Last Revised: November 24, 2002
(c) Personal Radio Steering Group Inc., 2002
In Summer 2000, the FCC adopted new rules creating the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS). These rules went into effect November 13, 2000, and established the MURS as a new, licensee-free VHF Citizens Band Radio Service on five specific frequencies in the 150 MHz band.
Several parties (including PRSG) petitioned the FCC to reconsider certain aspects of those new MURS rules. About two dozen parties (including PRSG) submitted comments in support of or opposition to those petitions, or replies to those comments.
On May 23, 2002, the FCC released a Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order (MO&O/SR&O) that responded to these Petitions for Reconsideration and to the subsequent oppositions, comments and replies. In the MO&O/SR&O, the FCC agreed to adopt some of these requests for change (including most of those which PRSG had requested), but rejected many others.
The May 2002 revisions then went into effect on November 12, 2002. There are additional minor changes and clarifications that the FCC may consider. PRSG filed another Petition for Reconsideration in mid November 2002. Click here for the very latest information, including instructions and filing deadlines for commenting on this most recent Petition.
On this Web page, PRSG presents only those portions of the MO&O/SR&O that actually pertain to the MURS. Much of the original MO&O/SR&O discussion, and most of the changes contained in its Appendix E, pertain to rules actually governing other radio services. You can retrieve a complete copy of the FCC's official PDF version (which requires Adobe Acrobat Reader to view) by clicking here. This is a rather lengthy download (nearly 1.5 MB), but it includes all of the original document (including the portions that do not pertain to the MURS).
In the Table of Contents below, we have created links to the subsequent sections of the MO&O/SR&O which we have included on this Web page. For those portions not linked and not on this Web page, you should look at the FCC's complete version cited in the previous paragraph.
We show footnotes directly following the paragraph in which the MO&O/SR&O cites them. Although some of these footnotes are mundane or merely "administrative" citations, others contain significant information about FCC reasoning and policy.
Additional Editorial Intent:
We have added occasional annotations below to explain the significance or the subtleties of particular portions of the MO&O/SR&O. We intend these comments to encourage discussion of what further clarifications or requirements people may want to request of the FCC.
Keep in mind: The FCC has now established an entirely new, Part 95-based certification procedure for manufacturers wishing to enter the MURS market. This has in essence restarted the process of defining the technical capabilities and parameters for all future MURS radios. This presents a unique opportunity for the FCC to require certain automatic operating protocols that would encourage rules compliance.
PRSG invites all parties to participate constructively in these on-going, on-line discussions. These discussions will be in two places:
In the Matter of
1998 Biennial Regulatory Review )
47 C. F. R. Part 90 ) WT Docket No. 98-182
Private Land Mobile Radio Services ) RM-9222
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AND
SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
[Selection Sections Pertaining
the Multi-Use Radio Service]
Adopted: May 2, 2002 Released: May 23, 2002
By the Commission:
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Heading Paragraph #
I. INTRODUCTION.................................................... 1
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................... 2
A. Memorandum Opinion and Order .............................. 2
B. Second Report and Order ................................... (3)
III. BACKGROUND...................................................... 4
IV. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER .................................. 8
A. Multi- use radio service (MURS) ........................... 8
1. Scope of license by rule................................ 8
2. General technical and operating rules ................ 19
a. Maximum operating power............................ 22
b. Antenna height..................................... 24
c. Repeater operations................................ 26
d. Interconnection with the public switched network... 27
e. Continuous carrier mode............................ 30
f. Permissible communications......................... 31
g. Bandwidth.......................................... 33
h. Implementation matters (equipment certification,
treatment of incumbent licensees).................. 36
B. Public safety and industrial/ business radio station
sharing under Section 90.179............................ (41)
C. Frequency coordination for 220 MHz public safety
frequencies................................................ (43)
D. Update of airport terminal use list........................ (48)
V. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER........................................ (50)
A. Public Safety Pool: schools and parks eligibility......... (50)
B. State highway maintenance eligibility .................... (53)
C. Dockside channels ........................................ (55)
VI. CONCLUSION ................................................... 58
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS............................................. 59
A. Regulatory Flexibility Act ............................... 59
B. Paperwork Reduction Act .................................. (60)
C. Alternative Formats ...................................... (62)
D. Contact for Information .................................. 63
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES............................................... 64
APPENDIX A: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Memorandum Opinion and
Order) [selected portions pertaining to MURS]
APPENDIX B: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis for Second Report and Order
[deleted]
APPENDIX C: List of Parties for Memorandum Opinion and Order
APPENDIX D: List of Commenters for Second Report and Order [deleted]
APPENDIX E: Final Rules [MURS only]
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 29, 2000, the Commission adopted a Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making [FN 1] in the captioned
proceeding. The Commission received six petitions for reconsideration or
clarification ("Petition(s)") of the Report and Order, which we address in
the instant Memorandum Opinion and Order. [FN 2] We are also adopting
additional revisions to Parts 90 and 95 on our own motion. In the
Second Report and Order, we address the comments filed in response to
the proposals and issues raised in the Further Notice. [FN 3]
FN 1: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - 47 C.F.R. Part 90 - Private Land
Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 98-182, Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd 16,673 (2000)
(referred to herein as "Report and Order" or "Further Notice," as
applicable).
FN 2: The petitioners and other parties are listed in Appendix C.
FN 3: These commenters are listed in Appendix D.
II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. Memorandum Opinion and Order
2. The major decisions we adopt in the Memorandum Opinion and Order
today include:
> MURS: We affirm the decision to license by rule (i.e., eliminate
individual licensing for, and instead license by rule) five VHF
frequencies that were formerly licensed under Part 90 for low-
power, industrial/business use, by placing frequencies in a new
Part 95 Citizens Band Radio Service named the Multi-Use Radio
Service (MURS).
>> eligibility: We decline to restrict the use of MURS to Part 90
Industrial/Business Pool eligibles. The general public is
licensed by rule to use MURS for communications related to
personal or business activities.
>> technical provisions: We revise the MURS technical rules to
balance the benefits of adding technical flexibility against
the disadvantages of potential degradation of the existing
operations of business and industrial users. As with other
services licensed by rule, the rules we adopt for MURS focus on
technical equipment certification requirements. We also
clarify that MURS is a two-way, short distance, voice or data
communication service intended for transmissions that do not
typically require long duty cycles.
Under the revised rules, MURS units are:
>>> Permitted to have detachable antennas;
>>> Permitted to have external antennas up to 6.1 meters (20
feet) above a structure or 18.3 meters (60 feet) above the
ground, whichever is higher;
>>> Permitted to have a total power output (TPO) of up to two
(2) watts (instead of two (2) watts effective radiated
power);
>>> Not permitted to be used as cordless telephones,
radiofacsimile (imaging), or for continuous carrier mode
operations; and
>>> Not permitted to be used for repeater operations.
> ATU [Airport Terminal Use] list: [deleted]
B. Second Report and Order [deleted]
III. BACKGROUND
4. Traditionally, the private land mobile radio (PLMR) services have
provided for the private, internal communications needs of public safety
entities, state and local government entities, large and small
businesses, transportation providers, the medical community, and other
diverse users of two-way radio systems. The rules for the PLMR services
are contained in Part 90 of the Commission’s Rules. [FN 8]
FN 8: 47 C. F. R. Part 90.
5. On September 30, 1998, the Commission adopted a Notice of Proposed
Rule Making proposing a comprehensive review of the Part 90 rules
applicable to the PLMR services to determine which regulations were
obsolete, not in the public interest, overly complex, required editorial
change, or were redundant in nature. [FN 9] The Commission undertook
this endeavor in conjunction with its 1998 biennial review of
regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended (the Communications Act). [FN 10]
FN 9: 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review - 47 C.F.R. Part 90 - Private Land
Mobile Radio Services, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WT Docket
No. 98-182, 13 FCC Rcd 21,133 (1998) (Notice).
FN 10: Section 11 of the Communications Act requires us to review all
our regulations applicable to providers of telecommunications
service and determine whether any rule is no longer in the public
interest as a result of meaningful economic competition between
providers of telecommunications service, and whether such a
regulation should be deleted or modified. See Section 11 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. para. 161.
6. The Report and Order adopted on June 29, 2000, revised the
Commission's Rules to, among other things: expand the availability of
thirty-one "dockside" frequencies, double the PLMR license term from
five years to ten years, and increase the time period in which certain
PLMR stations must be placed in operation. The Report and Order also
clarified the frequency coordination process for Public Safety Pool
channels in the 220-222 MHz band and authorized Public Safety Pool
licensees to share their licensed radio facilities with Federal public
safety providers. In addition, the Report and Order clarified the
definitions of centralized and decentralized trunking and established a
new process for licensing trunked systems. Finally, the Commission
licensed by rule, i.e., eliminated the individual licensing requirements
for, five VHF frequencies that were allocated to the Part 90
Industrial/Business Pool for low power (1- or 2-watt) operations. Under
this decision, the Commission reallocated the five VHF frequencies to
the Part 95 Personal Radio Services and established a new Multi-Use
Radio Service (MURS) under the Citizens Band Radio Services. [FN 11]
FN 11: Instead of requiring radio stations to be licensed, the
Commission may by rule authorize operation in certain radio
services without individual licenses. See 47 U.S.C. para.
307(e)(1).
7. The Commission received six petitions for reconsideration of various
portions of the Report and Order, and we consider these petitions, along
with the responsive pleadings, in the instant Memorandum Opinion and
Order. In the Second Report and Order portion of this combined item, we
address the comments filed in response to the proposals and issues
raised in the Further Notice.
IV. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
A. Multi-use radio service (MURS)
1. Scope of license by rule
8. Background. In the Report and Order, the Commission removed five
Industrial/Business Pool VHF frequencies, known in the PLMR community as
the VHF "color dot" frequencies, from Part 90 and placed them in Part
95. [FN 12] These frequencies [FN 13] became a new Citizens Band Radio
Service (CB) named the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS). [FN 14] The
Commission defined MURS as a two-way, short-distance, voice, data or
image communication service for the personal or business activities of
the general public. [FN 15]
FN 12: Certain low power and itinerant frequencies that are used for
very low tier, low cost, entry level communications are commonly
referred to as color dot frequencies because their operating
frequencies are designated by a colored dot or star on the radio.
This frequency identification code was developed and apparently
is uniformly used by the manufacturers of these radios. See,
e.g., Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21, 143 para. 31 n.55.
FN 13: The frequencies are 154.570 MHz, 154.600 MHz, 151.820 MHz,
151.880 MHz, and 151.940 MHz. There are also "color dot/star"
frequencies in the 450-470 MHz PLMR band. The Commission,
however, declined suggestions by Motorola and Tandy to license
these UHF "color dot/star" frequencies by rule. Report and Order,
15 FCC Rcd at 16,688-89 para. 32.
FN 14: 47 C.F.R. Part 95, Subpart J.
FN 15: Id. at para. 95.401( f).
