[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 146 (Monday, July 29, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39424-39429]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-19347]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 39425]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 21
[CC Docket No 92-297, FCC 96-311]
Establishing Rules and Policies for Local Multipoint Distribution
Service and Fixed Satellite Services
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM), the
Commission proposes to designate, on a primary protected basis, the
31.0-31.3 GHz (31 GHz) band to LMDS for both hub-to-subscriber and
subscriber-to-hub transmissions. In addition, the Commission seeks
comment on eligibility of LECs and cable operators to obtain LMDS
licenses in the geographic areas they serve. These actions are taken to
provide maximum flexibility to a full range of LMDS service providers,
and to provide consumers with more choices in service providers, new
services, and innovative technologies.
DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before August 12, 1996, and
reply comments must be submitted on or before August 22, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding 31 GHz frequency band
issues: Bob James, Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-0680; regarding eligibility
issues: Walter Strack, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, (202) 418-
0600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CC Docket 92-297, adopted July
19, 1996, and released July 22, 1996. The complete text of the Fourth
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239),
1919 M Street, N.W., Washington D.C., and also may be purchased from
the Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services,
at (202) 857-3800, 1919 M Street, N.W., Room 246, Washington, D.C.
20554.
SYNOPSIS OF FOURTH NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
1. In the first Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), 58 FR 6400
(January 28, 1993), the Commission considered three petitions for
rulemaking proposing a redesignation of the 28 GHz band. That band
currently is designated for fixed point-to-point and fixed satellite
service use. It found that redesignation of the point-to-point use of
the band to point-to-multipoint use could stimulate greater use of a
band that largely has lain fallow. However, the Commission asked for
comment from satellite entities regarding the effect of redesignation
on any proposed fixed satellite use of the band. Non-geostationary
orbit (NGSO) and Geostationary orbit (GSO) FSS systems were proposed.
In addition, entities planning mobile satellite services requested
spectrum for their uplink feeder links.
2. In the Third Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (Third NPRM), 60 FR
43740 (August 23, 1995), the Commission proposed a band segmentation
plan that it tentatively concluded would permit both LMDS and Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) systems to operate in the 28 GHz frequency
band. It also proposed to accommodate feeder links for certain Mobile
Satellite Service (MSS) systems in this band. The Report and Order
which is issued in combination with the instant FNPRM makes a final
decision on segmentation of the 28 GHz band among fixed satellite,
mobile satellite uplinks, and LMDS. That decision will be published in
this publication in due course.
3. The FNRPM requests comment on two matters. First, it proposes to
designate, on a primary protected basis, the 31.0-31.3 GHz (31 GHz)
band to LMDS for both hub-to-subscriber and subscriber-to-hub
transmissions. This action stems from efforts to accommodate a variety
of LMDS system designs, services and transmission media in the adjacent
28 GHz band, and is being taken on the Commission's own motion. This
proposed designation of spectrum for LMDS would provide consumers
access to more choices in service providers, new services, and
innovative technologies, while accommodating those LMDS system designs
requiring a wide separation between the transmit and receive
frequencies when operated in a two-way mode.
4. In order to ensure that there is adequate two-way interactive
capacity for the various proposed LMDS systems, the Commission
recognizes the need to designate additional spectrum for LMDS. The
Commission observed that there is significant consumer demand for
alternate providers of local exchange services, internet access, LANs
and video teleconferencing, and that the LMDS proponents note that this
demand can be more immediately satisfied, in an economically and
technically efficient manner, by LMDS than by many of the alternate
transmission media, thus making these services more accessible rapidly
to a wider segment of the population. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that the proposed designation of 300 MHz of spectrum would
ensure consumers access to new and competitive services and
technologies. Further, through written ex parte comments, several LMDS
proponents highlighted some technical difficulties with using the 31
GHz band, e.g., need for two antennas to deliver the desired service,
effects on performance level, and increased system costs. The
Commission requests that parties address its proposal to make the LMDS
service a primary protected use in the 31.0-31.3 GHz band, the
technical issues LMDS operators might encounter in using this band, and
possible measures that may be used in overcoming such technical issues.
