FCC Web Documents citing 74.903

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2009 01 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.txt
  • holder does not have an existing station license, a BTA holder may file utilizing the Application Reference Number from the BTA holder's Statement of Intention to make use of vacant MDS channels within the BTA. ITFS applicants who file for modifications of their main station for other than two-way service should file on the FCC Form 330. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules, only receive sites registered as of September 17, 1998 will receive interference consideration. Therefore, no new receive sites can be registered. Any receive site included in an application that was not registered as of September 17, 1998 will be deleted from the application and the application may be returned. Filing Procedures for Applications Filed July 3-August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.txt
  • intent to impose a ceiling on the maximum number of permissible response stations within a 6 MHz channel that would limit the flexibility of licensees to create subchannels. In footnote 44 of the Two-Way Order, we explained how the power for a 6 MHz channel was to be subdivided when the channel was subdivided, and in Rule Sections 21.902 and 74.903 governing interference protection standards for two-way systems, we required that, for channels other than 6 MHz in width, a power spectral density adjustment be applied to the interference criteria in order to account for the actual bandwidth in use. Nevertheless, in light of the concern for clarity expressed by WCA, we are amending 21.909(g)(6) and 74.939(g)(6) to clearly state that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.txt
  • it need not be specifically allocated to the ITFS service), and must provide a signal that is equivalent to the prior signal in picture quality and reliability, unless the ITFS licensee will accept an inferior signal. Potential expansion of the ITFS licensee may be considered in determining whether alternative available spectrum is suitable. * * * * * 11. Section 74.903 is revised to read as follows: � 74.903 Interference. (a) * * * * * * * * (b) * * * (4) In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, an applicant may submit (a) statement(s) from the affected cochannel or adjacent channel licensee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable. * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.txt
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at: NOAA, NGS, N/NGS12, 1315 East West Highway, Station 9202, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, phone number (800) 638-8972. When dissimilar bandwidths are used by the desired and undesired stations, methods for adjusting the required D/U ratios are provided respectively in: 21.902(b)(7)(ii) for MDS analysis of co-channel stations, 21.902(b)(7)(iii) for MDS analysis of adjacent channel stations, 74.903(a)(6)(ii) for ITFS analysis of co-channel stations and 74.903(a)(6)(iii) for ITFS analysis of adjacent channel stations. Those rules are cross-referenced in 21.909(d)(3)(iv) and (v) and 74.939(d)(3)(iv) and (v), which discuss compliance by applicants for response station hubs with the 45 dB and 0 dB D/U requirements. ``Transmission Loss Prediction for Tropospheric Communication Circuits,'' Technical Note 101, NTIS Access Number AD 687-820,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • other wireless services. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM, we will require geographic area licensees to protect the operations of both EBS incumbents and BRS site-based incumbents within the incumbent's GSA as defined by this order. For incumbent BRS and EBS site-based licensees, the GSA will be based upon the licensee's current PSA as provided in Sections 21.902(d) or 74.903(d) of the Commission's rules. For BRS BTA authorization holders, the boundaries of the GSA will be exactly the same as the current PSA pursuant to Section 21.933(a). Except with respect to situations where MDS and ITFS PSAs overlap (discussed below), we did not receive many significant expressions of concern over interference resulting from this approach. Indeed, we note that many
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.wp
  • protected service areas of other authorization holders in adjoining BTAs or PSAs. (2) the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed MDS stations (incumbents). (3) registered receive sites and protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed stations in the Instructional Television Fixed Service pursuant to the manner in which interference is defined in � 74.903(a). (c) Unless the affected parties have executed a written interference agreement in accordance with � 21.937, it shall be the responsibility of a BTA or PSA authorization holder to correct at its expense any condition of harmful electromagnetic interference caused to authorized MDS service at locations within other BTAs or PSAs or within the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.wp
  • to provide educational and cultural development to students enrolled in accredited schools and the authorization is issued to the best qualified applicant, while the other is commercial in nature and is subject to competitive bidding. Furthermore, unlike MDS stations, the protection afforded to ITFS operators is based upon receive sites and protected service area is defined in 47 C.F.R. � 74.903. Pursuant to this rule, the protected service area associated with the leasing of excess channel capacity will also expand to a circle, 35 miles in radius, centered about the transmitter site of the ITFS station. We note, however, that in a recent proceeding we adopted a 35-mile protection distance for ITFS receivers, Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24,
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • stations, the incumbent MDS station whose channels are being utilized shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to ��21.902(b)(3) and (4) and 21.938(b)(2) within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely for response station communications. In such situations, in lieu of the requirements set forth in ��21.902, 21.938(b)(2) and 74.903, an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station or booster station) shall be required to demonstrate that the predicted desired to undesired signal ratio at each response station hub to which the proposed new or modified MDS or ITFS station has an unobstructed signal path will be at least 45 dB cochannel or
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/wtb/index.htm?job=releases_page&y=2003&m=11&t=Order
  • and Anderson applic... DA-03-3621A1: [104]pdf - [105]word - [106]txt 11/14/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3639) The Flight Department Inc Dismissed the application for a new aeronautical advisory station (unicom) at the Garfield County A... DA-03-3639A1: [107]pdf - [108]word - [109]txt 11/14/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3622) OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Denied Oregon State's petition for reconsideration, and request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of th... DA-03-3622A1: [110]pdf - [111]word - [112]txt 11/13/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3617) CARIBBEAN MMDS PARTNERSHIP AND GRAND WIRELESS COMPANY, INC., San German, PR Granted Grand Wireless Company, Inc.'s (GWC) Forfeiture Motions. Denied Caribbean's Waiver Request. ... DA-03-3617A1: [113]pdf - [114]word - [115]txt 11/13/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3609) RON ABBOUD Concluded that Abboud's license for Station WLW992 is forfeited. Dismissed
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_appendices.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_appendices.pdf
  • an FCC reference antenna at a height of 10 meters. For pre-1997 MDS one-way systems and for all ITFS one-way systems, additional requirements for protection inside the service area are imposed in the form of permissible D/U ratios of 45 dB for cochannel interference and 0 dB for adjacent channel interference. See Rule Sections 21.902 (MDS), 21.909 (MDS), 21.913 (MDS), 74.903 (ITFS), 74.939 (ITFS) and 74.985 (ITFS). TABLE 3-C MDS/ITFS Point-to-Multipoint 2-Way System Base Station Characteristics (Main/High Power Booster Transmitter; Hub Station Receiver) Parameter Specification Notes Main/Booster Station Transmitter Spectrum Available 2150-2162 & 2500-2690 MHz Signal Bandwidth 6 MHz nominal 1 Power Output Not specified 2 Antenna Gain Not specified 3 Antenna Beam Tilt Permitted 4 EIRP ( 2000 Watts (33
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_interim_report.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_interim_report.pdf
  • licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. ITFS/MDS Interference Protection Standards The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using undesired/desired (D/U) signal ratios and field values that are always referenced to
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.pdf
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreportappendices.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreportappendices.pdf
