NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT Request for Waiver of the T-Band Freeze

Status
Not open for further replies.

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
751
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-1168A1.pdf

Before the
Federal Communications Commission
Washington, D.C. 20554

File No. 0008188382

In the Matter of
NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT
Request for Waiver of the T-Band Freeze

ORDER
Adopted: November 15, 2018
Released: November 15, 2018
By the Chief, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau:


I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
1. The New York City Police Department (NYPD) filed an application{1}
to modify public safety radio station call sign WIM668, by modifying a repeater (Location 1) and adding another repeater station (Location 3) operating in the 470-512 MHz band (T-Band).{2} NYPD also requested a waiver{3} of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau’s (Bureaus) suspension of the acceptance and processing of certain T-Band applications.{4} We grant NYPD’s waiver request and direct the application to be processed, subject to the conditions described below.

2. Under the Suspension Notice, T-Band applications that expand a station’s geographic
footprint are suspended from processing.{5} With the Suspension Notice, the Bureaus sought to stabilize the spectral environment while the Commission considers issues surrounding future use of the T-Band and
implementation of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (the Act).{6} The Bureaus
determined that prudent spectrum management dictated suspending the acceptance and processing of TBand licensing applications that could alter the spectrum landscape and make implementing the Act more
difficult or costly.{7} Specifically, the Bureaus will not accept or process modifications to existing licenses
to change technical parameters that expand the station’s geographic footprint to add or change locations.{8} However, applicants may request an exception to the filing and processing freeze.{9} In June 2012, the
Bureaus issued a Clarification Notice indicating that “[l]ocations may be added or changed if the new site
does not increase the licensed contour.{”10}

II. DISCUSSION
3. To obtain a waiver, a petitioner must demonstrate either that: (i) the underlying purpose of the rule(s) would not be served or would be frustrated by application to the present case, and that a grant of the waiver would be in the public interest; or (ii) in view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application of the rule(s) would be inequitable, unduly burdensome, or contrary to the public interest, or the applicant has no reasonable alternative.{11} An applicant seeking a waiver faces a high hurdle and must plead with particularity the facts and circumstances that warrant a waiver.{12}

4. NYPD states that “there is no expansion of base station facilities, so the licensed footprint
among the associated call sign remains unchanged.”{13} However, Commission staff found that the
requested modification of the repeater at Location 1 would result in extension of the licensed footprint of
Station WIM668.{14} Due to an error, Station WIM668 was licensed with inaccurate coordinates. The
modification will update the license to reflect actual coordinates, and there will be no changes to the
physical facilities. We find that this modification would not materially alter the spectrum landscape.
Therefore, we find that in view of unique or unusual factual circumstances of the instant case, application
of the Suspension Notice in this case would be inequitable to NYPD. Next, with respect to the Location
3 repeater addition, staff confirmed no extension of the licensed footprint. Thus, in accordance to the
Clarification Notice, this site addition is permitted.

5. Accordingly, we find that a waiver of the Suspension Notice is warranted, and NYPD
meets the Clarification Notice requirements for adding a repeater. The application will be processed with
the following special conditions:

• Authorization is subject to implementation of Section 6103 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (enacted February 22, 2012), which provides that, not later than nine years after the date of enactment, the Commission shall reallocate T-Band spectrum “currently used by public safety eligibles.” It also provides that “relocation of public safety entities from the TBand Spectrum” shall be completed not later than two years after completion of the system of competitive bidding. See the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of
2012, Section 6103(b), (c).

• Because the addition of Location 3 (40-46-20.3 N, 073-50-21.5 W) is granted after passage of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (enacted February 22, 2012), the licensee shall have no expectation of receiving funds to cover the cost of relocating the Location 3 facilities covered by this authorization from the 470-512 MHz band spectrum. See the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, Section 6103(b).

III. ORDERING CLAUSES
6. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. §§ 151, 154(i), and 303(r), and Section 1.925 of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR § 1.925, the Waiver Request filed by the New York City Police Department,IS GRANTED as conditioned herein and to the extent set forth in this order.

7. IT IS ORDERED that the foregoing application, File No. 0008188382, filed by the New York City Police Department, SHALL BE PROCESSED as conditioned herein.

8. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to Sections 0.191(f) and 0.392 of the Commissions rules, 47 CFR §§ 0.191(f) and 0.392.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

{Foot Notes}

1-File No. 0008188382 (filed Apr. 23, 2018) (NYPD Application).

2-Station WIM668 is authorized on frequency pair 483/486.9125 MHz for base/mobile operations and frequency 485.3875 MHz for control station operations. Location 2 designates mobile units operating within a 48-kilometer radius around Location 1.

3-NYPD Application, attached Waiver Request of the T-Band Freeze (Waiver Request).

4-Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Suspend the Acceptance and Processing of Certain Part 22 and 90 Applications for 470-512 MHz (T-Band) Spectrum, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 4218 (WTB/PSHSB 2012) (Suspension Notice).

5-Id. at 4219.

6-Pub. L. No. 112-96, 126 Stat. 156 (2012). Section 6103 of the Spectrum Act provides that, not later than nine years after the date of enactment, the Commission shall “reallocate the spectrum in the 470-512 MHz band … currently used by public safety eligibles ….” Id., § 6103(a). The Act instructs the Commission to “begin a system of competitive bidding under Section 309(j) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 309(j)) to grant new initial licenses for the use of the spectrum.” Id. It also provides that “relocation of public safety entities from the TBand Spectrum” shall be completed not later than two years after completion of the system of competitive bidding.” Id., § 6103(b), (c).

7-Suspension Notice, 27 FCC Rcd at 4218.

8-Id. at 4219.

9-Id., note 4, citing to the waiver provision in Section 1.925 of the Commission’s’ rules (47 CFR § 1.925).

10-Wireless Telecommunications Bureau and Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau Clarify Suspension of the Acceptance and Processing of Certain Part 22 and 90 Applications for 470-512 MHz
(T-Band) Spectrum, Public Notice, 27 FCC Rcd 6087, 6088 (WTB/PSHSB 2012) (Clarification Notice).

11-47 CFR § 1.925(b)(3)(i-ii).

12-WAIT Radio v. FCC, 413 F.2d 1153, 1157 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (WAIT Radio), aff’d, 459 F.2d 1203 (1973), cert.denied, 409 U.S. 1027 (1972) (citing Rio Grande Family Radio Fellowship, Inc. v. FCC, 406 F.2d 664 (D.C. Cir.1968)); Birach Broad. Corp., Memorandum Opinion and Order, 18 FCC Rcd 1414, 1415 (2003).

13-Waiver Request at 1.

14-Staff contacted NYPD to determine the circumstances of the Location 1 modification, and NYPD indicated that it is a data correction

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
Michael J. Wilhelm
Chief, Policy and Licensing Division
Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,962
Location
BEE00
Not newsworthy, as it changes nothing regarding the T-Band giveback. In fact, a number of these T-Band freeze waivers have been granted over the past couple of years, but in all cases the determining factor was that the license modifications "would not materially alter the spectrum landscape". In other words, nothing is being changed that expands the coverage area footprint beyond what it already is.
 

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
751
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
Quote from GTR8000--> Not newsworthy, as it changes nothing regarding the T-Band giveback


Maybe to you its not newsworthy but maybe to others it is--is there a problem with me posting something about an Order from the FCC or anything that has to do with NY?
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,962
Location
BEE00
I'm simply explaining that the waiver is much ado about nothing, so that no one reads the thread title and overreacts to it thinking that something important had been decided regarding T-Band. It has not.
 

ipfd320

Member
Banned
Joined
Jul 30, 2008
Messages
751
Location
W.Babylon N.Y. 11704
oh so instead just discourage a member from reading the thread because you say so---im lost on this--its still an interesting read and hoe the fcc came about the findings1 and 2 nothing was ever posted in the ny section on fcc actions except for this 1 and the mta 1 i also posted
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,962
Location
BEE00
Huh? What the heck are you on about? I never said that posting this was a waste, nor did I suggest that no one should read it. If you can't understand the simple point that I'm making, then I'm not sure what to tell you. I was commenting on the waiver itself, not your thread, and certainly not directing any critiscim towards you. Quit taking things so personally.
 

