FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012 Page: 1,905
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
unforeseen yet necessary adjustment to the planned rebanding of the Port Authority's simulcast radio
broadcast system was nevertheless required in order to ensure comparable facilities be provided
continuously throughout the rebanding project."'74 Therefore, Port Authority contends that the EDACS
split and the associated tasks (e.g. detailed task list, dual programming, and reflashing of radios)
stemming from the EDACS split were required so that comparable facilities would be provided
continuously throughout the rebanding project.'75
63. We disagree with Port Authority's argument that it was entitled to comparable facilities
throughout the transition period while its systems were rebanded. In our Houston decision, we held that
"the Commission has not used the comparable facilities standard to evaluate temporary facilities while the
licensee at issue is in transition, but rather has used the standard to define the replacement facilities that
the licensee is entitled to at the end of the transition."'7 Thus, applying the comparable facilities standard
to transitional issues as Port Authority proposes would be inconsistent with precedent.
64. Although we decline to adopt Port Authority's interpretation of the comparable facilities
standard, we find that Sprint was obligated to provide reasonable means for Port Authority to maintain
"continuity of service" during the transition as required by the 800 MHz Report and Order.'77 We
explained in our Houston decision that "[t]his standard requires Sprint to take necessary and reasonable
steps to protect licensees from disruption of service during the transition, and to take swift remedial action
if any disruption occurs."'78 In that case, we also found that "the mere assertion of increased risk does not
demonstrate ... that continuity of service cannot be ensured by less expensive means [than those the
65. Here, we find that Port Authority has not met its burden of justifying the substantial
additional expense associated with splitting the EDACS system. Port Authority offers no specific
information on how rebanding its system without splitting it would result in service disruption. Its only
justification for splitting the system is that it may have experienced unspecified service outages when its
system was expanded - a project that Port Authority undertook independently of rebanding'80 Although
we are sensitive to any licensee's concerns about service interruption during rebanding, the mere assertion
of increased risk, without more, does not persuade us that splitting the system was the least costly
reasonable means of avoiding the potential for interrupted service while Port Authority's system was
66. Port Authority's position here is similar to the position taken by the licensee in the County
of Henty, Georgia case. There, the licensee proposed to add three temporary "swing" channels to its
175 Id. at 9 citing Dallas Fort Worth International Airport Board, M.emorandum ()pinion and Order, 26 FCC Rcd
1 116. 1 117 3 (PSPWD 2011).
17o City of Houston, Texas. WT Docket 02-55. Memorandum Opinion and Order, 24 FCC Rcd 4655 17 (PSI ISB
177 800 MHz Report and Order, 19 FCC Red at 14986 26, 15048 48.
178 Houston, 24 FCC Rcd at 4659-60 17.
iso The record is equivocal on whether Port Authority actually encountered outages when it expanded its system or
merely came to the realization that such outages could potentially occur. See, e.g. Port Authority PRM at Exhibit 1
(Affidavit of James Buchanan) at 7: "the Port Authority became more aware of the issues that could arise in the
emergency communications systems, in particular protracted outages, when parts of the system are taken offline and
worked on, such as in this case, to be rebanded." But see, Sprint Reply at 16 n.21I (reciting that the Port Authority
system may have "crashed" while it was being expanded, independent of rebanding).
Federal Communications Commission
Here’s what’s next.
This book can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Book.
United States. Federal Communications Commission. FCC Record, Volume 27, No. 3, Pages 1878 to 2785, February 21 - March 16, 2012, book, March 2012; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc94252/m1/46/: accessed April 24, 2017), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.