9. Motorola and RadioShack seek reconsideration of the rules and
policies adopted in the Report and Order that established MURS. [FN 16]
Both parties, as well as the Industrial Telecommunications Association,
Inc. (ITA) and MRFAC, Inc. (MRFAC), disagree with the Commission's
decision to include individual, general consumers within the class of
users that are licensed by rule. Motorola contends that the Commission's
action expanding access to consumers violates the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA), [FN 17] because the Notice proposed only to
eliminate the licensing requirement for eligible business and industrial
users.[FN 18]
FN 16: RadioShack filed a pleading styled as a Petition for
Reconsideration after the deadline for such petitions.
Accordingly, we refer to RadioShack's filing as a Petition for
Reconsideration merely for ease of identification and include it
in the record as comments to petitions for reconsideration,
because RadioShack filed it within the time period for filing
oppositions to petitions for reconsideration.
FN 17: Motorola Reply at 3. See generally 47 U.S.C. paras. 553(b), (c).
FN 18: Motorola Reply at 7.
10. Motorola, RadioShack, ITA and MRFAC claim that the record does not
support including the general public within the license granted by rule
in the Report and Order. [FN 19] While generally supportive of the
Commission's proposal to license the subject frequencies by rule by
reallocating them to one of the CB services, petitioners believe that
the Commission should have adopted operational and eligibility rules to
ensure that the frequencies are used primarily for business and
industrial applications. [FN 20] Specifically, these petitioners contend
that the expanded use of these frequencies by the general public will
result in increased congestion and interference that is incompatible
with effective business communications. [FN 21] Moreover, taken with the
licensing of the general public by rule, Motorola contends that the MURS
technical rules will irreparably injure industrial/business users by
facilitating the development of new consumer devices operating on these
channels that will be incompatible with the push-to-talk operations that
are the primary mode of communication on these channels, to date. [FN
22] In this connection, Motorola avers that the Report and Order does
not address the shared use of the frequencies by business and personal
users and thus does not provide the type of reasoned decision making
required by the APA. [FN 23]
FN 19: Motorola Comments at 2; RadioShack Petition at 2; ITA Reply at
2-3; MRFAC Comments at 2. But see Motorola Supplemental Comments
at 4, filed July 2, 2001 (stating that the license by rule
granted in the Report and Order can remain unchanged if the
Commission adopts revisions to the technical rules).
FN 20: Motorola Petition at 3; Motorola Reply at 2.
FN 21: See Motorola Petition at 3-6 (permitting general public to use
MURS poses a likelihood of irreparable harm to business and
industrial users); Motorola Comments (to Easterday and PRSG
Petitions) at 5; RadioShack Petition at 2 (stating concerns
regarding "the degradation of the quality of service" to business
and industrial users). Id. See also MRFAC Comments at 2; ITA
Reply at 2 (echoing concerns raised by Motorola and RadioShack).
FN 22: See Motorola Comments at 4; Motorola Reply at 2-5.
FN 23: Motorola Reply at 7 (citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park,
Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971); Motor Vehicle Mfrs.
Ass'n. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 77
(1983); and Committee for Effective Cellular Rules v. FCC, 53
F.3d 1309, 1317 (D.C. Cir. 1995).
11. In view of these concerns, Motorola and ITA request that we "return
the frequencies to the Part 90 PLMR Services," [FN 24] which would
re-impose the individual licensing and industrial/business eligibility
requirements, whereas RadioShack and MRFAC would have us add eligibility
restrictions to Part 95 so that only Part 90 Industrial/Business Pool
eligibles would be licensed by rule to use MURS. [FN 25]
FN 24: Motorola Petition at 7. See ITA Comments at 3.
FN 25: RadioShack Petition at 2-3; MRFAC Comments at 3. MRFAC states
that if the subject frequencies are to be left in Part 95, they
should include eligibility restrictions limiting use to
industrial/business eligibles. Otherwise, the frequencies should
be placed back in Part 90. Id.
12. Discussion. Previously, under Part 90, personal non-business
operation on the subject frequencies was not allowed and industrial/
business operation required an individual license. [FN 26] In the Report
and Order, the Commission decided to license these frequencies by rule
because the manner in which manufacturers had chosen to market radios
that operate on these frequencies resulted in the radios being
increasingly sold to the general public by mass merchandisers and mail
order and Internet companies. [FN 27] The Commission noted that these
marketing and sales practices, as well as an earlier Commission decision
that eliminated the PLMR frequency coordination requirement for these
five channels, contributed to customer confusion regarding the licensing
requirement. In this connection, the Commission acknowledged the low
licensing rate prevalent among users of radios on these channels, which
in-turn meant that the business-only licensing restriction was not being
followed. [FN 28] Based on the circumstances presented, the Commission
concluded that the public interest was best served by eliminating the
individual licensing requirements for these channels, and allowing both
personal and business use of these channels. [FN 29]
FN 26: See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. para. 90.35 (1999).
FN 27: See Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,688 para. 31 n.98.
FN 28: Id. at 16,688 para. 31; see also Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,144
para. 32. The Commission noted that the manner in which
manufacturers have chosen to market radios that operate on these
frequencies partially resulted in customer confusion regarding
the licensing requirement. We note that, before the five
frequencies became licensed by rule, the Commission's Part 90
licensing records reflected an average of 35 licenses on each of
three 151 MHZ frequencies, and an average of 13,000 licenses on
each of the two 154 MHZ frequencies. The 151 MHZ frequencies
became available in 1995, as a result of decisions in the
Refarming proceeding, whereas the 154 MHZ frequencies were
available under Part 90 for many years. Although attributable to
more than one factor, the disparate licensing totals are an
indication of the low licensing rate among consumers who
purchased mass marketed radios after 1995.
FN 29: Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,688 para. 31 (citing Amendment
of Part 90 of the Commission's Rules Concerning Private Land
Mobile Radio Services, WT Docket No. 97-153, Report and Order,
14 FCC Rcd 3023, 3024-25 (1999)).
PRSG Comment: Note that in paragraph 12 and in footnote 28, the FCC states that several factors may have contributed to the increased use of the frequencies now allocated to MURS for personal (non-business) use not then permissible under FCC rules. However, the FCC believes that the way in which manufacturers and retailers chose to market this equipment was likely a primary contributing factor to this improper use.
13. The Commission's decision to license MURS by rule for the personal
or business activities of the general public did not violate the Notice
and comment requirements of Section 553(b) of the APA. [FN 30] Section
553(b) generally requires notice and an opportunity to comment before
promulgation of a final agency rule. [FN 31] In this regard, it is well
established that a notice of rulemaking is sufficient if it provides a
description of the subjects and issues involved. [FN 32] Further, the
APA "does not require an agency to publish in advance every precise
proposal which it may ultimately adopt as a rule." [FN 33] Indeed, a
final rule may be a "logical outgrowth of an agency proposal." [FN 34]
For a rule to constitute a logical outgrowth of an agency proposal, the
rule must be sufficiently related to the notice given so that interested
parties "should have anticipated that such a requirement might be
imposed." [FN 35]
FN 30: 5 U. S. C. para. 553( b).
FN 31: Id.
FN 32: See, e.g., Deregulation of Part 97 of the Commission's Rules to
Simplify the Licensing and Operation of Complex Systems of
Stations and Modify Repeater Subbands in the Amateur Radio
Service, Docket No. 21033, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 67 FCC
2d 1107, 1113-14 para. 26 (1978) (referring to California
Citizens Band Ass'n v. United States, 375 F. 2d 43, 49 (9th Cir.
1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 844 (U.S. Cal. Oct. 9, 1967) (No.
396).
FN 33: Id. (referring to California Citizens Band Ass’n, 375 F. 2d at
48).
FN 34: See, e.g., 1998 Biennial Regulatory Review -- "Annual Report of
the Cable Television Systems," Form 325, Filed Pursuant to 76.403
of the Commission's Rules, CS Docket No. 98-61, 15 FCC Rcd 9707,
9710 para. 7 (2000) (referring to Small Refiner Lead Phase Down
Task Force v. EPA, 705 F. 2d 506, 547 (D.C. Cir. 1983) and Shell
Oil Co. v. EPA, 950 F. 2d 741, 759 (D.C. Cir. 1991)).
FN 35: Id.
14. It is undisputed that the Notice specifically proposed and sought
comment on whether to license the VHF color dot frequencies by rule by
reallocating them "from Part 90 to a radio service that does not require
individual licensing, such as the Citizens Band, Low Power Radio, or
Family Radio Services." [FN 36] As Motorola itself pointed out, [FN 37]
all three of the radio services given as examples are Part 95 (Personal
Radio Services) that are licensed by rule for personal and other uses.
[FN 38] Furthermore, the Notice went on to "invite comments on the
effect such a reallocation would have on existing Part 90 licensees of
these frequencies." [FN 39] Therefore, it is apparent that the Notice
described the subjects and issues involved in this proceeding. Moreover,
based on the record, we believe that the final rules constitute a
logical outgrowth of the Notice's proposal to eliminate the individual
licensing requirements. In this connection, interested parties should
have anticipated that reallocating the subject frequencies to a service
that allows personal use (like the Citizens Band, Low Power Radio, or
Family Radio Services), would make the frequencies available for
personal use. Finally, the Notice recognized that the marketing of these
radios led to the perception that the frequencies were available for
general non-business use and proposed an action licensing the
frequencies by rule as a Part 95 service. This would plainly make it
more difficult for the Commission to maintain an enforceable business
use distinction. Accordingly, Motorola’s claim that the Commission
failed to provide adequate notice is incorrect.
FN 36: Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,144 para. 32.
FN 37: See Motorola Comments to Notice at 9-10, filed January 19, 1999
(WT Docket No. 98-182).
FN 38: See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. paras. 95.191 (FRS is available to anyone
who is not a representative of a foreign government), 95.401 (CB
is a communication service for the personal or business
activities of the general public).
FN 39: Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,144 para. 32.
15. In addition, we continue to believe that our decision to license the
subject frequencies by rule and allow personal operations promotes the
public interest. In this connection, the comments overwhelmingly
supported the proposal to license by rule and the reasoning and
assumptions for this action as it was proposed in the Notice. [FN 40]
Also, we disagree with the petitioners' claims that the record does not
support including the general public within the scope of the license
granted by rule. [FN 41] To the contrary, the record developed in
response to the Notice established that a large number of unlicensed,
non-industrial/business users existed on these frequencies before the
Commission lifted the eligibility restrictions that limited licensing to
Industrial/Business Pool eligibles. For example, the Personal Radio
Steering Group, Inc. (PRSG), Dr. Michael C. Trahos (Trahos), and other
parties confirm that non-industrial/business operations on the color dot
frequencies were prolific prior to the rules adopted in the Report and
Order. [FN 42] Therefore, as several parties observe, authorizing
operation by rule on these frequencies, pursuant to the Report and
Order, did not necessarily drastically alter the user landscape. [FN 43]
FN 40: See Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,688 para. 31 n.98 (noting
that there is customer confusion regarding licensing
requirements); Notice, 13 FCC Rcd at 21,143-44 para. 31
(Commission noted: (1) its receipt of significant number of
inquiries from the public concerning use of color dot radios; (2)
that some advertisements imply that radios may be used by anyone
for any purpose, whether commercial or recreational; and (3)
informal indications by manufactures that only a small percentage
of persons buying radios actually apply for a license). See also
Comments of the Personal Communications Industry Association,
Inc. to Notice at 7, filed January 19, 1999 (WT Docket No.
