A Principled Approach to LMCC Spectrum Management

LMCC National Conference
Remarks of FCC Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy
Washington DC - April 19, 2002
As prepared for delivery.


Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you today.  This is my first opportunity to address 
an audience with such a significant contingent of private land mobile radio licensees.  And these 
are exciting and turbulent times for all of us who work with spectrum policy.  So let me begin by 
speaking broadly about how I believe your services fit into my overall spectrum management 
philosophy. 

Whether we like it or not – whether it's easy or not – we have an extremely complex and 
congested spectrum management reality in the US.  We have two agencies at the helm – we have 
dribs and drabs of spectrum distributed over decades of ever-changing spectrum policy – we 
have a statutory scheme that sometimes required comparative hearings, at other times lotteries, 
mandates auctions, exempts others from auctions, requires us to avoid mutual exclusivity, 
encourages wide distributions of licenses, considers combinatorial bidding, bidding credits, set 
asides, and installment payments.  And, oh yeah, we also have licensed bands, unlicensed bands, 
lots of sharing, and all those federal government operations that they cannot really tell us about.

As a veteran of the wireless industry and the satellite world, I know all too well how difficult it 
can be for Commission licensees like members of the LMCC who depend on the -- at times 
unpredictable -- puffs of spectrum policy smoke that emerge from the Commission.  

With that in mind I would like to review some key principles that will impact my analysis of land 
mobile policy issues:

First, public safety licensees must have sufficient, reliable spectrum resources.  These  resources 
must include sufficient spectrum for interoperability.  Proposals for priority access on 
commercial systems -- while an important service -- are not a substitute for adequate, dedicated 
public safety spectrum.  Today, the Commission has a statutory mandate to move forward with 
the 700 MHz auction – a deadline that may well be challenged in court if we fail to hold the 
auction this year.  I believe the Commission has acted responsibly to encourage band clearing at 
700 MHz that will allow public safety access to that vital 24 MHz of spectrum.  Absent 
legislative intervention, I believe we should move forward with that auction this year and allow 
the market-based band clearing of the spectrum for public safety use to proceed.  

Similarly, in order to facilitate the development of on-site broadband capability for first 
responders, I also believe the Commission should move promptly to adopt service rules for the 
4.9 GHz spectrum band.  This 50 MHz is another important element of a successful public safety 
spectrum policy.

Significant for all LMCC members - particularly public safety - is the 800 MHz proceeding.   As 
I have said before we have a problem at 800 MHz that needs to be fixed – and I applaud the 
recent efforts of the affected parties to develop proposals that mitigate to the greatest possible 
degree the public safety interference problems in the band.  As I have also indicated I am quite 
skeptical of any proposal that requires the imposition of significant costs of any one group of 
licensees – particularly licensees that do not cause – and are not harmed by the interference. I am 
also generally reluctant to solve the 800 MHz interference problems by moving parties into a 
host of other bands and further disrupt licensees' plans – so if possible I would like to find as 
many of the answers to 800 MHz in the 800 MHz band.  Nonetheless, I recognize that this is a 
difficult problem that will require creative solutions – and I look forward to working with all of 
you to develop some answers.

A second core principal is the significance of private land mobile operations.  Although 
commercial mobile radio services provide an important service, they are not a substitute for 
private land mobile operations.  I understand that some businesses require communication that is 
more reliable and durable than commercial operations can provide.  Indeed private services are 
an essential part of public and employee safety and business efficiency.  Therefore we can have 
twenty national CMRS carriers, but there will always be a solid public policy reason for private 
land mobile spectrum.  On this score, I look forward to working with you to adopt service rules 
in the 27 MHz proceeding that recognize these realities.  That proceeding along with the FCC's 
response to NTIA's critical infrastructure spectrum needs study will make a busy year for 
PSPWD and the Wireless Bureau.  

