FCC Web Documents citing 22.912

as compiled by hallikainen.com/FccRules on 2012 07 01

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-402A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-402A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-402A1.txt
  • Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995). Overlay licenses are found in the following services: 800 MHz SMR, Paging and Radio Telephone Service, 39 GHz Service, and 24 GHz Service. 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.912 (consent); 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4) (short-spacing). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110; 24.709. These include foreign ownership restrictions pursuant to Section 310 of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 310. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.35. While commercial radio providers offer communications services as their
• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-153A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-153A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-153A1.txt
  • the CGSA, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of Section 22.911 use the term SAB in several places. In our experience, this occasionally leads licensees erroneously to believe that they may employ the alternative methods to determine an SAB, as opposed to the CGSA, and then to use that erroneously-determined SAB in connection with various other rules that govern SAB extensions (Section 22.912, for example) or the traffic capture protection rule (Section 22.911(d)(2)). We wish to clarify that the SAB of a cell and the 32 dB(V/m contour that is used when preparing an alternative CGSA determination are not the same. The SAB is the boundary calculated using the mathematical formulas and methods set forth in paragraph (a) of Section 22.911, regardless of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-333A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-333A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-333A1.txt
  • Colorado RSA 7(B)(2) Limited Partnership (7(B)(2) Partnership). As explained below, we reverse the September 4, 1998 Order and grant 7(B)(2) Partnership's above-captioned Application. 2. Colorado 7 Saguache Limited Partnership (Saguache Partnership) and 7(B)(2) Partnership are adjacent licensees. Grant of the above-captioned application would authorize 7(B)(2) Partnership to establish a cellular geographic service area (CGSA) that overlaps Saguache Partnership's CGSA. Sections 22.912(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules require the consent of the adjacent licensee for service area boundary (SAB) extensions into its CGSA. Likewise, section 22.911(d)(2)(i) requires the written consent of the adjacent licensee if the SAB of one cellular system will overlap the CGSA of another system. In 7(B)(2) Partnership's Emergency Request to Rescind Order (Emergency Request), filed on Septemer
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-351A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-351A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-351A1.txt
  • we deny the Petition, and grant ALLTEL's Application. 2. ALLTEL and Public Service are adjacent licensees. In its Application, ALLTEL is seeking a major modification which results in alternative coverage showings (ACSs) for two of its existing cellular sites, namely Union Springs and Tuskegee II. In its Petition, Public Service requests that ALLTEL's Application be denied because it violates sections 22.912(b) and 22.949 of the Commission's rules. Public Service claims that the Application violates section 22.912(b) because ALLTEL proposes to extend both sites into its cellular geographic service area (CGSA) without its consent. Public Service also claims that ALLTEL's Application violates section 22.949 because the proposed ACS for the Union Springs site extends into unserved area within its metropolitan statistical area
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-420A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-420A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-420A1.txt
  • cellular radiotelephone carrier licensed in the adjacent Mobile, Alabama, Metropolitan Statistical Area (``MSA''). Bachow contends that the Service Area Boundaries (``SABs'') for three of GTE's cell sites overlap Bachow's protected Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA''). Bachow seeks an order directing GTE to modify the three cell sites to eliminate these overlaps. We find that GTE has violated sections 22.911(d) and 22.912 of the Commission's rules by having the SABs of the three cell sites overlap the Gulf of Mexico CGSA and we direct GTE to modify the three cell sites to eliminate the unlawful SAB extensions. II. REGULATORY Background The regulatory background supporting this proceeding is complex and merits a brief discussion to understand the legal basis for this order. For
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-442A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-442A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-442A1.txt
  • Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: In this order, we address N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc.'s (``NECC'') Petition to Deny (``Petition'') the above-captioned major modification application of Sagir, Inc. (``Sagir'') for authority to modify a cell site at Chappell, Nebraska. NECC alleges that Sagir's proposed service area boundary (``SAB'') extends into NECC's Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') in violation of section 22.912 of the Commission's rules. In its opposition, Sagir claims that NECC has an unauthorized extension into Sagir's CGSA and that its attempts to negotiate an agreement with NECC have been unsuccessful. Sagir also requests a waiver of Section 22.912 of the Commission's rules. Section 22.912(a) provides in part that a licensee may extend its SAB into adjacent cellular markets if
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-733A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-00-733A1.txt
  • No. WB/ENF-F-98-005 ) GTE Wireless of the South, Inc., ) ) Defendant. ) ORDER Adopted: March 30,2000 Released: March 31,2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: 1. In this order, we deny the motion filed by GTE Wireless of the South, Inc. ("GTE"), to stay the Enforcement Bureau's order (the "Bachow-GTE Order") requiring GTE to comply with sections 22.91 l(d) and 22.912 of the Commission's rules.1 This Motion to Stay was filed on March 16, 2000, by GTE in tandem with a Petition for Waiver with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau ("WTB"). The Petition for Waiver asks the WTB to waive the requirements of sections 22.9 ll(d) and 22.912 as they apply to the three GTE cell sites from the Bachow-GTE Order. GTE's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2240A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2240A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-2240A1.txt
  • filed April 26, 2000. File No. 0000160419 - Coastel Request for Special Temporary Authority, filed June 8, 2000. Action by Deputy Chief, Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau. Applications of Bachow/Coastel, L.L.C., and ALLTEL Illinois Limited Partnership and Associated Petitions, Joint Motion for Dismissal and Approval of Settlement Agreement, filed August 22, 2001. See e.g. Waiver of Sections 22.911(D) And 22.912(A) of the Commission's Rules to Enable GTE to Maintain Cell Sites that may extend beyond the Alabama Boundary - Mobile, MSA Market B, Call Sign KNKA 278, Gulf Of Mexico Service Area Market 306b Call Sign KNKA 412, filed March 16, 2000. PUBLIC NOTICE Federal Communications Commission 445 12th St., S.W. washington, D.C. 20554 News Media Information 202 / 418-0500
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-890A3.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-890A3.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-890A3.txt
  • for a portion of the Sioux RSA on February 29, 2000. NECC's application was accepted for filing and placed on Public Notice on March 8, 2000. In its Petition, Sagir states that the Service Area Boundary (SAB) of each of the ten cell sites proposed in NECC's application would impermissibly extend into Sagir's authorized cellular geographic service area (CGSA). Section 22.912(a) of the Commission's rules provides that ``SABs may extend into adjacent cellular markets if such extensions are de minimis, are demonstrably unavoidable for technical reasons of sound engineering design, and do not extend into the CGSA of any other licensee's cellular system on the same channel block (unless the licensee of such other system consents to the extension) . .
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1013A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1013A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1013A1.txt
  • geographic service area (``CGSA''), licensed under Call Sign KNKR316, and its CMA320 - Arizona 3 - Navajo CGSA, licensed under Call Sign KNKN208. In its Petition, Smith Bagley stated that it was in the process of negotiating a service area boundary extension with ALLTEL to allow ALLTEL to extend into Smith Bagley's New Mexico 1 CGSA in accordance with section 22.912 of the Commission's rules. On January 6, 2009, Smith Bagley filed a Request to Withdraw its Petition (``Request to Withdraw''). Smith Bagley filed an amendment to its Request to Withdraw on April 9, 2009. Smith Bagley explains that it is withdrawing its Petition because Smith Bagley and ALLTEL entered into an agreement to allow ALLTEL to extend into Smith Bagley's
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-09-1013A1_Rcd.pdf
  • Mexico 1 cellular geographic service area ("CGSA"), licensed under Call Sign KNKR316, and its CMA320 -Arizona 3 -Navajo CGSA, licensed under Call Sign KNKN208.3In its Petition, Smith Bagley stated that it was in the process of negotiating a service area boundary extension with ALLTEL to allow ALLTEL to extend into Smith Bagley's New Mexico 1 CGSA in accordance with section 22.912 of the Commission's rules.4 On January 6, 2009, Smith Bagley filed a Request to Withdraw its Petition ("Request to Withdraw").5Smith Bagley filed an amendment to its Request to Withdraw on April 9, 2009.6Smith Bagley explains that it is withdrawing its Petition because Smith Bagley and ALLTEL entered into an agreement to allow ALLTEL to extend into Smith Bagley's licensed service
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-190304A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-190304A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-190304A1.txt