98-182) (stating that the Commission should make clear that it
will not permit other frequencies in these bands to become a
haven for manufacturers to promote unlicensed consumer radios).
FN 41: See, e.g., Motorola Petition at 2.
FN 42: See PRSG Comments at 2-3; Dr. Michael C. Trahos Comments at 4,
filed January 2, 2001 (Trahos Comments).
FN 43: In this connection, we find Motorola's reply that pre-MURS
unlicensed operations were conducted primarily by industrial and
business eligibles to be unsubstantiated and thus entitled to
little weight. See Motorola Reply at 6. Moreover, we note the
high probability that many unlicensed operators did not file an
application for a license precisely because they were not
eligible for licensing in the Part 90 Industrial/Business Pool.
16. On the other hand, we find on reconsideration that Motorola and
others have presented important questions concerning potentially new
types of operations that might develop as a result of the Commission's
decision to create MURS, as well as how such new operations could affect
existing (i.e., pre-MURS) users. [FN 44] In this connection, Motorola's
status as a principal manufacturer for the products used on the relevant
frequencies provides strong support for its statement that virtually all
pre-MURS operations, whether licensed or unlicensed, were push-to-talk.
[FN 45] Accordingly, we agree that the technical rules adopted in the
Report and Order, which allow unlicensed, consumer applications,
including long-duration operations that are significantly different than
push-to-talk, do not adequately address or appropriately balance the
sharing issues raised on reconsideration. [FN 46]
FN 44: See, e.g., Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc. Petition for
Reconsideration at para. 29, filed November 13, 2000 (PRSG
Petition); Motorola Petition at 6; MRFAC Comments at 2-3. See
also Motorola Supplement at 3-4.
FN 45: Motorola reply at 6.
FN 46: Id. Motorola points to cordless phones, baby monitors, and an
entire range of voice, data, and imaging services that are not
characterized by push-to-talk messages of short-duration. Id. at
n.14.
17. These concerns, however, do not justify abolishing MURS. [FN 47]
Instead, today we adopt technical restrictions that are designed to
address these concerns. In this connection, we note that claims of
irreparable injury relative to an increase in the utilization of the
channels arising from the rules adopted in the Report and Order are
unavailing, because Part 90 industrial/business licenses for the five
channels were issued on a shared basis only and not assigned for the
exclusive use of any licensee. [FN 48] Thus, such concerns raised by
petitioners are overstated. Indeed, although its Petition opposed MURS,
Motorola subsequently suggests that we implement certain technical
limitations on the manufacturing and marketing of MURS devices, either
on a temporary or permanent basis, [FN 49] and recommends a "transition
period" to give current business users a chance to migrate to spectrum
in the 450-470 MHz band that is the subject of another pending rule
making proceeding. [FN 50] We decline to consider the transition plan,
in toto, because we do not want to prejudice, much less speculate on the
outcome of a pending rule making. Nonetheless, we consider each of
Motorola's suggested technical limitations in the next section.
FN 47: We note that pleadings filed in response to the petitions for
reconsideration confirm the Commission's conclusion that there is
substantial need for mobile, two-watt, personal-use
communications capabilities. See, e.g., Personal Radio Steering
Group, Inc. Opposition to Petition for Reconsideration at paras.
9-10, filed January 3, 2001 (PRSG Opposition); Albert Verdecia
Comments at 1-2, filed January 3, 2001; SAFETENET Comments at 2,
filed December 11, 2000; Trahos Comments at 4; John R.
Scheuchenzuber Comments at 6, filed January 3, 2001.
FN 48: See 47 C.F.R. para. 90.173( a). In addition, we note that these
frequencies are considered to be for "low-tier" types of business
operations, as opposed to "critical" business communications. See
note 12, supra.
FN 49: Motorola Supplemental Comments at 3. "Motorola continues to
believe that the FCC's decision failed to adequately protect
incumbent business and industrial users of the VHF `color dot'
frequencies that now comprise the MURS spectrum allocation. After
careful consideration of the record developed in this proceeding,
Motorola now recommends a transitional plan to better accommodate
all potential users of this spectrum." Id. at 1-2 (note omitted).
"As one of the leading manufacturers of consumer-oriented Family
Radio Service units, Motorola is not, of course, `anti- MURS'."
Id. at 3.
FN 50: Id. at 5. Motorola states that the necessary spectrum would be
provided if the Commission were to issue an Order adopting the
proposal of the Land Mobile Communications Council to, inter
alia, create twenty-five channel pairs for low power,
uncoordinated use. See Id. at 3; Amendment of Part 90 of the
Commission's Rules and Policies for Applications and Licensing of
Low Power Operations in the Private Land Mobile Radio 450-470 MHz
Band, Notice of Proposed Rule Making, WT Docket No. 01-146, 16
FCC Rcd 14,946, 14,957 para. 21 (rel. July 24, 2001).
18. As noted above, the former industrial/business licensing limitation
was not effective in limiting the use of the subject frequencies to
industrial/business eligibles. [FN 51] On reconsideration, we find no
basis for concluding that these circumstances would change significantly
by reinstating the individual licensing eligibility rules. Thus,
reinstating the rule would be contrary to the public interest. In this
connection, we note that the decision to license by rule relieved
Industrial/Business Pool eligibles, including small businesses, of the
information collection, paperwork, and financial burdens, including
statutory application and regulatory fees, associated with applications
and licensing. [FN 52] Accordingly, based on the totality of the record,
we find no basis for returning these frequencies to Part 90 and
reinstating individual licensing for these frequencies. For the same
reasons, we decline to adopt RadioShack's suggestion to restrict
eligibility for MURS to only industrial and business users. [FN 53]
FN 51: Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,688 para. 31 n.98; Notice, 13
FCC Rcd at 21,143-44 paras. 31-32.
FN 52: Accordingly, while we agree with Motorola that the Commission
viewed its proposal as generally beneficial to Industrial/
Business Pool users, see note 41 supra, the proposal was not so
defined or limited to preclude the adoption of rules that are
also beneficial to the general public. Moreover, the decision to
license by rule and other proposals in the Notice were the result
of the Commission's review of PLMR rules to determine which
regulations were either not in the public interest, obsolete,
overly complex, required editorial change, or were redundant in
nature. Notice 13 FCC Rcd at 21,134 para. 2.
FN 53: We note that adopting RadioShack's approach could run counter to
Section 9 of the Communications Act, which requires the
Commission to assess and collect regulatory fees on a per license
basis from, among others, licensees of private radio services
including the Industrial/Business Pool. See 47 U.S.C. para.
159(g); see also 47 C.F.R. para. 1.1152.
PRSG Comments: Overall, the FCC's decision in the paragraphs immediate above constituted a major defeat for those claiming to promote the interests of business/industrial users of these frequencies. However, the FCC noted that it was the questionable marketing practices by precisely some of those same interests that led to this situation.
2. General technical and operating rules
19. In the Report and Order, the Commission established technical and
operational rules for MURS including a maximum operating power, emission
types, and equipment certification procedures. Several parties request
reconsideration or clarification of these MURS rules. Motorola contends
that the rules adopted in the Report and Order do not balance the
benefits of technical flexibility against the potential for new
non-business MURS operations to degrade the ongoing operations of
previously-licensed business and industrial users. [FN 54] To address
its concerns, Motorola recommends several transitional or permanent
rule changes to restrict MURS. [FN 55] In its petition, PRSG requests
that the Commission add technical rules or amend several of the
restrictions adopted in the Report and Order. [FN 56] William C.
Easterday (Easterday) requests that those operators formerly licensed
under Part 90 be given “grandfathered operating privileges” so that they
need not abandon or significantly modify their radios. [FN 57] In a
letter filed September 7, 2000, RadioShack requests that the Commission
clarify how some of the technical restrictions should be applied to
MURS. [FN 58] To address expressed concerns that the rules adopted in
the Report and Order do not adequately balance certain sharing issues,
we are adopting technical restrictions that consider the shared use of
these frequencies by previously-licensed industrial/business users and
new personal MURS users that are licensed by rule.
FN 54: See Motorola Petition at 5.
FN 55: See Motorola Supplemental Comments at 3, filed July 2, 2001
(Motorola Supplemental Comments).
FN 56: PRSG Petition at para. 30.
FN 57: William C. Easterday Petition for Reconsideration at 1-2, filed
November 13, 2000 (Easterday Petition).
FN 58: Letter from Dwayne Campbell, Senior Manager Regulatory Affairs,
RadioShack to Herbert Zeiler, Deputy Chief, Public Safety and
Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau,
dated Sept. 7, 2000 (RadioShack Letter).
20. In response to Motorola's petition for reconsideration, SAFETENET
and the Family Security Company (Family Security) filed comments
supporting the creation of MURS. [FN 59] In particular, SAFETENET and
Family Security disagree with Motorola's suggestion to restrict
non-business use of the subject frequencies, stating that such a rule
would impede their plan to use MURS frequencies for a low-cost
electronic tracking system that could be used to locate missing or
abducted children. [FN 60] On the other hand, Family Security shares
Motorola's concern regarding "totally unregulated”" use of MURS, [FN 61]
suggesting that the Commission restrict traffic on one or two of the
MURS channels to accommodate its proposed tracking system.
Alternatively, Family Security asks us to allocate one or two additional
channels to MURS for "public safety" use only, i.e., for electronic
tracking systems used to locate abducted or missing children. [FN 62] In
addition, SAFETENET requests that we retain certain technical
flexibility for the MURS channels in the event that the Commission
"re-evaluates" MURS. [FN 63]
FN 59: See Letter from Ken Klassen to Ramona Melson, Deputy Chief,
Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, dated December 11, 2000 (SAFETENET
Letter); Family Security Company Comments, filed March 20, 2001
(Family Security Comments).
FN 60: See SAFTENET Letter at 2; Family Security Comments at 1-2. Family
Security states that its planned proposed system would consist of
subscriber devices (scanner/transceivers) that would scan MURS
frequencies for an open channel and transmit an identifying data
signal at programmed intervals to receiving devices (base station
installations). The receiving device/base station installation
would transmit data on MURS frequencies to query the location of
a subscriber device or to issue a command to the subscriber
device. See Family Security’s Notice of Oral Ex Parte at 2, filed
June 22, 2001 (Family Security Oral Ex Parte).
FN 61: Family Security Comments at 3.
FN 62: See Family Security Oral ex parte at 1. We note that it is not
clear at this juncture whether Family Security or SAFETENET would
be public safety eligibles under our Rules. See generally 47
C.F.R. para. 90.20(a); See also Implementation of Section 309(j)
and 337 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 15 FCC Rcd
22,709, 22,740-41, paras. 63-64 (2000).
FN 63: SAFTENET Letter at 3.
21. Although Family Security and SAFETENET did not file petitions for
reconsideration in this proceeding, we will discuss their specific
requests for technical flexibility below. The proposals to reserve one
or two MURS channels or to allocate additional channels for "public
safety use, however, are beyond the scope of the issues raised in the
petitions for reconsideration in this proceeding. [FN 64] Consequently,
it would be inappropriate to consider such allocation proposals herein,
rather than in the context of a petition to commence a notice and
comment rule-making proceeding.
