THE LMS - PART 15 PROCEEDING I. Background. 1. This Proceeding was initiated by a Notice of Proposed Rule Making ("NPRM") issued by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") in response to a Petition from North American Teletrac and Location Technologies, Inc., which is now known as AirTouch Teletrac ("Teletrac") . 2. Teletrac is currently an FCC licensee. It operates an Automatic Vehicle Monitoring Service ("AVM") which locates vehicles. While the FCC created AVM in 1974, it did so with some reservations about the technology. Therefore, the FCC decided not to adopt permanent rules for AVM, and AVM has been operating with interim rules ever since. 3. Teletrac's petition asked the FCC to expand the FCC's AVM Service to permit AVM licensees to locate people and other objects and to permit expanded voice service. Teletrac also wants the Commission to adopt permanent rules for this service and to call the expanded service the Location and Monitoring Service ("LMS"). Teletrac says it needs permanent rules if it is to be able to attract investors and build systems. The NPRM contains all these proposals. There are three other major proponents of LMS: MobileVision, Southwestern Bell and Pinpoint Communications. 4. The FCC requires AVM licensees to operate in the part of the radio spectrum between 902 MHz and 928 MHz. This is known as a "frequency band" or just "band." This band is also used for United States Navy radars and other government operations, for industrial, scientific and medical devices, by amateurs (HAMS), and by "unlicensed" low power services known as Part 15 services (so called because Part 15 of the FCC's Rules requires certification of radio devices but does not require licenses to operate). Metricom's radios are Part 15 devices. Part 15 devices provide a variety of services including: new digital cordless telephones, local and wide area wireless data transmission, protection of life and property, energy efficiency and conservation programs, automatic utility meter reading, inventory control, bar code readers, wireless PBXS, and numerous consumer devices such as wireless headphones, speakers and remote controls. Millions of Part 15 devices are now in the hands of businesses and consumers, and millions more will be in the very near future due to the advent of new digital, spread spectrum cordless telephones which offer improved quality and range. 5. All these users of this band must share the frequency and, when there are uses which conflict with each other because one user interferes with the signal of another user, certain rules come into play which govern which user has priority. These rules thus create a "hierarchy" and dictate which user must stop transmissions if that user is causing harmful interference to another user with a higher priority. 6. In the hierarchy of users, Part 15 devices are at the bottom. Part 15 devices may not cause interference to other users of the band and must accept interference from other users of the band. 7. The hierarchy of users in the band is generally not a problem for Part 15 devices because the robustness, power, and technology employed by Part 15 devices is such that it does not generally cause other users harmful interference, nor do other users cause harmful interference to Part 15 devices. 8. Unfortunately, Teletrac's technology is old and it is very fragile. Teletrac's technology will experience harmful interference from Part 15 devices, even though they are the least likely devices to cause harmful interference. Because Teletrac has a higher priority in the band, it could demand that operation of the offending Part 15 device be terminated. 9. In addition, Pinpoint Communications, another company proposing to provide LMS, proposes to use a technology different than Teletrac's which will cause interference to Part 15 devices because of its extensive use of spectrum and very high power. II. Arguments. 1. Teletrac has told the FCC that its technology will not be bothered by interference from Part 15 devices. This is simply not true. (The overwhelming weight of the record thus far complied in the LMS proceeding demonstrates that Part 15 devices will cause harmful interference to Teletrac's operations.) Teletrac is taking this position before the FCC because it is afraid that if the FCC believes that Part 15 devices will cause LMS interference, the FCC will not create LMS. The FCC would be reluctant to create LMS because it would not want to create a new service which would not work due to the interference it would receive from Part 15 devices. 2. The Part 15 Community has told the FCC that if Teletrac is telling the FCC the truth about the interference issue, Teletrac should not object if the FCC makes LMS equal in the hierarchy of users to Part 15 devices. If the FCC removes the LMS priority, Teletrac would be forced to tolerate interference from Part 15 devices. 