  • the incumbent cellular licensee for the Elbert RSA, and Badlands Cellular, the incumbent cellular licensee for the Daniels RSA (collectively, Petitioners), filed separate petitions for reconsideration requesting the set-aside of the GAP Applications. Petitioners allege that GAP's proposed facilities will result in overlaps with Petitioners' existing cellular geographic service areas (CGSAs), in violation of Commission rule sections 22.99, 22.911(d), 22.911(e), 22.912(d) and 22.949(b). In its Oppositions, GAP contends that the Petitions should be dismissed as Petitioners failed to file Petitions to Deny against the GAP Applications, although GAP served copies of the respective applications on Petitioners. III. DISCUSSION 3. Commission rule section 22.130 provides that petitions to deny any major filing must be filed within 30 days after the date of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-188A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-188A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-188A1.txt
  • (other than Broadcast), Gen. Docket No. 82-469, FCC 83-471 (released Nov. 16, 1983). AirCell September 1999 Opposition at 14. Special Conditions 6 and 7 continue to be subject to the clarifications made in the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. See Reconsideration Order at ¶¶ 10-16. January 1999 AFR at 11-12. January 1999 AFR at 2, citing, 47 C.F.R. § 22.905, 22.909, 22.911, 22.912. See, e.g., Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Rules, Further Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2109 at 2116, 2118 (1997) ("any non-consensual extension into a licensee's CGSA on the same channel block would constitute interference
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-402A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-402A1.pdf
  • Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995). Overlay licenses are found in the following services: 800 MHz SMR, Paging and Radio Telephone Service, 39 GHz Service, and 24 GHz Service. 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.912 (consent); 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4) (short-spacing). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110; 24.709. These include foreign ownership restrictions pursuant to Section 310 of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 310. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.35. While commercial radio providers offer communications services as their
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-153A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-153A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-153A1.txt
  • the CGSA, paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3) of Section 22.911 use the term SAB in several places. In our experience, this occasionally leads licensees erroneously to believe that they may employ the alternative methods to determine an SAB, as opposed to the CGSA, and then to use that erroneously-determined SAB in connection with various other rules that govern SAB extensions (Section 22.912, for example) or the traffic capture protection rule (Section 22.911(d)(2)). We wish to clarify that the SAB of a cell and the 32 dB(V/m contour that is used when preparing an alternative CGSA determination are not the same. The SAB is the boundary calculated using the mathematical formulas and methods set forth in paragraph (a) of Section 22.911, regardless of
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-387A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-387A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-387A1.txt
  • interference occurs to adjacent licensees. Western Maine Cellular, Inc., Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8648 (1992). Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4578, para 2. The service area of each cell is the area within its SAB, which is calculated using propagation formulas set forth in the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 22.911. See Section III.C., infra. 47 C.F.R. § 22.912. PetroCom, 22 F.3d at 1173. Id. (vacating former rule section 22.903(a), as it applied to the Gulf-based carriers). Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4578, paras. 3-4. Id. at 4589, para. 27. In the alternative, the boundary would be represented by a line defined by geographic coordinates that closely approximates the twelve-mile mark. See id. Id. In effect, the
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-59A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-59A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-01-59A1.txt
  • Pelican Island. Bachow does not contest whether Pelican Island is an ``island.'' GTE Application for Review at 9. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 7, 15 U.S.T. 1606, 516 U.N.T.S. 205 (emphasis added). See United States v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 93, 102 (1985). Id. at 102, n.2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.911(d), 22.912. See Bureau Order at ¶ 5. The Bureau's decision was based on the current rules governing licensing of cellular service in the Gulf of Mexico. We note that in a pending rulemaking proceeding, the Commission has proposed certain prospective modifications to these rules. See Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No.