FN 64: We note Family Security's observation that the UHF band would be
better suited for the type of operation it proposes, see Family
Security Comments at 4, whereas MURS frequencies are within the
VHF band.
PRSG Comments: The comments filed by Family Security/SAFETENET were quite "out of line," seeking essentially to hijack MURS for an entirely different and largely incompatible purpose. By their own admission, the "abducted child" purpose for which Family Security/SAFETENET sought spectrum would be more appropriate for the UHF spectrum, and logically should be designed to take advantage of other location-determining services, especially GPS (Global Positioning Satellite). No reason has ever been presented why a combination cellular/GPS system would not be more appropriate, especially since the FCC will shortly require cellular providers to include such position-location capabilities for all of their users.
a. Maximum operating power
22. In the Report and Order, the Commission limited the operating power
of MURS frequencies to 2 watts effective radiated power (ERP). [FN 65]
Prior to MURS, the operating power of these frequencies was measured in
terms of transmitter power output (TPO). [FN 66] In its Petition, PRSG
requests that the power limit be described in terms of TPO rather than
ERP, because ERP is difficult for the typical user to understand or
calculate and is nearly impossible to measure directly. [FN 67] The
confusion arises, according to PRSG, because ERP measures the power of
the transmitting device plus antenna gain minus any loss factors. [FN
68] Antenna manufacturers, however, do not always provide accurate
antenna gain information, so a consumer who adds an external antenna to
a 2 watt MURS radio, a practice that has been and continues to be
allowed, may not be able to calculate the ERP. [FN 69] Several
commenters support PRSG's proposal. [FN 70] Motorola agrees that an ERP
calculation would be confusing to users that choose to attach
aftermarket antennas. [FN 71] Nonetheless, Motorola suggests that we
keep the ERP standard and adopt a new rule to require non-detachable
antennas for MURS units. Motorola states that requiring integrated
antennas would minimize the use of high gain antennas and linear
amplifiers or other devices that spread interfering signals. [FN 72]
Conversely, SAFETENET states that remote antennas are necessary for its
electronic tracking system. [FN 73]
FN 65: Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,709 para. 31 (Appendix B); 47
C.F.R. para. 95.639(h).
FN 66: Under Part 90, 154.570 MHz and 154.600 MHz were limited to two
watts TPO while 151.820 MHz, 151.880 MHz, and 151.940 MHz were
limited to one watt TPO. 47 C.F.R. paras. 90.35(b)(3), (c)(11),
and (c)(14) (2000). For consistency and ease of use and
administration, all five MURS frequencies are now allowed to
operate at 2 watts.
FN 67: PRSG Petition at 7. In addition, RadioShack questions whether the
Commission, by specifying ERP in the Report and Order, intended
to ban the use of external antennas and require that any antenna
for a MURS device be integral to the product. RadioShack Letter
at 1.
FN 68: TPO measures the power only of the transmitting device.
FN 69: By comparison, ERP limits are suitable for the Family Radio
Service (FRS) because detachable antennas are not permitted on
FRS units. See 47 C.F.R. para. 95.194(c). Consequently, ERP
measurements are accurate in the FRS because they are set by the
manufacturer of these radios.
FN 70: See, e.g., Thomas Currie comments at 2, filed November 15, 2000
(Currie Comments); William Morgan comments at 1, filed November
26, 2000 (Morgan Comments); Scott Havens comments at 9, filed
December 31, 2000 (Havens Comments); Albert Verdecia comments at
2, filed January 3, 2001 (Verdecia Comments); Thomas Gruis
comments at 1, filed January 3, 2001 (Gruis Comments).
FN 71: See Motorola Supplemental Comments at 5-6.
FN 72: Id.
FN 73: SAFETENET Letter at 3.
23. We agree with PRSG and the commenters that retaining the long-
standing TPO standard established for these frequencies in Part 90 is
warranted. The MURS rules essentially govern an existing service with
many mobile units already in service. Converting the limit to ERP would
be either unenforceable, or overly burdensome, because end users would
have to procure ERP calculations each time an antenna is replaced. TPO,
on the other hand, is verified during the equipment certification
process. Although the Commission generally favors ERP limits over TPO
limits because ERP more accurately defines the actual operating power of
the radio, ERP is more suitable for a coordinated/licensed service or
for a service where detachable antennas are prohibited. In a
coordinated/licensed service, like the broadcast service, engineering
studies are performed at each transmitter site to determine the ERP. In
a service where detachable antennas are prohibited, like the Family
Radio Service, the manufacturer determines the ERP of the radio
equipment. Because MURS is neither a coordinated/licensed service nor a
service that prohibits detachable antennas, we believe that TPO is the
better standard. Accordingly, we will modify Section 95.639 of our rules
so as to authorize MURS operations at 2 watts transmitter power output.
Regarding Motorola’s suggestion that we prohibit detachable antennas on
new MURS units in order to protect industrial and business users, we
decline to adopt such a restriction. Allowing detachable antennas is not
inconsistent with the push-to-talk type of operations of MURS. In fact,
detachable antennas were allowed and prevalent for industrial and
business users when the subject frequencies were governed by Part 90 of
the Commission’s Rules, and we are adopting other technical limits to
address industrial and business concerns, e.g., interconnection,
repeater, and continuous carrier restrictions. In addition, banning
detachable antennas would be administratively burdensome for equipment
makers, users, and the Commission and would limit operational
flexibility for MURS users including new industrial and business users.
b. Antenna height
24. In the Report and Order, the Commission did not specify any antenna
height limits for MURS stations. PRSG states, however, that such limits
are necessary in order to maintain the mobile-oriented nature of MURS by
preventing the proliferation of point-to-point communications. [FN 74]
PRSG therefore requests that an antenna height restriction of 20 feet
above structure or 60 feet above ground, whichever is higher, be added
to the MURS rules. [FN 75] In its reply comments, MRFAC states that the
absence of technical restrictions such as antenna height limits
compounds the potential for interference. [FN 76] Of the other
commenters that mention it, most support at least some sort of antenna
height restrictions, [FN 77] although one commenter states that the 2
watt limitation on TPO renders antenna height restrictions unnecessary.
[FN 78]
FN 74: PRSG Petition at para. 18. PRSG notes that an antenna height
limit is necessary to discourage the proliferation of
point-to-point and purely recreational communications because
base stations offer superior coverage that would reduce the
utility of this service for mobile communications, absent an
antenna height limit. Id. at paras. 19-21.
FN 75: Id. at para. 21. Motorola agrees with PRSG's proposal. See
Motorola Supplemental Comments at 5.
FN 76: MRFAC Comments at 3.
FN 77: See Raymond Klatt Comments at 3, filed January 2, 2001; Michael
Krumlauf Comments at 2, filed January 3, 2001 (Krumlauf
Comments); Morgan Comments at 1; Currie Comments at 2; Gruis
Comments at 1; Motorola Supplemental Comments at 5.
FN 78: See Havens Comments at 10.
25. We find that the imposition of antenna height restrictions for MURS
is warranted. In this connection, we believe that antenna height
restrictions will facilitate spectrum sharing and re-use of these
frequencies. Consequently, as PRSG suggests, we are revising our rules
to require that MURS radios employ antennas no greater than 20 feet
above structure or 60 feet above ground, whichever is higher. Because
there are only five available channels, allowing antenna heights higher
than this would limit the number of users that could operate at the same
time on these channels. We also note that these limits promote aviation
safety and are the same limits that govern the antenna height of the CB
radio service. [FN 79]
FN 79: 47 C.F.R. para. 95.408. Accord PRSG Petition at para 21.
c. Repeater operations
26. Repeater operations were not prohibited under Part 90 for these five
VHF frequencies, and the Report and Order did not specifically address
whether such operations would be permitted under MURS. PRSG requests
that MURS stations be prohibited from engaging in repeater-type
functions [FN 80] because they "would be incompatible with the intent of
the service." [FN 81] Most of the commenters that mention the issue
support PRSG's position. [FN 82] We agree that repeater use would be
generally incompatible with the intent of MURS, which is defined as a
short-distance communications service. [FN 83] While repeater operation,
as well as signal boosters, [FN 84] might provide greater capabilities
for in-building and "RF Hole" penetration, [FN 85] we do not believe
that this outweighs the need to limit the footprint created by any
single MURS user in order to maximize frequency reuse. Because repeaters
utilize two channels at once (input and output) and extend the operating
range of a single user, their use would limit the number of users able
to share these frequencies at the same time. In this connection, some
commenters are concerned that MURS frequencies will be congested and
that repeater use will only aggravate this problem. [FN 86] We agree.
Consequently, we will prohibit repeater use on MURS frequencies,
including store-and-forward packet operations as described by PRSG, [FN
87] except for those users that were properly licensed to do so under
Part 90 of our rules. Thus, former Part 90 licensees will be
grandfathered for repeater operations as authorized under the terms on
their last Part 90 authorization and any waiver grants.
FN 80: Repeater stations automatically retransmit the signal of another
station. See generally 47 C.F.R. para. 90.7 (definition of
mobile relay station).
FN 81: See PRSG Petition at para. 24.
FN 82: See Krumlauf Comments at 2; Morgan Comments at 1; Verdecia
Comments at 2; Currie Comments at 2; Gruis Comments at 2; Havens
Comments at 9; Motorola Supplemental Comments at 5.
FN 83: 47 C.F.R. para. 95.401(f).
FN 84: Licensees are authorized to operate signal boosters in several
land mobile and microwave services. See Amendment of Parts 22,
90, and 94 of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Routine Use of
Signal Boosters, WT Docket No. 95-70, Report and Order, 11 FCC
Rcd 16,621 (1996). Signal boosters retransmit weak signals only
on the exact frequency(ies) of the originating base, fixed,
mobile, or portable station(s) and cannot extend the system's
normal signal coverage area. See, e.g., 47 C.F.R. para.
90.219(a).
FN 85: See Trahos Comments at paras. 12, 13. The term "RF Hole" refers
to locations where radio reception is difficult to achieve due to
attenuation of the radio signal by surrounding terrain. RF Holes
are often found inside large buildings because the surrounding
structure tends to attenuate radio signals transmitted from
outside the building. As for the type of operation which Trahos
describes, we believe that Part 90 frequencies, where higher
power operations are authorized, are better suited to serve this
need.
FN 86: See Currie Comments at 2; Havens Comments at 9.
FN 87: PRSG Petition at para. 24. PRSG describes store-and-forward
packet operations as directly comparable to a mobile relay
station.
PRSG Comment: Footnote 84 is the only point within the MO&O/SR&O where the FCC defines "signal booster." The MO&O/SR&L "borrows" this concept from other radio services. To remain consistent with the its intent to include within Subpart J all of those rules (and presumably, definitions) that pertain to MURS, the FCC needs to define "signal booster" directly in the MURS Rules themselves.
