[Federal Register: August 29, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 167)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 49999-50033]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29au07-14]
[[Page 49999]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part IV
Federal Communications Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
Satellite Service; Final Rule
[[Page 50000]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2 and 25
[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 07-76]
Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-
Satellite Service
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Communications Commission adopts processing and
service rules for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS).
Specifically, the Commission adopts a first-come, first-served
licensing procedure for the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as various
safeguards, reporting requirements, and licensee obligations. The
Commission also adopts geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz
BSS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii as discussed
herein. In addition, the Commission establishes rules and requirements
for orbital spacing, minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance
standards. Also, the Commission establishes limits for uplink and
downlink power levels to minimize the possibility of harmful
interference. Finally, the Commission stipulates criteria to facilitate
sharing in the 24 GHz and 17 GHz bands.
DATES: Effective September 28, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Kelly, (202) 418-7877,
Satellite Division, International Bureau, Federal Communications
Commission, Washington, DC 20554. For additional information concerning
the information collection(s) contained in this document, contact
Judith B. Herman at 202-418-0214, or via the Internet at
Judith-B.Herman@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (R&O) in IB Docket No. 06-123, FCC 07-76, adopted May 2, 2007
and released on May 4, 2007. The full text of the R&O is available for
public inspection and copying during regular business hours at the FCC
Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room
CY-A257, Washington, DC 20554. The document may also be purchased from
the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc.,
Portals II, 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554,
telephone 202-488-5300, facsimile 202-488-5563, or via e-mail
FCC@BCPIWEB.com.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the Commission has
prepared a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) of the possible
significant economic impact on small entities by the rules adopted in
the R&O. The text of the FRFA is set forth in Appendix A of the R&O.
The actions contained herein have been analyzed with respect to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 at the initiation of the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in this proceeding, and we have previously received
approval of the associated information collection requirements from the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under OMB Control No. 3060-1097.
The Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking does not
contain any new or modified ``information collection burden for small
business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44
U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Paperwork Reduction Act Requirements
OMB Control Number: 3060-1097.
Title: Service Rules and Policies for the Broadcasting Satellite
Service (BSS).
Form No.: Not Applicable.
Type of Review: On-going collection.
Respondents: Businesses or other for-profit entities.
Number of Respondents: 4 respondents; 24 responses.
Estimated Time per Response: 10 hours.
Frequency of Response: On occasion and annual reporting
requirements.
Estimated Total Annual Burden: 240 hours.
Estimated Total Annual Costs: $12,451,700.00.
Privacy Act Impact Assessment: Not Applicable.
Needs and Uses: The purpose of this information collection is to
address the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirements proposed in the
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 06-90) to establish
policies and service rules for the new Broadcasting Satellite Service
under IB Docket No. 06-123. In this NPRM, the Commission proposes three
new information collection requirements applicable to Broadcasting
Satellite Service licensees: (1) Annual reporting requirement on status
of space station construction and anticipated launch dates, (2)
milestone schedules and (3) performance bonds that are posted within 30
days of the grant of the license.
Without the information collected through the Commission's
satellite licensing procedures, we would not be able to determine
whether to permit applicants for satellite licenses to provide
telecommunications services in the U.S. Therefore, we would be unable
to fulfill our statutory responsibilities in accordance with the
Communications Act of 1934, as amended; as well as the obligations
imposed on parties to the World Trade Organization (WTO) Basic Telecom
Agreement.
Summary of Report and Order
1. With this Report and Order (R&O), the Federal Communications
Commission (Commission) adopts processing and service rules for the 17/
24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS). Specifically, the
Commission adopts a first-come, first-served licensing procedure for
the 17/24 GHz BSS, as well as various safeguards, reporting
requirements, and licensee obligations. The Commission also adopts
geographic service rules to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to provide
service to Alaska and Hawaii as discussed herein. In addition, the
Commission establishes rules and requirements for orbital spacing,
minimum antenna diameter, and antenna performance standards. Also, the
Commission establishes limits for uplink and downlink power levels to
minimize the possibility of harmful interference. Finally, the
Commission stipulates criteria to facilitate sharing in the 24 GHz and
17 GHz bands.
2. In June 2006, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) in this proceeding, which proposed processing and
service rules for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Eight parties filed comments in
response to the NPRM, and six parties filed reply comments.
3. As the Commission explained in the NPRM, the 1992 World
Administrative Radio Conference (WARC-92) of the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) adopted an additional frequency
allocation for BSS in Region 2. In 2000, the Commission implemented, in
large part, the ITU Region 2 allocation for BSS domestically. The
Commission recognized that although the allocation would not become
effective for several years, its action would provide interested
parties with sufficient notice and time to design their systems to use
this spectrum in the most efficient manner. Specifically, the
Commission adopted the following allocations and designations, which
took effect on April 1, 2007: (1) Allocated the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, on
a primary basis, to the BSS for downlink transmissions, recognizing
that although the ITU Region 2 allocation apportioned the 17.3-17.8
[[Page 50001]]
GHz band for BSS use, the U.S. allocation would be limited to 17.3-17.7
GHz to retain spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz for the relocation of fixed
service (FS) facilities which were being displaced as a result of the
new BSS allocation; (2) allocated 300 megahertz of spectrum at 24.75-
25.05 GHz on a primary basis for the Fixed-Satellite Service (FSS)
(uplink) and limited FSS uplink operations in this band to BSS feeder
links; and (3) allocated 200 megahertz of spectrum at 25.05-25.25 GHz
for co-primary use between the 24 GHz Fixed Service, formerly known as
Digital Electronic Messaging Service (DEMS), and BSS feeder links. The
Commission's objective was to accommodate new satellite services while
providing adequate spectrum for existing FS operations.
4. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed and sought comment on a
variety of rules to facilitate the licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations, and various obligations and requirements that will be applied
to licensees. Also, the NPRM sought comment on technical rules designed
to minimize interference and facilitate sharing in certain bands. The
rules adopted in this Order establish licensing procedures and
technical parameters that will enable prompt delivery of 17/24 GHz BSS
satellite services to the public.
5. Four entities--DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc. (DIRECTV), Pegasus
Development DBS Corp. (Pegasus), EchoStar Satellite LLC (EchoStar), and
Intelsat North America LLC (Intelsat)--have filed applications for 17/
24 GHz BSS space station licenses. These applications represent a wide
range of system designs and business plans, from complementing existing
DBS services to providing a new suite of services which will include
standard-definition and high-definition formats. We adopt in this Order
a method for processing these applications and accommodating entry by
other qualified applicants.
