Clearwire 2009 Annual Report Download - page 32

t
o permit low-power, unlicensed devices to operate in the 2655 to 2690 MHz band, but emphasized that unlicense
d
devices in the band ma
y
not cause harmful interference to licensed BRS operations.
Th
e FCC a
l
so rea
ffi
rme
d
t
h
e app
li
cat
i
on o
fi
ts spectrum
l
eas
i
ng ru
l
es an
d
po
li
c
i
es to BRS an
d
EBS, an
d
ru
l
e
d
th
at new EBS spectrum
l
eases may prov
id
e
f
or a max
i
mum term (
i
nc
l
u
di
ng
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
an
d
renewa
l
terms) o
f
30 years
.
The FCC further required that new EBS spectrum leases with terms of 1
5y
ears or lon
g
er must allow the EB
S
li
censee to rev
i
ew
i
ts e
d
ucat
i
ona
l
use requ
i
rements every
fi
ve years,
b
eg
i
nn
i
ng at t
h
e
fif
teent
h
year o
f
t
h
e
l
ease.
On Marc
h
20, 2008, t
h
e FCC re
l
ease
d
a
f
urt
h
er or
d
er rev
i
s
i
n
g
,c
l
ar
ifyi
n
g
an
d
recons
id
er
i
n
g
certa
i
no
fi
ts
BRS/EBS rules as well as seekin
g
comment on additional matters. The order
g
enerall
y
affirmed the technical rule
s
adopted by the FCC in 2004 and modified in 200
6
, except for some minor adjustments. In addition, it clarified tha
t
licensees should use the “splittin
g
-the-football” methodolo
gy
to divide overlappin
gg
eo
g
raphic service areas fo
r
EBS licenses that expired and are later reinstated. This could impact the
g
eo
g
raphic service areas in which we are
a
bl
eto
d
ep
l
oy serv
i
ce.
T
he FCC determined that it would use its existin
g
auction rules to auction the 78 unassi
g
ned BRS BTA
s
pectrum licenses. The auction started on October 27, 2009 and concluded shortl
y
thereafter. Of the 78 BTAs
ava
il
a
bl
e
f
or auct
i
on, we success
f
u
ll
y
bid f
or 42. We
h
ave ma
d
ea
ll
necessary payments re
l
ate
d
to t
h
e
li
censes an
d
our app
li
cat
i
ons
f
or t
h
e
li
censes are current
ly
pen
di
n
gb
e
f
ore t
h
e FCC
.
T
he FCC also reinstated a Gulf of Mexico service area for the BRS band, the boundar
y
of which will be 1
2
n
aut
i
ca
l
m
il
es
f
rom t
h
es
h
ore, to
b
e
di
v
id
e
di
nto t
h
ree zones
f
or
li
cens
i
ng purposes. BRS
li
censees
i
nt
h
eGu
lf
o
f
Mexico will be sub
j
ect to the same service and technical rules that appl
y
to all other BRS licensees. The Gulf of
Mexico BTAs were included amon
g
the licenses slated for auction. The commencement of BRS service in the Gulf
o
f
Mex
i
co may
h
ave an
i
mpact on our a
bili
ty to
d
ep
l
oy serv
i
ce
i
n areas near t
h
eGu
lf
o
f
Mex
i
co.
Finall
y
, the FCC clarified that EBS leases executed before Januar
y
10, 200
5
cannot run in perpetuit
y
and ar
e
limited to 1
5y
ears. The FCC affirmed its
g
eneral polic
y
that it should not become enmeshed in interpretin
g
privat
e
c
ontracts. In
di
scuss
i
ng
i
ts pr
i
or ru
li
ngs govern
i
ng t
h
e max
i
mum EBS
l
ease term, t
h
e FCC re
f
erre
d
to prev
i
ous
s
tatements re
g
ardin
g
EBS lease terms that it has never made before which ma
y
affect some of our lease ri
g
hts if no
t
s
ubsequently reconsidered. In response to petitions for reconsideration on this issue, the FCC adopted a compro-
mi
se proposa
l
put
f
orwar
db
yt
h
e
i
n
d
ustry t
h
at
d
oes
i
mpact some
l
eases t
h
at
h
a
db
een entere
di
nto pr
i
or t
o
Januar
y
10, 2005.
Th
e FCC soug
h
t
f
urt
h
er comment on
h
ow to
li
cense t
h
eava
il
a
bl
ean
d
unass
i
gne
d
“w
hi
te spaces”
i
nt
h
eEB
S
s
pectrum
b
an
d
,
i
nc
l
u
di
ng w
h
et
h
er an
dh
ow to
li
cense EBS spectrum
i
nt
h
eGu
lf
o
f
Mex
i
co. T
h
e FCC note
d
t
h
at
p
u
bli
can
d
e
d
ucat
i
ona
li
nst
i
tut
i
ons t
h
at are e
ligibl
eto
h
o
ld
EBS
li
censes ma
yb
e constra
i
ne
df
rom part
i
c
i
pat
i
n
gi
n
c
ompetitive bidding. These issues remain unresolved by the FCC.
I
n June 200
6
, the Federal Aviation Administration, which we refer to as the FAA, proposed regulations
g
overnin
g
potential interference to navi
g
able airspace from certain FCC-licensed radio transmittin
g
devices
,
i
ncluding 2.
5
GHz transmitters. These regulations would require FAA notice and approval for new or modified
t
ransm
i
tt
i
ng
f
ac
ili
t
i
es. I
f
a
d
opte
d
,t
h
ese regu
l
at
i
ons cou
ld
su
b
stant
i
a
ll
y
i
ncrease t
h
ea
d
m
i
n
i
strat
i
ve
b
ur
d
en an
d
costs
i
nvo
l
ve
di
n
d
ep
l
o
yi
n
g
our serv
i
ce
.
I
n certa
i
n
i
nternat
i
ona
l
mar
k
ets, our su
b
s
idi
ar
i
es are su
bj
ect to ru
l
es t
h
at prov
id
et
h
at
if
t
h
esu
b
s
idi
ary’s
w
i
re
l
ess serv
i
ce
i
s
di
scont
i
nue
d
or
i
mpa
i
re
df
or a spec
ifi
e
d
per
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
me, t
h
e spectrum r
igh
ts ma
yb
erevo
k
e
d
.
C
learwire/S
p
rint Transaction Regulation
Th
e FCC’s or
d
er approv
i
n
g
t
h
e Transact
i
ons was re
l
ease
d
on Nov. 7, 2008. A “Pet
i
t
i
on
f
or Recons
id
erat
i
on” o
f
t
he order was filed b
y
the Public Interest Spectrum Coalition, which we refer to as PISC, on December 8, 2008 and
i
s currentl
y
pendin
g
at the FCC. In its petition, PISC expressed its support for the FCC’s decision to approve th
e
Transact
i
ons
b
ut as
k
e
d
t
h
e FCC on recons
id
erat
i
on to 1) remove BRS spectrum
f
rom t
h
e screen t
h
e FCC use
d
t
o
anal
y
ze the competitive effect of the proposed transaction; and 2) impose a condition on us to ensure that we follo
w
t
hrou
g
h on our commitment to build and operate an open network consistent with the FCC’s Polic
y
Statement b
y
s
u
bj
ect
i
ng C
l
earw
i
re’s t
hi
r
d
-party contractua
l
arrangements to rev
i
ew. We oppose
d
PISC’s pet
i
t
i
on
b
ut a
l
so note
d
22