The Commission also requests comment on how to assign this additional
spectrum to LMDS entities. Should it be treated as a separate block and
assigned independently of other LMDS spectrum? Or should it be combined
with spectrum assigned in the associated Report and Order for LMDS
operations and assigned as a single block? The Commission proposes to
assign the 31 GHz spectrum and the 1000 MHz designated in the attached
Report and Order as a single block.
5. An additional issue concerns existing licensees operating in the
31 GHz band, some of which are engaged in traffic signal
communications, i.e., traffic light monitoring and control. Such
existing usage appears to be relatively light and geographically
concentrated. Overlaying LMDS operations in those areas where there are
such uses raises the potential for interference problems which could
degrade the utility of such systems and perhaps adversely affect LMDS
operations. However, the Commission's current rules explicitly provide
that authorized operations at 31 GHz are not afforded any rights or
obligations with respect to interference with other licensed
operations. Thus, any operations that an entity believes are critical
in nature and should otherwise warrant interference protection should
be operated in a frequency band where such necessary protection is
provided for in our rules. One band where these types of operations are
permitted is the 23 GHz band. However, because systems in the 23 GHz
band receive interference protection, new systems are subject to the
prior coordination requirements of Section 101.103(d). The Commission
asks for comment on what effect these
[[Page 39426]]
requirements will have on 31 GHz systems moving to the 23 GHz band. In
addition, the Commission notes that mobile operations are permitted in
the 31 GHz band but are not permitted in the 23 GHz band. There appear
to be no existing mobile operations in the 31 GHz band; nevertheless,
the Commission asks for comment on what effect, if any, this will have
in moving current fixed operations to the 23 GHz band. Given that
incumbents are only authorized to operate on a non-interference basis,
should they be entitled to any recovery for reasonable relocation
costs? If so, should any of the 28 GHz band applicants be required to
contribute to the recovery of such reasonable costs?
6. The Commission's proposal to make LMDS a protected service in
this band presupposes that incumbent licensees continue to operate on a
unprotected basis, in this instance, ``secondary'' to LMDS. In the
event one of the unprotected operations interferes with, or receives
interference from, an LMDS system, the unprotected licensees must take
steps to remedy the problem, or accept the resulting interference if it
is operating the affected receiver or transmitter. Although the
incumbent licensees have assumed all the risks of receiving
interference, given the nature of some of these operations, the
Commission seeks comment on whether there are any methods by which
incumbent 31 GHz operations could be accommodated without delaying,
causing interference to, or limiting the usefulness of LMDS services in
this band. In light of the proposed ``secondary'' nature of the non-
LMDS fixed services in this band, the Commission also seeks comment on
whether it should accept any new applications, modifications, or
renewal applications in the 31 GHz band.
7. Consistent with its intent to allow the rapid deployment of
LMDS, the Commission encourages cooperation among the LMDS providers
and existing licensees in exploring any methods which would allow the
services to coexist, but that would not impose any economic or
technical burdens on the LMDS providers. For example, would the LMDS
licensees have sufficient capacity to accommodate the existing
licensees as customers of their services? Or are there existing
mechanisms that will permit all of these services to share the entire
band without imposing any economic burdens on LMDS? Or are there other
options the Commission should consider? In commenting on this request,
the Commission asks that any recommendation advocating sharing include
the supporting technical analysis.
8. Second, the FNPRM seeks comment on eligibility of LECs and cable
operators to obtain LMDS licenses in the geographic areas they serve.
Throughout this proceeding commenters have had opportunities to address
whether open eligibility for LMDS licenses would be likely to impede or
hasten competition. The current record of this proceeding, however, was
developed prior to enactment of the Telecommunications Act of 1996
(1996 Act). One of the key objectives of the 1996 Act is to expedite
the introduction of competition to incumbent LECs and cable companies.
In carrying out this statutory mandate, the Commission considers it
important to obtain specific comment on how our policies towards LMDS
eligibility would best promote the competitive objectives of the 1996
Act.
9. The proposed rules contemplate only a single LMDS licensee in
each service area. Accordingly, in the same market, there will be no
competition among multiple LMDS licensees, although some competition
may develop among providers of similar services via alternative
transmission technologies. It therefore is appropriate to consider
measures to ensure that the unprecedented amount of spectrum assigned
to each LMDS license will be used to enhance the competitive provision
of services in these highly concentrated markets. The Commission seeks
comment on whether it should temporarily restrict eligibility for
incumbent LECs and cable companies that seek to obtain LMDS licenses in
their geographic service areas.
