This began more than 20 years ago in 1995, when the commission announced that as of Jan. 1, 2005, it would no longer certify equipment that could not operate on 6.25-kilohertz channels or with equivalent efficiency. This deadline was later pushed back several times until it finally took effect Jan. 1, 2015. The prohibition does not actually require users to operate in 6.25-kilohertz mode. Also, equipment certified prior to the deadline may still be sold, whether or not the device has 6.25-kilohertz capability. But any manufacturer seeking to obtain certification for new equipment or making changes to an existing model that requires recertification must include the capability to operate in 6.25-kilohertz mode or equivalent efficiency.

---

Related Stories

Release 18 Moves Forward at 3GPP Plenary

---

A Proposal for the 4.9 GHz Band

---

AT&T, SBC Officials Highlight Joint In-Building Efforts

---

In its waiver request, IMSA argued that the commission’s certification deadline effectively required new radios to be digital because analog technology generally does not meet the 6.25-kilohertz requirement. IMSA claimed that the “6.25-kilohertz channelization requirement prevents manufacturers from improving current products” unless they also include 6.25-kilohertz capability, which customers may not want or even be able to use to the extent their current deployment is analog. IMSA stated inclusion of a 6.25-kilohertz capability would “inevitably” raise radio prices. Because customers may not be willing or able to afford the additional expense, manufacturers potentially would forgo adding new features to existing radio products that could enhance public-safety capabilities.

IMSA believed this to be an undue burden on public-safety users. The hardest hit users likely would not be large urban agencies, which may have already transitioned or are planning to transition to digital networks, but would almost certainly be smaller volunteer fire departments and other similar public-safety providers that often are forced to make the most of very limited budgets, IMSA said.

IMSA also noted that, unlike the developed standard for Phase 2 Project 25 (P25) trunked operations, the standard-setting process for Phase 2 P25 conventional 6.25-kilohertz operations has not yet been completed. IMSA questioned the wisdom of requiring manufacturers to implement a 6.25-kilohertz capability that may be incompatible with any future standard and noted the commission itself had previously remarked that, “proliferation of 6.25-kilohertz equipment that is incompatible with the P25 Phase 2 standard could undermine interoperability.”

IMSA pointed out that the commission recently eliminated the 6.25-kilohertz capability requirement for 700 MHz band public-safety equipment. If the requirement no longer made sense at 700 MHz, why continue to apply it to the bands below 512 MHz?

On June 30, the commission ultimately rejected IMSA’s arguments and issued an order denying its request for waiver, choosing instead to leave the Jan. 1, 2015, deadline in place.

Interestingly, the commission did not directly rebut IMSA’s assertion that a mandated 6.25-kilohertz capability would increase equipment costs for public-safety users. Instead, it said commenters in the proceeding had presented “conflicting assertions” regarding costs and there was no “clear evidence” to support IMSA’s position. The commission stated that some comments in the proceeding claimed market competition has kept the price of 6.25-kilohertz-capable equipment comparable to that of similar equipment without 6.25-kilohertz capability. The commission also questioned whether other cost estimates showing an increased burden on public safety were made on an apples-to-apples basis or were instead comparing low-end analog radio models to high-end expensive equipment. Although equipment costs would appear to be something that the commission could reasonably ascertain, the FCC typically does not perform that type of independent fact finding in response to waiver requests. Here, the commission found IMSA had not demonstrated that continued implementation of the 6.25-kilohertz capability requirement would be inequitable and unduly burdensome.

The FCC also rejected any similarities between the elimination of the 6.25-kilohertz requirement at 700 MHz and the continued implementation of the requirement for the bands below 512 MHz. In addition, the commission summarily dismissed the notion that an ongoing P25 standards process should alter continued implementation of the 6.25-kilohertz certification requirement.

Many will be disappointed by the decision.

Of possibly wider interest, the commission took the opportunity to again reiterate that it intends a further migration from 12.5- to 6.25-kilohertz licensing at some point in the future. Its order characterized the current 12.5-kilohertz landscape as a “transitional step in the eventual migration to 6.25-kilohertz technology” and stated that it would mandate such migration, as opposed to allowing for a voluntary transition, if necessary. Central to the FCC’s decision was the fact that removing the 6.25-kilohertz capability certification rule would increase the embedded base of equipment that is 12.5-kilohertz capable only. Such equipment would need to be replaced once the 6.25-kilohertz transition occurs.

One question the FCC did not answer is when the transition to 6.25 kilohertz will occur. Logically, if the transition is soon, it does not make sense to allow manufacturers to continue to certify new equipment that will need to be replaced within its expected lifetime. This is likely worse for cash-strapped agencies than the incremental cost of requiring 12.5-kilohertz radios to include 6.25-kilohertz capability now. However, IMSA’s request to extend the certification requirement starts to make more sense if the timeline for the 6.25-kilohertz migration is far enough away.

How long that timeline is remains to be seen.

Greg Kunkle is a partner in the law firm of Keller and Heckman, practicing in telecommunications with an emphasis on assisting corporate clients and trade associations with legal and regulatory matters before the FCC. He is president of the Land Mobile Communications Council (LMCC) and a member of the Federal Communications Bar Association.