, or Fred Thomas  xat (202) 4182449, internet: fthomas@fcc.gov, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. T 4 <DL!T$&)\+- 0d24` x` `  @FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION  +h] x` `  @William F. Caton  X- ` `  @Acting Secretary"G,-(-(ZZ"  a<  T#|\  P6G;iP# )#|\  P6G;iP# Appendix A: Proposed Rules#Xj\  P6G;3XP# ĐTP Part 15 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:  X-  X-Xx PART 15 RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES (# 1. The authority citation for Part 15 continues to read as follows: AUTHORITY: Secs. 4, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 624A of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154, 302, 303, 304, 307 and 544A. 2. Section 15.17(a) of Part 15 is revised to read as follows: (a) Parties responsible for equipment compliance are advised to consider the proximity and the high power of nonGovernment licensed radio stations, such as broadcast, amateur, land mobile, and nongeostationary mobile satellite feeder link earth stations, and of U.S. Government radio stations when choosing operating frequencies during the design of their equipment so as to reduce the susceptibility for receiving harmful interference. Information on nonGovernment use of the spectrum can be obtained by consulting the Table of Frequency Allocations in  2.106 of this chapter.  X-*x*` ` * * * 3. Section 15.205(a) of Part 15 is amended by removing the 5.155.35 GHz portion from the restricted bands table to read as follows: (a) Except as shown in paragraph (d) of this section, only spurious emissions are permitted in any of the frequency bands listed below:"G,))ZZ" Y ddx !ddxz Y      MHzc nMHzc MHzc  GHz 1     v0.0900.110  X-t#,5\  P6G;,P##X\  P6G;IP#1#Xj\  P6G;3XP#0.4950.505 pM2.17352.1905 v4.1254.128 j4.177254.17775 j4.207254.20775 v6.2156.218 j6.267756.26825 j6.311756.31225 v8.2918.294 v8.3628.366 j8.376258.38675 j8.414258.41475 s12.2912.293 d12.5197512.52025 d12.5767512.57725 v13.3613.41 16.42423 ( 16.6947516.69525 ( 16.8042516.80475 25.525.67 37.538.25 7374.6 74.875.2 n108121.94 123138 "149.9150.05  156.52475156.52525 T156.7156.9  162.0125167.17 "167.72173.2 240285 322335.4 J399.9410 608614 d9601240 ~213001427 y14351626.5 u1645.51646.5 ~216601710 u1718.81722.2 ~222002300 ~223102390 y2483.52500 ~226552900 ~232603267 ~233323339 y3345.83358 ~236004400 4.55.15 5.355.46 7.257.75 8.0258.5 19.09.2 19.39.5 10.612.7 13.2513.4 14.4714.5 15.3516.2 17.721.4 i22.0123.12 23.624.0 31.231.8 36.4336.5  X-(#,5\  P6G;,P##X\  P6G;IP#2#Xj\  P6G;3XP#)1  c X-#X\  P6G;IP#1#Xj\  P6G;3XP# #X\  P6G;IP#Until February 1, 1999, this restricted band shall be 0.4900.510 MHz.#Xj\  P6G;3XP#  X}-2#Xj\  P6G;3XP# #X\  P6G;IP#Above 38.6#Xj\  P6G;3XP#  XO-*x*` ` * * *  X!- 4. Part 15 is amended by adding a new Subpart E to read as follows: Subpart E Unlicensed NII/SUPERNet Devices  15.401 Scope. This subpart sets out the regulations for unlicensed National Information Infrastructure SUPERNet (NII/SUPERNet) devices operating in the 5.15 5.35 GHz and 5.725 5.875 GHz bands.  15.403 Definitions.  X #- (a) Emission bandwidth. For purposes of this subpart the emission bandwidth shall be determined by measuring the width of the signal between two points, one below the carrier center frequency and one above the carrier center frequency, that are 26 dB down relative to the maximum level of the modulated carrier. Compliance with the emissions limits is based on the use of measurement instrumentation employing a peak detector function with an"&G,-(-(ZZ%H" instrument resolution bandwidth approximately equal to 1.0 percent of the emission bandwidth of the device under measurement.  X- (b) NII/SUPERNet devices [Unlicensed]. Intentional radiators operating in the frequency bands 5.15 5.35 GHz and 5.725 5.875 GHz that provide a wide array of wideband, high data rate mobile and fixed communications services to individuals, businesses, and institutions.  X- (c) Peak transmit power. The peak power output as measured over an interval of time equal to the frame rate or transmission burst of the device under all conditions of modulation. Usually this parameter is measured as a conducted emission by direct connection of a calibrated test instrument to the equipment under test. If the device cannot be connected directly, alternative techniques acceptable to the Commission may be used.  X - (d) Spectrum window. An amount of spectrum equal to the intended emission bandwidth in which operation is desired.  