Exhibit 1

0688-EX-ST-2005 Text Documents

Nokia Inc.

2005-11-18ELS_73546

Nokia, Inc. Application for Experimental Special Temporary Authority New York City Exhibit 1 Nature of the Operation. This application seeks special temporary authority to operate a transmitter for the purpose of demonstrating the transmission of digital video signals to handheld receivers located in cell phones. The transmission will be conducted using the digital video broadcast — handheld (DVB—H) modulation, which differs from the 8—VSB modulation employed in over—the—air digital television broadcasting. The signals to be transmitted are not intended for the public and are not displayable on conventional digital video receivers. As such, the demo will not involve "broadcasting" as defined in Section 3 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 153(5). Instead, the signals are designed to demonstrate a mobile service intended to complement digital cellular service. The spectrum chosen for this demonstration was picked to accommodate prototype equipment from overseas. Eventually, the service is expected to operate in spectrum above that authorized for broadcast television. Frequency Selection. Great care has been devoted to selecting spectrum for this operation that is unlikely to cause harmful interference to either broadcasting stations or to land mobile stations authorized in the 470 — 512 MHz portion of the UHF television band. The attached Engineering Statement from the firm of Cavell, Mertz, and Davis, Inc., has been prepared to address the selection of the proposed frequency. Site and Antenna Considerations. The proposed operation will be conducted inside an exhibit space on the third floor of the New York Hilton Hotel. The space consists of an interior room without windows. For interference analysis purposes, the operations have been assumed to be non—directional. However, a directional antenna will be used in the room. The maximum effective radiated power is two watts as shown in the application. The antenna characteristics are shown in Exhibit 2. Actual antenna orientation within the room must be determined after the equipment is set up and tested in the room.

Engineering Statement REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL AUTHORIZATION prepared for Nokia, Inc. Experimental DT New York, New York Ch. 43 2 Watts Nokia, Inc. ("‘Nokia"), seeks Experimental Authorization to transmit a digital low—power television signal on UHF Television Channel 43. The facility requested herein will be used to demonstrate the technical performance of Digital Video Broadcast Handheld ("DVB—H"), a portable video technology intended to broadcast video, audio, and data to handheld devices. Facilities Requested The technical parameters for the proposed operation involve a directional transmitting antenna temporarily placed within a meeting room at the Hilton, New York hotel, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY at the coordinates shown below. FAA notification is not required for this antenna which will strictly be used indoors. 40° 45° 44" North Latitude 73° 58‘ 45" West Longitude (NAD 27) A maximum effective radiated power ("ERP") of 2 Watts with an antenna radiation center height above ground ("HAG") of 16 meters is proposed‘. Six MHz bandwidth, DVB—T COFDM modulation will be utilized‘. The proposed station will be constructed to confine out—of—channel emissions within the "simple" mask specified in §74.794 of the FCC‘s Rules. NTSC, DTV, LPTV, and Class A Station Allocation Considerations In the endeavor to select a channel that is unlikely to cause interference, a study of all nearby authorized stations in the FCC‘s CDBS database was performed. An ‘ The proposed antenna height is 33 meters above mean sea level. * The DVB—T modulation will be utilized to carry a digital video broadcast handhelds ("DVB—H") encapsulated payload. See Digital Video Broadcasting (DVB); Transmission System for Handheld Terminals (DVB—H), European Telecommunications Standards Institute EN 302—304 V1.1.1; November, 2004. Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc.

Engineering Statement REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL LICENSE (page 2 of 5) interference study per OET Bulletin 69° was performed to examine the change in interference experienced by other stations that would result from the proposed Channel 43 facility. For study purposes, a non—directional antenna, emitting 2 Watts ERP was assumed, although the proposed directional antenna will only reach 2 Watts ERP in a few directions. Further, no consideration of building attenuation (either from the hotel meeting room or from surrounding structures) was considered. As such, the results of the study represent a "worst case" scenario. The results of the interference study, summarized in Table 1, indicate that the instant proposal will cause no additional interference to any authorized facility, except to the unbuilt Construction Permit facility of WXNY—LP (Ch. 43 New York, NY BPTTL—20021204AAZ). WXNY—LP is licensed on Channel 32. According to a representative of the licensee of WXNY—LP, construction of the Channel 43 facility will not be completed until long after Nokia‘s proposed operation in December 2005. The applicant recognizes the secondary status provided under Experimental Authorization and will cease operation as necessary in the event actual interference occurs. Other Considerations The nearest FCC monitoring station is at Laurel, Maryland, at a distance of 301 km from the proposed site. The proposed site exceeds by a great margin the minimum distance specified in §73.1030(c)(3)(ii) that would suggest consideration of the monitoring station. > Although OET Bulletin 69 specifies procedures for quantifying interference caused by 8—VSB facilities, laboratory tests have shown little difference between the desired—to—undesired ratios of DVB—T COFDM (to both NTSC and 8—VSB) and 8—VSB. See the VSB/COFDM Project (NAB and MSTV) "Investigation of VSB Improvements" December 2000. Adjustments in the OET Bulletin 69 computer program were made to consider use of the "simple" emission mask. Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc.