10. In the NPRM that initiated this proceeding, the Commission
proposed to license two equal competitors in every LMDS service area
and not to restrict the ability of specific types of telecommunications
providers to obtain LMDS licenses. In the Third NPRM, the Commission
proposed only a single LMDS license for each service area and sought
additional comment on the eligibility issue regarding Commercial Mobile
Radio Service (CMRS) providers, MMDS licensees, LEC and cable
participation in LMDS.
11. In determining whether it would be in the public interest to
restrict LEC or cable eligibility to obtain a LMDS license within their
respective service areas, the Commission considers whether LMDS will
provide a unique and important new source of competition to incumbent
cable and telephone companies. The record of this proceeding strongly
supports the conclusion that LMDS is a potentially important source of
competition to both LECs and cable operators. 28 GHz LMDS licenses will
permit use of up to 1.3 GHz of spectrum by a single provider, and
equipment is relatively close to marketability. While it is not
possible to identify all potential uses of LMDS, licensees could use
this unparalleled amount of spectrum to construct sophisticated
networks that will incorporate aspects of many current
telecommunications offerings. It also appears that LMDS is uniquely
positioned to provide competitive telecommunications services and video
program delivery because of its large potential for two-way broadband
capabilities. In considering eligibility for LECs and cable operators
within their geographic service areas one must weigh the potential for
competition presented by open entry against the possibility that this
spectrum may be used to forestall rather than promote competition. Open
eligibility may delay or eliminate an opportunity to increase the
number of competitors in the local exchange telephony and multichannel
video programming markets. On the other hand, a bar on eligibility
could prevent LECs and cable operators from using LMDS to compete
against each other more effectively and rapidly or to provide new
services not now offered by any firm. It also is possible that by
restricting eligibility we prevent some potential providers from
realizing efficiencies of scale and scope that could be realized if,
for example, a LEC could use LMDS to expand the area it serves and to
expand the range of services it offers. As a deregulatory principle,
this Commission does not seek to interfere in or distort decisions
based on sound business judgment by imposing unnecessary regulation.
The Commission seeks comment on these issues.
12. The Commission asks parties to comment with specificity on
projected uses of LMDS spectrum, including the degree to which LMDS is
uniquely suited to entry into the local exchange and multichannel video
programming markets. Do LMDS licenses represent a unique and necessary
resource for de-concentrating the market power of incumbent LECs and
cable operators? If an LMDS license is such a resource, can it have a
deconcentrating effect if it is held by an incumbent LEC or cable
operator, given the range of services that can be provided using LMDS?
For example, would a LEC's use of an LMDS license to provide video
services reduce the market power of the incumbent cable operator? Are
there other realistic means of entry into these markets? In addressing
this point, the Commission
[[Page 39427]]
asks parties to discuss other realistic means of entry in terms of (1)
the availability of similar spectrum-based services; (2) technological
factors; (3) economic cost; and (4) timing.
13. The Commission also asks for comment on whether there are any
inherent cost advantages possessed by incumbent LECs or cable operators
in holding LMDS licenses to provide service within their geographic
service areas. Are there any economies of scope, or other efficiencies,
such as efficiencies in billing and marketing of the services? Are any
of these efficiencies unique to LMDS or could a LEC or cable operator
realize them using above 40 GHz band, MMDS, OVS or other wireless or
wireline facilities? Are there cost advantages in use of LMDS spectrum
outside the markets served by incumbents? Can these cost advantages be
quantified?
14. Are there any other advantages that incumbent LECs and cable
operators have in providing LMDS service? For example, does their size,
experience in that telecommunications market or financial status make
incumbent LECs, or more specifically the RBOCs, uniquely positioned to
be strong LMDS providers? If so, will limiting incumbent LEC and cable
operators from bidding on LMDS licenses only in their current service
areas discourage investment in LMDS or the development of LMDS
technology? Excluding incumbent LECs and cable operators, are there a
sufficient number of other providers with the necessary resources and
expertise to construct and operate LMDS systems? Will incumbent
eligibility restrictions have any negative effects on competition in
the multichannel video programming and local exchange markets--for
example by making it more difficult for incumbent LECs to compete with
cable operators for the provision of video services?
