Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554
In the Matter of
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For 
Mobile Radio Services 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to 
Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 
GHz and 37.5-40 GHz Bands 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, 
and 101 To Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic 
Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for 
Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 
40.5-41.5 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency 
Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed 
and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz 
Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 
46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless 
Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-
38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government 
Operations
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
GN Docket No. 14-177
IB Docket No. 15-256
WT Docket No. 10-112
IB Docket No. 97-95
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER, SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED 
RULEMAKING, ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION, AND MEMORANDUM OPINION AND 
ORDER
Adopted:  November 16, 2017 Released:  November 22, 2017
Comment Date:  January 23, 2018
Reply Comment Date:  February 22, 2018
By the Commission:  Chairman Pai and Commissioners O’Rielly, Carr and Rosenworcel issuing separate 
statements; Commissioner Clyburn concurring in part, dissenting in part, and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................................. 1
II. BACKGROUND.................................................................................................................................... 8
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER...................................................................................................... 15
A. Additional Bands ........................................................................................................................... 15
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
2
1. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz) ...................................................... 15
a. Suitability for Mobile Use ................................................................................................ 19
b. Licensing the 24 GHz Band - Use of Geographic Area Licensing................................... 23
c. Band Plan.......................................................................................................................... 31
d. Satellite Sharing in the Upper Segment of the 24 GHz Band........................................... 36
e. Mobile Rights for Incumbents .......................................................................................... 40
2. 47.2-48.2 GHz Band................................................................................................................ 43
a. Suitability for Mobile Service........................................................................................... 45
b. Licensing the 47.2-48.2 GHz Band................................................................................... 48
c. Non-Federal Satellite Terrestrial Sharing – Licensing of Gateway Earth Stations........... 51
d. Band Plan.......................................................................................................................... 57
B. Performance Requirements – Additional Metrics.......................................................................... 60
C. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies .............................................................................................. 70
D. Part 15 Operation On-board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band....................................................... 75
E. Amendments to Certain Part 1 Rules............................................................................................. 88
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING.................................................... 90
A. FSS Use of 24.75-25.25 GHz Band ............................................................................................... 90
B. Performance Requirements – Geographic Area Metric ................................................................. 98
C. Mobile Spectrum Holdings .......................................................................................................... 105
D. Operability in 24 GHz.................................................................................................................. 107
E. Other Millimeter Wave Bands ..................................................................................................... 109
V. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION ................................................................................................. 110
A. Security ........................................................................................................................................ 110
B. Earth Station Siting Rules............................................................................................................ 132
1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 132
2. 0.1 Percent Population Limit................................................................................................. 132
3. Other Limits on Earth Station Siting..................................................................................... 132
4. Numerical Limits on Earth Stations ...................................................................................... 135
5. Placement of Additional Antennas at Grandfathered 28 GHz Sites...................................... 142
C. Secondary Status of FSS in 28 GHz Band................................................................................... 142
D. 28 GHz Aggregate Interference ................................................................................................... 145
E. Base Station Power Limit ............................................................................................................ 150
F. Base Station Location Disclosure ................................................................................................ 155
G. 64-71 GHz.................................................................................................................................... 157
H. Mobile Spectrum Holdings (In-Band Aggregation Limits) ......................................................... 162
I. 28 and 39 GHz License Area Sizes.............................................................................................. 163
1. 28 GHz Band......................................................................................................................... 163
2. 39 GHz Band......................................................................................................................... 169
J. Performance Requirements for Incumbent Licenses ................................................................... 171
K. Splitting of 28 GHz Band into Two Licenses.............................................................................. 179
L. Applicability of Part 30 Rules to Satellite Operations................................................................. 183
VI. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER .................................................................................... 185
A. 48.2-50.2 GHz.............................................................................................................................. 185
B. 40-42 GHz.................................................................................................................................... 190
C. 71-76 and 81-86 GHz Bands (70/80 GHz Band)......................................................................... 193
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 193
2. Mobile Use ............................................................................................................................ 197
3. Indoor-only Unlicensed Use under Part 15 ........................................................................... 202
D. 37.5-40 GHz Band Satellite Issues .............................................................................................. 208
1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits...................................................................................... 208
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment................................................................................... 217
E. Performance Requirements – Non-Federal Use-or-Share............................................................ 221
F. Digital Station Identification........................................................................................................ 233
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
3
G. Technical Issues........................................................................................................................... 238
1. Antenna Height...................................................................................................................... 238
2. Coordination Criteria at Market Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point Operations..................... 245
3. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/MS/Transportable Transmit Power Levels.................. 250
a. Bandwidth Scaling.......................................................................................................... 250
b. Minimum Bandwidth...................................................................................................... 254
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling ............................................................................................ 256
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS............................................................................................................. 259
A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose ........................................................................................ 259
B. Comment Period and Procedures................................................................................................. 260
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis ................................................................................................... 262
D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis.................................................................................................... 264
E. Further Information...................................................................................................................... 265
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES .............................................................................................................. 266
APPENDIX A – Final Rules
APPENDIX B – Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty 
Executive Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map
APPENDIX C – Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX D – Supplementary Final Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX E – Proposed Rules
APPENDIX F – Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
APPENDIX G – List of Commenters to FNPRM
APPENDIX H – List of Petitions for Reconsideration and Associated Pleadings
I. INTRODUCTION
1. Today, we take further actions in this proceeding to make available millimeter wave 
(mmW) spectrum, at or above 24 GHz, for fifth-generation (5G) wireless, Internet of Things, and other 
advanced spectrum-based services.  In doing so, we help ensure continued American leadership in 
wireless broadband, which represents a critical component of economic growth, job creation, public 
safety, and global competitiveness.
2. In particular, we make available an additional 1700 megahertz of mmW spectrum for 
flexible wireless use, in the 24.25-24.45 and 24.75-25.25 GHz band (24 GHz band) and the 47.2-48.2 
GHz band.  When added to the mmW spectrum already made available for flexible wireless use in the 
27.5-28.35 GHz (28 GHz), 37-38.6 GHz (37 GHz), 38.6-40 GHz (39 GHz band), and 64-71 GHz bands, 
the Commission has now made available approximately 13 gigahertz of mmW spectrum in this 
proceeding, and we will continue to evaluate additional mmW bands in this proceeding and in a separate 
proceeding on bands above 95 GHz.  
3. At the same time, we adopt rules that will allow the mmW bands to be shared with a 
variety of other uses, including satellite, fixed, and Federal government uses.  Specifically, we target the 
40-42 GHz and 48.2-50.2 GHz bands for expansion of Fixed Satellite Service (FSS), and we adjust 
previously adopted earth station requirements in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands to permit greater satellite 
flexibility, particularly in rural areas.  We also preserve the 70 and 80 GHz bands for traditional and 
innovative fixed wireless uses, which we will continue to explore in a separate proceeding.  In addition, 
we allow for expanded unlicensed use of the 57-71 GHz band on-board aircraft.
4. In addition, we reconsider several mmW band service rules previously adopted in this 
proceeding to ensure that we maximize flexibility and encourage innovation in the mmW bands.  For 
example, we propose to eliminate the ex ante auction limit on spectrum holdings in the 28, 37, and 39 
GHz bands, consistent with our decision not to adopt an ex ante auction limit for the 24 GHz and 47.2-
48.2 GHz bands.  Further, we conclude that it would serve the public interest to rescind the previously 
adopted cybersecurity reporting requirements, and instead to seek input through the Communications 
Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) process.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
4
5. We also affirm a number of the decisions previously made in this proceeding to provide 
certainty so that licensees can continue to invest in networks that provide high speed and low latency 
services available to consumers and businesses.  We note that major carriers and smaller operators are 
beginning to develop the mmW frequencies’ potential for low-cost wireless equivalents of fiber to homes 
and small businesses.  
6. We believe that it is important to move forward as quickly as possible to auction the non-
Federal, exclusive use mmW spectrum made available by this proceeding, to bring the benefits of new 
broadband services to American consumers.  We note that the Communications Act requires upfront 
auction payments to be deposited in an interest bearing account, but no financial institution is willing to 
accommodate the holding of upfront payments for a large spectrum auction currently.
1
Accordingly, we 
are unable to hold a large spectrum auction until this is resolved, and we cannot commit to a timeframe 
for a future auction of the mmW frequencies at this time.
7. Our efforts in this proceeding to make mmW spectrum for wireless broadband available 
are part of the Commission’s broader initiative to make available additional spectrum for wireless
broadband across a range of frequencies.  For example, 65 megahertz of AWS-3 spectrum was won at 
auction in 2015, while 70 megahertz of 600 MHz spectrum was won in the recently concluded broadcast 
television incentive auction.
2
  Earlier this year, the Commission sought input on potential opportunities in 
spectrum bands between 3.7 GHz and 24 GHz.
3
  We will continue these efforts to facilitate access to low-
band, mid-band, and high-band spectrum for the benefit of American consumers.
II. BACKGROUND
8. Recent technological advances have unlocked the potential of millimeter wave (mmW) 
frequencies to support fixed and mobile wireless services that need flexible access to spectrum.  While 
mmW bands feature short transmission paths and high propagation losses, those features can be useful in 
developing high-capacity networks because cells can be placed close to each other without causing 
interference to each other.  In addition, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths 
of mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly focused beams 
with enough gain to overcome propagation losses.  The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it 
possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough to fit into 
handsets – a feat that might not be possible at the lower, longer, wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz 
where cell phones operate today.  
                                                     
1
See 47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(8)(C) (“Any deposits the Commission may require for the qualification of any person to bid 
in a system of competitive bidding pursuant to this subsection shall be deposited in an interest bearing account at a 
financial institution designated for purposes of this subsection by the Commission (after consultation with the 
Secretary of the Treasury).”).  See also Oversight and Reauthorization of the Federal Communications Commission: 
Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
(testimony of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai) (July 25, 2017); Oversight of the Federal Communications Commission: 
Before the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 
(testimony of FCC Chairman Ajit Pai) (October 25, 2017);
2
Auction Of Advanced Wireless Services (AWS-3) Licenses Closes, Winning Bidders Announced For Auction 97, 
Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 630 (2015); Incentive Auction Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice; The 
Broadcast Television Incentive Auction Closes; Reverse Auction and Forward Auction Results Announced; Final 
Television Band Channel Assignments Announced; Post-Auction Deadlines Announced, Public Notice, 32 FCC Rcd 
2786 (MB, WTB 2017) (Closing and Channel Reassignment Public Notice).
3
Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Notice of Inquiry, FCC 17-104 (Aug. 3, 
2017) (Mid-Band Spectrum NOI). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
5
9. On July 14, 2016, the Commission adopted and released the Report and Order and 
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding.
4
  The R&O made mmW spectrum available 
through both licensed and unlicensed mechanisms.  The Commission created a new Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service, which authorized both fixed and mobile operations in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz 
bands using geographic area licensing.
5
  In the 28 GHz band, the Commission adopted county-sized 
geographic area licenses.
6
  In the 39 GHz band, it adopted Partial Economic Area (PEA) licenses.
7
  The 
Commission also adopted geographic area licensing using PEAs for the 37.6-38.6 GHz band.
8
  In the 37-
37.6 GHz band, it established coordinated co-primary shared access between Federal and non-Federal 
users.
9
  The Commission also protected a limited number of Federal military sites across the full 37 GHz 
band and maintained the existing Federal fixed and mobile allocations throughout the band.
10
  In the 64-
71 GHz band, the Commission authorized unlicensed operations under Part 15 based on the rules for the 
adjacent 57-64 GHz band.
11
  This action provided more spectrum for unlicensed uses such as Wi-Fi-like 
“WiGig” operations and short-range devices for interactive motion sensing.
10. In the R&O, the Commission also established licensing and operating rules for the Upper 
Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS).  It granted mobile operating rights to existing Local 
Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and 39 GHz band licensees, while subdividing their existing 
licenses to either the county or PEA level.
12
  The Commission revised the 39 GHz band plan to provide 
licensees with wider blocks of contiguous spectrum, and established a mechanism for existing licensees to 
transition to the new band plan.
13
  It adopted service and technical rules designed to facilitate full and 
complete use of the bands, including an operability requirement for equipment.
14
It adopted spectrum 
holdings policies for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands that apply to licenses acquired through 
auctions and the secondary market.
15
  The Commission also adopted performance requirements for 
mobile, point-to-multipoint, and fixed uses.
16
  The Commission adopted a requirement that UMFUS 
licensees submit a statement describing their security plans and related information prior to commencing 
operations.
17
  Finally, it deleted the broadcasting and broadcasting-satellite service allocations from the 
                                                     
4
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014 (2016).  When citing to the Report and Order portion of the document, we 
will refer to the R&O.  When citing to the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking portion of the document, we will 
refer to the FNPRM.  For background on earlier actions in this proceeding, see earlier orders released in this 
proceeding.
5
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8023-56, paras. 19-100.
6
Id. at 8029-30, paras. 35-36.
7
Id. at 8046-47, para. 82.
8
Id. at 8059-60, paras. 111-13.
9
Id. at 8059-60, paras. 111-13.
10
Id. at 8070-71, paras. 148-51.
11
Id. at 8064-65, para. 130.
12
Id. at 8031, 8038, paras. 41-42, 86-87.
13
Id. at 8053-56, paras. 95-96, 98-100.
14
Id. at 8127, paras. 321-24.
15
Id. at 8081-84, paras. 183-90.
16
Id. 8084-92, paras. 191-223.
17
Id. at 8101-06, paras. 255-65.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
6
42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) and declined to allocate the band to the Fixed-satellite service (space-
to-Earth).
18
11. The FNPRM sought comment on authorizing fixed and mobile use of the following 
bands:  24.25-24.45 GHz together with 24.75-25.25 GHz (24 GHz band), 31.8-33 GHz (32 GHz band), 
42-42.5 GHz (42 GHz band), the 47.2-50.2 GHz (47 GHz band), 50.4-52.6 GHz (50 GHz band), and the 
71-76 GHz band together with the 81-86 GHz bands (70/80 GHz bands).
19
  The Commission also sought 
comment on use of bands above 95 GHz.
20
  It sought comment on the details of the sharing framework 
adopted for the 37-37.6 GHz band, both among non-Federal operators and with the Federal government.
21
  
It also sought comment on circumstances under which Federal government users could gain coordinated 
access to spectrum in the 37.6-38.6 GHz band (in addition to the protected sites) in the future.
22
12. The FNPRM also sought comment on possible changes to the licensing and technical 
rules.  The Commission sought comment on establishing performance requirements for innovative uses 
associated with the Internet of Things (IoT) such as machine-to-machine communications, healthcare 
devices, autonomous driving cars, and home and office automation.
23
  It also sought comment on adding a 
use-or-share obligation to our performance requirements.
24
  It asked questions about supplementing the 
spectrum holdings policies adopted in the R&O, and on applying spectrum holdings policies as new 
“frontier” spectrum bands become available.
25
  The Commission also sought comment on whether it 
would be possible for satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to radiate a higher power flux density without 
harming terrestrial operations and to allow user terminals to receive transmissions in the band.
26
  The 
FNPRM also included questions about the feasibility and desirability of a digital station identification 
requirement for UMFUS licensees.
27
  Comment was also sought on various refinements to the UMFUS 
technical rules, including (1) whether antenna height limits are necessary, (2) how to apply power limits 
to bandwidths less than 100 megahertz, (3) whether to modify the coordination criteria for fixed point-to-
point operations at market borders, and (4) the state of development of mmW band propagation models.
28
  
Finally, the Commission asked whether it was possible to allow Part 15 operation on-board aircraft in the 
57-71 GHz band.
29
13. Petitions for reconsideration of the R&O were due on December 14, 2016.
30
  We received 
thirteen petitions for reconsideration.  A list of petitions for reconsideration, oppositions and comments, 
and replies is contained in Appendix H.
31
                                                     
18
Id. at 8144, paras. 367-68.
19
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8145-69, paras. 370-441.
20
Id. at 8169-70, paras. 442-45.  We note that we are seeking further comment on bands above 95 GHz in a separate 
Further Notice.
21
Id. at 8170-72, paras. 446-59.
22
Id. at 8173-74, para. 464.
23
Id. at 8174-75, paras. 465-70.
24
Id. at 8175-78, paras. 471-82.
25
Id. at 8178-80, paras. 483-91.
26
Id. at 8180-83, paras. 492-502.
27
Id. at 8183-84, paras. 503-04.
28
Id. at 8184-87, paras. 505-13.
29
Id. at 8187-88, paras. 514-16.
30
See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Final Rules, 81 FR 79894 (Nov. 14, 2016).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
7
14. Comments on the FNPRM were due September 30, 2016, and reply comments were due 
October 31, 2016.
32
  We received 57 comments and 38 reply comments.
33
  A list of commenters, reply 
commenters, and ex parte filings is contained in Appendix G.
34
III. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
A. Additional Bands
35
1. 24 GHz Bands (24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz)
15. Background.  The 24 GHz band is split into the “lower segment” from 24.25-24.45 GHz 
and the “upper segment” from 24.75-25.25 GHz. In the 24.45-24.75 GHz segment, which was not part of 
the FNPRM, there are Federal and non-Federal allocations for Inter-Satellite links, Radionavigation 
(24.45-24.65 GHz), and Radiolocation-Satellite (24.65-24.75 GHz).
36
  There is no mobile allocation in 
either of the 24 GHz band segments, and no fixed allocation at 24.75-25.05 GHz.
37
There are no Federal 
allocations in either segment.
38
Currently, non-Federal Fixed Service use is allocated in the “lower 
segment.”  There is a non-Federal Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) allocation on a co-primary basis in the 
“upper segment.”
39
  There is a non-Federal Fixed Service allocation from 25.05-25.25 GHz. A footnote 
to the U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations provides that feeder links for the Broadcast Satellite Service 
(Continued from previous page)                                                      
31
When citing petitions for reconsideration, we will use the short name of the petitioner contained in Appendix H, 
followed by the word “Petition.”  We will cite to oppositions to petitions for reconsideration using the short name of 
the filer followed by the word “Opposition.”  We will cite to comments to petitions for reconsideration as “[Party 
Name] Reconsideration Comments at X.”  Finally, replies to opposition or comments will be cited as the name of 
the filer followed by the word “Reply.”
32
See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services; Proposed Rules, 81 FR 58270 (Aug. 14, 
2016).
33
In addition to the comments listed in Appendix G, the Commission received many comments expressing concerns 
about radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic field exposure and health in GN Docket No. 14-177. We decline to 
consider the merits of these comments here for three reasons. First, the Commission already decided in the Report 
and Order that consideration of alternative exposure limits is beyond the scope of this proceeding, and no party 
sought reconsideration of that determination. Second, the comments do not otherwise address the other technical 
issues that are properly the subject of this decision (e.g., those raised in the FNPRM). Third, the Commission has an 
ongoing review of the Commission basic exposure limits and RF and health issues in ET Docket No. 13-84. See 
Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies, Notice of 
Inquiry, ET Docket No. 13-84, 28 FCC Rcd 3498, 3570 (2013). We have therefore added those comments to ET 
Docket No. 13-84, and those comments will be considered part of the record in that proceeding. 
34
When citing comments, we will use the short name of the commenter contained in Appendix G, followed by the 
words “Comments” or “Reply Comments.”  Similarly, for ex parte filings, we will use the name of the commenter 
along with the date the ex parte was filed as listed in ECFS (this date may be different from the date on the actual ex 
parte letter).
35
We will not act on the 32 GHz, 42 GHz, or 50 GHz bands at this time.  We also will not act on petitions for 
reconsideration or issues raised in the FNPRM relating specifically to the 37-38.6 GHz band (37 GHz band) or the 
operability requirement adopted by the Commission. The record on these bands and issues remains open, and we 
will act on those bands and issues in a future phase of this proceeding.
36
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
37
See id.
38
See id.
39
See id.Specifically, the entire upper segment (24.75-25.25 GHz) is allocated for non-Federal FSS, and the 25.05-
25.25 GHz portion has a co-primary allocation for non-Federal Fixed Service.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
8
(BSS) have priority over other FSS uses of the 24.75-25.05 GHz band, and the only permitted use of the 
25.05-25.25 GHz band is for BSS feeder links.
40
  
16. Currently, there are two types of fixed licenses in this band.  The 24 GHz Service has a 
total of 176 EA or EA-like service areas.
41
  In 2004, the Commission held Auction 56, in which it made 
880 24 GHz licenses available.  Only seven of the 880 licenses were sold, and of those five licenses are 
currently active.
42
  In addition, FiberTower holds a total of 33 active pre-auction Digital Electronic 
Messaging Service (DEMS) licenses licensed on a Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area basis in this 
band. 
17. Section 25.203(l) of the Commission’s rules provides that applicants for BSS feeder link 
earth station facilities operating in the 25.05-25.25 GHz band may be licensed only where no existing 
Fixed Service licensee has been authorized, and shall coordinate their operations with 24 GHz Fixed 
Service operations if the power flux density of their transmitted signal at the boundary of the Fixed 
Service license area is equal to or greater than ?114 dBW/m
2
in any 1 MHz.
43
  The 17/24 GHz 
Broadcasting-Satellite Service Report and Order determined that future Fixed Service systems locating 
near an authorized 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth station may not claim protection from interference 
from the feeder link earth station’s transmissions, provided that those transmissions are compliant with 
the Commission’s rules, and that future 24 GHz Fixed Service applicants would be required to take into 
account the transmissions from the previously authorized earth station when considering system designs, 
including their choices of locations for their license areas.
44
  There are four active licenses for feeder link 
earth stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band segment and one pending application, all of them held by 
DIRECTV.
45
18. There is no mobile allocation in either of the 24 GHz band segments, and no fixed 
allocation at 24.75-25.05 GHz.
46
  In the 24 GHz Report and Order, the Commission found that it would 
be premature to allow mobile operations in the 24 GHz bands but reserved the discretion to revisit that 
issue if it is presented with technical information demonstrating that such operations would be technically 
feasible without generating interference to fixed operations and BSS feeder links in 24 GHz band 
segments.
47
    As discussed below, we are adding a mobile allocation and establishing mobile service rules 
for both segments of the 24 GHz band.
a. Suitability for Mobile Use
19. Background.  In the FNPRM we proposed to add a mobile allocation on a primary basis 
to both segments of the 24 GHz band, 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz, in part because “[t]he 
                                                     
40
See id. n.NG 535.  
41
See id. § 101.523.
42
See 24 GHz Service Spectrum Auction Closes, Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 19 FCC Rcd 14738 
(WTB 2004).
43
47 CFR § 25.203(l).
44
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 Frequency 
Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency Band for 
Fixed-Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service, Report and Order and Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 22 FCC Rcd 8842, 8895, para. 128 (2007) (17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite 
Service Report and Order).
45
See DIRECTV Enterprises, LLC, call signs E070027, E130081, E140116, E150138, and E160062.
46
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
47
See Amendments to Parts 1, 2, 87 and 101 of the Commission’s Rules to License Fixed Services at 24 GHz, Report 
and Order, 15 FCC Rcd 16934, 16938, para. 7 (2000).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
9
existing manufacturing base and global harmonization of this band make it an attractive option for mobile 
use”
48
  We asked for comment on this arrangement.
49
The Commission also proposed to authorize both 
mobile and fixed operations in those segments under the new Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service rules.
50
20. The response in the record was overwhelmingly positive, with a large number of 
commenters supporting this proposal.
51
  In addition to general expressions of support, commenters 
mentioned that 24 GHz is particularly attractive for mobile use due to its international harmonization 
potential,
52
proximity to the previously-established 28 GHz band,
53
and its relatively low frequency (for a 
mmW band) and related propagation attributes.
54
21. No commenters directly challenged the suitability of the 24 GHz band for mobile 
services, but a few had related objections.  CCA advocated waiting to expand mobile use or UMFUS into 
additional bands, including 24 GHz, until after more development occurs in existing bands.
55
  Echodyne 
and The National Academy of Sciences, through its Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) had no 
objections to mobile operations in the proposed band segments, but urged the Commission not to expand 
the band further.
56
  CORF was concerned that extending the band below 24.25 GHz, which is below the 
range proposed in the FNPRM, would interfere with weather satellites,
57
and Echodyne cautioned that the 
“middle piece” of the 24 GHz band (24.45-24.75 GHz, which we have not proposed to allocate for 
mobile) should be preserved for its currently allocated radionavigation use.
58
22. Discussion.  In view of the extensive support in the record, and our analysis, we find 24 
GHz suitable for mobile and flexible use, and therefore add the proposed mobile and fixed allocations.  
As explained in further detail below, we find that issuing flexible use licenses that authorize both fixed 
and mobile use will address our prior concerns about compatibility between fixed and mobile use.  We 
also conclude, as discussed below, that mobile and BSS feeder links can coexist. We also note that these 
frequencies are part of the bands being studied internationally for mobile use.  After these changes, 24.25-
24.45 GHz will be allocated for non-Federal Fixed and Mobile services on a co-primary basis, and 24.75-
25.25 GHz will be allocated for non-Federal Fixed, Mobile, and Fixed-Satellite services on a co-primary 
basis, subject to the existing footnote.
59
  CORF and Echodyne do not generally oppose mobile use in the 
                                                     
48
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148, para.384.
49
Id.
50
Id.
51
5G Americas Comments at 4-5, CTA Comments at 4-5, Facebook Comments at 4, FiberTower Comments at 2-3, 
Nokia Comments at 6-7 NSMA Comments at 2, Qualcomm Comments at 5-6, TIA Comments at 3-4, AT&T Reply 
Comments at 4-6, CTIA Reply Comments at 3-4, T-Mobile Reply Comments at 3.
52
Ericsson Comments at 9-10, Huawei Comments at 4-6, Samsung Comments at 4-5, Intel Reply Comments at 3-4.
53
Samsung Comments at 4-5, Intel Reply at 3-4, Verizon Reply at 1.
54
Google Reply Comments at 4-5.
55
CCA Comments at 9-10.
56
CORF Comments at 5-6, Echodyne Comments at 4.
57
CORF Comments at 5-6.
58
Echodyne Comments at 4.
59
The addition of Fixed and Mobile allocations in the relevant portions of the band does not change the current 
satellite allocation.  Specifically, the current restriction on satellite operations in 24.75-25.25 GHz to Broadcast 
Satellite Service (BSS) feeder link stations only remains in place at this time. See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.NG 535.  See 
also Sections III.A.1.d (Satellite Sharing in the Upper Segment of the 24 GHz Band) and IV.A (FSS Use of the 
24.75-25.25 GHz Band) infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
10
specific frequencies we act on today.  Nevertheless, acknowledging specific CORF concerns,
60
we note 
that ongoing international studies include analyses to determine IMT-2020 out-of-band (OOB) emission 
limits necessary to protect passive sensors onboard weather satellites in the 23.6-24.0 GHz band.  The 
Commission recognizes the need to protect these passive satellite operations that provide important data 
necessary for weather predictions and warnings.  Once the international studies have been completed, 
interested parties may propose revisions to the Commission’s rules as necessary for protection of weather 
satellites operating in the 23.6-24.0 GHz band.  We also reject CCA’s suggestion that we hold back new 
bands until further mmW development has occurred.  Our priority is making spectrum available quickly 
so that it can be utilized by potential users, technology developers, and innovators.  Given the present 
demand for both mobile and mmW spectrum, we see no reason to artificially delay this process. 
b. Licensing the 24 GHz Band - Use of Geographic Area Licensing
23. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to add the 24 GHz band 
segments to the new Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service.  This would entail licensing the 
spectrum by exclusive geographical areas, as in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, with each licensee having 
the flexibility to deploy mobile services, fixed services, or both, within its license area. 
24. The majority of commenters addressing this issue supported using geographic area 
licensing, either in general
61
or specifically by adding the band to UMFUS.
62
  Commenters cited the 
market certainty that would be granted by using an established and exclusive-use model, and the 
accompanying encouragement of investment in the band.
63
  Some also mentioned that using a traditional 
licensing model aligned with the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands would encourage development and allow for 
economies of scale and more rapid deployment in the 24 GHz band.
64
25. Regarding license area size, the Commission did not make a specific proposal in the 
FNPRM beyond adding the band to UMFUS.
65
  Under UMFUS, the 28 GHz band is licensed by county 
due to transition considerations, and the 39 GHz band is licensed by Partial Economic Area (PEA).
66
  
Commenters overwhelmingly supported using PEAs as the license area size for 24 GHz.
67
  Several 
commenters mentioned harmonization with the 39 GHz band as a key benefit.
68
  Mobile Future and 
Qualcomm advocated for the use of the larger Economic Areas (EAs), to encourage additional 
investment,
69
while Google and Mimosa suggested sizes smaller than PEAs, due to the propagation 
characteristics of spectrum at this high frequency.
70
                                                     
60
See CORF Comments at 5-6.
61
5G Americas Comments at 4-5; AT&T Comments at 11-12; Mobile Future Comments at 4; Verizon Comments at 
3; US Cellular Reply Comments at 4-5.
62
CTIA Comments at 8-10; Facebook Comments at 4; Huawei Comments at 6; Nokia Comments at 6-7; Samsung 
Comments at 5; Straight Path Comments at 3; TIA Comments at 3-4; T-Mobile Comments at 7; AT&T Reply 
Comments at 4; Qualcomm Reply Comments at 2.
63
AT&T Comments at 11-12; CTIA Comments at 8-10; Verizon Comments at 3.
64
TIA Comments at 3-4; Verizon Comments at 3; Qualcomm Reply Comments at 2.
65
Cf. FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148, para. 383. 
66
See 47 CFR § 30.5; R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8029, para. 35.
67
AT&T Comments at 12-13; Samsung Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 7; US Cellular Reply Comments at 
6.
68
Samsung Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 7.
69
Mobile Future Comments at 4; Qualcomm Comments at 7.
70
Google Reply Comments at 5-6; Mimosa Reply Comments at 2-3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
11
26. A few commenters suggested adding the 24 GHz band to Part 96 instead, and 
implementing sharing via a Spectrum Access System (SAS).
71
  These commenters suggested that a SAS 
would improve spectrum efficiency, and allow for greater use of the band overall.
72
  Mimosa also argued 
that Part 96 was appropriate because PEAs are too large a license area for mmW spectrum,
73
while 
Microsoft suggested that either Part 96 or unlicensed use would be desirable in order to have some non-
exclusive-use spectrum below the 30 GHz breakpoint for indoor/outdoor penetration.
74
  Other 
commenters strongly disagreed, however, saying that a SAS-based model is currently untested, and would 
introduce uncertainty and hamper and delay deployment.
75
Microsoft also suggests authorizing
unlicensed use in the lower 24 GHz band.
76
27. Discussion.  We adopt the proposal in the FNPRM to implement geographic area 
licensing throughout the 24 GHz band, by adding both the upper and lower segments to UMFUS.  
Geographic area licensing will provide licensees with the flexibility to provide a variety of services, will 
expedite deployment, and will be consistent with the existing licensing scheme in previously-adopted 
mmW bands.  In addition, adding the 24 GHz band to UMFUS will speed development and deployment 
by harmonizing our requirements with the nearby 28 GHz band.  As part of UMFUS, the 24 GHz band 
will be subject to the rules established for UMFUS both here and in the R&O regarding construction 
requirements, geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation, discontinuance of service, and license 
term.
28. We will adopt PEAs as the license area size for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service 
(UMFUS) licenses in the 24 GHz band.  Our goal is to harmonize the regulatory environment of the 
various mmW bands as much as possible, in order to encourage and streamline development of equipment 
and deployment of services in these bands.  Using PEAs as the license area is consistent with our existing 
rules for the 39 GHz band.
77
In addition, PEAs provide a balance between the larger areas that might 
encourage more investment, and the smaller areas that more efficiently accommodate mmW propagation 
characteristics.  To the extent licensees are interested in smaller areas, partitioning is an available option.
29. We decline to adopt a Part 96-style or SAS-based framework for the band.  Unlike the 
3.5 GHz band, with its complex incumbent coordination considerations, this band does not require the 
functionality of a SAS to enable or enhance meaningful spectrum use.  There is also a benefit to 
harmonizing the regulatory environment of nearby bands as much as possible.  Adopting the same 
licensing scheme in 24 GHz as the Commission previously implemented in 28 GHz would facilitate 
deployment by making it easier to incorporate spectrum from both bands into the same network.  In short, 
implementing a SAS-based system in the 24 GHz band presents clear challenges and is of questionable 
benefit, and we therefore decline to do so.
30. Similarly, we decline to adopt the proposals of Microsoft to authorize unlicensed use in 
24 GHz.  The 24 GHz band is near other licensed bands, and the band is being studied internationally for 
                                                     
71
DSA Comments at 3; Google Reply Comments at 5-7; Microsoft Comments at 11-13; Mimosa Reply Comments 
at 2; OTI/Public Knowledge Comments at 15-16.  A Spectrum Access System manages all spectrum users, grants 
permission to transmit, and assigns frequencies to users.
72
DSA Comments at 2; Google Reply Comments at 5-7.
73
Mimosa Reply Comments at 2.
74
Microsoft Comments at 11-13. OTI and Public Knowledge also supported this idea. OTI/Public Knowledge
Comments at 15-16.
75
AT&T Comments at 11-12; CTIA Reply at 4 (“providing a stable regulatory environment is critical to allowing 
such development and investment to occur”); Intel Reply at 4; Qualcomm Reply at 4.
76
Microsoft Reply Comments at 8.
77
In contrast, in the 28 GHz band, there were special circumstances involving incumbent licenses that supported the 
use of counties.  See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8029, para. 35.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
12
mobile use.  Changing to unlicensed use could delay development and deployment significantly.  In 
addition, we have already made a further seven gigahertz of spectrum available for use by unlicensed 
devices in the 64-71 GHz band, and we are not convinced that additional unlicensed spectrum is needed 
in the mmW bands at this time.
c. Band Plan
31. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to modify the existing band plan 
for new licenses in the 24 GHz band.
78
  Currently, the 24 GHz band is channelized into five 40 megahertz 
by 40 megahertz channel pairs.
79
  The Commission expressed the belief that “as with the 39 GHz band, 
we see benefits to converting the 24 GHz band plan to unpaired blocks.”
80
  The Commission therefore 
proposed to license the lower segment of the 24 GHz band (24.25-24.45 GHz) as one unpaired block of 
200 megahertz, and the upper segment (24.75-25.25 GHz) as two unpaired blocks of 250 megahertz 
each.
81
  The Commission also sought comment on the alternative arrangement of splitting the upper 
segment into three channels, of 200 megahertz, 200 megahertz, and 100 megahertz, and the option of 
using 100 megahertz unpaired channels across the entire band.
82
32. Commenters were split on the issue of the upper segment. Many supported the second 
option (three channels of 200, 200, and 100 megahertz).
83
  TIA also suggested that the 100 MHz channel 
be located at the bottom of the segment, from 24.75-24.85 GHz, to support an easier repacking process 
for incumbents.
84
Other commenters preferred the 2x250 megahertz band plan, largely because they 
supported the widest possible channel size in order to maximize potential bandwidth.
85
  These 
commenters did not offer specific technical reasons (beyond the increased bandwidth) for why 250 
megahertz channels would be superior.  AT&T preferred 250 megahertz channels, although they 
described the 100-200-200 megahertz band plan as acceptable.
86
  One commenter, Cambridge Broadband, 
opposed any new band plan, instead advocating the continued use of paired channels to support FDD use 
of the band.
87
33. T-Mobile and US Cellular, on the other hand, supported 100 megahertz channels across 
the entire band, including the lower segment.
88
  T-Mobile expressed concern that a 200/250/250 band plan 
would “limit the number of potential entrants to the band.”
89
  US Cellular supported 100 megahertz 
channels because the 24 GHz band has less spectrum available than other mmW bands, and in general any 
band with less than one gigahertz of spectrum available should use 100 megahertz channels.
90
  Equipment 
                                                     
78
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148, para. 385.
79
See 47 CFR § 101.147(r)(13).
80
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148, para. 385.
81
Id.
82
Id.
83
CTIA Comments at 11 n.29; FWCC Comments at 4; Huawei Comments at 8; Qualcomm Comments at 7; TIA 
Comments at 6, 8.
84
TIA Comments at 6, 8.
85
FiberTower Comments at 3; Nokia Comments at 7.
86
AT&T Reply Comments at 12.
87
Cambridge Reply at 8.
88
T-Mobile Comments at 10; US Cellular Reply Comments at 7-9; T-Mobile Nov. 9 Ex Parte, US Cellular Nov. 8 
Ex Parte.
89
T-Mobile Comments at 10.
90
US Cellular Reply Comments at 7-9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
13
manufacturers cited developing standards that are likely to use 100 megahertz building blocks, suggesting 
that it would be much easier for a licensee to use a 100 megahertz block, or aggregate a 100 megahertz 
and a 200 megahertz channel, than to make full use of a more “irregular” 250 megahertz.
91
  
34. Discussion.  We will license the 24 GHz band as 100 megahertz channels.  The lower 
segment (24.25-24.45 GHz) will be licensed as two 100 megahertz channels, and the upper segment 
(24.75-25.25) will be licensed as five 100 megahertz channels.  We note in response to Cambridge 
Broadband that this arrangement will not foreclose FDD use of this band.  
35. This band plan allows for standardized channels across the band, at a size consistent with 
developing industry standards.  This arrangement will maximize efficiency of spectrum use, especially in 
the upper segment.  It also offers an alternative to the 200 megahertz and 425 megahertz channel widths 
offered elsewhere in the UMFUS bands.  This variety of channel sizes will help to facilitate a variety of 
uses in the UMFUS bands, consistent with our intent to support various innovative services.  We note that 
the 100 megahertz channel size will still allow licensees to aggregate to larger channels if they prefer 200 
megahertz blocks.
d. Satellite Sharing in the Upper Segment of the 24 GHz Band
36. Background.  The upper segment of the proposed 24 GHz band (24.75-25.25 GHz) is 
divided into two parts.  Satellite use of the upper part (25.05-25.25 GHz) is currently restricted to BSS 
feeder link earth stations,
92
in Economic Areas where there is no Fixed Service licensee.
93
  The lower part 
(24.75-25.05 GHz), which has no terrestrial licensees, is open for all FSS use, though BSS feeder links 
have priority.
94
BSS feeder link earth stations can be licensed to operate in the 24.75-25.05 GHz and 
25.05-25.25 GHz bands.
95
  The Commission sought comment in the FNPRM on the appropriate satellite 
sharing regime going forward, given its proposed increased terrestrial use of the band.
96
  Specifically, the 
Commission sought comment on whether to maintain existing limits on satellite use, whether to apply the 
regime it adopted for the 28 GHz band, where FSS has the right to have up to three earth station locations 
in each county, or whether some other alternative would be most appropriate.
97
  The Commission did not 
seek comment on whether to expand satellite use of the band to allow all FSS use, as opposed to the 
current limitation to BSS feeder links.
37. Commenters were split on the issue of earth station siting in the 24 GHz band.  Some 
commenters urged us not to change or expand the existing rules.
98
  AT&T and CTIA supported adopting 
a 28 GHz-style regime,
99
while Inmarsat and SES urged us not to “reflexively” apply that approach across 
                                                     
91
Qualcomm Comments at 7.
92
See 47 CFR. §§ 2.106 n.NG535, 25.202(a)(1).
93
47 CFR § 25.203(l).  When there is a fixed service licensee in a neighboring Economic Area, the applicant for the 
BSS feeder link earth station must coordinate with that licensee if the BSS feeder link earth station would generate a 
PFD of at least -114 dBW/m
2
/MHz at the boundary of the Economic Area containing the fixed service licensee.  Id.  
There is no provision in our rules that requires a fixed service licensee to coordinate with the BSS feeder link earth 
station applicant.
94
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.NG 535.
95
See 47 CFR §§ 2.106 n.NG535, 25.202(a)(1).
96
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148, paras. 384-85.
97
Id.
98
FiberTower Comments at 3; FWCC Comments at 4; Nokia Comments at 7; TIA Comments at 8; T-Mobile 
Comments at 9-10.
99
AT&T Comments at 13; CTIA Reply Comments at 4-6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
14
all mmW bands, but instead consider each band’s unique characteristics in crafting specific approaches.
100
Other suggestions for coordination mechanisms included a SAS,
101
a database of satellite locations with 
which terrestrial licensees would be required to coordinate,
102
and making terrestrial UMFUS secondary 
to FSS, and eliminating siting restrictions altogether.
103
  Although the Commission did not specifically 
seek comment on the issue of whether to allow broader FSS use, several commenters addressed this issue:  
satellite entities were broadly in favor of expansion, while others generally opposed it.
104
38. Discussion.  We decline to make any changes to the current rules for earth station siting 
at this time.  The record on these points is not sufficiently developed or cohesive to indicate the best 
approach.  Instead, we seek further comment on this issue in the Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
below in connection with a proposal to allow wider FSS use of the band for earth stations.
105
39. In the interim, satellite operators may continue to apply for and deploy any earth station 
facilities consistent with our current rules.  This means that new BSS feeder link earth stations may be 
authorized across the entire upper segment (24.75-25.25 GHz), while non-BSS FSS earth stations may be 
authorized in the 24.75-25.05 GHz portion.
106
  All earth stations either authorized or for which 
applications have been filed as of the release date of this Second Report and Order will be grandfathered 
into the eventual sharing regime on a co-primary basis.  Earth stations whose applications are filed after 
release of this Order may be processed subject to compliance with any rules we adopt as a result of the 
proposals in the Second FNPRM.  It is our intention to finalize sharing rules prior to any auction of 
terrestrial licenses in this band.
e. Mobile Rights for Incumbents
40. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on treatment of 
incumbent licensees.  Specifically, the FNPRM asked whether incumbent terrestrial licensees should be 
converted to UMFUS licensees, as will be done in the 28 and 39 GHz bands, and whether it is necessary 
to repack current licensees into the new band plan.
107
  As noted above, there are 38 current licenses in the 
band.  Commenters who addressed the issue unanimously supported converting existing licensees to 
UMFUS.
108
  Commenters generally did not address the repacking issue, though TIA supported
repacking.
109
                                                     
100
Inmarsat Reply Comments at 14-15; SES Reply Comments at 7-9.
101
Federated Wireless Reply at 4-6.
102
SIA Reply Comments at 17-18.  FWCC specifically opposed this option.  FWCC Reply Comments at 4.
103
SIA Reply Comments at 17-18.
104
, AT&T, EchoStar, ESOA, SES, and SIA were in favor of expanded satellite access; FiberTower, FWCC, Nokia, 
TIA, and T-Mobile were opposed.  FiberTower Comments at 3; FWCC Comments at 4; Nokia Comments at 7; TIA 
Comments at 8; AT&T Reply Comments at 4-6; EchoStar Reply Comments at 9-10; ESOA Reply Comments at 4-5;
SES Reply Comments at 6-7; SIA Reply Comments at 17-18; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 3.
105
See Section IV.A (FSS Use of 24.75-25.25 GHz Band), infra.
106
As discussed above, after the adoption of this Order, the Fixed and Mobile Services will be co-primary with FSS 
in the 24.75-25.05 GHz portion, and co-primary with BSS in the 25.05-25.25 GHz portion.  See supra Section 
III.A.1.a (Suitability for Mobile Use).
107
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148, para. 386.
108
FiberTower Comments at 2-3; FWCC Comments at 4; Nokia Comments at 7; NSMA Comments at 2; Qualcomm 
Comments at 6-7; TIA Comments at 8; T-Mobile Comments at 11.
109
TIA Comments at 8 (advocated a band plan that would facilitate repacking).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
15
41. Discussion.  We will convert existing licenses in the 24 GHz band to UMFUS.  This is 
consistent with the Commission’s treatment of incumbents in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, and will 
allow already-licensed spectrum to be developed for mobile or flexible use as soon as possible.
42. Converting existing licenses to UMFUS will also subject incumbent licensees to the 
performance requirements applicable to Part 30.  Consistent with the treatment of 28 GHz and 39 GHz 
licensees, we will apply the Part 30 buildout requirements at the next license renewal, but allow 
incumbents with renewals in the near future additional time to meet those standards.  Specifically, 
licensees whose license terms end between the date of publication of this order in the Federal Register, 
and June 1, 2024, will have until that later date to demonstrate fulfillment of the Part 30 buildout 
requirements.  This approach will allow current licensees to focus on growing and transitioning their 
networks in line with new and developing industry standards, which will support earlier and more robust 
deployment of next-generation services in these bands.
2. 47.2-48.2 GHz Band
43. Background.  The 47.2-48.2 GHz band is part of the 47.2-50.2 GHz band (47 GHz band).  
While there are primary non-Federal fixed, mobile, and FSS allocations throughout the 47 GHz band, 
there currently are no service rules for terrestrial operations in this band.
110
  The Commission, however, 
has designated the 47.2-48.2 GHz segment of the 47 GHz band for wireless services use and the 48.2-50.2 
GHz segment for FSS use.
111
  There is no Federal allocation in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band.    
44. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to authorize fixed and mobile operations in the 
entire 47 GHz band under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules.
112
The 47 GHz band 
potentially offers 3 gigahertz of spectrum and is being studied internationally for possible mobile use. As 
discussed below, we are not establishing terrestrial service rules in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, and that band 
will be discussed below in the MO&O.
113
a. Suitability for Mobile Service
45. Background.  The Commission in the FNPRM proposed to authorize fixed and mobile 
operations in the 47 GHz band.
114
The Commission also recognized that the 47 GHz band is authorized 
for FSS use and may be paired with the 40-42 GHz FSS downlink band,
115
though there are no current 
authorized FSS operations.  Unlike in the 28 GHz or 39 GHz bands, where FSS can use other spectrum to 
operate user equipment, FSS would have to use some portion of the 47 GHz band to operate user
equipment.
116
  The Commission in the FNPRM noted that sharing between terrestrial mobile and FSS user 
equipment is more complicated, particularly when the FSS user equipment is transmitting.
117
                                                     
110
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
111
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 
GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and 
Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, First Report and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24649, 24651 para. 2 (1999) (V-Band First Report and Order).  
112
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8155, para. 410.
113
See Section VI.A, infra.
114
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8155, para. 410.
115
Id. at 8155, para. 411.
116
Id. at 8155-56, para. 411.
117
Id. at 8156, para. 411.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
16
46. Terrestrial operators, equipment manufacturers, and other interests support mobile 
operations in the band.
118
Certain satellite interests urge the Commission to retain FSS access to the 
entire 47 GHz band for satellite operations, including primary status for FSS in the 48.2-50.2 GHz band, 
unencumbered by terrestrial operations.
119
Those satellite interests argue that UMFUS operators offer no 
persuasive rationale for reallocating the band.
120
Subsequently, satellite providers EchoStar, Hughes, 
OneWeb, Inmarsat, and Intelsat filed a joint ex parte supporting the designation of UMFUS as primary in 
the 47.2-48.2 GHz band and arguing that FSS be permitted to deploy individually licensed earth stations 
on a protected basis, through mechanisms similar to those the Commission is adopting today on 
reconsideration in the 28 GHz band.  Microsoft opposes the Commission’s authorizing fixed and mobile 
operations in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band; it maintains that the Commission has failed to address how mobile 
operations would share with High Altitude Platform Service (HAPS) stations operating between 47.2-
48.2 GHz.
121
  By comparison, Facebook indicates that the Commission’s flexible approach to service 
rules for mmW bands can accommodate mobile and HAPS use.
122
47. Discussion.  We will establish UMFUS service rules in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, as 
discussed below, and we will issue UMFUS licenses in that band with both fixed and mobile rights.  We 
will address the 48.2-50.2 GHz band below in the MO&O.
123
  The 47.2-48.2 GHz band has existing fixed 
and mobile allocations, and there are no Federal allocations in this band.  We also believe that the 
significant amount of bandwidth available in this band will help to accommodate the expected continued 
increase in demand for mobile data. Commenters, including incumbent terrestrial licensees and the 
Satellite Broadband Operators in their joint ex parte, support mobile operations in the 47.2-48.2 GHz 
band.
124
We acknowledge Microsoft’s concern about sharing between mobile operations and HAPS 
stations, but since there is no HAPS designation for this band in the domestic Table of Allocations, we 
see no reason to delay issuing UMFUS rules for this band.  We will continue to monitor ITU 
developments concerning HAPS.
b. Licensing the 47.2-48.2 GHz Band
48. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the option of licensing 
the 47 GHz band using geographic area licensing on a PEA basis.
125
The Commission also sought 
comment on the alternative of using a Spectrum Access System (SAS) or other form of database 
sharing.
126
                                                     