Engineering Statement REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL LICENSE (page 3 of 5) The U.S. — Canadian agreement calls for notification of digital low—power stations within 100 km of the border. Similarly, the U.S. — Mexico agreement calls for notification of 1 KW (or less) low—power TV stations within 60 km of the border. As the proposed site is located at least 395 km from the nearest point on the U.S. — Canadian border and 2,709 km from the nearest point on the U.S. — Mexico border, the proposed facility does not require international coordination. Conclusion It is thus believed, based on the foregoing, that the facility proposed herein will satisfy all of the pertinent Commission Rules and Policies now in effect regarding allocation matters. Environmental Considerations The proposed transmitting antenna will be temporarily placed within a hotel meeting room. Because no change to the exterior of the building is involved, it is believed that this application may be categorically excluded from environmental processing pursuant to §1.1306 of the FCC Rules. The proposed experimental operation was evaluated for human exposure to radiofrequency (RF) energy using the procedures outlined in the Commission‘s OET Bulletin No. 65 ("OET 65"). OET—65‘s formula for television transmitting antennas is based on the NTSC transmission standards, where the average power is normally much less than the peak power. For the DTV facility in the instant proposal, the peak—to—average ratio is different than the NTSC ratio. The DTV ERP figure herein refers to the average power level. The formula used for calculating DTV signal density in this analysis is essentially the same as equation (10) in OET—65. Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc.

Engineering Statement REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL LICENSE (page 4 of 5) S = (33.4098) (F2) (ERP) / D Where: S = power density in microwatts/em" ERP = total (average) ERP in Watts F = relative field factor D = distance in meters Appropriate crowd control methods, such as posts, rope and stanchions, along with an appropriate RF exposure sign, will be used to prevent the public from reaching a point less than one—half meter from the proposed antenna. Using the above equation, calculations were made to predict power density attributable to the proposed facility at this distance. An ERP of 2 Watts, horizontally polarized, will be employed. A relative field of 100 percent is used for this calculation. The "uncontrolled / general population" limit specified in §1.1310 for Channel 43 is 431 uW/em*. Using this formula, the proposed facility will reach 267 uW/cm*, or 62 percent of the "uncontrolled / general public‘ Maximum Permissible Exposure ("MPE") limit at a distance of one—half meter from the proposed antenna. As demonstrated herein, excessive levels of RF energy will not be caused at publicly accessible areas near the antenna. Consequently, members of the general public will not be exposed to RF levels in excess of the Commission‘s guidelines. Based on the preceding, it is believed that the instant proposal may be categorically excluded from environmental processing under Section 1.1306 of the Rules, hence preparation of an Environmental Assessment is not required. Certification The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing statement was prepared by him or under his direction, and that it is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc.

Engineering Statement REQUEST FOR EXPERIMENTAL LICENSE (page 5 of 5) belief. Mr. Ryson is a senior engineer in the firm of Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc. and has submitted numerous engineering exhibits to the Federal Communications Commission. His qualifications are a matter of record with that agency. NYRc— Daniel G. Ryson November 18, 2005 Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc. 7839 Ashton Avenue Manassas, VA 20109 (703) 392—9090 List of Attachments Table 1 — Interference Analysis Results Summary Cavell, Mertz & Davis, Inc.

Table 1 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY prepared for Nokia, Inc. Experimental DT New York, NY Ch.43 2W ——— Unique Interference ———— Stations City, State Distance Baseline Service from proposal Considered Channel (km) Population Population Population Percentage (1) (2) (3) (4) W28A] ALLINGTOWN, CT 103.4 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 28 WFPA—CA PHILADELPHIA, PA 133.6 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 28 W29CF HEMPSTEAD, NY 36.3 «...——— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 29 WTXF—TV PHILADELPHIA, PA 133.6 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LC 29 WNYX—LP NEW YORK, NY 34 .._.—— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 35 W36AZ SUSSEX, NJ 63.3 .. no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 35 WYBE PHILADELPHIA, PA 133.4 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 35 W36AZ SUSSEX, NJ 63.3 —..———— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 36 WNYN—LP DEER PARK, NY 3.4 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LC 39 WDVB—CA EDISON, NJ 43.5 .————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 39 WLVT—TV ALLENTOWN, PA 125.0 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 39 Cavell, Mertz Davis, Inc.