15. The Commission also asks for comment on whether an incumbent
LEC or cable operator offering LMDS services within its respective
geographic service area would be likely to offer it at a higher price
than new entrants. Would this depend on whether the LMDS service
offered by the incumbents is substitutable for the services they
currently offer? Commenters are also asked to address whether it would
be more cost-effective for incumbents to acquire LMDS spectrum to
supplement their own existing services rather than to face immediate
competition by allowing LMDS spectrum to be acquired by a potential
competitor.
16. Finally, the Commission seeks comment on how the auction
process can be expected to influence the concerns prompting our
consideration of incumbent eligibility. Will an auction ensure the
highest and best use of the spectrum--even if an incumbent wins the
license? Or, is there an economic incentive for an incumbent to bid
successfully at auction and to warehouse the spectrum? Or divert it to
less competitive uses? Does this economic incentive exist when the
spectrum can be used for services other than those provided by the
incumbent? In any case, would payment of a winning auction bid and the
cost of compliance with the build-out rules proposed in the Second
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 59 FR 7964 (February 17, 1994),
prove a sufficient check against such warehousing?
17. If the Commission determines that the benefits of open entry
are outweighed by our desire to encourage alternative sources of
competition, should it adopt any restrictions, and if so, how should
they be structured? One option is to prohibit incumbent LECs and cable
companies from bidding on or acquiring licenses, each within its
geographic service area. Alternatively, the Commission could limit
incumbent LECs and cable companies' use of the LMDS spectrum. For
example, LEC participation in LMDS could be limited to the provision of
no more than a certain percentage of non-video programming, and cable
participation in LMDS could be limited to the provision of no more than
a certain percentage of video services. The advantage to this approach
is that it is narrower than a complete eligibility restriction, and it
would allow incumbent providers to use the spectrum to provide
competing services, as well as supplemental incumbent services. The
disadvantage to this approach is that it may impair the deployment of
LMDS as a market-driven flexible broadband service and is inconsistent
with the Commission's flexible spectrum policy. The Commission seeks
comment on these and any other alternatives.
18. In order to adopt any restrictions on incumbent cable and LEC
participation, the Commission needs to define ``incumbent'' since LATA
lines and cable franchise areas are not coincident with BTA boundaries.
One possibility would be to use the cellular/PCS cross-ownership rule,
which implicates similar competitive concerns. Consistent with this
rule, an incumbent LEC or cable operator would be considered ``in-
region'' if 20 percent or more of the population of a BTA is within a
LEC's telephone service area or a cable company's franchised service
area. The Commission asks for comment on this option and on any
alternative. It also seeks comment on whether the same definition
should be applied to both types of incumbents.
19. The Commission also seeks comment on what should constitute an
attributable interest in an incumbent LEC or cable operator. In the
past, the Commission has used several different formulations of
attribution in different contexts. For these purposes, the Commission
proposes to consider a 10 percent or more interest, when factored
through a multiplier, to be attributable. It also proposes to consider
a 10 percent or more interest in an affiliate of an incumbent, when
factored through a multiplier, to be considered attributable. This
attribution level tracks Section 652 of the 1996 Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 572, and it has the same goals as does the Commission in this
proceeding.
20. In addition, if the eligibility of incumbent LECs and cable
operators is limited, the Commission seeks comment on how these
restrictions should be addressed in the context of the proposal in the
Third NPRM to allow partitioning and disaggregation. It requests
comment on whether competitive harm would result from a LMDS licensee
disaggregating its license and assigning any excess spectrum to an
incumbent LEC or cable operator within their geographic service areas.
Similarly, comment is requested on whether any competitive harm would
result from a LMDS licensee partitioning some of its service area to an
incumbent LEC or MSO within their geographic service area.