My third principle is that site-by-site licensing remains a viable spectrum management tool. The 
statute requires that our auction authority should not be "construed to relieve the Commission of 
the obligation in the public interest to continue to use engineering solutions . . . .and other means 
in order to avoid mutual exclusivity. . . in licensing proceedings. . . "  I believe that site-by-site 
licensing is a useful tool in our spectrum management arsenal – and that for some spectrum 
bands it serves the public interest.  Site-by-site is a particularly important management tool while 
the Commission continues its efforts to facilitate an effective secondary spectrum market.

Although I recognize the importance of private radio and site-by-site licensing, I also believe that 
those rights must be exercised responsibly and enforced consistently by the Commission.  I want 
to touch on three policy issues on licensee and FCC responsibility:  (1) license audits; (2) 
spectral efficiency; and (3) the role of spectrum coordinators.  Regarding license audits, I have 
vigorously supported the Commission's efforts to conduct an audit of the PLMR stations below 
512 MHz.  This has been an enormous undertaking – the Bureau sent out over 285,000 letters.  
And as a result, licensees have submitted over 27,000 licenses for cancellation.  We have learned 
a great deal from this experience and I will encourage the Bureau to undertake audits in 
additional bands and to take steps to systemize the auditing process going forward.  I want to 
particularly acknowledge the fine work and leadership of Tom Sugrue, Kathleen Ham and 
D'wana Terry and all of PSPWD in these efforts.   

Private radio coordinated licensing requires a more active spectrum management role than the 
FCC might assume in geographically licensed bands.  This role makes it essential that we 
continue to develop mechanisms to further encourage efficient use of our existing private land 
mobile spectrum. Therefore, we should allow for the full panoply of low power uses by 
designating channels in multiple categories to facilitate interference free flexible operation in 
these bands.

Responsible spectrum management also necessitates that all of the coordinators work together.  I 
fully support the Bureau's continued efforts through Frequency Coordinator Summits to increase 
information flow and promote best practices.  And I look forward to another productive session 
in June.  Indeed I should not that the concept of a spectrum audit was a result of these sessions.  

Frequency Coordinator communication and evenly shared responsibility is essential to this effort.  
For example, all coordinators should work with licensees to resolve post-licensing interference 
disputes and compete fully and squarely on the merits of their coordinations.  This should be an 
ongoing responsibility of all coordinators.  I am a firm believer in markets – but the FCC must 
ensure that all coordinators face similar burdens and responsibilities in the marketplace.  

Principle Four: The Commission must move forward with its secondary market proceeding to 
ensure that spectrum can move to higher valued uses without substantial government 
intervention and corresponding delay.  I believe the introduction of the band manager concept in 
the 700 MHz proceeding was an important step forward in this regard.  Although I believe there 
were certain unique circumstances associated with that band and the approach taken, I DO 
believe that band managers are an innovative spectrum management tool that capitalizes and 
initiates the type of secondary market dynamics that we hope to facilitate more broadly in the 
secondary markets proceeding.  Secondary markets are essential to allowing parties to acquire 
spectrum in the shapes and sizes that business needs require.

Fifth and finally, when I first arrived at the Commission I described a set of guiding principles 
that would shape my tenure.  One of those principles is that the FCC is a service based 
organization and we should act like it. For PLMR licensees this means the Commission must 
continue to work with you to improve ULS.  More broadly, I hope that the Commission will 
continue to strive to provide higher quality service to you.  That means prompt and well reasoned 
decision making from the agency.  And during consideration of these items, I hope you will 
always see my office as a readily available resource to you and your constituencies.  I hope that 
you will take every opportunity to meet with me, my wireless advisor Bryan Tramont and other 
members of my staff to ensure that your voices are heard.  I cannot promise that you will always 
like our decisions, but I can certainly promise that we will let you know what we are thinking 
and do everything we can to get you a prompt response.  Government is not omnipotent – and we 
should not delude ourselves about what we can or do know.  Instead we must be humble about 
our abilities and continue to reach out to folks like you to obtain the most information possible 
before making our decisions in the best interest of the American people.

Thanks again for the invitation to be here today, and I look forward to continuing our work 
together.

 
1

1