X - (e)  Thermal noise power. The noise power in watts defined by the formula N=kTB where N is the noise power in watts, k is Boltzmann's constant, T is the absolute temperature in  X -degrees Kelvin (e.g., 295o K) and B is the emission bandwidth of the device in hertz.  15.405 Cross reference. (a) The provisions of subparts A, B, and C of this part apply to unlicensed NII/SUPERNet devices, except where specific provisions are contained in subpart E. (b) The requirements of subpart E apply only to the radio transmitter contained in the NII/SUPERNet device. Other aspects of the operation of a NII/SUPERNet device may be subject to requirements contained elsewhere in this chapter. In particular, a NII/SUPERNet device that includes digital circuitry not directly associated with the radio transmitter also is subject to the requirements for unintentional radiators in subpart B.  15.407 General technical requirements. (a) Under all conditions of modulation, the maximum peak EIRP from an intentional radiator operating under this section shall not exceed 10 dBW. Additionally, power spectral density shall not exceed 0.03 milliwatts in any 3 kHz bandwidth, as measured with a spectrum analyzer having a resolution bandwidth of 3 kHz. (b) Emissions radiated outside of the frequency band of operation shall be attenuated by at least 50dB below the level of the fundamental emission or to the general radiated emission limits in Section 15.209 of this part, whichever is the lesser attenuation. Equipment manufacturers should note that the provisions of Section 15.205 apply to intentional radiators operating under this section. (c) The device shall automatically discontinue transmission in case of either absence of information to transmit or operational failure. These provisions are not intended to preclude transmission of control or signalling information or use of repetitive codes used by certain digital technologies to complete frame or burst intervals. (d) The device must comply with IEEE C96.11991 (ANSI/IEEE C95.11992), "Safety Levels with Respect to Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields, 3 kHz to 300 GHz." Measurement methods are specified in ... (from Section 15.319(i))."+'G,-(-(ZZ%H"Ԍ (e) The frequency stability of the carrier frequency of an intentional radiator operating  X-under this section shall be + 10 ppm over 10 milliseconds or the interval between access monitoring, whichever is shorter. The frequency stability shall be maintained over a temperature variation of 20 degrees to +50 degrees Celsius at normal supply voltage, and over a variation in the primary supply voltage of 85 percent to 115 percent of the rated supply voltage at a temperature of 20 degrees Celsius. For equipment that is capable of operating only from a battery, the frequency stability tests shall be performed using a new battery without any further requirement to vary supply voltage.  15.409 Harmful interference. (a) NII/SUPERNet devices will not be deemed to cause interference to licensed services provided the devices operate in accordance with the output power, outofband emissions limits and spectrum etiquette requirements of this subpart and provided the devices are located indoors or employ an outdoor antenna that is mounted no more than 15 meters above the ground. (b) NII/SUPERNet devices with outdoor antennas higher than 15 meters would be required to cease operation or make some accommodation to eliminate any harmful interference caused to a licensed operation. (c) NII/SUPERNet devices must accept any interference caused by licensed services.  15.411 Spectrum etiquette. (a) The intentional radiator must incorporate a mechanism for monitoring the spectrum that its transmission is intended to occupy. The following criteria must be met: (1) Immediately prior to initiating a transmission, devices must monitor the spectrum window they intend to use for at least 50 microseconds. (2) The monitoring threshold must not be more than 32dB above the thermal noise power for a bandwidth equivalent to the emission bandwidth of the device. (3) If no signal above the threshold level is detected, a transmission burst may commence in the monitored spectrum window. Once a transmission burst has started, an individual device or a group of cooperating devices is not required to monitor the spectrum window provided the intraburst gap timing requirement specified below is not exceeded. (4) After completion of a transmission, an individual