21. Finally, if the Commission were to propose any restrictions, to
believes that such restrictions should continue only until there is
increased competition in the video and telephony markets. In the cable
context, Section 623(l) of the Communications Act sets forth a four
pronged test for determining when a cable operator faces effective
competition. The Commission seeks comment on whether this effective
competition test is a reliable indicator of appropriate levels of
multichannel video programming competition for these purposes. The
Commission focuses especially on Section 623 L(1), which can be
relatively easy to satisfy in rural areas. For LECs, there is no
standard test for effective competition in the local exchange market.
The ``Competitive Checklist,'' set forth in Section 271(c)(2)(B) of the
1996 Act, is one part of the mechanism used to determine when the
Regional Bell Operating Companies (RBOCs) may enter the in-region long
distance market. Comment is requested on whether the Competitive
Checklist or all the prerequisites for BOC in-region entry
[[Page 39428]]
serves as a reliable indicator of appropriate levels of local exchange
competition for determining when LECs should be allowed to hold LMDS
licenses. In addition, since the ``Competitive Checklist'' does not
apply to LECs which are not RBOCs, comment is requested on how it could
be used with other LECs. The Commission also seeks comment on
alternative sunset provision. For example, it could limit eligibility
for such entities to a fixed period of time (such as, 3 or 5 years)
with automatic sunset and optional renewal of these restrictions.
Commenters are requested to provide information on the following
questions: what alternative criteria should the Commission use to
sunset these restrictions? Should the Commission consider the number of
facilities-based competitors? Are there local competitors throughout
the service area? If the Commission does not use the ``Competitive
Checklist'', does the list suggest factors that the Commission should
incorporate into any sunset criteria we may adopt?
22. Because it plans to begin the LMDS licensing process this year,
the Commission realizes that the imposition of any eligibility
restrictions now, even if they sunset at some future point, may
effectively preclude incumbent LECs and cable operators from
participation in that initial licensing process. However, incumbents
could offer LMDS services at a future date by acquiring all or part of
the LMDS spectrum in a BTA in a post-auction transaction, if we adopt
our competitive bidding rules proposed in the Third NPRM. The
Commission requests comment on these issues.
Comment Dates
23. Pursuant to applicable procedures set forth in Sections 1.415
and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR Secs. 1.415 and 1.419,
interested parties may file comments on or before August 12, 1996, and
reply comments on or before August 22, 1996. To file formally in this
proceeding, you must file an original and four copies of all comments,
reply comments and supporting comments. If you want each Commissioner
to receive a personal copy of your comments, you must file an original
plus eight copies. You should send comments and reply comments to
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington,
D.C. 20554. Comments and reply comments will be available for public
inspection during regular business hours in the FCC Reference Center of
the Federal Communications Commission, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
24. As required by Section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
the Commission has prepared an Initial Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of
the expected significant economic impact on small entities by the
policies and rules proposed in this Fourth Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking. Written public comments are requested on the IRFA. Comments
must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the
deadlines for comments on the FNPRM provided in section (VI)(C).
I. Reason for Action
25. This Fourth Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM) requests
comment on two issues: (1) whether the Commission should designate, on
a primary protected basis, the 31.0-31.3 GHz (31 GHz) band to Local
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS); and (2) whether the Commission
should restrict eligibility of local exchange carriers (LEC) and cable
operators to hold LMDS licenses in the geographic areas they serve.
26. With regard to the first issue, the Commission determines that
a further NPRM is necessary to accommodate a variety of LMDS system
designs, services, and transmission media in the adjacent 28 GHz band.
The additional spectrum would facilitate interactive systems, thus
providing new and innovative communications services for residential
and business users, including small businesses. Moreover, the
additional spectrum potentially could benefit small businesses unable
to participate in competitive bidding for licenses because additional
spectrum not needed by a LMDS licensee could potentially be leased to
smaller businesses. The 31 GHz band currently is licensed only on a
secondary basis, and has few incumbents. Nevertheless, the Commission
requests comment on whether there are any methods of accommodating
these services.
27. With regard to the second issue, the current record of this
proceeding was developed prior to the enactment of the
Telecommunications Act of 1996. One of the key objectives of the Act is
to expedite the introduction of competition to incumbent LECs and cable
companies. In carrying out this mandate, the Commission believes it
important to obtain specific comment on how its policies towards LMDS
eligibility would best promote the competitive objectives of the Act.
