Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Robert M. Gurss On Mobex's Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS)

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 17:07:17 -0400

DA 03-22
Robert M. Gurss
Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, PLC
1300 North 17th Street
11th Floor
Arlington, VA  22209

Dear Mr. Gurss:

 This letter is in response to your letters dated March 7, 2003  and June 5,
2003,  on behalf of Mobex Communications, Inc. (Mobex). In the letters you request
clarification that two Automated Maritime Telecommunications System (AMTS)
transmitters that Mobex operates as fill-in sites will be protected from
interference regardless of what co-channel interference protection standard the
Commission ultimately requires geographic licensees to provide to site-based
incumbents.

 By way of background, in the Fourth Report and Order in PR Docket No. 92-257,
released November 16, 2000, the Commission eliminated the application and
engineering study requirements for AMTS fill-in stations, i.e., new stations the
interference contours of which do not encompass any land area beyond the composite
interference contour of the licensee’s existing system.   In the concurrent Third
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission proposed to transition the
licensing of AMTS stations from a site-based approach to geographic licensing.
Recognizing that its then current rules did not define a co-channel protection
standard for AMTS stations, the Commission proposed to rely on the co-channel
interference protection standard used in the 220-222 MHz band, i.e., 10 dB
protection to the incumbent’s predicted 38 dBu contour.   In its February 6, 2001
comments to the Third Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, Mobex argued that
incumbent systems should instead be protected on the basis of a 17 dBu service
contour.   In the Fifth Report and Order in PR Docket No. 92-257, released April
8, 2002, the Commission adopted rules to streamline the licensing process for AMTS
stations by utilizing a geographic licensing approach,  and adopted its proposed
co-channel interference standard, based on a 38 dBu contour.   On August 23, 2002,
Mobex filed a petition for reconsideration of the co-channel interference
protection standard, which remains pending.

Mobex seeks clarification that its existing fill-in sites will be protected from
interference regardless of what standard the Commission ultimately adopts in PR
Docket No. 92-257.  It requests clarification at this time as it is about to
authorize substantial equipment upgrades to the relevant sites, but it, and its
vendors and customers, are reluctant to commit new resources to these sites
without assurances that they will be afforded sufficient interference protection.

In your March 7 letter, you state that in 2001 Mobex placed into operation
putative fill-in sites at Boston, Massachusetts, and Washington, D.C.   The Boston
and Washington sites are within both the 17 dBu contour and 38 dBu contour of
licensed facilities at Rehobeth, Massachusetts, and Manassas, Virginia,
respectively.  Your March 7 letter appeared to indicate that the Boston and
Washington sites operate at 1000 watts effective radiated power (ERP).   Your June
5 letter, however, clarified that the Boston site operates at 199 watts ERP.   At
a June 5, 2003 meeting, Mr. Scot Stone of my staff requested copies of the
notifications for the sites that Mobex sent to affected broadcasters as required
by Section 80.475(b) of the Commission’s Rules.   By electronic mail dated June 7,
2003, Mobex stated that no notifications were ever sent, because there were no
stations that required notification.   Subsequently,  in a June 12, 2003
electronic mail message, Mobex stated that it believed that the required
notifications were sent, but that it had been “unable to locate documentation of
those notifications.”   Mobex stated that, out of an “abundance of caution,” it
had sent new notifications to the stations which required notification,  and
subsequently provided copies of the notifications to Mr. Stone.   The technical
information attached to that electronic mail message indicated that the Washington
site operates at 75 watts ERP.

Thus, the information now before us indicates that the Boston site operates at 199
watts ERP, and the Washington site operates at 75 watts ERP.  It thus appears that
both the 17 dBu contour and 38 dBu contours of both sites generally are
encompassed by the 17 dBu and 38 dBu contours of Mobex’s existing system,
respectively, except over water.  Based on the circumstances presented, we
conclude that the Boston and Washington sites are entitled to interference
protection insofar as they are “fill-in sites” in conformance with the
Commission’s rules.  In order to qualify as a fill-in site, the plain language of
Section 80.475(b) of the Commission’s Rules requires not only that the site be
located within the interference contour of one or more licensed stations, but that
the fill-in site’s interference contour be fully encompassed by the composite
interference contour of the licensee’s existing system.   Thus, we believe that
the Boston and Washington sites are permissible fill-in sites, and entitled to
co-channel interference protection from a geographic licensee, if their
interference contours do not extend beyond the interference contours of Mobex’s
licensed stations.  Assuming that Mobex operates the Boston and Washington sites
at power levels that result in interference contours within the interference
contour of its licensed stations, any geographic licensee will be required to
protect the sites.  Moreover, to the extent any small overlap over land is
attributable to Mobex’s reliance, in the absence of clear guidance in the
Commission’s rules at the time operations commenced, on a 17 dBu contour, we
believe that a waiver might be an appropriate vehicle for providing interference
protection to the stations’ current operations as described above.  Until the
resolution of the pending petitions for reconsideration in PR Docket No. 92-257,
however, it is impossible to determine whether any such relief is necessary.

I trust that this letter is responsive to your inquiry.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

D’wana R. Terry
Chief, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
 J:\sstone\mobex fill-in date

CC: PSPWD Chron
 D Terry
 R Melson
 H Zeiler
 J Borkowski
 J Schauble
 S Stone
 P Daronco
K Fickner
G Khalek
K Kleppinger

http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-2275A1.doc

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/