  • an FCC reference antenna at a height of 10 meters. For pre-1997 MDS one-way systems and for all ITFS one-way systems, additional requirements for protection inside the service area are imposed in the form of permissible D/U ratios of 45 dB for co-channel interference and 0 dB for adjacent channel interference. See Rule Sections 21.902 (MDS), 21.909 (MDS), 21.913 (MDS), 74.903 (ITFS), 74.939 (ITFS) and 74.985 (ITFS). TABLE 3-C MDS/ITFS Point-to-Multipoint 2-Way System Base Station Characteristics (Main/High Power Booster Transmitter; Hub Station Receiver) Parameter Specification Notes Main/Booster Station Transmitter Spectrum Available 2150-2162 & 2500-2690 MHz Signal Bandwidth 6 MHz nominal 1 Power Output Not specified 2 Antenna Gain Not specified 3 Antenna Beam Tilt Permitted 4 EIRP ( 2000 Watts (33
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • stations, the incumbent MDS station whose channels are being utilized shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to ��21.902(b)(3) and (4) and 21.938(b)(2) within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely for response station communications. In such situations, in lieu of the requirements set forth in ��21.902, 21.938(b)(2) and 74.903, an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station or booster station) shall be required to demonstrate that the predicted desired to undesired signal ratio at each response station hub to which the proposed new or modified MDS or ITFS station has an unobstructed signal path will be at least 45 dB cochannel or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • them as a species of the H channels, also will prevent any confusion over whether current rules providing for certain H Channel licensee responsibilities likewise apply to 125 kHz channels licensed to an ITFS entity. 147 Traditional 125 kHz response stations licensed pursuant to new �� 21.940 and 74.940 must provide interference protection in accordance with �� 21.902, 21.938 and 74.903 and new �� 21.909, 21.913(f), 74.939(h) and 74.985(f), of the Commission's Rules, and receive interference protection in accordance with �� 21.902, 21.938 and 74.903. 148 See NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 22200. 149 Likewise, where I channels are used for response transmissions to hubs under a hub license, the hubs will be afforded interference protection in the same manner as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd031114.html
  • PROHIBITION OF PERFORMING OPERATING, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTION 53.203(A)(2)-(3) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Granted Qwest's request to withdraw, and dismissed the petition. (Dkt No. 96-149). Action by: Chief, Competition Policy Division. Adopted: 11/14/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-3657). WCB [147]DA-03-3657A1.doc [148]DA-03-3657A1.pdf [149]DA-03-3657A1.txt OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY. Denied Oregon State's petition for reconsideration, and request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 11/12/2003 by RECON. (DA No. 03-3622). WTB [150]DA-03-3622A1.doc [151]DA-03-3622A1.pdf [152]DA-03-3622A1.txt THE FLIGHT DEPARTMENT INC. Dismissed the application for a new aeronautical advisory station (unicom) at the Garfield County Airport in Rifle, Colorado. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/04-1024-122204.pdf
  • ORDERED that the Commission's decision is affirmed. The Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by rejecting the applications of the Savannah College of Art and Design and the Diocese of Savannah for instructional television fixed service stations. Their applications were defective because their proposed stations would have interfered with the transmissions of previously authorized stations. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), (d). It does not matter whether the permits for the conflicting stations had expired because the Commission had not declared those permits to be forfeited before the filing window closed. By the time of the denial of the application, it had long been "settled that a construction permit does not `lapse,' notwithstanding a failure to abide by its terms, until
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.txt
  • holder does not have an existing station license, a BTA holder may file utilizing the Application Reference Number from the BTA holder's Statement of Intention to make use of vacant MDS channels within the BTA. ITFS applicants who file for modifications of their main station for other than two-way service should file on the FCC Form 330. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules, only receive sites registered as of September 17, 1998 will receive interference consideration. Therefore, no new receive sites can be registered. Any receive site included in an application that was not registered as of September 17, 1998 will be deleted from the application and the application may be returned. Filing Procedures for Applications Filed July 3-August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.txt
  • intent to impose a ceiling on the maximum number of permissible response stations within a 6 MHz channel that would limit the flexibility of licensees to create subchannels. In footnote 44 of the Two-Way Order, we explained how the power for a 6 MHz channel was to be subdivided when the channel was subdivided, and in Rule Sections 21.902 and 74.903 governing interference protection standards for two-way systems, we required that, for channels other than 6 MHz in width, a power spectral density adjustment be applied to the interference criteria in order to account for the actual bandwidth in use. Nevertheless, in light of the concern for clarity expressed by WCA, we are amending 21.909(g)(6) and 74.939(g)(6) to clearly state that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.txt
  • it need not be specifically allocated to the ITFS service), and must provide a signal that is equivalent to the prior signal in picture quality and reliability, unless the ITFS licensee will accept an inferior signal. Potential expansion of the ITFS licensee may be considered in determining whether alternative available spectrum is suitable. * * * * * 11. Section 74.903 is revised to read as follows: � 74.903 Interference. (a) * * * * * * * * (b) * * * (4) In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, an applicant may submit (a) statement(s) from the affected cochannel or adjacent channel licensee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable. * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.txt
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at: NOAA, NGS, N/NGS12, 1315 East West Highway, Station 9202, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, phone number (800) 638-8972. When dissimilar bandwidths are used by the desired and undesired stations, methods for adjusting the required D/U ratios are provided respectively in: 21.902(b)(7)(ii) for MDS analysis of co-channel stations, 21.902(b)(7)(iii) for MDS analysis of adjacent channel stations, 74.903(a)(6)(ii) for ITFS analysis of co-channel stations and 74.903(a)(6)(iii) for ITFS analysis of adjacent channel stations. Those rules are cross-referenced in 21.909(d)(3)(iv) and (v) and 74.939(d)(3)(iv) and (v), which discuss compliance by applicants for response station hubs with the 45 dB and 0 dB D/U requirements. ``Transmission Loss Prediction for Tropospheric Communication Circuits,'' Technical Note 101, NTIS Access Number AD 687-820,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • other wireless services. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM, we will require geographic area licensees to protect the operations of both EBS incumbents and BRS site-based incumbents within the incumbent's GSA as defined by this order. For incumbent BRS and EBS site-based licensees, the GSA will be based upon the licensee's current PSA as provided in Sections 21.902(d) or 74.903(d) of the Commission's rules. For BRS BTA authorization holders, the boundaries of the GSA will be exactly the same as the current PSA pursuant to Section 21.933(a). Except with respect to situations where MDS and ITFS PSAs overlap (discussed below), we did not receive many significant expressions of concern over interference resulting from this approach. Indeed, we note that many
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.wp
  • protected service areas of other authorization holders in adjoining BTAs or PSAs. (2) the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed MDS stations (incumbents). (3) registered receive sites and protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed stations in the Instructional Television Fixed Service pursuant to the manner in which interference is defined in � 74.903(a). (c) Unless the affected parties have executed a written interference agreement in accordance with � 21.937, it shall be the responsibility of a BTA or PSA authorization holder to correct at its expense any condition of harmful electromagnetic interference caused to authorized MDS service at locations within other BTAs or PSAs or within the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.wp
  • to provide educational and cultural development to students enrolled in accredited schools and the authorization is issued to the best qualified applicant, while the other is commercial in nature and is subject to competitive bidding. Furthermore, unlike MDS stations, the protection afforded to ITFS operators is based upon receive sites and protected service area is defined in 47 C.F.R. � 74.903. Pursuant to this rule, the protected service area associated with the leasing of excess channel capacity will also expand to a circle, 35 miles in radius, centered about the transmitter site of the ITFS station. We note, however, that in a recent proceeding we adopted a 35-mile protection distance for ITFS receivers, Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24,