118
Straight Path Comments at 3; T-Mobile Comments at 15-16; AT&T Reply at 4,8; Qualcomm Comments at 5-6;
CTIA Comments at 10; Facebook Comments at 4; TIA Comments at 2-5; Verizon Comments at 3-4. 
119
Boeing Comments at 14-17; Inmarsat Comments at 17-19; ViaSat Comments at 5-7; O3b Reply Comments at 4.  
See also, EchoStar Comments at 4-6 (proposing that UMFUS licensees be given priority in a limited number of 
urban core areas, while outside of these urban cores, FSS and UMFUS licensees would be co-primary).
120
O3b Reply Comments at 5-6.
121
Microsoft Comments at 17-18. While there is an international designation for HAPS in the 47.2-47.5 GHz and 
47.9-48.2 GHz bands (see 47 CFR § 2.106 n.5.552A), the Commission has not incorporated that designation into the 
domestic Table of Allocations.
122
Facebook Comments at 5.
123
See Section VI.A, infra.
124
Straight Path Comments at 3; T-Mobile Comments at 15-16; AT&T Reply Comments at 4,8; Qualcomm 
Comments at 5-6; CTIA Comments at 10; Facebook Comments at 4; TIA Comments at 2-5; Verizon Comments at 
3-4; Satellite Broadband Operators April 25 Ex Parte at 3. 
125
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8156, para. 413.
126
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
17
49. Terrestrial operators argue that the Commission should focus on making the additional 
mmW spectrum bands available on a geographic area licensed, exclusive basis.
127
With respect to license 
area size, several commenters suggested that PEAs are appropriate because they are large enough to 
promote efficient network development.
128
In contrast, Mobile Future argues that the Commission should 
use license areas larger than PEAs to encourage investment and minimize the need to coordinate 
operation at license area borders.
129
  CCA suggests that the Commission wait for research and testing to 
be further along on the mmW bands before developing comprehensive licensing rules.
130
50. Discussion.  We will license the 47.2-48.2 GHz band using geographic area licensing 
using PEAs because we find that use of this license mechanism will facilitate access to spectrum and 
rapid deployment of service in the band. Given that this band does not involve sharing among multiple 
classes of primary users, we conclude that is not necessary to develop the functionality of an SAS for this 
band.”  Given the record, now is the appropriate time to move forward with making an additional one 
gigahertz of spectrum available, allowing CCA members and others to accommodate a wide variety of 
innovative use cases for the 47.2-48.2 GHz band.  As Samsung suggests, licensing the 47.2-48.2 GHz 
spectrum using geographic area licensing with PEAs is consistent with license areas for the 39 GHz band 
and the upper segment in the 37 GHz band.
131
  Licensing the 47.2-48.2 GHz band on a PEA basis strikes 
an appropriate balance between facilitating access to spectrum by both large and small providers and 
simplifying frequency coordination, while incentivizing investment in, and rapid deployment of, new 
technologies. We believe PEAs are more appropriate than larger geographic areas because of the limited 
propagation range of this band.  Geographic area licensing will provide users with flexible, exclusive use 
licenses.  
c. Non-Federal Satellite Terrestrial Sharing – Licensing of Gateway 
Earth Stations
51. Background.  With respect to individually licensed earth stations, in the FNPRM the 
Commission invited comment on adopting the sharing framework for the 47 GHz band that it previously 
adopted for the 28 GHz band.
132
  While there are no current authorized operations, the 47 GHz band may 
be paired with the 40-42 GHz downlink band.  Specifically, the Commission proposed that in each PEA 
there could be one location where FSS earth stations could be located on a co-primary basis, subject to the 
conditions and limitations that the Commission adopted in other bands.
133
52. In the FNPRM, the Commission also invited comments on three approaches for sharing 
between FSS user equipment and terrestrial operations in the band from 47 GHz to 50 GHz.
134
The 
Commission first asked whether we should have geographic area licensing on a PEA basis, but also 
authorize database-driven sharing between FSS operations and stationary FSS user equipment.
135
The 
Commission also asked whether it should divide the band into a segment where FSS has priority and a 
segment where UMFUS operations have priority.
136
  The Commission asked supporters of this option to 
                                                     
127
AT&T Reply Comments at 2; CTIA Comments at 8-12; Qualcomm Comments at 5-6; Verizon Comments at 3-4.
128
AT&T Comments at 11-13; Samsung Comments at 5-6; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 31.
129
Mobile Future Comments at 4.
130
See CCA Comments at 9-10.
131
Samsung Comments at 6. See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8046, para. 82 and 8060, para. 116. See also, T-Mobile 
Reply Comments at 31.
132
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8156, para. 412.
133
Id.
134
Id. at 8156, paras. 412-415.
135
Id. at 8156, para. 413.
136
Id. at 8156, para. 414.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
18
propose a split for the band and explain how their proposed split best balances the needs of UMFUS and 
FSS licensees.
137
Finally, as a third option, the Commission asked whether it should adopt specific criteria 
for assigning priority between FSS and terrestrial operations, including requiring both FSS and UMFUS 
licensees to register their operations in a database, allowing the Commission to assign interference 
protection on a first-come, first-serve basis.
138
53. In its comments, Boeing argues that broadband satellite systems must have unfettered 
access to the three GHz of spectrum in the 47 GHz band to operate transmitting satellite end user 
terminals.
139
  In contrast, satellite providers EchoStar, Hughes, OneWeb, Inmarsat, and Intelsat support 
the Commission’s designating UMFUS as primary in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band and argue that FSS should 
“be permitted to deploy individually licensed earth stations on a protected basis, through mechanisms 
similar to those adopted in the 28 GHz band . . .”
140
54. Discussion.  The record demonstrates that individually licensed earth stations in the 47.2-
48.2 GHz band can share the band with minimal impact on terrestrial operations. We note that there are 
similarities between the 28 GHz band and the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, both of which will be used for Earth-
to-space transmissions.  Therefore, we find that it is in the public interest to add the 47.2-48.2 GHz band 
to Section 25.136(d) of the Commission’s rules, which allows for sharing between terrestrial operations 
and FSS earth stations in uplink bands.
141
  Under that rule a limited number (three in each county, up to a 
maximum of 15 in each PEA) of FSS earth stations will be permitted to deploy under similar conditions 
as in the 28 GHz band without having to protect UMFUS stations.
142
  We are also adopting a U.S. Table 
of Allocations footnote specifying the relative interference protection obligations of FSS and UMFUS 
stations in this band.
55. We decline to provide any mechanism for satellite user equipment in this band.  Boeing 
has not provided any engineering studies to support its claim that it needs access to the full 47 GHz band 
for user equipment.  In contrast, most other satellite operators believe that use of 47.2-48.2 GHz by 
individually licensed earth stations would be sufficient.  As noted below, we are not adopting UMFUS 
rules for 48.2-50.2 GHz, so satellite user devices will have 2 by 2 gigahertz of spectrum available for 
satellite end user devices.
56. In addition, we recognize that concerns regarding aggregate interference to satellite 
receivers from UMFUS operations in the 28 GHz band also could apply in the context of the 47 GHz
band, which similarly is an uplink band for satellites.  Consistent with the long-term designation of the 47 
GHz band for terrestrial use, we intend that this band will remain predominantly a terrestrial band.  
UMFUS licensees will be permitted to operate in conformance with the technical rules contained in 47 
C.F.R. Part 30, and FSS licensees should expect to have to coexist with these operations.  Unlike the 28 
GHz band, where there are currently operational satellites, satellites receiving in the 47 GHz band are 
either currently being designed or still to be designed.  As in the context of the 28 GHz band, we 
encourage both industries to continue working cooperatively on coexistence in this band.  Parties should 
submit any relevant data demonstrating changes in the amount of aggregate interference as UMFUS
services are deployed in the docket the International Bureau, the Office of Engineering and Technology, 
                                                     
137
Id.
138
Id. at 8156, para. 415. 
139
Boeing Comments at 14-17. 
140
Satellite Broadband Operators April 25 Ex Parte at 3; see also Satellite Broadband Operators October 2 Ex Parte.
141
See 47 CFR § 25.136. To reference § 25.136 in our rule addressing filing requirements for transmitting earth 
stations we also make consequential modifications to paragraphs (b) and (g) of § 25.130.  See 47 CFR § 25.130.
142
See para. 136 infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
19
and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau have jointly established regarding aggregate interference in 
the 28 GHz band.
143
d. Band Plan
57. Background. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate band 
plan for the entire 47 GHz band.
144
  One option the Commission proposed was to divide the band into six 
channels of 500 megahertz each.
145
  The Commission suggested that one advantage of that band plan is 
that the channels would align with 48.2 GHz, which is where the Federal allocation and current FSS 
designation begin and where FSS user equipment can begin to be deployed.
146
  The Commission noted, 
however, that 500 megahertz channels would not align with the band plan in other bands, where the 
Commission is using multiples of 200 megahertz.
147
  
58. Commenters generally support large channel sizes.
148
  They differ, however, on their 
preferred channel size, their preferred mix of channel sizes, and the appropriate minimum and maximum 
channel sizes. Some commenters favor a minimum channel size of 200 megahertz.
149
Other commenters
generally favor 200 megahertz channel sizes or multiples thereof.
150
Nokia specifically favors six 500 
MHz blocks.
151
59. Discussion. We will license the 47.2-48.2 GHz band as five 200 megahertz blocks. We 
believe that 200 megahertz channels will be sufficient for a licensee to provide the type of high rate data 
services and other innovative uses and applications contemplated for this spectrum.  Several carriers 
support dividing the band into multiple blocks.
152
Since we are making one gigahertz available at this 
time, establishing five 200 megahertz channels represents a reasonable balance of channel size and 
number of channels.
153
  To the extent that licensees are interested in having a contiguous block of one
gigahertz of spectrum,
154
they are free to acquire all five licenses, subject to compliance with our spectrum 
aggregation policies.
B. Performance Requirements – Additional Metrics
60. Background.  Under the Communications Act, we have an obligation to adopt rules for 
licenses subject to competitive bidding that prevent the warehousing of spectrum, and promote investment 
                                                     
143
See Docket Established for 28 GHz Aggregate Interference Analysis, 32 FCC Rcd 5022 (IB 2017).
144
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8157, para. 417. 
145
Id.
146
Id.
147
Id.
148
AT&T Comments at 9-11; AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13; CTIA Comments at 11; Huawei Comments at 8; 
Nokia Comments at 9; Qualcomm Reply Comments at 3; Qualcomm Comments at 10; TIA Comments at 5-7; T-
Mobile Reply Comments at 29; Samsung Comments at 5-6.
149
AT&T Comments at 9-10; AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13; Qualcomm Comments at 10; Qualcomm Reply 
Comments at 3.
150
CTIA Comments at 11; Huawei Comments at 8; T-Mobile Comments at 16; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 29; 
TIA Comments at 5-7; Samsung Comments at 5.
151
Nokia Comments at 9.
152
See, e.g., Huawei Comments at 8; Qualcomm Comments at 10.
153
As discussed in the MO&O, infra, we decline to authorize UMFUS in the 48.2-50.2 GHz portion of this band, so 
no further discussion of a band plan for that segment is necessary.
154
See e.g., AT&T Reply Comments at 12-13. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
20
in new technologies and services.
155
  It is our goal to create a regulatory scheme that promotes the rapid 
and widespread deployment of wireless broadband, to consumers’ benefit.  One way to both fulfill our 
statutory obligation and promote widespread deployment is to impose enforceable buildout or coverage 
requirements.
61. In the Report and Order, the Commission set out the framework for performance 
requirements for UMFUS licenses.
156
Rather than adopt a substantial service requirement with a 
nonexhaustive list of safe harbors, the Commission adopted a finite set of standards, with licensees 
required to meet at least one in order to be eligible for license renewal.
157
Licensees may choose the 
metric that best fits their deployment model, but they may not use other, unlisted metrics to demonstrate 
sufficient buildout.
158
  The Commission adopted population-based metrics for mobile and fixed services, 
and an absolute number for satellite earth stations.
159
  The Commission noted that the mmW bands are 
currently being considered for other, innovative services, such as IoT, whose networks might not fit 
within the buildout requirements it adopted, and sought comment on additional metrics that might be 
more appropriate.
160
62. The record is not well-developed on this issue.  Most commenters who addressed this 
issue urged us not to adopt any performance requirements for IoT-type services, as the technology is 
insufficiently developed to establish reasonable requirements.
161
  Other commenters suggest only that we 
adopt requirements that are “flexible.”
162
  Nextlink proposed that we require only one “installation” or 
“system” per license area, with no stipulations on how extensive the “system” must be.
163
  O3b urges us 
not to adopt any additional metrics because geographic area coverage is the only appropriate measure of 
spectrum use in a license area.
164
63. Some commenters proposed usage-based metrics that would enable the Commission to 
measure provision of service without regard for the network architecture used to provide it.
165
  Of these 
commenters, only CTIA submitted a concrete proposal complete with suggested levels of required use;
166
the others merely expressed general support for the idea, or a list of possible directions with no details.
167
  
On the other hand, Nextlink opposed adopting any usage-based metric, on the grounds that it would 
                                                     
155
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
156
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8085-90, paras. 196-210.
157
Id. at 8088, para. 203.
158
Id.
159
Id. at 8088-90, paras. 206-210, 47 CFR § 30.104.
160
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8088, para. 204.
161
AT&T Reply Comments at 13; CCA Comments at 7-8; Intel Reply Comments at 7-9; T-Mobile Reply 
Comments at 30-31; Verizon Comments at 8.
162
Ericsson Comments at 18; FWCC Comments at 14; NSMA Comments at 5; Straight Path Comments at 11;
Qualcomm Reply Comments at 5; CTIA Reply Comments at 8.
163
Nextlink Reply Comments at 15-16.
164
O3b Comments at 11-12.
165
CTIA Comments at 18; FWCC Comments at 14; Qualcomm Comments at 13-14; Southern Co. Comments at 2-
7; Starry Comments at 5.
166
CTIA Comments at 18.  CTIA also argued separately that “[t]he Commission should not complicate performance 
review by adopting a separate rubric for evaluating IoT-type services.”  CTIA Comments at 16.
167
Qualcomm Comments at 13-14 (e.g., “It will be more appropriate to base a performance requirement for the 
millimeter wave bands upon the number of connected devices, the volume of transmitted data, and/or the number of 
communications sessions rather than on population coverage or a level of infrastructure deployment.”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
21
“discourage deployment of innovative use cases that do not fit squarely within these metrics,” such as 
remote surgery, which might be very beneficial without involving a large number of sessions or 
connected devices.
168
64. Discussion.  We decline to adopt usage-based metrics at this time.  We agree with 
commenters that it is premature to predict the uses of innovative, IoT-type services with sufficient 
specificity to calculate a meaningful usage-based metric.
169
Though IoT-type services nonetheless are 
required to meet the UMFUS buildout rules, we acknowledge that some IoT-type services may have 
difficulty meeting the population-based metrics that the Commission adopted for fixed and mobile 
services.  In that regard, in the Second Further Notice below, we propose a more traditional, geographic 
area coverage metric for fixed and mobile services that is intended to provide a more viable option for 
IoT-type services to demonstrate performance, without the complications of predicting usage.
170
65. In addition, we recognize the possibility that, rather than facing challenges in meeting the 
buildout metrics for fixed and mobile services, certain IoT-type services may be able to avoid meaningful 
buildout by taking advantage of a potential loophole in the buildout rules for mmW services.  In order to 
allow licensees as much flexibility as possible to design and construct their networks, these rules have not 
placed any limits on what types of licensees or services must use which performance metric.  However, in 
the case of IoT-type services, including networks of sensors and “smart” devices,
171
  a licensee using the 
buildout metric for fixed services could fulfill the performance requirements for an entire multi-county 
license area (in 39 GHz) with a deployment spanning a single building,
172
by counting each connection 
between the sensors as a fixed point-to-point link.  We do not believe this result is consistent with our 
obligation to prevent spectrum warehousing.
66. To address this issue, we modify our existing Part 30 rules to adopt a specific definition 
of “fixed point-to-point link,” which includes the use of point-to-point stations as already defined in Part 
30 and is based on power level.  This definition is intended to separate “traditional” point-to-point links 
from the sensor and device connections we anticipate will be part of new Internet of Things networks in 
these bands.  This definition would not apply to a network of fixed sensors or smart devices operating at 
low power over short distances.  
67. Traditional point-to-point links use relatively high power, while the details that currently 
exist for Internet of Things services indicate that most sensor or smart device networks will use very low 
power
173
and are not likely to incorporate highly directional antennas due to size and cost constraints.  We 
                                                     
168
Nextlink Comments at 20-22.
169
AT&T Reply at 13; CCA Comments at 7-8; Intel Reply at 7-9; T-Mobile Reply at 30-31; Verizon Comments at 
8.
170
See Section IV.B (Performance Requirements – Geographic Area Metric), infra.
171
Darrell M. West, How 5G Technology Enables the Health Internet of Things, Center for Technology Innovation 
at Brookings, at 2 (July 2016), https://www.brookings.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2016/07/5G-Health-Internet-of-
Things_West.pdf.
172
For example, suppose a licensee wants to equip an office building with environmental sensors to increase the 
efficiency of its HVAC system.  A building with ten floors, and one sensor on each corner of each floor, would have 
forty sensors. If each sensor were connected to its four neighbors (those in adjacent corners, and in the same corner 
on adjacent floors) over UMFUS spectrum, this sensor network would have 152 connections (32*4 + 8*3; the 
sensors on the first and tenth floor would have only 3 connections each).  Under the performance metric we adopted 
for fixed point-to-point services, which requires one link per 67,000 population, this sensor network would fulfill 
buildout requirements for a license area of up to 10.1 million people.  According to 2010 Census data, that limit 
encompasses every county, and thus every 28 GHz license area, in the United States.  
173
For example, 3GPP specifications designed to accommodate IoT uses reference a 23 dBm power class and a 33 
dBm power class.  3GPP Standards for the Internet of Things, Phillippe Reininger, Chairman of 3GPP RAN WG 3, 
at 6.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
22
therefore believe that power level is an appropriate metric to distinguish between traditional fixed links 
and IoT deployments.  To the extent that any sensor networks do use higher power, it is likely that they 
will be connecting over longer distances, and therefore resemble a more traditional fixed network in terms 
of magnitude of deployment and scope of service provided.
68. Specifically, we define a “fixed point-to-point link” as “a radio transmission between 
point-to-point stations (as already defined in Part 30), where the transmit power exceeds +43 dBm.”  This 
power limit is the limit we previously adopted for mobile handsets transmitting in UMFUS bands.
174
  The 
maximum power (average EIRP) allowed for fixed point-to-point stations in UMFUS bands under our 
current rules is +55 dBW, which is equivalent to +85 dBm.
175
  Under this definition, stations or devices 
transmitting using lower power levels will not count towards the number of fixed links required under 
that performance metric.  Licensees whose networks include such low-power connections must either rely 
on another part of their network to demonstrate buildout (e.g., mobile area coverage or higher-power 
fixed backhaul links), or offer detailed responses to the Commission’s proposal in the Second FNPRM
below
176
to work out a more suitable alternative.
69. Performance requirements for point-to-point services have always been calculated 
assuming that point to point links consist of communications between specified points using highly 
directional antennas and relatively high power; this definition merely makes that assumption explicit.
177
  
This explicit statement is necessary in light of new technological developments, in order to prevent 
unintended consequences and gamesmanship of our rules.  We remind commenters that we continue to 
explore new metrics that will accommodate innovative services in UMFUS bands, including a proposal in 
the Second FNPRM below.
178
C. Mobile Spectrum Holdings Policies 
70. We find that it is unnecessary to set pre-auction limits on the amount of spectrum an 
entity may acquire at auction in the bands proposed for flexible terrestrial wireless use in the FNPRM.  
We also conclude that the bands that we make available for flexible terrestrial wireless use in this Second 
R&O – the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands – should be newly included as part of the total mmW spectrum 
threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market transactions.  In the Second FNPRM, we propose to 
eliminate the pre-auction limits on the amount of spectrum in the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands that 
an entity may acquire at auction.  In addition, we seek comment on whether there is a need to review 
mmW band holdings (24 GHz, 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz) on a case-by-case basis when 
applications for initial licenses are filed post-auction to ensure that, while providing flexibility to bidders 
and assigning licenses to those who value them the most, the public interest benefits of having a threshold 
on mmW spectrum applicable to secondary market transactions are not rendered ineffective. We take an 
incremental approach in relieving only certain restrictions in connection with acquisition of spectrum at 
auction at this time.  This accounts for the fact that spectrum in additional bands (24 GHz and 47 GHz) 
will become available as a result of the decisions in this Second R&O and for the possibility that spectrum 
subject to new uses on the secondary market is available, or may become available, from existing 
spectrum holders in the mmW bands.  We wish to encourage such new uses, if they are in the public 
                                                     
174
47 CFR § 30.202.
175
47 CFR § 30.405.
176
See Section IV.B (Performance Requirements – Geographic Area Metric), infra.
177
47 CFR § 101.115 defines minimum standards for directionality of antennas for point-to-point services.  With 
respect to transmitter power, while there are specific circumstances in which low-power point-to-point links may 
operate, those circumstances are generally limited to specific bands under certain conditions.  See 47 CFR 
§§ 101.147(r)(14), (s)(8).
178
See Section IV.B (Performance Requirements – Geographic Area Metric), infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
23
interest, as quickly as possible, including in advance of the Commission’s resolution of issues in the 
Second FNPRM and any future auction making more spectrum available in the mmW bands, respectively.    
71. Background.  In the R&O, the Commission adopted mobile spectrum holdings policies 
that it applied collectively to the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands, observing that these bands have 
similar technical characteristics and potential uses.
179
  Specifically, the Commission established a pre-
auction limit of 1250 megahertz that applies to entities acquiring spectrum in those bands through 
competitive bidding in an auction.
180
  The Commission also adopted a mmW spectrum threshold of 1250 
megahertz of holdings in these three bands for purposes of the Commission’s case-by-case review of 
proposed secondary market transactions, to help to identify those markets that may warrant further 
competitive analysis.  The Commission found it unnecessary to apply band-specific aggregation limits in 
each of these three mmW bands because any technical differences among the bands were not sufficient to 
affect significantly how these spectrum bands might be used.
181
72. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on two implementation issues related to 
the pre-auction limit that it had adopted in the R&O:  first, the methodology to calculate a bidder’s 
existing spectrum holdings; and second, a proposal to adopt a holding period that would preclude certain 
secondary market transactions subsequent to acquisition of spectrum at auction.
182
In addition, the 
Commission sought comment on applying the same mobile spectrum holding policies that it adopted in 
the R&O to the additional mmW bands proposed for UMFUS rules in the FNPRM and sought comment 
on alternatives.
183
73. Discussion.  We decline to adopt a pre-auction limit, as proposed in the FNPRM and 
suggested by certain commenters,
184
on the amount of 24 GHz and 47 GHz band spectrum that an entity 
can acquire through competitive bidding in an auction.  Generally, bright-line, pre-auction limits may 
restrict unnecessarily the ability of entities to participate in and acquire spectrum in an auction, and we are 
not inclined to adopt such limits on auction participation absent a clear indication that they are necessary 
to address a specific competitive concern.  In the case of the mmW bands, we are not persuaded by 
commenters’ generalized assertions that a bright-line, pre-auction limit in these bands is necessary to 
protect competition in the provision of wireless services.  First, we note that the 24 GHz and 47 GHz 
bands that we make available in this Second R&O will add 1700 megahertz to the 3250 megahertz of 
mmW spectrum made available in the R&O, for a total of 4950 megahertz of mmW spectrum for flexible 
terrestrial wireless use.  Furthermore, the spectrum in these new bands, as well as the 3250 megahertz of 
spectrum previously made available, will be licensed in multiple blocks of different sizes and geographic 
                                                     
179
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8082, paras. 185-186.
180
Id. at 8081, paras. 183-184.  The 1250 megahertz threshold is slightly more than one-third of the total available 
spectrum in the three mmW bands made available in the R&O. 
181
Id. at 8082, paras. 185-186.  In the Order on Reconsideration infra, we deny a request for reconsideration of this 
decision.
182
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8178, para. 483. 
183
Id. at 8180, para. 491.
184
See CCA Comments at 3-4 (arguing for a one-third aggregation limit as a helpful first step to curbing anti-
competitive aggregation and for in-band limits to prevent “anti-competitive aggregation” of a single band); Straight 
Path Comments at 26-27 (stating that competition will be stymied if spectrum is concentrated in the hands of a 
limited number of licensees); US Cellular Reply Comments at 13-14 (arguing that limits are needed to promote 
competition); T-Mobile Comments at 28 (arguing that limits help prevent any one provider from obtaining a 
competitive advantage); US Cellular Nov. 13 Ex Parte (advocating for keeping pre-auction limits, especially for 
below-30 GHz bands).  See also WISPA Nov. 2 Ex Parte (urging spectrum aggregation analysis during short-form 
application review or during the auction), OTI Nov. 7 Ex Parte at 2 (arguing that limits at auction should exist for 
mmW bands); T-Mobile Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 3-4 (arguing for holistic approach to spectrum aggregation policy and 
urging reconsideration in the 2
nd
FNPRM of decision not to have limits on the 24 and 47 GHz bands).    
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
24
areas, providing many spectrum opportunities for various types of auction bidders.
185
  In addition, as 
indicated in the record, development of the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands and the mmW bands overall is still 
in the early stages, with a myriad of potential use cases that may require varying amounts of bandwidth 
for providers to offer consumers innovative services.
186
  Under these circumstances, we find that 
establishing pre-auction limits for the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands would not serve the public interest.  
74. Although we decline to adopt a pre-auction limit for the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands, we 
conclude that it is in the public interest to include these two bands as part of the previously-adopted mmW 
spectrum threshold for reviewing proposed secondary market transactions.  This pre-auction limit may 
unnecessarily restrict competition at auction by automatically precluding a provider from acquiring 
spectrum.  This secondary market mmW spectrum threshold, in contrast to a pre-auction limit, does not 
establish a bright line that would prohibit a provider from acquiring spectrum. Rather, the mmW 
spectrum threshold for secondary markets review merely identifies those markets that may warrant further 
competitive analysis, similar to the Commission’s spectrum screen for review of secondary market 
transactions involving other lower frequency spectrum bands.
187
  Given that the 24 GHz and 47 GHz 
bands share similar technical characteristics and potential uses with the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz 
bands already included in the mmW spectrum threshold, we will group all five bands together for 
purposes of applying the mmW spectrum threshold to review secondary market transactions.
188
  Taking 
into consideration the additional 1700 megahertz of mmW spectrum that we are making available in the 
24 GHz and 47 GHz bands, we add 600 megahertz, or approximately one-third of this additional 
spectrum, to the 1250 megahertz mmW spectrum threshold, for a combined threshold of 1850 megahertz 
for proposed secondary market transactions.
189
  
                                                     
185
See 2
nd
R&O, supra, at paras. 34, 59.
186
See AT&T Reply Comments at 15-17 (arguing that limits restrict consideration of performance factors and other 
unique circumstances that may be relevant to the still emerging 5G competitive landscape); Verizon Reply 
Comments at 4 (noting that it is “too early in the 5G innovation cycle to know how much bandwidth operators will 
need”); TIA Comments at 21 (stating that technologies for using mmW spectrum remain at the nascent stage of 
technological development); Mobile Future Comments at 6 (stating that many use cases for this spectrum are not yet 
defined and therefore applying limits are premature); CCA Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 3 (“to accommodate technical 
challenges between bands and prevent anti-competitive aggregation, the FCC should refrain from adopting 
preauction limits for the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands at this time, and instead consider aggregation limits in these 
bands in the [2
nd
FNPRM]”).
187
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8078, para. 178; see also Applications of Softbank Corp., Starburst II, Inc., Sprint Nextel 
Corp., & Clearwire Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, Declaratory Ruling, and Order on Reconsideration, 28 
FCC Rcd 9642, 9656, para. 34 (2013) (screen helps identify local markets where changes in market concentration or 
spectrum holdings from a transaction may be of particular concern); OTI Nov. 7 Ex Parte at 2 (urging that a 
“spectrum screen” be applied to 28, 32 and 37 GHz bands and 24 and 47 GHz bands).  
188
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8082, paras. 185-86.
189
As noted, the Commission has adopted previous changes in this area through a variety of mechanisms, including 
rulemakeing and orders approving transactions.  Policies Regarding Mobile Spectrum Holdings Expanding the 
Econ. & Innovation Opportunities of Spectrum Through Incentive Auctions, Report and Order, 29 FCC Rcd 6133, 
6135, para. 4 (2014); Sprintcom, Inc., Shenandoah Personal Communications, LLC & Ntelos Holding Corp., 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 3631, 3637-38, para. 15 (WT/IB 2016); Applications of AT&T 
Mobility Spectrum LLC, New Cingular Wireless Pcs, LLC, Comcast Corp., Horizon Wi-Com, LLC, Nextwave 
Wireless, Inc., & San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. for Consent to Assign & Transfer Licenses, Memorandum Opinion and 
Order, 27 FCC Rcd 16459, 16470–71, para. 31 (2012).  To the extent necessary, we clarify that the Commission 
retains the discretion to do so in the future (including as we authorize service in additional mmW bands).  For 
purposes of this proceeding, we provide that this specific change will become effective upon publication in the 
Federal Register.  See para. 268 infra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
25
D. Part 15 Operation On-board Aircraft in the 57-71 GHz Band
75. We are adopting rules to allow unlicensed operation on-board most aircraft in the 
57-71 GHz band under Part 15 of our rules.
190
  Our decision opens this band for unlicensed use on-board 
aircraft and would allow up to six (6) non-overlapping WiGig channels of 2160 megahertz each.
191
  We 
find that allowing 60 GHz unlicensed transmitters to operate in all flight phases of aircraft operation in 
the 57-71 GHz spectrum, with the limitations described herein, will not cause harmful interference to 
other authorized radio services, including EESS and the radio astronomy service (RAS), while facilitating 
expanded access to broadband services in flight.
76. Background.  Under Part 15, the 57-71 GHz band is available for unlicensed operations, 
but operation on-board aircraft is currently prohibited.
192
  The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition 
(FWCC), the National Spectrum Management Association (NSMA), and the Aerospace Vehicle 
Spectrum Institute (AVSI) filed in support of allowing on-board aircraft operations in the 60 GHz 
spectrum.
193
  In particular, the AVSI (with the cooperation of Airbus, Boeing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration, Intel, Panasonic Avionics Corporation, and Zodiac Inflight Innovations (ZII)) filed an 
extensive interference analysis report (AVSI Study) to demonstrate that the use of WiGig equipment on-
board aircraft in the 57-71 GHz band does not cause harmful interference to passive services.
194
77. FWCC supports limited unlicensed operation at 57–71 GHz aboard aircraft at power 
levels suitable for a 30–60 cm range on in-seat entertainment while avoiding the first WiGig channel (i.e., 
57-59.3 GHz) but only if EESS satellites will have adequate protection.
195
  NSMA favors carefully 
controlling any operation on board aircraft to fully protect EESS.  NSMA also notes that unlicensed fixed 
microwave operations are authorized in the 57-64 GHz frequency band and these services should also be 
protected.
196
78. In the AVSI Study, AVSI provides detailed analyses, dynamic simulations,
197
and 
corroborating field testing results to demonstrate that WiGig transmitters operating in the 57-71 GHz 
band on-board commercial passenger transport aircraft will not cause harmful interference to EESS 
                                                     
190
47 CFR § 15.255; FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8187-88, paras. 515-16.
191
See IEEE 802.11-2016, IEEE Standard for Information technology-Telecommunications and information 
exchange between systems-Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN 
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications.
192
47 CFR § 15.255(a)(1).  This requirement was adopted in 1995 pursuant to a request of the National Academy of 
Sciences, Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) to protect radio astronomy (RAS) operations.  See Amendment 
of Parts 2, 15, and 97 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Use of Frequencies Above 40 GHz for New Radio 
Applications, First Report and Order and Second Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 4481, 4496-97, para.
35 (1995).  The Commission did not lift this prohibition in the 2016 R&O adopting the 64-71 GHz band for 
unlicensed operations under the same rules in 47 CFR § 15.255.  R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8131-8132, paras. 331-33.
193
Boeing, Intel and ZII filed separate comments to support on-board aircraft usage prior to joining AVSI in 
ex parte filings.  Boeing Comments at 54-55; Intel Reply at 14-15, ZII Comments.  The Wi-Fi Alliance, Microsoft, 
and OTI/Public Knowledge also filed in support of on-board aircraft usage in the 57-71 GHz band.  Wi-Fi Alliance 
Comments at 9-10; Microsoft Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1; OTI/Public Knowledge Nov. 7 Ex Parte at 1.
194
See Aerospace Vehicle Spectrum Institute AFE 85 Project Report, Analysis of Potential Interference from WiGig 
Radios on Aircraft to EESS Passive Sensors, dated August 30, 2017, at 
https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/10831759627379/AVSI%20WiGig%20Cover%20Letter%20and%20Report%20for%20F
CC%20Filing.pdf (filed by David Redman) (AVSI Study).
195
FWCC Comments at 9.
196
NSMA Comments at 4.
197
Dynamic simulation is the use of a computer program to model the time-varying behavior of a system. The 
systems are typically described by ordinary differential equations or partial differential equations.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
26
passive service, based on protection criteria developed for this service by the ITU-R.
198
  Specifically, 
AVSI results and analyses show that the protection criterion for EESS as published in ITU-R 
Recommendation RS.2017 of -169dBW/100MHz
199
is satisfied with a significant margin (at least 20 dB) 
when considering worst-case peak air traffic (multiple aircraft) and worst-case aircraft emissions.
200
  
AVSI also found that typical aircraft effective fuselage attenuation is 40 dB in the 57-71 GHz frequency 
range.
201
  
79. On the other hand, CORF, representing the interest of the passive services of EESS and 
RAS, continues to be specifically concerned about protecting the 57-59.3 GHz EESS passive service, and 
does not think that prohibiting the use of this channel will ameliorate the effect on RAS from 
transmissions in the rest of the band.
202
  Regarding RAS, for which there is no allocation in the 57-71 
GHz band, CORF is concerned mainly about WiGig spurious emissions on harmonic frequencies that fall 
in RAS bands.
203
  CORF recommends that any aeronautical use of these bands require strict out-of-band 
(OOB) emission limits at the harmonic frequencies
204
and should be considered in the aggregate within 
the airplane, as well as in aggregate from all planes within the beam and side lobes of the radio 
telescope.
205
  In addition, CORF strongly urges the Commission to prohibit wireless avionics intra-
communications (WAIC)
206
operations in this band in order to protect vital weather forecasting data 
collection.  
80. Discussion.  We are modifying our Part 15 rules to allow unlicensed operation on-board 
most aircraft during flight in the 57-71 GHz band.  We find that allowing unlicensed use of this spectrum 
on-board aircraft while airborne, with certain limitations, will facilitate air travelers’ expanded access to 
                                                     
198
See International Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector (ITU-R), Performance and interference 
criteria for satellite passive remote sensing, Recommendation ITU-R RS.2017-0 (Aug 2012)
(https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/rs/R-REC-RS.2017-0-201208-I!!PDF-E.pdf) ; Characterization and 
assessment of aggregate interference to the Earth exploration-satellite service (passive) sensor operations from 
multiple sources of man-made emissions, Recommendation ITU-R RS.1858-0 (Jan 2010)
(https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/rs/R-REC-RS.1858-0-201001-I!!PDF-E.pdf); Reference antenna pattern 
for passive sensors operating in the Earth exploration-satellite service (passive) to be used in compatibility analyses 
in the frequency range 1.4-100 GHz, Recommendation ITU-R RS.1813-1 (Feb 2011)
(https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/rs/R-REC-RS.1813-1-201102-I!!PDF-E.pdf).
199
Performance and interference criteria for satellite passive remote sensing, Recommendation ITU-R RS.2017-0 
(Aug 2012) at Table 2, at 5.
200
AVSI Study at 18-20.
201
Id. at 79.  
202
CORF Comments at 11-13.  
203
Id. at 13-14.  
204
Harmonics are component frequencies of a radio frequency signal that are integer multiples of the fundamental 
frequency.
205
CORF Comments at 14.
206
WAIC systems provide radio communication between two or more stations on a single aircraft and constitute 
exclusive closed on-board networks required for the operation of an aircraft.  Examples of WAIC applications that 
could benefit from the high-data rate provided by 60 GHz transmitters are flight deck and cabin crew 
communications, still-frame and video imagery, high-data rate engine sensors, or avionics data bus communications 
throughout the aircraft.  High-data rate WAIC applications could also encompass external structural sensors or 
external cameras mounted on the outside of the aircraft structure to monitor the taxi, take-off, landing, cruise, etc. 
phases of aircraft operation.  WAIC systems do not provide air-to-ground, air-to-satellite or air-to-air 
communications.  See Technical characteristics and spectrum requirements of Wireless Avionics Intra-
Communications systems to support their safe operation, ITU-R Report M.2283-0 (November 2013), at 6.  See also
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8187, para. 515 and n.1236. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
27
broadband/internet services during flight and provide an opportunity to reduce aircraft weight from 
connecting wires, all without causing harmful interference to authorized radio services, as we elaborate 
further below.  
81. In the R&O in this proceeding, the Commission determined that the record did not reflect 
a clear perspective of the types of unlicensed applications envisioned on-board aircraft that would provide 
an adequate assessment of their harmful interference profile.
207
  Thus in the FNPRM in this proceeding, 
the Commission set out to request further information and analyses with respect to the various types of 
unlicensed applications envisioned on-board aircraft, the priority/order of their planned introduction, as 
well as their associated potential harmful interference profile with respect to passive sensor services.
208
  
The use cases outlined in the AVSI Study suggest that planned WiGig systems use access point stations 
affixed to the interior ceiling in commercial passenger transport aircraft to deliver internet/entertainment 
products wirelessly to travelers’ laptops/tablets, or to in-seat display monitors on the aircraft.
209
  We are 
also aware that WAIC applications (as studied by the ITU in lower frequency bands) would be highly 
useful in providing wireless back-up connections for primary wired connections between various 
electrical systems of the aircraft, to lighten the aircraft’s total weight.
210
  We are therefore adopting 
unlicensed technical rules herein with these two types of applications, broadband internet/entertainment 
access in closed networks on-board aircraft, and certain WAIC applications, in mind.  
82. As we observed in the R&O, the existing ITU studies on wireless avionics applications 
only cover frequency bands lower than the 60 GHz band.
211
  However, we expect that the propagation 
characteristics of radio waves in the 57-71 GHz band would result in even greater attenuation than was 
documented in these ITU studies of lower frequency bands.
212
  We note that extensive simulations and 
actual measurement data presented in the AVSI Study confirm that typical aircraft effective fuselage 
attenuation is 40 dB in the 57-71 GHz frequency range,
213
which is in line with the ITU findings of up to 
45 dB aircraft fuselage attenuation at other frequencies.
214
83. We find that use of the 57-71 GHz spectrum on-board aircraft would not cause harmful 
interference to authorized services for several reasons.  First, signals at these frequencies have high 
propagation losses and are easily blocked by obstacles, including seats, bulkheads and human bodies on 
the aircraft.  Second, the aircraft fuselage provides significant attenuation of signals, as supported by the 
                                                     
207
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8132, para. 332.
208
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8187, para. 515.
209
AVSI Study at 24-25.
210
See Technical characteristics and spectrum requirements of Wireless Avionics Intra-Communications systems to 
support their safe operation, ITU-R Report M.2283-0 (November 2013), at 6.
211
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8131-32, para. 331.
212
All radio signals attenuate as they travel in space away from the transmitter.  Free-space propagation loss (path 
loss) increases as a function of both the distance traveled and the frequency of the signal.  Free space path loss 
(FSPL) is calculated according to the formula FSPL = 20 log F(GHz) + 20 log D(m) + 32.5, with frequency F in 
GHz and distance D in meters.  
213
AVSI Study at 79-88.
214
The ITU found that in general, fuselage attenuation of any given aircraft is not a constant, but rather is a 
directional property of the aircraft – different attenuation values may be found from different viewing angles of the 
aircraft, ranging from 0 dB attenuation for transmitters installed in unshielded external areas of the aircraft, to 45 dB 
attenuation for transmitters installed within the cabin when viewed outside the aircraft from certain angles.  See 
ITU-R Report M.2283-0, at Table 5, Section 4.3.1.  See also, Co-existence study considering UWB applications 
inside aircraft and existing radio services in the frequency bands from 3.1 GHz to 4.8 GHz and from 6.0 GHz to 8.5 
GHz, European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) Electronic Communications 
Committee (ECC) ECC Report 175 (March 2012).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
28
ITU studies and the AVSI Study, discussed above.  Third, although unshielded aircraft windows provide 
significantly less attenuation than the aircraft fuselage,
215
the risk of these beams being misdirected out of 
a window is minimal because 60 GHz transmitters use directional antenna beams to deliver the signals to 
the intended receivers inside the airplane.
216
  We observe that the AVSI Study data indicate that the 
average effective aircraft attenuation (including transmissions through windows and inside aircraft cabin 
at multiple antenna steering angles) is on the order of 40 dB and is by and large independent of antenna 
location and antenna type used by either access point stations or mobile devices inside the aircraft.
217
  We 
further find that because the aircraft fuselage attenuation plays an important role in the link budget
218
for 
the prevention of harmful interference caused by 60 GHz signals on-board aircraft to EESS (as 
computer-modeled and measured on commercial passenger transport aircraft by the AVSI Study; and as 
assessed by the ITU-R studies), we will exclude use of 60 GHz unlicensed transmitters on-board aircraft 
where there is little attenuation of RF signals by the body/fuselage of the aircraft.  These aircraft include, 
for example, toy/model aircraft, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) such as drones, small/light 
crop-spraying aircraft and aerostats.
219
   
84. With respect to WAIC applications, as indicated above, CORF strongly urges the 
Commission to prohibit this type of operation in the band to protect vital weather forecasting data 
collection.  We find that the combination of high fuselage attenuation in commercial passenger transport 
aircraft and free-space propagation loss along with the directionality of the WiGig antenna beams inside 
the aircraft cabin will prevent harmful interference to passive sensor services.  However, we note that 
WAIC applications could encompass external structural sensors or external cameras mounted on the 
outside of the aircraft structure to monitor the different phases of aircraft operation.  These externally 
located transmitters may generate RF signals that would not be attenuated by the fuselage while the 
aircraft is in flight; thus, 60 GHz signals have the potential to escape into the air at various altitudes of 
flight and may present a potential for harmful interference to passive sensors.  We are therefore 
addressing CORF’s concern by prohibiting operation of 60 GHz transmitters in WAIC applications on the 
outside of the aircraft body/fuselage while airborne, to ensure that passive services continue to be 
protected.  
85. On the other hand, we deny CORF’s recommendations that any aeronautical use of the 
57-71 GHz bands must require strict out-of-band (OOB) emission limits at the harmonic frequencies 
(which fall into passive service spectrum such as RAS
220
) and should be considered in the aggregate 
within the airplane, as well as aggregated over multiple planes within the beam and side lobes of the 
                                                     
215
ITU-R Report M.2283-0, Appendix A, Table A-3.3 found that unshielded aircraft windows only provide minimal 
attenuation.  The AVSI Study also confirmed this result.  AVSI Study at 28.  However, AVSI also found that 
cockpit windows that are coated with indium tin oxide (ITO) for defrosting purposes increase the attenuation of 
60 GHz line-of-sight RF signals by approximately 25 dB.  Id. at 87.
216
AVSI asserts that “WiGig medium access control (MAC) layer protocols incorporate continuous beam forming 
and beam steering functions to optimize communications between devices. WiGig devices cannot transmit directly 
out of an aircraft window during normal communications because there is no associated device outside the window 
with which to communicate.  WiGig emissions outside of the aircraft will be the result of non-line-of-sight 
emissions from antenna side lobes or signals bounced off one or more interior surfaces; …these emissions are 
typically heavily attenuated.”  AVSI Study at 88.  AVSI further proved through computer simulations and 
measurement field data that non-line-of-sight transmissions in the frequency range 57–62 GHz inside the cabin are 
attenuated by about 40 dB relative to the direct line-of-sight signal.  Id. at 86.
217
AVSI Study at 57.
218
A link budget is an accounting of all the gains and losses from the transmitter, through the medium (free space, 
cable, waveguide, fiber, etc.) to the receiver in a telecommunication system.
219
Aerostat refers to any aircraft that remains aloft primarily using aerostatic buoyancy, such as balloons which are 
unpowered and could be tethered or free-floating.  Aerostats may also refer to powered, free-flying airships.
220
RAS has no allocation in the 64-71 GHz frequency band, but does have allocations above 76 GHz.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
29
passive service telescope.
221
  We note that the AVSI Study generally addressed CORF’s concerns by 
analyzing via dynamic simulation the effects of out-of-band and spurious emissions of on-board aircraft 
WiGig devices on passive services, both in a single aircraft with aggregate multiple equipment factor
222
and worst-case emission levels;
223
and in multiple aircraft in the aggregate during worst-case peak air 
traffic;
224
the results demonstrated that passive services continue to be protected by a significant 
margin.
225
  This study suitably supplements the Wi-Fi Alliance Industry Interference Report (Wi-Fi 
Alliance Report) previously submitted in the record of this proceeding, in which it found comparable 
results while assuming a more conservative aircraft attenuation of 25 dB, instead of 40 dB.
226
86. We find that the existing spurious emission limits in Section 15.255(c) of the rules are 
sufficient to protect passive services.  Section 15.255(c) already restricts spurious emissions to a very low 
power density limit of 90 pW/cm
2
at a distance of 3 meters for frequencies between 40 GHz and 
200 GHz,
227
and to the general limit for intentional radiators in Section 15.209 for frequencies below 
40 GHz.
228
  We determine that RF signals in this spectrum suffer from severe propagation losses, and are 
blocked easily by obstacles inside the aircraft, as well as heavily attenuated by the aircraft fuselage; 
therefore, 60 GHz operation on-board aircraft would not increase the potential for harmful interference to 
passive services, when compared to 60 GHz operation on the ground, indoors or outdoors.  We also 
determine that spurious and harmonic emissions generally roll off (i.e., reduce in amplitude) the further 
they are in frequency from the fundamental emission; therefore, if fundamental emissions are severely 
attenuated, harmonics would be affected proportionally; thus, we find that unlicensed operations in the 
57-71 GHz spectrum would not adversely affect passive services operating in frequency bands that 
                                                     
221
CORF Comments at 14.
222
AVSI assumed usage of 6 WiGig Channels by 30 access point stations on a single aircraft, resulting in an 
aggregate multiple equipment factor of 7.  The Multiple Equipment Factor (MEF) is used to represent the maximum 
number of simultaneously transmitting devices in a WiGig aircraft installation.  AVSI Study at 18-19.
223
The AVSI Study assumed interference from a single aircraft by summing the worst-case in-band, out-of-band and 
spurious emissions from all WiGig devices operating in various WiGig channels, including a multiple equipment 
factor to account for the number of devices that can simultaneously transmit in the aircraft at the considered 
frequencies; in addition, attenuation due to the fuselage or antenna directivity was also considered.  AVSI Study at 
3.
224
To determine aggregation effects from multiple aircraft, the AVSI Study followed the ITU recommendation that 
emissions from multiple devices within a two million square kilometer reference area be dynamically simulated to 
determine if the EESS interference protection threshold is exceeded.  Performance and interference criteria for 
satellite passive remote sensing, Recommendation ITU-R RS.2017-0 (Aug 2012) at Table 1, note 1, p. 4.  See also, 
Characterization and Assessment of Aggregate Interference to the Earth Exploration-Satellite Service (passive) 
Sensor Operations from Multiple Sources of Man-made Emissions, Recommendation ITU-R RS.1858-0 (Jan 2010).
225
AVSI Study at 2-23. 
226
Wi-Fi Alliance Reply Comments, submitted Feb 26, 2016 (https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/60001520419.pdf).  The 
Commission did not react favorably to this report because of “…substantial technical disagreements …regarding the 
attenuation provided by aircraft components (e.g., windows and fuselage) and how WiGig signals would propagate 
(e.g., by direct line-of-sight or reflections, etc.) and aggregate.”  Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order, 31 FCC Rcd 
at 8131-8132, para. 331.  The AVSI Study generally resolves these technical issues. 
227
  A power density of 90 pW/cm
2 
is equivalent to a field strength of 18430 µV/m or 85.3 dBµV/m; and to an EIRP 
of -10 dBm.  Power density (PD), EIRP and field strength (E) are readily converted through the following formulae:  
PD = E
2
/120(Pi) = EIRP / (4 Pi D
2
), where D is the separation distance in meters, provided measurements are 
performed in the far field.  
228
47 CFR §§ 15.255(c), 15.209(a).  The limit for emissions above 960MHz is 500 µV/m (54 dBµV/m) as measured 
at 3 meters.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
30
contain the harmonics of this spectrum.
229
  We further find that, depending on their angle of escape out of 
the aircraft fuselage, the probability of any of these stray harmonic emissions finding their way into the 
main beam/side lobes of the victim telescope is virtually non-existent.  The AVSI Study results generally 
confirm our assessments by its dynamic simulations supported by corroborating measurements, as 
discussed above.
230
  We therefore deny CORF’s request for rule changes with respect to specific 
conditions on spurious emissions limits.
87. Based on the above, we find that, absent any record evidence to the contrary, it is our 
predictive judgment that 60 GHz transmitters operating on-board an aircraft in the 57-71 GHz band, with 
the limitations that we are imposing herein, will not cause harmful interference, which is defined not to 
protect against isolated occurrences, but only against interference that “seriously degrades, obstructs, or 
repeatedly interrupts.”
231
  The final Part 15 rules are set forth in Appendix A, infra.    
E. Amendments to Certain Part 1 Rules
88. Background.  Appendix A of the R&O added Part 30 (Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service) to the list of rule parts included in the definition of Wireless Radio Services in Subpart F of Part 
1 of the Commission’s rules.  At the time, the Commission added UMFUS to the definitions of Wireless 
Radio Service and Wireless Telecommunications Service in Section 1.907 of the Commission’s rules but 
refrained from modifying other existing rules in other rule parts.
232
On further reflection, we believe it 
would have been appropriate to amend Sections 1.901 (Basis and Purpose) and 1.902 (Scope) to make it 
unambiguously clear that UMFUS is subject to the Subpart F rules.  
89. Discussion.  We amend Sections 1.901 and 1.902 of the Commission’s rules to include 
Part 30 in the list of sections to which the Part 1, Subpart F rules apply.  The R&O clearly expressed the 
Commission’s intent to apply the Part 1, Subpart F rules to UMFUS.
233
  Amending Sections 1.901 and 
1.902 to include UMFUS will be consistent with that intent.  Notice and comment is not required for this 
change because the changes go to rules of practice and procedure.
234
  
