FCC Order Approves Progeny’s E-911 Locator Service for Commercial Use

The FCC released an order Thursday approving Progeny’s controversial E-911 locator service for commercial use in the 902-928 MHz band. Commissioner Ajit Pai voted in favor of the order earlier this week, making commission approval unanimous, as expected (CD June 6 p9).

Existing test results on Progeny’s system, as well as the system’s design, “provide significant and sufficient data for us to evaluate the potential for interference,” the FCC said in an order. That evidence indicates that commercial operation of the service “will not create a significant detrimental effect overall on unlicensed operations in the band, and that the band therefore can continue to be used for such unlicensed operations consistent with their Part 15 status,” the agency said. Additional testing is not necessary, despite opponents’ concerns, “because the tested devices are representative of the technologies typically employed for operation under Part 15 of the rules,” the FCC said. “None of the commenters have shown that the additional devices for which they request testing are significantly different in technology from the previously tested devices, so testing these additional devices is unlikely to provide additional information pertinent to determining the potential of the Progeny system to cause unacceptable levels of interference.” Many Part 15 devices will adapt to commercial operation of Progeny’s service because “they are designed for operation in an interference environment,” the agency said (http://bit.ly/192sZsW).

The FCC said Progeny offered the agency a set of conditions it’s willing to comply with to address opponents’ concerns about interference. The company offered up the conditions after acting FCC Chairwoman Mignon Clyburn brought the issue up in a meeting with CEO Gary Parsons, said Bruce Olcott, a Squire Sanders attorney who represents Progeny. The Part 15 Coalition, a group of Part 15 unlicensed device users on the 900 MHz band who have opposed FCC approval of Progeny’s service, proposed additional conditions on top of the Progeny list. The agency didn’t adopt them.

Progeny proposed what it calls “spectrum etiquette measures” it’s willing to undertake in a situation where there is an unacceptable amount of interference to Part 15 users or Non-Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service licensees. Progeny agreed to provide semiannual reports on its buildout in each market and on any interference complaints from Part 15 unlicensed users. The company also agreed to set up a website and toll-free help desk that Part 15 users could use to complain about interference issues. Progeny said it will also refrain from placing its Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service beacons on towers that contain pre-existing Part 15 receivers, and work with Non-Multilateration Location and Monitoring Service (NM-LMS) licensees on the 919.75-921.75 MHz band and wireless Internet service providers in rural areas to ensure cooperation and minimal interference. The company will also work with any Part 15 user or NM-LMS licensee to address interference issues, including suspending transmissions, relocating beacons and changing its transmission patterns.

The FCC is requiring Progeny to submit notification by June 21 on the areas where it has completed its initial buildout. The company must submit notification on additional buildouts within 15 days after they begin operation. The company must also establish the website and help desk, and submit three reports over the next 18 months regarding interference complaints it receives. Those reports are due by Dec. 6, June 6, 2014, and Dec. 6, 2014, the FCC said. The Wireless Bureau and Office of Engineering and Technology will also “closely monitor developments on an ongoing basis, and will assess what action, if any, would be appropriate under the circumstances” for Progeny and the Part 15 users to coexist on the band, the FCC said.

Parsons said he’s “certainly pleased we can go into commercial operation” with the order, saying it was clear the agency was “comfortable with the performance of our network.” While opponents remain concerned about the amount of testing of Progeny’s system, “we feel that element has come to a close,” he said.

The Part 15 Coalition thinks the FCC made “the wrong decision ... there was no need to rush to a vote,” said Henry Goldberg, the group’s counsel. The coalition has argued that the service had the potential to cause “unacceptable levels of interference” and had not been sufficiently tested (CD April 15 p5). After it became clear that the FCC would approve the order and it was reported (CD May 28 p7) that Clyburn and Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel had voted in favor of Progeny, the coalition submitted its set of suggested conditions in an attempt to convince the FCC to adopt some “moderating” conditions into the order, Goldberg said. Pai voted to adopt the order largely as it was circulated by then-FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, meaning the agency was “not going forward” with the coalition’s additional conditions, Goldberg said.

The coalition’s suggested conditions, which the group submitted to Pai’s office before he voted, included all of Progeny’s suggested conditions. The group also proposed requiring the company to engage in additional field testing to show compliance with Section 90.353(d) of the FCC rules if it changed the nature of its E-911 locator service or the technology involved, such as beginning two-way operations, said an ex-parte notice the Part 15 Coalition filed. The FCC should also require Progeny to provide a minimum of 30 days’ notice to the agency and interested parties when it plans to begin operating a new beacon or modify existing ones, the coalition said (http://bit.ly/11k07DT).

The conditions Progeny offered “could have had more teeth,” coalition member and Inovonics CEO Mark Jarman said. “It now falls to industry and to our company to watch carefully for the developments that are still required for Progeny to make their system effective enough for public safety acceptance and hold them to the conditions attached to the order and ensure that there’s mitigation for any such interference.”