6. First-Come, First-Served Licensing Approach Adopted: In the
NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the appropriate licensing
approach to adopt for the 17/24 GHz BSS. The NPRM noted that, in the
First Space Station Licensing Reform Order, the Commission adopted new
licensing procedures for all satellite services except DBS and Digital
Audio Radio Service (DARS). The Commission did not explain, however,
whether 17/24 GHz BSS should be treated like DBS or other satellite
services for purposes of processing applications. Thus, the NPRM sought
comment on whether to process applications for the 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations under the first-come, first-served licensing approach adopted
in the First Space Station Licensing Reform Order for geostationary
satellite orbit (GSO)-like space station applications. Under this
approach, GSO-like satellite applications are processed on a first-
come, first-served basis. Thus, the Commission will grant a GSO-like
application provided the applicant is qualified and the proposed system
is not technically incompatible with a previously-licensed satellite or
with a satellite proposed in a previously-filed application.
Alternatively, we asked whether some other licensing approach would be
more appropriate. In this regard, the NPRM specifically sought comment
as to whether, pursuant to section 309(j) of the Communications Act, a
competitive bidding system, or auction, could be designed to assign
mutually exclusive applications for the use of this spectrum. The NPRM
also sought comment on whether and how such an auction could be
implemented consistent with the ORBIT Act, the D.C. Circuit's
Northpoint ruling, and ITU procedures.
7. The majority of commenters maintain that the first-come, first-
served licensing queue should be employed for processing applications
for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations. EchoStar, however, argues that 17/24
GHz BSS applications should not be processed under this approach,
contending that this method does not result in the award of licenses to
the applicant that is most able to put the spectrum to productive use.
EchoStar believes that we should instead award 17/24 GHz BSS licenses
by auction or by a processing round approach. To facilitate auctions,
consistent with the ORBIT Act and the Northpoint ruling, EchoStar
suggests that the Commission could limit 17/24 GHz BSS spectrum rights
to the provision of domestic service if all competing applicants agree.
Alternatively, EchoStar suggests that the Commission could require a
percentage, such as 80%, of the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite's capacity be
devoted to serving the United States. EchoStar further suggests that,
if the Commission decides against an auctions approach, it should adopt
a processing round procedure combined with strict financial
requirements. No other commenters support the use of auctions or
processing rounds.
8. We find that the first-come, first-served licensing approach is
well-suited for processing applications for 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations. As noted in the NPRM, the proposed 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations would provide services similar to those provided by the
direct-to-home fixed satellite service (DTH FSS) satellites. We also
note that all 17/24 GHz BSS applicants propose to operate GSO
satellites. Because GSO satellites and constellations of non-
geostationary satellite orbit (NGSO) satellites cannot generally share
the same spectrum, and because, as evidenced by the pending
applications, GSO technology is better suited to providing DTH video
services, we limit operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS to GSO satellites.
The Commission licenses GSO satellites and most other satellite
services on a first-come, first-served basis. As both Intelsat and
DIRECTV point out, the first-come, first-served processing method has
proven to be an efficient approach for licensing GSO satellites.
Indeed, our experience has shown that this licensing method has allowed
the Commission to dramatically reduce the length of time required to
process GSO applications. Moreover, with its associated package of
safeguards, the first-come, first-served approach has increased the
probability that those awarded licenses actually construct and launch
their satellite systems. As commenters have noted, prompt deployment in
this band is particularly important in light of the fact that the 17/24
GHz BSS spectrum became available for use on April 1, 2007. In
addition, the first-come, first-served licensing approach works well in
conjunction with the ITU processes for unplanned bands, such as this
one.
9. We disagree with EchoStar that the first-come, first-served
approach is legally unsound or that such an approach will be more
likely to result in spectrum warehousing, speculation, and
gamesmanship. To the contrary, as mentioned, this approach has reduced
the number of speculative applications. Further, we have previously
addressed the Commission's legal authority to adopt a first-come,
first-served procedure. EchoStar has not provided any basis for
revisiting that issue here.
10. We also are not persuaded that EchoStar's comments warrant a
conclusion in this instance that a competitive bidding system would
best serve the public interest. Although auctions have proven to be an
efficient means of assigning licenses for scarce spectrum resources to
those parties that are able to use these resources efficiently and
effectively for the benefit of the public, we conclude that restricting
the provision of international service solely to remove 17/24 GHz BSS
from the auction prohibition of the ORBIT Act is not in the public
interest. We are concerned that such a restriction would likely
interfere with applicants' business plans and would thus be an
impediment to the efficient deployment
[[Page 50002]]
of service to consumers. Indeed, as Intelsat notes, three current
applicants, including EchoStar, propose to provide international
service. Thus, the record does not support agreement by competing
applicants to provide 17/24 GHz BSS domestic service only. Further,
such restrictions could put U.S.-licensed operators at a competitive
disadvantage to foreign-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS systems, which are not
similarly restricted in their own domestic markets. For these reasons,
we will not award licenses for 17/24 GHz BSS space stations by auction.
11. Further, we are not persuaded by EchoStar's proposal to adopt a
processing round procedure. Prior to the adoption of the First Space
Station Licensing Reform Order in 2003, we employed a processing round
procedure in licensing GSO-like applications. Under this procedure, it
normally took several years to issue satellite licenses, in one case
nearly four years. Eliminating this regulatory delay was one of our
primary motives in adopting the first-come, first served approach.
Since the first-come, first-served approach has been adopted, the
average processing time for GSO-like applications has decreased
drastically and the backlog of applications is at an all-time low. The
first-come, first-served processing queue provides a workable framework
for timely and prompt processing of applications in this band and
thereby facilitates the provision of service to the public.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, we will adopt the first-
come, first-served procedure for processing 17/24 GHz BSS applications.
12. Space Station Reform Safeguards Adopted, Including Bonds,
Milestones, and Limits on the Number of Pending Applications: In the
NPRM, the Commission noted that the First Space Station Licensing
Reform Order adopted a package of safeguards designed to discourage
speculative applications and to ensure that licensees remain committed
and able to proceed with system implementation in a timely manner.
Applying these safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS would require licensees
to post a $3 million bond with the Commission within 30 days of license
grant and construct and launch the satellite consistent with the
milestone schedule specified in Sec. 25.164 of the Commission's rules.
The bond becomes payable if a licensee fails to meet a milestone,
rendering the license null and void. Further, GSO-like applicants are
limited to a total of five pending applications and/or licensed but
unlaunched satellites in a particular frequency band at any one time,
and must submit substantially complete applications or face dismissal,
and cannot sell their place in the processing queue. In the NPRM, the
Commission requested comment on whether we should apply this package of
safeguards if we decide to use the first-come, first-served processing
approach for 17/24 GHz BSS. The Commission also sought comment on
whether there are any public interest rationales for imposing a higher
performance bond and/or tighter limits on the number of pending
applications and licenses for unbuilt satellites that applicants for
17/24 GHz systems may have at any one time.