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • stations, the incumbent MDS station whose channels are being utilized shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to ��21.902(b)(3) and (4) and 21.938(b)(2) within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely for response station communications. In such situations, in lieu of the requirements set forth in ��21.902, 21.938(b)(2) and 74.903, an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station or booster station) shall be required to demonstrate that the predicted desired to undesired signal ratio at each response station hub to which the proposed new or modified MDS or ITFS station has an unobstructed signal path will be at least 45 dB cochannel or
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/wtb/index.htm?job=releases_page&y=2003&m=11&t=Order
  • and Anderson applic... DA-03-3621A1: [104]pdf - [105]word - [106]txt 11/14/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3639) The Flight Department Inc Dismissed the application for a new aeronautical advisory station (unicom) at the Garfield County A... DA-03-3639A1: [107]pdf - [108]word - [109]txt 11/14/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3622) OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Denied Oregon State's petition for reconsideration, and request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of th... DA-03-3622A1: [110]pdf - [111]word - [112]txt 11/13/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3617) CARIBBEAN MMDS PARTNERSHIP AND GRAND WIRELESS COMPANY, INC., San German, PR Granted Grand Wireless Company, Inc.'s (GWC) Forfeiture Motions. Denied Caribbean's Waiver Request. ... DA-03-3617A1: [113]pdf - [114]word - [115]txt 11/13/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3609) RON ABBOUD Concluded that Abboud's license for Station WLW992 is forfeited. Dismissed
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_appendices.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_appendices.pdf
  • an FCC reference antenna at a height of 10 meters. For pre-1997 MDS one-way systems and for all ITFS one-way systems, additional requirements for protection inside the service area are imposed in the form of permissible D/U ratios of 45 dB for cochannel interference and 0 dB for adjacent channel interference. See Rule Sections 21.902 (MDS), 21.909 (MDS), 21.913 (MDS), 74.903 (ITFS), 74.939 (ITFS) and 74.985 (ITFS). TABLE 3-C MDS/ITFS Point-to-Multipoint 2-Way System Base Station Characteristics (Main/High Power Booster Transmitter; Hub Station Receiver) Parameter Specification Notes Main/Booster Station Transmitter Spectrum Available 2150-2162 & 2500-2690 MHz Signal Bandwidth 6 MHz nominal 1 Power Output Not specified 2 Antenna Gain Not specified 3 Antenna Beam Tilt Permitted 4 EIRP ( 2000 Watts (33
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_interim_report.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_interim_report.pdf
  • licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. ITFS/MDS Interference Protection Standards The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using undesired/desired (D/U) signal ratios and field values that are always referenced to
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.pdf
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreportappendices.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreportappendices.pdf
  • an FCC reference antenna at a height of 10 meters. For pre-1997 MDS one-way systems and for all ITFS one-way systems, additional requirements for protection inside the service area are imposed in the form of permissible D/U ratios of 45 dB for co-channel interference and 0 dB for adjacent channel interference. See Rule Sections 21.902 (MDS), 21.909 (MDS), 21.913 (MDS), 74.903 (ITFS), 74.939 (ITFS) and 74.985 (ITFS). TABLE 3-C MDS/ITFS Point-to-Multipoint 2-Way System Base Station Characteristics (Main/High Power Booster Transmitter; Hub Station Receiver) Parameter Specification Notes Main/Booster Station Transmitter Spectrum Available 2150-2162 & 2500-2690 MHz Signal Bandwidth 6 MHz nominal 1 Power Output Not specified 2 Antenna Gain Not specified 3 Antenna Beam Tilt Permitted 4 EIRP ( 2000 Watts (33
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • stations, the incumbent MDS station whose channels are being utilized shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to ��21.902(b)(3) and (4) and 21.938(b)(2) within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely for response station communications. In such situations, in lieu of the requirements set forth in ��21.902, 21.938(b)(2) and 74.903, an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station or booster station) shall be required to demonstrate that the predicted desired to undesired signal ratio at each response station hub to which the proposed new or modified MDS or ITFS station has an unobstructed signal path will be at least 45 dB cochannel or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • them as a species of the H channels, also will prevent any confusion over whether current rules providing for certain H Channel licensee responsibilities likewise apply to 125 kHz channels licensed to an ITFS entity. 147 Traditional 125 kHz response stations licensed pursuant to new �� 21.940 and 74.940 must provide interference protection in accordance with �� 21.902, 21.938 and 74.903 and new �� 21.909, 21.913(f), 74.939(h) and 74.985(f), of the Commission's Rules, and receive interference protection in accordance with �� 21.902, 21.938 and 74.903. 148 See NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 22200. 149 Likewise, where I channels are used for response transmissions to hubs under a hub license, the hubs will be afforded interference protection in the same manner as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd031114.html
  • PROHIBITION OF PERFORMING OPERATING, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTION 53.203(A)(2)-(3) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Granted Qwest's request to withdraw, and dismissed the petition. (Dkt No. 96-149). Action by: Chief, Competition Policy Division. Adopted: 11/14/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-3657). WCB [147]DA-03-3657A1.doc [148]DA-03-3657A1.pdf [149]DA-03-3657A1.txt OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY. Denied Oregon State's petition for reconsideration, and request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 11/12/2003 by RECON. (DA No. 03-3622). WTB [150]DA-03-3622A1.doc [151]DA-03-3622A1.pdf [152]DA-03-3622A1.txt THE FLIGHT DEPARTMENT INC. Dismissed the application for a new aeronautical advisory station (unicom) at the Garfield County Airport in Rifle, Colorado. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/04-1024-122204.pdf
  • ORDERED that the Commission's decision is affirmed. The Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by rejecting the applications of the Savannah College of Art and Design and the Diocese of Savannah for instructional television fixed service stations. Their applications were defective because their proposed stations would have interfered with the transmissions of previously authorized stations. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), (d). It does not matter whether the permits for the conflicting stations had expired because the Commission had not declared those permits to be forfeited before the filing window closed. By the time of the denial of the application, it had long been "settled that a construction permit does not `lapse,' notwithstanding a failure to abide by its terms, until
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.txt
  • holder does not have an existing station license, a BTA holder may file utilizing the Application Reference Number from the BTA holder's Statement of Intention to make use of vacant MDS channels within the BTA. ITFS applicants who file for modifications of their main station for other than two-way service should file on the FCC Form 330. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules, only receive sites registered as of September 17, 1998 will receive interference consideration. Therefore, no new receive sites can be registered. Any receive site included in an application that was not registered as of September 17, 1998 will be deleted from the application and the application may be returned. Filing Procedures for Applications Filed July 3-August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.txt
  • intent to impose a ceiling on the maximum number of permissible response stations within a 6 MHz channel that would limit the flexibility of licensees to create subchannels. In footnote 44 of the Two-Way Order, we explained how the power for a 6 MHz channel was to be subdivided when the channel was subdivided, and in Rule Sections 21.902 and 74.903 governing interference protection standards for two-way systems, we required that, for channels other than 6 MHz in width, a power spectral density adjustment be applied to the interference criteria in order to account for the actual bandwidth in use. Nevertheless, in light of the concern for clarity expressed by WCA, we are amending 21.909(g)(6) and 74.939(g)(6) to clearly state that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.txt