IV. SECOND FURTHER NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING
A. FSS Use of 24.75-25.25 GHz Band
90. Background.  In a 2010 petition for rulemaking, Xanadoo Company and Spectrum Five 
LLC asked the Commission to delete the Federal and non-Federal radio-navigation system allocations 
from the 24.75-25.05 GHz band.
235
  In response to the petition, the Commission allocated the 300 
                                                     
229
While the AVSI Study mainly concentrated on EESS protection, the Wi-Fi Alliance Report analyzed the effect of 
WiGig transmitters on RAS frequencies at 120 GHz, 180 GHz and 240 GHz, and found that the ITU protection 
criteria for RAS in ITU-R RA.769 of -179 dBm/MHz was satisfied with an appropriate margin, despite the lower 
assumed aircraft attenuation (25 dB instead of 40 dB).  Wi-Fi Alliance Report at p. 16-20.  See also, International 
Telecommunication Union Radiocommunication Sector, Recommendation RA.769-2: Protection criteria used for 
radio astronomical measurements (May 2003) (https://www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/rec/ra/R-REC-RA.769-2-
200305-I!!PDF-E.pdf).
230
AVSI Study at 90-96.
231
47 CFR § 2.1(c).
232
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8097, para. 243.
233
Id.
234
5 U.S.C. § 553(b)(3)(A).  In addition, we are amending Section 101.115 of our rules to fix a footnote numbering 
error in the Antenna Standards table in Section 101.115.  The change clarifies that the footnote applicable to the 70 
GHz and 80 GHz bands should be labelled footnote 14.
235
Petition for Rulemaking to Establish Rules Permitting Blanket Licensing of Two-Way Earth Stations with End 
Users Uplinks in the 24.25-25.05 GHz band (filed Apr. 16, 2010). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
31
megahertz of spectrum exclusively to the FSS (Earth-to-space) for non-Federal use. The Commission 
also expanded the FSS allocation from BSS feeder links to all FSS uses.  In doing so, the Commission 
adopted footnote NG535 to the U.S. Table of Allocations, which provides BSS priority over all other FSS 
uses in the 24.75-25.05 GHz band, and restricts FSS use of the 25.05-25.25 GHz band to feeder links for 
BSS.
236
The Commission also stated that, if in the future, requests for licensing or other market 
developments suggest a demand for additional FSS uses of the 24.75-25.05 GHz band, it would initiate a 
separate rulemaking proceeding to examine whether any specific rules are necessary to support uses 
consistent with the priority afforded to BSS feeder links in this band.
237
91. In the R&O, the Commission established rules to allow UMFUS licenses to provide any 
form of fixed or mobile service in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands.
238
  These rules include Section 25.136, 
a new rule specifying the conditions under which FSS earth stations in these bands can operate with 
respect to UMFUS.
239
Section 25.136(a) permits a limited number of FSS earth stations in the 27.5-28.35 
GHz band to be licensed in each county on a secondary basis without providing additional interference 
protection to UMFUS, provided that the interference zones around those earth stations do not affect 
UMFUS beyond limits prescribed in the rule.
240
  Section 25.136(b)-(c) of the Commission’s rules permits 
a limited number of FSS earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band to be licensed in each PEA and to receive 
interference protection from UMFUS, provided that the protection zones around those earth stations do 
not constrain UMFUS beyond limits prescribed in the rule.
241
92. The FNPRM proposed authorizing flexible use licenses that would permit fixed and 
mobile services in additional frequency bands under Part 30 of the Commission’s rules, including the 24 
GHz band.  Specifically, the FNPRM proposed to add a mobile allocation to the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 
24.75-25.25 GHz segments of the band, a fixed allocation to 24.75-25.05 GHz, and to authorize both 
mobile and fixed operations in those band segments under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Service 
rules.
242
  Today, we adopt rules consistent with that proposal.
243
93. In comments to the FNPRM, SIA, SES, and O3b, ask that the Commission authorize 
broader FSS use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band.
244
  SIA points out that FSS has a primary allocation in the 
band and it believes that individually licensed earth stations can coexist with UMFUS.
245
                                                     
236
Amendment of Parts 2, 15, 80, 90, 97, and 101 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Implementation of the Final 
Acts of the World Radiocommunication Conference (Geneva, 2012) (WRC-12), Other Allocation Issues, and Related 
Rule Updates, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 4183, 4212 para. 71
(2015) (WRC-12 Report and Order); 47 CFR § 2.106, NG535.  
237
WRC-12 Report and Order, 30 FCC Rcd at 4212-13, para. 71. 
238
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 16-89, 31 FCC Rcd 8014 (2016) (Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order).  In the 27.5-
28.35 GHz band, the Commission adopted county size geographic area licenses, and in the 38.6-40.0 GHz band, the 
Commission adopted partial economic area (PEA) licenses. Id. at 8148, para. 383. 
239
Section 25.136 became effective on June 1, 2017.  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio 
Services, 82 Fed. Reg. 25205 (June 1, 2017). 
240
47 CFR § 25.136(a); R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8036, para. 54. The International Bureau was directed to release a 
public notice seeking comment on the methodology for determining interference or protection zones. R&O, 31 FCC 
Rcd. at 8036, n.120.  See Public Notice, International Bureau Seeks Comment on Implementing Earth Station Siting 
Methodologies, DA 17-606 (June 21, 2017).  
241
47 CFR § 25.136(b)-(c).
242
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8148. 
243
See Section III.A.1, supra.
244
SIA Comments at 7-9; SES/O3b March 23 Ex Parte at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
32
94. Discussion.  We propose to license FSS earth stations in this band on a co-primary basis 
under the provisions in Section 25.136(d), as revised today in the Second Report and Order for the 47.2-
48.2 GHz band by adding the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to this rule section.  This means that the 24.75-25.25 
GHz band would only be available for individually-licensed FSS earth stations that meet specific 
requirements applicable to earth stations in other bands shared with UMFUS (e.g., limitations on 
population covered, number of earth station locations in a PEA, and a prohibition on earth stations in 
places where they would preclude terrestrial service to people or equipment that are in transit or are 
present at mass gatherings).  As a consequence of this change, we propose conforming modifications to 
various earth station application requirements specified in Sections 25.115(e) and 25.130(b), and deleting 
as obsolete the licensing requirements for the 25.05-25.25 GHz band specified in Section 25.203(l).
246
  
We are also seeking comment on adding a U.S. Table of Allocations footnote specifying the relative 
interference protection obligations of FSS and UMFUS stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band. We are 
also proposing to add a U.S. Table of Allocations footnote specifying the relative interference protection 
obligations of FSS and UMFUS stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band.  It appears that allowing broader 
FSS use in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band may be appropriate, and to provide for more flexible FSS use of the 
band, we propose to eliminate footnote NG535.  This would make the 24.75-25.25 GHz band available 
for general FSS uplink operations, without restricting these operations to, or affording priority for, the 
provision of feeder links for the 17/24 GHz BSS space stations.  Given the very light use of the 24.75-
25.25 GHz band for BSS feeder links, the earth station two-degree spacing rules that would protect BSS 
feeder links from other FSS earth stations in the band,
247
and the power limits placed on BSS feeder link 
earth stations,
248
it does not appear necessary to give BSS feeder link earth station transmissions priority 
over other uses of the FSS for earth stations located within the United States, or to preclude other FSS 
stations from claiming protection from feeder link earth station transmissions located within the United 
States.  To accommodate more diverse FSS operations in the band and to further increase flexibility for 
all FSS uses in this new sharing regime, we also propose to eliminate the Appendix F orbital-location 
restrictions for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations specified in Section 25.262(a).
249
  We seek comment on 
these proposals.
95. Though we are proposing to allow broader and more flexible FSS use of the 24.75-25.25 
GHz band consistent with the predominant use of the band for terrestrial wireless services, we recognize 
that aggregate interference to the satellite receivers from UMFUS operations may be a concern in this 
band, similar to concerns raised in the context of the 28 GHz and 47 GHz bands.  There are currently 
earth stations and space stations that operate in this band.  Should the Commission take any action to 
address the potential of aggregate interference to impact satellite receivers in this band?  How likely is it 
that such interference will occur?  Should the Commission treat such interference to existing satellites, 
should it occur, differently from satellites deployed in the future?  Should the Commission adopt a U.S. 
Table of Allocations footnote specifying the relative interference protection obligations of FSS and 
UMFUS stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band and what should be the content of such a footnote?
(Continued from previous page)                                                      
245
SIA Comments at 7-8, 9-11.
246
47 CFR §§ 25.115(e), 25.130(b), 25.203(l).
247
47 CFR § 25.212(f).
248
47 CFR §§ 25.212(f), 25.223.
249
  Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service at the 17.3-17.7 GHz 
Frequency Band and at the 17.7-17.8 GHz Frequency Band Internationally, and at the 24.75-25.25 GHz Frequency 
Band for Fixed-Satellite Services Providing Feeder Links to the Broadcasting-Satellite Service and for the Satellite 
Services Operating Bi-directionally in the 17.3-17.8 GHz Frequency Band, Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 8842 
(2007) (17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order), on reconsideration, 22 FCC Rcd 17951 at 17972, Appendix F. See also, 
17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order, at 8869-70, para. 66. We will maintain the four-degree spacing framework for 
the 17.3-17.8 GHz (space-to-Earth) operations outlined in the 17/24 GHz BSS Report and Order. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
33
96. Consistent with these proposals, in addition to modifications to Section 25.136, we 
propose several rule changes to part 25.  To harmonize the treatment of BSS feeder links and other FSS 
transmissions, we propose first to modify Section 25.138 to extend applicability of the Ka-band off-axis 
EIRP density limits in paragraph (a) to the 24.75-25.25 GHz band.  Then we would eliminate the nearly 
identical BSS feeder link-specific earth station off-axis EIRP density limits for the 24.75-25.25 GHz band 
in Section 25.223(b).  We propose to eliminate the coordination provisions Sections 25.223(c) and (d), 
and to add the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to the list of frequency bands in our general FSS earth station 
coordination rules in Section 25.220(a).  These changes would allow us to remove and reserve Section 
25.223, because there would be no need for these provisions, which currently provide alternative means 
of licensing BSS feeder links.  As a consequence, we would also eliminate cross references to the rule 
contained in Section 25.209(f).
250
  In Section 25.204, we propose to eliminate paragraph (e)(4), which 
contains rain fade specifications specific to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link transmissions, and instead to 
include the 24.75-25.25 GHz band in paragraph (e)(3), which contains nearly identical Ka-band FSS rain 
fade specifications.  We also propose to modify the interference-showing requirements for FSS applicants 
in Section 25.140(a)(3) to make clear its applicability to FSS (Earth-to-space) transmissions to 17/24 GHz 
BSS space stations.  In addition, we propose to add a new subparagraph (iv) requiring applicants for space 
stations receiving uplinks in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to certify, among other things, that the earth 
stations transmitting to such space stations will not exceed the off-axis EIRP density limits in Section
25.138(a).  As a result, we also propose consequential modifications to the definitions of “routine 
processing or licensing” and “two-degree compliant space station” contained in Section 25.103.  We seek 
comment on these proposals.
97. In addition, we propose to eliminate the operational requirements associated with the 
Appendix F orbital-location constraints in Section 25.262 by deleting paragraphs (a) and (d), and 
modifying paragraphs (b) and (e).
251
  We further propose to modify Sections 25.140(b), (c) and (d) to 
reflect changes in the interference showing required by 17/24 GHz BSS applicants, which is currently 
defined in part by the applicant’s orbital position relative to Appendix F locations, and to eliminate an 
operational requirement made moot by deleting Section 25.262(b).  Similarly, we propose to delete 
Appendix F specific requirements contained in Section 25.114(d)(17), and to eliminate a reference in 
Section 25.114(d)(7) to a deleted subparagraph in Section 25.140(b).  Finally, to provide for consistent 
treatment of 17/24 GHz feeder uplinks with other FSS transmissions in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, we 
propose to modify the cross-polarization isolation requirement in Section 25.210(i) to make clear that it 
applies only to 17/24 GHz BSS space-to-Earth transmissions. These proposed rule changes are shown in 
detail in Appendix E.
B. Performance Requirements – Geographic Area Metric
98. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on adopting a 
performance metric tailored to Internet of Things-type deployments or other innovative services that may 
not be a good fit for traditional metrics.
252
  Because the record on this issue was not sufficiently detailed, 
we decline to adopt any additional metric today and seek comment on additional proposals discussed 
below.
253
99. Discussion.  We recognize the difficulty of crafting an IoT-specific metric, especially 
while the relevant technologies and use cases are still being developed.  Today, we instead seek additional 
comment on whether to adopt a more traditional or other metric that may nevertheless accommodate these 
                                                     
250
Other cross references to Section 25.223 are eliminated in conjunction with other edits to the rule section.  E.g. 
Sections 25.103 and 25.115(g)(1)(vii).
251
The remaining paragraphs in this section will be renumbered, not reserved.
252
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8174-75, paras. 467-69.
253
See supra Section III.B (Performance Requirements – Additional Metrics).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
34
types of services.  For example, a performance metric based on geographic area coverage (or presence) 
could allow for networks that provide meaningful service but deploy along lines other than residential 
population.  Such a metric could be easier to implement than any of the novel metrics proposed in the 
record, which could reduce uncertainty among licensees wishing to deploy innovative services and 
thereby encourage such deployment.
100. We seek comment on the following metric as an option for UMFUS licensees to fulfill 
their buildout requirements: geographic area coverage of 25% of the license area. We also seek comment 
on an alternative requirement of presence in 25% of subset units of the license area, such as census tracts, 
counties, or some other area.  The latter standard could accommodate deployments, such as sensor 
networks, that are not designed to provide mobile or point-to-multipoint area coverage, and for whom 
calculating “coverage of 25% of the area” would therefore not be a meaningful standard.  Equipment or 
deployments relied on to demonstrate compliance with this metric would be required, as with our 
previously-adopted metrics, to be part of a network that is actually providing service, either to external 
customers or for internal uses.   
101. Specifically, we seek input on whether 25% would be the appropriate level of coverage 
for a geographic area metric in the mmW bands.  We suggest this level as an attempt to maintain parity 
between the requirements of this metric and the requirements of our previously-established metric based 
on population coverage.
254
  The physical characteristics of the mmW bands, particularly shorter 
propagation distances and the consequent smaller coverage area, are also important considerations.  We 
seek comment on this coverage level, including any suggestions of alternative levels of coverage that 
might be more appropriate.  
102. We also seek comment more generally on whether geographic area coverage is the most 
appropriate metric for accommodating innovative services in the mmW bands, or whether some other 
metric might be more appropriate.  We welcome any alternative suggestions for metrics that might better 
accommodate innovative services, without raising artificial regulatory barriers to particular use cases.  For 
example, have there been any technological or industry developments that would better enable us to craft 
a meaningful usage-based metric?  Are there additional options that have not yet been mentioned in the 
record?  We particularly seek comment from entities who believe that our mobile and fixed metrics would 
not be adequate to measure deployment of services they might seek to provide in UMFUS bands.  We ask 
that these commenters identify additional types of performance metrics that may be better suited to 
measuring deployment of services that they might seek to provide in UMFUS bands.  
103. We emphasize that any metric we adopt to accommodate IoT services would, like the 
existing population coverage and fixed link metrics, be available to any UMFUS licensee.  While we 
suggest an additional metric in order to facilitate the deployment of IoT and other innovative services, 
there would be no requirement that a licensee build a particular type of network or provide a particular 
type of service in order to use whatever metric we ultimately adopt.  
104. We strongly encourage stakeholders to fully develop a record on this issue. Under our 
current Part 30 rules, licensees have limited options for fulfilling buildout requirements: fixed links, 
population-based area coverage, or some combination thereof.
255
  Part 30 does not use a “substantial 
service” framework; if a licensee does not meet the requirements specifically set out in the rules, it cannot 
demonstrate buildout in some other way.
256
  If we do not adopt any other metrics, services with non-
traditional network structures may be effectively barred from mmW bands by inappropriate and 
                                                     
254
In most license areas, the residential population is unevenly distributed.  In those areas, building a network 
covering 40% of the geographic area would require more intensive deployment than one covering 40% of the 
population, suggesting that a lower percent coverage requirement for geographic area could be appropriate.
255
47 CFR § 30.104.
256
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8088, para. 203; 47 CFR § 30.104.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
35
inapplicable buildout requirements.  This is especially important given the changes to the definition of 
“fixed link” that we adopt today.
257
  Without an additional metric, any low-power deployments that do not 
use mobile or point-to-multipoint network architecture will not be able to qualify for license renewal.
C. Mobile Spectrum Holdings
105. For many of the reasons that we declined to adopt a pre-auction limit for the 24 GHz and 
47 GHz bands in the Second R&O, we propose to eliminate the pre-auction limit of 1250 megahertz that 
the R&O had adopted for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.
258
  Given the nascent stage of 
technological development in these mmW bands and the fact that we are continuing to make additional 
mmW spectrum available through this proceeding, retaining a pre-auction limit for the 28 GHz, 37 GHz, 
and 39 GHz bands may be unnecessary.  Moreover, given the technical similarity between all five bands 
and our decision in the Second R&O to group these five bands for purposes of secondary market 
transactions review, we find that it would be inconsistent to retain the pre-auction limit for the 28 GHz, 37 
GHz, and 39 GHz bands.  We seek comment on this proposal.  To the extent that commenters advocate 
the retention of this pre-auction limit, commenters should discuss how the limit should be implemented 
and the likely effects of having two different policy frameworks applicable to mmW spectrum acquired at 
auction.
106. We also seek comment on whether, in the absence of pre-auction limits for mmW 
spectrum, there is a need to apply a case-by-case review of mmW spectrum holdings to post-auction 
applications for initial mmW licenses.  Prior to the articulation of a different policy in the Mobile 
Spectrum Holdings Order adopted in 2014, the Commission applied a case-by-case review to the initial 
licensing of spectrum post-auction, and similarly allowed for divestiture of licenses to address potential 
competitive harms identified in that review.
259
  Is it necessary and appropriate to apply such a review to 
the initial licensing of mmW spectrum post-auction?  To the extent that commenters support a post-
auction case-by-case review of spectrum acquired at auction, commenters should discuss how the review 
should be implemented, including what the Commission should consider when undertaking such a 
review, how an entity’s mmW spectrum holdings should be calculated, and potential remedies to 
ameliorate any potential competitive concerns identified in the review.
D. Operability in 24 GHz
107. Background.  The Commission historically has sought to promote greater operability of 
equipment, allowing smaller providers to benefit from the scale generated by equipment capable of 
operating across an entire band or adjacent bands.
260
  In the R&O, the Commission adopted an operability 
requirement for the 28 GHz band, and for the 37 and 39 GHz bands.
261
  This requirement specifies that 
any mobile or transportable equipment capable of operating in any portion of the 28 GHz band must be 
capable of operating across the entire 28 GHz band (from 27.5 to 28.35 GHz), and similarly that any such 
                                                     
257
See supra Section III.B (Performance Requirements – Additional Metrics).
258
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8081, paras. 183-84.
259
See Mobile Spectrum Holdings Order, 29 FCC Rcd at 6190, para. 136; see also Applications of Union Telephone 
Company and Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless Applications for 700 MHz Band Licenses, Auction No. 73, 
Order, 23 FCC Rcd 16787, 16791-92 para. 9, 16796 para. 18 (2008).  
260
We use the term “operability” here to refer to a requirement that equipment must be capable of operating across 
an entire spectrum band.  This term is different from “interoperability,” which we have used in this proceeding to 
refer to equipment capable of operating across multiple technologies or air interfaces, and which is not required by 
our current rules for UMFUS.
261
R&O, 31 FCC at paras. 322-24; 47 CFR § 30.208.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
36
equipment capable of operating in the 37 GHz or 39 GHz bands must be capable of operating across the 
entirety of both of those bands (from 37 GHz to 40 GHz).
262
  
108. Discussion.  Today, we adopt rules adding the 24 GHz band (24.25-24.45 GHz and 
24.75-25.25 GHz) to UMFUS.
263
  Given the segmented nature of the band, we want to ensure that all 
portions of the band are available for development and deployment of services as a practical matter, and 
in particular that the lower segment of the band does not suffer from a lack of available equipment.
264
  The 
operability rule the Commission adopted in the R&O is specific to the 28 GHz band and the 37/39 GHz 
bands, and does not currently apply to UMFUS generally, or to the 24 GHz band.
265
  We therefore 
propose to add an operability requirement for the 24 GHz band.  Specifically, we propose to require that 
any equipment capable of operating anywhere within the 24 GHz band must be capable of operating 
across the entire 24 GHz band, on all frequencies in both band segments.  We seek comment on this 
proposal.
E. Other Millimeter Wave Bands
109. We reiterate that the millimeter wave bands that were in the prior NPRM/FNPRM or 
raised in the record, but which we have not yet made available for flexible terrestrial wireless use, are still 
under consideration by the Commission.  The proceeding on these bands is ongoing and they will be 
considered in future Commission items, and we invite comment on any new studies or quantitative data 
that the Commission should consider.  We note that does not preclude the Commission from moving 
forward to adopt new provisions where we have reached agreement with the Executive Branch on sharing 
or interference protections and have a developed record.  To the extent that there are additional millimeter 
wave bands that the Commission should consider for flexible terrestrial wireless use, which have not been 
raised in the proceeding thus far, we invite interested parties to file comments on these frequencies.
V. ORDER ON RECONSIDERATION
A. Security
110. Background.  In the R&O, the Commission adopted rules requiring licensees, prior to 
commencing operations, to submit to the Commission security plans and related information indicating 
how confidentiality, integrity, and availability
266
principles are applied in its network security design 
processes.
267
  Several parties filed petitions for reconsideration, which ask the Commission to eliminate 
the security reporting requirements.
268
  NCTA argues that the R&O’s reporting and security requirements 
                                                     
262
47 CFR § 30.208.
263
See supra Section A.1.b (Licensing the 24 GHz Band).
264
See US Cellular Nov. 13 Ex Parte.
265
47 CFR § 30.208.
266
Confidentiality refers to the protection of data from unauthorized access and disclosure, both while at rest and in 
transit.  See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary, http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=6609 (defining 
“confidentiality”) (last visited Oct. 20, 2017).  Integrity refers to the protection against the unauthorized 
modification or destruction of information.  See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary,
http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=4584 (defining “integrity”) (last visited Oct. 20, 2017).  Availability
refers to the accessibility and usability of a network upon demand.  See, e.g., ATIS, ATIS Telecom Glossary,
http://www.atis.org/glossary/definition.aspx?id=5637 (defining “availability”) (last visited Oct. 20, 2017).  For a 
discussion of all three constructs of confidentiality, integrity and availability, see also In the Matter of Use of 
Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 30 FCC Rcd 11878, 
11953 paras. 262-64 (2015).
267
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8206-07, para. 263, and Appendix A, Final Rules, § 30.8 5G Provider Cybersecurity 
Statement Requirements. 
268
See CCA Petition at 15; CTIA Petition at 11-12; NCTA Petition at 1, 3, 4, 7; T-Mobile Petition at 13.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
37
would adversely affect innovative cybersecurity practices.
269
  NCTA further states that there is “no 
reasonable fit” between the goal of fostering more secure 5G networks and devices and the Commission’s 
chosen mechanism of reporting and security requirements.
270
  Some parties opposing the security 
reporting requirements believe that the requirements would be onerous.  For instance, CCA affirms that 
the security and reporting requirements could “saddle carriers with administrative and competitive 
burdens.”
271
  Also, T-Mobile emphasizes that the reporting and security requirements would place a 
burden on licensees that is “substantial based on the number of topics to be covered, the difficulty in 
balancing the need to be forthright with the Commission while keeping matters relating to security and 
competitively sensitive information confidential, and the requirement for senior executive 
involvement.”
272
111. Discussion.  We acknowledge that there may be other mechanisms that foster more 
secure networks without imposing the burden of additional regulation.  We therefore believe that more 
flexible security mechanisms should be fully explored, including ones employing voluntary means, in 
order to achieve a narrowly tailored fit with our goal of secure 5G networks and devices.
112. By exploring flexible security mechanisms as our next step, we can avoid the costs of 
implementing the R&O’s reporting and security requirements, which could slow the development of 
innovative 5G services.  For example, NCTA claims that these requirements would “impose substantial 
compliance costs on 5G network operators with no meaningful corresponding benefit in light of the fact 
that network providers already have enormous incentives to adopt measures to protect their networks.”
273
  
NCTA further argues that “a band-by-band approach to cybersecurity . . . would increase compliance 
costs.”
274
  
113. We also believe that a regulatory approach to 5G security is premature at this time.  As 
CTIA states, the “supporting architecture for 5G is presently in development and is likely to remain in 
flux.”
275
  Similarly, TIA maintains that it is not clear yet how 5G networks will operate.
276
  Given these 
considerations, we believe that it would serve the public interest to rescind the reporting and security 
requirements.  To reduce the risk to network reliability and security, we instead seek industry input 
through the Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) process.  We 
believe that CSRIC is an appropriate vehicle to explore these network security issues given its track 
record of addressing cybersecurity issues through flexible, voluntary means.
277
  As CTIA states, the 
Commission generally favors a “business-driven cybersecurity risk management” approach because a 
“flexible, adaptable approach” offers a “workable strategy for securing commercial networks.”
278
  We 
expect tangible, practical security benefits from the CSRIC processes as part of the public-private 
partnership which, as NCTA notes, already exist to address best practices.
279
  We have asked CSRIC to 
                                                     
269
NCTA indicates that while overall the R&O would promote 5G innovation, it believes that the security and 
reporting requirements “would significantly undermine [the] industry’s investment in and integration of leading and 
innovative cybersecurity practices in 5G deployments.”  NCTA Petition at 1.  
270
Id. at 7.  
271
See CCA Petition at 15.  
272
T-Mobile Petition at 13.
273
NCTA Petition at 1.   
274
Id. at 3.  
275
CTIA Petition at 16.
276
TIA Petition at 8.
277
See CTIA Petition at 11-12.
278
Id. at 11.  
279
NCTA Petition at 4.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
38
identify the network reliability and security risks associated with 5G networks and develop best practices 
to mitigate those risks.
280
  The Commission may also use CSRIC recommendations to help inform any 
additional steps that may be necessary.   
B. Earth Station Siting Rules
1. Background
114. The 27.5-29.5 GHz band has had long-standing allocations for the fixed, mobile, and 
Fixed-Satellite Service (Earth-to-space) services.
281
  In the 1996 LMDS First Report and Order, the 
Commission designated the 27.5-28.35 GHz band for LMDS on a primary basis and determined that 
satellite services would be permitted in that band on a non-interference basis to LMDS systems, and only 
for the purpose of providing limited gateway-type services.
282
115. The U.S. Table of Frequency Allocations accords co-primary status to FSS earth stations 
(space-to-Earth) in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
283
  Under the rules in effect prior to the NPRM, gateway earth 
stations in the 39 GHz band could be deployed only if the FSS licensee obtained a 39 GHz license for the 
area where the earth station would be located, or if it entered into an agreement with the corresponding 39 
GHz licensee.
284
  
116. In the R&O, the Commission found that “FSS earth stations in the 28 GHz band can 
share the band with minimal impact on terrestrial operations.”
285
  Based upon that finding, the 
Commission grandfathered all existing 28 GHz FSS earth stations authorized as of the adoption date of 
the Report and Order and granted them the right to operate under the terms of their existing 
authorizations without taking into account possible interference to UMFUS operations.
286
  It also 
grandfathered pending applications for 28 GHz earth stations filed prior to the adoption date of the R&O 
if such applications were subsequently granted pursuant to the existing Part 25 rules.
287
The Commission 
also gave FSS operators multiple mechanisms for deploying earth stations.  First, it granted status to any 
FSS earth stations for which the FSS operator also holds the UMFUS license, whether through 
participation in an auction or the secondary markets, that covers the earth station’s permitted interference 
                                                     
280
The charter of CSRIC states that the purpose of the CSRIC is to “provide recommendations to the FCC regarding 
ways it can strive for security, reliability, and interoperability of communications systems.  CSRIC’s 
recommendations will focus on a range of public safety- and homeland security-related communications matters, 
including . . . the reliability of communications systems and infrastructure . . . .”  Federal Communications 
Commission, Charter of the FCC’s Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (March 19, 
2017), https://drupal7admin.fcc.gov/files/csric-charter-2017pdf.  The FCC has charged the current CSRIC (CSRIC 
VI) to study and recommend, inter alia, mechanisms to reduce risks to network reliability and security, including 
ones to “best design and deploy 5G networks to mitigate risks to network reliability and security”, and “best 
practices . . . to improve reliability and reduce security risks . . . .”  Federal Communications Commission, CSRIC VI 
Working Group Descriptions at 2-3 (June 23, 2017) (stating the description for “Working Group 3: Network 
Reliability and Security Risk Reduction”), https://www.fcc.gov/files/csric6wgdescriptions6-2017pdf.
281
In the Matter of Rulemaking to Amend Parts 1, 2, 21, and 25 of the Commission’s Rules to Redesignate the 27.5-
29.5 GHz Frequency Band, to Reallocate the 29.5-30.0 GHz Frequency Band, to Establish Rules and Policies for 
Local Multipoint Distribution Service and for Fixed-Satellite Services, First Report and Order and Fourth Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 19005, 19008, para. 6 (1996) (LMDS First Report and Order).
282
  LMDS First Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd at 19025, para. 45.
283
47 CFR § 2.106.
284
See 47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.3.  There was no corresponding rule for the 37 GHz band because the Commission 
had not yet adopted service rules for that band.  
285
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8032, para. 45.
286
Id. at 8037, para. 59.
287
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
39
zone.  To the extent FSS operators and UMFUS licensees enter into private agreements, the Commission 
held that their relationship will be governed by those agreements.  The Commission also determined that 
FSS earth stations may continue to be authorized without the benefit of an interference zone, i.e., on a 
secondary basis.
288
117. Finally, the Commission decided that it would continue to authorize satellite earth 
stations on a first-come, first-served basis in the 28 GHz band, but adopted guidelines for their 
deployment.  First, it would authorize no more than three locations in each county where FSS would be 
allowed to deploy earth stations that do not have to protect UMFUS stations from interference.  Second, 
an FSS applicant would be required to demonstrate in its license application that the permitted 
interference zone around its earth station would cover no more than 0.1 percent of the population of the 
county license area where the earth station was to be located.
289
  Third, the applicant would be required to 
show that the permitted interference zone would not infringe upon any major event venue, arterial street, 
interstate or U.S. highway, urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port.  Fourth, to 
ensure that the earth station would not interfere with existing facilities operating under a 28 GHz UMFUS 
license, the Commission required that the satellite operator coordinate with the UMFUS licensee in the 
county where it proposed to locate its earth station using the coordination procedures contained in Section 
101.103(d) of the Commission’s rules.
290
  
118. In contrast to the 28 GHz band, where FSS earth stations transmit, FSS earth stations in 
the 37.5-40 GHz band receive.  Accordingly, earth stations in that band need protection against interfering 
signals from terrestrial operations.  Prior to the NPRM, Commission rules for the 39 GHz band provided 
that gateway earth stations would be allowed only if the satellite licensee obtained a license for the 
terrestrial geographic service area where the earth station would be located, or if the satellite operator 
entered into an agreement with the corresponding terrestrial licensee.
291
  In the R&O, the Commission 
allowed FSS operators to place earth stations using any of the market-based mechanisms adopted for the 
28 GHz band.
292
  
119. The Commission further determined that it would authorize non-Federal satellite earth 
stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band on a first-come, first-served basis and give them protection from 
terrestrial transmissions subject to the following conditions.
293
  First, the earth station applicant must 
define a protection zone in its application around its earth station where no terrestrial operations may be 
                                                     
288
Id. at 8037, para. 58. The Commission encouraged UMFUS licensees to be flexible in providing certainty to the 
operation of secondary FSS earth stations in areas where they do not intend to deploy terrestrial services, but 
emphasized that FSS earth stations deployed on a secondary basis will otherwise have no expectation of interfering 
rights and will have to cease operation if requested by UMFUS licensees at any time on the basis of harmful 
interference to their services.  Id.
289
Id. at 8036, para. 54.  The Commission defined the permissible interference zone as the contour within which all 
the FSS licensees at a given location would, in the aggregate, generate a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters 
above ground level, of no more than -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz.  The Commission also stated that the International Bureau 
would issue a public notice seeking comment on the appropriate methodology to calculate the 0.1 percent population 
limit and further details regarding earth station interference zone calculation (including propagation models, e.g. free 
space versus probabilistic), and would also seek comment on best practices for earth station siting to minimize the 
impact on UMFU services, colocation of earth stations, and accommodating multiple earth station interference zones 
without exceeding 0.1 percent of population in a given county.
290
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8036, para. 54.  See 47 CFR § 101.103(d).
291
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8048, para. 89.
292
Id. at 8051, para. 92.
293
Id. at 8051-52, para. 93.  The main body of the text refers to the 39 GHz segment of the 37.5-40 GHz band, but 
its reasoning applies to the entirety of the band, as does the newly adopted Rule 25.136 as set forth in Appendix A of 
the R&O. See 47 CFR § 25.136.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
40
located.  The FSS applicant may self-define this protection zone, but it must demonstrate using reasonable 
engineering methods that the designated protection zone is no larger than necessary to protect its earth 
station.  Second, the Commission determined that it would authorize a maximum of three protection 
zones in each Partial Economic Area (PEA). Accordingly, the applicant was required to demonstrate 
either that there are no more than two existing protection zones in the PEA or to demonstrate that its 
protection zone would be contiguous to any preexisting satellite protection zone.
294
  Third, the applicant 
must demonstrate that the existing and proposed protection zones, in the aggregate, would not cover more 
than 0.1 percent of the PEA’s population.  Fourth, the Commission required the applicant to show that the 
protection zone would not infringe upon any major event venue, arterial street, interstate or U.S. highway, 
urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port.
295
  Finally, the earth station applicant is 
required to coordinate with terrestrial fixed and mobile licensees whose license areas overlap with the 
protection zone, in order to ensure that the protection zone does not encompass existing terrestrial
operations.
296
  If the earth station is authorized, our rules prohibit UMFUS licensees from placing 
facilities within the protection zone absent consent from the FSS operator, and the FSS operator must 
respond in good faith to requests to place facilities within a protection zone.
120. In petitions for reconsideration, some satellite operators seek a relaxation of the 0.1 
percent limits on populations affected by exclusion zones around their earth stations,
297
curtailment of the 
rules that limit the impact of satellite operations on the provision of terrestrial services to users in 
transit,
298
and elimination of the rules that limit earth station zones to three per geographic area.
299
Parties 
also seek various clarifications, which we address below.
121. The burden of proof falls upon petitioners to demonstrate that FSS needs additional 
flexibility to locate earth stations in the 28 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz bands, which primarily are designated 
for terrestrial use.  They fail to meet that burden, except in the limited instances discussed below.
2. 0.1 Percent Population Limit
122. Background.  Satellite petitioners and their supporters propose various ways to relax the 
rules that limit earth station exclusion zones to 0.1 percent of the population of UMFUS license areas. 
Their proposals include applying the 0.1 percent limit to the entire country or Basic Trading Areas 
(BTAs) rather than to counties or PEAs,
300
increasing the limit to 0.2 percent,
301
allowing satellite 
operators to deploy earth stations anywhere outside of urban cores,
302
and modifying the rule’s limits with 
                                                     
294
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8051, para. 93.
295
Id. at 8051-52, para. 93.
296
The Commission stated that those coordination requirements would be based on its existing requirements 
contained in Section 101.103(d) of the Commission’s rules.  R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8051, para. 93, citing 47 CFR 
§ 101.103(d).
297
See SES/O3b Petition at 6-7; Boeing Petition at 24-25; Boeing Co., Echostar Satellite Operating Corp., Hughes 
Network Systems, LLC, Inmarsat, Inc., Intelsat Corp., 03B Limited, SES Americom, Inc. and Worldvu Satellites 
Ltd. d/b/a Oneweb (“Satellite Broadband Operators”) Reply at 7; but see ViaSat April 12 Ex Parte.
298
See EchoStar and Inmarsat Petition at 11-12; SES and O3b Petition at 14-15; Satellite Broadband Operators 
Reply at 10-13; SES and O3b Reply at 8-9; Satellite Broadband Operators March 3 Ex Parte at 5-6, Satellite 
Broadband Operators June 13 Ex Parte at 3, 5.
299
See Boeing Petition at 23-24, EchoStar and Inmarsat Petition at 20-21, and ViaSat Petition at 6-7; SES and O3b 
Opposition at 6; Boeing Reply at 9, Satellite Broadband Operators Reply at 13, SES and O3b Petition at 9, and 
ViaSat Petition at 3, Boeing June 19 Ex Parte at 4 and Satellite Broadband Operators June 13 Ex Parte at 2, 5.
300
Boeing Petition at 24-25; SES and O3b Petition at 12-13.
301
Satellite Broadband Operators Reply at 7.  
302
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at ii, 7-8; Satellite Broadband Operators June 13 Ex Parte at 4-5, and SES/O3b 
Opposition at 2, 7-8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
41
respect to small and medium-sized markets.
303
  SES and O3b seek to modify the 0.1 percent rule to allow 
earth station exclusion zones in the 28 GHz band to cover as many as 600 people in what it calls medium-
density counties with between 6,000 and 300,000 people,
304
and to cover as much as 10 percent of the 
population in what it calls low density counties, those with fewer than 6,000 people.
305
  They also seek to 
raise the 0.1 percent limit to 0.2 percent in the largest counties, those with more than 300,000 people.
306
  
For the 39 GHz band, SES and O3b ask the Commission to allow protection zones to cover 0.2 percent of 
the population in PEAs with population of over 1,500,000, up to 3,000 people in PEAs with population 
between 60,000 and 1,500,000,
307
and up to five percent of the population in PEAs with population with 
fewer than 60,000 people.
308
  Later, the Satellite Broadband Operators, who consist of EchoStar/Hughes, 
Inmarsat, Intelsat, Boeing, SES, O3b, Telesat Canada, and OneWeb, modified this position, stating that:  
“in recognition of the UMFUS operators’ stated intention to use this spectrum for deployment in the 
densest urban areas, we decided to preserve the existing 0.1% population impact restriction for those 
counties [and PEAs] above the upper inflection point.”
309
  Boeing argues that it would be sufficient to 
raise the population limit to 0.5 percent of the population in “very rural PEAs.”
310
123. Wireless providers and ViaSat, an FSS operator, oppose changes to the rules adopted in 
the R&O.
311
  CTIA argues that the rules adopted in the R&O give FSS providers sufficient flexibility to 
locate earth stations.
312
  Nextlink argues that increasing the 0.1 percent criterion to 0.2 percent “would 
potentially deny the benefits of terrestrial-based 5G services to thousands of people.”
313
  Rural LMDS 
                                                     
303
SES/O3b Petition at i, 7, 10-11; SES/O3b Opposition at 5-7; Boeing Reply at 9, Satellite Broadband Operators 
Reply at i, 4-8, SES/O3b Reply at 3-8, and ViaSat Reply at 3-4.
304
In their October 19 Ex Parte, the Satellite Broadband Operators replaced the flat limit of 600 people with a 
formula that varied the percentage by license area population.  Using the formula, however, would result in a total 
limit of 600 people for various populations in this tier.  See Satellite Broadband Operators October 19 Ex Parte at 5
(examples in Tier 2 markets).  We see no benefit to adopting a formula that adds complexity without resulting in any 
material change to the proposal, and we will consider the original proposal to have a flat limit of 600 people.
305
SES/O3b Petition at 10.  See also SES/O3b Opposition at 5-7; Boeing Reply at 9 (supporting tiered approach);
Satellite Broadband Operators Reply at 4-8 (supporting); SES/O3b Reply at 3-8; CCA May 3 Ex Parte at 4 
(allowing FSS operations to inflict interference up to 10% of population in a rural county would severely 
encumbering a carrier’s scope); FWCC April 17 Ex Parte at 2 (supporting three-tier approach in principle but 
proposing 0.1% limit in high-density counties, 300-person limit in medium-density counties, and 5% of population 
limit in low density counties); Nextlink April 20 Ex Parte at 6 (opposing); Rural LMDS Licensees June 29Ex Parte
at 2-3 (opposing); and Satellite Broadband Operators March 31 Ex Parte at 5 (supporting and recommending 
extension of tier concept to 39 GHz band).
306
SES/O3b Petition at 10.
307
In their October 19 Ex Parte, the Satellite Broadband Operators replaced the flat limit of 3,000 people with a 
formula that varied the percentage by license area population.  Using the formula, however, would result in a total 
limit of 3,000 people for various populations in this tier.  See Satellite Broadband Operators October 19 Ex Parte at 
7 (examples in Tier 2 markets).  We see no benefit to adopting a formula that adds complexity without resulting in 
any material change to the proposal, and we will consider the original proposal to have a flat limit of 3,000 people.
308
SES/O3b March 23 Ex Parte. 
309
Satellite Broadband Operators October 19 Ex Parte at 7.
310
Boeing October 17 Ex Parte at 2.
311
See ViaSat Opposition at 19-23.  Although ViaSat says that it opposes fundamental changes to the rules adopted 
in the R&O, it does not oppose minor refinements such as allowing more than three earth stations per license area so 
long as their exclusion zones do not cover more than 0.1 percent of the population, or applying a more relaxed 
population coverage threshold in counties with fewer than 300,000 people.  ViaSat Reply at 3-4.
312
CTIA Opposition at 5-6.
313
Nextlink April 20 Ex Parte at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
42
providers argue that losing even 600 potential customers in markets could lead to “insurmountable” 
hurdles to providing service.
314
  ViaSat cites studies it has conducted that show that, in many instances, 
exclusion zones will be almost nonexistent, particularly if the FSS operator installs shielding around the 
earth station.
315
124. Discussion.  We reject the request to increase 0.1 percent population to 0.2 percent in 
larger markets.  As Nextlink argues, that change could have a significant adverse impact on terrestrial 
service in urban areas.  Moreover, none of the proponents of this change have demonstrated that 
increasing the population threshold in larger markets is necessary to provide sufficient opportunity for 
siting earth stations in these bands.  As the Commission observed in the R&O, satellite operators will not 
necessarily need to deploy earth stations in the more densely populated markets.
316
Indeed, the Satellite 
Broadband Operators have indicated that they can accept a limit of 0.1 percent in the largest markets.
317
  
In addition, ViaSat, the FSS operator that appears to be most interested in locating earth stations in urban 
markets, supports the existing 0.1 percent limit.
318
125. On the other hand, we conclude that for smaller markets, relaxing the 0.1 percent 
population metric is consistent with the Commission’s goal of creating meaningful, targeted opportunities 
to deploy additional FSS earth stations without harming terrestrial operations.
319
  Maintaining the 0.1 
percent limit in smaller markets could make it more difficult for FSS operators to site earth stations in 
those markets, which could drive earth station siting towards more heavily populated places and centers 
of commercial activity.
320
  In contrast, relaxing the 0.1 percent limit in smaller markets is more consistent 
with our goal of providing targeted opportunities for siting earth stations in more remote, less-densely 
populated areas.
321
126. On the other hand, we believe that SES and O3b have not justified the level of impact on 
terrestrial service that they seek.  In the smallest markets, they have not justified limiting access to 
terrestrial services to up to 10 percent of the population in the 28 GHz band.  Since many of the smallest 
markets cover large geographic areas, FSS operators should have sufficient flexibility with a 7.5 percent 
population limit.  In the middle tier of markets, we note the concern of the Rural LMDS Operators that 
losing even 600 potential customers could make providing service uneconomic.
322
  While SES and O3b 
attempt to justify the 600 person limit based on an analysis of one of their existing, grandfathered earth 
station,
323
given the trend towards smaller, lower impact earth stations identified by ViaSat and others, it 
is equitable to require FSS operators to make additional efforts to limit their impact on UMFUS in bands 
that are designated primarily for terrestrial use.  We anticipate that satellite operators will substantially 
                                                     
314
Rural LMDS Operators June 29 Ex Parte.
315
ViaSat April 12 Ex Parte at 1.
316
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8049, para. 92.
317
Satellite Broadband Operators October 19 Ex Parte at 5, 7.
318
ViaSat Opposition at 19-23.
319
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8035, para. 51.
320
For example, in a market with 60,000 people, an earth station could be placed in the market only if it avoided all 
but 60 persons (0.1 percent of the 60,000).
321
The R&O explained that it should be possible to deploy gateway earth stations in relatively remote areas because 
the purpose of gateways is to relay large amounts of data between satellites and Internet backbone networks, and 
there are many long-haul Internet nodes in remote areas.  See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8049, para. 92.
322
Rural LMDS Operators June 29 Ex Parte at 3.
323
See SES/O3b March 23 Ex Parte.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
43
reduce the sizes of the exclusion zones that they require by constructing artificial site shields or by taking 
advantage of naturally occurring terrain features.
324
127. Taking the entire record into account, we will adopt a modified version of the SES/O3b 
proposal for providing additional flexibility in second- and third-tier markets.  For the 28 GHz band, the 
limits will be as follows:
Population within UMFUS License Area Maximum permitted aggregate population within 
PFD contour of earth stations
Greater than 450,000 0.1 percent of population in UMFUS license area
Between 6,000 and 450,000 450 people
Fewer than 6,000 7.5 percent of population in UMFUS license area
For the 37.5-40 GHz band, the population limits will apply on a PEA basis as follows:
Population within Partial Economic Area (PEA) 
where earth station is located
Maximum permitted aggregate population within 
PFD contour of earth stations
Greater than 2,250,000 0.1 percent of population in PEA
Between 60,000 and 2,250,000 2,250 people
Fewer than 60,000 3.75 percent of population in PEA
The additional flexibility will encourage siting of earth stations in areas with less population, decrease 
potential conflicts between FSS and UMFUS, and maintain the primacy of UMFUS in the 28 GHz and 39 
GHz bands.
3. Other Limits on Earth Station Siting
128. Some satellite operators request that we repeal, modify, and clarify the R&O’s limitations 
on deployment of earth stations in places where they preclude terrestrial service to people or equipment 
that are in transit or are present at mass gatherings.
325
  EchoStar and Inmarsat also argue that our transient 
population rules impair their ability to deploy gateway stations in places with ready sources of electricity, 
adequate roads to permit access for maintenance, neighborhoods with appropriate commercial zoning, 
sufficient space for installation and expansion of large satellite antennas with an unobstructed view of the 
sky, and sufficient cooling capacity for large amounts of computing equipment.
326
  The Satellite 
Broadband Operators, which include the petitioners, recommend that our prohibition against earth station 
interference with passenger railroads be limited to Amtrak trains.
327
  The petitioners also urge us to 
eliminate or curtail sharply the rule barring FSS deployments near major event venues in the 28 and 37.5-
40 GHz bands.
328
The Satellite Broadband Operators ask that they be allowed to extend their exclusion 
zones over major event venues except for those with a seating capacity exceeding 10,000 people.
329
  