13. Commenters generally support applying the first-come, first-
served approach safeguards to the 17/24 GHz BSS. Intelsat states that
applying the bond requirement and milestone policies should be
sufficient to deter speculative filings in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Intelsat
also notes that prohibiting the sale of places in the queue will
further deter speculative applications. DIRECTV also supports the
application of the safeguards that apply to other GSO-like services,
i.e., milestones and performance bonds, to 17/24 GHz BSS systems. The
Department of Telecommunications of the Government of Bermuda (Bermuda)
notes that, although it does not support excessive reliance on the
attainment of milestones nor the use of performance bonds for
discouraging speculation, it supports the right of each administration
to establish its own mechanisms to find a reasonable balance between
commercial adventure and undue speculation. EchoStar raises concerns
about the use of bonds and milestones to deter speculation and
recommends reinstating the financial qualification rules applicable to
FSS licensees prior to 2003. EchoStar contends that strict financial
qualifications are needed because given the relatively limited number
of orbital locations for operation in the 17/24 GHz BSS, the bond and
milestone requirements are not enough to protect against speculation
and could still result in an orbital location remaining fallow for
several years.
14. We adopt our proposal in the NPRM to apply the safeguards in
place under the first-come, first-serve licensing approach to the 17/24
GHz BSS. Contrary to EchoStar's assertions, our experience with these
safeguards has shown them to be an effective measure for discouraging
speculative applications. Indeed, the Commission adopted the bond
requirement because the financial qualification requirements it had
been using--and which EchoStar asks us to reinstate--did not accurately
reflect whether a licensee would proceed with construction and launch
of its space station. The Commission found requiring a surety company
to assess the risk that a licensee would default on a bond would
provide a more accurate market-driven determination of a licensee's
ability to proceed than would a regulatory determination. EchoStar has
not provided any evidence to support its assertion that the previously-
used financial standard was more effective. Consequently, we will not
adopt EchoStar's proposal. Further, the record does not support more
stringent bond requirements or different limits on the number of
pending applications/unbuilt satellites for the 17/24 GHz BSS. Thus, we
will apply the requirements in place for other GSO-like applicants to
17/24 GHz BSS applicants.
15. Accordingly, we will apply the same safeguards in place for
other GSO-like bands to the 17/24 GHz BSS. These safeguards include
requiring licensees to post a $3 million bond with the Commission
within 30 days of license grant; to construct and launch satellite
system(s) consistent with the milestone schedule for GSO satellites; to
limit to five, the number of pending applications and/or licenses for
unbuilt satellites in this band at any one time; and to file
substantially complete applications. The safeguards also prohibit
applicants from selling their places in the queue.
16. With respect to the ``substantially complete'' requirement, we
require applications to be complete in substance, and to provide all
the information required in the application form. Furthermore,
applications must not be defective under the Commission's rules,
meaning that the applications must be complete with respect to answers
to questions and informational showings, and must be free of internal
inconsistencies. To be substantially complete, a 17/24 GHz BSS
satellite application must include a complete Form 312 and Schedule S,
and all the information requested in Sec. 25.114(d) of the
Commission's rules. As amended in Appendix B of this Order, Sec.
25.114(d) requires 17/24 GHz BSS satellite applicants to show that the
proposed satellite will be able to function in a four-degree spacing
environment. Applicants will be required to demonstrate that they
comply with the pfd limits in new Sec. 25.208(w), or, if they do not,
to demonstrate how they will affect adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
networks, and that the operators of those networks agree to the
applicant's proposed operations. Applicants whose proposed orbital
locations are offset from the 17/24 GHz BSS orbital
[[Page 50003]]
locations listed in Appendix F will be required to show that they do
not cause more interference than if they operated at an exact location
listed in Appendix F, and that their satellite network's performance
objectives will be met assuming that adjacent operators are operating
at the maximum allowed power flux density levels.
17. DISCO II Market Access Standard Adopted: The Commission's DISCO
II Order implemented the market-opening commitments made by the United
States in the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') Agreement on Basic
Telecommunications Service (``WTO Basic Telecom Agreement''). In
particular, the DISCO II Order established a framework under which the
Commission will consider requests for non-U.S.-licensed space stations
to serve the United States. This analysis considers the effect on
competition in the United States, eligibility and operating
requirements, spectrum availability, and national security, law
enforcement, foreign policy, and trade concerns.
18. Under DISCO II, the Commission evaluates the effect of foreign
entry on competition in the United States in one of two ways. First, in
cases where the non-U.S.-licensed space station is licensed by a
country that is a member of the WTO and will provide services covered
by the U.S. commitments under the WTO Basic Telecom Agreement, the
Commission presumes that entry will further competition in the United
States. The U.S. commitments include Mobile-Satellite Services (MSS)
and many fixed-satellite services, but specifically exclude DTH, DBS,
and DARS. In contrast, the Commission conducts an ``ECO-Sat'' analysis
for non-U.S.-licensed space stations licensed by countries that are not
WTO members and where the foreign operator, regardless of its licensing
country's WTO status, proposes to provide a non-covered service. Under
this analysis, applicants seeking to access a foreign space station
must provide an analysis as part of their application demonstrating
that U.S.-licensed space stations have effective competitive
opportunities to provide analogous services in the country in which the
space station is licensed (``home'' market) and in all countries in
which communications with the U.S. earth station will originate or
terminate (``route'' markets). In particular, the Commission examines
whether there are any de jure or de facto barriers to entry in the
foreign country for the provision of analogous services and whether any
such barriers cause competitive distortions in the U.S. market. In the
NPRM, the Commission proposed to apply this framework to non-U.S.-
licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators seeking to access the U.S.
market.
19. With respect to eligibility requirements, the Commission also
proposed, in the NPRM, to extend to 17/24 GHz BSS operators the DISCO
II policy that requires foreign-licensed space stations and operators
to meet the same legal, technical, and financial requirements that we
require U.S. applicants to meet. These include any requirements adopted
in this proceeding, such as bond requirements, milestone requirements,
geographic service requirements, public interest obligations, and
spacecraft end-of-life disposal requirements.
20. Further, as in other satellite services, the Commission also
proposed to require entities requesting authority to serve the U.S.
market from a non-U.S. satellite to provide the same information
concerning the 17/24 GHz BSS satellite as U.S. applicants must provide
when applying for a space station license. This allows us to determine
whether the foreign-licensed satellite complies with all Commission
technical and service requirements, and whether it may cause
interference to satellites providing authorized services to U.S.
customers.
21. The commenters generally support this approach. EchoStar and
SES Americom suggest that we should strictly enforce the ECO-Sat test
because it allows us to ensure that U.S.-licensed operators have the
same opportunity to provide 17/24 GHz BSS services to foreign countries
as the satellites licensed by foreign countries have to serve the
United States. In contrast, however, Bermuda notes that consumers would
benefit if there was an increased presumption in all cases that entry
to the market will further competition.