The same applies to the definition of "repeater." The only definition of "repeater" within Part 95 is the reference in the GMRS rules, which applies this term only to those stations whose repeater-type (re)transmissions are simultaneous with those signals' reception. This excludes time-delayed, "store-and-forward" type repeaters, several of which were put into service on MURS frequencies during the pendency of the Petitions addressed by this MO&O/SR&O.
d. Interconnection with the public switched network
27. Although interconnection with the public switched network (PSN) was
generally permissible under Part 90 for these five VHF frequencies, [FN
88] the Part 95 MURS rules are silent on this point. [FN 89] On
reconsideration, the parties are split on this issue. PRSG requests that
MURS frequencies be prohibited from interconnection to the PSN for the
same reasons that the Family Radio Service (FRS) is prohibited from
interconnection. [FM 90] We note that in the FRS, PSN interconnection is
prohibited because the Commission believed that allowing interconnection
would (1) change the basic nature of the service, (2) reduce the number
of usable channels by half, and (3) possibly require licensing and
additional regulatory burdens. [FN 91] Without such a prohibition, PRSG
anticipates a proliferation of cordless telephones on MURS frequencies.
[FN 92] Motorola and MRFAC also believe that the absence of a
prohibition on telephone interconnection could invite the development of
two-watt cordless telephones that would increase channel usage and cause
significant interference. [FN 93]
FN 88: Under Part 90, interconnection was permitted for frequencies
154.570 MHz and 154.600 MHz. See 47 C.F.R. para. 90.476(a).
Interconnection was permitted for frequencies 151.820 MHz,
151.880 MHz and 151.940 MHz outside the twenty-five urban areas
listed in Section 90.477(d)(3). Interconnection on frequencies
151.820 MHz, 151.880 MHz and 151.940 MHz was permissible inside
the twenty-five urban areas listed in Section 90.477(d)(3) only
if the consent of all co-channel users within 120 kilometers was
obtained. Id. See also 47 C.F.R. para. 90.477(d)(3).
FN 89: 47 C.F.R. para. 95.193(e) prohibits interconnection of Family
Radio Service units with the PSN and 47 C.F.R. para. 95.420
permits interconnection of Citizens Band Radio Service stations.
Part 95 Subpart J, which sets forth service rules for MURS, is
silent as to interconnection.
FN 90: PRSG Petition at para. 28. See also Havens Comments at 8; MRFAC
Comments at 3.
FN 91: Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Establish a
Very Short Distance Two-Way Voice Radio Service, WT Docket No.
95-102, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12,977 para. 18 (1996).
FN 92: PRSG Petition at para. 29.
FN 93: See Motorola Petition at 6; MRFAC Comments at 2-3; Motorola
Supplemental Comments at 2.
28. On the other hand, Currie and Gruis state that the Commission should
not ban the interconnection of MURS with the PSN. [FN 94] In particular,
Currie states that limited frequency availability and increased
congestion will actually prevent the proliferation PRSG predicts. [FN
95] Gruis supports interconnection provided that "technical abuses" do
not occur. [FN 96] In addition, while SAFETENET and Family Security
initially opposed the petitions, stating that PSN interconnection is
essential to their planned tracking systems, [FN 97] they later
clarified that PSN interconnection would only be used to transfer data
between base/receiving sites and a manned emergency monitoring station.
[FN 98] Based on this clarification, we note that this type of operation
is not "interconnection" as defined in Part 90, because wireline
circuits used by licensees or other authorized persons as an integral
part of an authorized, private, internal system of communication are not
considered to be interconnected for purposes of Part 90. [FN 99]
Therefore, SAFETENET and Family Security's proposed operations would not
be proscribed by restrictions on traditional Part 90 interconnection to
the PSN. We are adding a definition of interconnection to the MURS
Rules, based on the Part 90 definition, to clarify this point.
FN 94: See Currie Comments at 3; Gruis Comments at 2.
FN 95: See Currie Comments at 3.
FN 96: See Gruis Comments at 2.
FN 97: See Letter from Ken Klassen to Ramona Melson, Deputy Chief,
Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau at 3, dated December 11, 2000 (ex parte
or late-filed on April 11, 2001) (SAFETENET Letter); Family
Security Company Comments at 3, filed March 20, 2001 (Family
Security Comments).
FN 98: See Letter from Ken Klassen to Secretary of the Federal
Communications Commission at 1-2, dated January 8, 2002.
FN 99: See 47 C.F.R. para. 90.7.
29. In light of the limited number of available channels and the
importance of spectrum sharing and re-use on MURS frequencies, we agree
with PRSG and other commenters that interconnection to the PSN should be
prohibited at this time. Interconnected operation (cordless telephone)
is typically duplex, which means that one telephone call would occupy
forty percent of MURS channels in a given area. Moreover, private radio
communications that are interconnected to the PSN tend to be of longer
duration than other types of communication. [FN 100] In addition, MURS
is licensed by rule, which makes allowing interconnection under
operating restrictions too problematic. Thus, as described above, for
the same reasons that interconnection is not allowed for FRS, we
conclude that interconnection is inappropriate for MURS. [FN 101] Former
Part 90 licensees that were authorized to be connected with the PSN,
however, will continue to be allowed to do so as authorized under the
terms on their last Part 90 authorization and any waiver grants.
FN 100: See Amendment of Part 95 of the Commission's Rules to Establish
a Very Short Distance Two-Way Voice Radio Service, WT Docket No.
95-102, Report and Order, 11 FCC Rcd 12,977, 12,984 para. 18
(1996).
FN 101: Moreover, as additional support for our decision we note that
MURS involves fewer channels than FRS.
PRSG Comment: At paragraph 95.1313 of the new MURS Rules, the FCC inserts entirely new language that follows the general definition of "public switched network" in Part 90, and that attempts to distinguish public from private networks. Following the intent described in this paragraph of the MO&O/SR&O, this new (for Part 95) language prohibits the retransmission on MURS frequencies of signals passed over the public switched network.
What the new rule language does not directly address is the permissibility of transmitting signals to or from networks other than the public switched network, if those first networks themselves are (in turn) interconnected at some point with the public switched network.
In today's world of complex networks, there are some networks (such as those supplied by cable television providers, and others; but including any which provide Internet access) that provide services to the public that are essentially indistinguishable (even by the network users themselves) from those of the public switched network, or that directly interface at some point with the public switched network. Some MURS users have advocated such networked use and interface with MURS stations, arguing that since the first user connection is not with the PSN itself, such network interfacing should be permissible.
Furthermore, there is no way for the casual observer to determine if a particular connection or transmission involves the public switched network, absent hearing a conventional dialtone and DTMF signaling. Even then, the presence of dialtone and DTMF signaling is not dispositive: Interconnection with the PSN can occur with out them, and the mere presence of them does not necessarily indicate that the network is indeed part of the PSN.
Whatever the merits of permitting or prohibiting interconnecting MURS stations with such allegedly private networks (whether for voice or data transmissions), the issue of employing MURS stations as a connection point (but especially as a portal of entry or exit) in any network, public or private, deserves and needs further, immediate consideration.
e. Continuous carrier mode
30. Under Part 90, continuous carrier mode was permissible on four of
the five VHF frequencies [FN 102] and the rules adopted in the Report
and Order carried this provision over to the Part 95 MURS rules without
discussion. [FN 103] Family Security indicates that the duration of use
of MURS frequencies could become a detriment to their proposed low-cost
electronic tracking system. [FN 104] Family Security suggests that all
voice and data traffic on MURS frequencies be time limited and that
transmission intervals be time restricted. [FN 105] In his comments,
Verdecia states that MURS has so few available frequencies that the
continuous carrier mode would cause an unacceptable loss of service in a
given area. [FN 106] We agree. As discussed above, users operating on a
channel for an extended period would do so at the expense of existing
push-to-talk voice operations, as well as other users of these shared
channels. Therefore, because MURS channels are shared, we will prohibit
MURS users from operating in the continuous carrier mode and require
MURS operators to monitor the transmitting frequency for communications
in progress before transmitting. Former Part 90 licensees authorized to
operate in the continuous carrier mode prior to the creation of MURS,
however, will continue to be allowed to do so in conformance with their
last Part 90 authorization and any waiver grants.
FN 102: Continuous carrier mode was authorized for frequencies 151.820
MHz, 151.880 MHz, 151.940 MHz and 154.570 MHz. Continuous carrier
mode for frequency 154.600 MHz was only authorized for stations
continuously licensed before May 21, 1971. 47 C.F.R. paras.
90.35(b)(35), (47).
FN 103: See 47 C.F.R. 95.1307(c).
FN 104: Family Security Comments at 3.
FN 105: Id. at 2-3.
FN 106: See Verdecia Comments at 2.
PRSG Comment: The are two significant aspects of this paragraph.
First is that the FCC has re-established in Part 95 (after having eliminated it from the GMRS Rules during the "ULS revisions" of several years ago) an active requirement for pre-transmission (implying "open squelch") monitoring before someone may transmit on a MURS frequency. This is language that we would like to see the FCC re-insert into the GMRS rules, and which should have been placed in the FRS rules in the first place. (FRS operators rarely monitor before transmitting. Few [if any] FRS user manuals make any reference to the need for open-squelch, pre-transmission monitoring to encourage channel-sharing and cooperation with other users.)
We hope that this language will lead the FCC to require an "open squelch" monitoring capability on new MURS radios, some hardware configuration that would require that the radio operator disable any selective receiver muting before the radio is enabled to transmit. This would go a long way to encouraging compliance with pre-transmission "open channel" monitoring, although some persons may find ways to circumvent even these restrictions and requirements. We have requested this specific change in our most recent Petition for Reconsideration.
What would specifically not be adequate would be for new MURS radios to employ merely a "push to listen" (PTL) button that requires the operator to continue some action, such as holding down a button, in order to receive "open squelch." That kind of PTL function actually discourages open-channel monitoring by imposing a requirement for some sustained operator effort.
But is the FCC prepared to create such a hardware or operating requirement? (It could actually be accomplished solely in software, so long as new MURS radios had some kind of monitoring button that, once pressed, would leave the receiver in "open squelch" until the operator took a further action, or until a minimum time had lapsed since the radio's last transmission.)
Second, the new rule language suffers from the absence of defining what the FCC considers to be "continuous transmissions." A specific maximum transmit time (with a minimum "off time") would make a better rule. Without such specificity, is a transmission "not continuous" if it pauses ever so briefly every few minutes? On an hourly basis? On a daily basis? On an annual basis?
Further, the MO&O/SR&O ignores the reality that even with short-duration transmissions (characterized by the FCC as "push-to-talk" operations), a communications exchange (especially with more than two parties) can easily monopolize a channel, to the exclusion of other users in a given area. With base-to-base operations permitted, a MURS channel could be tied up indefinitely throughout an entire urban area, consuming 20% of all MURS resources for just a single exchange, even with no single user transmitting more than a minute or so (or even less) at a time.
Although the MO&O/SR&O addresses (if ambiguously and imprecisely, as we point out above) the need for short-duration transmissions, it does not address the abuses that could occur from a nearly continuous exchange of communications.