129. We deny the requests to modify the additional limits on earth station siting, with certain 
exceptions discussed below.  EchoStar and Inmarsat contend that one of the reports cited in the R&O 
demonstrates that fiber connectivity needed by earth station facilities is highly correlated with major 
                                                     
324
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8049, para. 92.
325
See EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 12-14; SES/O3b Petition at ii, 14; SES/O3b Opposition at 6, 8-9.
326
See EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 10.
327
See Satellite Broadband Operators Reply at 12; Satellite Broadband Operators March 31 Ex Parte at 6.
328
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at ii, 14.
329
Satellite Broadband Operators Reply at 10-11.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
44
roadways and railways.
330
We disagree.  The authors of the InterTubes Report, which petitioners cite, 
emphasize that they are exclusively interested in the long-haul fiber-optic portions of the Internet and do 
not even attempt to portray any of the short-haul fiber routes that are used to add or drop off network 
services in many different places within metropolitan areas.
331
  Moreover, we note that in the 28 GHz 
band, where there are incumbent earth stations, no licensed earth station is co-located with a long-haul 
Internet node
332
and the average distance by road from a 28 GHz earth station to the nearest long-haul 
Internet node is 37.5 miles, with a median distance of 22.4 miles.
333
  Notably, a recent application for 20 
gateway earth stations states that they will be “at sites distributed throughout the United States that 
comply with the Commission’s 28 GHz siting rules and have sufficient electrical facilities, reliable fiber-
delivered broadband capacity, and ease of access for personnel to provide operational support.”
334
130. Furthermore, we continue to believe that the limitations that we have placed on earth 
station siting provide incentives for FSS operators to avoid areas where there is going to be high demand 
for terrestrial service using mmW bands.  The wide bandwidths that are available to terrestrial services in 
the 28 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz bands will support vital new terrestrial services on roads, railroads, and 
mass transit routes, and at ports, major event venues, homes and offices.  The current need for wireless 
service along transit routes is clear for a variety of uses, including navigation, and demand is likely to 
increase with advances in technology.  Like people in transit, many who attend major events use cell 
phones to obtain information, to exchange text and images with others, and to engage in other forms of 
communication.
335
That is why mobile carriers often deploy temporary cellular base stations at major 
events.
336
  We anticipate that 5G services supported by millimeter-wave spectrum will engender more use 
of mobile telecommunications at live events.
131. We agree with the petitioners, however, that it would be helpful to clarify the types of 
roads that earth station siting should avoid.  The R&O restricted earth station interference zones from 
infringing upon any arterial streets or interstate or U.S. highway.
337
  On review, we find that limitation 
may be unclear.  We therefore clarify this prohibition to include only the following types of roads, as they 
are defined and classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation:
? Interstate
? Other Freeways and Expressways
                                                     
330
See EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at ii,12-13, citing R&O at 31 FCC Rcd 8049-50, para. 92 (citing R. Durairajan, P. 
Barford, J. Sommers and W. Willinger, InterTubes: A Study of the US Longhaul Fiber-optic Infrastructure, in 
Proceedings of ACM SIGCOMM (2015), available at http://www.sigcomm.org/node/3852 (“InterTubes Report”)),
and citing InterTubes Report at 570.
331
InterTubes Report at 565.
332
The shortest distance between a long-haul Internet node and any 28 GHz earth station is 0.9 miles. This 
calculation was provided courtesy of the University of Wisconsin’s Internet Atlas project, Paul Barford and 
Ramakrishnan Durairajan, June 2017.
333
The data underlying these calculations was provided courtesy of the University of Wisconsin’s Internet Atlas 
project, Paul Barford and Ramakrishnan Durairajan, June 2017.
334
See Hughes Network Systems Application, File No. SES-LIC-20170807-00884 (filed Aug. 7, 2017), Attachment 
1 at 2.
335
See Fed. R. Evid. 201 (judicial notice of adjudicative facts).
336
See, e.g., Edward C. Baig, Cell-Phone Providers Roll Out COWs to Handle Massive Surge on Inauguration Day, 
Jan. 19, 2017 (https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/columnist/baig/2017/01/19/cell-phone-providers-roll-out-cows-
handle-massive-surge-inauguration-day/96786674/).
337
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8036, para. 54.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
45
? Other Principal Arterial.
338
132. Regarding the R&O’s restrictions on earth station interference to “major event venues,”
the record does not provide a sufficient basis to specify which locations are considered such venues.  
Generally speaking, we consider a major event venue to be any location where large numbers of people 
could gather on a regular basis in a setting where they would expect to use wireless service.  We 
recognize that there are multiple types of locations that could qualify, including popular venues that seat 
less than 10,000 persons. For example, we agree with Verizon that an arbitrary limit of 10,000 persons 
would improperly exclude venues such as the arena where the Minnesota State Mavericks play ice hockey 
games (a venue seating 5,280 person).
339
We decline to unnecessarily restrict these locations to venues 
seating more than 10,000 people, as advocated by the Satellite Broadband Operators.  To the extent that 
an UMFUS licensee is concerned that the interference or protection contour of a proposed FSS earth 
station might encompass a major event venue, we expect that the UMFUS licensee will identify the venue 
as part of the coordination process, and we expect that the parties will work cooperatively to identify and 
avoid major event venues.
133. For similar reasons, we also decline to modify the R&O’s limitations on earth station 
siting that would impair passenger railroads by narrowing that restriction to encompass only Amtrak, as 
advocated by the Satellite Broadband Operators.  This limitation properly encompasses any passenger 
railroads where there is going to be high demand for terrestrial service using mmW bands, such as key 
commuter rail lines.
340
4. Numerical Limits on Earth Stations
134. As noted above, the R&O limited the number of earth station locations to three per 
county in the 28 GHz band and three per Partial Economic Area in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
341
  Satellite 
operators urge us to eliminate those limits on the grounds that they are redundant,
342
that it would be 
impractical for multiple satellite operators to share the same sites,
343
that the thousands of small footprints 
produced by large fleets of NGSO satellites will each require a gateway earth station,
344
and that a 
numeric limitation might have the perverse effect of forcing satellite operators to deploy gateway stations 
in urban areas before they have exhausted the siting opportunities of rural geographic service areas with 
wide expanses of thinly populated territory.
345
  Straight Path argues that we should continue to apply 
numeric limits to earth station deployments because there is no data in the record to support the claim that 
the satellite industry will need more than 1,200 ground stations in the 39 GHz band.
346
  FWCC says that it 
                                                     
338
See 23 CFR § 470.105.  For additional information on the classification system used by the Department of 
Transportation, see Appendix B.
339
See Verizon Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 2-3.
340
See id. at 3.
341
R&O at 31 FCC Rcd 8036, 8051, paras. 54, 93.
342
See EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 20; Boeing Reply at 9, Satellite Broadband Operators Reply at 13, and 
SES/O3b Reply at 9; Satellite Broadband Operators June 13 Ex Parte at 5; Satellite Broadband Operators November 
2 Ex Parte, Attach. at 2; Satellite Broadband Operators Nov. 6 Ex Parte, Attach. at 2; Satellite Broadband 
Operators Nov. 8 Ex Parte Attach. at 2.
343
See EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 21, citing Satellite Broadband Operators June 10, 2016, Ex Parte at 2-5.
344
See Boeing Petition at 23 (each of the satellites in NGSO systems like the ones it is proposing will require
many dozens of gateways to support their traffic); Satellite Broadband Operators June 13 Ex Parte at 5 (large 
numbers of satellites will each produce hundreds or thousands of individual beams to serve end users; a separate 
gateway earth station will be needed for each reuse of the same spectrum.).
345
See Boeing Petition at 23-24.
346
Straight Path May 17 Ex Parte at 13; Straight Path May 26 Ex Parte at 4-5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
46
is not opposed in principle to dropping the numeric earth station limits if the Commission maintains 
reasonable limits on population coverage.
347
135. In the 28 GHz band, which is licensed for terrestrial use on a county basis, we decline to 
eliminate the numeric limit of three earth station locations per license area.  The numerical limitations that 
the Commission imposed are part of the framework that it adopted “to provide FSS licensees with 
substantial opportunities to expand their limited use of the 28 GHz band to deploy earth stations that do 
not have to protect terrestrial services, while minimizing the impact on terrestrial operations.”
348
  FSS 
operators have not demonstrated that they have a substantial need to exceed the numeric location limits 
imposed in the R&O.  Furthermore, eliminating those limits would be inconsistent with the decision to 
prioritize terrestrial deployment in these bands.  In particular, eliminating the numerical limits in smaller 
markets where we today grant additional flexibility to FSS providers could inappropriately hinder 
deployment of terrestrial service in less populated areas.  We note that in the smallest markets, allowing 
FSS providers to have an interference zone covering up to 10 percent of the population could impact a 
substantially larger amount of area, since populations may not be evenly distributed in rural areas.
136. We will, however, increase the three locations per license area limit on earth stations in 
the 37.5-40 GHz band, which is licensed for terrestrial use on a PEA basis.
349
  In that band, where the FSS 
allocation is space-to-Earth, the function of earth stations is to receive signals from satellites, not to 
transmit.
350
  An earth station location in that context represents the protection zone around one or more 
earth stations from which terrestrial operations are excluded, in order to prevent them from causing 
interference to the earth stations.  The existing limit on earth station locations in that band was based on 
the Commission’s calculations of populations that they were likely to cover, based on the size of the 
protection zone that would be required to protect 37.5-40 GHz receiving earth stations.  The protection 
zone area that the Commission used for these calculations was provided in comments from EchoStar, 
which stated that the radius of the exclusion zone around a 37.5-40 GHz earth station would be up to two 
kilometers.  Recently, Inmarsat, SES and O3b provided an analysis that represents a separation distance 
of less than 1100 meters from the center of a terrestrial mobile deployment area that occupies an area of 
3.8 square kilometers would be sufficient to protect an FSS earth station.
351
  In another study, ViaSat 
purports to show that moderately sized stations on roof tops, with appropriate shielding, could be 
embedded in urban or suburban settings where 5G systems are deployed without requiring interference 
protection from the 5G system.
352
  Boeing analyzes both studies, and concludes that each is based on valid 
assumptions and employs appropriate technical analysis, but believes that the Inmarsat/SES/O3b 
submission used unnecessarily conservative assumptions and that a separation distance of less than 500 
meters would be sufficient.
353
  While the assumptions ViaSat uses will not apply to every earth station 
(not every earth station will be located on a roof or will be shielded), based on our analysis of the 
contribution submitted into the record of this proceeding by Inmarsat, SES and O3b, and the ViaSat 
filing, it now appears that earth stations can be designed that require substantially smaller exclusion zones 
than the two-kilometer radius estimate available to the Commission at the time of the R&O.  With smaller 
                                                     
347
See FWCC April 17 Ex Parte.
348
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8036, para. 55.  See also id. at 8051-52, para. 93 (39 GHz band).
349
We note that, on average, there are a little over seven counties per PEA.
350
See 47 C.F.R. § 2.106.
351
Inmarsat, SES and O3b October 12 Ex Parte.  The companies submitted a study entitled “Sharing and 
Compatibility Studies of FSS (Space-to-Earth) and IMT Operating in the 37-50.2 GHz Frequency Range,” dated 
September 11, 2017, which the United States submitted as a U.S. contribution to a recent meeting of ITU Task 
Group 5/1.  The analysis presumes a minimum earth station elevation angle of 10 degrees.
352
ViaSat October 2 Ex Parte; ViaSat October 18 Ex Parte.
353
Boeing October 19 Ex Parte.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
47
exclusion zones, we can justify allowing more satellite earth stations in a given area because the impact in 
terms of geographic area will be smaller.
137. Taking into account our current understanding of the required exclusion zone and the 
fact that this band is primarily a terrestrial band, we believe that it would be reasonable to increase the 
permissible number of earth station locations in the 37.5-40 GHz band from three to 15 per PEA, but with 
no more than three earth station locations per county.  Our grant of relief on the numerical limits in the 
37.5-40 GHz band is premised on the idea that the exclusion zones required by FSS to protect their earth 
stations are substantially smaller than we originally believed.  If, in reviewing FSS earth station 
applications, we see that FSS providers are claiming substantially larger protection zones, we reserve the 
right to take appropriate action.
138. We also decline to adopt ViaSat’s request to modify Section 25.136 to allow the 
deployment of additional “zero impact” earth stations on a protected basis, regardless of the numerical 
earth station limits otherwise applicable in a given county or PEA.
354
  These deployments may not have 
“zero impact.”  In light of the greater flexibility we are granting above with respect to the absolute 
number limit on earth station locations, we find that ViaSat has not demonstrated that the additional 
requested flexibility would be in the public interest.
139. In addition, we take the opportunity to clarify the determination in the R&O that, for 
purposes of complying with the limit on the absolute number of earth station locations within an UMFUS 
license area, each location can accommodate multiple earth stations that are either collocated with each 
other or at locations contiguous to each other.
355
  As stated in the R&O, a “location" in this context refers 
to either, in the case of earth stations transmitting in the band, the contour within which one or more earth 
stations generate a power flux density (PFD) no more than -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz at 10 meters above ground 
level,
356
or, in the case of earth stations receiving in the band, the self-defined protection zone around one 
or more earth stations within which no terrestrial operations may be located.  We clarify that, although 
adding an earth station to a location will in most cases expand the relevant contour, the R&O does not 
preclude the expansion of such contours, nor does it apply any numeric limit to the number of earth 
stations to be deployed at a location, provided that the deployment complies with other earth station siting 
limits in our rules.
357
  Although the R&O does not limit the number of earth stations per se, it does limit 
the proliferation of protection zones surrounding those earth stations, and that serves an important policy 
objective.
5. Placement of Additional Antennas at Grandfathered 28 GHz Sites
140. EchoStar and Inmarsat ask us to clarify the extent to which additional earth station 
antennas may be placed at grandfathered 28 GHz earth station sites,
358
and SES and O3b specifically 
request that we exempt additional earth stations from the 0.1 percent population limitation rule if they are 
located within one second of latitude and one second of longitude of grandfathered sites.
359
  EchoStar and 
Inmarsat argue that, if we require grandfathered sites to count against the 0.1 percent cap, other FSS 
operators will be unable to deploy precisely in those areas that have been identified as most attractive to 
                                                     
354
ViaSat November 8 Ex Parte at 3 and Exh. 1.  See also, SpaceX November 8 Ex Parte.  We note that the 
Commission may grant waivers of its rules on a showing of “good cause.”  47 CFR § 1.3.  
355
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8037, para. 55; 47 CFR §§ 25.136(a)(4)(i), 25.136(c)(1).  
356
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8036, para. 54.  
357
See supra Sections V(B)(2) and V(B)(3).
358
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 23.
359
SES/O3b Petition at 19; SES/O3b Nov. 3 Ex Parte; SES/O3b Nov. 6 Ex Parte; SES/O3b Nov. 8 Ex Parte.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
48
date.
360
  The Satellite Broadband Operators also argue that we should exclude grandfathered 28 GHz band 
earth stations from counting toward the population limits.
361
141. We reject the petitioners’ requests for three reasons.  First, the modifications that we are 
making today to the 0.1 percent population limit provide substantial and adequate relief to the requesting 
parties.  Second, no material purpose would be served by adding a de minimis exception: one second of 
latitude equals about 31 meters, and one second of longitude in any of the contiguous 48 states would be 
fewer than 30 meters.  Third, EchoStar and Inmarsat state elsewhere in their petition that it would be 
impractical in any case for multiple satellite operators to share the same sites.
362
  If it is true that other 
operators would be reluctant in any case to deploy their antennas at a grandfathered site that is licensed to 
another operator, we need not be concerned that they would be deterred from doing so by the absence of a 
further exception to our rules.
C. Secondary Status of FSS in 28 GHz Band
142. Background.  In the R&O, after evaluating in detail prior rulemakings involving the 28 
GHz band, the Commission rejected arguments from FSS providers and determined that FSS would be 
secondary to both fixed and mobile terrestrial operations in the 28 GHz band.
363
  The Commission found
that upgrading the FSS designation in the 28 GHz band to co-primary status, even if limited to 
individually licensed earth stations, would be inconsistent with terrestrial use of that band and the 
Commission’s decision to facilitate expanded terrestrial use, and would not effectively facilitate sharing 
in the band.
364
  
143. SIA asks the Commission to clarify that certain protected FSS operations are in fact co-
primary with respect to the new UMFUS.
365
  SIA argues that the kind of co-primary status that it is 
seeking for protected FSS operations would not change the established sharing mechanisms, coordination 
guidelines, and operational restricts,
366
but elsewhere it renews its argument that FSS should be given co-
primary status with respect to terrestrial fixed services and priority over mobile services.
367
144. Discussion.  SIA simply repeats arguments that it submitted earlier in response to the 
NPRM,
368
and it presents no new theory or new reason for why FSS should be given co-primary status.
The R&O thoroughly considered this issue and concluded that, “the 28 GHz band will play a vital role in 
the deployment of advanced mmW services, and fully upgrading FSS under our service rules to co-
primary status would be inconsistent with this goal and would be unnecessary to meet the FSS 
community’s needs.”
369
  Accordingly, we reject that aspect of SIA’s petition as repetitious, pursuant to 
Section 1.429 of our rules.
370
  Moreover, we have again reviewed the record in the light of the arguments 
                                                     
360
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 17.
361
Satellite Broadband Operators Nov. 2 Ex Parte Attach. at 2;Satellite Broadband Operators Nov. 6 Ex Parte
Attach. at 2; Satellite Broadband Operators Nov. 8 Ex Parte Attach. at 2.
362
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 21, citing Satellite Broadband Operators June 10, 2016 Ex Parte at 2-5.
363
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8038-40, paras. 62-64.
364
Id. at 8034-35, para. 50.
365
SIA Petition at iii.
366
Id. at 8.
367
Id. at 5-6.
368
SIA Comments (filed Jan. 28, 2016) at ii-iii, 11-12.
369
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8035, para. 50.
370
47 CFR § 1.429.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
49
urged in SIA’s petition and we find no reason to depart from the findings of fact and conclusions 
contained in the decision.
D. 28 GHz Aggregate Interference
145. Background.  Commenters have expressed concern that upward transmissions from large 
numbers of terrestrial stations will, in the aggregate, generate enough power to be received at the 
satellite’s receiver, thus degrading the satellite’s performance.  In the R&O, the Commission, after noting 
that FSS was secondary to both fixed and mobile services, concluded that, “the record in this proceeding 
does not demonstrate that the rules that we adopt today would significantly risk harmful interference to 
satellite operations because of aggregate interference received at the satellite receiver.”
371
  The 
Commission rejected requests from FSS providers to limit the aggregate skyward transmissions of 
UMFUS providers in the 28 GHz band. It noted that the maximum authorized power for UMFUS was 
lower than the existing LMDS power limits and that the systems contemplated for these bands have 
characteristics that would tend to limit skyward transmissions.
372
  The Commission also concluded that 
the interference models submitted by satellite operators in this proceeding “do not take into account 
prospective features of mmW mobile systems that are readily accessible on the public record. . .”
373
  
Recognizing that the satellite and wireless industries had begun the process of modeling the terrestrial 
systems under consideration for this band, it directed the International Bureau, the Office of Engineering
and Technology, and the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to jointly establish a separate docket that 
parties can use to file the relevant data and analyses.
374
146. In petitions for reconsideration, satellite operators argue that we should reconsider our 
earlier decision and set an overall limit on aggregate interference to satellite receivers.
375
  Boeing, SES, 
and O3b argue that we should adopt beamforming and power control requirements for UMFUS.
376
  
Satellite operators also repeat their earlier argument that the Commission’s failure to adopt rules to limit 
aggregate interference would breach this country’s obligation under international agreements to protect 
receivers aboard satellites licensed by adjacent countries.
377
147. Discussion.  We deny the petitions for reconsideration on this issue because none of the 
petitions for reconsideration make the requisite showing under Section 1.429 of our Rules
378
with respect 
to the aggregate interference issue.
379
  The petitions filed by satellite operators are deficient in two 
significant respects.  First, they fail to acknowledge the defects identified in the R&O in the technical 
studies that formed the basis for their arguments.
380
  Second, and more fundamentally, the requests of the 
                                                     
371
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8040, para. 65.
372
Id.
373
Id. at 8041, para. 67.  The Commission also noted that its decision not to set an aggregate interference limit was 
consistent with its decisions in other bands, including AWS-3 and 11 GHz.  Id. at 8042, para. 68.
374
Id. at 8042, para. 69.  See Docket Established for 28 GHz Aggregate Interference Analysis, 32 FCC Rcd 5022 (IB 
2017).  As of September 22, 2017, no filings had been made in that docket.
375
See SES/O3b Petition at 15, 23; SIA Petition at 11-12.
376
See Boeing Petition at iii, 13-17; SES/O3b Petition at 22; SES/O3b Opposition at 2, 15; Boeing Reply at 5-6;
Boeing June 19 Ex Parte at 3-4.
377
See SES/O3b Petition at 23-24; SIA Petition at iv, 3-4, 12-13.
378
47 CFR § 1.429.
379
See, e.g., Intel Opposition at 11 (the aggregate interference argument in the SES/O3b petition is self-disqualifying 
because the petitioners openly state that they are asking the Commission to reconsider technical evidence that 
satellite operators submitted in the initial proceeding); CTIA Reply at 7 (satellite petitioners present no new 
evidence to justify reconsideration).
380
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8040-41, paras. 65-67.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
50
satellite operators are inconsistent with our goal of providing UMFUS licensees with a flexible rules 
framework that could allow them to provide a variety of services.  Boeing and SES/O3b ask us to embed 
into our rules certain characteristics that are under development for mmW mobile systems, such as 
beamforming, antenna downtilt, and power control.
381
  The Commission adopted technical rules that were 
as flexible as possible, while at the same time preventing harmful interference.  By doing so, the 
Commission maximized the ability of licensees to design and evolve their networks according to their 
own judgement and thereby offer new and innovative services to the public.  Establishing specific 
technical parameters in our rules based on our understanding of technological developments at one point 
in time would risk preventing licensees from developing new services to meet market demand.  The limits 
on emissions that the satellite operators seek could limit the ability of UMFUS licensees to operate certain 
types of networks.
148. Finally, we reject petitioners’ argument that the Commission’s failure to adopt rules to 
limit aggregate interference to satellites licensed by countries that are adjacent to the U.S constitutes a 
breach of our country’s obligations under international agreements.
382
  As Intel and CTIA point out, the 
rules adopted in the R&O already provide more protection to other countries’ satellites than is required by 
ITU rules.
383
  
149. The Commission retains the authority to monitor developments and intervene to prevent 
unacceptable interference to satellites if that becomes necessary, but we find no evidence to date that
suggests that any such intervention will be necessary.  The R&O explained why it is unlikely that the 
addition of mobile services to the 28 GHz band will cause significant interference to satellites in the 28 
GHz band, and petitioners have provided no basis to revisit that conclusion at this time.
384
E. Base Station Power Limit
150. Background.  In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a base station power 
limit of 75 dBm/100 MHz EIRP for UMFUS.
385
  For channel bandwidths less than 100 megahertz, the 
permitted EIRP was reduced below 75 dBm in proportion to the amount of bandwidth involved.
386
The 
Commission adopted a higher limit than the 62 dBm/100 MHz EIRP power limit proposed in the NPRM
for two reasons.  First, the 75 dBm limit allowed UMFUS base stations power density much closer to the 
power density permitted for other mobile services such as PCS and AWS.  Second, the Commission noted 
that the propagation properties of the mmW band made higher powers necessary.
387
  The 75 dBm limit 
                                                     
381
See Boeing Petition at iii, 13-17; SES/O3b Petition at 22; SES/O3b Opposition at 2, 15; Boeing Reply at 5-6;
Boeing June 19 Ex Parte at 3-4.
382
See SES/O3b Petition at 23-24; SIA Petition at iv, 3-4, 12-13.
383
See Radio Regulations of the International Telecommunication Union Nos. 21.2 and 21.3.  Specifically, Intel 
notes that the ITU Radio Regulations (RR) No. 21.5 cited by SIA is for power to the antenna (conducted power), 
while this Commission’s rules are for maximum EIRP.  See Intel Opposition at 13-14, citing SIA Petition at 13.  RR 
No. 1.161 defines equivalent isotropically radiated power (EIRP) as “The product of the power supplied to the 
antenna and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna (absolute or isotropic gain).”  
Therefore, says Intel, the U.S. rules regarding EIRP do not contravene RR No. 21.5, which does not take antenna 
gain into account.  Intel further notes that, for the 28 GHz band, No. 21.2 and 21.3 of the ITU’s Radio Regulations 
specify a maximum EIRP of 55 dBW (85 dBm)—a higher value than the Commission’s rules, which are referenced 
to 100 megahertz of bandwidth. On that basis, Intel concludes that for all channel bandwidths below one gigahertz, 
the Commission is already providing more protection to other services than required by the ITU Radio Regulations, 
and there is no justifiable reason to supplement the existing FCC rules with additional regulations.  Intel Opposition 
at 14.
384
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd 8038-8042, paras. 61-69.
385
Id. at 8110, para. 277.
386
For example, a 50 MHz channel would be permitted to transmit with half the power—i.e., 72 dBm.
387
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8110, para. 276.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
51
was described as “a consensus that has been endorsed by the commenters who have expressed an 
intention to manufacture UMFUS equipment.”
388
    
151. Boeing asks the Commission to reconsider the 75 dBm limit and adopt the 62 dBm limit 
proposed in the NPRM.
389
  Boeing claims that most proponents of terrestrial service have described 
systems that would employ much lower power.
390
  Boeing further claims that allowing UMFUS base 
stations to operate continuously at 75 dBm would reduce the throughput of Boeing’s proposed satellite 
system by more than half.
391
  Boeing also claims that the Commission is inconsistent in relying on the 
existing rules prohibiting the deployment of satellite user equipment in the UMFUS bands while 
simultaneously seeking comment on repealing that prohibition in the FNPRM.
392
  Boeing also asks the 
Commission to adopt a total radiated power (TRP) density specification.
393
  
152. 5G Americas,
394
CTIA,
395
Intel,
396
Nokia,
397
and T-Mobile
398
opposed Boeing’s requests.  
They argue that the Commission reasonably based the higher power limit on the PCS and AWS power 
limits, as well as the propagation characteristics of millimeter wave spectrum.
399
  With respect to TRP 
measurements, Intel contends that TRP is a difficult and time-consuming measurement and is not a useful 
in-band measure because off-axis energy declines significantly away from the main axis.
400
  T-Mobile 
argues that the EIRP limit is sufficient and an additional TRP limit is unnecessary.
401
153. Discussion.  We deny Boeing’s petition on this issue.  Boeing claims that the 
Commission adopted the 75 dBm power limit without a “real technical or policy foundation . . .”
402
  That 
characterization is inaccurate.  As noted above, the 75 dBm power limit made the UMFUS rules 
consistent with rules for other mobile services and reflected a consensus of parties involved in developing 
equipment and service.  To the extent Boeing and O3b are concerned about the ability to place earth 
stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band, we note that UMFUS licensees will be required to protect earth station 
                                                     
388
Id. at 8110, para. 277.
389
Boeing Petition at 7-10.
390
Boeing Petition at 8.
391
Id. at 8-9.
392
Id. at 9.
393
Id. at 9-10.  Boeing specifically asks, “The TRP density specification should be based on the expected antenna 
gain to be applied by the UMFUS device and be specified over a coverage volume. For example, an UMFUS base 
station should limit its emissions to a maximum TRP density of 34 to 42 dBm/100 MHz integrated over a large 
sector (such as 120 degrees). End-user UMFUS handsets and transportable CPEs should observe TRP densities of 
30 dBm/100 MHz and 34 dBm/100 MHz respectively, both over a 4? steradian spherical volume.”  Id. at 10 n.29.  
SES and O3b support Boeing’s request to adopt the 62 dBm limit.  O3b is particularly concerned that because it 
operates at low elevation angles, a higher terrestrial power limit could limit its ability to site earth stations in the 
37.5-40 GHz band.  SES/O3b Opposition at 14-15.
394
5G Americas Opposition at 8.
395
CTIA Opposition at 7-8.
396
Intel Opposition at 12-13.
397
Nokia Opposition at 8.
398
T-Mobile Opposition at 9-11.
399
Id. at 9-10; Intel Opposition at 13.
400
Intel Opposition at 14.
401
T-Mobile Opposition at 11-12.
402
Boeing Petition at 8.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
52
facilities pursuant to Section 25.136 of the Commission’s rules. To the extent that Boeing’s advocacy is 
based on its desire to operate user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band, our decision today denying its 
request to allow operation of FSS user equipment in 37.5-40 GHz makes this concern irrelevant.
403
While 
Boeing’s technical study assumed that UMFUS base stations were operating continuously at 75 dBm,
404
that deployment scenario is unrealistic because UMFUS facilities will have incentives to operate at the 
minimum power necessary.  We acknowledge that many terrestrial service proponents have described 
systems that have lower transmitted power, but our UMFUS rules are designed to facilitate the 
deployment of a wide variety of millimeter wave technology.  We do not believe it would be appropriate 
to limit the development of new technology or deployment of novel services by needlessly limiting the 
power of UMFUS equipment.
154. We also deny Boeing’s request to establish a separate total radiated power limit.  We 
agree with Intel and T-Mobile that such a limit is unnecessary and burdensome.  Boeing has not explained 
why the UMFUS bands are meaningfully different from other bands where we have only adopted EIRP 
limits.
F. Base Station Location Disclosure 
155. Background.  EchoStar/Inmarsat and SES/O3b ask the Commission to require the 
creation of a database of UMFUS facilities to facilitate coordination between FSS and UMFUS.
405
  They 
claim that such a database is needed to assist FSS in determining where to place earth stations.  5G 
Americas and Straight Path oppose this request on the grounds that it is overly burdensome and would 
require disclosure of competitively sensitive information.
406
156. Discussion.  Given the potentially huge number of deployments in these bands, it would 
be extremely burdensome to require UMFUS licensees to maintain and update information on each 
deployment.  On the other hand, FSS providers would only need this information when they were 
planning to coordinate an earth station location.  We disagree with SES/O3b that the existing coordination 
procedures are inadequate for them to obtain the information they need to coordinate with existing 
UMFUS licensees.  The Part 101 coordination rules, which apply to coordination of proposed earth 
stations, require UMFUS licensees to specify the technical details relevant to any objection.
407
  We 
conclude that the burden of the disclosure requirement would far outweigh any benefit.  We therefore 
deny the petitions on this issue.
G. 64-71 GHz
157. Background.  In the R&O, the Commission made available the 64-71 GHz frequency 
band for use by unlicensed devices pursuant to technical rules similar to those applicable to the adjacent 
57-64 GHz band.
408
  In providing this 7-gigahertz of unlicensed spectrum, the Commission’s objectives 
were two-fold: (1) to encourage the development of new and innovative unlicensed applications; and (2) 
to alleviate spectrum congestion from carrier licensed networks by enabling mobile data off-loading
409
                                                     
403
See SectionVI.D.2, infra.
404
Boeing Petition at 8.
405
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 21-23; SES/O3b Petition at 17-18.
406
5G Americas Opposition at 8; T-Mobile Opposition at 17-18.
407
See 47 CFR § 101.103(d)(2)(iv).
408
47 CFR § 15.255.
409
Mobile data offloading is the use of complementary network technologies for delivering data originally targeted 
for cellular networks to reduce the amount of data being carried on the cellular bands, freeing bandwidth or allowing 
users to obtain better connectivity via wired services in situations where local cell reception may be poor.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
53
through Wi-Fi and other unlicensed connections.
410
  In its decision, the Commission declined to wait for 
the outcome of future ITU studies of licensed use in the 66-71 GHz band because that could cause 
5 gigahertz of spectrum to lie fallow for years, while unlicensed applications are ready to make use of this 
spectrum in the near future, given existing and planned deployments of WiGig
411
products in the adjacent 
57-64 GHz band.
412
  Moreover, the Commission rejected comparisons in the record of the amount of 
spectrum used by unlicensed vs. licensed services,
413
given that spectrum characteristics vary at different 
frequencies.
158. CCA, CTIA and T-Mobile each request that the Commission allocate the upper five 
gigahertz of the 64-71 GHz band for exclusive licensed use instead of allowing unlicensed operations 
throughout the entire band.  These commenters generally assert that this spectrum could lead to greater 
5G deployment, that there is no evidence that unlicensed devices could make use of this band, and that the 
Commission provided insufficient mmW spectrum for licensed use relative to licensed use.
414
  Boeing, 
DSA, Intel, Microsoft, NCTA, Public Knowledge/OTI and the Wi-Fi Alliance support the Commission’s 
decision to make 64-71 GHz available for unlicensed use, asserting that there is significant interest, 
potential, and benefit in unlicensed use throughout the band.
415
      
159. Discussion. We affirm the Commission’s decision to authorize unlicensed operations 
across the entire 64-71 GHz band.  Contrary to petitioner’s arguments, the Commission thoroughly 
articulated the public interest benefits of making 64-71 GHz available for unlicensed use,
416
and the 
Commission’s decision took into account the needs of both licensed and unlicensed services.
417
  In 
contrast, petitioners have provided no explanation as to how they would make use of this band as a 
licensed band, and they mostly repeat arguments previously considered and rejected by the Commission.
160. Petitioners’ focus on the amount of spectrum made available for licensed versus 
unlicensed use is misguided.  The Commission has previously explained that this was not a valid 
comparison when responding to claims of “gigahertz parity” from commenters who shared the same view 
as CTIA.
418
  Furthermore, we make additional spectrum available for licensed use today, and we will 
continue to work to make more licensed spectrum available.   
                                                     
410
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8062-63, paras. 125-26. 
411
Multi-band WiFi-certified WiGig devices can provide continuous connectivity with transfer between the 2.4, 5, 
or 60 GHz bands.  See http://www.wi-fi.org/discover-wi-fi/wi-fi-certified-wigig.
412
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8064-65, para. 130.  The Commission also noted that the “study” of a frequency band by 
the ITU does not mean necessarily that the band will be automatically designated for licensed use, because licensing 
of spectrum is deferred to “the sovereign right of each State to regulate its telecommunication”, according to the 
Constitution and Convention of the ITU, at http://www.itu.int/en/history/Pages/ConstitutionAndConvention.aspx.
405
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8062-63, paras. 125-26.
414
See, e.g., CCA Petition at 8; CTIA Petition at 20; T-Mobile Petition at 5, 8.
415
See, e.g., Boeing Opposition at 3, 4-6; DSA Opposition at 2; Wi-Fi Alliance Opposition at 7; Intel Opposition at 
5-6; Microsoft Opposition at 9; NCTA Opposition at 5-6; Public Knowledge/OTI Opposition at 18-19.  See also
NCTA Oct. 30 Ex Parte; OTI/Public Knowledge Nov. 7 Ex Parte at 1; DSA Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1; Microsoft Nov. 9 
Ex Parte at 1.
416
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8062-63, para. 125.
417
CTIA references in its reply comments filed Feb 24, 2017 to the Accenture Report dated Jan 2017 and to the 
Deloitte Report, also dated Jan 2017, which extol the economic benefits of 5G wireless networks in general, but did 
not bring any new information that the Commission has not considered previously, since the Commission’s decision 
with respect to the 64-71 GHz band would also greatly benefit licensed services with unlicensed operations mobile 
data offloading.  See CTIA reply at 9-10; see also fn. 70, supra.  
418
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8064-65, paras. 129-30.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
54
161. Our expectation that unlicensed services would quickly serve the public interest in the 
64-71 GHz band, based on the band’s adjacent location to the 57-64 GHz band where WiGig devices are 
being actively deployed, is supported by the fact that the FCC Equipment Authorization Database shows 
close to 200 product certification grants for operation in the 57-64 GHz band.
419
  Furthermore, we note 
that the technical specifications for 802.11ad unlicensed devices to operate in the 64-71 GHz band are
already supported in the approved IEEE 802.11-2016 standard, using the same communication protocols 
for six 2160-megahertz wide channels.
420
  
H. Mobile Spectrum Holdings (In-Band Aggregation Limits)
162. CCA requests reconsideration of the Commission’s decision not to adopt band-specific 
limits for each of the 28 GHz, 37 GHz and 39 GHz bands.
421
  In the R&O, the Commission found that 
band-specific limits were unnecessary, stating because any technical differences between these three 
bands is not sufficient to significantly affect how these spectrum bands might be used.
422
  We find that 
CCA merely restates general arguments previously considered and rejected, and we therefore deny its 
request for reconsideration.
I. 28 and 39 GHz License Area Sizes
1. 28 GHz Band
163. In the R&O, the Commission selected counties as the base geographic unit for UMFUS 
license areas in the 28 GHz band and subdivided existing Basic Trading Area (BTA) licenses into 
counties.
423
  The Commission saw several advantages to county-based licenses:  they provided licensees 
with the flexibility to develop localized services, allowed for targeted deployments based on market 
forces and customer demand, and facilitated access by both smaller and larger carriers.
424
  The 
Commission also noted that county-based licenses facilitated efficient use of spectrum, stating that if a 
licensee was not interested in building in a particular county, other parties should have the opportunity to 
apply for the license in that county.
425
164. Several petitioners seek reconsideration of the Commission’s choice of counties in the 
R&O. Their arguments in favor of reconsideration largely involve what they see as an increased 
monetary, administrative and technological burden created by switching to counties as opposed to 
BTAs.
426
  They restate prior arguments that because there are many more counties than BTAs, the move 
to counties will unfairly burden incumbents – particularly “rural and regional carrier licenses” or those 
that would serve federal lands – by increasing the number of buildouts as well as the administrative 
                                                     
419
See https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/eas/index.cfm. There are 195 product certification grants for operation in the 
57-64 GHz band as of June 15, 2017.
420
See IEEE 802.11-2016, IEEE Standard for Information technology-Telecommunications and information 
exchange between systems-Local and metropolitan area networks-Specific requirements, Part 11: Wireless LAN 
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications, at Annex E, p. 3277.  See also Intel 
Opposition at 6.
421
CCA Petition at 12-14.
422
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8082, para. 186.
423
See id. at 8029, para. 35.
424
See id.
425
See id.
426
See CCA Petition at 9-10; Nextlink Petition at 8-11; Rural LMDS Licensees Petition at 1-2, 4-5, n.14; Skyriver 
Opposition at 8, 11-12; see also Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 2, 4; CCA Oct. 24 Ex Parte at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
55
burden and cost necessary to retain each county in the same area previously encompassed by BTAs.
427
  
Petitioners assert that in order to justify the costs of deployment in rural areas, network operators must 
typically realize ‘economies of scale’ and recoup sunk costs – which they can only do by first deploying 
in urban regions associated with these same rural areas.
428
  
165. Nextlink also argues that when incumbents initially acquired licenses and decided on 
network build-out plans, they did so in light of then-existing requirements, and that changing the rules for 
this band now would interfere with incumbents’ reasonable investment-backed expectations.
429
  
Accordingly, commenters conclude switching to county license areas now would be per se unreasonable 
without express statutory authorization and would raise serious due process concerns and constitute a 
taking.
430
166. Discussion.  We deny these arguments because they were fully considered and rejected 
by the Commission in its R&O, and petitioners have failed to present any basis for revisiting our 
decision.
431
The Commission fully considered and rejected the following concerns before reaching its 
decision, namely that (1) counties did not fit the contemplated services to be offered using mmW 
spectrum; (2) counties would result in more border areas requiring greater coordination; (3) the number of 
counties would impose administrative burdens on licensees and the Commission; and (4) requiring 
buildout showings on a county basis would increase licensees’ costs.
432
  The Commission also noted that 
it had moved towards license areas based on Economic Areas (EAs) and that counties were more 
consistent with EAs.
433
Finally, it noted that using BTAs for UMFUS would require a new licensing 
agreement with Rand McNally, the owner of BTAs.
434
  It concluded that county-based licenses would 
afford a licensee the flexibility to develop localized services, target deployment based on market forces 
and consumer demand, and facilitate access by both smaller and larger carriers – and that these benefits 
outweighed any administrative burden on licensees or the Commission.
435
  The Commission, rejecting the 
arguments that many counties previously included in BTAs would be abandoned because it was not 
economically viable or administratively cost-effective to build them out, concluded that it would be better 
to allow new providers to obtain licenses and make use of that spectrum.
436
  We believe this logic applies 
equally to rural areas, tribal land, counties containing military bases, or counties that contain federal lands 
such as the National Parks.  To the extent licensees previously acquired these areas under the expectation 
that they would provide service, it is inconsistent for licensees to now deny such intent.  If there is no 
intent to provide service in an area, they should surrender these license rights and give others the 
opportunity to provide service in those areas.  
167. The Commission considered the move to a county-based license fair to incumbents 
because they not only retained their fixed license rights but also would gain valuable mobile rights by 
                                                     
427
See CCA Petition at 9-10; Nextlink Petition at 8-11; Rural LMDS Licensees Petition at 1-2, 4-5 & n.14; Skyriver 
Opposition at 8, 11-12; see also Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 2, 4; CCA Oct. 24 Ex Parte at 2.
428
Nextlink Petition at 3; Skyriver Opposition at 9-10.  
429
Nextlink Petition at 9.
430
Id. at 9 & nn.21 & 22; Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 3.
431
See 47 CFR § 1.429(l)(3).
432
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8028-29, paras. 34-35.
433
Id. 8029, para. 36.
434
Id. at 8029-30, para. 36.
435
See id. 8029, para. 35.
436
The Commission noted that “[t]o the extent BTA licensees do not believe it is economically viable to build 
within certain counties of a BTA, we believe it would be appropriate to give other interested parties an opportunity 
to license and to make use of the spectrum.”  See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8029, para. 35.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
56
virtue of acquiring UMFUS licenses.
437
  The Commission concluded generally that the benefits of these 
smaller license areas outweighed any administrative burden on licensees and on the Commission.
438
  To 
the extent Petitioners are now making new arguments, such claims would appear to be barred because 
they have not justified why they failed to raise such arguments previously or why it is incumbent upon us 
to review them in the public interest.
439
168. We reject the takings argument raised by Nextlink and CCA. “[C]ourts have concluded 
that licensees do not have property rights in any license that the Commission issues to them, and so are 
not protected by the Fifth Amendment.”
440
  It is also “undisputed that the Commission has always retained 
the power to alter the term of existing licenses by rulemaking.”
441
  Nor is there anything inherently unfair
in the Commission’s action.  LMDS licenses have received mobile use rights they previously lacked and 
these licensees were given extra time to fulfill their buildout requirements.    
2. 39 GHz Band
169. Background.  CCA requests that we reconsider the Commission’s decision to divide the 
39 GHz band into PEAs from previous EA-based license areas because it allegedly will harm incumbents 
by increasing the burdens and costs of buildout.
442
  Since the Commission’s action increases the number 
of license areas, as it did with the 28 GHz band, petitioners claim that many small and regional carriers 
simply will not have the resources or the technology available to comply with the increased buildout 
requirements and costs, including the increase in interference negotiation costs at many more license 
boundaries.
443
CCA claims that these smaller carriers may lose their licenses or be put in dire straits in 
various license areas if they do not have sufficient demand to warrant buildout in those areas, and it 
argues that this could limit or reduce service to rural America.
444
  These petitioners further argue that 
carriers should not be forced to invest in new license areas after already having invested significant 
resources to meet existing requirements,
445
and that such mandated reallocation amounts to a regulatory 
taking.
446
  Petitioners submit that licensees should be exempted from any and all new performance 
requirements, retain their original geographic license size, or be subject to lessened performance 
                                                     
437
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8029, para. 35.
438
See id.
439
See 47 CFR § 1.429(b).
440
Promoting Expanded Opportunities for Radio Experimentation and Market Trials under Part 5 of the 
Commission’s Rules and Streamlining Other Related Rules, Report and Order, 28 FCC Rcd 758, 781 n.116 (2013), 
citing FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367, 395 (1981); 
Prometheus Radio Project v. FCC, 373 F.3d 372, 428 (3
rd
Cir., 2004).
441
Celtronix Telemetry, Inc. v. FCC, 272 F.3d 585, 589 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing cases).
442
CCA Petition at 9. Blooston, Cambridge Broadband, Nextlink, Rural LMDS licensees, and Skyriver support 
CCA’s request.  See Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 2; Nextlink Reply at 3; Skyriver Opposition at 8; Rural 
LMDS Licensees Reply at 2-3; Cambridge Broadband Reconsideration Response at 11.
443
See CCA Petition at 9-10; Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 2-3; Skyriver Opposition at 8, 10-11; Rural 
LMDS Licensees Reply at 3.
444
See CCA Petition at 9-10, 11; Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 3; Skyriver Opposition at 8-9, 10; Rural 
LMDS Licensees Reply at 3-4.
445
See CCA Petition at 9.
446
See Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 3.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
57
requirements.
447
  Alternatively they argue for retaining the same substantial service safe harbor 
benchmark as applied to the 39 GHz band previously.
448
170. Discussion.  We reject these arguments for most of the same reasons we reject these 
arguments with respect to the 28 GHz band.
449
  One distinction we observe between the 28 GHz bands 
and 39 GHz bands, however, is that in the 39 GHz band, the decision to allocate license areas by PEA 
should address many of the petitioners’ concerns. Specifically, the magnitude of change between EAs 
and PEAs is far smaller than the change from BTAs to counties in the 28 GHz band.  There are 176 EAs 
and 416 PEAs, whereas there are 493 BTAs and 3,174 counties or county-like areas.
450
  The Commission
correctly concluded that use of the PEA formed the appropriate middle ground between counties and EAs 
because PEAs were small enough to permit access to licenses by smaller carriers while still large enough 
to incentivize investment in new technologies.
451
  The PEA license size should thus address many of the 
monetary and administrative cost burdens that Petitioners decry.
452
J. Performance Requirements for Incumbent Licenses
171. As an alternative to reconsidering its decision to divide the current 28 GHz BTA-based 
LMDS license areas into counties, several petitioners argue the Commission should either reduce its 
performance requirements or provide incumbent licensees with greater flexibility in meeting these 
requirements.
453
  Parties also seek similar relief for incumbent 39 GHz licenses.
454
  We decline to adopt 
either of these proposals.  
172. Background.  In order to fulfill its statutory obligation to prevent warehousing and to 
promote widespread deployment, the Commission adopted enforceable performance metrics in the R&O 
that were tailored for each type of UMFUS service a licensee may choose to offer in the 28 GHz band.
455
  
                                                     
447
See CCA Petition at 11; Rural LMDS Licensees Petition at 7-8; Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 2, 4; see 
also Skyriver Opposition at 8.
448
Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 3, 4 (the substantial service standard was four permanent links per one 
million people in their licensed service area).
449
See Section V.I.1, supra.
450
Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details About Partial Economic Areas, Public Notice, 29 FCC 
Rcd 6491 (WTB 2014).
451
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8046, para. 82.
452
Cambridge Broadband argues that the new 39 GHz band plan of seven 200 megahertz channels does not 
accommodate the existing FDD users of the band that traditionally keep 700 megahertz of separation between uplink 
and downlink bands.  See Letter from Dr. John Naylon, CTO, Cambridge Broadband Networks Limited, to Whom it 
May Concern (filed Sep. 5, 2016). Alternatively, Cambridge Broadband asks that the 39 GHz band be auctioned as 
paired 400 megahertz blocks.  See Cambridge Broadband Reply at 9-10. The 39 GHz band plan was established in 
the R&O (see R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8053, paras. 95-96), and none of Cambridge Broadband’s filings were within 
the window for petitions for reconsideration. Nevertheless, we note that Cambridge Broadband’s arguments would 
be denied in any event because the band plan can accommodate FDD operations with careful spectrum planning. 
453
See Nextlink Petition at 9-10 & nn.23-24; CCA Petition at 11; Rural LMDS Licensees Petition at 7; Blooston 
Reconsideration Comments at 4; FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 9; Nextlink Reply at 4-5; Rural LMDS 
Reply at 4.
454
See T-Mobile Petition at 9; CCA Petition at 11; FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 10; Blooston 
Reconsideration Comments at 4; Nextlink Reply at 5.
455
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8088, para. 203.  For further information on the specific buildout requirements adopted, see 
para.61, supra.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
58
Under the Commission’s rules, failing to serve county license areas will result in termination of the 
license for that county.
456
173. With respect to incumbent licenses, the Commission recognized that those with license 
terms concluding before 2020 could not meet new, more rigorous buildout requirements before the end of 
their license terms because of the nascent state of technology.
457
  It also recognized that providing 
additional time to licensees would provide more effective opportunities for licensees to use the spectrum 
in ways that maximized the flexibility provided by the new rules.  Accordingly, current licensees in the 28 
GHz and 39 GHz bands who had complied with performance requirements in the prior license term were 
required to meet the new performance requirements by June 1, 2024.
458
  