22. We adopt the Commission's proposal in the NPRM to evaluate the
applications of non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS satellite operators
seeking to access the U.S. market under the DISCO II framework. Thus,
our analysis will consider the effect on competition in the United
States, eligibility and operating requirements, spectrum availability,
and national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, and trade
concerns. We note in particular that all applications seeking authority
to provide DTH services from non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS operators
to the U.S. market must include an ECO-Sat analysis. We will not
eliminate this analysis in favor of a presumption that entry, in all
cases, will further competition, as Bermuda suggests. The ECO-Sat
analysis assures us that a foreign entrant will not have a competitive
advantage over U.S.-licensed operators derived from their ability to
serve countries and customers that U.S. operators may be precluded from
serving. Bermuda has not explained why, or to what extent, the 17/24
GHz BSS is so different from other services that we need not be
concerned about ensuring a level playing field among these systems.
Further, any evaluation of whether to continue to apply the ECO-SAT
analysis to non-covered services in general is beyond the scope of this
proceeding.
23. Last, as with all other services, we require all 17/24 GHz BSS
operators seeking authority to serve the U.S. market from a non-U.S.
satellite to provide the same information concerning their proposed 17/
24 GHz BSS space stations as U.S. applicants must provide when applying
for a space station license. This includes filing FCC Form 312,
information required in Schedule S, and all other information required
by Sec. 25.114 of the Commission's rules. In addition, all non-U.S-
licensed satellite operators must meet the requirements adopted in this
proceeding, including but not limited to bond requirements, milestone
requirements, geographic service requirements, public interest
obligations and spacecraft end-of-life disposal requirements.
24. Licensing at Co-Located 17/24 GHz BSS and DBS Orbital
Locations: EchoStar argues that we should award licenses for 17/24 GHz
BSS satellites that will be co-located with DBS satellites only to
existing DBS licensees at those locations. According to EchoStar, this
restriction would minimize the risk of harmful interference which will
occur when 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are located at or near the same
orbital locations as DBS satellites. SES Americom and Intelsat oppose
this proposal, claiming that it is anti-competitive and would block new
entrants from the 17/24 GHz BSS.
25. We agree with SES Americom and Intelsat. The effect of
accepting EchoStar's argument would be an expansion of the
authorizations of DBS licensees to include authority to operate in the
17/24 GHz BSS on the same channel and orbital location at which they
are currently operating. We find that providing such rights to existing
DBS licensees would hinder competition while conferring a benefit on
existing DBS licensees. Further, we note that, in the FNPRM section of
this document below, we invite comment on various methods for
coordinating DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites when located near each
other in the
[[Page 50004]]
geostationary orbit, perhaps as close as 0.2[deg] or 0.3[deg] to each
other. In light of this, we find that EchoStar's proposal to prohibit
non-DBS operators from applying for 17/24 GHz BSS licenses at DBS
orbital locations is not necessary to prevent harmful interference
between DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS satellites.
26. Fifteen-year and Eight-Year License Terms Adopted,
Respectively, for Non-Broadcast and Broadcast 17/24 GHz Licensees: In
the NPRM, the Commission sought comment on the license term it should
apply to 17/24 GHz licenses. The Commission noted that Sec. 25.121 of
the Commission's rules provides that licenses for space stations will
be issued for a period of 15 years, except licenses for DBS space
stations. DBS space stations licensed as broadcast facilities are
issued licenses for eight-year terms, and those DBS space stations not
licensed as broadcast facilities have 10-year terms. The Communications
Act provides for a maximum licensing term of eight years for
broadcasting facilities and allows the Commission to determine license
terms for particular classes of stations, including satellite space and
earth stations. In the NPRM, the Commission proposed to adopt a 10-year
license term for all non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. For 17/24
GHz BSS satellites that will operate as broadcast facilities, the
Commission proposed an eight-year license term, as provided under
section 307(c)(1) of the Communications Act.
27. DIRECTV, Intelsat, and Bermuda support a 15-year license term
for 17/24 GHz systems. Bermuda states that most commercial satellites
being planned or built today are intended for a service life-expectancy
of longer than eight years, and notes that a 15-year term would also be
consistent with international practices.
28. Pursuant to our statutory authority to implement license terms
for different classes of space and earth stations, with the exception
of DBS stations, we adopt a 15-year license term for all non-broadcast
17/24 GHz BSS licenses and an eight-year license term for 17/24 GHz BSS
licensees operating as broadcasters. As noted by the parties,
satellites being built today are intended for longer service life
expectancy than in the past and should therefore be assigned a longer
license term. A 15-year license term for non-broadcast 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites accurately reflects the useful life of most GSO satellites
today and therefore, we will extend the license terms applicable to
other non-broadcast GSO-like licensees to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees.
29. Streamlined Procedures Adopted: While the Commission has
consistently said that all orbital assignments confer no permanent
rights of use to the licensee, it has recognized the importance of
giving satellite operators some assurance that they will be able to
continue to serve their customers from the same orbital location as
older satellites are retired. The Commission has stated that, without
this assurance, operators may be discouraged from investing the hundred
of millions of dollars needed to construct, launch, and operate each
satellite. Further, the Commission has said that without follow-on
capacity at the same orbit location, customers could experience service
disruptions. When an orbit location remains available for a U.S.
satellite with the technical characteristics of the proposed
replacement satellite, we will generally authorize the replacement
satellite at the same location.
30. To facilitate grant of replacement satellites, the Commission
has historically processed applications for replacement satellites as
they are filed, rather than subjecting them to the procedures that
otherwise govern applications for new satellites. Thus, Commission
practice is to immediately consider an application for a replacement
satellite--and grant it if the applicant is qualified--without
subjecting the application to a ``processing queue'' or other procedure
by which it considers other applications that may be mutually exclusive
with the replacement satellite application. To further expedite
replacement satellite licensing, the Commission considers unopposed
replacement satellite applications with technical characteristics
consistent with those of the satellite to be retired are processed
under a grant-stamp procedure. In the NPRM, we proposed to treat
replacement satellite applications in the 17/24 GHz BSS under these
streamlined procedures.
31. DIRECTV and Intelsat support this proposal. Bermuda also
supports a replacement policy that allows operators to replace ``like
with like,'' i.e., replace a satellite after a premature in-orbit
failure (such as caused by solar activity or manufacturing flaw) but
cautions against abuses in the satellite replacement grant-stamp
process.
32. In order to facilitate grant of 17/24 GHz BSS replacement
satellite applications, we adopt the streamlined procedures applicable
to the majority of the replacement satellite applications considered by
the Commission. We have found that the grant-stamp procedure is an
efficient method of processing replacement satellite applications and
will apply this procedure to unopposed applications for replacement
satellites in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Further, the procedure contains
mechanisms against abuse. We will place 17/24 GHz replacement
applications on Public Notice, as we do with replacement satellite
applications in other services. Thus, interested parties will have an
opportunity to comment on all applications. We will address any
concerns raised when processing the replacement application and will
issue an Order, instead of a grant stamp, when appropriate.
