CommLawBlog : Broadcast & Communications Lawyers & Attorneys : Fletcher Heald & Hildreth Law Firm : Telecommunications, FCC Regulation, Communications Act

In other words, if a change affects the extent to which your signal can cause interference to others, the change is “major”, and you have to coordinate before filing for a license. Several engineering firms offer coordination services.

On the other hand, minor changes – which have less impact than the major change categories noted above – may be implemented as a matter of right. However, if there is any change in operating parameters, the FCC must be notified by a license application to be filed within 30 days after the change is made. 

Disagreement apparently evolved in the engineering community recently as to whether coordination must be completed prior to implementing a minor change. The FCC’s answer is “yes” – IF the proposed change “could affect or be affected by” anyone else’s facilities, in which case you must coordinate first, and then implement your minor change and file your license application.   The coordination process usually takes at least 30 days.

The ruling is important because the same Form 601 is used for both major and minor changes. Written evidence of prior coordination must be attached to an application for a new station or major change, but not a minor change application. Nevertheless, the FCC says, the fact that you do not have to file a prior coordination notice for a minor change does not mean that you do not have to do the coordination if any other station or earlier application might be affected.

The FCC really means that prior coordination is required if a major or minor change could adversely affect anyone else. There are some changes that might help others by allowing them to expand, but prior coordination is not required if the effect cannot be adverse. Examples include deleting a path, deleting a frequency, reducing power, or reducing occupied bandwidth, which could allow another station to improve its facilities but cannot hurt anyone else. Even in those cases, however, a license application must be filed within 30 days after the change is made, so that the FCC can update the database used by coordinators.

The formal coordination process, described in Section 101.103(d) of the FCC’s Rules, is not required for fixed or mobile stations below 2110 MHz (including “2 GHz” ENG systems), mobile stations in higher bands, or short-term operation of 30 days or less under Section 74.24. In those situations, informal coordination is required with all licensees in the area. “Informal coordination” entails contacting a local frequency coordinating committee if one exists, or otherwise contacting anyone you can find who might be affected by your proposed operation.

So now we know that prior coordination is needed for almost any change except cutting back or discontinuing an operation. But how can we be sure? The FCC admits that “there may be other minor modifications that may not require prior coordination”, but a “comprehensive list” is impossible to make, because whether or not a change would affect or be affected by other facilities must be decided “on a case-by-case basis”. When you’re planning a change, it’s a good idea to chat early on with your engineer, so that coordination gets taken care of and does not turn into an obstacle that delays project implementation.

While the FCC’s ruling appears directed at only TV auxiliary licenses, Section 74.502(d) of the FCC’s Rules requires that the Section 101.103(d) coordination procedure by used for applications for radio studio-transmitter links in the 950 MHz band.  Presumably then, the same interpretations can be applied to radio links.

While the Commission has made crystal clear for years that full-service broadcast service would be removed from the 700 MHz band as of the DTV Transition date, the Commission has not previously been as clear about low power auxiliary operations that have also been permitted in that band. The FCC now says that everyone engaging in such operations should have (and may have) figured out their days were numbered, but it does not appear that the FCC has previously taken a position, directly or otherwise, on the subject.

Whether or not the FCC’s silence to date has been the result of conscious planning or inadvertent oversight, the agency has now snapped into action with a vengeance. As a result, effective August 21 the Commission will not accept or grant applications for further licenses for low power services in the 700 MHz band, nor will it process any requests for equipment authorization which would involve such services.

Looking ahead, the Commission has proposed to modify all outstanding low power 700 MHz licenses to specify that, to the extent that those licenses permit operation in the 700 MHz band, they will expire as of February 17, 2009. According to the Commission, a wide range of alternate frequencies are available for use for such services, so roping off that particular band should have only “minimal impact” on such operations.

The Commission has also proposed a blanket prohibition against the marketing of any devices that operate as low power auxiliary stations in the 700 MHz band. That would include the manufacture, import, sale, offer for sale or shipment of such devices. The prohibition would take effect as soon as the proposal is adopted. Since this proceeding appears to be on a fast track, it’s possible that the prohibition could be in effect before the end of the year.

Besides the upcoming DTV Transition deadline, a major impetus for the FCC’s sudden concern about low power 700 MHz operation was pressure from the “Public Interest Spectrum Coalition” (PISC), which filed a complaint against a number of wireless microphone manufacturers and a petition proposing, among other things, the creation of a “General Wireless Microphone Service” to utilize, on a secondary basis, vacant UHF channels below Channel 52. The Commission has requested comments on all of the PISC proposals. The context of that request, however, suggests that it is largely pro forma in nature, and that the Commission’s real interest lies with the proposals, described above, which the agency specifically addresses elsewhere in its order.

The FCC’s decision does not address precisely how the agency would enforce a blanket prohibition against everyone who currently owns and operates a 700 MHz wireless mike. Many such mikes are used by organizations – churches, theaters, corporate event venues, among many others – who presumably are not especially au courant about the technical details of their gear, much less the FCC’s pronouncements. If the FCC thinks that it can wave its magic rulemaking wand and make all low power 700 MHz operation vanish in the blink of an eye, it probably has at least one more think coming.

The deadline for comments on the FCC’s (and PISC’s) proposals has not yet been established. Check back here for updates.