174. Nextlink, CCA, the Rural LMDS Licensees, and Blooston argue that the relief granted to 
incumbent licensees is insufficient and that requiring licensees to cover at least 40 percent of a county’s 
population will exacerbate the burden resulting from the increased number of county license areas and 
make certain counties inherently unsuitable to deployment, regardless of cost.
459
  They also contend that 
many licensees will not have resources available to comply with increased buildout requirements and will 
lose their licenses.
460
  
175. Petitioners propose a wide variety of remedies, including exempting incumbents from 
meeting “any and all new performance requirements” with respect to new county areas,
461
requiring 
incumbents to meet buildout requirements for only one county within an area that was once a BTA,
462
allowing incumbents to meet their old Part 101 substantial service requirement by the end of their current 
license term – i.e., by 2024,
463
extending incumbents’ deployment deadlines,
464
reducing the requirement 
in rural areas,
465
or excluding counties that encompass tribal or federal land from meeting performance 
requirements.
466
  SES and O3b oppose relaxing performance requirements and giving county licensees 
extended time to hold onto their areas on the grounds this amounts to promoting warehousing, when other 
services, namely satellite, could better use the spectrum.
467
176. Discussion. We continue to believe that extending the deadline for meeting the new 
performance requirements to 2024 for incumbent licensees provides sufficient relief.  Petitioners ignore 
the fact that buildout obligations serve the important purpose of ensuring that scarce spectrum resources 
                                                     
456
47 CFR §§ 1.946(c), 1.955(a)(2).
457
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8091, para. 219.
458
Id. at 8091, para. 219.
459
See Nextlink Petition at 4, 6, 8; Nextlink Reply at 4 n.6.
460
See CCA Petition at 9-10; Rural LMDS Licensees Reply at 3-4.
461
CCA Petition at 11; Blooston Reconsideration Comments at 4; Rural LMDS Licensees Reply at 4; see also 
FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 9.
462
CCA Petition at 11; Nextlink Petition at 10; Rural LMDS Licensees Petition at 7; Blooston Reconsideration 
Comments at 4; Rural LMDS Licensees Reply at 4; see also FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 9.
463
T-Mobile Petition at 10; see also FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 9.
464
Nextlink Petition at 10-11; Nextlink Reply at 6 n.15; Rural LMDS Licensees Petition at 7-8; Blooston 
Reconsideration Comments at 2; FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 10; Nextlink Reply at 5; Rural LMDS 
Licensees Reply at 4.
465
Nextlink Petition at 5; see also FWCC Reconsideration Comments at 9.
466
Nextlink Petition at 6-7; Nextlink Reconsideration Reply at 6 & n.16 (citing Serv. Rules for the 698-746, 747-
762 & 777-792 MHz Bands, et al., Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd. 15289, 15350, para. 160 (2007); see also 
FWCC Comments at 9.
467
See SES/O3b Opposition at 9-12.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
59
are put to use and deployed in a manner that serves all communities.
468
Indeed, the Commission’s 
construction obligations promote the Commission’s objective of making spectrum “available, so far as 
possible, to all the people of the United States” regardless of where they live.
469
We reject as unsupported 
and contrary to the public interest the idea that, in this instance, allowing licensees to hold on to unused 
spectrum indefinitely would promote service.  In the R&O, the Commission noted the various proposals 
by parties that would have permitted incumbent licensees to meet their then existing performance 
requirements before the end of their license terms.
470
  Petitioners largely repeat the same arguments and 
we deny them on the ground they are plainly repetitious.  To the extent petitioners attempt to craft 
variations on those previous performance proposals or propose entirely new performance standards, they 
have not adequately explained why they could not have raised these arguments at the earlier stage of the 
proceeding, and we see no reason to review our performance requirements on public interest grounds.
471
  
177. We continue to believe that the 2024 deadline for incumbents to meet buildout 
requirements is reasonable.  Indeed, developments since release of the R&O indicate that the 
Commission’s 2020 estimate for availability of equipment may have been pessimistic.
472
  Both Verizon 
and AT&T have commenced trials for roll-out of commercial 5G services.  Verizon has begun offering 
5G mobile and broadband service to pilot customers in 11 cities,
473
and AT&T conducted its first 5G 
business customer trial in 2016 and states that it is currently pursuing 5G video trials with DirecTV NOW 
as well as additional fixed and mobile 5G trials with Qualcomm and Ericsson.
474
  Furthermore, it is 
estimated that 3GPP standards for Non-Standalone New Radio (NSA NR) will be completed by March 
2018, and that full Standalone New Radio with Next Generation Core will be completed by September 
2018.
475
  We believe these developments belie petitioners’ claims that they will not have sufficient time to 
meet performance requirements by 2024 due to the inability to obtain equipment.  
178. Finally, we reject the argument that parity requires that incumbent licensees receive the 
same amount of time as new licensees to meet their buildout requirements.  Incumbents have an 
                                                     
468
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 309.  See also, e.g., Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to Establish New Personal 
Communications Services, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 9 FCC Rcd 4957, 5018-19, paras. 154-56 (1994) 
(imposing construction requirements to ensure effective spectrum use and promote nationwide coverage 
notwithstanding varying population densities); Service Rules for the 698-746, 747-762 and 777-792 MHz Bands, 
Second Report and Order, 22 FCC Rcd 15289, 15348-49, paras. 154-55 (2007) (highlighting several important 
policy goals advanced by adoption of performance requirements, including to “better promote access to spectrum 
and the provision of service, especially in rural areas”); Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in the 2000-
2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 
16173-74, para. 187 (2012) (“The Commission establishes performance requirements to promote the productive use 
of spectrum, to encourage licensees to provide service to customers expeditiously, and to promote the provision of 
innovative services throughout the license area(s), including in rural areas”).
469
See, e.g., 47 U.S.C. § 151.
470
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8091, paras. 217-18.
471
See 47 CFR § 1.429(b).
472
See Rural LMDS Licensees June 29 Ex Parte at 2 (“Now, with the help of technological advancements, new 
investment in the band suggests the appropriate equipment will soon be available to allow expanded fixed and 
mobile networks in the 28 GHz band.”)
473
See Press Release, Verizon, Verizon to deliver 5G service to pilot customers in 11 markets across U.S. by Mid 
2017 (Feb. 22, 2017), http://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-deliver-5g-service-pilot-customers-11-markets-
across-us-mid-2017. 
474
See Press Release, AT&T, AT&T Details 5G Evolution (Jan. 4, 2017), 
http://about.att.com/story/att_details_5g_evolution.html. 
475
See Dino Flore, 3GPP RAN Chairman, 5G-NR workplan for eMBB (Mar. 9, 2017), http://www.3gpp.org/news-
events/3gpp-news/1836-5g_nr_workplan.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
60
advantage over potential new UMFUS licensees because they have immediate access to spectrum and can 
begin planning for deployments now.  
K. Splitting of 28 GHz Band into Two Licenses
179. Background.  Nextlink asks that the Commission reconsider its decision to split the 850 
MHz A1 Band into two 425 MHz segments and instead make this spectrum available for UMFUS as a 
single band.
476
  We deny this request both because it is plainly repetitive and because petitioners have 
failed to rebut the reasoning of the R&O which found that a split band would increase competition.
477
  
180. While the Commission initially had proposed to license the 28 GHz band as a single 850 
megahertz channel at the NPRM stage,
478
it decided to split the band into two 425 MHz segments in the 
R&O.
479
  The Commission explained that doing so would accomplish several goals, including facilitating 
the provision of high data rate services and other innovative uses as well as allowing some competition 
through multiple possible licenses in the spectrum.
480
  The Commission also suggested that licensees 
interested in having a contiguous block of 850 megahertz of spectrum could still acquire both channels 
under our spectrum aggregation policies.
481
181. In its Petition for Reconsideration, Nextlink argues the Commission failed to provide a 
valid reason to split incumbents’ A1 band licenses into upper and lower segment licenses of 425 MHz 
each.
482
  It asserts the rationale given for splitting unassigned A1 bands – creating more competition from 
new entrants – does not apply to bands that already have incumbents.
483
  Rather, it argues that these 
incumbents will face new licensing and buildout requirements for each new half band they obtain,
“stranding” incumbents’ current deployments in one half of their band, and requiring completely new 
deployment in the other half.
484
  Nextlink argues that at a minimum, the Commission should clarify that 
incumbents will be allowed to satisfy their performance obligations in the lower A1 band through upper 
A1 band deployment – and vice versa – and that deployments on either side of a link should count toward 
both service requirements.
485
  
182. Discussion.  We deny Nextlink’s request on the merits and because Nextlink seeks to 
reargue matters that the Commission thoroughly considered.  Nextlink’s assertion that we did not provide 
a valid basis for splitting the A1 band into two 425 megahertz licenses is incorrect.  As T-Mobile argued
in response to the NPRM, “where available bandwidth is more limited, as it is at 28 GHz and may be in 
other lower bands, smaller license blocks should be licensed in order to preserve competition.”
486
  AT&T 
and NSMA also support smaller channels in the 28 GHz band.
487
Nextlink previously had alleged that 
bifurcating the A1 band would exacerbate the problems it had raised against county based licensing, such 
as increased costs and ‘stranding’ deployments in different halves of the A1 band, but those arguments 
                                                     
476
See Nextlink Petition at 13.
477
See R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8043, para. 72.
478
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11914, para. 116.
479
R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8043, para. 72.
480
See id.
481
See id.
482
Nextlink Petition at 13.
483
Id. at 13.
484
Id. at 14.
485
Id. at 14.
486
T-Mobile NPRM Comments at 11. 
487
See AT&T Comments at 7 & n.12; NSMA Comments at 3. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
61
were considered and rejected by the Commission.
488
  On balance, we continue to believe that the benefits 
to competition of having multiple licenses in an area outweigh any marginal increase in costs to licensees.
L. Applicability of Part 30 Rules to Satellite Operations
183. Background.  EchoStar and Inmarsat note that Section 30.6 of the Commission’s rules 
states that when providing FSS services, UMFUS licensees must operate consistent with Part 25 of our 
rules governing satellite communications.    EchoStar and Inmarsat ask for a clarification that FSS 
operators holding licenses “for the purpose of protecting FSS operations” would only be subject to the 
following UMFUS service rules:  (1) Section 30.5 (Service Areas); Section 30.104 (License Term); and 
(3) Section 30.106 (Geographic partitioning and spectrum disaggregation).
489
  The EchoStar/Inmarsat 
petition is unopposed on this issue.
184. Discussion.  EchoStar and Inmarsat are correct that the Commission did not intend to 
apply Part 30 technical rules to satellite operations.  Accordingly, we will revise Section 30.6 to state 
explicitly that Part 30 technical rules do not apply when UMFUS licenses are used in connection with 
satellite operations.  The Part 30 licensing rules do apply, however, to all UMFUS licenses, regardless of 
use.  For example, if a satellite operator acquired an UMFUS license at auction, it would acquire those 
licenses pursuant to the competitive bidding rules in Part 30, Subpart D.  Furthermore, our buildout 
requirements apply to all UMFUS licenses, but there is a special provision in the rules allowing FSS 
operators to comply with those requirements in a given county section by demonstrating that an earth 
station is in service, operational, and using the spectrum associated with the license.
490
  Accordingly, we 
deny the petition to the extent it seeks to broadly exclude FSS operations from the UMFUS licensing 
rules.
VI. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. 48.2-50.2 GHz
185. Background.  While there are primary non-Federal fixed and mobile allocations in the 
48.2-50.2 GHz band, there currently are no service rules for terrestrial operations in this band.
491
  The 
Commission previously designated the 48.2-50.2 GHz segment for FSS use.
492
  Airborne mobile 
operations are prohibited in the 48.94-49.04 GHz segment.
493
  There is a non-Federal Fixed-Service 
Satellite (Earth-to-space) allocation throughout this band, and service rules currently exist for satellite 
operation under Part 25.  The 48.2-49.2 GHz band is also available for BSS feeder links.
494
  In the 48.2-
50.2 GHz band, there also are primary Federal allocations for fixed, mobile, and Fixed-Satellite (Earth-to-
space) services.  The 48.94-49.04 GHz band is also used by radio astronomy for spectral line 
observations, and all practicable steps must be taken to protect radio astronomy in that band from 
interference.
495
                                                     
488
See Nextlink June 30, 2016 Ex Parte at 2, 5.
489
EchoStar/Inmarsat Petition at 23.
490
47 CFR § 30.104(c).
491
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
492
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 
GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and 
Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, First Report and 
Order, 13 FCC Rcd 24649, 24651 para. 2 (1999) (V-Band First Report and Order).  
493
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US264.
494
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US297.
495
See 47 CFR § 2.106 nn.5.555, US342.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
62
186. In the FNPRM, the Commission proposed to authorize fixed and mobile operations in the 
band under the Part 30 Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service rules.
496
  Recognizing that the 47 GHz 
band is currently authorized for FSS use,
497
the Commission invited comments on three approaches for 
sharing between FSS user equipment and terrestrial operations in the radiofrequency from 47 GHz to 50 
GHz.
498
  
187. In addition, the Commission sought comment in the FNPRM on adopting the sharing 
framework for individually licensed earth stations adopted in the R&O for the 28 GHz band.
499
  The 
Commission proposed that in each PEA there could be one location where FSS earth stations can be 
located on a co-primary basis, subject to the conditions and limitations the Commission adopted in other 
bands.
500
  The Commission sought comment on this proposal, as well as alternatives.
501
188. Satellite operators argue that transmitting end-user terminals will not be able to share 
uplink spectrum with UMFUS systems that are widely deployed and they ask the Commission to maintain 
the primary FSS designation in the band.
502
  Boeing, for example, argues that broadband satellite systems 
must have unfettered access to the 3 gigahertz of spectrum in the 47 GHz band to operate transmitting 
satellite end user terminals.
503
  ViaSat argues that satellite networks need access to 48.2-50.2 GHz as a 
“core” band where user devices can be placed without restrictions.
504
  Airlines argue that as demand for 
in-flight broadband grows, airlines and their satellite broadband partners will need access to more 
spectrum to meet consumer demand.
505
  Wireless carriers, on the other hand, support authorizing fixed 
and mobile use in the band on a primary basis.
506
  Terrestrial interests do not support sharing the band 
with satellite uplinks.  CTIA suggests that FSS should be limited to 50.4-51.4 GHz, “to the extent that it 
does not interfere with terrestrial use.”
507
T-Mobile suggests that, to the extent the Commission decides 
sharing is appropriate, the Commission should divide the band into segments in which different users 
                                                     
496
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8155, para. 410.
497
Id. at 8155, para. 411.
498
Id. at 8156, paras. 413-15.  The first proposal was to supplement geographic area licensing with database-driven 
sharing between FSS operations and stationary FSS user equipment.  Id. at 8156, para. 413.  The second option was 
dividing the band into a segment where FSS has priority and a segment where UMFUS operations have priority.  Id. 
at 8156, para. 414.  Under the third option, the Commission would develop specific criteria for assigning priority 
between FSS and terrestrial operations, including requiring both FSS and UMFUS licensees to register their 
operations in a database, allowing the Commission to assign interference protection on a first-come, first-serve 
basis.  Id. at 8156, para. 415.
499
Id. at 8156, para. 412.
500
Id.
501
Id.
502
Boeing Comments at 16; ViaSat Comments at 10; ViaSat Reply Comments at 4-5; O3b Comments at 7. 
503
Boeing Comments at 14-17. See also SIA Reply Comments at 13-14. 
504
ViaSat Comments at 8-12.
505
American Airlines Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1; jetBlue Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1.
506
T-Mobile Comments at 15-18; CTIA July 14 Ex Parte at 5. See also T-Mobile Oct. 25 Ex Parte Attach. at 13 
(Rosston-Skrzypacz Report, arguing that the Commission best fulfills its mandate to manage spectrum in the public 
interest by awarding flexible-use licenses via auction and allowing the winning bidder to determine whether to 
provide satellite or terrestrial services or a mix).
507
CTIA July 14 Ex Parte at 5.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
63
have priority.
508
  Additionally, several commenters oppose the use of a Spectrum Access System (“SAS”) 
to govern spectrum sharing in the 47 GHz band.
509
189. Discussion.  At this time, we decline to authorize fixed and mobile use in the 48.2-50.2 
GHz band, but rather retain the broad flexibility of satellite systems to operate in that band.  We believe 
the satellite broadband services that could be delivered over the networks proposed by Boeing, SpaceX, 
and others could play a useful role in bringing the benefits of broadband to more Americans.
510
  Given the 
current state of satellite technology, these systems would need access to spectrum where satellite end user 
devices can operate.  Our actions today will provide FSS operators with 2 gigahertz of both uplink and 
downlink spectrum where they can operate satellite end user devices and earth stations without having to 
share with terrestrial licensees.  In addition, we recognize the importance to the satellite industry of 
having spectrum to freely deploy uplink user terminals across the United States.
511
  Further, we note that 
there is no explanation in the record for how the V-band could work successfully for both satellite and 
terrestrial providers without dedicated spectrum for FSS end-user terminals.  Accordingly, while we are 
making additional spectrum, including the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, available for terrestrial use today, we will 
reserve the 48.2-50.2 GHz band for FSS use at this time, pursuant to the existing Part 25 rules, in order to 
give satellite operators an opportunity to provide services in the V-band.
B. 40-42 GHz
190. Background.  This band has not been previously considered in this proceeding.  In the 40-
40.5 GHz band, there is currently no Fixed or Mobile allocation; rather, there are non-Federal FSS (space-
to-earth) and MSS (space-to-earth) allocations, as well as various Federal satellite and space research 
allocations.
512
  In the 40.5-41 GHz band, there are both Federal and non-Federal FSS (space-to-earth) and 
MSS (space-to-earth) allocations, as well as non-Federal allocations for Broadcasting, Broadcasting 
Satellite Service (BSS), Fixed, and Mobile.
513
  In the 41-42 GHz band, there are non-Federal allocations 
for FSS (space-to-earth), Fixed, Mobile, Broadcasting, and BSS, but no Federal allocations.
514
  The 
Commission has designated the 40-42 GHz band for FSS use.
515
191. CTIA, Ericsson, Huawei, Straight Path, and T-Mobile ask the Commission to make the 
40-42 GHz band available for mobile use.  They argue that the 40-42 GHz band is being studied 
internationally for mobile use and could be combined with the 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 42-42.5 GHz band 
                                                     
508
T-Mobile Comments at 17.
509
Boeing Reply Comments at 26; T-Mobile Comments at 16-18.
510
See, e.g., ViaSat Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 3-4 (responding to T-Mobile’s Rosston-Skrzypacz Report).
511
See Boeing Comments at 15; O3b Reply Comments at 6-7; ViaSat Comments at 10; Inmarsat Comments at 17; 
SIA Comments at 13. 
512
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
513
See id.
514
See id.
515
Allocation and Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 
GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and 
Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, Second Report and 
Order, 18 FCC Rcd 25428, 245XX paras. 12-15 (2003) (V-Band Second Report and Order).  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
64
to create 5.5 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum.
516
  Satellite interests oppose mobile use of the 40-42 GHz 
band, arguing that satellite systems need dedicated spectrum where they can operate user devices.
517
192. Discussion.  We decline to propose mobile use in the 40-42 GHz band at this time.  No 
proponent of mobile use for this band has explained how such use would be consistent with the operation 
of satellite user devices in this band.  This analysis is different from the sharing analysis between UMFUS 
and individually licensed earth stations because the number and location of individually licensed earth 
stations can be controlled.  As with 48.2-50.2 GHz, we will reserve the 40-42 GHz band for FSS use at 
this time, pursuant to the existing Part 25 rules, in order to give satellite operators an opportunity to 
provide services in V-band.
518
C. 71-76 and 81-86 GHz Bands (70/80 GHz Band)
1. Introduction
193. On October 16, 2003, the Commission adopted a Report and Order establishing service 
rules to promote non-Federal development and use of the millimeter wave spectrum in the 71-76 GHz (70 
GHz), 81-86 GHz (80 GHz), and 92-95 GHz (90 GHz) bands, which are allocated to non-Federal and 
Federal users on a co-primary basis.
519
  Based on the determination that highly directional, “pencil-beam” 
signal characteristics permit systems in these bands to be engineered so that many operations can co-exist 
in the same vicinity without causing interference to one another, the Commission in 2003 adopted a 
flexible and innovative regulatory framework for the bands.
520
  Specifically, the Commission created a 
two pronged authorization scheme for non-Federal entities for the entire 12.9 GHz of spectrum in the 
band.  First, a licensee applies for a non-exclusive nationwide license; second, the licensee registers 
individual point-to-point links.  Under this licensing scheme, a non-exclusive license serves as a 
prerequisite for registering individual point-to-point links.  Licensees may operate a link only after the 
link is both registered with a third-party database and coordinated with NTIA.
521
  This flexible and 
streamlined regulatory framework was designed to encourage innovative uses of the millimeter wave 
spectrum, facilitate future development in technology and equipment, promote competition in the 
communications services, equipment, and related markets, and advance sharing between non-Federal and 
Federal systems.
194. As of June 12, 2017, there were 454 active non-exclusive nationwide licenses covering 
the 70 GHz, 80 GHz, and 90 GHz bands.
522
  Based upon information available from the third-party 
                                                     
516
CTIA Comments at 12-13; Ericsson Comments at 10-12; Huawei Comments at 6; Straight Path Comments at 5-
7; T-Mobile Comments at 4-5.
517
Boeing Reply Comments at 24-25; O3b Reply Comments at 11-12; SIA Reply Comments at 10-12; ViaSat Reply 
Comments at 4-5.  
518
We acknowledge the ongoing international studies at the ITU-R for mobile (IMT) use in the band 37-43.5 GHz.  
We note that the benefits of global harmonization are not limited to situations where all regions have identical 
spectrum allocations and can be facilitated through the use of radio tuning ranges.  Radio tuning ranges allow 
manufacturers to develop equipment that can operate across multiple bands within a contiguous range while 
allowing regulators flexibility to manage spectrum resources for domestic requirements.  We will continue to follow 
the ongoing studies in this band leading up to WRC-19.  See Intel Nov. 13 Ex Parte.
519
The bands are allocated to both Federal and non-Federal users on a co-primary basis, except the 94.0-94.1 GHz 
portion, which is allocated for Federal use on a primary basis.  See generally Allocations and Service Rules for the 
71-76 GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 23318, 23322-31, paras. 6-26 (2003) 
(70-80-90 GHz Report and Order).
520
70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23337-39, paras. 44-47.
521
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71-76 
GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB BD 2005). 
522
These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on June 12, 2017.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
65
database managers that are responsible for registering links in those bands, as of June 10, 2016, there 
were approximately 11,882 registered fixed links
523
in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.
524
195. Access to these bands is based on a set of spectrum rights and sharing mechanisms 
between Federal and non-Federal users, and among different types of non-Federal uses (fixed and 
satellite).  In these bands, non-Federal operations may not cause harmful interference to, nor claim 
protection from, Federal Fixed-Satellite Service operations located at 28 military bases.
525
  In addition, in 
the 80 GHz band, licensees proposing to register links located near 18 radio astronomy observatories must 
coordinate their proposed links with those observatories.
526
  Third-party database managers are 
responsible for recording each proposed non-Federal link in the third-party database link system and for 
coordinating with NTIA’s automated “green light/yellow light” mechanism, under which a non-federal 
link entered into NTIA’s system is either approved for 60 days (green light) or subject to further 
coordination (yellow light), to determine the potential for harmful interference to Federal operations and 
radio observatories.
527
196. The 71-74 GHz band segment has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal 
Fixed, FSS, Mobile, and MSS (space-to-Earth) operations.
528
  The 74-76 GHz band segment has co-
primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, FSS (space-to-Earth), Mobile, and SRS 
operations.
529
  In addition, there are non-Federal allocations in that band segment for Broadcasting and 
BSS operations.
530
  The 81-86 GHz band has co-primary allocations for Federal and non-Federal Fixed, 
FSS (Earth-to-space), and Mobile, and within that band the 81-84 GHz band segment also has a Federal 
and non-Federal allocation for MSS (Earth-to-space).
531
The Commission has recently adopted rules to 
authorize non-Federal radar applications in the 76-81 GHz band on a licensed basis under Part 95.
532
These rules shift vehicular radars away from the Part 15 unlicensed model that had previously been used 
in the 76-77 GHz portion of the band.
533
                                                     
523
A link in this context is defined as a communication path between one location and another in a single direction, 
regardless of frequency channel.   In other words, multiple channels registered between the same transmit and 
receive location are not considered separate links.  Bi-directional communications are counted as separate links. 
524
These statistics are based on a review of the third party database managers’ data on June 12, 2017.  See
www.micronetcommunications.com/LinkRegistration/ ; www.comsearch.com/applications/link7090/index.jsp ; 
http://mmradioforms.com/mmRadioForms/FrontPage.aspx
525
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US389.
526
See 47 CFR § 2.106 n.US388.
527
See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Announces Permanent Process for Registering Links in the 71-76 
GHz, 81-86 GHz, and 92-95 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 2261 (WTB BD 2005).
528
See 47 CFR § 2.106.
529
See id.
530
See id.
531
See id.
532
See 47 CFR Part 95 Subpart M; Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit 
Radar Services in the 76-81 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order, 30 FCC Rcd 
1625, 1632-38, paras. 24-44 (2015); Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95 of the Commission's Rules to Permit 
Radar Services in the 76-81 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 15-26, Report and Order, FCC 17-94, paras. 52-60 (Adopted 
July 13, 2017). 
533
See Amendment of Parts 1, 2, 15, 90 and 95 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Radar Services in the 76-81 
GHz Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Reconsideration Order, 30 FCC Rcd 1625, 1632-38, paras. 24-44 
(2015).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
66
2. Mobile Use
197. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on whether to authorize 
flexible use services, including mobile use, in these bands using a Spectrum Access System (SAS), 
similar to the system established in the 3.5 GHz band.  It asked a series of questions about how an SAS-
based regulatory framework would work in these bands, including questions about incumbent fixed links, 
tiers of service, protection methodology, and technical rules.
534
  The Commission also sought comment on 
alternative methods of authorizing additional access to the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, including 
exclusive use licensing.
535
198. Commenters initially raised considerable doubt about the advisability and desirability of 
introducing mobile services into the 70/80/90 GHz bands in the near future. In comments, CTIA, 
Verizon, and AT&T urge the Commission to focus on improvements to the existing fixed rules, at least in 
the short term.
536
  In a subsequent ex parte, CTIA now supports mobile use of the 70 GHz band and 
suggests that the 80 GHz band could be reserved for satellite uplinks.
537
Ericsson believes these bands 
could represent up to 20 percent of all new backhaul deployments as early as 2020.
538
  Google supports 
maintaining the existing framework with updates to registration parameters and minimum antenna gain to 
allow point-to-multipoint operations.
539
  Aeronet expresses interest in using the bands to provide 
broadband connectivity to airplanes and cruise ships and suggests that its proposed operations would be 
compatible with existing fixed links.
540
  FWCC, NSMA, and existing license holders and registrants in the 
70 GHz and 80 GHz bands argue that mobile service is inconsistent with their existing fixed links and 
that the bands are needed to meet the growing demand for backhaul.
541
  Scientel Solutions, while not 
explicitly opposing mobile use, “urges the agency to make certain that the introduction of shared mobile 
5G technology use into the 70/80 GHz Bands is in fact compatible with incumbent operations, without 
disrupting those existing systems.”
542
199. Commenters who support mobile use of the 70/80 GHz bands propose a variety of 
methods for reconciling mobile use with incumbent uses.  Aeronet, Federated Wireless, and InterDigital 
support the SAS concept as described in the FNPRM, with some adjustments.
543
  Other commenters who 
support mobile use reject an SAS approach and suggest alternatives.  T-Mobile calls an SAS approach 
“untested in real-world environments” and proposes geographic area licensing combined with a 
                                                     
534
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8165-67 para. 440.
535
Id. at 8168 para. 441.
536
AT&T Reply Comments at 4 (“Due to its significant usage today for point-to-point and anticipated growth in 
demand, AT&T recommends the Commission make allocation of the 70/80 GHz band for mobile a lower priority.”); 
CTIA Comments at 14 (“CTIA believes that the Commission should largely retain its existing 70/80 GHz licensing 
framework.”); Verizon Reply Comments at 3-4 (Verizon supports existing framework, although it is interested in 
Google’s proposal to authorize point-to-multipoint operations); see also OTI/Public Knowledge Nov. 7 Ex Parte at 
1.
537
CTIA July 14 Ex Parte at 8-9.
538
Ericsson Comments at 14.
539
Google Comments at 2-5.
540
Aeronet July 12 Ex Parte; see also Aeronet Nov. 9 Ex Parte.
541
FWCC Comments at 11; NSMA Comments at 4-5; Anova Comments at 5-6; Collinear Networks Comments at 5-
15; E-Band Comments at 1-2; Moseley Associates Comments at 1-2; NEC Comments at 1-2; REMEC Comments at 
1-2; see also Elefante Group Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1 (opposing mobile use of the 70/80 GHz bands to preserve them 
both for existing and emerging fixed services).
542
Scientel Solutions Comments at 3.
543
Aeronet Comments at 1-2; Federated Wireless Comments at 12-16; InterDigital Comments at 5-10.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
67
requirement to coordinate with incumbent Federal and non-Federal users.
544
  Nokia proposes an 
arrangement in which mobile user equipment that could interfere with fixed links is identified and then 
handed off to alternative access points along beams that would not interfere with the fixed links.
545
  
200. Discussion. We decline to authorize mobile use in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands under 
UMFUS rules at this time.  There is broad support in the record for focusing on and enhancing the 
existing rules for fixed use of the band, while there is little consensus among the proponents of mobile use 
as to how to coexist with fixed links.  Under the existing licensing mechanism, these bands can play an 
important role in 5G development by facilitating backhaul and other fixed uses.  It is important not only 
to protect existing links but also to provide an opportunity for future growth of fixed service in these 
bands as demand for backhaul and other related services increases.  
201. We have several proposals pending in our Wireless Backhaul proceeding (WT Docket 
No. 10-153) to modify the existing rules for these bands.  The proposals include adjustments to the 
antenna standards,
546
allowing +/- 45 degree polarization,
547
establishing a channelization plan,
548
requiring construction certifications for registered links,
549
and allowing minor modifications to link 
registrations.
550
  We also note that companies such as Aeronet, Google, and The Elefante Group have 
proposed different uses for these bands which neither fit the traditional mobile broadband nor fixed link 
models.
551
  Our best course of action is for the Commission to consider those proposals and possible 
future uses in the Wireless Backhaul proceeding.  Once the Commission decides what changes, if any, to 
make to the existing rules, we encourage interested parties to discuss possible methods of promoting 
coexistence between fixed links and mobile operations.  We reserve the right to revisit this issue as 
mobile use deploys in other millimeter wave bands, technology develops, and as further thought is given 
to mobile/fixed coexistence.
3. Indoor-only Unlicensed Use under Part 15 
202. Background.  In 2003, the Commission declined to authorize unlicensed operation under 
Part 15 in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.
552
  The Commission noted that the equipment being designed 
                                                     
544
T-Mobile Comments at 20.
545
See Nokia Comments, Appendix 1; Nokia Reply Comments, Appendix 1.  The Elefante Group takes issue with 
this analysis.  See Elefante Group Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 3-5.
546
See Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Marlene H. 
Dortch, Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 10-153 (filed Apr. 4, 2013); Letter from 
Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, 
Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 10-153 (filed Mar. 24, 2014).
547
Comments of the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition in Response to the Commission’s Notice of Inquiry, 
WT Docket No. 10-153 (filed Oct. 5, 2012) at 7-8 (FWCC 2
nd
NOI Comments).
548
FWCC 2
nd
NOI Comments at 6.
549
Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 10-153 (filed Nov. 30, 2016), at 4.
550
Letter from Mitchell Lazarus, Counsel for the Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition to Marlene H. Dortch, 
Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, WT Docket No. 10-153 (filed Nov. 30, 2016), at 5.
551
Google Comments at 2-3 (discussing use of 70/80 GHz for retail wireless broadband service and balloon-
powered Internet access technology); Aeronet Oct. 6 Ex Parte (discussing technology for using 70/80 GHz to 
deliver high-speed broadband connectivity to ships and planes); Aeronet July 12 Ex Parte; Elefante Group Sept. 8 
Ex Parte (describing low-latency, high capacity communications between user terminals and stratospheric 
platforms).
552
See 70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23336, para. 41.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
68
for this band was not designed to operate with unlicensed devices.
553
  The Commission expressed concern 
that “an underlay of unlicensed devices here could detrimentally affect the quality, and thus, buildout of 
service.”
554
  It also observed that the 92-95 GHz band could provide sufficient spectrum for unlicensed 
devices.
555
  It reserved “discretion to revisit this decision as the services in these bands mature and new 
technology is developed regarding sharing.”
556
203. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on the feasibility of authorizing indoor-
only unlicensed use under Part 15 of our rules in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.
557
  Even though the
Commission decided not to adopt a proposal to authorize unlicensed indoor-only operations in the 37 
GHz band, the Commission noted in the FNPRM that the comparative amount of signal leakage through 
windows could be much lower in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, and consequently would be less likely 
to interfere with outdoor operations.
558
  Although indoor-only unlicensed operation is permitted in the 90 
GHz band, no unlicensed equipment had been authorized under these rules as of the time of the 
FNPRM.
559
  Our rules require that equipment authorized to operate in the 90 GHz band must be AC-
powered in order to ensure that they only operate indoors.
560
  The Commission inquired about whether 
similar technical rules should apply if we allowed unlicensed operation at 70 GHz/80 GHz and what 
additional restrictions should be placed on such indoor devices to ensure that this type of equipment 
would not interfere with authorized services.
561
204. Commenters are divided on whether to permit indoor-only unlicensed use under Part 15 
in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  For example, DSA, Microsoft, OTI/Public Knowledge, and Charter 
support unlicensed, indoor-only operations across the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands, subject to the AC 
power and other technical rules that already apply to indoor-only operation in the 90 GHz band under Part 
15.
562
  Microsoft, for example, argues that there is a lower probability of harmful interference to licensed 
services due to unlicensed use because of the limited range of client devices, the geometries involved, and 
the attenuation of radio waves at these frequencies through windows and other construction materials.
563
   
DSA contends that there is no risk to either incumbent fixed point-to-point licensees or to Federal satellite 
operations at military bases.
564
  OTI and Public Knowledge suggest that outdoor unlicensed use could be 
authorized on a secondary basis “subject to coordination by a geolocation database.”
565
  Federated and 
                                                     
553
See id.
554
See id.
555
See id.
556
See id.
557
See FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8168, para. 440.
558
See id. 
559
See id. at 8167-68, para. 440; 47 CFR § 15.257. 
560
47 CFR § 15.257(a)(1) requires that “devices operating under the provisions of this section, by the nature of their 
design, must be capable of operation only indoors.  The necessity to operate with a fixed indoor infrastructure, e.g., a 
transmitter that must be connected to the AC power lines, may be considered sufficient to demonstrate this.”
561
See FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8167-68, para. 440; 47 CFR § 15.257.
562
See, e.g., DSA Comments at 8-9; Microsoft Comments at 9; OTI/Public Knowledge Reply Comments at 23; 
Charter Reply Comments at 1-3; Micronet Comments at 4 (supporting unlicensed indoor operation as long as 
adequate restrictions are placed on the equipment (power limitation, etc.) to protect registered links); see also 
Microsoft Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1; Public Knowledge/OTI Nov. 7 Ex Parte at 3.
563
Microsoft Comments at 9; DSA Comments at 9.
564
DSA Comments at 9.
565
OTI/Public Knowledge Comments at 19-22.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
69
NCTA support traditional Part 15 unlicensed operation indoors if the Commission were to adopt an SAS
framework, which, in the discussion above, we have declined to do at this time.
566
    
205. Other commenters oppose unlicensed indoor use in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.
567
  
Fastback Networks opposes indoor use, or any other use that would encourage non-directional antennas, 
because “the extreme directivity requirements of the existing 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands. . . enables 
equipment in this band to efficiently re-use this spectrum dynamically, whether under the existing lightly 
licensed regime or a future unlicensed scenario.”
568
  Parties opposing indoor unlicensed use in the 70 GHz
and 80 GHz bands generally argue that additional study is necessary before the Commission should 
authorize indoor unlicensed use in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands
569
and such unlicensed use is not 
necessary at this time given the availability of 14 gigahertz of contiguous unlicensed millimeter-wave 
spectrum between 57-71 GHz and the permissibility of unlicensed indoor use at 90 GHz.
570
206. Discussion.  We decline at this time to authorize indoor-only unlicensed use under Part 
15 of our rules in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  We find that little has changed since the Commission 
rejected the use of unlicensed devises in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands in 2003.
571
  We further find that, 
given the risks of interference to existing fixed uses, additional studies are warranted before considering 
indoor unlicensed use in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  Parties supporting unlicensed indoor use in the 
70 GHz and 80 GHz bands fail to provide sufficient evidence that such use would cause no interference to 
authorized uses. Rather, they rely on general references to the propagation characteristics in these bands,
building materials, device limitations (e.g., a requirement that equipment comply with Section 15.257 of 
the rules), or they advocate the adoption of an SAS framework to protect authorized uses from 
interference.
207. We further find that the current availability of 14 gigahertz of contiguous spectrum for 
unlicensed operations immediately below the 70 GHz band reduces the urgency to introduce unlicensed 
indoor use in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands.  In this regard, we note that, while unlicensed indoor use is 
permitted under Part 15 at 90 GHz, no equipment has been authorized for use as of June 12, 2017, so it 
would be premature to extend the rules of a yet-to-be successful service to the bands immediately below it 
that, as demonstrated by the record, support a thriving millimeter wave service.  We further find that it is 
neither necessary nor cost-effective to establish a geolocation database to facilitate coordination of 
unlicensed devices at this time, as proposed by OTI and Public Knowledge.  Our decision to delay 
introducing unlicensed indoor use at this time furthers the public interest by protecting existing operations 
                                                     
566
Federated Wireless Comments at 17-18; NCTA Comments at 11.
567
Ericsson Comments at 15; Fastback Networks Comments at 3; FWCC Reply Comments at 4 and n.17; Huawei 
Comments at 10; NEC Comments at 1; Qualcomm Comments at 12; Sprint Reply Comments at 14-15; TIA 
Comments at 15; see also Elefante Group Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1. 
568
Fastback Networks Comments at 3.
569
Ericsson Comments at 15; NEC Comments at 1; Qualcomm Comments at 12; TIA Comments at 15.  Parties 
particularly emphasize the need for further study of the risk of interference to outdoor backhaul from unlicensed 
indoor use.  Ericsson Comments at 15; Qualcomm Comments at 12; TIA Comments at 15.  The FWCC, which 
earlier in this proceeding would have supported indoor unlicensed operation at the emission levels specified for 92-
95 GHz band, now opposes unlicensed indoor use in the 70 and 80 GHz bands because it is no longer confident that 
outdoor links are safe at the 92-95 GHz band power levels, given the largely glass facades of modern office 
buildings.  FWCC Reply Comments at 4 n.17.  
570
Ericsson Comments at 15; Huawei Comments at 10; Qualcomm Comments at 12; TIA Comments at 15; Sprint 
Reply Comments at 14-15.
571
70-80-90 GHz Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 23336, para. 41.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
70
and successful services in the 70 GHz and 80 GHz bands without foreclosing future innovations in these 
bands.
572
D. 37.5-40 GHz Band Satellite Issues
1. Satellite Power Flux Density Limits
208. Background.  In the V-Band Second Report and Order, the Commission determined that 
Fixed Service use of the 37.5-40 GHz band would be primarily for high density FS operations
573
while 
Fixed-Satellite Service use of that band would be for gateway earth stations.
574
209. To accommodate FS in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band and FSS in the 40.0-42.0 GHz band, the 
Commission adopted what it called a “soft segmentation” approach by implementing power flux density 
(PFD) limits on FSS at a level 12 dB lower in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band than in the 40.0-42.0 GHz band.
575
The Commission stated that it was making higher power levels available for satellite operations in the 
40.0-42.0 GHz band in order to motivate high density FSS (HDFSS) to use that band rather than the 37.5-
40.0 GHz band, and that it was setting satellite PFD limits at a lower level in the 37.5-40.0 GHz band in 
order to protect ubiquitously deployed high density FS stations from interference from satellite signals.
576
  
The Commission adopted rules that contemplated allowing satellites to raise the power levels of their spot 
beams during rain fade events, but did not define the conditions under which satellites could do so.
577
210. In the FNPRM in this proceeding, the Commission acknowledged that the record was 
insufficient for the Commission to conclude that authorizing satellites to operate at the higher PFD of -
105 dBW/m
2
/MHz would be consistent with terrestrial use of the 37.5-40 GHz band.
578
  The Commission 
observed that, in theory, the same rain storm that impairs satellite reception might be able to shield earth 
stations if the satellite were to raise its power level, but noted that rain will rarely be uniformly present 
throughout a spot beam’s footprint, leaving at least some terrestrial stations unshielded or inadequately 
                                                     
572
We note that in Microsoft again recommends that we seek additional comment and further consider allowing 
indoor use for unlicensed technologies in the 71-76 GHz range, which we are not considering in the present item for 
the reasons stated.  Microsoft Nov. 9 Ex Parte at 1; see also OTI Nov. 13 Ex Parte at 3 (advocating the same 
position).
573
See V-band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC Rcd at 25438, para. 23.
574
See id. at 25442, para. 33.  The Commission defined high density FS as follows:  High density systems and 
usages in the fixed service are generally characterized by applications requiring the ability to: (1) operate on a point-
to-point or point-to-multipoint basis, or a combination of both; (2) flexibly achieve, over short periods of time, a 
concentration of links on the same channel(s) within an area; (3) increase frequency reuse; and (4) decrease terminal 
size and cost of equipment.  The term "high density fixed service" does not refer to a particular application or band 
in the fixed service, but does describe the phenomena of maximized deployment densities, spectrum reuse and 
spectral efficiencies realized by concentrated deployments.  Often these deployment density, spectrum reuse and 
spectral efficiency factors become more pronounced in the higher bands.  See In the Matter of Amendment of Part 2 
of the Commission’s Rules to Allocate Additional Spectrum to the Inter-Satellite, Fixed, and Mobile Services and to 
Permit Unlicensed Devices to Use Certain Segments in the 50.2-50.4 GHz and 51.4-71.0 GHz Bands, Report and 
Order, 15 FCC Rcd 25264 at _, para. 24, n. 46 (2000).
575
See V-Band Third FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15675, para. 31, citing V-Band Second Report and Order, 18 FCC 
Rcd at 25438, para. 23, and 47 CFR § 25.208(q)-(t) (PFD limits for FSS).
576
See V-Band Third FNPRM, 25 FCC Rcd at 15675, para. 31.
577
47 CFR § 25.208(q) (GSO satellites) “The conditions under which satellites may exceed the power flux-density 
limits for normal free space propagation described in paragraph (p)(1) to compensate for the effects of rain fading 
are under study and have therefore not yet been defined. Such conditions and the extent to which these limits can be 
exceeded will be the subject of a further rulemaking by the Commission on the satellite service rules.”).  See also 47 
CFR § 25.208(r) (similar note for NGSO satellites).
578
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8182, para. 497.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
71
shielded by rain and, hence, vulnerable to any increase in the spot beam’s PFD level.
579
  The Commission 
also recognized that Boeing had submitted a study showing that coexistence is possible.
580
  
211. On that basis, the Commission sought further comment on whether there are any 
circumstances under which allowing FSS satellites in the 37.5-40 GHz band to operate at a higher PFD 
level than permitted under the existing rules would be consistent with terrestrial use of the 37.5-40 GHz 
band.
581
The FNPRM emphasized that the burden is on FSS interests to show that a higher PFD level 
would be consistent with terrestrial use, but it also reminded terrestrial interests that they have an 
obligation to provide sufficient information concerning the nature of their systems to allow other parties 
to analyze the interference impact of a higher PFD level.
582
212. Boeing responded to the Commission’s invitation by conducting a series of computer 
simulations for nine cities, including “detailed simulation of 22 different multipath scenes including 58 
different UMFUS receiver types and locations with more than one million trials at each location to assess 
the various satellite signal paths at each location, resulting in 448 million simulations.”
583
  According to 
Boeing, its studies “demonstrate that broadband satellite systems can operate in the 39 GHz band on an 
opportunistic basis without causing harmful interference to co-frequency UMFUS systems.”
584
Boeing 
maintains that its modeling simulated all possible reflection trajectories, including double reflections, to 
capture all situations where a signal could reach an UMFUS receiver.
585
  Boeing emphasizes that it is not 
seeking an increase in the clear-sky power flux density (PFD) limits for space-to-Earth transmissions in 
the 37.5-40 GHz band, but rather is requesting only that the Commission complete the rain-fade studies 
that are still codified in notes to Section 25.208 of our Rules.
586
213. Straight Path opposes authorizing higher satellite PFD in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
587
  
Straight Path argues that the existing PFD limits cause “non-negligible impairment” and increasing the 
PFD limits would “severely impact the 5G user experience.”
588
With respect to the Boeing study, Straight 
Path argues that (1) the source of Boeing’s building data is not clear, (2) the study fails to consider the 
increased utilization of spectrum by massive multiple input, multiple output (“MIMO”) techniques, and 
(3) fails to consider interference on a per-cell basis.
589
214. Discussion. We conclude that the record does not establish conditions under which FSS 
could operate at a higher PFD consistent with terrestrial use of the band.  We recognize that Boeing has 
devoted considerable effort to address the Commission’s questions about the rain fading issue. At this 
time, however, we believe that allowing FSS to operate with a higher PFD would be inconsistent with our 
decisions to designate 37.5-40 GHz as an UMFUS band and to grant UMFUS licensees the flexibility to 
provide a wide variety of fixed and mobile technologies.  UMFUS technologies are new, rapidly 
evolving, and proliferating.  Boeing’s studies emphasize coexistence with mobile broadband systems, but 
that is not the only use case being developed for this band.  Verizon announced that it will begin offering 
                                                     
579
Id.
580
See id. at 8182, para. 498, citing Boeing May 9, 2016 Ex Parte, and Boeing June 17, 2016 Ex Parte.
581
See FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8182-83, para. 499.
582
See id.
583
Boeing May 15 Ex Parte at 3.
584
Id.
585
Boeing June 19 Ex Parte Letter at 9. 
586
Boeing May 15 Ex Parte Letter at 1.  See 47 CFR § 25.208, notes to paragraphs (q) and (r).
587
Straight Path Comments at 13-16.
588
Id. at 14.
589
Straight Path June 21 Ex Parte at 8-9.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
72
5G fixed wireless service to pilot customers in 11 cities in the first half of 2017,
590
and AT&T conducted 
its first 5G business customer trial in 2016 and states that it is currently pursuing 5G video trials with 
DirecTV NOW as well as additional fixed and mobile 5G trials with Qualcomm and Ericsson.
591
We note 
that the existing PFD limits for satellite signals were designed to protect fixed systems.  Another use case 
is IoT devices, which Boeing did not specifically consider.   By one informed estimate, the IoT market 
could grow from an installed base of 15.4 billion devices in 2015 to 30.7 billion devices in 2020 and 75.4 
billion in 2025.
592
  The most salient issue, however, is not the sheer number of IoT devices that are likely 
but the plethora of designs being developed.
593
  
215. Boeing’s analysis proposes to impose limits on equivalent power-flux density (EPFD) 
instead of PFD on the ground.
594
  EPFD limits have been used in our rules to address the interference from 
NGSO FSS systems to GSO space stations as well as to earth stations receiving from such space stations.
595
   In these situations, the pointing direction of the interfered-with earth station antenna is fixed, the 
antenna pattern of the earth station is known, and the radio propagation conditions can be approximated 
by line of sight propagation.  By contrast, UMFUS receivers use phased array antennas to dynamically 
form beams in the direction of the transmitter over the relative path of motion, and the received signals
are generally subject to multipath propagation conditions.  Boeing’s analysis addressed the dynamic 
nature of UMFUS beamforming by modeling the random pointing of UMFUS antennas while using a 
3GPP-suggested antenna pattern, and Boeing also presented computer simulation results for multipath 
environments in nine cities.  Boeing’s computer simulations illustrate the complexity of characterizing the 
interference performance of these systems and, even if we were to adopt EPFD-based limits, additional 
work would be required.  Furthermore, UMFUS receivers are in the early stage of development and have 
                                                     