GTR8000

NY/NJ Database Guy
Database Admin
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
15,962
Location
BEE00
Yeah, we're cool lol.

For anyone else reading, I wasn't suggesting not to read the thread/waiver. The opposite, please read it all and by all means get something out of it! Just please don't gloss over the thread title and think that the FCC/Congress came to their senses about the T-Band giveback; unfortunately it still stands.
 

newsnick175

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
674
Location
Denver, North Carolina
If NYPD manages to not have to give back their T-band freqs, would that open the door to others in the region to request the same? Also using the "not enlarging the foot print" claim.
 

Danny37

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
1,341
Location
New York City
I know there was some talk a few years back about going to 700mhz, I doubt that'll happen any time soon. PD has pretty much perfected their system with some dings here and there but overall a good system. It's really impressive since their radios transmit at low power (2 watts) so it can last throughout the shift.
 

radioman2001

Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2008
Messages
2,974
Location
New York North Carolina and all points in between
This sounds like a procedural error on the FCC's part, and an incorrect lat/long on NYPD's part. Essentially they are requesting a fix for both. NYPD gets to fix a stations co-ordinate and shows that it doesn't change the foot print, while moving the transmitter into the corrected footprint.

I doubt that NYPD is moving off T-Band to 700/800 anytime soon if at all if you understand how their system works, I expect and hope this whole T-Band mess gets dismissed. The phone companies don't want UHF they want higher channels.
 

Giddyuptd

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Oct 6, 2018
Messages
1,345
Location
Here and there
I know there was some talk a few years back about going to 700mhz, I doubt that'll happen any time soon. PD has pretty much perfected their system with some dings here and there but overall a good system. It's really impressive since their radios transmit at low power (2 watts) so it can last throughout the shift.

They have well spaced voters throughout the city. I agree impressive conventional system at 2 watts out and in buildings.
 

K2NEC

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
2,915
Location
NA
They just started upgrading their radios to APX's.They spent millions of dollars for new radios that they will have to again switch in the future? Sounds like they aren't too happy and quite truthfully I wouldn't be either.
 

Matted33

Member
Joined
Jun 16, 2010
Messages
39
They just started upgrading their radios to APX's.They spent millions of dollars for new radios that they will have to again switch in the future? Sounds like they aren't too happy and quite truthfully I wouldn't be either.

Haven't seen too many new APX radios out there, but everyone seems to be getting Vertex V-824s.
 

K2NEC

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
2,915
Location
NA
FD is upgrading to APX's and I saw some special response officers with them.
 

Danny37

Member
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Messages
1,341
Location
New York City
Haven't seen too many new APX radios out there, but everyone seems to be getting Vertex V-824s.

Most of patrol still use the vx-537, detectives and higher ups vx-800 and vx-p824s. Most of transit has the apx7000 which isn't much use now since they moved over to UHF. I've seen some precincts in the city issued vx-p824s to everyone from beat cops to supervisors.
 

K2NEC

Member
Joined
Oct 23, 2017
Messages
2,915
Location
NA
Most of patrol still use the vx-537, detectives and higher ups vx-800 and vx-p824s. Most of transit has the apx7000 which isn't much use now since they moved over to UHF. I've seen some precincts in the city issued vx-p824s to everyone from beat cops to supervisors.

Why Vertex? Do they have a contract with them or something?
 

RFI-EMI-GUY

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2013
Messages
7,386
In my opinion T band public safety should have been protected from the auctions. The cost and complexity of changing systems in the major metro areas is very high. Taxpayers end up footing the bill. 700 MHz isn't a panacea.
 

NParkNJ

On the Road
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 29, 2017
Messages
635
Location
Northern NJ
A LE organization as big as NYPD.... and they still *possibly* will be affected by the giveback. Can’t imagine the costs it would be to get them off of their current setup....

All the infrastructure upgrades, plus ALL those portables and mobiles...

If there was to be any exception to the giveback, it should be them. Given how large of a force they are.

But then, you have the “if they(NYPD) get a waiver, so should we.”

It’ll be interesting to see what happens in these next few years, if not sooner.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top