33. Annual Reporting Requirements Adopted: In the NPRM, the
Commission noted that most space station operators are subject to
annual reporting requirements on June 30 of each year. These reports
must include, among other things, the status of space station
construction and anticipated launch dates. The Commission requested
comment on whether we should require 17/24 GHz BSS U.S.-licensees and
17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are authorized to access the
United States to submit similar annual reports.
34. Bermuda and Intelsat support a reporting requirement, stating
that annual reports can be useful for monitoring the progress of
milestone compliance and helping to deter speculative applications.
Bermuda adds that licensees should file reports regardless of whether
they are U.S. operators or non-U.S. operators. Bermuda also states that
requiring operators to report at intervals of less than one year would
provide an increased opportunity to monitor progress. No party objects
to a reporting requirement for 17/24 GHz BSS operators.
35. We adopt the Commission's proposal to require 17/24 GHz BSS
U.S.-licensees and 17/24 GHz BSS non-U.S. operators that are authorized
to access the United States to submit annual reports similar to the
annual reports required of most FSS satellite operators to the
Commission on June 30 of each year. We believe such reports, filed on
an annual basis, will help keep us apprised of the status of the space
station, both while it is being built and once it is in-orbit. We are
not convinced that more frequent reporting is needed to achieve this
objective. In addition to annual reports, licensees must file
documentation that they have met various milestones at each milestone
deadline. This provides the most timely way to monitor licensees'
compliance with the milestone conditions in their licenses. We also
note that the Commission may request at any time additional information
if such request is warranted.
[[Page 50005]]
36. Operators should file their annual reports with the
Commission's International Bureau and the Commission's Columbia
Operations Center in Columbia, Maryland. Specifically, the annual
reports must include: (1) Status of satellite construction and
anticipated launch date, including any major problems or delays
encountered; (2) a listing of any non-scheduled transponder outages for
more than 30 minutes and the cause or causes of such outage; (3) a
detailed description of the utilization made of each transponder on
each of the in-orbit satellites, including the percentage of time that
the system is actually used for U.S. domestic or transborder
transmission, the amount of capacity (if any) sold but not in service
within U.S. territorial geographic areas, and the amount of unused
system capacity; and (4) identification of any transponder not
available for service or otherwise not performing to specifications,
the cause of these difficulties, and the date any space station was
taken out of service or the malfunction identified.
37. NPRM Proposal Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission proposed
that applicants for 17/24 GHz BSS satellites should pay fees associated
with the ``Space Stations (Geostationary)'' service in Sec. 1.1107 of
the Commission's rules. In addition, we proposed that applicants
seeking authority to operate earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS should
pay fees associated with the ``Fixed Satellite Transmit/Receive Earth
Stations'' in Sec. 1.1107. There were no comments on our filing fee
proposals and we adopt our fee proposals.
38. DBS and DTH Public Interest Obligations Adopted for 17/24 GHz
BSS: Sec. 25.701 of our rules requires DBS providers to comply with
certain political broadcast requirements and children's television
advertising limits, and to set aside four percent of channel capacity
for noncommercial, educational or informational programming. The
entities subject to Sec. 25.701 include entities licensed to operate
satellites in the 12.2 to 12.7 GHz DBS frequency bands; entities
licensed pursuant to part 25 of the Commission's rules to provide FSS
via the Ku-band, that sell or lease transponder capacity to a video
program distributor that offers a specified number of DTH video
channels to consumers; and non-U.S. licensed satellites providing DBS
or DTH-FSS services in the United States. The NPRM proposed that, to
the extent a 17/24 GHz BSS space station is used to provide video
programming to consumers in the United States (DBS-like services), the
licensee should be subject to the public interest obligations contained
in Sec. 25.701. We invited comment on this proposal.
39. Commenters generally support applying public interest
requirements to the 17/24 GHz BSS. SES Americom, however, contends that
such requirements should be imposed only on 17/24 GHz BSS licensees
that distribute programming to end users, and not on 17/24 GHz BSS
licensees that are strictly satellite operators with no programming
control, because they are not in a position to comply with the
obligations. In reply, EchoStar states that if public interest
obligations are imposed on any 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, they should be
imposed uniformly on all such licensees. DIRECTV also believes that
public interest obligations should be imposed equally on all 17/24 GHz
BSS licensees, and states that the Commission has previously addressed
and rejected SES Americom's arguments.
40. We find that the obligations imposed on DBS providers by Sec.
25.701 should apply uniformly if the 17/24 GHz BSS space station is
used to provide video services to consumers in the United States. SES
Americom's argument that program distributors using satellite capacity
should be ultimately responsible for fulfilling these obligations was
specifically addressed and rejected by the Commission when it
originally adopted the public interest rules and on reconsideration of
those rules. We see no reason to adopt a different approach for
operations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Accordingly, we adopt the proposal to
amend Sec. 25.701 to apply to any 17/24 GHz BSS licensee, to the
extent that the space station is used to provide video programming to
consumers in the United States.
41. Although Media Access Project supports the Commission's
proposal to impose public interest obligations on 17/24 GHz BSS
licensees that provide DBS-like services, it argues that the Commission
should increase the amount of programming that service providers in
this band are required to reserve for non-commercial programming of an
educational or informational nature. It argues that, given the
expansion of spectrum capacity being offered to service providers in
this proceeding, the Commission should require that licensees offer an
accompanying increase in their public interest programming from the
statutory minimum of four percent to the statutory maximum of seven
percent. According to Media Access Project, the increase would provide
value to the public in return for their use of the scarce public
resources of spectrum and orbital locations. EchoStar argues that a
public interest programming set-aside requirement of seven percent
would be a disincentive to development of the 17/24 GHz BSS and would
``significantly limit'' the capacity available for sought-after
services such as local-into-local television broadcast stations and
high-definition programming.
42. To the extent that Media Access Project is arguing that the
channel reservation requirement should be increased for all DBS
providers, including those originally covered by Sec. 25.701, that
issue is beyond the scope of this proceeding. With respect to any
argument that the reservation be increased for only licensees in the
17/24 GHz BSS, we find that this might prove detrimental to development
of this band by placing greater burdens on these licensees than those
operating in others bands. Thus, we require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to
reserve four percent of their channel capacity, as defined in Sec.
25.701, for use by qualified programmers for noncommercial programming
of an educational or informational nature. See 47 CFR 25.701(c).
43. The NPRM also sought comment on whether licensees in the 17/24
GHz BSS qualify to use the compulsory copyright licenses granted under
sections 119 and 122 of the Copyright Act and, if so, whether broadcast
carriage requirements should apply. See 17 U.S.C. 119, 122. These
statutory licenses permit satellite carriers, as defined in the
Copyright Act, to provide television broadcast signals to their
subscribers. Section 119 of the Copyright Act defines ``satellite
carrier'' as an entity that uses a satellite operating in the FSS or
DBS service for point-to-multipoint distribution of television signals.