3. The Part 15 Community has also told the FCC that if the FCC creates LMS and does not make LMS equal with Part 15 devices, Teletrac will be constantly petitioning the FCC to locate and shut down interfering Part 15 devices. The Part 15 Community has reminded the FCC that it does not have the resources to locate and shut down all these interfering Part 15 devices because there are over 2 million of them, operating at unspecified locations. 4. The Part 15 Community has also told the FCC that if it creates LMS and does not make LMS equal with Part 15 devices, and if the FCC then begins to locate and tell consumers they cannot use their Part 15 devices, these consumers will begin to complain to their elected officials. Due to the large number of Part 15 devices currently in the hands of consumers, Congressmen will be deluged with complaints about FCC actions and the FCC will spend massive resources responding to Congressional inquiries about its actions in shutting down large numbers of Part 15 devices. 5. Teletrac has argued that due to the hierarchy of users, the Part 15 Community has no rights to complain about a new service being put into the band, even if the new service cannot coexist with Part 15 devices. The Part 15 Community has responded that it has designed its devices so as not to cause interference to users of the band who were in the band when the Part 15 device entered the band. It is manifestly unfair to require these Part 15 devices not to interfere with a new user never contemplated when Part 15 devices began operating in the band. 6. The FCC strongly encouraged the development and deployment of Part 15 devices in the band and the Part 15 Community responded with significant applications in the public interest. The result is that the FCC has created a substantial industry in this band which employs a great number of people, which has continuing substantial investment and which is uniquely American. These applications will cease and an industry, together with the jobs and investment it creates, will be destroyed, if the FCC creates LMS as currently proposed. 7. The band is not vacant. It is extremely crowded with users. The FCC should not place a service in the band which is highly susceptible to interference by other users that are currently in the band. 8. Teletrac's argument that it needs permanent AVM rules in order to attract capital for its operations fails when one considers that PacTel Corporation raised a record-breaking $1.38 billion in the capital markets for its wireless subsidiary of which Teletrac is a part. 9. Part 15 devices are being used in applications which promote the development of the National Information Infrastructure ("NII") and are, therefore, in accord with national policy regarding the NII. LMS is not in accord with the national policy regarding the NII and the public interest requires that Part 15 devices be favored over LMS. 10. Teletrac is a failing business which has lost money every year of its existence. The American public is not interested in Teletrac's technology. It has failed in the marketplace. Although Teletrac has hundreds of licenses in 36 states and the District of Columbia, it has built only six systems and has fewer than 6,000 subscribers. If the FCC gives Teletrac what it wants, Teletrac will be the beneficiary of a substantial amount of spectrum for which it will not have had to pay the government. Therefore, it will be much easier to sell. 11. There are other technologies that do what LMS does but they do it in other parts of the radio spectrum, and they do it much more effectively and economically than LMS does it. Therefore, the American consumer will not be deprived of LMS-type service if the FCC abandons its LMS rulemaking. The FCC does not need to create another such service particularly if that service will not work (due to interference), will disrupt or destroy the Part 15 industry, and will upset consumers and annoy members of Congress. 12. The government is vacating radio spectrum in various bands. These bands will be regulated by the FCC as the government gives them up. The FCC could create LMS in one of these bands and could thereby avoid disrupting the 902-928 MHz band. 13. Teletrac and the other LMS proponents have finally agreed to meet with the Part 15 Community in an effort to find a technical solution which might allow the systems to coexist. Two meetings have been held and there appears to be some progress toward attempting to find a way that the services might be able to coexist. The FCC should not take any action until the parties involved have an opportunity to explore a suggested technical solution. III. Conclusion. It is patently unfair for the FCC to jeopardize the promise and economic viability of the Part 15 industry so soon after it encouraged significant investments to be made by manufacturers and consumers alike, for the sole reason of giving one of the world's largest companies a monopoly and a spectrum windfall of enormous value. The Commission should abandon its rulemaking proceeding and not create LMS. If the Commission insists on creating LMS, it should do so only if it makes LMS equal to Part 15 in the hierarchy of users, or if the FCC places LMS in some other band.