Perhaps the FCC is still reeling from the perceived unenforceability of the former "five-minute" rule for Citizens Band Radio?
f. Permissible communications
31. The Report and Order specifies that MURS stations are authorized to
transmit any emission specified in Section 90.207 of the Commission's
Rules, [FN 107] which allows various types of emissions such as voice,
telemetry, non-voice paging, and radiofacsimile. [FN 108] Although the
Commission defined MURS as a two-way short distance voice, data or image
communication service, [FN 109] this definition was based upon an
incorrect presumption that while governed by Part 90 of the Commission's
Rules, these frequencies were intended for voice, data and imaging. [FN
110] The transmission of "image" signals such as radiofacsimile,
however, was never allowed on these frequencies. Rather, under Part 90,
licensees were authorized to transmit only voice, telemetry or remote
control signals on these frequencies, [FN 111] and the Commission never
intended to add additional emissions. Moreover, the transmission of
lengthy data signals such as radiofacsimile would be particularly
disruptive to voice operations. Consequently, on our own motion on
reconsideration, we are amending the MURS rules to allow only those
emissions that were previously authorized under Part 90: voice,
telemetry and remote control signals. We believe that this change
addresses the interference concerns raised by the industrial and
business users currently performing “push-to-talk” operations on these
frequencies. [FN 112] In this regard, we are amending the rules to
define MURS as a two-way short distance voice or data communications
system.
FN 107: See Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,708 para. 27; see also
47 C.F.R. para. 95.631.
FN 108: 47 C. F. R para. 90.207(b).
FN 109: Id. para. 95.401(e).
FN 110: See Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,688 para. 31.
FN 111: See 47 C.F.R. paras. 90.35(c)(35), (45), and (47).
FN 112: See DBH Comments; Earl and Brown Comments; ProMarketing
Comments; Merchant and Merchant Comments; and Wireless Solutions
Comments.
PRSG Comment: There is language here that some MURS supporters have conveniently overlooked. The FCC talks only about voice, telemetry (or, alternatively, data), and remote control. Supporters of MURS use for digital messaging assume that this would also be allowed, but this is a use that the MO&O/SR&O did not address.
What the FCC did address was the incompatibility between extended, telephone-conversation-style exchanges and the short-duration-style, "push-to-talk" operations that now characterize most use of MURS frequencies.
The FCC clearly did not contemplate use of MURS for extended "keyboard conversational"-type communications. Some MURS digital enthusiasts may have assumed that the permissibility of "data and telemetry" communications would also permit "keyboard conversational" operations.
The issue is not the difference in modes (analog voice vs. digital), but one of short- vs. long-duration multi-party communications exchanges.
The reality of experience from the Amateur Radio Service is that analog voice and digital communications do not make "good neighbors" on a shared communications circuit. Hams have access to enough spectrum that they can usually agree to operate on different frequencies for these competing uses. Limits on the time of individual transmissions, and collectively of communications exchanges, are usually not a problem, because there is sufficient spectrum to give each usage interest its own frequencies.
MURS presents a whole different set of constraints. There are only five specific channels available, and the FCC has been specific about limiting transmission time and requiring cooperation in the sharing of the limited resources. (Although, as we noted previously, the FCC did not acknowledge in the MO&O/SR&O the difference between the need for time constraints on individual transmissions vs. the need for time constraints collectively on multi-party communications exchanges.)
This identifies a problem that we should anticipate with MURS: How to accommodate the interests of both modes (analog voice and digital) on a limited number of frequencies.
MURS is currently the only publicly accessible, unlicensed resource for citizen digital communications. Voice users do have other alternatives, although none that offer quite the same capabilities of MURS. With only five channels available, there could develop an aggressive competition for "air time" among users of different modes. Data users deserve access to this spectrum, but will have to acknowledge that their digital operations must accept the same time-limiting and channel-sharing obligations of analog voice users. (Some data users are already talking about "staking their claim" to certain MURS channels. This does not bode well for the kind of cooperation and resource sharing that is essential for MURS.)
This is especially important in the area of network design. It would be inappropriate for digital users to use network designs for their mode, if those same network designs were not readily available to or were impermissible for use by voice users. A "perception of inequity" between the users of these (or, indeed, any other) competing modes could easily lead to a breakdown in compliance with the "sharing requirements" (including pre-transmission monitoring) necessary and mandated by the FCC.
This presents specific and likely controversial ramifications for network design. If voice/analog usage of MURS is limited solely to locally-controlled (what we might call "one person/one radio"), "push-to-talk" operations (and specifically, no VOIP ["voice over Internet protocol"] usage), then digital usage of MURS will need to accept similar constraints. This could mean no extended or remotely accessible networks, even if those networks were possibly not interconnected through some public switched network [PSN]. (Would FCC observers or even the users of such networks know whether or not they were inerconnected with the PSN?)
Thus, when we raise the issue of clarifying network interconnection (in our commentary on MO&O/SR&O item IV.A.2.d. above, following paragraph 29), we specifically encourage a dialogue to consider possible additional FCC definitions or even constraints on network design and interconnection.
32. PRSG states that "multi-use" is ambiguous, and it suggests that we
re-name MURS as the "Mobile Use Radio Service" in order to emphasize the
"primary intent of these frequencies" as mobile. [FN 113] PRSG offers
this suggestion as one of several measures to discourage the
proliferation of point-to-point and purely recreational communications.
[FN 114] In establishing MURS, however, the Commission contemplated
multiple types of uses for these frequencies, [FN 115] and the technical
rules that we are adopting today do not alter this concept. [FN 116]
Specifically, MURS is not restricted to mobile use and fixed operation
is allowed. Thus, even if mobile communication is the primary mode of
operation on these frequencies, we see no reason to adopt a name change
that implies that the service is limited to mobile operation.
FN 113: PRSG Petition at para. 25.
FN 114: Id. para. 20. PRSG's other suggestions include an antenna height
limit and a prohibition of repeater operations, which we discuss
and adopt above.
FN 115: See Report and Order, 15 FCC Rcd at 16,688 para. 31 (MURS
frequencies are intended for voice, data, and imaging); see also
47 C.F.R. para. 95.401(f).
FN 116: See Appendix E (Final Rules) and 47 C.F.R. para. 95.401(f) (MURS
frequencies are intended for voice and data).
PRSG Comment: We believe that by dismissing our concern about the risk of development of extensive point-to-point communications networks, the FCC has missed an opportunity to discourage resource-consumptive recreational communications on the limited number of channels available. In major urban areas, the only five channels available to MURS could easily become monopolized by area-wide recreational communications networks that could easily be highly disruptive to, or even effectively preclude, the more traditional base-to-mobile and mobile-to-mobile operations on these frequencies.
g. Bandwidth
33. In his petition, Easterday indicates that the radios used by his
employer are licensed for frequencies 154.570 MHz and 154.600 MHz [FN
117] and operate with a bandwidth of 20 kHz. [FN 118] Easterday notes
that in the Report and Order the Commission limited the bandwidth of
these two channels to 12.5 kHz and therefore, his employer's equipment
no longer meets the technical operating parameters of the new MURS
service. [FN 119] Easterday requests that the Commission grandfather the
equipment.
FN 117: Easterday Petition at 1.
FN 118: Id.
FN 119: Id.
34. When governed by Part 90, the bandwidth for 154.570 MHz and 154.600
MHz was 20 kHz. [FN 120] Although the final rules adopted in the Report
and Order listed the bandwidth as 12.5 kHz, this change was inadvertent.
Thus, because it was not intended to alter the bandwidth limitation on
these frequencies, we are revising our rules to reflect the correct
bandwidth for 154.570 MHz and 154.600 MHz as 20 kHz. As a result, all
equipment currently in use will satisfy the technical operating
parameters of MURS, and Easterday's petition for reconsideration is
dismissed as moot.
FN 120: 47 C.F.R. para. 90.35(c)(45) (2000).
35. PRSG requests that we increase the bandwidth of frequencies 151.820
MHz, 151.940 MHz, and 151.940 MHz from 11.25 kHz to 12.5 kHz, [FN 121]
because maintaining separate permissible bandwidths is confusing. [FN
122] As noted above, however, the bandwidth of the "154 MHz" frequencies
is 20 kHz, not 12.5 kHz. Therefore, even if we were to grant PRSG's
request, the MURS frequencies would still have different bandwidths, and
PRSG's underlying objective would not be realized. Therefore, we do not
believe that raising the bandwidth on the "151 MHz" frequencies is
warranted. [FN 123]
FN 121: PRSG Petition at para. 26.
FN 122: Id.
FN 123: We note that a MURS radio which operates on all MURS frequencies
may limit the operating bandwidth of the two "154 MHz"
frequencies to 11.25 kHz in order to create continuity with the
three "151 MHz" frequencies. In other words, the authorized 20
kHz bandwidth of the two "154 MHz" frequencies is a maximum.
Therefore, these frequencies may be operated using a smaller
bandwidth.
h. Implementation matters (equipment certification,
treatment of incumbent licensees)
36. Motorola contends that the technical rules for MURS are "unworkable"
because previously-licensed operations are rendered invalid. [FN 124]
Specifically, Motorola states that Easterday's petition is correct that
the bandwidth requirements under MURS are in conflict with Part 90. [FN
125] Motorola also states that it is not clear as to whether the
Refarming provisions as implemented by Section 90.203 of the
Commission's Rules (regarding the transition to narrowband on PLMR
channels) would apply to MURS. [FN 126] Regarding the bandwidth issue,
as noted above, Easterday's concerns are moot (and here, Motorola's),
because we have clarified that the radios continue to be valid. [FN 127]
On the other hand, we agree with Motorola that some of the MURS rules
could be made clearer. The cause of confusion is that many of the MURS
rules reference Part 90 regulations that do not apply to MURS.
Consequently, on reconsideration we are eliminating all Part 90
references in the MURS rules and instead transferring the substance of
any pertinent Part 90 regulations to Part 95. [FN 128]
FN 124: See Motorola Comments at 3-4.
FN 125: Id. at 3.
FN 126: Id.
FN 127: Supra para. 35.
FN 128: We are also revising Section 95.632(b) of our rules to state the
154 frequencies in megahertz. These frequencies were
inadvertently stated in kilohertz in Appendix A of the Report
and Order. Also, we are revising Section 90.210 of our rules in
order to delete an obscure cross reference.
PRSG Comment: We heartily agree with the reasoning here, but the action does not go far enough. As we noted in our commentary on MO&O/SR&O section IV.A.2.c., following paragraph 26 above (in conjunction with repeater operations), the MURS rules themselves should include a definition of "repeater" and "signal booster," and not have to rely on other non-MURS rule sections.
37. We also clarify that all MURS transmitters must be certified under Part 95 in accordance with Subpart J of Part 2 of the Commission's Rules. [FN 129] In this connection, we note that MURS radios will not be subject to the technical requirements adopted in the Refarming proceeding (e.g., minimum data rate or bandwidth requirements). In addition, in answer to questions raised by RadioShack, [FN 130] the temperature range for frequency stability tests of MURS equipment is -30 deg to +50 deg centigrade. [FN 131] RadioShack also asks whether devices currently operating on MURS frequencies will need to be re-certified under Part 95. [FN 132] The answer is that all equipment currently operating exclusively on MURS frequencies will be grandfathered, and manufacturers may continue to manufacture and sell such equipment without re-certifying it under Part 95. In addition, such equipment may be operated without a license. Users that operate equipment capable of transmitting on both MURS frequencies and other Part 90 frequencies, however, will continue to be required to be licensed for the Part 90 frequencies. Furthermore, all new equipment manufactured to operate exclusively on MURS frequencies must be certified under Part 95, and no new equipment will be authorized which operates on both MURS frequencies and Part 90 frequencies. [FN 133] FN 129: See 47 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart J. FN 130: See RadioShack letter at 1. FN 131: See 47 C.F.R. para. 2.1055. FN 132: RadioShack letter at 1. FN 133: See para. 37, infra.
