STATEMENT OF 
COMMISSIONER MIKE O’RIELLY
Re: In the Matter of Amendment of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules for Unlicensed Operations in 
the Television Bands, Repurposed 600 MHz Guard bands and Duplex Gap, and Channel 37, and 
Amendment of Part 74 of the Commission’s Rules for Low Power Auxiliary Stations in the 
Repurposed 600 MHz Band and 600 MHz Duplex Gap; Expanding the Economic and Innovation 
Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, 
Promoting Spectrum Access for Wireless Microphone Operations; Expanding the Economic and 
Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions.
Before I begin, let me acknowledge the hard work of the Gentlelady from Connecticut for all that 
she has done to promote unlicensed spectrum use.  Like Commissioner Rosenworcel, I have been and 
remain a strong supporter of unlicensed wireless use and the unknown possibilities that the creative 
entrepreneurs that use it will continue to bring to the American people.     
These two items, which I will approve, are the direct result of Congress’s work to provide for a 
spectrum incentive auction.  That effort, of which I appreciated being a part, has generated both 
opportunity and concern for many in the communications sector.  The area we focus on today is the effect 
of the incentive auction on the spectrum that can be used for unlicensed wireless devices and wireless 
microphones, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive groups.  I understand the trepidation that these 
communities and others, including existing broadcasters, have over the reduction in spectrum allocated at 
600 MHz for commercial broadcast services.  
Over the last many months, I have visited and met with a wide array of interested parties to 
discuss and learn more about their ideas as to how the Commission might address the needs and spectrum 
demands of unlicensed wireless device providers and wireless microphones (both licensed and 
unlicensed).  From Broadway to Silicon Valley and in between, each of these meetings was highly 
informative and somewhat frustrating as there are no easy answers.
At the heart of both of these items is science and fact, or at least it should be.  I am generally 
pleased by the work of the Office of Engineering and Technology to focus on the technical side of the 
equation in preparing these two items.  While I may not agree with every outcome or proposal, the 
NPRMs have been drafted in way to allow parties to provide comments, including contradictory evidence 
and technology studies, to frame our work going forward.  I expect an ample record that includes the 
granular data necessary to fully inform our decision making.  I am particularly interested in hearing about 
tests of the technical aspects of the various ideas and proposals.  Let’s find out, to the best of our abilities, 
what works and what does not.  
There are definitely some areas where we need to look into pushing further, and I appreciate the 
Chairman and Commission staff incorporating my edits.  For instance, I see great value in exploring 
opportunities for mobile unlicensed operations in Channel 37.  To argue that it can’t be done in a way that 
provides protection to incumbent users reminds me of the early debates over even allowing television 
white space devices.  Many of us were right then, and we should allow science and fact to lead us again.  
On the opposite side, I have heard from many industry participants that the current proposal 
regarding wireless mics and unlicensed wireless use in the duplex gap may be infeasible.  There are 
strong views on this, and I am not sure whether all the information needed to make a decision is available 
yet.  This issue needs to be flushed out further, and I trust the NPRM will allow everyone to debate the 
merits fully.  
I will keep an open mind as the Commission moves ahead to fill out details of the framework set 
forth in the Incentive Auction Order and refine potentially temporary decisions.  To the extent that we 
receive data that requires the Commission to reconsider or alter the framework’s decisions, I trust we will 
be willing to do so, as necessary and appropriate.
In addition, I am pleased to see today’s companion notice, which seeks comment on proposals for 
treatment of wireless microphones.  This notice is comprehensive and asks many of the necessary 
questions.  For instance, we need to encourage wireless mics to be more spectrally efficient and move to 
frequencies that are not likely to be sought after for commercial purposes.   In other words, any new 
bands that we open to wireless mics should be those that will not require that they relocate again in the 
future.  
I thank the folks in the Office of Engineering and Technology, the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, 
and the Incentive Auction Team for your thoughtful, diligent work on these notices