Narrowbanding now or when?

On a fairly regular basis I have been getting questions about the FCC’s February 2003 Order setting deadlines for mandatory narrowbanding for Part 90 licensees at 150 MHz and 450-512 MHz. So, I thought that it would be useful to review the decisions made in February, and provide an update on the issues.

The February Order made the following decision:

1. New applications for 25 kHz channels at 150 MHz and 450-512 MHz will be prohibited as of Jan. 13, 2004;

2. Modifications to increase the authorized contour for an existing wideband systems are prohibited as of Jan. 13, 2004, (unless the system proposed to convert to narrowband operations);

3. New equipment capable of one voice path per 25 kHz of spectrum cannot be type accepted or certified as of Jan. 1, 2005, (certified equipment can still be sold);

4. New equipment capable of one voice path per 25 kHz of spectrum cannot be manufactured or imported as of Jan. 1, 2008;

5. Licensees must migrate to 12.5 kHz technology by Jan. 1, 2013, for non-public safety systems, and Jan. 1, 2018, for public safety systems;

6. The FCC began a Notice of Proposed Rule Making to look at when a migration to 6.25 kHz should happen.

A number of parties had issues with some of these decisions, and have filed Petitions for Reconsideration of the FCC’s action. Here’s a summary of some of the issues and potential problems which have been raised:

1. Some parties, particularly the public safety community, believe the Jan. 13, 2004, deadline to submit wideband applications should be extended;

2. Some parties believe the equipment deadlines should be extended;

3. Some parties believe the mandatory conversion deadline should be shortened, while others insist it should be lengthened;

4. There is an issue as to whether the FCC was specific enough, in using the phrase “one voice path per 25 kHz of spectrum,” to continue to permit wideband, spectrum efficient equipment, such as TDMA, to be manufactured and licensed;

5. There is an issue as to whether the order was specific enough to exclude the current paging channels from the mandatory narrowbanding requirement;

6. There is an issue as to whether multi-mode equipment will continue to be permitted after the relevant certification and manufacturing deadlines.

I don’t believe that the FCC meant to exclude spectrum efficient wideband equipment, nor do I believe that the FCC meant to include the paging channels in the Order. I believe (and one of my law school professors hated when any of us said “I believe”) that it was merely a lack of clarity in drafting, which too often can happen at the FCC when staff is turning over and the same people don’t work on a proceeding from start to finish. So, I think there will be a clarification on these points along the lines requested by the Petitioners.

Reading the tea leaves, I would surmise that the FCC won’t be particularly troubled with moving the January 2004 date back a bit. After all, as one FCC employee told me, the FCC itself can’t do anything within six months, so why should they expect a local government to do something that quickly?

Having said that, one must also ask the question, how long is necessary before new wideband applications for new systems using old equipment should no longer be accepted? Narrowband equipment in the band is not new, and certifications for new wideband-only equipment ended as of Feb. 1, 1997 (dual-mode equipment continues to be permitted). Further, under rules adopted in 1995, new equipment capable of only operating on channels 12.5 kHz and wider (meaning one voice path per 12.5 kHz channel) will no longer be certified after Jan. 1, 2005, a 6.25 kHz mode must be included. So, we’ve been heading down this path for quite a while.

I understand equipment longevity issues and budgetary cycles. However, the FCC’s decision meant that a full nine years after the decision was made to force narrowbanding through the type-acceptance process, wideband applications for new systems seeking to use old equipment will no longer be accepted. That seems to me to have been plenty of time for planning. I’m sure that if we push it back another six months it won’t devastate the industry, but we need to get this done quickly.

This decision is also important for manufacturers. You might have noticed that the land mobile business seems to be in a bit of a slump. Some of that slump is tied to licensees at 800 MHz and 900 MHz holding their breath to see what the outcome of the interference proceeding will be, but at 150 MHz and 450 MHz we need to get more efficient, either by narrowbanding or being more spectrum efficient in wideband mode. Manufacturers need a date certain for equipment requirements for their planning, and forced narrowbanding ought to help energize the industry.

Alan S. Tilles is counsel to numerous entities in the private radio, Internet and entertainment industries. He is a partner in the law firm of Shulman Rogers Gandal Pordy & Ecker and can be reached at [email protected].