590
See Press Release, Verizon, Verizon to deliver 5G service to pilot customers in 11 markets across U.S. by Mid 
2017 (Feb. 22, 2017), http://www.verizon.com/about/news/verizon-deliver-5g-service-pilot-customers-11-markets-
across-us-mid-2017. 
591
See Press Release, AT&T, AT&T Details 5G Evolution (Jan. 4, 2017), 
http://about.att.com/story/att_details_5g_evolution.html. 
592
See Sam Lucero, IoT Platforms: Enabling the Internet of Things, IHS Technology, Mar. 2016, at 5 
(https://cdn.ihs.com/www/pdf/enabling-IOT.pdf).
593
One analysis depicts the situation as follows:  “Market fragmentation and complexity: In some sectors, such as 
healthcare, automotive and smart homes, there is a wide range of proprietary [IoT] solutions in use, which can make 
interoperability difficult to achieve.  A lack of standards encourages the creation of applications that are highly 
customer-specific to a vertical sector, often involving labor-intensive development by highly specialized integrators 
and developers with deep vertical knowledge.”  4G Americas, Cellular Technologies Enabling the Internet of Things 
(Nov. 2015) at 9.
594
See 47 CFR §§ 2.106, International Footnote 5.551H to Table of Frequency Allocations (EPFD of space station 
signals in the 42.5-43.5 GHz band when reaching radio astronomy stations), 25.103 (definition of EPFD), 25.208(g)-
(j) (EPFD of space-to-Earth signals in the 10.7-11.7 GHz and 11.7-12.2 GHz bands), 25.208(k) (EPFD of Earth-to-
space signals in the 12.75-13.15 GHz, 13.2125-13.25 GHz and 13.75-14.5 GHz bands), 25.208(l) (EPFD of space-
to-Earth signals in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.5-12.75 GHz bands in Region 3, 11.7-12.5 GHz bands in Region 1, 
and 12.2-12.7 GHz band in Region 2), 25.208(m) (EPFD of space-to-Earth signals in the 11.7-12.2 GHz and 12.5-
12.75 GHz bands in Region 3, 11.7-12.5 GHz band in Region 1, and 12.2-12.7 GHz band in Region 2), 25.146 
(licensing and operating rules for the non-geostationary orbit Fixed-Satellite Service in the 10.7 GHz-14.5 GHz 
bands), 101.105(a) (4)(ii) (definition of EPFD and permissible EPFD levels of MVDDS signals reaching direct 
broadcast satellite service earth stations).  See also Recommendation ITU-R 2.1503-2, Functional description to be 
used in developing software tools for determining conformity of non-geostationary-satellite orbit fixed-satellite 
system networks with limits contained in Article 22 of the Radio Regulations; ITU Radio Regulations Article 22 
(EPFD used for coordination between GSO and NGSO satellite systems).  But see Straight Path June 21 Ex Parte at 
10 (EPFD as a metric for measuring satellite interference to terrestrial operations has only been used to model 
interference to fixed services with dish antennas, for which fairly restrictive assumptions can be made).
595
47 CFR § 25.103; ITU Radio Regulations Article 22.5C.1 (2016 edition).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
73
not yet been manufactured for deployment.  Any EPFD limit set at this time based on a 3GPP-suggested 
antenna pattern may limit the future development of antenna reception technology for known applications 
or for applications that have not even been conceived.
216. Boeing has made a good faith effort to model a broadly representative range of UMFUS 
devices and pointing conditions,
596
but at this nascent stage of the technology it would be impossible to 
capture all variants of UMFUS use cases that could yet emerge.  Under these circumstances, Boeing and 
others have not yet met the burden of proving that they can strengthen their satellite signals during rain 
storms without interfering with terrestrial systems in the 37.5-40 GHz band.  Accordingly, we will not 
make any changes to Sections 25.208(q) or (r) of the Commission’s rules.
2. Authorizing Satellite User Equipment
217. Background. By rule, satellite earth station facilities in the 37.5-40 GHz band (space-to-
Earth) may not be ubiquitously deployed and may not be used to serve individual consumers.
597
The 
FNPRM sought comment on the possibility of repealing that prohibition.
598
  The Commission asked 
satellite interests to provide information concerning the need and demand for user equipment in the 37.5-
40 GHz band and noted that FSS user equipment is already allowed to receive in the adjacent 40-42 GHz 
band, which is designated as primary for satellite operations.  The Commission asked whether there are 
uses for which access to the 40-42 GHz band is insufficient, and, if so, asked FSS providers to provide 
specific examples and data demonstrating the need for user equipment in the 37.5-40 GHz band.
599
218. Boeing and ViaSat support repealing the ban.
600
Both companies assert that generous 
amounts of bandwidth are required to support demonstrated consumer demand for high-speed Internet 
downloads, but neither company provides data that could support a meaningful estimate of the number of 
customers that satellite operators would likely enroll if given the opportunity.
601
   Their main argument is 
that allowing ubiquitous deployment of consumer earth stations in the band would not burden or impair 
terrestrial services, because earth stations would be secondary and receive-only in the band.
602
  Boeing 
notes satellites’ ability to complement terrestrial mmW services by providing service to rural and other 
areas with low population densities.
603
  CTIA opposes allowing satellite user devices in the band because 
such deployment “would lead to broader coverage by satellite beams - and unpredictable interference to 
5G base stations and mobile receivers.  CTIA is also concerned that “permitting satellite user terminals 
would unduly burden terrestrial users either by imposing restrictions on operations or by subjecting 
terrestrial operators to onerous requirements to identify sites serving mobiles.”
604
  Straight Path 
acknowledges that consumer earth stations do not directly cause interference when they are receiving, but 
it says that they attract interference from the sky because they provide an audience for satellite signals.
605
Straight Path further argues that the extent of that interference would be compounded by the fact that 
                                                     
596
See, e.g., Boeing June 29 Ex Parte, Attach. 2 at 19.
597
47 CFR § 25.202(a)(1) n.1.
598
See FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8183, paras. 500-02.
599
See id. at 8183, para. 501.
600
See Boeing Comments at 9; ViaSat Comments at 17.
601
See Boeing Comments at 7-13; Boeing Reply Comments at 21-24.
602
See Boeing Comments at 23-24; ViaSat Comments at 18.
603
See Boeing Comments at ii, vii, 2-4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 15.
604
CTIA Reply Comments at 15.
605
Straight Path June 21 Ex Parte at 2.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
74
satellite consumer terminals typically have 10-to-20 dB less antenna gain than satellite gateway stations, 
which requires an increase in satellite transmission power to maintain effective communication links.
606
219. Discussion.  We find that allowing satellite earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band has 
the potential to result in a negative customer experience for satellite broadband consumers.  It is true that 
no earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band will generate any direct interference because earth stations 
operate in a receive-only mode in that band, where satellite operations are authorized only in a space-to-
Earth mode.  In general, however, consumer earth stations tend to need stronger satellite signals than 
larger, more sophisticated gateway earth stations.  We have denied Boeing’s request for increased power 
levels at this time, but Boeing could renew its request.  If we allowed satellite user equipment to use 37.5-
40 GHz on an opportunistic basis, but the buildout of terrestrial systems eventually required FSS 
operators to relinquish their use of channels below 40 GHz, customers could experience a reduction in 
service quality.  We do not agree with Boeing’s argument that consumers could simply narrow their usage 
to bands above 40 GHz, where satellite is primary.
607
  If it is true, as Boeing argues, that additional 
bandwidth below 40 GHz is necessary to provide adequate high-speed Internet service to consumers,
608
then surely those same consumers would experience a decline in the quality of their services if they were 
required to relinquish those channels.  Alternatively, if those consumers would not experience a decline in 
the quality of their service upon relinquishing channels below 40 GHz, the implication is that those 
channels are not necessary for the delivery of high-quality satellite service. 
220. We agree with Boeing that satellites could complement terrestrial services by providing 
assured coverage to rural areas, and we acknowledge that mmW mobile services will likely appear first in 
high-traffic areas. Recent developments, however, suggest that the same technologies that will support 
non-line-of-sight service to mobile users over short distances will also be able to support non-line-of-sight 
service to fixed users over longer distances.  For example, Starry says that it can provide fixed mmW 
service to consumers at distances up to 1 kilometer.
609
However, we find that FSS proponents have not 
met their burden of demonstrating that allowing satellite end user devices in 37.5-40 GHz is necessary 
and appropriate. FSS will retain the 40-42 GHz band where satellite end user devices can be located 
without restriction.  In addition, FSS can use the 37.5-40 GHz band for a limited number of individually 
licensed earth stations. We believe this framework promotes efficient spectrum use while providing both 
UMFUS and FSS with the opportunity to provide service.
E. Performance Requirements – Non-Federal Use-or-Share
221. Background.  In the NPRM, the Commission proposed a “use-or-share” rule that would 
supplement performance requirements to ensure that spectrum is put to efficient and productive use.
610
  
Mechanisms for sharing unused spectrum are currently present in other bands licensed by the 
Commission, including a “keep what you use” regime in the 700 MHz band,
611
and a three-tier shared 
access system in the 3.5 GHz band that makes geographically licensed spectrum available 
                                                     
606
Straight Path May 17 Ex Parte at 13.
607
See Ericsson Comments at 21; Boeing Reply Comments at 22-23.
608
See, e.g., Boeing Reply Comments at 21.
609
See Starry July 5, 2016 Ex Parte, Attach. 2 at 2.  See also R&O at 31 FCC Rcd 8163, para. 434 (smaller 
wavelength of mmW signals enables proportionally greater antenna gain for the same physical antenna size; 
consequently, the higher frequencies of mmW signals do not in themselves result in any increased free space 
propagation loss, provided the antenna area remains fixed and suitable directional transmissions are used).
610
NPRM, 30 FCC Rcd at 11941, para. 215.
611
47 CFR § 27.14(h).  WCS licensees with REAG authorizations in Block C and Block C2 must meet construction 
requirements for each EA within the REAG.  Authorization terminates automatically at the end of the license term 
for any EA in which the licensee has not met the construction requirements.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
75
opportunistically.
612
  These mechanisms allow licensees to construct networks consistent with their 
deployment plans and business models, while making spectrum that a licensee has chosen not to use 
available for other users.  
222. In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment more specifically on whether to 
implement a “use-or-share” regime in any or all of the UMFUS bands, but focused particularly in 
geographically licensed bands such as 28 GHz, Upper 37 GHz, and 39 GHz.
613
  It sought comment on 
whether, and how, to allow opportunistic use of portions of a license area not in actual use by the 
licensee.
614
  Finally, it also sought comment on whether any use-or-share regime should operate in 
addition to traditional performance requirements, or whether it should replace those requirements as 
sufficient to ensure efficient spectrum use on its own.
615
  
223. A number of commenters opposed the idea of any use-or-share mechanism.
616
  Some 
claim that such a mechanism would introduce uncertainty into the regulatory environment of UMFUS 
bands.
617
  Many commenters stated that a use-or-share regime would impede development or deployment 
in the UMFUS bands, by introducing uncertainty or risk.
618
  Samsung maintained that a use-or-share 
regime would be too burdensome on licensees.
619
  Intel also suggested that no operators would be 
interested in spectrum shared under these conditions, as there is already a 14 GHz band of unlicensed 
spectrum at 57-71 GHz.
620
224. Other commenters support use-or-share requirements because they believe it supports 
opportunistic use of the spectrum and allows more efficient use of spectrum without limiting any rights of 
incumbent licensees.
621
  SIA favored a use-or-share regime that allowed only satellite operators to take 
advantage of the resulting shared spectrum.
622
  O3b proposed that non-satellite users of shared spectrum 
“should be required both to complete coordination [with UMFUS and FSS licensees] before construction 
and to continue to protect the higher status UMFUS and FSS licensees after construction.”
623
  Both SIA 
                                                     
612
47 CFR §§ 96.15 – 96.38.
613
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8176-78, paras. 474-82.
614
Id.
615
Id.
616
See, e.g., 5G Americas Comments at 15-23; CCA Comments at 6; CTIA Comments at 19; Ericsson Comments at 
19-20; Intel Comments at 16-21; NSMA Comments at 5; Qualcomm Comments at 15-16; Straight Path Comments 
at 8-10; T-Mobile Comments at 24-25; AT&T Reply Comments at 19-20; Nextlink Reply Comments at 19-23;
Samsung Reply Comments at 7; Sprint Reply Comments at 5; TIA Reply Comments at 3-4.
617
Qualcomm Comments at 15-16; Straight Path Reply Comments at 22-24; US Cellular Reply Comments at 17.
618
5G Americas Comments at 15-23; CCA Comments at 6; CTIA Comments at 19; Ericsson Comments at 19-20;
Nextlink Comments at 22-28; Qualcomm Comments at 15-16; AT&T Reply Comments at 19-20; Samsung Reply 
Comments at 7; Straight Path Reply Comments at 22-24; TIA Reply Comments at 3-4; T-Mobile Reply Comments 
at 22; Verizon Reply Comments at 2.
619
Samsung Reply Comments at 7.
620
Intel Comments at 16-21.
621
See, e.g., Starry Comments at 5; Federated Wireless Comments at 11-12; Public Knowledge/OTI Comments at 
17-19; NCTA Comments at 17-18; SIA Comments at 16-19.  Cf. FWCC Reply Comments at 6-7; NSMA 
Comments at 5.
622
SIA Comments at 16-19.
623
O3b Comments at 17.  Because there seems to be some confusion on this point, we note for clarification that any 
hypothetical opportunistic users of shared spectrum would also be operating an UMFUS service, in accordance with 
UMFUS regulatory and technical rules.  If we adopted a use-or-share regime, we would change or add to the 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
76
and O3b argued that adopting an opportunistic sharing system limited to satellite operators would increase 
efficient use of the spectrum.
624
225. Discussion.  We decline to adopt any use or share regime for any of the Part 30 bands at 
this time.  This section only addresses use-or-share between non-Federal licensees. Our decision here 
does not limit or prejudge any actions we may take concerning sharing mechanisms with Federal users in 
shared bands.  Furthermore, our decision herein does not encompass the Lower 37 GHz Band, either 
between Federal and non-Federal users or between non-Federal users.
226. The record reflects a lack of consensus on whether to adopt a use-or-share approach in 
the subject bands, and even among those who support the concept, on what specific use-or-share regime 
would best serve the public interest here.  In any event, our assessment of the record leads us to conclude 
that the case has not been made that any one of the proposed variants of a use-or-share regime is likely to 
yield significant benefits.  In contrast, commenters opposing implementation of a use-or-share regime in 
the subject bands have convinced us that whatever the speculative benefits may be, they are greatly 
outweighed by the likelihood that a use-or-share approach will discourage investment and delay 
deployment in these bands.
625
227. In particular, administering the shared areas would appear to be overly burdensome, 
whether that burden fell on the Commission, the licensee, or the incoming shared users.  We note the 
burden would be particularly high in mmW bands, given the very large number of possible deployments 
due to the limited propagation in these bands.  Moreover, potential business models in these bands might
not necessarily blanket large portions of the geography or population in the licensed areas during the 
initial term.  Some commenters indicated cautious support for a use-or-share mechanism that would 
enable the licensee to “claw back” previously-shared spectrum if their future expansion required it,
626
but 
such clawing back would be difficult to execute in practical terms, and would necessarily cause disruption 
to the operations of the shared users, potentially including customers among the public.
627
  Any SAS we 
adopted to administer this system would face all the challenges we have discussed in other contexts, 
including difficulty defining appropriate terms and equitably distributing the cost of establishing and 
maintaining it.
628
  We would also be risking significant delays in deployment of mmW networks during 
the time required to address these concerns.
629
228. Discouraging investment is also a serious consideration.  A prospective licensee 
purchases rights to a defined area, subject to a defined license term with defined buildout requirements at 
the end of it, which are calculated to be reasonably achievable within that timeframe.  Prospective 
licensees plan their auction bids with these specifications in mind.  A use-or-share regime divorced from 
buildout requirements, which opened up the entire portion of the license area not in actual use by the 
licensee on some date, would undermine this system and introduce uncertainty and instability into the 
auction process.  Given the record on this issue, we find that imposing a use-or-share regime at this time 
(Continued from previous page)                                                      
UMFUS rules to encompass such opportunistic use.  Those users would not be traditional licensees, but they would 
not be operating “non-UMFUS/non-FSS services,” as O3b describes them.
624
SIA Comments at 16-19; O3b Comments at 12-16.
625
Because we do not adopt any use-or-share regime or mechanism, we do not address the issue of whether such a 
mechanism should replace traditional performance requirements or add to them.
626
NSMA Comments at 5; see also FWCC Comments at 15.
627
T-Mobile Reply at 20.
628
See, e.g., supra Section III.A.1.b (Licensing the 24 GHz Band).
629
US Cellular Reply at 17.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
77
would discourage investment.
630
We believe our concerns are particularly relevant in these bands given 
the nascent state of technology and the potential scale and cost of deployments.
229. Given the well-documented challenges that would accompany the adoption of a use-or-
share regime, we would need a clear showing of benefits from a use-or-share regime in order to adopt 
such a regime.  No such showing has been made here.  In the 3.5 GHz band, the Part 96 SAS-based 
system provides a form of use-or-share. The UMFUS bands that we have established so far generally do 
not have similar incumbent or Federal coordination issues.
631
  Although some commenters argue that use-
or-share would increase the efficiency of spectrum use in UMFUS bands,
632
any such increase would 
require both entities willing and able to take advantage of such a regime, and a mechanism to be in place, 
while also preserving licensees’ rights.  
230. The difficulty of crafting such a balanced mechanism is discussed above.  In the matter of 
willing entities, we note that those commenters supporting use-or-share do not agree on how such a 
regime should be structured;
633
all others who commented are opposed.
634
  With regard to the comments 
from Inmarsat and O3b, we do not believe that a use-or-share regime that is useful only to the satellite 
industry, at the cost of complicating terrestrial deployment, is in the public interest.  The use-or-share 
concept was proposed as a way to encourage additional flexible use of the UMFUS bands.  That goal 
certainly encompasses additional sharing opportunities for satellite operators, but not to the extent that it 
impedes terrestrial deployment.  Sharing mechanisms that will allow satellite operators to coexist with 
terrestrial licensees in the UMFUS bands have already been established, and will continue to be refined.
231. We also reject O3b’s argument that a use-or-share regime is required by the 
Communications Act.
635
  The Communications Act requires us to “include performance requirements, 
such as appropriate deadlines and penalties for performance failures, to ensure prompt delivery of service 
to rural areas, to prevent stockpiling or warehousing of spectrum by licensees or permittees, and to 
promote investment in and rapid deployment of new technologies and services.”
636
  We have, in fact, 
included performance requirements in our regulations for the new UMFUS bands.
637
  Those requirements 
include appropriate deadlines and penalties for performance failures.
638
  We have promulgated similarly-
structured requirements in other bands and services.  We have designed the current performance 
requirements for UMFUS to balance encouraging deployment of potentially novel services with ensuring 
accountability in terms of actually providing service, and we are satisfied that our requirements meet the 
requirements of the Communications Act.
                                                     
630
5G Americas Comments at 18-19; CCA Comments at 6; CTIA Comments at 19; Ericsson Comments at 19-20; 
Nextlink Comments at 23-25; Qualcomm Comments at 15-16; AT&T Reply Comments at 19-20; T-Mobile Reply 
Comments at 22; Verizon Reply Comments at 2.
631
With the exception of the 37 GHz band, for which sharing with Federal users will be addressed in a future phase 
of this proceeding.
632
Starry Comments at 5; OTI/PK Reply Comments at 7-16.
633
Compare Starry Comments at 5 (supporting fully dynamic, database-driven sharing) with, e.g., Inmarsat 
Comments at 20-21 (supporting sharing only with satellite earth stations) with NSMA Comments at 5 (supporting 
only a regime where licensees could reclaim shared spectrum) with NCTA Comments at 17-20 (offering nonspecific 
support for the idea of use-or-share generally).
634
CCA Comments at 6; CTIA Comments at 19; Nextlink Comments at 22-28; T-Mobile Comments at 24-25;
Sprint Reply Comments at 16-17; Straight Path Reply Comments at 22-24; AT&T Reply Comments at 19-20.  But 
see NCTA Comments at 17-20.
635
O3b Comments at 12-16.
636
47 U.S.C. § 309(j)(4)(B).
637
47 CFR § 30.104.
638
47 CFR § 30.104(d).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
78
232. Wi-Fi Alliance and Intel both suggested that given the difficulties of implementing a use-
or-share regime, the best alternative to exclusive geographic area licensing is unlicensed spectrum.
639
  We 
agree.  Unlicensed spectrum provides the low barriers to entry that can encourage innovative business 
models, while not undermining the substantial investments of which more established operators are 
capable.  Given that the Commission has already made available a full 14 gigahertz of unlicensed 
spectrum in the mmW bands, we do not believe that it is in the public interest to complicate terrestrial 
deployment in the UMFUS bands.
F. Digital Station Identification
233. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission invited comment on whether we should 
require millimeter wave licensees or operators to transmit digital identifiers (e.g., call signs) in a readily 
observable and decipherable manner in order to make it easier for the Commission or other parties to 
locate sources of interference to millimeter wave band operations.
640
  In addition, the Commission sought 
comment on the details of a digital station identification (digital ID) requirement in the event it adopts 
such a requirement.
641
234. The record on this issue is generally opposed to the Commission adopting a digital ID 
requirement, with some commenters focusing broadly on the idea of such a requirement, while other 
commenters focusing on whether a specific format would be required for a digital ID.  A number of 
parties state that cellular and broadband Personal Communications Service (PCS) licensees are not 
required to transmit IDs, and contend that this has not caused problems in finding interfering signals.
642
  
T-Mobile and Samsung assert that a digital ID requirement is particularly unnecessary in services in 
which there is only one licensee authorized in a geographic area, because there would be only one 
licensee in a given area using the spectrum at issue.
643
  Verizon and AT&T question whether the costs of 
developing a specific identification protocol would outweigh the benefits of such a protocol.
644
  AT&T 
and T-Mobile further argue that a digital ID requirement generally is unnecessary.
645
  Verizon, however, 
states that requiring unlicensed users and users in sharing regimes to transmit a digital ID could allow 
such users to be efficiently identified if they cause interference to licensed users.
646
235. Several parties specifically oppose the Commission requiring a specific format for a 
digital ID.  T-Mobile and Samsung maintain generally that mandating a particular format could limit 
innovation in the millimeter wave bands.
647
  Ericsson and Samsung note that any standards-based mobile 
network will transmit identifying information as part of the data stream, and asserts that the 
Commission’s digital ID proposal is an unnecessary intrusion into the standards-setting process.
648
  
                                                     
639
Intel Comments at 16-21; Wi-Fi Alliance Reply Comments at 5.
640
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8183-84, para. 503.
641
Id. at 8184, para. 504.
642
Ericsson Comments at 21; Samsung Comments at 7; AT&T Reply Comments at 14; Samsung Reply Comments 
at 13. 
643
T-Mobile Comments at 30; Samsung Comments at 7; Samsung Reply Comments at 13.
644
Verizon Comments at 10; AT&T Reply Comments at 14. 
645
AT&T Reply Comments at 13-14; T-Mobile Reply Comments at 32-33; see also Qualcomm June 5 Ex Parte
(asserting “that that there are commercially available apps that can be used to obtain base station identifiers for 4G 
services and should also provide base station identifiers for future 5G services”). 
646
Verizon Comments at 10.  
647
T-Mobile Comments at 30; Samsung Reply Comments at 13.
648
Ericsson Comments at 21; Samsung Reply Comments at 13; see also TIA Comments at 22 (standards bodies are 
better positioned to address digital ID issue). 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
79
Although Starry opposes the Commission mandating a particular type of announcement ID or beacon, it 
supports requiring operators to provide some kind of announcement ID.
649
  
236. Finally, TIA and AT&T are concerned that a digital ID requirement could increase power 
requirements, and thereby impede development of applications using low-duty-cycle devices.
650
237. Discussion.  We decline to require mmW band licensees or operators to transmit digital 
identifiers.  The record provides insufficient support for the adoption of digital ID requirements for these 
mmW bands, particularly if we were to specify a particular format.  In particular, commenters have 
pointed out that treatment of interference in these mmW bands would differ from how the Commission 
handles similar issues in most other wireless bands if the Commission were to require transmission of 
digital ID.
651
  We observe that characteristics of the mmW bands at issue in the Report and Order and in 
this Second Report and Order make the occurrence of interference less likely in the first instance, relative 
to other bands.
652
  Licensees and operators in the bands being authorized generally will use short-distance 
transmissions, creating more potential for spectrum reuse by multiple licensees in one area and generally 
limiting the location of an interfering party to a relatively small area.  Further, “pencil-beam” signal 
characteristics and other technologies being developed specifically for these bands should also make it 
easier for operations to co-exist in the same vicinity without causing interference to one another.  We 
acknowledge the important role of the agency in identifying and locating devices that cause harmful 
interference, but we find that it is unnecessary and unsupported in the case of these mmW bands to adopt 
a digital ID requirement.
G. Technical Issues
1. Antenna Height
238. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on adopting antenna 
height and power limits similar to those in our Part 27 rules.  It noted that based on the record, mmW base 
stations in this band may likely be deployed at street lamp post height rather than at the heights of 
traditional mobile base station deployments. In light of this, the Commission sought comment on whether 
the 305 meter threshold in Part 27 was valid. The Commission also asked whether power limits based on 
antenna height are necessary and/or whether any modifications should be made to either the height 
thresholds or the power limits at specific heights that it had proposed.  The Commission also asked 
whether antenna height restrictions and corresponding power reductions were necessary given the existing 
PFD limits that were adopted to control interference at market boundaries and at the edge of earth station 
contours.  Finally, the Commission also sought comment on whether requiring antenna downtilt for 
antennas above a certain height would be beneficial.
653
239. Several commenters argue that antenna restrictions and corresponding reductions in 
power are unnecessary.  5G Americas contends that licensees should be permitted to work together to 
coordinate the height of facilities, beam tilt and angular discrimination as needed to protect multiple 
                                                     
649
Starry Comments at 6. 
650
TIA Comments at 21; AT&T Reply Comments at 13-14.
651
See Ericsson Comments at 21; AT&T Reply Comments at 13; Samsung Reply Comments at 13.
652
In other instances, when evaluating whether an identification requirement is necessary to detect and resolve 
interference, the Commission has assessed the likelihood of interference in the first instance.  See Revision of Part 
15 of the Commission’s Rules Regarding Operation in the 57-64 GHz Band, 28 FCC Rcd 12517, 12534, para. 43 
(2013) (modifying Part 15 rules to eliminate a transmitter ID requirement for all devices operating in the 57-64 GHz 
band); Revision of Part 15 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-
NII) Devices in the 5 GHz Band, 29 FCC Rcd 4127, 4144-45, para. 60 (2014) (declining to require Unlicensed 
National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) devices in the 5.15-5.35 GHz and 5.47-5.850 GHz bands to transmit 
identifying information).
653
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8184, para. 506.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
80
licensees in the same market, and meet the power levels at a given border to protect adjacent service 
areas.
654
  5G Americas and Qualcomm note that these bands may be used for backhaul, which requires 
line of sight typically well above street level facilities.  5G Americas and Qualcomm also argue that PFD 
limits at the market boundaries are sufficient to prevent interference between licensees and therefore 
additional antenna height thresholds and corresponding power reductions should not be mandated.
655
  
They believe antenna beam tilt or lower heights should not be mandated, but instead be a tool used by 
operators to meet the power level at a given border.
656
  Ericsson maintains that antenna downtilt should 
not be mandated because experienced system designers and operators already use downtilt where it is 
needed.
657
240. In contrast, Samsung and T-Mobile support the Commission’s proposal to adopt antenna 
height and power limits.  They claim that it would be consistent with how other wireless technology 
services are regulated, with base station transmit power reduced for antenna heights above 305 meters.
658
  
Boeing argues that the proposed antenna height and EIRP limits are appropriate particularly given the 
increased likelihood of clear line of sight conditions as the base station tower height increases.
659
  Starry 
in general supports the proposed rules, but advocates for specific language to be added to the rules to 
account for the variations in technical characteristics between mmW and low band spectrum.
660
241. Discussion.  Based on the record, we decline to adopt antenna height limits.  We agree 
with 5G Americas and Qualcomm that there may be uses in these bands that could require higher antenna 
heights. We also agree that licensees are in the best position to determine their network configuration and 
when antenna downtilt is necessary.  We find that the comments in support of adopting antenna height 
limits and corresponding power reductions have failed to demonstrate that limits are necessary to avoid 
interference.  The supporters of antenna height limits have not provided any engineering analysis or 
examples of deployments supporting the need for antenna height limits.  In the absence of a clear showing 
that antenna and power limits are necessary, we believe that we should minimize regulatory burdens and 
maximize flexibility for licensees to deploy diverse systems and to coordinate with adjacent licensees to 
avoid interference.
242. While Samsung and T-Mobile argue that adopting antenna height restrictions would be 
consistent with how other wireless technology services are regulated, antenna height limits do not apply 
to all Part 27 radio services.  For instance, the 305 meter threshold limitation does not apply to the 
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS), the Broadband Radio Service (BRS), or the Educational Broadband 
Service (EBS).
661
  We also note that antenna height thresholds and corresponding power reductions 
primarily apply to lower frequency bands,
662
while higher frequency bands generally do not have such 
limits.
243. We agree with Boeing that there is an increased likelihood of clear line of sight 
conditions as the base station tower height increases.  As 5G Americas and Qualcomm note, however, 
service providers also may operate facilities in these bands that require line of sight operations hundreds 
                                                     
654
5G Americas Comments at 24.
655
Id. at 23-24; Qualcomm Comments at 14-15.
656
5G Americas Comments at 23-24; Qualcomm Comments at 14-15.
657
Ericsson Comments at 20.
658
Samsung Comments at 6; T-Mobile Comments at 31.
659
Boeing Comments at 45.
660
Starry Comments at 7.
661
See 47 CFR § 27.50(d), (h).
662
See 47 CFR § 27.50(b), (c).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
81
of meters above ground level.
663
  We do not want to adopt rules that would unnecessarily restrict 
licensee’s flexibility to deploy diverse systems.  Further, as 5G Americas notes, licensees can work 
together coordinating height of facilities, beam tilt and angular discrimination as needed to protect each 
other in the same market, and meet the power levels at a given border to protect adjacent service.
664
  In the 
absence of clear evidence that PFD limits and licensee to licensee coordination are insufficient to prevent 
interference, we conclude that additional regulatory requirements are not necessary. 
244. Finally, while Starry asks that specific language be added to Part 27 rules to account for 
the variations in technical characteristics between mmW and low band spectrum, it has not provided 
sufficient detail or an explanation of what this proposed language should include.  For the reasons noted 
above, we decline to adopt antenna height thresholds and corresponding power reductions.  
2. Coordination Criteria at Market Borders for Fixed Point-to-Point 
Operations
245. Background.  Under the existing rules, fixed point-to-point operations within 16
kilometers (in the 39 GHz band) or 20 kilometers (in the 28 GHz band) of a licensee’s market boundary 
must coordinate with co-channel licensees in adjacent market areas.
665
  This rule adopted the same 
coordination criteria that applied in the former Part 101 rules applicable to those bands.
666
  With the 
change to smaller licensed areas (counties for 28 GHz, PEAs for 39 GHz), the Commission recognized
that the existing rule could result in coordination zones that encompass a large part of many license areas.  
It believed that the change to smaller market sizes might warrant re-examination of the market boundary 
coordination requirements.  The Commission therefore sought comment on whether the existing 
coordination distances for traditional fixed point-to-point operations were still appropriate given the
smaller market area sizes and whether the coordination distance should incorporate other technical criteria 
into factoring the distance (for example, antenna orientation). The Commission requested that 
commenters support any proposal with technical analysis.
667
246. Few commenters addressed this issue.  T-Mobile recommends that the Commission retain 
the existing Part 101 requirements for traditional point-to point deployments and argues that the existing 
rules generally have been effective and should protect adjacent area mobile operations as well as fixed 
operations.
668
  Nextlink and Starry, on the other hand, support changes to the criteria.  Nextlink contends 
that the current coordination distances that apply under the Commission’s rules are incongruent with 
county-based licensing and urges the Commission to adopt alternatives to the existing coordination 
distances for fixed point-to-point operations.
669
  Nextlink proposes that the Commission should consider 
the orientation and power of links, in addition to distance, when setting coordination distances criteria.  
Nextlink suggests finding the path loss at 20 kilometers using free space path loss and setting 20 
kilometers as the coordination distance in the direction of the antenna’s maximum gain.  Nextlink 
proposes the free space path loss formula could be used to calculate applicable coordination distances in 
all directions based on the antenna’s horizontal pattern to develop a coordination zone. If the calculated
zone intersects another market, then the licensee would need to coordinate the station with the licensee in 
that neighboring market.  Nextlink suggests that calculating the distances at 360 points—one for each 
degree around the station—would be relatively trivial and would produce a coordination zone that more 
                                                     
663
See 5G Americas Comments at 23-24; Qualcomm Comments at 14.
664
5G Americas Comments at 24.
665
47 CFR § 30.204(d).
666
47 CFR §§ 101.103(g), (i) (2016).
667
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8185-86, para. 510.
668
T-Mobile Comments at 32.
669
Nextlink Comments at 30-31.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
82
realistically represents the possibility that the station could cause interference to stations in a neighboring 
market.
670
  
247. Starry believes the existing coordination distances for traditional fixed point-to-point 
operations are no longer appropriate given the smaller market area sizes and should be reduced.
671
  Starry 
proposes establishing a contour zone at 50 meters height above average ground level for traditional fixed 
point-to-point operations.  Starry contends that contours are a more sophisticated and comprehensive 
approach that takes into account the technological diversity that may exist in a band. Starry states that 
establishing a distance threshold is no longer sufficient to support a wide-variety of uses in a single band 
given that a variety of system types and usages are likely to exist.
672
248. Discussion.    We decline to revise the coordination criteria for point-to-point operations.  
While we appreciate Nextlink’s and Starry’s efforts to develop alternative coordination criteria, no party 
has identified any concrete defect or problem with the existing coordination criteria.  While it is true that 
we have established smaller license areas in these bands, no showing has been made that changes in 
coordination criteria are needed to accommodate those smaller license areas.  Indeed, T-Mobile believes 
the existing criteria work well.  Furthermore, under Nextlink’s and Starry’s proposals, applicants would 
have to conduct an engineering analysis in order to determine whether a link needed to be coordinated.  
We do not believe the benefit of having to avoid coordination in certain circumstances justifies requiring 
applicants to do an engineering analysis to identify whether links require coordination.  The existing rules 
provide clear standards that licensees can readily apply to determine when coordination is needed.   
249. Another problem with the Nextlink and Starry proposals is that they are not supported by 
the technical analysis requested in the FNPRM. Starry’s proposal lacks specific details as to how the 
contour zone would be calculated, what protection threshold would be provided within the contour zone, 
or how the 50-meter height was derived.  Because of the lack of details in Starry’s proposal, we are not 
able to determine whether it would adequately mitigate interference and therefore cannot adopt it. 
Nextlink’s proposal, while more developed than Starry’s, also was not supported with technical analysis 
that describes how their method would ensure adequate mitigation of interference between adjacent area 
licensees.  Specifically, Nextlink’s methodology appears to assume that the signal level produced by a 
transmitter operating at maximum EIRP oriented directly at the market border, taking into account free 
space loss at 20 km, will not cause interference to adjacent licensees. This may not be the case.  Given 
the lack of technical analysis and the failure to demonstrate a need for revised criteria, we conclude that 
retaining the existing coordination criteria at market borders for fixed point-to-point operations is most 
appropriate.  
3. Minimum Bandwidth for Given BS/MS/Transportable Transmit Power 
Levels
a. Bandwidth Scaling 
250. Background.  In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a limit on the average 
power transmitted by a base station of 75 dBm/100 megahertz with the power limit scaled proportionally 
and linearly for bandwidths of less than 100 MHz.
673
For mobile stations and transportable stations, the 
Commission adopted average transmitted power limits of 43 dBm and 55 dBm, respectively, with no 
scaling depending on the signal bandwidth.
674
More specifically, the Commission sought comment on 
establishing bandwidth scaling limits for mobile and transportable classes, as the Commission previously 
                                                     
670
Id.
671
Starry Comments at 7.
672
Id.
673
47 CFR § 30.202(a); R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8108, para. 270.
674
47 CFR § 30.202(b), (c); R&O, 31 FCC Rcd at 8112, 8114, paras. 283, 286.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
83
has done for base stations, and on the minimum bandwidth for these classes of equipment based on the 
power levels adopted in the R&O.
675
251. Commenters disagree on this issue.  Boeing, Samsung, and T-Mobile support establishing 
bandwidth scaling limits for mobile and transportable classes.  Boeing urges the Commission to revise the 
language of the R&O to mandate a maximum EIRP density of 43 dBm/100 megahertz for mobile stations, 
and 55 dBm/100 megahertz for transportables.  Boeing argues that such a revision would limit 
interference among the UMFUS providers and all other services using these bands.  Boeing supports 
higher power density transmission for indoor-only applications, however, to combat fading due to interior 
wall penetration conditions.
676
  Samsung and T-Mobile support the same bandwidth scaling limits that 
were adopted for base stations.
677
252. Nextlink and Qualcomm oppose scaling limits.
678
  Nextlink urges regulatory flexibility.  
Nextlink contends that 5G technology is nascent and establishing power scaling factors based on 
bandwidth for transportable and mobile stations could inadvertently preclude some use cases that are not 
yet developed, as well as some that are already envisioned.
679
  Qualcomm argues that bandwidth scaling 
limit should not be adopted so that the 3GPP standards body can continue to study whether 5G millimeter 
wave equipment would benefit from such flexibility. Qualcomm further states that imposing such 
bandwidth scaling limits at this time would override the standards process unnecessarily and constrain 
equipment design flexibility by lowering currently permissible transmit power levels for next generation 
devices that operate using less bandwidth.
680
253. Discussion.  At this time, we maintain our current power limit rules for mobile and 
transportable classes without scaling.  While we recognize that power scaling can potentially help limit 
interference among UMFUS providers and other services using these bands, we also recognize that there
are other methods that can help limit interference, such as power control.  Furthermore, UMFUS 
providers have an incentive to maintain a balanced power spectral density among all their network 
components if they wish to avoid interference within their own networks.  We agree with Nextlink and 
Qualcomm that at this nascent stage of 5G technological development establishing power scaling factors 
could inadvertently preclude some yet-to-be-developed use cases and prematurely constrain development 
of the next generation of devices.  
b. Minimum Bandwidth
254. Background.  In the FNPRM, the Commission sought comment on establishing a 
minimum bandwidth requirement for base stations, transportable stations, and mobile stations.
681
  
Specifically, the Commission sought comment on networks that might operate with bandwidths less than 
100 megahertz for applications and technologies that function under the umbrella of the next generation 
of wireless networks.
682
  We received few comments on this topic.  T-Mobile and Nextlink state that to 
avoid hampering future developments, the Commission should not specify a minimum bandwidth for 
base stations, transportable devices, and mobile devices.
683
  Starry argues that the Commission should 
                                                     
675
FNPRM, FCC Rcd at 8185, para. 507.
676
Boeing Comments at 45-47.
677
Samsung Comments at 6-7; T-Mobile Comments at 31.
678
Nextlink Reply Comments at 30-31; Qualcomm Reply Comments at 7.
679
Nextlink Reply Comments at 30-31.
680
Qualcomm Reply Comments at 7.
681
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8185, paras. 507-08.
682
Id. at 8185, para. 507.
683
T-Mobile Comments at 31; Nextlink Reply Comments at 30-31.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
84
specify bandwidths of 20 megahertz or greater, because channel sizes of less than 20 megahertz are not 
feasible given the frequency stability of commonly derived local oscillators.
684
  
255. Discussion. We decline to establish a minimum bandwidth requirement because there is 
no need for such a requirement and establishing such a requirement could accidentally preclude uses of 
this spectrum.  These bands can facilitate data exchange for a great number of devices embedded with 
electronics, software, sensors, and actuators (e.g., IoT).  Different types of devices may have significantly 
different bandwidth requirements.  For example, a utility meter that exchanges data on monthly or even 
daily bases requires far less bandwidth than a live video streaming device monitoring an intersection.  
Given the early stage of 5G technological development, we choose not to impose a regulatory 
requirement and provide equipment developers with flexibility to design equipment to meet market needs.  
Consequently, we will not adopt a minimum bandwidth for UMFUS devices.
4. Sharing Analysis and Modeling
256. Background. Industry, standards groups, government organizations and academia are 
engaged in on-going development of propagation models and deployment scenarios for millimeter wave 
bands.  In the FNPRM, the Commission asked for comment on appropriate propagation models to apply 
when analyzing inter-service interference between terrestrial millimeter wave systems.  The Commission 
asked for comment on which millimeter wave propagation models are most appropriate for sharing 
analyses where the interfering emitters may be assembled from a group of indoor and outdoor emitters, 
and it asked interested parties to submit propagation analyses and path loss models for both indoor and 
outdoor environments.  The Commission also asked specifically about the Alpha-Beta-Gamma (ABG) 
and Close-in (CI) models for use in inter-service interference analyses and about the application of 
statistical probability to interference versus worse case assumptions.
685
  
257. Commenters generally agree that the ABG and CI models are appropriate for intra-
system analysis.
686
However, inter-system studies such as those that would need to be undertaken to 
determine the extent of potential interference between different spectrum users, require propagation 
models that are appropriate over longer distances and that account for clutter and other environmental 
factors.
687
  Several commenters point to the work of International Telecommunications Union (ITU) 
Study Group 3 in developing or updating propagation models for use in the millimeter wave bands,
688
including the collection of measurement data in support of updated clutter loss and Building Entry Loss 
models.
689
  5G Americas points out that the ongoing modeling efforts in 3GPP, 5GPPP, NIST and others 
are focused on channel models and intra-system characteristics and would not be appropriate for inter-
system interference at larger distances.
690
Generally, commenters supported inter-system interference 
models that address the increased statistical variability of interference due to highly directional smart 
antennas and cluttered environments. Nokia points out that short range models such as CI and ABG do 
not provide time percentages for which a given propagation loss is not exceeded.
691
  Starry asks that the 
                                                     
684
Starry Comments at 7.
685
FNPRM, 31 FCC Rcd at 8186, para. 512.
686
Boeing Comments at 52; Ericsson Comments, Appendix A at A-1; Nokia Comments at 21.
687
Ericsson Comments, Appendix A at A-1; Nokia Comments at 21.
688
5G Americas Comments at 25; Ericsson Comments, Appendix A at A-1-A-2; Nokia Comments at 22.
689
5G Americas Comments at 26; Nokia Comments at 22; Ericsson Comments, Appendix A at A-3.
690
5G Americas Comments at 27.
691
Nokia Comments at 21.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
85
Commission “continue to remain open-minded and flexible in developing its assumptions on the 
performance and interference issues posed by these bands.”
692
258. Discussion. We will remain flexible with respect to the appropriate propagation model to 
apply when analyzing sharing in the millimeter wave bands.  As many commenters pointed out, the 
appropriate sharing model at millimeter wave frequencies will depend on the particular sharing 
environment, including whether the interference path is terrestrial, air-to-ground or space-to-ground, as 
well as the technologies deployed.  As a general principle, we concur with the commenters who support 
models and scenarios that consider a statistical probability of interference based on deployment, 
propagation, and usage scenarios as opposed to a worse case approach.
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS
A. Ex Parte Rules – Permit-But-Disclose
259. Pursuant to Section 1.1200(a) of the Commission’s rules,
693
this Second FNPRM shall be 
treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
694
  
Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a memorandum 
summarizing any oral presentation within two business days after the presentation (unless a different 
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies).  Persons making oral ex parte presentations are 
reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise 
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data 
presented and arguments made during the presentation.  If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of 
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the presenter’s written comments, memoranda 
or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or arguments in his or 
her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers 
where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the memorandum.  
Documents shown or given to Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex 
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).  In proceedings governed by rule 
1.49(f) or for which the Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte 
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations, and all attachments thereto, must 
be filed through the electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed in 
their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).  Participants in this proceeding should 
familiarize themselves with the Commission’s ex parte rules.
B. Comment Period and Procedures
260. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR §§ 1.415, 
1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the 
first page of this document.  Comments may be filed using the Commission’s Electronic Comment Filing 
System (ECFS).  See Electronic Filing of Documents in Rulemaking Proceedings, 63 FR 24121 (1998).
? Electronic Filers:  Comments may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the 
ECFS:  http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/.  
? Paper Filers:  Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each 
filing.  If more than one docket or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, 
filers must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or rulemaking number.
                                                     
692
Starry Comments at 7.
693
47 CFR § 1.1200(a).
694
47 CFR §§ 1.1200 et seq.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
86
Filings can be sent by hand or messenger delivery, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail.  All filings must be addressed to the Commission’s Secretary, 
Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
? All hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the Commission’s Secretary 
must be delivered to FCC Headquarters at 445 12
th
St., SW, Room TW-A325, 
Washington, DC 20554.  The filing hours are 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.  All hand deliveries 
must be held together with rubber bands or fasteners.  Any envelopes and boxes must be 
disposed of before entering the building.  
? Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority 
Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
? U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 445 12
th
Street, SW, Washington DC  20554.
261. People with Disabilities:  To request materials in accessible formats for people with 
disabilities (braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call 
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
262. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA),
695
the Commission has 
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) and a Supplementary Final Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities 
of the policies and rules adopted in the Second Report and Order and Order on Reconsideration.  The 
analysis associated with the policies and rules in Second Report and Order are contained in the FRFA 
found in Appendix C, and the Supplemental FRFA in Appendix D contains the analysis associated with 
the policies and rules in Order on Reconsideration. 
263. In addition, we have prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) regarding 
the significant economic impact on small entities of the policies and rules adopted in the Second Further 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, which is found in Appendix F.  We request written public comment on 
the IRFA.  Comments must be filed in accordance with the same deadlines as comments filed in response 
to the 2
nd
FNRPM and must have a separate and distinct heading designating them as responses to the 
IRFA.  
D. Paperwork Reduction Analysis
264. This document contains new and proposed information collection requirements. The 
Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and 
the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information collection requirements contained 
in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, 
pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4), we seek specific comment on how we might further reduce the information collection burden 
for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
E. Further Information
265. For further information, contact John Schauble of the Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-0797 or John.Schauble@fcc.gov, Michael Ha of the Office of 
Engineering and Technology, Policy and Rules Division, at 202-418-2099 or Michael.Ha@fcc.gov, or 
Jose Albuquerque of the International Bureau, Satellite Division, at 202-418-2288 or
Jose.Albuquerque@fcc.gov.
                                                     
695
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
87
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES
266. IT IS ORDERED, pursuant to the authority found in Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 
302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 153, 154, 
155, 157, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 
1996, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1302, and Section 1.411 of the Commission’s Rules, 47 C.F.R § 1.411,
that this Second Report and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on 
Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion and Order IS HEREBY ADOPTED.
267. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s rules ARE HEREBY AMENDED 
as set forth in Appendix A.
268. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the provisions and requirements of this Second Report 
and Order, Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and 
Memorandum Opinion and Order and the rules adopted herein WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE 30 days 
after the date of publication in the Federal Register, except for those provisions which WILL BECOME 
EFFECTIVE upon the date of publication in the Federal Register,
696
and those rules and requirements 
which contain new or modified information collection requirements that require approval by the Office of 
Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act and WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE after 
the Commission publishes a notice in the Federal Register announcing such approval and the relevant 
effective date.
269. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitions for reconsideration listed in Appendix E 
ARE GRANTED to the extent indicated and are otherwise DENIED.
270. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission’s Consumer and Governmental 
Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a copy of this Second Report and Order, 
Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Order on Reconsideration, and Memorandum Opinion 
and Order, including the Final, Supplemental Final, and Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
271. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission SHALL SEND a copy of this Report 
and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review 
Act, see 5 U.S.C. § 801(a)(1)(A).
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch 
Secretary
                                                     