In addition, the comments received after the close of the record in
this proceeding, including comments from small entities such as WebCel,
convince us that further comment is warranted.
II. Objectives
28. The objective of this NPRM is to request public comment on the
proposals made herein for the efficient licensing of LMDS services, for
the development and implementation of a new technology to provide
innovative telecommunications services to the public.
III. Legal Basis for Proposed Rules
29. The authority for this action is the Administrative Procedure
Act, 5 U.S.C. 553; and sections 4(i), 4(j), 301, 303(r) of the
Communications Act of 1934 as amended, 47 U.S.C. 145, 301, and 303(r).
IV. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Subject to the Rules
30. The regulations on which the Commission seeks comment, if
adopted, would apply to any small entity seeking a LMDS license. In
addition, the regulations would impact small entities who are incumbent
licensees in the 31.0-31.3 GHz frequency band.
31. The SBA definitions of small entity for LMDS are the
definitions applicable to radiotelephone companies and to pay
television services. The definition of radiotelephone companies
provides that a small entity is a radiotelephone company employing
fewer than 1,500 persons. The definition of a small pay television
service is one which has annual receipts of less than $11 million. In
the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for the Report and Order,
supra, we were unable to make a meaningful estimate based on the 1992
Census Bureau data.
32. Likewise, we believe that the entities who are incumbent
licensees in the 31.0-31.3 GHz frequency band may also be comprised of
a majority of small entities. Such licensees are public safety
entities, the majority of whom are municipalities or other local
governmental entities. The SBA data base does not include governmental
entities. We are required to estimate the number of such entities with
populations of less than 50,000 that would be affected by our new
rules. There are 85,006 governmental entities in the nation. This
number includes such entities as states, counties, cities, utility
districts and school districts. There are no figures available on what
portion of this number has populations of fewer than 50,000. However,
this number includes 38,978 counties, cities and towns, and of those,
37,566, or 96 percent, have populations of fewer than 50,000. The
Census Bureau estimates
[[Page 39429]]
that this ratio is approximately accurate for all governmental
entities. There are twenty-seven (27) incumbent licensees in the 31.0-
31.3 GHz band. Accordingly, we estimate that 96 percent, or 25 to 26 of
these licensees, are small entities.
33. We request comment on the description and the number of small
entities that are significantly impacted by this proposed rule.
V. Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements
34. The proposals under consideration in this FNPRM would not
involve any reporting or recordkeeping requirements.
35. Incumbent licensees in the 31.0-31.3 GHz band would have new
compliance requirements vis-a-vis LMDS licensees. Our rules provide
that licensees therein operate on a non-interference basis, meaning
that they have no rights to protection from interference, nor any
obligations to not interfere with other similar incumbent operations.
The Fourth NPRM proposes that LMDS be designated as a primary protected
use of the band, ensuring that LMDS licensees would have interference
protection from other authorized users of the band.
VI. Significant Alternatives Considered and Rejected
36. The Commission considered and rejected the alternative of
placing all LMDS spectrum in the 28 GHz band, rather than placing a
portion of the available spectrum in the 31 GHz band. The Commission
concluded that LMDS requires additional spectrum to successfully deploy
the variety of services proposed. It also concluded that these proposed
services could be successfully implemented with non-contiguous bands of
spectrum, whereas the satellite services could not. To the extent LMDS
entities are small businesses, as discussed in the Final Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, infra, such entities are affected by this
decision. However, some small entities commenting on the final band
plan concurred with this approach (e.g., CellularVision, RioVision).
37. In addition, the Commission considered and rejected the
alternative of proceeding with open eligibility in licensing, for the
reasons stated herein. This action is responsive to the many small
entities commenting in this proceeding who requested that restrictions
be placed upon, or considered for, local exchange carriers and major
cable companies, e.g., WebCel.
VII. Federal Rules That Overlap, Duplicate, or Conflict With These
Proposed Rules
38. None.
Ordering Clause
39. Authority for issuance of this Fourth Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is contained in Sections 4(i), 303(r) and 309(j) of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 303(r) and
309(j).
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 21
Communications Common Carriers, Federal Communications Commission,
Radio.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-19347 Filed 7-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