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-229A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-229A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-02-229A1.txt
  • SAB extensions, runs counter to our goal of setting out a means of determining cellular system coverage that carriers will find to be straightforward and predictable in all circumstances. We do not foreclose, however, the ability of carriers in adjacent markets to agree to the use of an alternative propagation method, or to enter into contract agreements, pursuant to section 22.912, to allow SAB extensions calculated using the standard method into the other carrier's CGSA. We believe that a process that affords carriers flexibility and permits parties to enter into contractual agreements will expedite service to subscribers, in comparison to a more protracted process whereby parties must present and argue the merits of conflicting engineering studies before the Commission. Accordingly, we
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-130A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-130A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-130A1.txt
  • Report and Order to use different formulas for predicting the propagation of cellular signals over land and over water as the basis for determining the service area boundaries (SABs) of land-based and water-based cell sites in the Gulf of Mexico area. We reinstate certain co-location applications that were inadvertently dismissed pursuant to the Gulf Report and Order, and modify section 22.912 of the Commission's rules to clarify that land-based cellular carriers are precluded from extending their SABs into any part of the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Zone without the applicable Gulf carrier's consent. We also affirm that the market boundaries of Personal Communications Service (PCS) licensees adjacent to the Gulf of Mexico are co-extensive with county boundaries. BACKGROUND The Commission first
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-182A1.txt
  • whether NECC's Phase II application was properly dismissed as defective under Commission rules. Furthermore, NECC's remaining arguments were not only considered and clearly disposed of by the Bureau in the Sagir II MO&O, but we rejected substantially similar arguments in the earlier Sagir I MO&O. For these reasons, we uphold the Bureau's dismissal of NECC's Phase II application under Section 22.912(a) of the Commission's rules. We dismiss the portion of NECC's May 7th Petition that relies on new facts not previously presented in this proceeding, because it fails to meet the requirements of our rules governing petitions for reconsideration. NECC fails to justify why the public interest requires a consideration of these facts in the context of a proceeding to determine
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1.txt
  • 24.720(b)(1)-(2). Cellular RSA R&O, 17 FCC Rcd at 1974. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(2). The GMEZ is governed by its own geographic area-based licensing scheme, while Unserved Area licensing rules apply in the GMCZ, where there are no offshore oil and gas drilling platforms on which to site Cellular facilities. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.950. See also id. §§ 22.911(a)(2), 22.912(b)(2); Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 97-112 and 90-6, 17 FCC Rcd 1209 (2002) (explaining the rules adopted
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-12-20A1_Rcd.pdf
  • C.F.R. § 24.720(b)(1)-(2). 137Cellular RSA R&O, 17 FCC Rcd at 1974. 138See 47 C.F.R. § 1.2110(f)(2). 139The GMEZ is governed by its own geographic area-based licensing scheme, while Unserved Area licensing rules apply in the GMCZ, where there are no offshore oil and gas drilling platforms on which to site Cellular facilities. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.950. See also id.§§22.911(a)(2), 22.912(b)(2); Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico; Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules toProvide for Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Cellular Rules, Report and Order, CC Docket Nos. 97-112 and 90-6, 17 FCC Rcd 1209 (2002) (explaining the rules adopted and
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • the CGSA. Licensees must notify the Commission (FCC Form 601) of any transmitters added under this section that cause a change in the CGSA boundary. The notification must include full size and reduced maps, and supporting engineering, as described in sec. 22.953(a)(5) (I) through (iii). If the addition of transmitters involves a contract service area boundary (SAB) extension (see sec. 22.912), the notification must include a statement as to whether the five- year build-out period for the system on the relevant channel block in the market into which the SAB extends has elapsed and whether the SAB extends into any unserved area in the market. The notification must be made electronically via the ULS, or delivered to the filing place (see