  • it need not be specifically allocated to the ITFS service), and must provide a signal that is equivalent to the prior signal in picture quality and reliability, unless the ITFS licensee will accept an inferior signal. Potential expansion of the ITFS licensee may be considered in determining whether alternative available spectrum is suitable. * * * * * 11. Section 74.903 is revised to read as follows: � 74.903 Interference. (a) * * * * * * * * (b) * * * (4) In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, an applicant may submit (a) statement(s) from the affected cochannel or adjacent channel licensee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable. * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.txt
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at: NOAA, NGS, N/NGS12, 1315 East West Highway, Station 9202, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, phone number (800) 638-8972. When dissimilar bandwidths are used by the desired and undesired stations, methods for adjusting the required D/U ratios are provided respectively in: 21.902(b)(7)(ii) for MDS analysis of co-channel stations, 21.902(b)(7)(iii) for MDS analysis of adjacent channel stations, 74.903(a)(6)(ii) for ITFS analysis of co-channel stations and 74.903(a)(6)(iii) for ITFS analysis of adjacent channel stations. Those rules are cross-referenced in 21.909(d)(3)(iv) and (v) and 74.939(d)(3)(iv) and (v), which discuss compliance by applicants for response station hubs with the 45 dB and 0 dB D/U requirements. ``Transmission Loss Prediction for Tropospheric Communication Circuits,'' Technical Note 101, NTIS Access Number AD 687-820,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • other wireless services. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM, we will require geographic area licensees to protect the operations of both EBS incumbents and BRS site-based incumbents within the incumbent's GSA as defined by this order. For incumbent BRS and EBS site-based licensees, the GSA will be based upon the licensee's current PSA as provided in Sections 21.902(d) or 74.903(d) of the Commission's rules. For BRS BTA authorization holders, the boundaries of the GSA will be exactly the same as the current PSA pursuant to Section 21.933(a). Except with respect to situations where MDS and ITFS PSAs overlap (discussed below), we did not receive many significant expressions of concern over interference resulting from this approach. Indeed, we note that many
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/r950230c.wp
  • protected service areas of other authorization holders in adjoining BTAs or PSAs. (2) the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed MDS stations (incumbents). (3) registered receive sites and protected service areas of authorized or previously proposed stations in the Instructional Television Fixed Service pursuant to the manner in which interference is defined in � 74.903(a). (c) Unless the affected parties have executed a written interference agreement in accordance with � 21.937, it shall be the responsibility of a BTA or PSA authorization holder to correct at its expense any condition of harmful electromagnetic interference caused to authorized MDS service at locations within other BTAs or PSAs or within the 56.33 km (35 mile) protected service
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/06/releases/ro950230.wp
  • to provide educational and cultural development to students enrolled in accredited schools and the authorization is issued to the best qualified applicant, while the other is commercial in nature and is subject to competitive bidding. Furthermore, unlike MDS stations, the protection afforded to ITFS operators is based upon receive sites and protected service area is defined in 47 C.F.R. � 74.903. Pursuant to this rule, the protected service area associated with the leasing of excess channel capacity will also expand to a circle, 35 miles in radius, centered about the transmitter site of the ITFS station. We note, however, that in a recent proceeding we adopted a 35-mile protection distance for ITFS receivers, Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24,
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/25/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/28/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.txt http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/32/releases/fc990074.wp
  • short-form applications. See 47 C.F.R. � 73.5002(d). Competing ITFS applicants may currently propose any necessary technical change to resolve mutual exclusivities, 105 so long as the change would not cause new interference or create a new mutually exclusive situation. For example, competing ITFS applicants may file "no objection" letters stating that they agree to accept interference. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(4). In addition, competing ITFS applicants may by voluntary agreement utilize frequency offset techniques to resolve mutually exclusive situations, and may demonstrate that no actual interference will occur due to an obstructed electrical path. See Report and Order in MM Docket No. 93-24, 10 FCC Rcd 2907, 2920-21 (1995); 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b)(1). 34 period after the filing of short-form applications
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/brsebs/releases/fcc97360.txt
  • stations, the incumbent MDS station whose channels are being utilized shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to ��21.902(b)(3) and (4) and 21.938(b)(2) within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely for response station communications. In such situations, in lieu of the requirements set forth in ��21.902, 21.938(b)(2) and 74.903, an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station or booster station) shall be required to demonstrate that the predicted desired to undesired signal ratio at each response station hub to which the proposed new or modified MDS or ITFS station has an unobstructed signal path will be at least 45 dB cochannel or
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/wtb/index.htm?job=releases_page&y=2003&m=11&t=Order
  • and Anderson applic... DA-03-3621A1: [104]pdf - [105]word - [106]txt 11/14/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3639) The Flight Department Inc Dismissed the application for a new aeronautical advisory station (unicom) at the Garfield County A... DA-03-3639A1: [107]pdf - [108]word - [109]txt 11/14/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3622) OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY Denied Oregon State's petition for reconsideration, and request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of th... DA-03-3622A1: [110]pdf - [111]word - [112]txt 11/13/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3617) CARIBBEAN MMDS PARTNERSHIP AND GRAND WIRELESS COMPANY, INC., San German, PR Granted Grand Wireless Company, Inc.'s (GWC) Forfeiture Motions. Denied Caribbean's Waiver Request. ... DA-03-3617A1: [113]pdf - [114]word - [115]txt 11/13/2003 WTB Orders (DA 03-3609) RON ABBOUD Concluded that Abboud's license for Station WLW992 is forfeited. Dismissed
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_appendices.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_appendices.pdf
  • an FCC reference antenna at a height of 10 meters. For pre-1997 MDS one-way systems and for all ITFS one-way systems, additional requirements for protection inside the service area are imposed in the form of permissible D/U ratios of 45 dB for cochannel interference and 0 dB for adjacent channel interference. See Rule Sections 21.902 (MDS), 21.909 (MDS), 21.913 (MDS), 74.903 (ITFS), 74.939 (ITFS) and 74.985 (ITFS). TABLE 3-C MDS/ITFS Point-to-Multipoint 2-Way System Base Station Characteristics (Main/High Power Booster Transmitter; Hub Station Receiver) Parameter Specification Notes Main/Booster Station Transmitter Spectrum Available 2150-2162 & 2500-2690 MHz Signal Bandwidth 6 MHz nominal 1 Power Output Not specified 2 Antenna Gain Not specified 3 Antenna Beam Tilt Permitted 4 EIRP ( 2000 Watts (33
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_interim_report.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3G_interim_report.pdf
  • licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. ITFS/MDS Interference Protection Standards The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using undesired/desired (D/U) signal ratios and field values that are always referenced to
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreport.pdf
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreportappendices.doc http://www.fcc.gov/3G/3gfinalreportappendices.pdf
  • an FCC reference antenna at a height of 10 meters. For pre-1997 MDS one-way systems and for all ITFS one-way systems, additional requirements for protection inside the service area are imposed in the form of permissible D/U ratios of 45 dB for co-channel interference and 0 dB for adjacent channel interference. See Rule Sections 21.902 (MDS), 21.909 (MDS), 21.913 (MDS), 74.903 (ITFS), 74.939 (ITFS) and 74.985 (ITFS). TABLE 3-C MDS/ITFS Point-to-Multipoint 2-Way System Base Station Characteristics (Main/High Power Booster Transmitter; Hub Station Receiver) Parameter Specification Notes Main/Booster Station Transmitter Spectrum Available 2150-2162 & 2500-2690 MHz Signal Bandwidth 6 MHz nominal 1 Power Output Not specified 2 Antenna Gain Not specified 3 Antenna Beam Tilt Permitted 4 EIRP ( 2000 Watts (33
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Notices/1997/fcc97360.pdf