696
See supra para. 74.  This includes provisions that “reliev[e] a restriction.”  See 5 U.S.C. § 553(d)(1).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
88
APPENDIX A
Final Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR 
parts 1, 2, 15, 25, 30, and 101 as follows:
PART 1—PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 157, 160, 201, 225, 227, 303, 309, 332, 1403, 1404, 1451, 
1452, and 1455.
2. Section 1.901 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.901 Basis and Purpose.
The rules in this subpart are issued pursuant to the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 
U.S.C. 151 et seq. The purpose of the rules in this subpart is to establish the requirements and conditions 
under which entities may be licensed in the Wireless Radio Services as described in this part and in parts 
13, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of this chapter.
3. Section 1.902 is revised to read as follows:
§ 1.902 Scope.
In case of any conflict between the rules set forth in this subpart and the rules set forth in parts 13, 
20, 22, 24, 27, 30, 74, 80, 87, 90, 95, 96, 97, and 101 of title 47, chapter I of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, the rules in part 1 shall govern.
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS
4. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
5. Section 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations, is amended as follows:
a. Pages 54 and 59 are revised.
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG65 is added.
§ 2.106   Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
* * * * *
89
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
5.150
24-24.05
5.150  US211
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
5.150  US211
ISM Equipment (18)
Amateur Radio (97)
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION G59
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150
24.05-24.25
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Radiolocation
5.150
RF Devices (15)
ISM Equipment (18)
Private Land Mobile (90)
Amateur Radio (97)
24.25-24.45
FIXED
24.25-24.45
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45 24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
5.533
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
24.75-25.25
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.535
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.535
MOBILE
24.75-25.25 24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  NG535
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
  Use (30)
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.25-25.5
Inter-satellite  5.536
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
RF Devices (15)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.536B
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)  5.536C
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH
   (space-to-Earth)
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A  US258
25.5-27
SPACE RESEARCH
   (space-to-Earth)
Inter-satellite 5.536
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A  US2585.536A Page 54
90
Table of Frequency Allocations                                                                                                          46.9-59 GHz (EHF) Page 59
International Table United States Table FCC Rule Part(s)
Region 1 Table Region 2 Table Region 3 Table Federal Table Non-Federal Table
(See previous page) 46.9-47
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
46.9-47
FIXED
MOBILE
MOBILE-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
RADIONAVIGATION-SATELLITE
5.554
47-47.2
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
47-48.2 47-47.2
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
Amateur Radio (97)
47.2-47.5
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE
5.552A
47.2-48.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   US297  NG65
MOBILE
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
47.5-47.9
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.552  (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
   5.554A
MOBILE
47.5-47.9
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE
47.9-48.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.552
MOBILE
5.552A
48.2-48.54
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.552  (space-to-Earth)  5.516B
   5.554A  5.555B
MOBILE
48.2-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  5.338A  5.516B  5.552
MOBILE
48.2-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)  US156  US297
MOBILE  US264
Satellite Communications (25)
48.54-49.44
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.552
MOBILE
5.149  5.340  5.555
49.44-50.2
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
   5.338A  5.552  (space-to-Earth)
   5.516B  5.554A  5.555B
MOBILE 5.149  5.340  5.555 5.555  US342
50.2-50.4
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
5.340
50.2-50.4
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (passive)
SPACE RESEARCH (passive)
US246
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
91
* * * * *
NON-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (NG) FOOTNOTES
* * * * *
NG65  In the band 47.2-48.2 GHz, stations in the fixed and mobile services may not claim protection 
from individually licensed earth stations authorized pursuant to 47 C.F.R. 25.136. However, nothing in 
this footnote shall limit the right of UMFUS licensees to operate in conformance with the technical rules 
contained in 47 C.F.R. Part 30. The Commission reserves the right to monitor developments and to 
undertake further action concerning interference between UMFUS and FSS, including aggregate 
interference to satellite receivers, if appropriate.   
* * * * *
PART 15 – RADIO FREQUENCY DEVICES
6. The authority citation for part 15 continues to read as follows:
Authority:  47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303(r), 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
7. Amend § 15.255 by revising paragraph (a)(1), adding new paragraph (b), re-designating
paragraphs (b) through (h) as paragraphs (c) through (i), and revising redesignated paragraphs 
(c)(1)(ii)(A) and (c)(3) to read as follows:
§ 15.255 Operation within the band 57-71 GHz.
(a) * * * 
(1) Equipment used on satellites.
(2) * * * 
(b) Operation on aircraft is permitted under the following conditions:
(1) when the aircraft is on the ground. 
(2) while airborne, only in closed exclusive on-board communication networks within the aircraft, 
with the following exceptions: 
(i) Equipment shall not be used in wireless avionics intra-communication (WAIC) applications 
where external structural sensors or external cameras are mounted on the outside of the aircraft structure. 
(ii) Equipment shall not be used on aircraft where there is little attenuation of RF signals by the 
body/fuselage of the aircraft.  These aircraft include, but are not limited to, toy/model aircraft, unmanned 
aircraft, crop-spraying aircraft, aerostats, etc. 
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
92
(A) The provisions in this paragraph for reducing transmit power based on antenna gain shall not 
require that the power levels be reduced below the limits specified in paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section.
* * * * *
(3) For fixed field disturbance sensors other than those operating under the provisions of 
paragraph (c)(2) of this section, and short-range devices for interactive motion sensing, the peak 
transmitter conducted output power shall not exceed ?10 dBm and the peak EIRP level shall not exceed 
10 dBm.
* * * * *
PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
8. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, 
unless otherwise noted.
9. Amend § 25.130 by revising paragraph (b) and the NOTE to paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:
§25.130   Filing requirements for transmitting earth stations.
* * * * *
(b)(1) Applicants for earth stations transmitting in frequency bands shared with equal rights 
between terrestrial and space services must provide a frequency coordination analysis in accordance with 
§25.203(b), and must include any notification or demonstration required by any other relevant provision 
in §25.203.
(2) Applicants for user transceiver units associated with the NVNG MSS must provide the 
information required by §25.135.
(3) Applicants for 1.6/2.4 GHz MSS user transceivers must demonstrate that the transceivers will 
operate in compliance with relevant requirements in §25.213. 
(4) Applicants for earth stations licensed in accordance with §25.136 must demonstrate that the 
transmitting earth stations will meet the relevant criteria specified in that section, including any showings 
required under §25.136(a)(4), (c), and/or (d)(4).
* * * * *
(g) ***
NOTE TO PARAGRAPH (g): This paragraph does not apply to applications for blanket-licensed 
earth station networks filed pursuant to §25.115(c) or §25.218; applications for conventional Ka-band hub 
stations filed pursuant to §25.115(e); applications for NGSO FSS gateway earth stations filed pursuant to 
§25.115(f); applications for individually licensed earth stations filed pursuant to §25.136; applications 
filed pursuant to §§25.221, §25.222, §25.226, or §25.227; or applications for 29 GHz NGSO MSS feeder-
link stations in a complex as defined in §25.257.
10. Amend § 25.136 by revising the section heading, paragraphs (a)(introductory text), 
(a)(4), and (c), adding new paragraph (d), and re-designating current paragraph (d) as paragraph (e), 
adding new paragraph (f), and revising it to read as follows:
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
93
§ 25.136 Earth Stations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, and 47.2-48.2 GHz bands.
(a) FSS is secondary to the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in the 27.5-28.35 GHz band.  
Notwithstanding that secondary status, an applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 
27.5-28.35 GHz band that meets one of the following criteria may be authorized to operate without 
providing interference protection to stations in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service:
* * * * * 
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in 
either paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (3), or (4) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth 
stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth 
station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m2/MHz, together with the similar area of any other 
earth station authorized pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more 
than the amount of population of the UMFUS license area within which the earth station is located as 
noted below:
Population within UMFUS License Area Maximum permitted aggregate population within 
-77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD contour of earth stations
Greater than 450,000 0.1 percent of population in UMFUS license area
Between 6,000 and 450,000 450 people
Fewer than 6,000 7.5 percent of population in UMFUS license area
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz does not contain any major event venue, 
urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, or cruise ship port.  In addition, the area mentioned above 
shall not cross any of the following types of roads, as defined in functional classification guidelines issued 
by the Federal Highway Administration pursuant to § 470.105(b) of Title 23:  Interstate, Other Freeways 
and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial.  The Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, 
Environment, and Realty Executive Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information 
on the classification of roads.  For purposes of this rule, an urban area shall be an Adjusted Urban Area as 
defined in § 101(a)(37) of Title 21 of the United States Code.
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees 
within the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to -77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz with respect to existing facilities constructed 
and in operation by the UMFUS licensee.  In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use 
the applicable processes contained in § 101.103(d) of this part.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
94
(c)  The protection zone (as defined in paragraph (b) of this section) shall comply with the 
following criteria.  The applicant must demonstrate compliance with all of the following criteria in its 
application:
(1) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 37.5-40 GHz band 
within the county within which the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in 
paragraph (c) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations operating in the 
37.5-40 GHz band within the Partial Economic Area within which the proposed earth station is located 
that meet the criteria contained in paragraph (c) of this section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple 
earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other shall be considered as one 
earth station;
(2) The protection zone, together with the protection zone of other earth stations in the same 
Partial Economic Area authorized pursuant to this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more than the 
amount of population of the PEA within which the earth station is located as noted below:
Population within Partial Economic Area (PEA) 
where earth station is located
Maximum permitted aggregate population within 
protection zone of earth stations
Greater than 2,250,000 0.1 percent of population in PEA
Between 60,000 and 2,250,000 2,250 people
Fewer than 60,000 3.75 percent of population in PEA
(3) The protection zone does not contain any major event venue, urban mass transit route, 
passenger railroad, or cruise ship port.  In addition, the area mentioned above shall not cross any of the 
following types of roads, as defined in functional classification guidelines issued by the Federal Highway 
Administration pursuant to § 470.105(b) of Title 23:  Interstate, Other Freeways and Expressways, or 
Other Principal Arterial.  The Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment, and 
Realty Executive Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map contains information on the 
classification of roads.  For purposes of this rule, an urban area shall be an Adjusted Urban Area as 
defined in § 101(a)(37) of Title 21 of the United States Code. 
(4) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees 
within the protection zone with respect to existing facilities constructed and in operation by the UMFUS 
licensee.  In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use the applicable processes 
contained in § 101.103(d) of this part.
(d) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in 
the 47.2-48.2 GHz band, earth stations in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band shall be limited to individually licensed 
earth stations. An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band must 
meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to operate without providing any additional 
interference protection to stations in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service:
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license(s) for 
the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, 
of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz; or
(2) The earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was authorized prior to [effective date of second 
R&O]; or
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
95
(3) The application for the earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was filed prior to [effective 
date for second R&O]; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the 47.2-48.2 GHz 
band within the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in 
paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized 
earth stations operating in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band within the Partial Economic Area where the proposed 
earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this 
section. For purposes of this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location 
contiguous to each other shall be considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz, together with the similar area of any other 
earth station authorized pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more 
than the amount of population of the PEA within which the earth station is located as noted below: 
Population within Partial Economic Area 
(PEA) where earth station is located
Maximum permitted aggregate population within 
?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD contour of earth stations
Greater than 2,250,000 0.1 percent of population in PEA
Between 60,000 and 2,250,000 2,250 people
Fewer than 60,000 3.75 percent of population in PEA
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz does not contain any major event venue, any 
highway classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the categories Interstate,  Other 
Freeways and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial, or an urban mass transit route, passenger 
railroad, or cruise ship port; and;
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees 
within the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz with respect to existing facilities constructed 
and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use 
the applicable processes contained in §101.103(d) of this chapter.
(e)  If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz, or 47.2-48.2 
GHz bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations shall be governed by that 
agreement, except to the extent that the agreement is inconsistent with the Commission’s rules or the 
Communications Act.
(f) Any earth station authorizations issued pursuant to paragraphs (a)(4), (c), or (d)(4) this section 
shall be conditioned upon operation being in compliance with the criteria contained in the applicable 
paragraph.
PART 30 – UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
96
11. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
12. Amend § 30.4 by redesignating paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as paragraphs (b), (c), and (d), 
and adding new paragraphs (a) and (e) to read to read as follows:
§ 30.4 Frequencies.
(a) 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-25.25 GHz bands – 24.25-24.35 GHz; 24.35-24.45 GHz; 24.75-
24.85 GHz; 24.85-24.95 GHz; 24.95-25.05 GHz; 25.05-25.15 GHz; and 25.15-25.25 GHz.  
* * * * *
(e) 47.2-48.2 GHz band – 47.2-47.4 GHz; 47.4-47.6 GHz; 47.6-47.8 GHz; 47.8-48.0 GHz; and 
48.0-48.2 GHz.
13. Amend § 30.6 by revising paragraph (b) to read to read as follows:
§ 30.6   Permissible communications.
* * * * *
(b) Fixed-Satellite Service shall be provided in a manner consistent with part 25 of this chapter.  
The technical and operating rules in this part shall not apply to Fixed-Satellite Service operation.
§ 30.8  [Remove and Reserve].
14. Remove and reserve § 30.8.
15. Amend § 30.104 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§30.104   Construction requirements.
(a) Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licensees must make a buildout showing as part of 
their renewal applications. Licensees relying on mobile or point-to-multipoint service must show that they 
are providing reliable signal coverage and service to at least 40 percent of the population within the 
service area of the licensee, and that they are using facilities to provide service in that area either to 
customers or for internal use. Licensees relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate that they have 
four links operating and providing service, either to customers or for internal use, if the population within 
the license area is equal to or less than 268,000.  If the population within the license area is greater than 
268,000, a licensee relying on point-to-point service must demonstrate it has at least one link in operation 
and is providing service for each 67,000 population within the license area.  In order to be eligible to be 
counted under the point-to-point buildout standard, a point-to-point link must operate with a transmit 
power greater than +43 dBm.
* * * * *
PART 101 – FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES
16. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303.
§ 101.115 [Amended].
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
97
17. Section 101.115 is amended by revising the footnotes in the entries ‘71,000 to 76,000 
(co-polar),’ ‘71,000 to 76,000 (cross-polar),’ ‘81,000 to 86,000 (co-polar),’ and ‘81,000 to 86,000 (cross-
polar)’ in the table following paragraph (b)(2) to read footnote 14.
APPENDIX B
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive 
Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map
1. As shown in the table below, the roads listed in the revision to Section 25.136 of the 
Commission’s rules together represent approximately 5.4 percent of the total mileage of U.S. streets and 
roads, and they can readily be identified by consulting the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 
Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty Executive Geographic Information System (HEPGIS) map, 
which is accessible online.
1
  HEPGIS allows the user to enter any street address in the U.S. and display an 
interactive map with a legend that identifies road classifications as they are defined by the Department of 
Transportation at 23 C.F.R. Section 470.105 pursuant to 23 U.S.C. Sections 101 and 103.  A 
supplementary layer of the HEPGIS map shows whether or not the address is within an FHWA Adjusted 
Urbanized Area as defined by 21 U.S.C. Section 101(a)(34). 
Table 1: U.S. Streets and Roads in 2015
2
Type of Road or Street
Urban + 
Rural 
Miles
% of 
Total 
Urban 
+ Rural
Urban 
Miles 
% of 
Total 
Urban
Rural 
Miles 
% of 
Total
Rural
INTERSTATE
48,053 1.2%
              
19,063 0.5%
             
28,990 0.7%
OTHER FREEWAYS 
AND EXPRESSWAYS 17,986 0.4%
              
12,038 0.3%
               
5,948 0.1%
OTHER PRINCIPAL 
ARTERIAL 156,473 3.8%
              
66,855 1.6%
             
89,618 2.2%
MINOR ARTERIAL
246,608 5.9%
            
113,592 2.7%
          
133,016 3.2%
MAJOR COLLECTOR
539,353 13.0%
            
129,677 3.1%
          
409,676 9.9%
MINOR COLLECTOR
271,878 6.5%
              
13,885 0.3%
          
257,993 6.2%
LOCAL
2,874,376 69.2%
            
854,104 20.6%
       
2,020,272 48.6%
TOTAL
4,154,727 100.0%
        
1,209,214 29.1%
       
2,945,513 70.9%
                                                     
1
The HEPGIS map is accessible at http://hepgis.fhwa.dot.gov/fhwagis/#.
2
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Policy and Governmental Affairs, Office of 
Highway Policy Information, Highway Statistics 2015, Table HM-220 
(https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2015/hm220.cfm).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
98
2. DoT’s HEPGIS database mapping system also identifies the following kinds of 
intermodal transportation facilities:
? AMTRAK Stations
? Airports
? Ferry Terminals
? Multipurpose Passenger Facilities
? Port Terminals
? Public Transit Stations
? Truck/Pipeline Terminals
? Truck/Rail Facilities
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
99
APPENDIX C
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)
released in October 2015 in this proceeding.  A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was 
incorporated in the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O/FNPRM) 
released in July 2016 in this proceeding.
2
No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.  This present 
Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) conforms to the RFA.
3
  
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the attached Second Report and Order, we increase the Nation’s supply of spectrum 
for mobile broadband by adopting rules for fixed and mobile services in the 24.25-24.45 GHz and 24.75-
25.25 GHz band (24 GHz band), and the 47.2-48.2 GHz band.  We include these bands in the Part 30 
Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS).  This additional spectrum for mobile use will help 
ensure that the speed, capacity, and ubiquity of the nation’s wireless networks keeps pace with the 
skyrocketing demand for mobile service.  It will also make possible new types of services for consumers 
and businesses.  We will award Partial Economic Area-based licenses for these bands to best balance the 
needs of large and small carriers, with partitioning available for the 24 GHz band.
3. Until recently, the mmW bands were generally considered unsuitable for mobile 
applications because of propagation losses at such high frequencies and the inability of mmW signals to 
propagate around obstacles.  As increasing congestion has begun to fill the lower bands and carriers have 
resorted to smaller and smaller microcells in order to re-use the available spectrum, however, industry is 
taking another look at the mmW bands and beginning to realize that at least some of its presumed 
disadvantages can be turned to advantage.  For example, short transmission paths and high propagation 
losses can facilitate spectrum re-use in microcellular deployments by limiting the amount of interference 
between adjacent cells.  Furthermore, where longer paths are desired, the extremely short wavelengths of 
mmW signals make it feasible for very small antennas to concentrate signals into highly focused beams 
with enough gain to overcome propagation losses.  The short wavelengths of mmW signals also make it 
possible to build multi-element, dynamic beam-forming antennas that will be small enough to fit into 
handsets—a feat that might never be possible at the lower, longer-wavelength frequencies below 6 GHz 
where cell phones operate today.  
4. We also revise our rules for sharing between UMFUS and satellite services in the 28 
GHz, 39 GHz, and 37 GHz bands, and apply the revised rules to the 47 GHz band.  Specifically, we
revise the population limits and numerical limits on satellite earth stations in those bands.  These revisions 
will facilitate the placement of earth stations in smaller markets and promote coexistence between 
UMFUS and satellite services.
5. We further revise our rules for the 57-71 GHz band to allow unlicensed operation on 
board aircraft under Part 15 of the Commission’s rules.  This rule change will facilitate expanded access 
to broadband services in flight.
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2
Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014 (2016) (R&O/FNPRM).
3
See 5 U.S.C. § 604.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
100
6. Overall, the new provisions we are adopting are designed to allow licensees, particularly 
smaller entities, to choose their type of service offerings, to encourage innovation and investment in 
mobile and fixed use in this spectrum, and to provide a stable regulatory environment in which fixed, 
mobile, and satellite deployment will be able to develop through the application of flexible rules.  The 
market-oriented licensing framework for these bands will ensure that this spectrum is efficiently utilized 
and will foster the development of new and innovative technologies and services, as well as encourage 
the growth and development of a wide variety of services, ultimately leading to greater benefits to 
consumers.
B. Summary of Significant Issues raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
7. No comments were filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies 
presented in the IRFA.
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
8. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the 
proposed rules as a result of those comments.
4
  The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response 
to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted herein.
5
  
The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small 
business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”
6
  In addition, the term “small 
business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.
7
  A 
“small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
8
  
10. Small Businesses, Small Organizations, and Small Governmental Jurisdictions.  Our 
action may, over time, affect small entities that are not easily categorized at present.  We therefore 
describe here, at the outset, three broad groups of small entities that could be directly affected herein.
9
  
First, while there are industry specific size standards for small businesses that are used in the regulatory 
flexibility analysis, according to data from the SBA’s Office of Advocacy, in general a small business is 
an independent business having fewer than 500 employees.
10
  These types of small businesses represent 
                                                     
4
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(3).
5
Id.
6
5 U.S.C. § 601(6).
7
5 U.S.C. § 601(3) (incorporating by reference the definition of “small-business concern” in the Small Business 
Act, 15 U.S.C. § 632).  Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an 
agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity 
for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the 
agency and publishes such definition(s) in the Federal Register.”
8
15 U.S.C. § 632.
9
See 5 U.S.C. § 601(3)-(6).
10
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 1—What is a small business?,” 
https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
101
99.9 percent of all businesses in the United States, which translates to 28.8 million businesses.
11
  Next, the 
type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which 
is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.”
12
  Nationwide, as of 2007, there 
were approximately 1,621,215 small organizations.
13
  Finally, the small entity described as a “small 
governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, towns, townships, villages, 
school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.”
14
  U.S. Census Bureau 
data published in 2012 indicate that there were 89,476 governmental jurisdictions in the United States.
15
  
We estimate that, of this total, as many as 88,761 entities may qualify as “small governmental 
jurisdictions.”
16
  Thus, we estimate that most governmental jurisdictions are small.  
11. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and 
wireless video services.
17
  The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small 
if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
18
  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there 
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.
19
  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or 
fewer employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
20
  Thus under this category and 
the associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
12. Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,
21
private-
operational fixed,
22
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.
23
  They also include the Upper Microwave 
                                                     
11
See SBA, Office of Advocacy, “Frequently Asked Questions, Question 2—How many small business are there in 
the U.S.?,” https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB-FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf (June 2016).
12
5 U.S.C. § 601(4).
13
INDEPENDENT SECTOR, THE NEW NONPROFIT ALMANAC & DESK REFERENCE (2010).
14
5 U.S.C. § 601(5).
15
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU, STATISTICAL ABSTRACT OF THE UNITED STATES: 2012 at 267, Table 428 
(2011), http://www2.census.gov/library/publications/2011/compendia/statab/131ed/2012-statab.pdf (citing data from 
2007).
16
The 2012 U.S. Census data for small governmental organizations are not presented based on the size of the 
population in each organization.  There were 89,476 local governmental organizations in the Census Bureau data for 
2012, which is based on 2007 data.  As a basis of estimating how many of these 89,476 local government 
organizations were small, we note that there were a total of 715 cities and towns (incorporated places and minor 
civil divisions) with populations over 50,000 in 2011.  See U.S. Census Bureau, City and Town Totals Vintage: 
2011, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/cities/totals/2011/index.html.  If we subtract the 715 cities and towns that 
meet or exceed the 50,000 population threshold, we conclude that approximately 88,761 are small.
17
NAICS Code 517210.  See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?
lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210.
18
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
19
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210 (rel. Jan. 8, 2016).  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
20
Id.  Available census data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment 
of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
21
See 47 CFR Part 10, Subpart I.
22
Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave 
services.  See 47 CFR Parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from 
(continued…)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
102
Flexible Use Service
24
and the Millimeter Wave Service
25
where licensees can choose between common 
carrier and non-common carrier status.
26
  At present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier 
fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary 
radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz 
licenses, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.
27
  The Commission has not yet 
defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  The closest applicable SBA category is 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this 
category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
28
  For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire 
year.  Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more.
29
  Thus under this SBA category and the associated standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
13. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have 
more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s 
small business size standard.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 
common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast 
auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules 
and policies adopted herein.  We note, however, that both the common carrier microwave fixed and the 
private operational microwave fixed licensee categories includes some large entities.
14. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.  This category 
comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in 
the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals 
via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”
30
  The category has a small business 
size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.
31
  For this category, 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire 
(Continued from previous page)                                                      
common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for 
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
23
Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 and Part 78 of Title 47 of the Commission’s rules. Available 
to licensees of broadcast stations, cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities. Auxiliary microwave 
stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points 
such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes TV pickup and CARS pickup, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
24
See 47 CFR Part 30.
25
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
26
See 47 CFR §§ 30.6, 101.1017.
27
These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
28
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
29
Id.  Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
30
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”,
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.
517410#. 
31
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
103
year.
32
  Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million.
33
  Consequently, we estimate 
that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
15. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is
comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.
34
  This industry also 
includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and 
receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
35
  Establishments providing Internet services or 
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also 
included in this industry.”
36
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other 
Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or 
less.
37
For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 1442 firms 
that operated for the entire year.
38
  Of these firms, a total of 1400 firms had gross annual receipts of under 
$25 million and 42 firms had gross annual receipts of $25 million to $49,999,999.
39
  Thus, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by 
our actions can be considered small.
16. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.”
40
  The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of 1,250 employees 
or less.
41
  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this industry in 
that year.
42
  Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 
establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 
                                                     
32
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517410
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517410.
33
Id.
34
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code “517919 All Other Telecommunications”, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.
517919#.
35
Id.
36
Id.
37
13 CFR § 121.201; NAICS Code 517919.
38
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517919, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919.
39
Id.  
40
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code 334220, available at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.
334220#.
41
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
42
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1231SG2, Manufacturing: Summary 
Series: General Summary: Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by Employment Size: 2012 NAICS Code 
334220, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/31SG2//naics~334220.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
104
2,500 or more employees.
43
  Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this 
industry is small.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements
17. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements in the Second 
Report and Order will apply to all entities in the same manner.  The revisions the Commission adopts 
should benefit small entities by giving them more information, more flexibility, and more options for 
gaining access to wireless spectrum.
18. Small entities and other applicants for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service licenses 
will be required to file license applications using the Commission’s automated Universal Licensing 
System (ULS).  ULS is an online electronic filing system that also serves as a powerful information tool, 
one that enables potential licensees to research applications, licenses, and antenna structures.  It also 
keeps the public informed with weekly public notices, FCC rulemakings, processing utilities, and a 
telecommunications glossary.  Small entities, like all other entities who are Upper Microwave Flexible 
Use Service applicants, must submit long-form license applications must do so through ULS using Form 
601,
44
FCC Ownership Disclosure Information for the Wireless Telecommunications Services using FCC 
Form 602,
45
and other appropriate forms.
46
  
19. We expect that the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the 
demands described above will require small businesses as well as other entities that intend to utilize these 
new UMFUS licenses to use professional, accounting, engineering or survey services in order to meet 
these requirements.  As described below, several steps have been taken that will alleviate the burdens of 
the requirements on small businesses.
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
20. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered 
in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others):  (1) the 
establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the 
resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or 
reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, 
standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
47
21. As noted above, the various construction and performance requirements and their 
associated showings will be the same for small and large businesses that license the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service bands.  To the extent applying the rules equally to all entities results in the cost of 
complying with these burdens being relatively greater for smaller businesses than for large ones, these 
costs are necessary to effectuate the purpose of the Communications Act, namely to further the efficient 
use of spectrum and to prevent spectrum warehousing.  Likewise compliance with our service and 
technical rules and coordination requirements are necessary for the furtherance of our goals of protecting 
the public while also providing interference free services.  Moreover, while small and large businesses 
must equally comply with these rules and requirements, we have taken the steps described below to 
alleviate the burden on small businesses that seek to comply with these requirements. 
                                                     
43
Id.
44
47 CFR § 1.913(a)(1).
45
47 CFR § 1.919.
46
47 CFR § 1.2107.
47
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
105
22. First, the Second Report and Order provides that in the 24 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz bands 
small businesses will have the flexibility to provide any fixed or mobile service that is consistent with 
their spectrum allocation.  This breaks with the recent past in which 24 GHz licensees were limited to 
only a single use licenses in these bands, and such new flexibility benefits small businesses by giving 
them more avenues for gaining access to valuable wireless spectrum.  
23. Furthermore, the Partial Economic Area license areas chosen in the Second Report and 
Order should provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers by giving them access to less 
densely populated areas that match their footprints.  While PEAs and counties are small enough to 
provide spectrum access opportunities for smaller carriers and PEAs could even be further disaggregated, 
these units of area also nest within and may be aggregated to form larger license areas.  Therefore, the 
benefits and burdens resulting from assigning spectrum in PEA are the result of the Commission 
balancing the needs of small and large businesses.
24. Finally, the proposals to facilitate satellite service in the 28 GHz and 37.5-40 GHz bands
should also assist small satellite businesses by providing them with additional flexibility to locate their 
earth stations without causing interference to or receiving interference from UMFUS licensees.
G. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
25. None.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
106
APPENDIX D
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial 
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) 
released in October 2015 in this proceeding.  A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) was 
incorporated in the Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (R&O) released in July 
2016 in this proceeding.  The Commission sought written public comment on the proposals in NPRM, 
including comments on the IRFA.  No comments were filed addressing the IRFA.  This present 
Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (Supplemental FRFA) supplements the FRFA in the 
R&O and conforms to the RFA. 
A. Need for, and Objective of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the July 2016 R&O, the Commission made millimeter wave (mmW) spectrum 
available through both licensed and unlicensed mechanisms. The Commission authorized both fixed and 
mobile operations in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands using geographic area licensing through the creation 
of a new Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS). The Commission also limited the number of 
Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS) earth station locations to three per county in the 28 GHz band and three per 
Partial Economic Area in the 37.5-40 GHz band.  It protected a limited number of Federal military sites 
across the full 37 GHz band and maintained the existing Federal fixed and mobile allocations throughout 
the band. In the 64-71 GHz band, the Commission authorized unlicensed operations under Part 15 based 
on the rules for the adjacent 57-64 GHz band, providing more spectrum for unlicensed uses like short-
range devices for interactive motion sensing and Wi-Fi-like “WiGig” operations. 
3. The Commission also set up licensing and operating rules for the UMFUS. It granted 
mobile operating rights to existing Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) and 28 GHz band 
licensees, while subdividing their existing licensees to either the county or Partial Economic Area (PEA) 
level. The Commission adopted service and technical rules to facilitate full and complete use of the bands. 
It also adopted spectrum holdings policies for the 28GHz, 37 GHz, and 39 GHz bands that apply to 
licenses acquired through auctions and the secondary market. It also adopted performance requirements 
for mobile, point-to-multipoint, and fixed uses. The Commission adopted a requirement that UMFUS 
licensees submit a statement describing their security plans and related information prior to commencing 
operations. It also restricted earth station interference zones from infringing upon any arterial streets or 
interstate or U.S. highway. Lastly, it deleted the broadcasting and broadcasting-satellite service 
allocations from the 42-42.5 GHz band (42 GHz band) and declined to allocate the band to the Fixed-
satellite service (space-to-Earth). 
4. In this Order on Reconsideration, we rescind the reporting and security requirements for 
UMFUS licensees. Instead, we seek industry input through the Communications Security, Reliability, and 
Interoperability Council (CSRIC) process. The Commission will also provide additional flexibility in 
smaller markets. We modify and limit the prohibition of earth station interference zones from infringing 
on a specific set of roads, as defined and classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation: Interstate, 
Other Freeways and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial. Finally, we increase the three locations per 
license area limit on earth stations in the 37.5-40 GHz band to 15 in each PEA, subject to an additional 
limitation of no more than three earth stations per county. 
5. The analysis of the Commission’s efforts to minimize the possible significant economic 
impact on small entities as described in the previous FRFA in this proceeding is hereby incorporated by 
reference. As a result of our actions in this Order on Reconsideration small entities as well as other 
licensees will save time and resources that would have been spent complying with the service and 
technical rules. The cost of compliance with the July 2016 R&O is relatively greater for smaller 
businesses, however with the rescission of the security measures, some of that compliance cost is 
eliminated. We believe this should result in small businesses having an easier time providing service.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
107
B. Summary of Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments in Response to the IRFA
6. No comments were filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies 
presented in the IRFA. 
C. Response to Comments by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration
7. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the 
Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel of the Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rule(s) as 
a result of those comments
8. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this 
proceeding.
D. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities to Which the Rules 
Would Apply
9. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of 
the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted herein.  
The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small 
business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.”  In addition, the term “small 
business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.  A 
“small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in 
its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.   
10. As noted above, a FRFA was incorporated into the July 2016 R&O.  In that analysis, we 
described in detail the small entities that might be significantly affected by the rules adopted in the R&O.  
In this Order on Reconsideration, we hereby incorporate by reference the descriptions and estimates of the 
number of small entities from the previous FRFA in this proceeding.
E. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance 
Requirements for Small Entities
11. The reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements for small entities 
required by the July 2016 R&O as described in the previous FRFA in this proceeding is hereby 
incorporated by reference. The actions taken in this Order on Reconsideration revise those requirements 
by no longer requiring small entities as well as other licensees to submit general statements of their plans 
for safeguarding their networks and devices from security breaches.  The changes to the Earth station 
siting requirement will not change the reporting and recordkeeping requirements applicable to the rules. 
F. Steps Taken to Minimize the Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
12. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant, specifically small business,  
alternatives, that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others):  “(1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage of 
the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.”  
13. The analysis of the Commission’s efforts to minimize the possible significant economic 
impact on small entities as described in the previous FRFA in this proceeding is hereby incorporated by 
reference.  As a result of our actions in this Order on Reconsideration small entities as well as other 
licensees will save time and resources that would have been spent complying with the security reporting 
requirement. We believe this should result in small businesses having an easier time providing service.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
108
The changes to the Earth station limits from three per PEA to 15 per PEA should increase competition 
and allow more opportunities for small businesses. 
G. Report to Congress
14. The Commission will send a copy of this Order, including this Supplemental FRFA, in a 
report to be sent to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996.  In addition, the Commission will send a copy of this 
Order, including the Supplemental FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration.  A copy of this Order and Supplemental FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be 
published in the Federal Register. 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
109
APPENDIX E
Proposed Rules
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 
47 CFR parts 2, 25, and 30 as follows:
PART 2 – FREQUENCY ALLOCATIONS AND RADIO TREATY MATTERS; GENERAL 
RULES AND REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 2 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, and 336, unless otherwise noted.
2. In § 2.106, the Table of Frequency Allocations is amended as follows:
a. Page 54 is revised.
b. In the list of non-Federal Government (NG) Footnotes, footnote NG535 is removed.
§ 2.106  Table of Frequency Allocations.
The revisions read as follows:
* * * * *
110
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
5.150
24-24.05
5.150  US211
24-24.05
AMATEUR
AMATEUR-SATELLITE
5.150  US211
ISM Equipment (18)
Amateur Radio (97)
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150
24.05-24.25
RADIOLOCATION G59
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
5.150
24.05-24.25
Amateur
Earth exploration-satellite (active)
Radiolocation
5.150
RF Devices (15)
ISM Equipment (18)
Private Land Mobile (90)
Amateur Radio (97)
24.25-24.45
FIXED
24.25-24.45
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
24.25-24.45 24.25-24.45
FIXED
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.45-24.65
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
24.45-24.65
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIONAVIGATION
5.533
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)
24.65-24.75
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
INTER-SATELLITE
MOBILE
5.533
24.65-24.75
INTER-SATELLITE
RADIOLOCATION-SATELLITE (Earth-to-space)
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.532B
24.75-25.25
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.535
24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  5.535
MOBILE
24.75-25.25 24.75-25.25
FIXED
FIXED-SATELLITE
   (Earth-to-space)  
MOBILE
RF Devices (15)
Satellite Communications (25)
Upper Microwave Flexible
   Use (30)
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.25-25.5
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.25-25.5
Inter-satellite  5.536
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
RF Devices (15)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)  5.536B
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH (space-to-Earth)  5.536C
Standard frequency and time signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
25.5-27
EARTH EXPLORATION-
   SATELLITE (space-to-Earth)
FIXED
INTER-SATELLITE  5.536
MOBILE
SPACE RESEARCH
   (space-to-Earth)
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A  US258
25.5-27
SPACE RESEARCH
   (space-to-Earth)
Inter-satellite 5.536
Standard frequency and time
   signal-satellite (Earth-to-space)
5.536A  US2585.536A Page 54
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
* * * * *
PART 25 – SATELLITE COMMUNICATIONS
3. The authority citation for part 25 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Interprets or applies 47 U.S.C. 154, 301, 302, 303, 307, 309, 310, 319, 332, 605, and 721, 
unless otherwise noted.
4. Amend § 25.103 by revising the definitions of “Routine processing or licensing” and 
“Two-degree-compliant space station” to read as follows:
§25.103   Definitions.
* * * * *
Routine processing or licensing. Expedited processing of unopposed applications for earth 
stations in the FSS communicating with GSO space stations, except for earth stations licensed pursuant to 
§25.136, that satisfy the criteria in §25.138(a), §25.211(d), §25.212(c), §25.212(d), §25.212(e), 
§25.212(f), §25.218, include all required information, are consistent with all Commission rules, and do 
not raise any policy issues. Some, but not all, routine earth station applications are eligible for an 
autogrant procedure under §25.115(a)(3).
* * * * *
Two-degree-compliant space station. A GSO FSS space station operating in the conventional or 
extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, or the 
conventional Ka-band within the limits on downlink EIRP density or PFD specified in §25.140(a)(3) and 
communicating only with earth stations operating in conformance with routine uplink parameters 
specified in §25.138(a), §25.211(d), §25.212(c), (d), or (f), §25.218, §25.221(a)(1) or (a)(3), 
§25.222(a)(1) or (a)(3), §25.226(a)(1) or (a)(3), or §25.227(a)(1) or (a)(3).
* * * * *
5. Amend § 25.114 by revising paragraph (d)(7) and removing and reserving paragraph 
(d)(17) to read as follows:
§25.114   Applications for space station authorizations.
* * * * *
(d)* * *
(7) Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the Fixed-Satellite Service must also 
include the information specified in §25.140(a). Applicants for authorizations for space stations in the 
17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service must also include the information specified in §25.140(b);
* * * * *
(17) [Reserved]
* * * * *
6. Amend § 25.115 by revising paragraphs (e)(1) and paragraph (g)(1)(vii) to read as 
follows: 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
112
§25.115   Applications for earth station authorizations.
* * * * *
(e) GSO FSS earth stations in 17.8-30 GHz. (1) An application for a GSO FSS earth station 
license in the 17.8-19.4 GHz, 19.6-20.2 GHz, 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-29.1 GHz, or 29.25-30 GHz bands 
not filed on FCC Form 312EZ pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be filed on FCC Form 
312, Main Form and Schedule B, and must include any information required by paragraph (g) or (j) of 
this section or by §25.130. 
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) The relevant off-axis EIRP density envelopes in §25.138, §25.218, §25.221, §25.222, 
§25.226, or §25.227 must be superimposed on plots submitted pursuant to paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through 
(vi) of this section.
* * * * *
7. Amend § 25.136 by revising the section heading and paragraphs (d) and (e) to read as 
follows:
§25.136   Earth Stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz 
bands. 
* * * * *
(d) Notwithstanding that FSS is co-primary with the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service in 
the 24.75-25.25 GHz and 47.2-48.2 GHz bands, earth stations in those bands shall be limited to 
individually licensed earth stations.   An applicant for a license for a transmitting earth station in the 
24.75-25.25 GHz or 47.2-48.2 GHz band must meet one of the following criteria to be authorized to 
operate without providing any additional interference protection to stations in the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service: 
(1) The FSS licensee also holds the relevant Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service license(s) for 
the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above ground level, 
of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz; or
(2) The earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was authorized prior to [effective date of second 
R&O] or the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was authorized prior to [effective date of this 
rule]; or
(3) The application for the earth station in the 47.2-48.2 GHz band was filed prior to [effective 
date for second R&O] or the application for the earth station in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band was filed prior 
to [effective date of this rule]; or
(4) The applicant demonstrates compliance with all of the following criteria in its application:
(i) There are no more than two other authorized earth stations operating in the same band within 
the county where the proposed earth station is located that meet the criteria contained in either paragraphs 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
113
(d)(1) (d)(2), (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section, and there are no more than 14 other authorized earth stations 
operating in the same band within the Partial Economic Area where the proposed earth station is located 
that meet the criteria contained in paragraphs (d)(1) (d)(2), (d)(3) or (d)(4) of this section. For purposes of 
this requirement, multiple earth stations that are collocated with or at a location contiguous to each other 
shall be considered as one earth station;
(ii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz, together with the similar area of any other 
earth station authorized pursuant to paragraph (d) of this section, does not cover, in the aggregate, more 
than the amount of population of the PEA within which the earth station is located as noted below: 
Population within Partial 
Economic Area (PEA) where 
earth station is located
Maximum permitted aggregate population 
within ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz PFD contour 
of earth stations
Greater than 2,250,000 0.1 percent of population in PEA
Between 60,000 and 2,250,000 2,250 people
Fewer than 60,000 3.75 percent of population in PEA
(iii) The area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz does not contain any major event venue, any 
highway classified by the U.S. Department of Transportation under the categories Interstate, Other 
Freeways and Expressways, or Other Principal Arterial, or an urban mass transit route, passenger railroad, 
or cruise ship port; and;
(iv) The applicant has successfully completed frequency coordination with the UMFUS licensees 
within the area in which the earth station generates a power flux density (PFD), at 10 meters above 
ground level, of greater than or equal to ?77.6 dBm/m
2
/MHz with respect to existing facilities constructed 
and in operation by the UMFUS licensee. In coordinating with UMFUS licensees, the applicant shall use 
the applicable processes contained in §101.103(d) of this chapter.   
(e) If an earth station applicant or licensee in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 37.5-40 GHz 
and/or 47.2-48.2 GHz bands enters into an agreement with an UMFUS licensee, their operations shall be 
governed by that agreement, except to the extent that the agreement is inconsistent with the Commission's 
rules or the Communications Act.
* * * * *
8. Amend § 25.138 by revising the section heading and the introductory text of paragraph 
(a) to read as follows:
§25.138   Licensing requirements for GSO FSS earth stations in the conventional Ka-band and the 
24.75-25.25 GHz band.
(a) Applications for earth station licenses in the GSO FSS in the conventional Ka-band or the 
24.75-25.25 GHz band that indicate that the following requirements will be met and include the 
information required by relevant provisions in §§25.115 and 25.130 may be routinely processed:
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
114
9. Amend § 25.140 by revising paragraphs (a)(2), paragraph (a)(3)(introductory text), and 
paragraphs (a)(3)(iii) through (v), adding a new paragraph (a)(3)(vi), revising paragraph (b)(introductory 
text) and paragraphs (b)(3) through (b)(5), removing paragraph (b)(6), removing and reserving paragraph 
(c), and revising the introductory text to paragraph (d) to read as follows:
§25.140   Further requirements for license applications for GSO space station operation in the FSS 
and the 17/24 GHz BSS.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) In addition to the information required by §25.114, an applicant for GSO FSS space station 
operation, including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS, 
that will be located at an orbital location less than two degrees from the assigned location of an authorized 
co-frequency GSO space station, must either certify that the proposed operation has been coordinated 
with the operator of the co-frequency space station or submit an interference analysis demonstrating the 
compatibility of the proposed system with the co-frequency space station. Such an analysis must include, 
for each type of radio frequency carrier, the link noise budget, modulation parameters, and overall link 
performance analysis. (See Appendices B and C to Licensing of Space Stations in the Domestic Fixed-
Satellite Service, FCC 83-184, and the following public notices, copies of which are available in the 
Commission's EDOCS database: DA 03-3863 and DA 04-1708.) The provisions in this paragraph do not 
apply to proposed analog video operation, which is subject to the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section.
(3) In addition to the information required by §25.114, an applicant for a GSO FSS space station, 
including applicants proposing feeder links for space stations operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS, must 
provide the following for operation other than analog video operation:
* * * * *
(iii) With respect to proposed operation in the conventional Ka-band, a certification that the 
proposed space station will not generate power flux-density at the Earth's surface in excess of ?118 
dBW/m
2
/MHz and that associated uplink operation will not exceed applicable EIRP density envelopes in 
§25.138(a) unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation is coordinated with operators of 
authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within 6 degrees of the orbital location and 
except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(iv) With respect to proposed operation in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space), a 
certification that the proposed space station will not generate a power flux density at the Earth’s surface in 
excess of the applicable limits in this part and that the associated uplink operation will not exceed 
applicable EIRP density envelopes in §25.138(a) unless the non-routine uplink and/or downlink operation 
is coordinated with operators of authorized co-frequency space stations at assigned locations within six 
degrees of the orbital location and except as provided in paragraph (d) of this section.
(v) With respect to proposed operation in the 4500-4800 MHz (space-to-Earth), 6725-7025 MHz 
(Earth-to-space), 10.70-10.95 GHz (space-to-Earth), 11.20-11.45 GHz (space-to-Earth), and/or 12.75-
13.25 GHz (Earth-to-space) bands, a statement that the proposed operation will take into account the 
applicable requirements of Appendix 30B of the ITU Radio Regulations (incorporated by reference, see
§25.108) and a demonstration that it is compatible with other U.S. ITU filings under Appendix 30B.
(vi) With respect to proposed operation in other FSS bands, an interference analysis 
demonstrating compatibility with any previously authorized co-frequency space station at a location two 
degrees away or a certification that the proposed operation has been coordinated with the operator(s) of 
the previously authorized space station(s). If there is no previously authorized space station at a location 
two degrees away, the applicant must submit an interference analysis demonstrating compatibility with a 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
115
hypothetical co-frequency space station two degrees away with the same receiving and transmitting 
characteristics as the proposed space station.
(b) Each applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band 
must provide the following information, in addition to that required by §25.114: 
* * * * *
(3) An applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band
must certify that the downlink power flux density on the Earth's surface will not exceed the values 
specified in §25.208(c) and/or (w), or must provide the certification specified in §25.114(d)(15)(ii) of this 
part. 
(4) An applicant for a license to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band to 
be located less than four degrees from a previously licensed or proposed space station transmitting in the 
17.3-17.8 GHz band, must provide an interference analysis of the kind described in paragraph (a) of this 
section, except that the applicant must demonstrate that its proposed network will not cause more 
interference to the adjacent space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band operating in compliance 
with the technical requirements of this part, than if the applicant were locate at an orbital separation of 
four degrees from the previously licensed or proposed space station. 
(5) In addition to the requirements of paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section, the link budget 
for any satellite in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band (space-to-Earth) must take into account longitudinal 
stationkeeping tolerances. Any applicant for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that 
has reached a coordination agreement with an operator of another space station to allow that operator to 
exceed the pfd levels specified in the rules for this service, must use those higher pfd levels for the 
purpose of this showing. 
(c) [Reserved]
(d) An operator of a GSO FSS space station in the conventional or extended C-bands, 
conventional or extended Ku-bands, 24.75-25.25 GHz band (Earth-to-space), or conventional Ka-band 
may notify the Commission of its non-routine transmission levels and be relieved of the obligation to 
coordinate such levels with later applicants and petitioners.
* * * * *
10. Amend §25.203 by removing and reserving paragraph (l).
§25.203   Choice of sites and frequencies.
* * * * *
(l) [Reserved]
* * * * *
11. Amend § 25.204 by revising paragraphs (e)(introductory text), (e)(1), and (e)(3), and 
removing paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
§25.204   Power limits for earth stations.
* * * * *
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
116
(e) To the extent specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(3) of this section, earth stations in the 
Fixed-Satellite Service may employ uplink adaptive power control or other methods of fade compensation 
to facilitate transmission of uplinks at power levels required for desired link performance while 
minimizing interference between networks.
(1) Except when paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(3) of this section apply, transmissions from FSS 
earth stations in frequencies above 10 GHz may exceed the uplink EIRP and EIRP density limits specified 
in the station authorization under conditions of uplink fading due to precipitation by an amount not to 
exceed 1 dB above the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation over clear sky propagation 
conditions. EIRP levels must be returned to normal as soon as the attenuating weather pattern subsides.
* * * * *
(3) FSS earth stations transmitting to geostationary space stations in the 24.75-25.25 GHz, 28.35-
28.6 GHz, and/or 29.25-30.0 GHz bands may employ uplink adaptive power control or other methods of 
fade compensation. For stations employing uplink power control, the values in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), 
and (a)(4) of §25.138 may be exceeded by up to 20 dB under conditions of uplink fading due to 
precipitation. The amount of such increase in excess of the actual amount of monitored excess attenuation 
over clear sky propagation conditions must not exceed 1.5 dB or 15 percent of the actual amount of 
monitored excess attenuation in dB, whichever is larger, with a confidence level of 90 percent except over 
transient periods accounting for no more than 0.5 percent of the time during which the excess is no more 
than 4.0 dB.
* * * * *
12. Amend § 25.209 by revising paragraph (f) to read as follows: 
§25.209   Earth station antenna performance standards.
* * * * *
(f) A GSO FSS earth station with an antenna that does not conform to the applicable standards in 
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section will be authorized only if the applicant demonstrates that the 
antenna will not cause unacceptable interference. This demonstration must comply with the requirements 
in §25.138, §25.218, §25.220, §25.221, §25.222, §25.226, or §25.227, as appropriate.
* * * * *
13. Amend § 25.210 by revising paragraph (i) to read as follows:
* * * * *
(i) 17/24 GHz BSS space station antennas transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band must be 
designed to provide a cross-polarization isolation such that the ratio of the on axis co-polar gain to the 
cross-polar gain of the antenna in the assigned frequency band is at least 25 dB within its primary 
coverage area.
* * * * *
14. Amend § 25.220 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
§25.220   Non-routine transmit/receive earth station operations.
(a) The requirements in this section apply to applications for, and operation of, earth stations 
transmitting in the conventional or extended C-bands, the conventional or extended Ku-bands, the 24.75-
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
117
25.25 GHz band, or the conventional Ka-band that do not qualify for routine licensing under relevant 
criteria in §25.138, §25.211, §25.212, §25.218, §25.221(a)(1) or (a)(3), §25.222(a)(1) or (a)(3), 
§25.226(a)(1) or (a)(3), or §25.227(a)(1) or (a)(3).
* * * * *
§ 25.223  [Reserved].
15. Remove and reserve § 25.223.
16. Revise § 25.262 to read as follows:
§25.262   Licensing and domestic coordination requirements for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations.
(a) An applicant may be authorized to operate a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz 
band at the maximum power flux density limits defined in §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this part, 
without coordinating its power flux density levels with adjacent licensed or permitted operators, only if 
there is no licensed space station, or prior-filed application for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-
17.8 GHz band at a location less than four degrees from the orbital location at which the applicant
proposes to operate.
(b) Any U.S. licensee or permittee authorized to transmit in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not 
comply with the power flux-density limits set forth in §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this part shall bear 
the burden of coordinating with any future co-frequency licensees and permittees of a space station 
transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band under the following circumstances:
(1) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels exceed the power flux-density limits 
set forth in §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this part by 3 dB or less, the operator shall bear the burden of 
coordinating with any future operators proposing a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band 
in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this part and 
located within ±6 degrees of the operator's 17/24 GHz BSS space station.
(2) If the operator's space-to-Earth power flux-density levels exceed the power flux-density limits 
set forth in §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this part by more than 3 dB, the operator shall bear the 
burden of coordinating with any future operators proposing a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 
GHz band in compliance with power flux-density limits set forth in §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this 
part and located within ±10 degrees of the operator's space station.
(3) If no good faith agreement can be reached, the operator of the space station transmitting in the 
17.3-17.8 GHz band that does not comply with §25.208(c) and/or §25.208(w) of this part shall reduce its 
space-to-Earth power flux-density levels to be compliant with those specified in §25.208(c) and/or 
§25.208(w) of this part.
(c) Any U.S. licensee or permittee using a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band 
that is required to provide information in its application pursuant to §25.140(b)(4) of this part must accept 
any increased interference that may result from adjacent space stations transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz 
band that are operating in compliance with the rules for such space stations.
(d)(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, licensees and permittees will be allowed to 
apply for a license or authorization for a replacement satellite that will be operated at the same power 
level and interference protection as the satellite to be replaced.
(2) In addition, applicants for licenses or authority for a satellite to be operated at an orbit location 
that was made available after a previous license for a space station transmitting in the 17.3-17.8 GHz 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
118
band was cancelled or surrendered will be permitted to apply for authority to operate a satellite at the 
same power level and interference protection as the previous licensee at that orbit location, to the extent 
that their proposed operations are consistent with the provisions of this part. Such applications will be 
considered pursuant to the first-come, first-served procedures set forth in §25.158 of this part.
PART 30 – UPPER MICROWAVE FLEXIBLE USE SERVICE
17. The authority citation for part 30 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 301, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, 332, 1302.
18. Amend § 30.104 by redesignating paragraphs (b), (c), (d) and (e) as paragraphs (c), (d), 
(e), and (f), adding new paragraph (b), and revising redesignated paragraphs (c), (e), and (f) to read to 
read as follows:
§ 30.104  Performance Requirements
* * * * *
(b) In the alternative, a licensee may make its buildout showing on the basis of geographic area 
coverage.  To satisfy the requirements of this section using this metric, licensees relying on mobile or 
point-to-multipoint service must show that they are providing reliable signal coverage and service to at 
least 25% of the geographic area of the license.  The geographic area of the license shall be determined by 
the total land area of the county or counties covered by the license.  Licensees relying on fixed point-to-
point links or other, low-power point-to-point connections must show that they have deployed at least one 
transmitter or receiver in at least 25% of the census tracts within the license area.  All equipment relied 
upon in the showing, whatever type of service or connection it provides, must be operational and 
providing service, either to customers or for internal use, as of the date of the filing.
(c)  Showings that rely on a combination of multiple types of service will be evaluated on a case-
by-case basis.  Licensees may not combine population-based showings with geographic area-based 
showings.
* * * * *
(e) Failure to meet this requirement will result in automatic cancellation of the license. In bands 
licensed on a Partial Economic Area basis, licensees will have the option of partitioning a license on a 
county basis in order to reduce the population or land area within the license area to a level where the 
licensee's buildout would meet one of the applicable performance metrics.
(f) Existing 24 GHz, 28 GHz and 39 GHz licensees shall be required to make a showing pursuant to this 
rule by June 1, 2024.
19. Revise § 30.208 to read as follows:
§ 30.208 Operability
Mobile and transportable stations that operate on any portion of frequencies within the 27.5-28.35 GHz or 
the 37-40 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within those particular bands.  
Mobile and transportable stations that operate on any portion of either the 24.25-24.45 GHz or 24.75-
25.25 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within both of these bands.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
119
APPENDIX F
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
1
the 
Commission has prepared this present Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities by the policies and rules proposed 
in the attached Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FNPRM).  Written public comments are 
requested on this IRFA.  Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the 
deadlines specified in the FNPRM for comments.  The Commission will send a copy of this FNPRM, 
including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA).
2
  In 
addition, the FNPRM and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
3
  
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
2. In the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, we propose to authorize Fixed-
Satellite Service (FSS) use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band for individually licensed earth stations.  We also 
propose to create a buildout standard for Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS) licensees 
based on geographic area coverage that would be an alternative to the current population coverage 
standard in the current rules.  We also seek comment on establishing an operability requirement 
throughout the 24 GHz band.  Finally, we seek comment on what other millimeter wave bands may be 
appropriate for UMFUS use.
3. Under the current rules, Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS) feeder links have priority 
over other FSS uses in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band.  Given the very light use of the 24.75-25.25 GHz band 
for BSS feeder links, the existence of our earth station two-degree spacing rules that can protect BSS 
feeder links from other FSS earth stations in the band, and the power limits placed on BSS feeder link 
earth stations, it appears there is no need to give BSS feeder link earth stations priority over other uses of 
the FSS for earth stations located within the United States, or to preclude other FSS earth stations from 
claiming protection from feeder link earth stations located within the United States.
4. A performance metric based on geographic area coverage (or presence) would allow for 
networks that provide meaningful service but deploy along other lines than residential population.  Such a 
metric could be useful for sensor-based networks, particularly for uses in rural areas.  We propose to 
adopt the following metric as an option for UMFUS licensees to fulfill their buildout requirements: 
geographic area coverage of 25% of the license area. We also seek comment on an alternative 
requirement of presence in 25% of subset units of the license area, such as census tracts, counties, or 
some other area.  The latter standard could accommodate deployments, such as sensor networks, that are 
not designed to provide mobile or point-to-multipoint area coverage, and for whom calculating “coverage 
of 25% of the area” would therefore not be a meaningful standard.  
5. The FNPRM proposes an operability requirement such that any device designed to 
operate within the 24 GHz bands must be capable of operating on all frequencies within those bands.  
This operability requirement will ensure that devices developed for the 24 GHz band operate throughout 
the band, making it easier for smaller businesses with fewer resources to find equipment that can operate 
across the entire band.
                                                     
1
See 5 U.S.C. § 603.  The RFA, see 5 U.S.C. § 601-612, has been amended by the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, (SBREFA) Pub. L. No. 104-121, Title II, 110 Stat. 857 (1996). 
2
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
3
See 5 U.S.C. § 603(a).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
120
6. Finally, to the extent that there are additional millimeter wave bands that the Commission 
should consider for flexible terrestrial wireless use, which have not been raised in the proceeding thus far, 
the Commission invites interested parties to file comments on these frequencies.  To the extent additional 
spectrum can be made available for UMFUS use, that additional spectrum will make it easier for small 
businesses to obtain the spectrum they need to provide service.
B. Legal Basis
7. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 302a, 
303, 304, 307, 309, and 310 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 
157, 301, 302, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, and 310, Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, as 
amended, 47 U.S.C. § 1302.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which the Proposed 
Rules Will Apply
8. Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite).  This industry comprises 
establishments engaged in operating and maintaining switching and transmission facilities to provide 
communications via the airwaves.  Establishments in this industry have spectrum licenses and provide 
services using that spectrum, such as cellular services, paging services, wireless internet access, and 
wireless video services.
4
  The appropriate size standard under SBA rules is that such a business is small if 
it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
5
  For this industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 show that there 
were 967 firms that operated for the entire year.
6
  Of this total, 955 firms had employment of 999 or fewer 
employees and 12 had employment of 1,000 employees or more.
7
  Thus under this category and the 
associated size standard, the Commission estimates that the majority of wireless telecommunications 
carriers (except satellite) are small entities.
9. Fixed Microwave Services.  Microwave services include common carrier,
8
private-
operational fixed,
9
and broadcast auxiliary radio services.
10
  They also include the Upper Microwave 
Flexible Use Service
11
and the Millimeter Wave Service
12
where licensees can choose between common 
                                                     
4
NAICS Code 517210.  See https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?
lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.517210.
5
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
6
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ5, Information: Subject 
Series: Estab and Firm Size: Employment Size of Firms for the U.S.: 2012 NAICS Code 517210 (rel. Jan. 8, 2016).  
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ5//naics~517210.
7
Id.  Available census data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment 
of 1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
8
See 47 CFR Part 10, Subpart I.
9
Persons eligible under Parts 80 and 90 of the Commission’s rules can use Private-Operational Fixed Microwave 
services.  See 47 CFR Parts 80 and 90.  Stations in this service are called operational-fixed to distinguish them from 
common carrier and public fixed stations.  Only the licensee may use the operational-fixed station, and only for 
communications related to the licensee’s commercial, industrial, or safety operations.
10
Auxiliary Microwave Service is governed by Part 74 and Part 78 of Title 47 of the Commission’s rules. Available 
to licensees of broadcast stations, cable operators, and to broadcast and cable network entities. Auxiliary microwave 
stations are used for relaying broadcast television signals from the studio to the transmitter, or between two points 
such as a main studio and an auxiliary studio. The service also includes TV pickup and CARS pickup, which relay 
signals from a remote location back to the studio.
11
See 47 CFR Part 30.
12
See 47 CFR Part 101, Subpart Q.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
121
carrier and non-common carrier status.
13
  At present, there are approximately 66,680 common carrier 
fixed licensees, 69,360 private and public safety operational-fixed licensees, 20,150 broadcast auxiliary 
radio licensees, 411 LMDS licenses, 33 24 GHz DEMS licenses, 777 39 GHz licenses, and five 24 GHz 
licensees, and 467 Millimeter Wave licenses in the microwave services.
14
  The Commission has not yet 
defined a small business with respect to microwave services.  The closest applicable SBA category is 
Wireless Telecommunications Carriers (except Satellite) and the appropriate size standard for this 
category under SBA rules is that such a business is small if it has 1,500 or fewer employees.
15
  For this 
industry, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were 967 firms that operated for the entire 
year.  Of this total, 955 had employment of 999 or fewer, and 12 firms had employment of 1,000 
employees or more.
16
  Thus under this SBA category and the associated standard, the Commission 
estimates that the majority of fixed microwave service licensees can be considered small.
10. The Commission does not have data specifying the number of these licensees that have 
more than 1,500 employees, and thus is unable at this time to estimate with greater precision the number 
of fixed microwave service licensees that would qualify as small business concerns under the SBA’s 
small business size standard.  Consequently, the Commission estimates that there are up to 36,708 
common carrier fixed licensees and up to 59,291 private operational-fixed licensees and broadcast 
auxiliary radio licensees in the microwave services that may be small and may be affected by the rules 
and policies adopted herein.  We note, however, that both the common carrier microwave fixed and the 
private operational microwave fixed licensee categories includes some large entities.
11. Satellite Telecommunications and All Other Telecommunications.  This category 
comprises firms “primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other establishments in 
the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by forwarding and receiving communications signals 
via a system of satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.”
17
  The category has a small business 
size standard of $32.5 million or less in average annual receipts, under SBA rules.
18
  For this category, 
U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 333 firms that operated for the entire 
year.
19
  Of this total, 299 firms had annual receipts of less than $25 million.
20
  Consequently, we estimate 
that the majority of satellite telecommunications providers are small entities.
12. All Other Telecommunications. The “All Other Telecommunications” category is
comprised of establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized telecommunications services, 
such as satellite tracking, communications telemetry, and radar station operation.
21
  This industry also 
                                                     
13
See 47 CFR §§ 30.6, 101.1017.
14
These statistics are based on a review of the Universal Licensing System on September 22, 2015.
15
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517210.
16
Id.  Available census data do not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that have employment of 
1,500 or fewer employees; the largest category provided is for firms with “1000 employees or more.”
17
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, “517410 Satellite Telecommunications”,
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.
517410#.  
18
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS code 517410.
19
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517410
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517410.   
20
Id.
21
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code “517919 All Other Telecommunications”, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.
517919#.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
122
includes establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal stations and associated facilities 
connected with one or more terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to, and 
receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems.
22
  Establishments providing Internet services or 
voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) services via client-supplied telecommunications connections are also 
included in this industry.”
23
  The SBA has developed a small business size standard for “All Other 
Telecommunications,” which consists of all such firms with gross annual receipts of $32.5 million or 
less.
24
For this category, U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that there were a total of 1442 firms 
that operated for the entire year.
25
  Of these firms, a total of 1400 firms had gross annual receipts of under 
$25 million and 42 firms had gross annual receipts of $25 million to $49, 999,999.
26
  Thus, the 
Commission estimates that a majority of “All Other Telecommunications” firms potentially affected by 
our actions can be considered small.
13. Radio and Television Broadcasting and Wireless Communications Equipment 
Manufacturing.  This industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in manufacturing radio and 
television broadcast and wireless communications equipment.  Examples of products made by these 
establishments are: transmitting and receiving antennas, cable television equipment, GPS equipment, 
pagers, cellular phones, mobile communications equipment, and radio and television studio and 
broadcasting equipment.”
27
   The SBA has established a size standard for this industry of 1,250 employees 
or less.
28
  U.S. Census Bureau data for 2012 shows that 841 establishments operated in this industry in 
that year.
29
  Of that number, 828 establishments operated with fewer than 1,000 employees, 7 
establishments operated with between 1,000 and 2,499 employees and 6 establishments operated with 
2,500 or more employees.
30
  Based on this data, we conclude that a majority of manufacturers in this 
industry is small.
D. Description of Projected Reporting, Recordkeeping, and other Compliance 
Requirements
14. The projected reporting, recordkeeping, and other compliance requirements proposed in 
the Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking will apply to all entities in the same manner.  The 
revisions the Commission adopts should benefit small entities by giving them more information, more 
flexibility, and more options for gaining access to wireless spectrum.  
15. Small entities and other applicants in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service will be 
required to meet buildout requirements at the end of their initial license terms.  In doing so, they will be 
                                                     
22
Id.
23
Id.
24
13 CFR 121.201; NAICS Code 517919.
25
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1251SSSZ4, Information: Subject 
Series - Estab and Firm Size: Receipts Size of Firms for the United States: 2012, NAICS code 517919, 
https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/51SSSZ4//naics~517919.
26
Id.  
27
See U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 NAICS Definitions, NAICS Code 334220, available at
https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/affhelp/jsf/pages/metadata.xhtml?lang=en&type=ib&id=ib.en./ECN.NAICS2012.
334220#.
28
13 CFR § 121.201, NAICS Code 334220.
29
U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census of the United States, Table EC1231SG2, Manufacturing: Summary 
Series: General Summary: Industry Statistics for Subsectors and Industries by Employment Size: 2012 NAICS Code 
334220, https://factfinder.census.gov/bkmk/table/1.0/en/ECN/2012_US/31SG2//naics~334220.
30
Id.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
123
required to provide information to the Commission on the facilities they have constructed, the nature of 
the service they are providing, and the extent to which they are providing coverage in their license area.  
16. Because we have already adopted performance requirements for UMFUS licensees, the 
proposal in the Second FNPRM will not change the recordkeeping and compliance requirements for small 
entities and other UMFUS licensees.  The Second FNPRM proposes to give small entities and other 
UMFUS licensees another means of meeting those requirements.  We expect that the filing, 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with the demands described above, will require 
small entities as well as other entities that intend to utilize these new UMFUS licenses, to use 
professional, accounting, engineering or survey services to meet these requirements. As noted below, we 
seek comment on any steps that could be taken to minimize any significant economic impact on small 
businesses.
E. Steps taken to Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities, and 
Significant Alternatives Considered
17. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives for small businesses 
that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four 
alternatives (among others):  (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or 
timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, 
consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rule for such small 
entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of 
the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
31
  Accordingly, we seek comment on whether any of 
burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described above can be 
minimized for small businesses.  In particular, we seek comment on whether any of the costs associated 
with our construction or performance requirements in these bands can be alleviated for small businesses.
18. As noted above in Section D, the buildout requirements and information reported to the 
Commission will be the same for small and large businesses in the Upper Microwave Flexible Use 
Service.  To the extent applying the rules equally to all entities results in the cost of complying with these 
burdens being relatively greater for smaller businesses than for large ones, these costs are necessary to 
effectuate the purpose of the Communications Act, namely to ensure that spectrum is being put into use.  
Moreover, while small and large businesses must equally comply with these rules and requirements, the 
proposed rule changes would grant additional flexibility to all licensees, including small businesses.  
Specifically, opening 24.75-25.25 GHz for general Fixed-Satellite Service use will provide small satellite 
entities with access to additional spectrum which they can use in connection with individually licensed 
earth stations.  Creating a geographic area buildout metric for UMFUS licensees will give those licensees, 
including small businesses, an option for providing service that does not cover a large population.
19. To assist the Commission’s evaluation of the economic impact on small entities, as a 
result of actions that have been proposed in this Second FNPRM, and to better explore options and 
alternatives, the Commission has sought comment from the parties.  The Commission seeks comment on 
whether any of the burdens associated the filing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements described 
above can be minimized for small businesses.  In addition, the Second FNPRM seeks comment on 
whether any of the costs associated with our construction or performance requirements in these bands can 
be alleviated for small businesses.  The Commission expects to more fully consider the economic impact 
and alternatives for small entities following the review of comments filed in response to the Second
FNPRM.  
F. Federal Rules that May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict with the Proposed Rules
20. None.
                                                     
31
5 U.S.C. § 604(a)(6).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
124
APPENDIX G
List of Commenters to FNPRM
Comments
5G Americas
Aeronet Global Communications Inc.
Anova Technologies, LLC
AT&T Services Inc.
Cambridge Broadband Networks
CBF Networks, Inc. (aka Fastback Networks)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
Collinear Networks, Inc.
Comsearch
Consumer Technology Association (CTA)
CTIA
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA)
E-Band Communications, LLC
Echodyne Corp.
EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation
Ericsson
Facebook, Inc.
Federated Wireless, Inc.
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc. (FWCC)
Google Fiber Inc.
Google Inc.
Huawei Technologies, Co., LTD 
Huawei Technologies, Inc. (USA)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Inmarsat, Inc.
Intel Corporation
InterDigital, Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Microsoft Corporation
Mobile Future
Moseley Associates, Inc.
MVDDS 5G Coalition
National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF)
National Spectrum Management Association (NSMA)
NCTA — The Internet & Television Association (NCTA)
NEC
Nextlink Wireless, LLC
Nokia
O3b Limited
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
Public Knowledge
Qualcomm Incorporated
REMEC Broadband Wireless Networks, LLC
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
125
Samsung Research America
Scientel Solutions LLC
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
Southern Company Services, Inc. 
Starry, Inc.
Straight Path Communications Inc.
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
The Boeing Company
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Verizon
Verizon Wireless
ViaSat, Inc.
Wi-Fi Alliance
Zodiac Inflight Innovations (Zii)
Reply Comments
AT&T Services Inc.
Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA)
Charter Communications, Inc.
Collinear Networks, Inc.
CTIA
EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation
EMEA Satellite Operators Association (ESOA)
Federated Wireless, Inc.
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc. (FWCC)
Google Fiber Inc.
Google Inc.
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Inmarsat, Inc.
Intel Corporation
Iridium Communications, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
Mimosa Networks, Inc.
MVDDS 5G Coalition
NCTA — The Internet & Television Association
Netcompetition.org
Nextlink Wireless, LLC
Nokia
O3b Limited
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
Public Knowledge
Qualcomm Incorporated
Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
Samsung Research America
Scientel Solutions LLC
SES Americom, Inc.
Satellite Industry Association (SIA)
Sprint Corporation
Straight Path Communications Inc.
The Boeing Company
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
126
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
United States Cellular Corporation
Verizon
Verizon Wireless
ViaSat, Inc.
Wi-Fi Alliance
Ex Parte Comments
Adams Telecom, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Aeronet Global Communications Inc.
Alta Wireless, Inc.
American AirlinesAT&T Services Inc.
Cambridge Broadband NetworksCentral Texas Communications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Citizens Against Government Waste
Competitive Carriers Association
Consumers Union
CTIA
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance
EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation
Economics, Inc.
Elefante Group
E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative (Rural LMDS Licensees)
FiberTower Spectrum Holdings, LLC
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition
Hammer Fiber Optics Investments, Ltd.
Horry Telephone Cooperative (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Inmarsat, Inc.
Intelsat Corporation
Iridium Communications, Inc. Jet Blue
Louisiana Competitive Telecommunications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
LS telecom, Inc.
Marvell Semiconductor, Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
National Association of Manufacturers
NCTA — The Internet & Television Association
Nextlink Wireless, LLC
Nokia
O3b Limited 
Open Technology Institute at New America (OTI)
Pine Belt Communications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Public Knowledge
Qualcomm Incorporated
Samsung Electronics America
Satellite Industry Association
SES Americom, Inc.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (Space X)
Straight Path Communications, Inc.
Starry, Inc.
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
127
Telesat Canada (Telesat)
The Boeing Company
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
U.S. Cellular Corp.
ViaSat, Inc.
Verizon
Wi-Fi Alliance
Wireless Internet Service Providers Association
WorldVu Satellites Ltd. d/b/a/ One Web
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
128
APPENDIX H
List of Petitioners to Spectrum Frontiers Report and Order
Petitions for Reconsideration
5G Americas
Adams Telecom Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Central Texas Communications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Competitive Carriers Association 
CTIA
E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Louisiana Competitive Telecommunications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
NCTA — The Internet & Television Association
Nextlink Wireless, LLC
O3b Limited 
Pine Belt Communications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Satellite Industry Association 
SES Americom, Inc.  
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
ViaSat, Inc.
Oppositions/Comments to Petitions for Reconsideration
5G Americas
Consolidated Telecom (Blooston Rural Carriers)
CTIA
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA)
EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation
Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition, Inc. (FWCC)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Intel Corporation
Iridium Communications, Inc.
Lockheed Martin Corporation
Mashell Telecom, Inc. d/b/a Rainier Connect (Blooston Rural Carriers)
Microsoft Corporation
Mobile Future
NCTA — The Internet & Television Association
Nokia
O3b Limited 
Open Technology Institute at New America
Public Knowledge
PVT Networks, Inc. (Blooston Rural Carriers)
SES Americom, Inc.  
Skyriver Communications, Inc.
Straight Path Communications Inc.
Starry, Inc.
The Boeing Company
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
129
United States Cellular Corporation (USCC)
Venture Wireless, Inc. (Blooston Rural Carriers)
Verizon
Verizon Wireless
ViaSat, Inc.
Wi-Fi Alliance
Reply to Oppositions to Petitions for Reconsideration
Adams Telecom Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
AT&T Services Inc.
Cambridge Broadband Networks
Central Texas Communications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Competitive Carriers Association (CCA)
CTIA
EchoStar Satellite Operating Corporation
E.N.M.R. Telephone Cooperative (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Hughes Network Systems, LLC
Inmarsat, Inc.
Intelsat Corporation
Louisiana Competitive Telecommunications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
Nextlink Wireless, LLC
O3b Limited
Pine Belt Communications, Inc. (Rural LMDS Licensees)
SES Americom, Inc.
Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA)
The Boeing Company
T-Mobile USA, Inc.
Verizon
Verizon Wireless
ViaSat, Inc.
WorldVu Satellites Ltd. d/b/a/ One Web
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
130
STATEMENT OF
CHAIRMAN AJIT PAI
Re: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
I’ve long been struck by the insight from Benedict Evans of Andreessen Horowitz that “mobile is 
eating the world.”
777
  As he’s pointed out, mobile subscriptions have quickly grown from a small fraction 
of the world’s adult population to virtually matching that population—leaving PCs in the far distance.  
Smartphones have only accelerated that trend, with over 2.5 billion now in use.  As a result, the 
fundamental questions in wireless have changed:  Instead of debating over things like platform standards, 
we now contemplate what breakthroughs—the Internet of Things, machine learning, and the like—could 
take advantage of tomorrow’s wireless networks.
That’s where the FCC comes in.  Those future networks will use spectrum in ways unimaginable 
a generation ago.  And their architecture will be different, too, going from a few massive cell towers to 
thousands of small cells, operating at lower power.  Each of those factors counsels in favor of forward-
thinking spectrum policy.  We need to introduce more low-, mid-, and high-band spectrum into the 
marketplace.  We need to include a mix of licensed and unlicensed, and terrestrial and satellite spectrum.  
And we need to encourage flexible use as we enter the 5G future.  (Infrastructure policy, of course, is 
another vital part of the equation.)
This Spectrum Frontiers decision reflects these goals, and in so doing, further establishes 
American leadership in 5G.  We encourage satellite entrepreneurship by preserving a four-gigahertz band 
for satellite services and relaxing certain rules for siting earth stations.  We also maintain the full 64-71 
GHz band as a massive testbed for unlicensed innovation.  And we make much more millimeter wave 
spectrum available for terrestrial wireless use.  In particular, we add 1,700 MHz of new spectrum in the 
24 and 47 GHz bands, on top of the spectrum we freed up last year.  In short, we begin to set the table so 
that however mobile continues eating the world—whether it’s a high-bandwidth virtual reality application 
or a narrowband industrial IoT use case—spectrum won’t be a limiting factor.
That’s policy.  Two critical points on process.  First, this isn’t the end of our work in this field, 
but the beginning.  Accordingly, I plan to follow up on today’s achievement by presenting the next 
spectrum frontiers item in the first half of next year.  This will continue our commitment to enabling 
access to these high-band frequencies. 
                                                     
777
See Benedict Evans, Presentation, “Mobile is eating the world” (Dec. 9, 2016), available at http://ben-
evans.com/benedictevans/2016/12/8/mobile-is-eating-the-world; see also Benedict Evans, Presentation, “16 mobile 
theses” (Dec. 18, 2015) (“[I]t’s now perfectly clear that mobile is the future of technology and of the internet.”); 
Benedict Evans, Presentation, “mobile is eating the world” (Oct. 28, 2014), available at http://ben-
evans.com/benedictevans/2014/10/28/presentation-mobile-is-eating-the-world (when “everyone gets a pocket 
supercomputer,” the “first thing that changes is the internet”).
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
131
Second, any future spectrum leaps to get these frequencies licensed require legislation.  As much 
as anyone, I want to move forward with a high-band spectrum auction in 2018.  But currently, we can’t.  
As I’ve recently and repeatedly stated, we can’t hold any large spectrum auction unless and until 
Congress fixes the upfront-payments problem.  I stand ready to assist any elected official interested in 
helping us solve this problem.  (We’ll certainly do any and all legwork in the meantime, studying other 
bands for potential wireless use and moving forward through our rulemaking process to get them ready 
for auction.)
Promoting U.S. leadership in 5G is an all-FCC effort.  So thanks to the expert staff who helped 
make this happen: Simon Banyai, Kamila Benzina, Steve Buenzow, Monica DeLong, Tiare Faatea, 
Stephanie Goldberg, Tim Hilfiger, Catherine Matraves, Elizabeth McIntyre, Aalok Mehta, Charles Oliver, 
Matthew Pearl, John Schauble, Catherine Schroeder, Blaise Scinto, Dana Shaffer, Jiaming Shang, Don 
Stockdale, Joel Taubenblatt, Jeffrey Tignor, Janet Young, and Nancy Zaczek from the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau; Bahman Badipour, Brian Butler, Martin Doczkat, Michael Ha, Julie Knapp, 
Antonio Lavarello, Ed Mantiply, Tom Mooring, Nicholas Oros, Barbara Pavon, Jamison Prime, Karen 
Rackley, Ron Repasi, and Anh Wride from the Office of Engineering and Technology; Jose Albuquerque, 
Chip Fleming, Diane Garfield, Jennifer Gilsenan, Dante Ibarra, Kal Krautkramer, Michael Mullinix, 
Robert Nelson, Alyssa Roberts, Jim Schlichting, and Tom Sullivan from the International Bureau; Greg 
Intoccia, Nicole McGinnis, David Plotinsky, and Brenda Villanueva from the Public Safety and
Homeland Security Bureau; Charles Cooper, Jeremy Marcus, and Steve Spaeth from the Enforcement 
Bureau; and David Horowitz, Linda Oliver, William Richardson, and Anjali Singh from the Office of the 
General Counsel.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
132
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MIGNON L. CLYBURN
CONCURRING IN PART; DISSENTING IN PART
Re:  Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
When I voted to approve the first order allowing mobile flexible use in the upper microwave 
bands, I commended the Commission for shifting from the conventional model of exclusive, indefinite 
licenses to trying novel approaches such as use or share rules for these bands.  I said that applying 
creative policy to the spectrum bands above 24 GHz would unleash innovation, spur additional 
competition, and incite boundless creativity.  
Unfortunately, my excitement for this proceeding is now subdued because, by adopting this 
Order, the Commission’s majority turns its back on promoting competition and innovative spectrum 
policy.  Last year, the agency adopted a pre-auction limit so that no entity could acquire more than 
roughly one-third of the spectrum in the 28, 37, and 39 GHz bands.  There was substantial support from 
the commercial wireless industry for limits in those bands, including two of the top four nationwide 
wireless carriers, smaller carriers, and consumer advocates.  In the first Further Notice, the Commission 
also proposed to impose a similar limit on the amount of spectrum any one entity could acquire in the 24 
and 47 GHz bands.  Many commenters support this proposal as well.
In an attempt to understand the majority’s decision to reverse course on these pre-auction 
aggregation limits, allow me to start with the current state of the industry and the Communications Act’s 
mandates.  The commercial wireless industry is highly concentrated.  For antitrust purposes, the U.S. 
Department of Justice, or DOJ, uses the well-known Herfindahl-Hirschman index (HHI).  DOJ classifies 
markets with an HHI of less than 1500 as unconcentrated and markets with an HHI of over 2500 as highly 
concentrated.  The HHI index for the commercial wireless market has been increasing every year. It is 
now over 3100. 
Spectrum is a critical input to competition in this market.  For this reason, Section 309(j) of the 
Communications Act requires the Commission to design auctions to prevent the excessive concentration 
of licenses and disseminate licenses among a wide variety of applicants.  A pre-auction spectrum 
aggregation limit is a neutral way to prevent the largest wireless companies from acquiring so much 
spectrum that smaller companies cannot offer competitive options to consumers.  This is why I strongly 
supported the Commission’s adoption of spectrum aggregation limits in the incentive auction and in this 
proceeding.  
So why does the majority reverse those decisions here?  Their primary reason is that we are 
making 4950 megahertz of millimeter wave spectrum available for flexible mobile use. Relying on this
amount of spectrum is not enough to ensure licenses are distributed widely through the industry. 
Companies have said that wide blocks consisting of 100s of megahertz of spectrum are necessary to attain 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
133
the data speeds and capacity requirements of wireless 5G uses.  Given the importance of these spectrum 
bands to the future of the commercial wireless industry, the large wireless companies have the same 
incentives to acquire dominant holdings here as they did with low-band spectrum.  Removing spectrum 
aggregation limits will likely lead to even greater concentration in the market, therefore, I am unable to 
support this policy reversal.
Second, today’s Order declines to permit use or share in almost all of the Part 30 bands.  Last 
year, when we proposed this policy, we spoke about the potential benefits of this approach.  Given the 
limited signal propagation characteristics, the likely use case of millimeter wave spectrum is targeted, 
geographically-limited coverage, instead of traditional cellular-like deployment.  That means these 
spectrum bands are ideal candidates for a use or share approach and this could help us maximize the 
efficient use of spectrum.  The primary reason the majority refuses to permit this innovative spectrum 
policy is that a “majority of commenters opposed the idea of any use-or-share mechanism.”  The Order 
then cites 14 comments.  But the public docket of this proceeding shows there are at least 16 other parties 
who support use or share.  The Order also says “that there is only one terrestrial operator on the record as 
supporting use-or-share.”  But this finding ignores the fact that NCTA, the Wireless Internet Service 
Provider Association, and the Fixed Wireless Communications Council all support use or share.  
Together, those associations represent hundreds of communications companies, many of which are 
interested in using these bands to provide terrestrial mobile services.  In short, the majority misreads the 
record.
In addition, although the majority is quick to trumpet the importance of cost/benefit analyses in 
other contexts, the Order presents no real cost/benefit analysis on this issue.  The Order simply lists 
general difficulties that might arise from implementing a use or share regime that a spectrum database 
would coordinate.  But when you consider that the industry is making substantial progress towards 
implementing a similar approach in the 3.5 GHz band, this argument rings hollow.  
While the majority would have you believe that the record clearly supports its decision to not 
permit use or share, a fair and objective review of the record tells a much different story.  The established 
commercial mobile wireless providers would prefer the Commission use the same licensing approach that 
accompanied traditional cellular deployment – exclusive, long-term licenses.  Even though this spectrum 
band is not conducive to traditional cellular deployment, the majority once again demonstrates in this 
proceeding that they will take whatever steps are necessary to give large established wireless providers 
whatever they want.  
Despite my strong disagreement on those two important issues, I concur with the other portions of 
the item.  I thank my colleagues for agreeing to my edits on several issues including:  the size of the 
blocks in the 24 GHz band, declining to prohibit use or share in the 37.0 to 37.6 GHz, and seeking 
comment on the proposal to impose operability on the 24 GHz band.
I have consistently said, that to fully realize the promise of 5G technology, we should take an all-
of-the-above approach.  By all-of-the-above, I mean ensuring that low-income communities in urban and 
rural areas benefit as much or more than more affluent communities in urban, rural, and suburban areas.  I 
also mean that both satellite and wireless communications should be part of the evolution towards 5G 
services and that we should allocate sufficient unlicensed and licensed spectrum.  This is a delicate 
balancing act but it is one we must always strive to achieve.
I want to thank Don Stockdale, Julie Knapp, and Tom Sullivan and the staff at the Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, Office of Engineering and Technology, and International Bureau for their 
hard work on this item.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
134
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER MICHAEL O’RIELLY
Re: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
Today, we consider two items that will facilitate the development and deployment of next-
generation systems.  I think we can all agree that to make 5G a reality and maintain the U.S. leadership 
position in wireless technologies—which is of top priority—the Commission must provide adequate 
resources, along with the appropriate environment for investment, innovation, and deployment.  This will 
require both putting more spectrum out into the marketplace and ensuring that infrastructure can be timely 
and widely deployed.  Contrary to some other nations, we do not execute industrial policy in the U.S., but 
we do have the right and obligation to make spectrum bands available and establish a hospitable 
regulatory framework for our commercial wireless providers so that their ingenuity and creativity can 
flourish domestically and internationally.  I will not let the U.S. lose the race to 5G due to regulatory 
barriers or Commission ineptitude.   
Today’s item starts with opening up an additional 1700 megahertz for wireless 5G networks in 
the 24 and 47 GHz bands.  Along with the bands we previously identified, the Commission has now made 
available almost 13 gigahertz of millimeter wave spectrum for wireless flexible use.  As part of the first 
order in this proceeding, I negotiated with and pushed the heck out of then-Chairman Wheeler to seek 
comment on a handful of additional bands, including 24 and 47 GHz.  At the time, I acknowledged that 
not all bands may be capable of handling additional uses and the Commission would be able to move on 
some bands sooner than others.  These bands are ready to go now, and I applaud Chairman Pai for 
moving expeditiously.  Ultimately, it is important that we keep working on the remaining bands and 
identify even more spectrum, so that we can create the spectrum pipeline for tomorrow.  
So, to be true to form, I appreciate that the Chairman’s team has committed to mine to follow up 
this item with another in the first half of next year.  I expect that order would deal with the remaining 
bands that were in the 2016 notice, such as 32, 42, and 50 GHz, and an accompanying notice should, at a 
minimum, tee up 26 GHz, a band that is highly popular for 5G internationally.  Further, the Commission 
must give further thought to the remaining LMDS channels.  All of these bands, along with our efforts 
underway in the mid-band spectrum proceeding, provide a good foundation for future wireless 
technologies.
Additionally, releasing more spectrum into the marketplace will ensure that all interested parties 
have an opportunity to access spectrum resources.  Having an adequate supply of spectrum, along with 
stringent, yet reasonable, construction requirements or renewal standards going forward will ensure that 
spectrum is used efficiently (and not warehoused) and that this sector remains competitive.  Efforts by the 
Commission to favor certain entities or engineer spectrum holdings in the past have been unsuccessful.  
Further, as I stated back in 2016, we are still in the early stages of 5G and are unclear about the full extent 
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
135
of what services will be offered or how much spectrum is needed to achieve the capacity, speed, and 
latency goals.
For these reasons, I fully support the decision to not implement any pre-auction spectrum cap on 
the 24 and 47 GHz bands.  The Commission should also eliminate the pre-auction spectrum limit that was 
set for the 28, 37, and 39 GHz bands in our previous spectrum frontiers proceeding.  I would have 
preferred that we eliminate this cap today, but I am pleased that we propose to eliminate this rule in the 
further notice.  
In this vein, I am not supportive of a case-by-case review of millimeter wave spectrum holdings 
either post-auction or for secondary market transactions.  As we have seen before, these screens have a 
habit of turning into spectrum caps.  Therefore, the Commission should not be seeking comment on 
implementing a case-by-case review of post-auction millimeter wave holdings.  Instead, the Commission 
should be seeking comment on eliminating the secondary market screen.  Unfortunately, merely asking 
that question was verboten.  Do note, I will keep this in mind for future items.  Moreover, it should be 
known that under no circumstance do I intend to vote in favor of denying or conditioning the approval of 
any auction or transfer application on the basis of this spectrum screen farce.  
Additionally, the Commission also must set an auction timeline for these millimeter wave bands, 
and others.  Not only do stakeholders need time to prepare, but we must move expeditiously to get this 
spectrum into the market.  So, I thank the Chairman for incorporating my edit that confirms that the 
Commission will auction this spectrum as soon as possible, but recognizes that auctions cannot be held 
until we are able to secure a means for auction participants to submit upfront payments.  Private banks are 
no longer willing to do this, so I am supportive of legislative efforts to permit auction deposits to be held 
by the U.S. Treasury.  I thank Senator Thune and Representatives Guthrie and Matsui for their leadership 
in helping to get this matter resolved. 
Finally, while I have focused on wireless issues, I would also like to acknowledge that today’s 
item also recognizes the need for spectrum for future satellite systems.  I also appreciate the efforts to 
provide more flexibility to satellite providers to site earth stations in rural America.  To the extent 
possible, we should encourage earth stations to be placed in less densely populated areas as opposed to 
urban cores.
I vote to approve today’s item.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
136
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER BRENDAN CARR
Re: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
Last year, the FCC allocated nearly 12 GHz of spectrum in the millimeter wave bands for 5G and 
other next-generation wireless services.  With that decision, the U.S. became the first country in the world 
to identify and open up bands for 5G.  The agency’s leadership continues today as we allocate another 
1,700 MHz of spectrum for advanced wireless offerings.  
In doing so, we take steps to ensure that a variety of use cases can flourish in these millimeter 
wave bands.  For instance, we provide satellite operators with additional flexibility to locate earth stations 
in the 28 GHz and 39 GHz bands, particularly in rural areas, without impeding the deployment of 
terrestrial 5G offerings.  Similarly, we decrease the size and increase the number of spectrum blocks in 
the 24 GHz band to create additional opportunities for a range of providers and offerings.  
We also adopt measures to maximize the incentives for investment and innovation.  For example, 
we eliminate rules that could have artificially limited participation in future auctions.  And we allow 
providers additional flexibility when it comes to securing 5G networks and devices, including by seeking 
input through the CSRIC.  These are all welcome steps.
At the same time, we are not resting here.  We are continuing to look at additional spectrum to 
open up in the millimeter wave bands.  And we are reviewing the record that is developing on spectrum in 
the mid-range bands between 3 GHz and 24 GHz.  I am confident that these efforts will continue to bear 
fruit and that consumers in the U.S. will soon benefit from these decisions.
Thank you to the staffs of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, the International Bureau, 
and the Office of Engineering and Technology for your hard work on this item.  It has my support.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
137
STATEMENT OF
COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL
Re: Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz for Mobile Radio Services, GN Docket No. 14- 177; 
Establishing a More Flexible Framework to Facilitate Satellite Operations in the 27.5-28.35 GHz 
and 37.5-40 GHz Bands, IB Docket No. 15-256; Petition for Rulemaking of the Fixed Wireless 
Communications Coalition to Create Service Rules for the 42-43.5 GHz Band, RM-11664; 
Amendment of Parts 1, 22, 24, 27, 74, 80, 90, 95, and 101 to Establish Uniform License Renewal, 
Discontinuance of Operation, and Geographic Partitioning and Spectrum Disaggregation Rules 
and Policies for Certain Wireless Radio Services, WT Docket No. 10-112; Allocation and 
Designation of Spectrum for Fixed-Satellite Services in the 37.5-38.5 GHz, 40.5-41.5 GHz and 
48.2-50.2 GHz Frequency Bands; Allocation of Spectrum to Upgrade Fixed and Mobile 
Allocations in the 40.5-42.5 GHz Frequency Band; Allocation of Spectrum in the 46.9-47.0 GHz 
Frequency Band for Wireless Services; and Allocation of Spectrum in the 37.0-38.0 GHz and 
40.0-40.5 GHz for Government Operations, IB Docket No. 97-95
With wireless networks there is something about the power of ten.  Every ten years a new 
technology changes everything.  In the 1980’s the very first generation of cellular systems made inroads 
around the world.  The second generation of mobile systems emerged a decade later, dominated by the 
GSM standard in Europe.  Then at the turn of the millennium, the third generation—both voice and data 
service—made its debut in Japan before anywhere else.  But the start of this decade brought the United 
States to the forefront—because we led the world with the introduction of fourth generation wireless 
technology.  We made smartphones ubiquitous and helped put unprecedented computing power in our 
palms, pockets, and purses.  
Laurels, however, are not good resting places.  Because like clockwork, in a few short years, we 
expect fifth generation—5G—networks to arrive.  Already there is consensus they will feature three 
things.  First, they should be capable of Gigabit speed.  Second, they should have latency reduced to 
under a millisecond.  Third, they should be more energy efficient than their predecessors.  
As a result, there is now real momentum for 5G service.  But going forward the leadership of the 
United States is not guaranteed.  Already South Korea and Japan are pursuing early 5G deployment in 
time for the Olympics in 2018 and 2020, respectively.  They are willing to do this now, even if it means 
upgrading their networks later to comply with global standards as they emerge.  At the same time, earlier 
this year all 28 European Union member states signed a flagship agreement for a common foundation for 
a future 5G network.  China is also on course to be a world leader, with early work on global 5G 
standards underway and a commitment to invest more than $400 billion in 5G infrastructure between 
2020 and 2030.  
It’s time for the United States to really get going.  To be clear, we can take pride in our work 
here, making an additional 1700 megahertz of millimeter wave spectrum available for flexible use in the 
24 and 47 GHz bands.  We also expand opportunities for unlicensed use fostering new possibilities for 
Wi-Gig innovation.  At the same time, we maintain 4 gigahertz of spectrum as core satellite bands and 
allow greater satellite flexibility in other millimeter wave bands, especially in rural areas.  I am pleased to 
support these efforts.  
But we are simply not moving fast enough.  We risk ceding our current leadership in the world.  
We risk losing our innovative edge.  We risk having the United States becoming a follower in the next 
generation of mobile technology.  We need to do more than just what we are doing here today.  
So what does more look like?  Here are five ideas for 5G.
First, leadership in a technology cycle requires more than rulemakings and reconsiderations.  It 
requires action.
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
138
To date we have authorized millimeter wave spectrum for mobile use in the 28, 37, and 39 GHz 
bands as well as the 24 and 47 GHz bands.  We also have teed up spectrum for mobile use in the 32, 42, 
and 50 GHz bands.  But what we need now is more than a blitz of spectrum opportunities.  We need 
something simple—a calendar.  Let’s commit to deadlines for the bands we have under consideration—
and focus every actor in the wireless ecosystem on getting something done.
We can start with the 28 GHz band.  Right now, South Korea is working toward an auction of 
these airwaves by October 2018.  So here’s my big idea: Let’s go first.  Let’s hold our auction before our 
counterparts in Asia.  Let’s be the first in the world.  I hope my colleagues will agree to this course.  
Second, while we continue to look high for new spectrum, we cannot forget that we also need to 
look low.  We know that commercializing millimeter wave bands will not be easy, given the challenging 
propagation characteristics.  Simply putting your hand in front of a transmitter can result in degradation of 
service.  We can get there, but it will take some work.  
In the meantime, we need to move expeditiously with our review of mid-band spectrum to bridge 
the gap to the high-frequency bands we discuss here.  At the same time, we need to correct course and 
move fast on the innovative ideas in the original 3.5 GHz band proposal, which the FCC mistakenly re-
opened for rulemaking last month.  
Third, it is essential that we move past the traditional binary choice between licensed and 
unlicensed airwaves.  We need more creative spectrum access strategies in the future.  We do that here by 
affirming our continued commitment to unlicensed use in the 64-71 GHz band.  But we should do more to 
clarify opportunities for dynamic use of unlicensed spectrum in the 37 GHz band by dismissing 
outstanding petitions seeking a framework built only on exclusive use.  
Fourth, to build a bigger wireless future, we need to focus as much on the ground as on the skies.  
Airwaves alone are not enough—no amount of spectrum will lead to better wireless service without good 
infrastructure.  So if we want a bold future for our airwaves, we need policies that support our efforts on 
the ground.
To do this, we need to take a comprehensive look at tower siting practices and make them more 
consistent across the country.  I think there’s widespread agreement that this would help accelerate the 
deployment of 5G.  After all, 5G requires us to think beyond traditional tower siting.  Millimeter wave 
spectrum puts a new premium on small cells.  And figuring out how to get these microcells in place—and 
fiber facilities nearby—is a big (really big) infrastructure effort.  
But making our local practices more consistent is hard.  We have a tradition of local control in 
this country that makes uniform, one-shot, preemptive legislative policies a rough way to go.  Still, there 
are other ways to do this.  Right now work is underway on a model code for small cell and 5G 
deployment.  If we produce something good, we need to share this model far and wide.  Then we need to 
look at every aspect of our laws—from FCC policy to federal and state grant programs for basic 
infrastructure—and build in incentives for everyone to use it.  We need to remember that carrots can often 
be swifter tools for change than sticks.  
Fifth, and finally, we need to support the new experimental licensing system the FCC put in place 
only a few months ago to support wireless research labs, health care facilities, and more.  This system 
provides an early and upfront way to innovate and create.  It provides a safe place to play with power 
levels, explore frequencies, and develop new services.  
One of these new experimental licenses is designed for innovation zones.  This is like a virtual 
wireless sandbox.  It allows communities to experiment with new mobile solutions.  It is tailor-made for 
smart city initiatives.  And it is ideal for exploring the possibilities of 5G and millimeter wave service in a 
variety of settings.  The FCC needs to fully support and encourage the use of these experimental tools.  
Federal Communications Commission FCC 17-152
139
I think these five tasks are essential if the United States wants to lead in the next generation of 
wireless service.  The possibilities are exciting—if we seize them.  After all, we are on the cusp of cars 
that drive themselves, streets that can be safer, emergency services that are more effective, healthcare that 
is more personalized, and more capability across the board because we are more connected.  What we do 
here today is a small part of making that happen.  But for us to truly succeed, we will need to get going 
before other countries lead the way.