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99205.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99205.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99205.txt
  • 47 CFR § 24.203. For example, LMDS carriers must offer substantial service within 10 years. 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a). Substantial service is defined as ``service which is sound, favorable and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might just minimally warrant renewal.'' Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.203(a), 90.665(c), 90.685(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949. See 47 CFR § 22.912. See 47 C.F.R. Part 101. See 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart C. For instance, in 1997, Congress designated 24 MHz of spectrum specifically for public safety use. See 47 U.S.C. § 337 (1999). See, e.g., In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through 2010,
• http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/2000/fcc00402.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/2000/fcc00402.pdf http://transition.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/2000/fcc00402.txt
  • Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995). Overlay licenses are found in the following services: 800 MHz SMR, Paging and Radio Telephone Service, 39 GHz Service, and 24 GHz Service. 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.912 (consent); 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4) (short-spacing). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110; 24.709. These include foreign ownership restrictions pursuant to Section 310 of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 310. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.35. While commercial radio providers offer communications services as their
• http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01059.doc http://transition.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01059.html
  • Pelican Island. Bachow does not contest whether Pelican Island is an ``island.'' GTE Application for Review at 9. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 7, 15 U.S.T. 1606, 516 U.N.T.S. 205 (emphasis added). See United States v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 93, 102 (1985). Id. at 102, n.2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.911(d), 22.912. See Bureau Order at ¶ 5. The Bureau's decision was based on the current rules governing licensing of cellular service in the Gulf of Mexico. We note that in a pending rulemaking proceeding, the Commission has proposed certain prospective modifications to these rules. See Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No.
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/12/releases/fc010387.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/12/releases/fc010387.txt
  • adjacent licensees. Western Maine Cellular, Inc., Order, 7 FCC Rcd 8648 (1992). 9 Second Further Notice, 12 FCC Rcd at 4578, para 2. 10 The service area of each cell is the area within its SAB, which is calculated using propagation formulas set forth in the Commission's rules. 47 C.F.R. § 22.911. See Section III.C., infra. 11 47 C.F.R. § 22.912. Federal Communications Commission FCC 01-387 4 actual coverage from an offshore platform-based cell site. This caused portions of the Gulf that were outside the coverage area of any offshore cell site to be redefined as "unserved" areas, which could not be served by the Gulf carriers without further application and licensing. 7. PetroCom Remand. In the PetroCom decision, the D.C.
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/26/releases/pagebp_g.pdf
  • with unity gain in all directions. EIRP is usually calculated by multiplying the measured transmitter output power by the specified antenna system gain, relative to an isotropic radiator, in the direction of interest. Extension. In the Cellular Radiotelephone Service, an area within the service area boundary of a cellular system, but outside of the market boundary. See §§ 22.911(c) and 22.912. Facsimile service. Transmission of still images from one place to another by means of radio. Fill-in transmitters. Transmitters added to a station, in the same area and transmitting on the same channel or channel block as previously authorized transmitters, that do not expand the existing service area, but are established for the purpose of improving reception in dead spots. Five
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000420.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000420.txt