  • stations, the incumbent MDS station whose channels are being utilized shall no longer be entitled to interference protection pursuant to ��21.902(b)(3) and (4) and 21.938(b)(2) within the response service area with regard to any portion of any 6 MHz channel employed solely for response station communications. In such situations, in lieu of the requirements set forth in ��21.902, 21.938(b)(2) and 74.903, an applicant for any new or modified MDS or ITFS station (including any response station or booster station) shall be required to demonstrate that the predicted desired to undesired signal ratio at each response station hub to which the proposed new or modified MDS or ITFS station has an unobstructed signal path will be at least 45 dB cochannel or
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Mass_Media/Orders/1998/fcc98231.pdf
  • them as a species of the H channels, also will prevent any confusion over whether current rules providing for certain H Channel licensee responsibilities likewise apply to 125 kHz channels licensed to an ITFS entity. 147 Traditional 125 kHz response stations licensed pursuant to new �� 21.940 and 74.940 must provide interference protection in accordance with �� 21.902, 21.938 and 74.903 and new �� 21.909, 21.913(f), 74.939(h) and 74.985(f), of the Commission's Rules, and receive interference protection in accordance with �� 21.902, 21.938 and 74.903. 148 See NPRM, 12 FCC Rcd at 22200. 149 Likewise, where I channels are used for response transmissions to hubs under a hub license, the hubs will be afforded interference protection in the same manner as
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2001/fcc01256.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Digest/2003/dd031114.html
  • PROHIBITION OF PERFORMING OPERATING, INSTALLATION, AND MAINTENANCE FUNCTIONS UNDER SECTION 53.203(A)(2)-(3) OF THE COMMISSION'S RULES. Granted Qwest's request to withdraw, and dismissed the petition. (Dkt No. 96-149). Action by: Chief, Competition Policy Division. Adopted: 11/14/2003 by ORDER. (DA No. 03-3657). WCB [147]DA-03-3657A1.doc [148]DA-03-3657A1.pdf [149]DA-03-3657A1.txt OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY. Denied Oregon State's petition for reconsideration, and request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Adopted: 11/12/2003 by RECON. (DA No. 03-3622). WTB [150]DA-03-3622A1.doc [151]DA-03-3622A1.pdf [152]DA-03-3622A1.txt THE FLIGHT DEPARTMENT INC. Dismissed the application for a new aeronautical advisory station (unicom) at the Garfield County Airport in Rifle, Colorado. Action by: Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications
• http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2004/04-1024-122204.pdf
  • ORDERED that the Commission's decision is affirmed. The Commission did not act arbitrarily or capriciously by rejecting the applications of the Savannah College of Art and Design and the Diocese of Savannah for instructional television fixed service stations. Their applications were defective because their proposed stations would have interfered with the transmissions of previously authorized stations. See 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), (d). It does not matter whether the permits for the conflicting stations had expired because the Commission had not declared those permits to be forfeited before the filing window closed. By the time of the denial of the application, it had long been "settled that a construction permit does not `lapse,' notwithstanding a failure to abide by its terms, until
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS licensees. Accordingly, in establishing GSAs, the Commission adopted a mechanism for resolving overlaps by drawing a boundary line or chord through a
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-1481A1.txt
  • holder does not have an existing station license, a BTA holder may file utilizing the Application Reference Number from the BTA holder's Statement of Intention to make use of vacant MDS channels within the BTA. ITFS applicants who file for modifications of their main station for other than two-way service should file on the FCC Form 330. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules, only receive sites registered as of September 17, 1998 will receive interference consideration. Therefore, no new receive sites can be registered. Any receive site included in an application that was not registered as of September 17, 1998 will be deleted from the application and the application may be returned. Filing Procedures for Applications Filed July 3-August
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A1.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-786A2.txt
  • MDS licensees to make ever more effective use of their spectrum. INTERFERENCE PROTECTION STANDARDS The calculation of permissible interference levels on an inter-system basis is extremely complex. The requirements for MDS system protection are set out in sections 21.902, 21.909, 21.913, 21.933, 21.937 and 21.938 of the Commission's rules. The requirements for ITFS system protection are set out in sections 74.903, 74.939, 74.949 and 74.985 of the Commission's rules. Additional requirements and procedures for interference protection for stations in both services are found in Appendix D (titled ``Methodology'') to Report and Order on Further Reconsideration and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in MM Docket 97-217. Interference is calculated using desired/undesired (D/U) signal ratios and field strength values that are always referenced
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1178A1.txt
  • Licensee Relations, Eastern Region, WorldCom Broadband Solutions, Inc., to Secretary, Federal Communications Commission (filed Dec. 17, 2002). The licensee of Station WLX566 is the New Jersey Public Broadcasting Service. The licensee of Station WLX578 is Mercer County Community College. Petition at 1-2. Petition, Engineering Statement of Andrew W. Swartz, Senior Engineering Analyst, CAI Wireless Systems, Inc. Id. 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(a)(1). 47 C.F.R. � 21.20(b)(4). (...continued from previous page) (continued....) Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 Federal Communications Commission DA 03-1178 - . 0 2 3 4 @ q � � � � � � � � � h h 3 4 h h h F ) R S T ) R T F` n T T 4 R T T �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1188A1.txt
  • to Petition for Reconsideration to submit a consent letter from Northeast Oklahoma. Discussion. We reject Oklahoma State's argument. Consent letters from the affected parties, as a general matter, have been required to be submitted with the original application. Applications for new ITFS stations may be submitted only during a specific period or ``window'' announced by public notice. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that all necessary consent letters be submitted with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1191A1.txt
  • of the Reconsideration Letter. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that consideration of the consent letter Albion obtained from Winbeam, at this time, is not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-1914A1.txt
  • R-4 receive site. After reviewing the comments and interference showings of both HITN and Mendez, it appears that the only controversy between the parties involves the R-4 receive site of Station WLX663. We first conclude that HITN must provide interference protection to the R-4 receive site. The R-4 receive site is located 40.9 miles from Stations WLX663's transmitter site. Section 74.903(a)(5) of the Commission's Rules provides that no receive site more than 35 miles from the transmitter shall be entitled to interference protection. However, in establishing that rule, the Commission ruled that receive sites more than 35 miles from their associated transmitter, and registered as of September 17, 1998, would continue to receive protection; and that applicants for new or modified
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2341A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Stephanie Engstrom (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADI) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2355A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by KCTS Television, Inc. on April 4, 2001, against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by City University (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADF) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2357A1.txt
  • 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petition to Deny filed by Sherry Rullman on May 30, 2001 against the above-captioned application IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch SHALL DISMISS the application filed by Lois Hubbard (File No. BMAMDIH-20010129ADM) consistent with this Memorandum Opinion and Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Section 4(i) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. � 154(i) and Sections 1.46 of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2747A1.txt
  • of the application. Shekinah alleges that HRETA did not have a PSA at the time it filed its application because HRETA did not request a PSA until October 20, 1995. CAI responds that HRETA applied for a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. At the time Shekinah filed its application, Section 74.903(e) of the Commission's Rules required Shekinah to protect applicants or licensees who had requested a PSA prior to the filing of its application. A review of the Commission's licensing records confirms that HRETA requested a PSA on July 13, 1994 and that its request was granted on June 1, 1995. Further, Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2748A1.txt
