FCC Web Documents citing 90.185

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

• http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.doc http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.txt
  • communications need, usually it operates solely to provide service to the entities sharing the system. This sharing is often referred to as ``multiple licensing.'' Under this concept, each user of the mobile relay station (commonly called a ``community repeater'') applies for and obtains an individual license for the station. Thus, a single base station is licensed to multiple users. Section 90.185 of the Commission's Rules permits multiple licensing, provided that each licensee complies with the Commission's Rules regarding permissible communications and is eligible for the frequency(ies) on which the station operates. In 1999, the Commission sought comment on whether to retain the multiple licensing rules. Because few comments were received, the Commission concluded in 2000 that there was no reason to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-125A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-125A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-01-125A1.txt
  • See id. We conclude, however, that satisfying the not-for-profit, cost-shared requirements of Section 90.179 of the Commission's rules alone does not justify a waiver of other requirements in that rule. Id. at 19. Id. at 5. But compare id. at 5, 7 (demonstrating the need for interoperability among Public Safety users). See 47 C.F.R. § 90.179. See 47 C.F.R. § 90.185. See C.F.R. Part 90 Subpart J. See C.F.R. Part 95 Subpart A. See C.F.R. Part 95 Subpart B. See C.F.R. Part 95 Subpart D. See, e.g., Pacific Microwave Joint Venture, Order, 15 FCC Rcd 11704, 11706 ¶ 7 (WTB PSPWD 2000); Country Cousins, Inc., Order, 14 FCC Rcd 19351, 19353 ¶ 6 (WTB PSPWD 1999); see also Optel, Inc., Order,
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3539A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3539A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DA-03-3539A1.txt
  • Reconsideration filed on March 14, 2002, by Mobilcom Pittsburg, Inc. (Mobilcom). Mobilcom requests reconsideration of the dismissals by the Licensing and Technical Analysis Branch (Branch), Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, of each of the captioned applications for trunked private land mobile radio (PLMR) ``community repeaters.'' For the reasons discussed below, we deny Mobilcom's Petition. BACKGROUND Multiple Licensing under Section 90.185. Under the Commission's multiple licensing rule, two or more entities may be licensed for the same land station, provided that each licensee complies with the Commission's Rules regarding permissible communications and each licensee is eligible for the frequency or frequencies on which the proposed land station would operate. A "multiple-licensed" system, also known as a "community repeater," is a base
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-403A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-403A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-403A1.txt
  • multiple licensing rules to permit use of its excess capacity by entities not otherwise eligible to use those frequencies. Opponents of the proposal argued that East River simply intended to provide a for-profit commercial communications service to other parties. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) agreed, and found that East River's proposal was not a legitimate multiple licensing arrangement under Section 90.185 of the Commission's Rules. While East River's use of its system for internal communications remained PMRS, the proposed sale of excess capacity to third parties did not. More recently, in Viking Dispatch Services, Inc., we rejected a purported sharing proposal on the grounds that it really was a for-profit CMRS. Viking proposed to operate forty-two sites for PMRS two-way mobile
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-00-403A1_Erratum.doc
  • multiple licensing rules to permit use of its excess capacity by entities not otherwise eligible to use those frequencies. Opponents of the proposal argued that East River simply intended to provide a for-profit commercial communications service to other parties. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) agreed, and found that East River's proposal was not a legitimate multiple licensing arrangement under Section 90.185 of the Commission's Rules. While East River's use of its system for internal communications remained PMRS, the proposed sale of excess capacity to third parties did not. More recently, in Viking Dispatch Services, Inc., we rejected a purported sharing proposal on the grounds that it really was a for-profit CMRS. Viking proposed to operate forty-two sites for PMRS two-way mobile
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-03-335A1.txt
  • Services Utilizing Licenses in the 220-222 MHz Band, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 20,464 (WTB 2002). See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 90. See Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 14 FCC Rcd 5206, 5217, para. 14 (1999) (Balanced Budget Act NPRM). See 47 C.F.R. § 90.185. In the CMRS Second Report and Order, the Commission concluded that multiple licensing was still permissible as a matter of law and desirable as a matter of public policy because the ``practical realities'' that led to the development of community repeaters continue to prevail, namely, that most Part 90 licensees cannot independently afford the monthly site rent for a tower
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-07-85A1.txt
  • communications need, usually it operates solely to provide service to the entities sharing the system. This sharing is often referred to as ``multiple licensing.'' Under this concept, each user of the mobile relay station (commonly called a ``community repeater'') applies for and obtains an individual license for the station. Thus, a single base station is licensed to multiple users. Section 90.185 of the Commission's Rules permits multiple licensing, provided that each licensee complies with the Commission's Rules regarding permissible communications and is eligible for the frequency(ies) on which the station operates. In 1999, the Commission sought comment on whether to retain the multiple licensing rules. Because few comments were received, the Commission concluded in 2000 that there was no reason to
• http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-36A1.doc http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-36A1.pdf http://hraunfoss.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-10-36A1.txt
  • include evidence of frequency coordination that includes a frequency coordinator's recommendation of ``the most appropriate frequency.'' See 47 C.F.R. § 90.175(a). Other frequency coordinators would be aware of such a frequency recommendation, because all coordinators that are certified to coordinate the frequency must be notified. See 47 C.F.R. § 90.176. See Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 9599-9600 ¶¶ 10-11. Section 90.185 of the Commission's Rules permits multiple licensing, provided that each licensee complies with the rules regarding permissible communications and is eligible for the frequency(ies) on which the station operates. See 47 C.F.R. § 90.185. See Notice, 22 FCC Rcd at 9600 ¶ 11. See Motorola comments at 7-8, reply comments at 6; LMCC comments at 11-12; Wisconsin DOT comments at
• http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/fc000403.doc http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/fc000403.pdf http://wireless.fcc.gov/auctions/general/releases/fc000403.txt
  • multiple licensing rules to permit use of its excess capacity by entities not otherwise eligible to use those frequencies. Opponents of the proposal argued that East River simply intended to provide a for-profit commercial communications service to other parties. The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau (Bureau) agreed, and found that East River's proposal was not a legitimate multiple licensing arrangement under Section 90.185 of the Commission's Rules. While East River's use of its system for internal communications remained PMRS, the proposed sale of excess capacity to third parties did not. More recently, in Viking Dispatch Services, Inc., we rejected a purported sharing proposal on the grounds that it really was a for-profit CMRS. Viking proposed to operate forty-two sites for PMRS two-way mobile
• http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Reports/fcc00279.doc
  • Fixed Service, Report and Order, 10 FCC Rcd 9589 (1995) (``MDS Report and Order''). See generally 47 C.F.R. Part 90. See Implementation of Sections 309(j) and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934 as Amended, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 99-87, 14 FCC Rcd 5206, 5217, para. 14 (1999) (``Balanced Budget Act Proceeding''). See 47 C.F.R. § 90.185. We are currently exploring, however, whether multiple licensing constitutes commercially available communications services. See Balanced Budget Act Proceeding at paras. 45-51. See 47 C.F.R. § 90.179. See, e.g., American Electric Power Service Corp., Order, DA 00-107 (WTB PSPWD rel. Jan. 20, 2000); Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Order, 14 FCC Rcd 14029 (WTB PSPWD 1999); Central and South West Services, Inc., Order