  • cellular radiotelephone carrier licensed in the adjacent Mobile, Alabama, Metropolitan Statistical Area (``MSA''). Bachow contends that the Service Area Boundaries (``SABs'') for three of GTE's cell sites overlap Bachow's protected Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA''). Bachow seeks an order directing GTE to modify the three cell sites to eliminate these overlaps. We find that GTE has violated sections 22.911(d) and 22.912 of the Commission's rules by having the SABs of the three cell sites overlap the Gulf of Mexico CGSA and we direct GTE to modify the three cell sites to eliminate the unlawful SAB extensions. II. REGULATORY Background The regulatory background supporting this proceeding is complex and merits a brief discussion to understand the legal basis for this order. For
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2000/da000733.doc
  • Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) File No. WB/ENF-F-98-005 ORDER Adopted: March 30, 2000 Released: March 31, 2000 By the Chief, Enforcement Bureau: In this order, we deny the motion filed by GTE Wireless of the South, Inc. (``GTE''), to stay the Enforcement Bureau's order (the ``Bachow-GTE Order'') requiring GTE to comply with sections 22.911(d) and 22.912 of the Commission's rules. This Motion to Stay was filed on March 16, 2000, by GTE in tandem with a Petition for Waiver with the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (``WTB''). The Petition for Waiver asks the WTB to waive the requirements of sections 22.911(d) and 22.912 as they apply to the three GTE cell sites from the Bachow-GTE Order. GTE's Motion
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.txt http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1998/fcc98025.wp
  • the CGSA. Licensees must notify the Commission (FCC Form 601) of any transmitters added under this section that cause a change in the CGSA boundary. The notification must include full size and reduced maps, and supporting engineering, as described in sec. 22.953(a)(5) (I) through (iii). If the addition of transmitters involves a contract service area boundary (SAB) extension (see sec. 22.912), the notification must include a statement as to whether the five- year build-out period for the system on the relevant channel block in the market into which the SAB extends has elapsed and whether the SAB extends into any unserved area in the market. The notification must be made electronically via the ULS, or delivered to the filing place (see
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99205.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99205.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/1999/fcc99205.txt
  • 47 CFR § 24.203. For example, LMDS carriers must offer substantial service within 10 years. 47 C.F.R. § 101.1011(a). Substantial service is defined as ``service which is sound, favorable and substantially above a level of mediocre service which might just minimally warrant renewal.'' Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 24.203(a), 90.665(c), 90.685(b). See 47 C.F.R. § 22.949. See 47 CFR § 22.912. See 47 C.F.R. Part 101. See 47 C.F.R. Part 90, Subpart C. For instance, in 1997, Congress designated 24 MHz of spectrum specifically for public safety use. See 47 U.S.C. § 337 (1999). See, e.g., In the Matter of the Development of Operational, Technical and Spectrum Requirements for Meeting Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agency Communications Requirements Through 2010,
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/2000/fcc00402.doc http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/2000/fcc00402.pdf http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Notices/2000/fcc00402.txt
  • Communications Act - Competitive Bidding, PP Docket No. 93-253, First Report and Order, Eighth Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 11 FCC Rcd 1463 (1995). Overlay licenses are found in the following services: 800 MHz SMR, Paging and Radio Telephone Service, 39 GHz Service, and 24 GHz Service. 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 22.912 (consent); 47 C.F.R. § 90.621(b)(4) (short-spacing). See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.210. See 47 C.F.R. § 1.929. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. §§ 1.2110; 24.709. These include foreign ownership restrictions pursuant to Section 310 of the Communications Act and the Commission's rules. 47 U.S.C. § 310. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. § 90.35. While commercial radio providers offer communications services as their
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000333.doc