See 17 U.S.C. 119(d)(6). See also 47 U.S.C. 339. This section of the
Copyright Act allows satellite carriers to offer distant broadcast
signals under certain circumstances. Section 122 of the Copyright Act
provides a license for local-into-local service and defines ``satellite
carrier'' by reference to the definition in section 119. See 17 U.S.C.
122(j)(3). See also 47 U.S.C. 338.
44. Both DIRECTV and EchoStar, as well as NAB, support allowing 17/
24 GHz BSS licensees to qualify to use the compulsory copyright
licenses. DIRECTV asserts that while the 17/24 GHZ BSS service is not
totally in either the DBS or FSS frequency bands, the uplink for this
service is in a frequency band allocated to FSS and, therefore, the
copyright license could be construed to cover 17/24 GHz BSS.
Alternatively,
[[Page 50006]]
DIRECTV asserts that the Commission could amend its definition of
``DBS'' to include use of the 17/24 GHz BSS downlink band. Although we
will not offer an opinion on the appropriate construction of the
Copyright Act, we believe that sections 338 and 339 of the
Communications Act would apply to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees and that
operators in this band, to the extent that they provide DBS-like
service, qualify for use of the statutory copyright licenses. These
licensees will provide point-to-multipoint service, in part using FSS
frequencies, and thus they appear to come within the definition of a
satellite carrier. Licensees availing themselves of the statutory
copyright licenses must, of course, abide by the accompanying broadcast
carriage requirements in the statute and in Commission rules, and, if
they offer service to more than 5 million customers, must provide
television broadcast signals to subscribers in Alaska and Hawaii.
45. EEO Requirements Adopted: The NPRM noted that Sec. 25.601 of
the Commission's rules requires an entity that owns or leases an FSS or
DBS service facility to provide video programming directly to the
public on a subscription basis to comply with the equal employment
opportunity (EEO) requirements. These requirements are set forth in
part 76 of the Commission's rules and apply if the entity exercises
control over the video programming it distributes. We proposed to apply
Sec. 25.601 to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such licensees
provide DBS-like services. In addition, we proposed to require 17/24
GHz BSS licensees to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be
subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and
multichannel video service distributors (MVPDs). We sought comment on
this proposal.
46. EchoStar states that if we impose EEO obligations on 17/24 GHz
BSS licensees, we should apply them uniformly to all licensees. Bermuda
states generally that it supports our proposals. We find that it is in
the public interest to apply Sec. 25.601 of our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS
licensees to the extent such licensees provide DBS-like services, as
well as to require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to comply with any other EEO
requirements that may be subsequently adopted or enforced by the
Commission for broadcasters and MVPDs. Accordingly, we will apply Sec.
25.601 of our rules to 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to the extent such
licensees provide DBS-like services, and 17/24 GHz BSS licensees will
be required to comply with any other EEO requirements that may be
subsequently adopted or enforced by the Commission for broadcasters and
MVPDs.
47. Service Requirements for Alaska and Hawaii Adopted: The
Commission is committed to establishing policies and rules that will
promote service to all regions in the United States, particularly to
traditionally underserved areas, such as Alaska and Hawaii, and other
remote areas. To achieve these goals, the NPRM proposed to apply
geographic service rules for the states of Alaska and Hawaii in the 17/
24 GHz BSS. Specifically, to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations are used to provide video programming to consumers in the
United States, we proposed to adopt rules analogous to those in effect
for DBS satellites in Sec. 25.148(c) of the Commission's rules. These
rules require DBS licensees to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii
where such service is technically feasible from the authorized orbital
location. DBS applicants who do not propose to serve Alaska and Hawaii
at the licensing stage must provide technical analyses to the
Commission demonstrating that such service is not feasible as a
technical matter or that, while technically feasible, such service
would require so many compromises in satellite design and operation as
to make it economically unreasonable. The Commission sought comment on
this proposal. In addition, the NPRM noted that it is likely that many
of the satellite operators in the 17/24 GHz BSS will operate multiple
satellites. We asked whether, in such instances, we should apply
geographic service rules at each orbital location or on a system-wide
basis.
48. Commenters generally support adopting rules analogous to the
DBS rules. DIRECTV and EchoStar also support applying the rules on a
system-wide basis rather than on an orbital location basis. DIRECTV
states that applying the rules on a system-wide basis will provide
flexibility without compromising the goal of comparable service to all
regions of the United States. EchoStar notes that the technical
feasibility of service from a particular orbital location may not be
the same for the 12 GHz and 17 GHz bands.
49. Accordingly, 17/24 GHz BSS licensees, to the extent that such
licensees provide DBS-like services, are required to certify that they
will provide service to Alaska and Hawaii comparable to that provided
to locations in the 48 contiguous United States (CONUS), unless such
service is not technically feasible or not economically reasonable from
the authorized orbital location. In addition, we require applicants to
design and configure 17/24 GHz BSS satellites to be capable of
providing service to Alaska and Hawaii that is comparable to the
service that such satellites will provide to CONUS subscribers.
Furthermore, we require applicants to design and configure these
satellites to be able to provide service to Alaska and Hawaii from any
orbital location capable of providing service to either Alaska or
Hawaii to which they may be relocated in the future. Thus, regardless
of the location to which the satellite is initially authorized to
operate from, if moved to a location capable of providing coverage to
Alaska and Hawaii, the satellite will be configured to provide service
to Alaska and Hawaii at the new orbital location. Applying geographic
service requirements to 17/24 GHz BSS operators in this manner will
best ensure that 17/24 GHz BSS service provided to Alaska and Hawaii is
comparable to that provided to CONUS locations. Although we are
applying these requirements to each satellite where technically
feasible instead of on a system-wide basis as proposed by DIRECTV and
EchoStar, we believe that operators will have sufficient flexibility to
design their systems in a manner that will be both technically and
economically efficient. We also require licensees to certify that
replacement and relocated satellites at locations from which service to
Alaska and Hawaii had been provided by another 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
will have the capability to provide at least the same level of service
to Alaska and Hawaii as the previous 17/24 GHz BSS satellite at that
location. 17/24 GHz BSS applicants who do not intend to provide service
to Alaska and Hawaii must provide, in their initial application,
technical analyses to the Commission demonstrating that such service is
not feasible as a technical matter or that, while technically feasible,
such service would require so many compromises in satellite design and
operation as to make it economically unreasonable.
50. EAS Requirements Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission noted
that, in the EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice, the
Commission amended part 11 of its rules to require participation in the
Emergency Alert System (EAS) by digital broadcast stations, digital
cable systems, DBS services, and DARS. The NPRM also noted that in the
EAS First Report and Order and Further Notice, the Commission defined
DBS broadly to include the ``vast majority of DTH services,
particularly those which viewers may have expectations as to available
warnings based on experience
[[Page 50007]]
with broadcast television services.'' Because the same concerns the
Commission addressed in the EAS First Report and Order and Further
Notice are presented with the introduction of services by 17/24 GHz BSS
providers, the NPRM proposed to apply the EAS requirements to providers
of those services to the extent that 17/24 GHz BSS licensees provide
DBS-like services.