  • that Sherburne's application be dismissed. In its Opposition, Sherburne states that the information on transmitting antenna provided in its modification application was incorrect and that the typographical error was corrected in its September 16, 2002 amendment. Sherburne contends that its application complies with the Commission's Rules because the modification would not cause any additional harmful interference to Station WHR487. Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's rules requires the applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant seeking to make major changes to an ITFS station must include an analysis of the potential for harmful interference to any existing or previously proposed stations
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2758A1.txt
  • do so. We therefore conclude that Section 1.106(c)(1) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. We also conclude that, at this time, consideration of the consent letters Bartlesville obtained from Miami and Phillips are not in the public interest. The Commission's Rules require applicants to submit consent letters from the affected parties with the original application. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants submit all necessary consent letters with the original application. Considering consent letters that did not exist
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2792A1.txt
  • we note that in 1998, the Commission amended Parts 21 and 74 of its rules to provide licensees in MDS and ITFS with substantially increased operational and technical flexibility. In the Two-Way Order, it granted PSAs to every ITFS licensee and granted individual protection to all receive sites registered through the date of adoption of the Two-Way Order. Specifically, Section 74.903(d) of the Commission's Rules, which codifies this change in policy, states that a licensee ``must be protected from harmful electrical interference at each of its receive sites registered previously as of September 17, 1998, and within a protected service area....'' Thus, regardless of whether TVC intended to offer service over its excess channel capacity on its own or pursuant to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2921A1.txt
  • delivering two-way communications services including high-speed and high-capacity data transmission and Internet service on a regular basis. On December 13, 1991, Centre filed the Application seeking to operate a new Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) station in Durham, Kansas, utilizing D Group channels. On November 20, 1992, the Branch denied Centre's Application. The Branch determined that the Application violated Section 74.903(a)(1) of the Commission's Rules because Centre's proposed facilities would not meet the required 45 dB desired-to-undesired (D/U) signal ratio protection with respect to authorized receive sites of Station WLX562, Salina, Kansas, licensed to the North American Catholic Educational Programming Foundation, Inc. (NACEPF). On December 21, 1992, Centre filed the Petition. On June 22, 2000, Nucentrix Spectrum Resources, Inc. (Nucentrix) filed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2927A1.txt
  • as an initial matter, that the cancellation of HITN's construction permit is not a final action due to the pendency of HITN's reconsideration petition. Further, the interference protection rights for Station WLX546 vis-�-vis Morningstar's proposed facilities were established when Morningstar filed the subject application and, was not affected by subsequent Commission action regarding the Station WLX546 authorization. Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants comply with that rule as of the time they file the original application. At the time
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2945A1.txt
  • would have caused interference to Station WAU27 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channels C2 and C3 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to co-channel interference to Station WAU27). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2946A1.txt
  • facilities would have caused interference to Station WHR683 and timely submitted a proposal that complies with the Commission's Rules. Accordingly, we conclude that Section 1.106(c) of the Commission's Rules is therefore not applicable. Inclusion of Channel D1 in HITN's original application caused that application to be unacceptable for filing (due to adjacent channel interference to Station WHR683). Pursuant to Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, an application for an ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference and will not be granted if interference is predicted to occur. Given that applications must be filed only during designated filing windows, it is vital that applicants demonstrate compliance with Section 74.903 at the time the original application is filed. As the Commission
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3025A1.txt
  • (per curiam)). NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6740 � 33. NPRM, 18 FCC Rcd at 6741 � 35. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order, 13 FCC Rcd 19112, 191148 �� 66-67 (1998). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(c)(2)(i), 74.903(b)(4). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.909(g)(7), 21.913(g), 74.939(f), 74.985(g). Booster Waiver Request at 7, Hub Waiver Request at 7. Waiver Requests at 8. Amendment of Parts 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12781 � 34
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3621A1.txt
  • grant. On January 4, 1999, the Chief of the Division's Distribution Services Branch denied HITN's petition for reconsideration. HITN filed a request for stay of the grant on February 3, 1999. On February 18, 2000, Ball State certified that it had constructed the station. DISCUSSION HITN Indianapolis Application. HITN argues that the dismissal of this application is inconsistent with section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. HITN argues that by using notch filters, it will be able to receive a usable signal at its receive sites. HITN argues that the dismissal of its application elevates ``theory over practice'' and that the dismissal of its application is inconsistent with the Commission's interpretation of section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules, which sets forth the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3622A1.txt
  • its license to operate Instructional Television Fixed Service (ITFS) Station WNC718 on the C Group channels in Salem, Oregon. Specifically, the Division found that Oregon State failed to provide co-channel interference protection to ITFS Station WHR522 operated by the Portland Regional Educational Telecommunications Corporation (PRETC) in Portland, Oregon. We also have before us a request for a waiver of Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules. For the reasons set forth below, we deny Oregon State's Petition and Waiver Request. Background Both Oregon State and PRETC lease excess capacity on Stations WNC718 and WHR522 to American Telecasting Inc. (ATI), a wireless cable operator, and the Basic Trading Area auction winner of the Salem, Oregon and Portland, Oregon markets. According to Oregon State,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-418A1.txt
  • station as close as possible to WorldCom's and Northwest's stations. WorldCom denies that it has taken any action that would unreasonably interfere with ITF's ability to locate its antenna within ITF's protected service area, and it argues that Section 74.902(h) of the Commission's Rules does not relieve ITF of the responsibility to provide adjacent channel interference protection to WorldCom. Section 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires an applicant to engineer its system to provide at least 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the PSA of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. An applicant to make major changes to an ITFS station must include a potential analysis of potential interference to any existing or previously proposed stations with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-419A1.txt
  • and UCF provide an engineering statement that purports to show that HITN's proposed facility will cause harmful interference to Station WLX385 and WHR493. In its opposition, HITN agrees with the RTN's and UCF's claims of interference while stating that more time is needed to obtain consent agreements. In its reply, RTN and UCF reiterate their objection to HITN's application. Section 74.903(a)(1) and 74.903(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules requires the applicant to engineer its ITFS system(s) to provide at least 45 dB of co-channel interference protection and 0 dB of adjacent channel interference protection, respectively, within the protected service area (PSA) of all other authorized or previously proposed stations. We conclude that RTN's and UCF's petition proves that HITN's application is defective.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-420A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-421A1.txt