  • Colorado RSA 7(B)(2) Limited Partnership (7(B)(2) Partnership). As explained below, we reverse the September 4, 1998 Order and grant 7(B)(2) Partnership's above-captioned Application. 2. Colorado 7 Saguache Limited Partnership (Saguache Partnership) and 7(B)(2) Partnership are adjacent licensees. Grant of the above-captioned application would authorize 7(B)(2) Partnership to establish a cellular geographic service area (CGSA) that overlaps Saguache Partnership's CGSA. Sections 22.912(b) and (c) of the Commission's rules require the consent of the adjacent licensee for service area boundary (SAB) extensions into its CGSA. Likewise, section 22.911(d)(2)(i) requires the written consent of the adjacent licensee if the SAB of one cellular system will overlap the CGSA of another system. In 7(B)(2) Partnership's Emergency Request to Rescind Order (Emergency Request), filed on Septemer
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000351.doc
  • we deny the Petition, and grant ALLTEL's Application. 2. ALLTEL and Public Service are adjacent licensees. In its Application, ALLTEL is seeking a major modification which results in alternative coverage showings (ACSs) for two of its existing cellular sites, namely Union Springs and Tuskegee II. In its Petition, Public Service requests that ALLTEL's Application be denied because it violates sections 22.912(b) and 22.949 of the Commission's rules. Public Service claims that the Application violates section 22.912(b) because ALLTEL proposes to extend both sites into its cellular geographic service area (CGSA) without its consent. Public Service also claims that ALLTEL's Application violates section 22.949 because the proposed ACS for the Union Springs site extends into unserved area within its metropolitan statistical area
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000442.doc
  • Commercial Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau: In this order, we address N.E. Colorado Cellular, Inc.'s (``NECC'') Petition to Deny (``Petition'') the above-captioned major modification application of Sagir, Inc. (``Sagir'') for authority to modify a cell site at Chappell, Nebraska. NECC alleges that Sagir's proposed service area boundary (``SAB'') extends into NECC's Cellular Geographic Service Area (``CGSA'') in violation of section 22.912 of the Commission's rules. In its opposition, Sagir claims that NECC has an unauthorized extension into Sagir's CGSA and that its attempts to negotiate an agreement with NECC have been unsuccessful. Sagir also requests a waiver of Section 22.912 of the Commission's rules. Section 22.912(a) provides in part that a licensee may extend its SAB into adjacent cellular markets if
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/da000444.doc
  • the incumbent cellular licensee for the Elbert RSA, and Badlands Cellular, the incumbent cellular licensee for the Daniels RSA (collectively, Petitioners), filed separate petitions for reconsideration requesting the set-aside of the GAP Applications. Petitioners allege that GAP's proposed facilities will result in overlaps with Petitioners' existing cellular geographic service areas (CGSAs), in violation of Commission rule sections 22.99, 22.911(d), 22.911(e), 22.912(d) and 22.949(b). In its Oppositions, GAP contends that the Petitions should be dismissed as Petitioners failed to file Petitions to Deny against the GAP Applications, although GAP served copies of the respective applications on Petitioners. III. DISCUSSION 3. Commission rule section 22.130 provides that petitions to deny any major filing must be filed within 30 days after the date of
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Wireless/Orders/2000/fcc00188.doc
  • (other than Broadcast), Gen. Docket No. 82-469, FCC 83-471 (released Nov. 16, 1983). AirCell September 1999 Opposition at 14. Special Conditions 6 and 7 continue to be subject to the clarifications made in the Bureau's Reconsideration Order. See Reconsideration Order at ¶¶ 10-16. January 1999 AFR at 11-12. January 1999 AFR at 2, citing, 47 C.F.R. § 22.905, 22.909, 22.911, 22.912. See, e.g., Amendment of Part 22 of the Commission's Rules to Provide for Filing and Processing of Applications for Unserved Areas in the Cellular Service and to Modify Other Rules, Further Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration, 12 FCC Rcd 2109 at 2116, 2118 (1997) ("any non-consensual extension into a licensee's CGSA on the same channel block would constitute interference
• http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01059.doc http://www.fcc.gov/eb/Orders/2001/fcc01059.html
  • Pelican Island. Bachow does not contest whether Pelican Island is an ``island.'' GTE Application for Review at 9. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, Apr. 29, 1958, art. 7, 15 U.S.T. 1606, 516 U.N.T.S. 205 (emphasis added). See United States v. Louisiana, 470 U.S. 93, 102 (1985). Id. at 102, n.2. Id. See 47 C.F.R. §§ 22.911(d), 22.912. See Bureau Order at ¶ 5. The Bureau's decision was based on the current rules governing licensing of cellular service in the Gulf of Mexico. We note that in a pending rulemaking proceeding, the Commission has proposed certain prospective modifications to these rules. See Cellular Service and Other Commercial Mobile Radio Services in the Gulf of Mexico, WT Docket No.