51. Commenters disagree as to whether the Commission should apply
EAS requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees. SES Americom and
Intelsat maintain that EAS requirements should apply only to 17/24 GHz
BSS licensees that distribute programming to end users and not to FSS
licensees that provide satellite capacity, such as SES Americom and
Intelsat. According to SES Americom, FSS operators have conclusively
demonstrated that placing EAS obligations on the licensee instead of
the programming distributor impairs the effectiveness of the EAS
program and prevents the Commission from penalizing a programming
distributor that fails to deliver a required alert. SES concludes that
if the Commission decides to apply EAS requirements to the 17/24 GHz
BSS, it should ensure that they are placed only on programming
distributors and not on the underlying satellite operators.
52. EchoStar and DIRECTV disagree with SES Americom and Intelsat.
On reply, EchoStar and DIRECTV argue that all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees,
whether they provide programming or underlying capacity, should be
subject to EAS requirements. DIRECTV also notes that the Commission has
previously determined that satellite licensees, such as Intelsat,
should be subject to EAS requirements for other satellite services.
Consequently, DIRECTV argues, unless the Commission changes its policy
regarding the application of EAS requirements to other services it
should not adopt Intelsat and SES Americom's proposal for the 17/24 GHz
service alone.
53. Bermuda also submitted comments in support of applying EAS
requirements to all 17/24 GHz BSS licensees that provide DBS-like
services. Bermuda argues that imposing this requirement not only
insures that all satellite operators providing DTH-like or DBS-like
services will be subject to the same requirements, but also means that
consumers will receive equal services in the event of an emergency.
Bermuda further states that in the broader context of EAS, it has
concerns regarding extreme weather conditions and recognizes that
resilient communications are necessary for the dissemination of vital
information to the public in times of emergency.
54. We believe that customers of the new 17/24 GHz BSS services
would likely have similar expectations regarding these services as they
do towards those other satellite services where video programming is
provided directly to consumers. The particular band in which DTH
services are offered has no relevance to customers' expectations
regarding their ability to receive warnings. In other words, the EAS
obligations for these services should be uniform no matter what portion
of spectrum a particular provider chooses for its services. In this
regard, we note that, pursuant to the rules adopted in the EAS First
Report and Order, entities providing DBS services as defined by Sec.
25.701(a) of the Commission's rules, will be subject to the part 11 EAS
rules effective May 31, 2007. In light of this precedent and the
reasons stated above, we conclude that, where 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations are used to provide video services directly to consumers, the
EAS requirements will apply. This will ensure consistent application of
the EAS requirements irrespective of the different spectrum being used.
We note, however, that PanAmSat Corporation, SES Americom, Inc. and
Intelsat, Ltd. (collectively the ``FSS Group'') filed a petition for
partial reconsideration of the EAS First Report and Order, making
arguments essentially identical to those raised in their comments in
this proceeding. We will address these issues in an Order dealing with
the reconsideration petitions in the EAS proceeding.
55. Use of BSS Spectrum at 17.7-17.8 GHz: Although the
international allocation for Region 2 BSS in the space-to-Earth
direction extends from 17.3-17.8 GHz, in the 18 GHz Report and Order,
the Commission extended the domestic allocation to the BSS only to 17.7
GHz. As discussed in the NPRM, the Commission based its decision in
part upon the ubiquitous nature of broadcasting-satellite services
which we believed would preclude successful coordination with a
terrestrial service that was similarly widely deployed, and taking into
account the amount of terrestrial fixed spectrum being lost as a result
of that proceeding. In the NPRM, the Commission recognized that U.S.
satellite operators might wish to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band to provide
service to receiving earth stations located within ITU Region 2, but
outside of the United States. Accordingly, the Commission proposed to
permit U.S. operators to use the international allocation to the BSS,
but to limit use of the downlink to international service only, i.e.,
to receiving earth stations located outside of the U.S. and its
possessions. The NPRM sought comment on this proposal and any rule
changes that might be necessary to effect its implementation.
Recognizing that the footprint of satellite beams serving nearby Region
2 countries could illuminate portions of the United States, the NPRM
also proposed to adopt Power Flux Density (pfd) limits in order to
protect terrestrial service antennas from co-frequency interference
from space station transmissions. Specifically, it proposed to adopt
the same pfd limits that were imposed on FSS transmissions in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band by Sec. 25.208(c) of the Commission's rules prior to the
adoption of the 18 GHz Report and Order in 2002, and are also the same
limits that Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations currently imposes
on FSS operators in this band. See Table 21-4 of the ITU Radio
Regulations. The NPRM sought comment on extension of these proposed pfd
limits to the 17/24 GHz BSS.
56. Commenters responding to this issue consistently favor the
Commission's proposal to permit use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band outside
of the United States and its possessions. However, many argue that the
Commission's proposal did not go far enough with regard to domestic
service. DIRECTV and EchoStar both request that the Commission also
allow satellite operators to provide service to U.S.-based receiving
earth stations on a non-protected, non-interference basis, arguing that
there is very little chance that downlink transmissions from a BSS
satellite would interfere with the much stronger terrestrial service
transmissions in this portion of the band and stating that spectrum
should not be required to remain fallow in areas where there is little
terrestrial use. Intelsat further argues that coordination with Fixed
Service (FS) operators in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band is feasible
particularly if FS deployment is frozen after a certain date to permit
BSS operators to deploy their earth stations with full knowledge of the
locations of FS earth stations. Alternatively, Intelsat suggests that
the Commission could grant BSS and FS co-primary status and protect
receive earth station sites on a case-by-case basis while permitting FS
deployment in the band to continue. Finally, SES Americom states that
the Commission should entertain requests for a waiver of the
Commission's rules to permit use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band on a case-
by-case basis.
[[Page 50008]]
57. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition (FWCC) opposes
satellite operators' requests for authority to provide domestic service
in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. The FWCC claims that the FS used the band
heavily even prior to the 1998 18 GHz Report and Order and that the
number of FS links continues to increase. It argues that such an action
on the Commission's part would be both bad policy and contrary to law
as the NPRM expressly took such a possibility off the table. The FWCC
further argues that satellite operators seek to reopen the issue of
terrestrial service and satellite service sharing that has already been
thoroughly aired and considered, and urges the Commission to state that
the matter is closed. FiberTower also opposes 17/24 GHz BSS domestic
use of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band, stating that it would not be possible to
effect coordination with ongoing FS operations in the band and that
such a reallocation would once again disrupt FS operations in order to
rechannelize the 18 GHz band.