  • proposed receive sites demonstrating that they will receive and use the applicant's educational usage.'' If a receive site is unable to receive an applicant's signal because of interference from another station, the applicant cannot demonstrate that the receive site will be able to receive and use the educational programming. In this case, using the definition of interference used in Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules, the Branch concluded that HITN would be unable to serve its receive sites because of interference from other stations. Pursuant to Section 74.903(a)(1) of our rules, interference is deemed present when the ratio of the desired-to-undesired signal is less than 45 dB. HITN offers its own technical analysis to refute the technical findings posed by the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-04-945A1.txt
  • NCI. We believe that this allegation is speculative at this point. NCI has not established that it is unable to reach an agreement with Nextel regarding access to the leased equipment and the tower site. In addition, were we to address the NCI Petition on the merits, we would find that NCI's argument that the harmful interference rules under Section 74.903(a)(2)(i) would prevent NCI from finding any relocation site without violating the rules to be premature and speculative. Similarly, we would conclude that allegations raised in the Red NY/Veritas Petitions do not warrant designation of a hearing or denial of the Assignment Applications. In their Petitions, Red NY/Veritas claim that WorldCom's rejection of the spectrum leases might harm their own private
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2385A1.txt
  • U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Section 74.912 of the Commission's Rules, 47 C.F.R. � 74.912, that the Petitions to Deny filed by the Hispanic Information and Telecommunications Network, Inc. on March 22, 2001 ARE DISMISSED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. �� 154(i), 309, and Sections 74.903 and 74.912 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 74.912, that the licensing staff of the Broadband Division SHALL PROCESS the application for modifications of license filed by Victor Ginorio Gomez on February 5, 2001 (File No. 20010205AAA) in accordance with this letter and the Commission's Rules and policies. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Sections 4(i) and 309
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-06-2524A1.txt
  • dismissed FAU's Modification Application without prejudice. In so doing, the staff concluded that the proposed facility would cause interference to a number of licensed receive sites associated with Station KLC80. Staff further concluded that the proposed modification would also cause interference to KLC80's PSA. Finally, staff found that due to the predicted interference, the application did not comply with Section 74.903 of the Commission's rules and was thus considered defective. In its Petition, FAU argues that Commission staff erred in dismissing its application because it failed to consider FAU's proposal to upgrade Broward's affected KLC80 receive sites. Additionally, FAU argues that Commission staff further erred in dismissing FAU's Modification Application based on interference to Broward's PSA, because Broward never made the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-07-2613A1.txt
  • the pleading to eliminate any question regarding its status. VCI's filings are predicated on the assumption that Black Hawk has a continuing duty to have VCI's consent to operate. No such duty exists under the Commission's Rules. Any consent letter VCI would have provided would have been relevant only during the time Black Hawk's Application was pending. Specifically, former Section 74.903(b) listed the technical information that applicants must provide with their applications. Former Section 74.903(b)(4) of the Commission's Rules stated, ``In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this Section for any authorized or previously proposed station(s), an applicant may submit a statement(s) from the affected ITFS licensee(s) or permittee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable.''
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A1.txt
  • intent to impose a ceiling on the maximum number of permissible response stations within a 6 MHz channel that would limit the flexibility of licensees to create subchannels. In footnote 44 of the Two-Way Order, we explained how the power for a 6 MHz channel was to be subdivided when the channel was subdivided, and in Rule Sections 21.902 and 74.903 governing interference protection standards for two-way systems, we required that, for channels other than 6 MHz in width, a power spectral density adjustment be applied to the interference criteria in order to account for the actual bandwidth in use. Nevertheless, in light of the concern for clarity expressed by WCA, we are amending 21.909(g)(6) and 74.939(g)(6) to clearly state that
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A4.txt
  • it need not be specifically allocated to the ITFS service), and must provide a signal that is equivalent to the prior signal in picture quality and reliability, unless the ITFS licensee will accept an inferior signal. Potential expansion of the ITFS licensee may be considered in determining whether alternative available spectrum is suitable. * * * * * 11. Section 74.903 is revised to read as follows: � 74.903 Interference. (a) * * * * * * * * (b) * * * (4) In lieu of the interference analyses required by paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, an applicant may submit (a) statement(s) from the affected cochannel or adjacent channel licensee(s) that any resulting interference is acceptable. * *
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-244A5.txt
  • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration at: NOAA, NGS, N/NGS12, 1315 East West Highway, Station 9202, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, phone number (800) 638-8972. When dissimilar bandwidths are used by the desired and undesired stations, methods for adjusting the required D/U ratios are provided respectively in: 21.902(b)(7)(ii) for MDS analysis of co-channel stations, 21.902(b)(7)(iii) for MDS analysis of adjacent channel stations, 74.903(a)(6)(ii) for ITFS analysis of co-channel stations and 74.903(a)(6)(iii) for ITFS analysis of adjacent channel stations. Those rules are cross-referenced in 21.909(d)(3)(iv) and (v) and 74.939(d)(3)(iv) and (v), which discuss compliance by applicants for response station hubs with the 45 dB and 0 dB D/U requirements. ``Transmission Loss Prediction for Tropospheric Communication Circuits,'' Technical Note 101, NTIS Access Number AD 687-820,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-256A1.txt
  • Communication, ET Docket No. 00-258, July 13, 2001, at 7, 20. The current technical rules require licensees to ``make exceptional efforts to avoid harmful interference to other users and to avoid blocking potential adjacent channel use in the same city and cochannel use in nearby cities.'' 47 C.F.R. � 21.902(a); see also id. �� 21.902(b)-(h) (MDS interference protection rules), � 74.903 (ITFS interference protection rules). We have faith that incumbents will continue to abide by these and future interference protection rules and, if they do not, they will be subject to swift enforcement action. FCC staff's Final Report at ii. FCC staff's Final Report at ii-iii. Cisco Comments at 12. FCC staff's Final Report at iii. See Section 706 Second Report,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-143A1.txt
  • all four applications for review. Background On October 20, 1995, Applicants filed the captioned applications for new ITFS stations at Payne, Georgia. Subsequently, the Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division (Division), of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the applications of GCMC, Clarendon, Baldwin, and Shekinah because their applications did not conform to the interference limitation requirements of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules. On August 14, 1998, the Applicants filed petitions for reconsideration of the dismissal of their applications. On May 10, 1999, the Division issued the Reconsideration Letters denying Applicants' petitions for reconsideration. On August 23, 1999, Applicants filed the instant AFRs. Discussion The Applicants contend that they complied with the provisions of Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-171A1.txt
  • AFR. BACKGROUND On October 20, 1995, ETAMC filed an application to construct a new ITFS station on the A Group Channels at Copley, Ohio. The Distribution Services Branch (Branch), Video Services Division (Division) of the former Mass Media Bureau dismissed the application on June 30, 1997 because the proposed facilities were predicted ``to cause co-channel interference, as defined in Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules, to the protected service area and/or the receive sites of the licensed facilities of Catholic Diocese of Youngstown, WHR-696, at Salem, OH; Boardman Local School District, WNC-297, at Youngstown, OH; and Champion Local School District, WNC-360, at Wick, OH.'' On August 8, 1997, ETAMC filed a Petition for Reconsideration and Reinstatement Nunc Pro Tunc (Petition). ETAMC
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-179A1.txt