device or cooperating group of devices must cease transmission and wait a deference time randomly chosen from a uniform random distribution ranging from 50 to 750 microseconds, after which time an attempt to access the band again may be initiated. For each occasion that an access attempt fails after the initial interburst interval, the range of the deference time chosen shall double until an upper limit of 12 milliseconds is reached. The deference time remains at the upper limit of 12 milliseconds until an access attempt is successful. The deference time is reinitialized after each successful access attempt. (5) The monitoring system bandwidth must be equal to or greater than the emission bandwidth of the intended transmission and shall have a maximum reaction time less than 50xSQRT(12.5/emission bandwidth in MHz) microseconds for signals at the applicable"#'G,-(-(ZZ%H" threshold level but shall not be required to be less than 50microseconds. If a signal is detected that is 6dB or more above the threshold level, the maximum reaction time shall be 35xSQRT(12.5/emission bandwidth in MHz) microseconds but shall not be required to be less than 35microseconds. (6) The monitoring system shall use the same antenna used for transmission, or an antenna that yields equivalent reception at that location. (7) Devices that have a power output lower than the maximum permitted under the rules may increase their detection threshold by onedecibel for each onedecibel that the transmitter power is below the maximum permitted. (b) The transmission burst duration from one device or group of devices acting cooperatively shall be no greater than 10 milliseconds. Any intraburst gap between cooperating devices shall not exceed 25 microseconds. (c) All systems of less than 25MHz emission bandwidth shall start searching for an available spectrum window within 30 MHz of the band edge at 5150, 5350, 5725, or 5875 MHz while systems of more than 25MHz emission bandwidth will first occupy the center half of the band. Devices with an emission bandwidth of less than 10MHz may not occupy the center half of the band if other spectrum is available. "yG,-(-(ZZH"  X-    #Xj\  P6G;3XP#APPENDIX B: INITIAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS ĐTP Pursuant to Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, the Commission finds as follows:  X-A. Reason For Action: We find that there is a need for additional unlicensed spectrum for intentional radiators. This rule making proceeding is initiated to obtain comment regarding proposals to make spectrum in the 5 GHz band available for such purposes and to amend the Part 15 rules to add the technical requirements necessary to permit sharing between new unlicensed devices and incumbent operations.  X -B. Objective: The objective of this proposal is to provide adequate unlicensed spectrum for wideband applications, and to provide for the technical rules necessary for spectrum sharing and efficiency.  X -C.  Legal Basis: The proposed action is authorized by Sections 4(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. Sections 154(i), 303(c), 303(f), 303(g) and 303(r). These provisions authorize the Commission to make such rules and regulations as may be necessary to encourage more effective use of radio as is in the  XK-public interest. @  X-D. Description, Potential Impact, and Number of Small Entities Affected: This proposal may provide new opportunities for radio manufacturers and suppliers of radio equipment, some of which may be small businesses, to develop and sell new equipment. We are unable to quantify other potential effects on small entities. We invite specific comments on this point by interested parties.  X- x  X-E. Reporting, Record Keeping, and Other Compliance Requirements: None.  Xe-F. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With This Rule: None.  X7-G. Significant Alternatives: If promulgated, this proposal will provide additional unlicensed spectrum. We are unaware of other alternatives which could provide sufficient spectrum in  X -the immediate future. We solicit comment on this point.` 4" G,))ZZH"  X-  APPENDIX C: CONCLUSIONS OF ANALYSIS OF  X-SHARING BETWEEN NGSO MSS UPLINK AND HIPERLANS ă International Telecommunications Union Radiocommunication Study Groups, Document 4A/66E, page 158, 10 February 1995. Part 2 Analysis of Sharing Between NGSO MSS Uplink and HIPERLANs  XH-1. Introduction 4X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8: