Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless
Communications Interference
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
August 25, 2010
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32408
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference
Summary
In mid-2005, wireless communications managers commenced the process of moving selected
public safety radio channels to new frequencies. This step was part of a rebanding plan to
mitigate persistent problems with interference to public safety radio communications. The
majority of documented incidents of interference was attributed to the network built by Nextel
Communications, Inc (now Sprint Nextel). As part of an agreement originally made between
Nextel and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), some public safety wireless users
have moved or will move to new frequencies, with the wireless company paying all or part of the
cost. The rebanding agreement was not affected by the merger between Nextel and Sprint
Corporation. In return for the expenditures, and reflecting the value of spectrum that Sprint
Nextel relinquished as part of the band reconfiguration, the FCC assigned new spectrum licenses
to the wireless company. The FCC set the “windfall” value of the new licenses, after allowing for
the value of the licenses being relinquished, at $2.8 billion. The costs that Sprint Nextel incurs in
the rebanding process are being applied to the $2.8 billion windfall. If the total is less than $2.8
billion, Sprint Nextel will be required to make an “anti-windfall” payment to the U.S. Treasury
for the difference. If the costs exceed $2.8 billion, Sprint Nextel is obligated to pay them without
any new concessions from the FCC.
The rebanding plan is being implemented by the 800 MHz Transition Administrator (TA), created
by the FCC for this purpose. The TA’s ongoing responsibilities are to set priorities, establish
schedules, and oversee reimbursement to parties for eligible expenses associated with relocation.
Disagreements about the implementation of the plan that the TA cannot resolve on its own or
through mediation are in most cases referred to the FCC. From the outset, there have been debates
about the transition plan, such as maintaining interoperability, scheduling, and reimbursement for
costs incurred. As the band reconfiguration proceeds, debates have often become protracted
negotiations—and even litigatious disputes—slowing the transition process.
The original plan set a deadline of June 2008 to complete the transition, with the calculation – or
true-up – of the anti-windfall payment to occur six months later. The deadline has been extended
several times while issues regarding the transition process were resolved. Consequently, the
deadline for the true-up has also been extended, most recently until December 2010. The TA has
until November 15, 2010, to file a report with the FCC with its recommendations as to whether it
has sufficient information on the costs of rebanding to calculate the anti-windfall payment – if
any – that Sprint Nextel will be obligated to pay, or whether the deadline must be postponed
again.
Additional delays are occurring in U.S. border areas. The transition plan for frequencies along the
Canadian border is scheduled for completion in April 2011. Negotiations continue with Mexico
about rebanding frequencies along the Mexican border.
Congressional Research Service
Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Highlights of the FCC Rebanding Plan........................................................................................ 2
Costs of Rebanding ..................................................................................................................... 3
Transition Administrator ............................................................................................................. 3
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 4
Congressional Research Service
Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference
Introduction
Wireless signals are subject to various types of interference, even when operating within assigned
frequencies. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates commercial radio,
television, commercial wireless services, and state and local public safety and other non-federal
uses of radio frequency spectrum. Its primary tool in dealing with interference to wireless
transmissions is to prevent it by the judicious allocation of radio frequencies, following band
plans designed to preclude or minimize most types of interference. In the case of frequencies at
800 MHz,1 interference had been caused primarily by transmissions from commercial cell phone
towers, many of which were part of Sprint Nextel’s “push to talk” network.2 When the
frequencies in the 800 MHz band were first assigned, the FCC did not anticipate that channels in
that band intended for short messages over commercial mobile radio (used by taxi dispatchers, for
example) would—with time, technology, and soaring consumer demand for wireless service—be
converted to a heavily-trafficked national cell phone network. The commercial allocations at 800
MHz were closely interleaved with public safety allocations, with the expectation that the
(presumably) low-usage commercial assignments would act as buffers to prevent interference
with public safety channels.
The FCC announced in 2004 that it had agreed upon a rebanding plan to consolidate public safety
frequencies and those used by some other operators, such as utilities, in the lower part of the 800
MHz band, while moving some of the 800 MHz channels acquired by Nextel, and some other
commercial users, to the higher end of the band. The band reconfiguration is expected to
eliminate interference caused by the close proximity and interleaving of commercial and public
safety channels. The decision reached by the FCC in general supported a rebanding plan first
proposed by Nextel. After months of negotiations, clarifications and technical corrections, a
modified plan was accepted in February 2005.3 The conversion process was scheduled to be
completed by June 26, 2008. Disputes related to cost reimbursement have delayed the transition,
however.
Additional delays are occurring in U.S. border areas. The transition plan for frequencies along the
Canadian border is scheduled for completion in April 2011. Negotiations continue with Mexico
about rebanding frequencies along the Mexican border.4 As of March 31, 2010 over 90% of
public safety agencies with non-border licenses affected by the transition plan had filed
Frequency Realignment Agreements (FRAs) with the TA. Some public safety agencies have filed
requests for extension (waivers) with the FCC. Because waivers extending deadlines are granted
on a case-by-case basis, the final completion date for the transition is not certain.
1 Radio frequency spectrum is measured in hertz. Radio frequency is the portion of electromagnetic spectrum that
carries radio waves. The distance an energy wave takes to complete one cycle is its wavelength. Frequency is the
number of wavelengths measured at a given point per unit of time, in cycles per second, or hertz (Hz). Typical
designations are: kHz—kilohertz or thousands of hertz; MHz—megahertz, or millions of hertz; and GHz—gigahertz, or
billions of hertz.
