Harold Feld, Media Access Project

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation
in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No. 04-186

Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices
Below 900 MHZ and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380

REPLY COMMENTS OF
New America Foundation
Media Access Project
Cuwin Foundation
Michael Marcus, Sc.D., F-IEEE
Dr. Paul Kolodzy
Dr. Joseph Evans

The Economic/Legal Reply Comments filed by NAF, et al. are below. NAF, et al. also filed a separate set of Technical Reply Comments, which you can find here.

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation
in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No. 04-186

BEFORE THE
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation
in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No. 04-186

Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices
Below 900 MHZ and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380

In the Matter of Unlicensed Operation
in the TV Broadcast Bands, ET Docket No. 04-186

Additional Spectrum for Unlicensed Devices
Below 900 MHZ and in the 3 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 02-380

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION AND
THE CHAMPAIGN URBANA WIRELESS NETWORK

COMMENTS OF
THE NATIONAL HISPANIC MEDIA COALITION
THE NEW AMERICA FOUNDATION
HAWAII CONSUMERS
PROMETHEUS RADIO PROJECT
MEDIA ALLIANCE
THE BENTON FOUNDATION
U.S. PIRG

NAF, et al. vigorously oppose adoption of the Notice as proposed. The proposed rules virtually replicate the 2002 Petition by Progeny LMS, LLC (Progeny Petition), which attracted considerable opposition from a broad cross-section of industry groups. Other than the continued failure of the L-LMS Band -- a risk reflected in the absurdly low prices the licenses brought at auction -- the NPRM offers no justification for adopting the proposal.

OVERVIEW

In both their comments and reply comments, broadcasters seeking expanded coverage via distributed transmission system technologies (DTS) continue to fail to acknowledge the huge opportunity costs associated with the massive expansion in geographic service area rights that they are requesting. NAF et al. described these opportunity costs in its own comments and sees no reason to repeat itself here.

SUMMARY

This proceeding marks a watershed in the history of unlicensed spectrum. Never before in an FCC proceeding have business users of unlicensed spectrum (as opposed to vendors of unlicensed devices and related products) stepped forward and so forcefully endorsed both the need for unlicensed spectrum and the underlying principles that justify that need. The public interest and the overwhelming majority of private interests are in complete harmony.