PRSG Comment: The language of this paragraph raises additional issues not even contemplated in the MO&O/SR&O.
First, what does the language (above) mean, "Users that operate equipment capable of transmitting on both MURS frequencies and other Part 90 frequencies, however, will continue to be required to be licensed for the Part 90 frequencies." [Emphasis added.]
It is the FCC's understandable intent that if a person intends to transmit on a frequency for which the FCC requires a station license, then that operator must first obtain a license authorizing that operation.
The situation is more complex than that. There is very little "MURS-specific" or "MURS-exclusive" equipment currently on the market (although we expect to see more soon). Nearly all equipment currently authorized to transmit on MURS frequencies is readily "capable" of transmitting as well on other, Part 90 (but not MURS-authorized) frequencies. For most of this equipment, the operator can change the transmitting frequency merely by changing the external channel-selection control, or (at most) by reprogramming the unit, an action that can be as simple as changing DIP switches (which often doesn't require any equipment disassembly, but merely removing the battery or opening an inspection plate).
This calls for new FCC language defining such "capability." For instance, does the FCC permit the use of a transmitter at a MURS station if it is otherwise technically acceptable for MURS use, and if that transmitter has multiple channel-selections for frequencies including any that are not authorized for MURS stations? Is the applicable standard, "externally selectable" or perhaps "selectable by the station operator"?
With the wide and continuing availability of Part 90-type transmitters otherwise acceptable for MURS use, this will remain a question for many years.
Second, and on a related matter, there is also the issue of increasing the transmitter power output (TPO) beyond the 2 watt maximum permissible in the revised MURS rules. FCC Rule 95.649 prohibits any MURS unit from "incorporat(ing) provisions for increasing its transmitter power to any level in excess of the limits specified ...." However, some Part 90 units certified for MURS use (such as the popular Radio Shack 19-1210 mobile unit) incorporate a readily accessible adjustment intended precisely for that purpose, to enable the unit to transmit at a higher TPO level, a level that will now exceed the 2-watt TPO limit.
(In the case of the Radio Shack 19-1210 unit, the now-allocated-to-MURS channels were factory preset to transmit at less than 1 watt, but the radio can be easily readjusted to nearly its full 5 watt transmit capability on the MURS channels. Instructions for performing this modification have been widely circulated on the Internet.)
Other radio models now being used on MURS channels are also capable of transmitting (with reprogramming or retuning) at TPO levels well in excess of the new 2 watt maximum. The operators claim compliance because they have (allegedly) reprogrammed or retuned those radios to meet the maximum 2-watt TPO level, at least on the MURS frequencies.
For equipment newly designed and certified under the new MURS rules, the FCC will presumably prohibit such a capability to transmit at a power level greater than the 2-watt TPO limit. The question remains: Are radio models previously certified for operation on MURS frequencies, but which include the capability of such higher-than-allowed transmitter output, still permissible for use as MURS transmitters?
The real issue: What does the language of 95.639, "incorporate provisions for increasing its transmitter power," really mean? Does "incorporate provisions" mean only through some external, user-accessible control? Does it preclude use of radios with programmable TPO capabilities on a channel-by-channel basis? Does it refer to some unspecified degree of easy user access or manipulation through reprogramming? (Years ago, the FCC decertified units accompanied by a User Manual instruction, "Do not cut this wire, because it will cause transmitting at power levels in excess of those permitted under law.")
These previously-certified-for-MURS-use radios continue to be manufactured and marketed. Under the language of MO&O/SR&O paragraph 37, the FCC's intent is not clear. These radios do not operate exclusively on MURS frequencies, since they can be (often, quite readily) reprogrammed for other frequencies. Did the FCC intend that these radios continue to be permissible for MURS use? Given these characteristics of non-compliance, does the FCC intend that these units may continue to be manufactured, marketed and used into the indefinite future (especially since they would not be certifiable under the new rules)?
38. Motorola also suggests that the Commission prohibit the integration
of MURS frequencies and FRS frequencies into a single radio unit in
order to ensure that the frequencies are used primarily for business
applications and not consumer use. [FN 134] On the other hand, Havens
points out that integrated radios would be advantageous in terms of
interoperability and for emergency communications, and Gruis states that
there is no apparent reason to prohibit combined units. [FN 135] We
believe that any benefits resulting from interoperability are outweighed
by the potential for abuse and consequently, we will not permit a single
radio unit to combine both MURS frequencies and FRS frequencies. MURS
and FRS are separate services with differing purposes. FRS is a narrowly
tailored service intended strictly for private two-way, very
short-distance voice communications for facilitating family and group
activities. [FN 136] MURS, on the other hand, is a more flexible service
intended for voice or data communication. [FN 137] We believe that the
combination of MURS frequencies and FRS frequencies in a single unit
could lead to operations on FRS frequencies which are incompatible with
the intent of FRS.
FN 134: See Motorola Petition at 6.
FN 135: See Havens Comments at 12; Gruis Comments at 3.
FN 136: 47 C.F.R. para. 95.401(b).
FN 137: 47 C.F.R. para. 95.401(f).
39. In its Supplemental Comments, Motorola suggests that the Commission
defer full implementation of MURS in order to protect business and
industrial users from potential interference. [FN 138] Motorola notes
that any adverse impact to these users could be alleviated by providing
an alternative spectrum home and time to move there. [FN 139] In this
connection, technical restrictions would be imposed during a "transition
period" so as to protect business and industrial users that require
"more critical low power uses" until they could move to the new
spectrum. [FN 140] Motorola suggests that during this transition period
the Commission prohibit data transmissions, interconnection to the PSN,
repeater operations, and detachable antennas. [FN 141] We have already
addressed three of the four Motorola transition suggestions.
Specifically, on a permanent basis, we have prohibited interconnection
with the PSN, [FN 142] prohibited repeater use, [FN 143] and declined to
prohibit detachable antennas. [FN 144] Moreover, we do not believe that
the public interest would be served by delaying the implementation of
MURS by establishing a migration period. As noted above, Motorola's
migration plan is too speculative as it relies on the availability of
spectrum that is the subject of a Notice of Proposed Rule Making. [FN
145] Accordingly, we decline to prohibit data operations during a
transition period.
FN 138: Motorola Supplemental Comments at 3.
FN 139: Id. Motorola suggests that the twenty-five channel pairs in the
450 MHz band being considered by the Commission for
non-coordinated, itinerant use, as part of a petition for rule
making filed by the Land Mobile Communications Council (WT
Docket No 01-146), would provide the necessary spectrum
alternative for industrial and business incumbents that have
been displaced by MURS. See Amendment of Part 90 of the
Commission's Rules and Policies for Applications and Licensing
of Low power Operations in the Private Land Mobile Radio 450-470
MHz Band, WT Docket No. 01-146, Notice of Proposed Rule Making,
FCC 01-199 (rel. July 21, 2001).
FN 140: Motorola Supplemental Comments at 3-4.
FN 141: Id. at 5.
FN 142: See supra, para. 25.
FN 143: See supra, para. 22.
FN 144: See supra, para. 19.
FN 145: See supra, para. 17; Amendment of Part 90 of the Commission’s
Rules and Policies for Applications and Licensing of Low Power
Operations in the Private Land Mobile Radio 450-470 MHz Band, WT
Docket No. 01-146, FCC 01-199 (rel. July 24, 2001).
40. In addition, we clarify that all previously licensed operations on
the subject frequencies, including any waivers, are grandfathered. While
we have added technical restrictions to MURS that will limit congestion
and interference and encourage operations of the type that these
frequencies were originally intended (and for which still may be used),
these additional technical restrictions will not apply to former
licensees on these frequencies. Therefore, entities that held licenses
as of November 12, 2000, for the former Part 90 frequencies that were
redesignated to MURS effective November 13, 2000, are granted a license
by rule that authorizes continued operations under the terms of such
nullified Part 90 authorizations, including any rule waivers.
B. Public safety and industrial/business radio station sharing under
Section 90.179 [deleted]
C. Frequency coordination for 220 MHz public safety frequencies
[deleted]
D. Update of airport terminal use list [deleted]
V. SECOND REPORT AND ORDER
A. Public Safety Pool: schools and parks eligibility [deleted]
B. State highway maintenance eligibility [deleted]
C. Dockside channels [deleted]
VI. CONCLUSION 58. With the adoption of this Memorandum Opinion and Order on Reconsideration and Second Report and Order, we resolve several petitions for reconsideration filed in this proceeding. Specifically, while adopting certain technical rules in order to prevent abuse and degradation of service in MURS, we have declined to impose eligibility restrictions that would limit personal uses of these frequencies. In addition, we have reiterated our commitment to ensuring that public safety spectrum needs are uncompromised and updated the airport terminal use list. Also, in the Second Report and Order, we have eliminated unnecessary eligibility restrictions in the Public Safety Pool and lifted the power restrictions on seven of the thirty-one Dockside channels. Finally, we have taken this opportunity, on our own motion, to make several rule revisions in our ongoing effort to streamline and eliminate rules that are no longer warranted.
VII. PROCEDURAL MATTERS A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 59. A Supplemental Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis with respect to this Memorandum Opinion and Order has been prepared and is included in Appendix A. A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has been prepared for the Second Report and Order and is included in Appendix B.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act [deleted] C. Alternative Formats [deleted]
D. Contact for Information 63. For further information, contact Guy Benson, Esquire at (202) 418-2946 [gbenson@fcc.gov], Mr. Brian Marenco at 418-0838 [bmarenco@fcc.gov], or John Evanoff, Esquire at 418-0848 [jevanoff@fcc.gov], Policy and Rules Branch, Public Safety and Private Wireless Division, Wireless Telecommunications Bureau.
VIII. ORDERING CLAUSES
64. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i),
303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. paras. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 the
Petition for Reconsideration filed by Motorola, Inc. on November 13,
2000, IS DENIED.
65. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(f) and
(r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. paras. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by RadioShack Corporation on January 3, 2001, IS
DENIED.
66. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(f) and
(r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. paras. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by the Personal Radio Steering Group, Inc. on
November 13, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent indicated herein and
otherwise DENIED.
67. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(f) and
(r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. paras. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by William C. Easterday on November 13, 2000, IS
DISMISSED as moot.
68. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(f) and
(r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. paras. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by the Personal Communications Industry
Association, Inc. on November 13, 2000, is GRANTED.
69. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 303(f) and
(r), 332, and 405 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. paras. 1, 154(i), 303(f) and (r), 332, and 405 the Petition for
Reconsideration filed by the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials on November 13, 2000, IS GRANTED to the extent
indicated herein and otherwise DENIED.
70. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the amendments of the Commission's Rules
as set forth in Appendix E ARE ADOPTED, effective thirty days from the
date of publication in the Federal Register.
71. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, SHALL SEND a
copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order,
WT Docket No. 98-182, including the Supplemental Final and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Marlene H. Dortch
Secretary
APPENDIX A
SUPPLEMENTAL FINAL REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ANALYSIS
(Memorandum Opinion and Order)
[Selected Portions Pertaining to MURS]
* * *
Need For, and Objective of, the MO&O
2. This proceeding was initiated in conjunction with the Commission's
1998 biennial review of regulations pursuant to Section 11 of the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act). [FN
213]
* * *
Finally, the Commission "licensed by rule," i.e., eliminated the
individual licensing requirements for, five VHF frequencies that were
allocated to the Part 90 Industrial/Business Pool for low power (1- or
2-watt) operations. Under this decision, the Commission reallocated the
five VHF frequencies to the Part 95 Personal Radio Services and
established a new Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS) under the Citizens Band
Radio Services.
FN 213: Section 11 requires us to review all our regulations applicable
to providers of telecommunications service and determine whether
any rule is no longer in the public interest as a result of
meaningful economic competition between providers of
telecommunications service, and whether such a regulation should
be deleted or modified. See Section 11 of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. para. 161.
3. The rules adopted in this MO&O continue our efforts to consolidate
and streamline the Part 90 Rules, allow more efficient use of the
spectrum, and provide Part 90 licensees with greater flexibility and
clarity concerning their operations. In particular, we affirm the
decision to license by rule (i.e., eliminate individual licensing for,
and instead license by rule) five VHF frequencies that were formerly
licensed under Part 90 for low-power, industrial/business use, by
placing frequencies in a new Part 95 Citizens Band Radio Service named
the Multi-Use Radio Service (MURS). In addition, we decline to restrict
the use of MURS to Part 90 Industrial/Business Pool eligibles. The
general public is licensed by rule to use MURS for communications
related to personal or business activities, and we revise the MURS
technical rules to balance the benefits of adding technical flexibility
against the disadvantages of potential degradation of the existing
operations of business and industrial users.
* * *
Steps Taken To Minimize Significant Economic Impact on Small Entities,
and Significant Alternatives Considered
10. The RFA [Regulatory Flexibility Act] requires an agency to describe
any significant alternative 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 or reporting requirements under the rule
for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design,
standards; and (4) and exemption from coverage. [FN 233]
FN 233: See U.S.C. para. 603.
11. Regarding our decision to express maximum operating power in terms
of transmit power output (TPO) rather than effective radiated power
(ERP), see paras. 18-19, supra, we do not believe that this will
significantly impact small entities. Prior to the creation of MURS, the
subject frequencies were restricted in terms of TPO, and our decision to
retain this standard will provide continuity as well as the ability for
users to utilize detachable gain-adding antennas (which would not be
feasible were we to use the ERP standard).
12. Regarding our decision to restrict antenna height to 20 feet above
structure or 60 feet above ground, whichever is higher, see paras.
20-21, supra, we do not anticipate any significant impact on small
entities. Prior to the creation of MURS, transmitting antennas using the
subject frequencies were limited in height due to a provision that
restricted the distance between the radio control point and the center
of the radiating portion of the antenna. [FN 234] Consequently, the new
antenna height limits should not affect small entities that continue to
operate on the subject frequencies. Moreover, we believe that antenna
height restrictions will benefit small entities in that such
restrictions promote spectrum sharing and re-use of the frequencies,
thus enabling more small entities to take advantage of this radio
service.
FN 234: See 47 C.F.R. paras. 90.35(c)(11), (14).
13. Regarding our decision to prohibit repeater operations, see para.
22, supra, small (and other) entities wishing to extend the range of
communications will not be allowed to do so. On balance, however, this
restriction should benefit small entities in that it promotes spectrum
sharing and frequency re-use, thus allowing a greater number of users to
take advantage of this radio service. Moreover, any potential negative
impact on small entities is mitigated due to our decision to grandfather
existing operations on the subject frequencies. Consequently, any user
that was authorized to use repeaters on the subject frequencies prior to
the creation of MURS will continue to be allowed to do so. An
alternative would be to allow repeater operations, but we believe that
the resulting benefits of extended communications capabilities are
outweighed by accommodating a greater number of users on these channels.
14. Regarding our decision to prohibit MURS radios from interconnecting
with the Public Switched Network (PSN), see paras. 23-31, supra, small
(and other) entities that want to use MURS frequencies for telephone or
other interconnected types of service will not be allowed to do so.
Allowing interconnection, however, would be inconsistent with the intent
of this radio service, which is a two-way, short distance voice and
data communications service of short duration. Typically, communications
over the PSN last longer than the types of communications envisioned for
MURS. An alternative would be to allow interconnection, but because PSN
interconnected communications are typically duplex in nature, thus
occupying two of five channels in a given area, this would severely
limit the number of available channels at one time. In this connection,
we believe that the prohibition on PSN interconnection will likely
generally benefit small entities in that such restrictions promote
spectrum sharing and re-use of the frequencies, thus enabling more
small entities to take advantage of this radio service. Finally, any
potential negative impact on small entities is mitigated due to our
decision to grandfather existing operations on the subject frequencies.
Consequently, any user that was authorized to interconnect with the PSN
on the subject frequencies prior to the creation of MURS will continue
to be allowed to do so.
15. Our decision to prohibit MURS users from operating in the continuous
carrier mode, see para. 32, supra, could impact small (and other)
entities in that they will be prevented from doing so, and the
alternative would be to allow such operations. As with antenna height
limits, repeater use, and PSN interconnection, however, we believe that
the benefits of increased spectrum sharing and frequency re-use far
outweigh the potential negative impact on small entities. Moreover, the
potential impact on small entities is mitigated due to our decision to
grandfather existing operations on the subject frequencies.
Consequently, any user that was authorized to operate in the continuous
carrier transmit mode on the subject frequencies prior to the creation
of MURS will continue to be allowed to do so.
16. Regarding our decision to prohibit the transmission of lengthy data
image signals over MURS, see para. 33, supra, we do not anticipate any
significant impact on small entities. Transmissions of this type of
communications was [sic] never allowed on the subject frequencies and
allowing them now in MURS would be inconsistent with the intent of the
service.
17. We do not anticipate that our decision to change the permissible
bandwidth from 12.5 kHz to 20 kHz for frequencies 154.570 MHz and
154.600 MHz, see paras. 35-37, supra, will have any significant impact
on small entities. Prior to the creation of MURS, the permissible
bandwidth for these frequencies was 20 kHz, and changing it in the R&O
to 12.5 kHz was an inadvertent error.
18. Our decision to prohibit the integration of MURS frequencies and FRS
frequencies into a single radio unit, see para. 39, supra, should not
have a significant adverse impact on small entities. FRS is a narrowly
tailored service intended for private two-way, very short distance
voice communications for facilitating family and group activities. Small
(and other) businesses are currently not eligible to operate on FRS
frequencies and therefore, this prohibition should not have any adverse
impact.
PRSG Comments: PRSG agrees with the prohibition of combined FRS/MURS radios.
However, the FCC statement here that small businesses are not eligible to operate in FRS is at variance with its previous statements on this matter. Since this docket does not otherwise directly concern major policy issues in FRS, we have to assume that the statement here is in error. We should note that the MO&O/SR&O was released in May 2002, long before the FCC posted the ITA Petition (RM-10564, which asks for a change in the FRS rules to prohibit business use of FRS) for public comment.
19. We also decline to delay the implementation of MURS by declining to adopt a transition/migration period, see para. 41, supra, which might have assisted small entities that might face increased congestion and potential interference from the introduction of non-business operations on the subject frequencies. We have, however, adopted technical restrictions in this Memorandum Opinion and Order to mitigate the potential for harmful interference to small (and other) business operations. Furthermore, as noted above, as the subject frequencies are shared, business users were never insured of interference- or congestion-free operations. Finally, Motorola's suggested migration plan is too speculative, as it relies on the outcome of a pending proceeding. Consequently, based on the totality of the record, we believe that the public interest would not be served were we to delay MURS, and the impact, if any, of this decision on small entities is likely to be minimal. * * *
APPENDIX C
LIST OF PARTIES
(Memorandum Opinion and Order)
The following is a list of parties filing petitions and responsive
pleadings in response to the Report and Order. See Report and Order and
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in WT Docket No. 98-182, 15 FCC
Rcd 16,673 (2000).
Petitions for Reconsideration and/or Clarification were filed by:
PRSG Comment: The FCC mistakenly left this category empty. There were parties that filed the original Petitions, and other parties who filed later comments that the FCC opted to treat like Petitions. See, for example, footnote 16 above.
Oppositions, Comments, and Replies to Petitions for Reconsideration were filed by: AAA Auto Club South, Inc. ACS, Inc. Albert Verdecia Allan Schaefer American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) American Automobile Association (AAA) Andre Ferchau Association of Public Safety-Communications Officials-International (APCO) Automobile Club of Hartford, Inc. Automobile Club of Southern California (ACSC) Bennett Z. Kobb California State Automobile Association (CSAA) College Station Independent School District Corwin D. Moore Jr. David H. Brothers Co., Inc. David F. Reeder Doug McLean Dr. Michael C. Trahos, D.O., NCE, CET Dr. Thomas E. H. Gruis Earl & Brown Company, Inc. The Family Security Company Globe Wireless, Inc. Harlan L. Cooley Hexagram, Inc. Industrial Telecommunications Association, Inc. (ITA) John R Scheuchenzuber Katy Transportation Department Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) Lengemann of Florida Merchant & Merchant Michael D. Krumlauf Motorola, Inc. MRFAC, Inc. (MRFAC) Personal Communications Industry Assn., Inc. (PCIA) Personal Radio Steering Group Inc. (PRSG) Peter Shipley ProMarketing Inc. RadioShack Corp. Raymond A. Klatt RIC Ronald G. Mayworm SAFETENET.com Scott R. Havens Small Business in Telecommunications (SBT) Telonics, Inc. Thomas P. Currie Thomas Poff Thomas Love William C. Easterday William L. Morgan Wireless Solutions
PRSG Comment: Some of these parties submitted comments or replies that applied only to aspects of this rule making that did not pertain directly to MURS.
APPENDIX E
FINAL RULES
[Selected Portions Pertaining to MURS]
* * *
Part 95 of Chapter 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 95 - PERSONAL RADIO SERVICES
15. The authority citation for Part 95 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 4, 303, 48 Stat. 1066, 1082, as amended; 47 U.S.C.
154, 303.
PRSG Comment: We have deleted the language which followed in this Appendix E. The vast majority of it did not pertain directly to MURS. That which did, we have already incorporated into our on-line version of the MURS Rules.
PRSG Home Page |
GMRS Info |
Repeater Guide |
Newsletter |
PRSG Info |
Literature |
Repeater Management
Licensing |
FCC Rules |
Family Radio |
Multi Use Radio [home page] |
What's New |
Links Elsewhere