2 In a letter it filed with the FCC, dated May 16, 2003, Nextel wrote: “Ten percent of all public safety agencies licensed
at 800 MHz have reported experiencing interference from the lawful operations of Nextel [and others].” At
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=6514089037.
3 “Nextel Accepts FCC 800 MHz Interference Solution,” FCC News, February 7, 2005, at http://www.fcc.com.
4 FCC documents and rulings are under WT Docket No. 02-55.
Congressional Research Service
1
Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference
Highlights of the FCC Rebanding Plan
The news release announcing the FCC decision regarding the decision for rebanding provided a
summary of key points,5 some of which are highlighted below. These provisions, negotiated with
Nextel, apply to Sprint Nextel effective as of the date of the merger.
• Separate “generally incompatible technologies” by eliminating interleaving.
• Move channels designated for interoperability to the lower end of the band, close
to the planned public safety band at 700 MHz.
• Require public safety systems to relocate to channels at 809-815 MHz and 854-
860 MHz.
• Require certain business and industrial users to relocate to channels at 809-815
MHz and 854-860 MHz.
• Require Enhanced Specialized Mobile Radio users, “ESMR,” to relocate to 817-
824 MHz and 862-869 MHz.
• Until the band relocation plan is complete, apply “Enhanced Best Practices” to
define and correct interference that will place “strict responsibility on carriers to
fix such interference.”
• Require Nextel to give up some of its licenses at 800 MHz and all of its licenses
at 700 MHz.
• Modify Nextel’s licenses to provide the right to operate at 1910-1915 MHz and
1990-1995 MHz, “conditioned on Nextel fulfilling certain obligations specified
in the Commission’s decision.”
• Value the 1.9 GHz spectrum rights to be assigned to Nextel at almost $4.9 billion,
less the cost of relocating incumbent users in those channels.
• Credit Nextel the value of the spectrum rights it is relinquishing at 700 MHz and
800 MHz plus the “actual costs” to Nextel in relocating “all incumbents in the
800 MHz band.”
• Require Nextel to make an “anti-windfall payment” to the Treasury at the
conclusion of the relocation process that will equal the difference between the
$4.9 billion valuation and the cumulative credits.
• Require Nextel to provide public safety users at 800 MHz and incumbent users at
1.9 GHz with “comparable facilities.”
• Require Nextel to establish escrow accounts and a letter of credit in the amount
of $2.5 billion, to “ensure that the band reconfiguration process will be
completed.”
• Provide an independent “Transition Administrator” to authorize disbursements,
“subject to de novo Commission review.”
5 “FCC Adopts Solution to Interference Problem Faced by 800 MHz Public Safety Radio System,” FCC News, July 8,
2004, at http://www.fcc.gov.
Congressional Research Service
2
Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference
Costs of Rebanding
The FCC rebanding plan required that Sprint Nextel pledge $2.5 billion in cash and letters of
credit to cover relocation costs for public safety. Sprint Nextel’s obligation to cover the costs of
rebanding is not limited to $2.5 billion, however. Sprint Nextel is expected to pay all the agreed
upon costs, even if this total exceeds $2.5 billion. The difference between the values of the
spectrum Sprint Nextel is relinquishing and of the new spectrum it is receiving is an increase—a
potential windfall—of approximately $2.8 billion. This is the value, before specified relocation
costs, that Sprint Nextel might be obligated to pay the U.S. Treasury. If the rebanding plan costs
reach $2.5 billion, the “anti-windfall payment” due the U.S. Treasury would be $300 million. If
the costs exceed $2.8 billion, the Treasury receives nothing. If the costs are no more than $850
million (a preliminary estimate provided by Nextel), the payment to the Treasury could approach
$2 billion. Therefore, all the relocation costs reimbursed by Sprint Nextel must be tallied and
documented to be applied toward the potential anti-windfall payment. The final determination of
the payment, if any, from Sprint Nextel is referred to as a true-up.
Because the deadline for the completion of the rebanding has been extended several times, the
deadline for the true-up has also been extended, most recently until December 31, 2010. The TA
has until November 15, 2010, to file a report with the FCC with its recommendations as to
whether it has sufficient information on the costs of rebanding to calculate the anti-windfall
payment – if any – that Sprint Nextel will be obligated to pay, or whether the deadline must be
postponed again.6
Transition Administrator
The Transition Administrator (TA) is an independent organization set up in accordance with FCC
rules. The responsibilities of the TA are to facilitate a smooth transition and to oversee the
administration and financial management of the plan. The TA is also to monitor progress in the
rebanding plans and to enforce the deadlines set by the FCC. It is the TA that requests estimates
of rebanding costs from public safety and private wireless networks covered by the plan, and
decides whether or not to provide funds in advance. Disagreements about the implementation of
the plan that the TA cannot resolve on its own or through mediation will in most cases be referred
to the FCC. The TA consists of a team provided by Deloitte Consulting LLP, Squire, Sanders, &
Dempsey LLP, and Baseline Wireless Services, LLC.7
6FCC, Order, WT Docket 02-55, released June 29, 2010, at http://www.fcc.gov/Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2010/
db0629/DA-10-1190A1.pdf
7 See the TA website at http://www.800ta.org/ for additional information.
Congressional Research Service
3
Spectrum Policy: Public Safety and Wireless Communications Interference
Author Contact Information
Linda K. Moore
Specialist in Telecommunications Policy
lmoore@crs.loc.gov, 7-5853
Congressional Research Service
4