Table 1 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY prepared for Nokia, Inc. Experimental DT New York, NY Ch.43 2 W (page 2 of 4) ——— Unique Interference ———— Stations City, State Distance Baseline Service from proposal Considered Channel (km) Population Population Population Percentage (1) (2) (3) (4) WXTV PATERSON, NJ L7 ———~— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 41 WNALLP SPRINGVILLE, NJ 133.4 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 41 WKOB—LP NEW YORK, NY 6.9 .. no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 42 WA42CX PORT JERVIS, NY 92.7 ————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 42 WSAH BRIDGEPORT, CT 98.7 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 42 WA2AE POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 106.3 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 42 WTXF—TV PHILADELPHIA, PA 1324 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 42 WTXF—TV PHILADELPHIA, PA 133.6 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 42 WSKG—TV BINGHAMTON, NY 218.8 ————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP MOD 42 WXNY—LP NEW YORK, NY 3.4 <————— no protection required; see text ————— CP 43 WNJT TRENTON, NJ 80.2 ————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 Cavell, Mertz Davis, Inc.

Table 1 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY prepared for Nokia, Inc. Experimental DT New York, NY Ch. 43 2W (page 3 of 4) —~— Unique Interference ———— Stations City, State Distance Baseline Service from proposal Considered Channel (km) Population Population Population Percentage (1) (2) (3) (4) W55BS BELVIDERE, NJ 91.6 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 43 WSAH BRIDGEPORT, CT 98.7 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 WEWB—TV SCHENECTADY, NY 206.9 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 WPMT YORK, PA 237.0 ————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 WA43CJ MANSFIELD, PA 284.0 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 43 wWGBxX—TV BOSTON, MA 286.2 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 WNYS—TV SYRACUSE, NY 299.0 .—————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 WPXW MANASSAS, VA 361.2 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 43 WNYW NEW YORK, NY 1.7 _—————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 44 WNYW NEW YORK, NY L.] —————— no new interference caused by proposal ———— CP MOD 44 WMCN—TV ATLANTIC CITY, NJ 136.4 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ——~——— CP 44 WVIA—TV SCRANTON, PA 166.0 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 44 WELL—CA PHILADELPHIA, PA 133.7 —————— no new interference caused by proposal —~——— CP 45 WMBQ—CA MANHATTAN, NY 1.8 ———— no new interference caused by proposal —~——— CP 46 Cavell, Mertz Davis, Inc.

Table 1 INTERFERENCE ANALYSIS RESULTS SUMMARY prepared for Nokia, Inc. Experimental DT New York, NY Ch.43 2W (page 4 of 4) ——— Unique Interference ———— Stations City, State Distance Baseline Service from proposal Considered Channel (km) Population Population Population Percentage (1) (2) (3) (4) WRNN—LP NYACK, NY 46.2 .————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 46 Ww46DQ PORT JERVIS, NY 92.7 .—————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 46 WA4GBL ALLENTOWN—BETHLEHEM, PA 125.5 ————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 46 WNJU LINDEN, NJ 6.3 .. no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 47 WNJU LINDEN, NJ 6.3 —.—— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 47 WNIJN MONTCLAIR, NJ 21.9 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LC 50 WNHX—LP NEW HAVEN, CT 109.9 .————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— CP 51 W51BN WHITE LAKE, NY 1254 .————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 51 WNHX—LP NEW HAVEN, CT 129.1 —————— no new interference caused by proposal ————— LIC 51 Notes: (1) For DTV Stations: Greater of NTSC or DTV Service Population, from FCC Table For NTSC Stations: Population within noise—limited contour For LPTV & Class A Stations: Population within the dipole—corrected 74 dBu contour (2) Interference—free service population per OET—69 before consideration of proposal (3) Net change in population receiving interference resulting from proposal (4) Proposal‘s impact in terms of percentage, equals (3)/(1) times 100 percent: not to exceed zero when rounded to the nearest whole percent The determination of stations for consideration and the determination of baseline population and interference percentages were made as described in the Commission‘s August 10, 1998 Public Notice "Additional Application Processing Guidelines for Digital Television" Cavell, Mertz Davis, Inc.


Document Created: 2018-11-27 05:59:56
Document Modified: 2018-11-27 05:59:56
© 2026 FCC.report
This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the FCC