SUMMARY

Until advances in technology allowed shared access to the white spaces within the broadcast band, most notably the empty "guard bands" between stations on the TV dial, broadcasters could continue to expand their private use of public spectrum gradually, and to the benefit of themselves alone. Thus, while broadcasters have insisted on rigid protections for guard bands from Part 15 devices, broadcasters have successfully lobbied for increased power to expand operation into the guard bands and have supported manufacture of devices that directly benefit broadcasting, such as wireless microphones and other Part 74 devices.

Previously, the FCC had only two choicesallow broadcasters to expand the use of the band or let spectrum lie unused. There was therefore little harm in granting broadcasters the additional power or flexibility requested. Now, however, technology has reached a point where the Commission has other options. As the NPRM recognizes, shared access in the broadcast bands is both feasible and desirable.

Given the value of expanded guard band use to broadcasters, it is unsurprising that the MSTV/NAB comments have sought to derail the NPRM or delay shared access until after the digital transition, when broadcasters will have completed their expansion into the guard bands. The Commission must not fall into the trap urged by MSTV/NAB of waiting until after the digital transition to implement unlicensed cognitive radio sharing in the broadcast bands. To the contrary, to prevent the broadcasters from continuing their steady erosion of the guard bands for their private use, the Commission should move as quickly as possible to authorize Part 15 devices that operate in the television broadcast bands.

Part I describes the steady effort of broadcasters to expand their use of public spectrum beyond their initial allocation. Part II argues that, in light of new technologies that allow the public to directly access guard band spectrum to the benefit of all, to continue to transfer use of public spectrum to broadcasters without any compensation to the public would be bad policy and contrary to law. Part III addresses certain technical issues raised in the comments generally. Commentors urge the Commission to create the most flexible regime possible for Part 15 devices in the broadcast bands and to avoid favoring any particular technology or interference mitigation technique. As a general matter, NAF, et al. urge the Commission to favor low-power mobile uses over highpower fixed uses, and not to trade low-power mobile services for high-power fixed services. Furthermore, NAF, et al. caution the Commission against establishing any "licensing-lite" schemes or mechanisms that create a "first in time, first in right" regime that would allow a handful of actors to establish effective monopolies over geographic areas.

To view the entire comments, please see the PDF file linked below.