You can coordinate anything you want and hopefully the coordination process and back-and-forth negotiation with other coordinators and licensees will take care of any issues. The rules do say that no response to a PCN can be considered an agreement or clearance of the proposal. However, you are also supposed to do actual engineering and interference analysis before even coordinating and this analysis would have clearly seen the licensed, co-located system. So your coordination exhibit cannot simply ignore the fact that you predict interference into another licensed user. Whether this user responded to the PCN or not – he still enjoys first in-place protection afforded by his license.
In the case of a non-operational, licensed system, you should gather proof (photos, spectrum analyzer photos, etc.) that the other party is not operating and file this with the FCC WTB to get the licenses formally canceled per 101.65. This is strongly recommended to protect your interests in-case the other user decides to fire his system up or even sell it and transfer the license to someone else to operate under the existing license. There are hundreds if not thousands of records in the ULS database of licensed paths that are no longer in operation. The FCC relies solely on the licensee to keep things up-to-date, and if he takes a path down or moves it from one location to another without properly removing the old path from the license, the FCC and everyone else assumes the old path is still there. You also have the problem of bankruptcy and the debtor-in-possession treating the licenses (whether operating or not) as assets. It’s hard to keep track of all of this but a good competent coordinator should be constantly maintaining his own database and keeping track of changes, and deletions that he knows about outside of ULS action. Relying solely on ULS, which is known to be incomplete and have numerous errors, omissions and extra non-operational data could lead the coordinator to unnecessarily reduce power, upgrade antennas or even fail the path completely. From: Af [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Forrest Christian (List Account) Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2016 8:10 PM To: af Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Fixed Point to Point Microwave Stations License Requirements- Hypothetical Let me ask another hypothetical here, the answer of which may be part of your answer. If you were able to convince a coordinator to send out pcns for the exact same path and frequencies as the existing license, and no one replied, is it legal to complete the license filing and operate on that path? If ISP B is just refusing to take any action as opposed to actively opposing the transfer this might be an option. Coordinating on different frequencies may be another. But consult a lawyer. Just a thought to check into. On Mar 2, 2016 3:00 PM, "cjwstudios" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: I have a hypothetical I would appreciate some opinions on, knowing no one is a lawyer; If ISP A acquires ISP B's fixed microwave point to point stations which have operating licenses in an asset acquisition, and ISP B refuses to transfer said licenses to ISP A, which CFR or ruling governs ISP A's solution? Since ISP A is now the operator of the control point they would be illegally operating the point to point stations without assuming them from ISP B, am I correct? Any rulings, court cases, opinions would be super. Thanks in advance.