  • application than previously required . . . without OMB approval.'' As an initial matter, we point out that the requirement to submit consent letters with the original application predates the 1995 Report and Order. The rules in effect at the time HITN filed its application required it to submit the consent letter from NCC with the original application. Specifically, Section 74.903(b) of the Commission's Rules required HITN to submit as part of its application ``[a]n analysis of the potential for harmful cochannel interference with any authorized or previously proposed station if . . . the proposed transmitting antenna has an unobstructed electrical path to receive site(s) of any other station(s) that utilize(s), or would utilize, the same frequency, or [t]he proposed
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-194A1.txt
  • Seeking to Co-Locate Facilities with Wireless Cable Operations, Public Notice, 11 FCC Rcd 22422 (1996). Amendment of Parts 1, 21 and 74 to Enable Multipoint Distribution Service and Instructional Television Fixed Service Licensees to Engage in Fixed Two-Way Transmissions, MM Docket No. 97-217, Report and Order on Reconsideration, 14 FCC Rcd 12764, 12768-71 �� 7-15 (1999). 47 C.F.R. �� 21.902(d)(2), 74.903(d). (continued....) Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 Federal Communications Commission FCC 03-194 3 P Q U � �@��� U V W f � � � � � ^� h ~ � 0 � U �2 ~7 �g �y �
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A1.txt
  • FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914KD (Sept. 14, 1995). See FCC File No. BMPLIF-950914IU (Sept. 14, 1995). See File Nos. BEIF-19950918D; BEIF-19950918DK. See Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, FCC, to Diocese of Savannah and Savannah College of Art and Design (dated July 15, 1998) (Pendarvis Letter). Pursuant to 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b), an application for a new ITFS station must protect previously proposed facilities from interference. The Diocese of Savannah, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998); The Savannah College of Art and Design, Petition for Reconsideration (filed Aug. 14, 1998) (collectively these petitions are referred to herein as the ``PFRs''). PFRs at 2-4. According to the PFRs, the construction permits expired
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-266A5.txt
  • declared forfeited if the station is not ready for operation within the time specified therein or within such further time as the FCC may have allowed for completion, and a notation of the forfeiture of any construction permit under this provision will be placed in the records of the FCC as of the expiration date'') (emphasis supplied). 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(b) (1995). Furthermore, prospective applicants and existing licensees were ``required to cooperate fully in attempting to resolve problems of potential interference before bringing the matter to the attention of the Commission.'' 47 C.F.R. � 74.903(c). This further suggests that any interference issues would ultimately be resolved by the Commission, and not result in an automatic dismissal of the prospective applicant's application.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-56A4.txt
  • Multiple Address Systems, WT Docket No. 97-81, 15 FCC Rcd 11,956 (2000); See MDS Auction R&O, 10 FCC Rcd 9589. Coalition Proposal at 10. Other licensees agree that many existing ITFS licensees will move or are contemplating moving away from traditional one-way high-power video-based operations. See Joint Comments of ITFS Parties at 2. Coalition Proposal at 20. 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903, 21.902(d). Beginning on September 15, 1995, the initial service boundaries were frozen, i.e., the circular PSA boundaries were not to be changed regardless of whether or not the licensee subsequently moved its transmitter. Id. An ITFS licensee's PSA includes the area within a 35-mile radius of its transmitter site plus any reception sites beyond that radius that were registered with
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-93A1.txt
  • Bureau staff properly decided the matters raised. In particular, we agree with the Bureau's analysis and conclusion that Line of Site failed to meet the requirements of Section 74.990(f) of the Commission's Rules which state that wireless cable applicants and licensees of ITFS facilities must comply with the interference protection requirements of Section 21.902 of the Commission's Rules. Further, Section 74.903(a) of the Commission's Rules requires that an applicant prevent co-channel and adjacent channel interference with other previously proposed ITFS applicants or existing licensees. Line of Site acknowledges in its Application for Review that it ``did not include frequency analyses'' of stations with which its proposed operations would interfere. Thus, we agree with the Bureau's conclusion that Line of Site's applications
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-135A1.txt
  • other wireless services. In addition, as proposed in the NPRM, we will require geographic area licensees to protect the operations of both EBS incumbents and BRS site-based incumbents within the incumbent's GSA as defined by this order. For incumbent BRS and EBS site-based licensees, the GSA will be based upon the licensee's current PSA as provided in Sections 21.902(d) or 74.903(d) of the Commission's rules. For BRS BTA authorization holders, the boundaries of the GSA will be exactly the same as the current PSA pursuant to Section 21.933(a). Except with respect to situations where MDS and ITFS PSAs overlap (discussed below), we did not receive many significant expressions of concern over interference resulting from this approach. Indeed, we note that many
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-250A1.txt
  • the applicable standard. We resolve each of these issues adversely to HITN, affirm the Division's conclusion that HITN's application was defective, and deny the AFR. Need to provide usable signal to receive sites. HITN argues that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to protect its receive sites from interference from other stations. Specifically, HITN contends that nothing in Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules addresses interference from other stations to an applicant's receive sites. It also argues that nothing in Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules supports the dismissal of its applications because nothing in that rule addresses an applicant's technical proposal. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules states,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-51A1.txt
  • filed the Kokomo PFR seeking rescission or reconsideration of the grant. DISCUSSION Indianapolis Application. HITN contends that nothing in the Commission's Rules required it to study its own receive sites for co-channel or adjacent channel interference. It argues that it was improper to read the ITFS eligibility rule (Section 74.932 of the Commission's Rules) together with the interference rule (Section 74.903 of the Commission's Rules). Finally, HITN argues that even if the rules require that it be able to serve its receive sites, HITN should be able to show that it will provide service by using filters, a different receive antenna, or digital modulation. We conclude that the Division properly analyzed the rules at issue. Section 74.932(a) of the Commission's Rules
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-05-7A1.txt
  • Nov. 9, 1995) New Jersey Public Broadcasting is the licensee for Station WLX250 and WHYY, Inc. is the licensee for Station WLX823. Letter from Clay C. Pendarvis, Acting Chief, Distribution Services Branch, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to HITN, Attn: Jose Luis Rodriguez (Jun. 9, 1997) (Dismissal Letter) at 1. Id. citing 47 C.F.R. �� 74.903(a)(1), (2). Petition for Reconsideration (filed Jul. 7, 1997) (First Petition). Id. at 2. See First Petition, Exhibit B and C; See also Amended Application Studies 2 and 3. See First Petition, Exhibit B; See also Amended Application Study 3. See First Petition, Exhibit C; See also Amended Application Study 2. The non-compliant receive site (R6) is located at coordinates 40�-04"-51'
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-06-46A1.txt
  • high. mming, we will clarify that all downconverters within the EBS GSA must be replaced regardless of the desired or undesired signal strength. In such instances where the proponent feels that it is necessary to replace an EBS receive antenna to ensure that the EBS site receives a higher desired signal, we will reinstitute the procedure established in former Section 74.903(a)(4) of the rules, and allow the proponent to upgrade the EBS reception equipment at such site(s). Adjacent channel Background. The Coalition's original proposal sought retention of the Commission's adjacent channel requirement, 0 dB D/U standards, for protection of operations in the MBS. However, after further evaluation, the Coalition later advised the Commission that it believed the adjacent channel standards could
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-08-83A1.txt
  • areas without prior Commission approval. Therefore, the Commission adopted geographic area licensing for all operations in all segments of the band. The Commission stated that the GSAs for BRS and EBS stations would be based on the licensee's current protected service area, which would extend 56.3255 km (35 miles) from the transmitter site, as provided by former Sections 21.902(d) and 74.903(d) of the Commission Rules. The Commission also recognized that the rules defining protected service areas have changed or otherwise been modified in a manner that has resulted in overlapping PSAs being assigned to co-channel incumbent BRS and EBS