58. In the NPRM, the Commission made clear that it did not intend
to reexamine the question of BSS and FS sharing in the 17.7-17.8 GHz
band in this rulemaking. We believe that undertaking examination of
such a technically complex issue would only result in a protracted and
contentious rulemaking. As stated in the NPRM, this could only disserve
our goal of establishing technical and service rules for the 17/24 GHz
BSS in a timely manner, particularly recognizing the April 1, 2007 date
at which the allocation became effective. Moreover, the Commission also
stated that no applicant had provided either convincing evidence that
terrestrial FS spectrum relocation requirements are less demanding than
predicted, or a compelling argument that coordination of widely
deployed terrestrial services with ubiquitously located 17/24 GHz BSS
receivers would be readily feasible. That remains true to date. For
these reasons, we agree with the FWCC's assertion that reopening the
issue in this rulemaking is not appropriate, and we decline to consider
requests to make the 17.7-17.8 GHz band available for domestic BSS
operations as a part of this proceeding.
59. EchoStar, DIRECTV and SES Americom all suggest that reception
of some non-protected BSS transmissions at U.S. earth stations might be
accommodated successfully in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. EchoStar notes
that a similar approach has been undertaken successfully with FSS DTH
antennas in the extended Ku-bands. In certain instances, FSS applicants
seeking to use extended Ku-band spectrum for domestic service, have
obtained waivers of the Commission's rules and agreed to accept all
interference from FS stations as a condition of authorization. However,
in the extended Ku-bands, there is an existing primary allocation to
the FSS in the 10.95-11.2 GHz and 11.45-11.7 GHz bands, although
footnote NG 104 to the United States Table of Frequency Allocations
(Table of Allocations) limits FSS use to international systems only.
See 47 CFR 2.106 and NG 104. In the case of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band,
neither a primary nor a secondary domestic allocation to the BSS exists
in the space-to-Earth direction. The Commission will not modify the
Table of Allocations to provide a secondary allocation to the BSS in
this band for the reasons stated above--we do not intend to reexamine
BSS/FS sharing issues in this rulemaking.
60. Commenters also support the adoption of pfd limits in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band to protect terrestrial networks. SES Americom and
Intelsat agree with the Commission's proposal to apply the pfd limits
of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations for FSS systems operating in
the 17.7-19.7 GHz band to BSS downlink transmissions in the 17.7-17.8
GHz band. DIRECTV, although proposing a different (graduated) set of
pfd values for 17/24 GHz BSS downlink transmissions in general, states
that the ITU Article 21 pfd limits are sufficient to protect
terrestrial services from interference. EchoStar also proposes a
graduated set of pfd values for the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band and
compares its proposed values to the limits proposed in the NPRM, noting
that at low elevation angles its values are actually 8 dB more
stringent than those of Article 21, hence sufficient to protect
terrestrial services from interference. Accordingly, as proposed in the
NPRM, we extend the FSS pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio
Regulations to 17/24 GHz BSS in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Consistent with
other pfd requirements in our rules, See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.208(a)-(c),
the maximum values will apply to elevation angles ([dgr]) between
25[deg] and 90[deg] above the horizontal plane. We will restrict pfd
values by a factor of ([dgr] -5)/2 for elevation angles between 5[deg]
and 25[deg] above the horizontal plane, and to values of 10 dB lower
for elevation angles between 0[deg] and 5[deg] above the horizontal
plane.
61. The NPRM also sought comment on Tracking, Telemetry and Command
(TT&C) operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Section 25.202(g) of the
Commission's rules requires that TT&C functions for all U.S. domestic
satellites be conducted at either or both edges of the allocated
band(s). See 47 CFR 25.202(g). In the case of the 17.3-17.7 GHz
allocation, this rule would permit TT&C operations at frequencies just
above 17.3 GHz or just below 17.7 GHz. The Commission's rules would not
permit TT&C operations into U.S.-based earth stations at frequencies
just below 17.8 GHz. Recognizing that reliance upon foreign-based TT&C
facilities for on-station operations could adversely affect the U.S.
operator's ability to maintain control of its spacecraft, the NPRM
sought comment on how best to accommodate TT&C operations for those
applicants seeking to use the 17.7-17.8 GHz band for international
service. The NPRM asked further whether there was sufficient spectrum
available above 17.3 GHz to accommodate these operations, particularly
in light of the reverse-band sharing situation, and potential for out-
of-band interference from radar systems operating just below 17.3 GHz.
62. EchoStar proposes that the Commission set aside 10 MHz
guardbands at the edges of the 17/24 GHz bands for on-station TT&C
operations. In the 17 GHz band, EchoStar asks us to define a guardband
at the lower band edge near 17.3 GHz, but not at frequencies near 17.7
GHz because of the planned use by many operators of the entire 17.3-
17.8 GHz bandwidth. Rather, EchoStar asserts that the upper guardband
is better defined at 17.790-17.800 GHz. At present, Sec. 25.202(g) of
our rules does not set aside any specific bandwidth for TT&C
transmissions. Instead, it requires only that these functions be
conducted at the edges of the allocated band. In the case of DBS
satellites, the ITU Radio Regulations' Region 2 BSS and feederlink
Plans of Appendices 30 and 30A do designate 12 MHz guardbands at either
edge of the allocated band, and our rules require DBS operations to be
in accordance with the technical characteristics contained in these
appendices. However, the planned-band guardbands are set out in the
larger context of a channelization scheme over the entire allocated
bandwidth. Similarly, EchoStar makes its request for designated TT&C
guardbands in the context of its more general request that the 24 MHz
channelization scheme used for DBS satellites be applied to 17/24 GHz
BSS satellites. The possibility of channelization schemes are addressed
in more detail in this Order below, where the Commission declines to
enforce a particular channelization scheme for the 17/24 GHz BSS.
[[Page 50009]]
63. Moreover, we do not believe that it is practicable to plan for
TT&C operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Our rules require that TT&C
operations take place at the edges of the allocated band. Although we
may authorize operators to provide international service in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band, there is no domestic allocation to the BSS in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band, and we have declined to modify the Table of Allocations
to provide for one. Accordingly, we do not propose to designate
guardbands limited to on-station TT&C operations for \17/24\ GHz BSS
systems. For these reasons we will make no changes to Sec. 25.202(g).
64. Both EchoStar and Intelsat urge the Commission not to permit
TT&C operations at the band edge just below 17.7 GHz, arguing that such
transmissions would fall within band for those operators seeking to use
the entire 17.3-17.8 GHz band, and as a result, TT&C transmissions of
one operator could be incompatible with the communications
transmissions of another operator. However, this request is made in
conjunction with their assertions that the Commission should permit
domestic BSS operations in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band. Commenters do not
offer alternatives in the event that the Commission declines this
request. In addition, although commenters believe TT&C operations
should occur at edge of the 17.7-17.8 GHz band segment, they do not
address where to accommodate the TT&C transmissions of future
applicants who choose not to provide international service in the 17.7-
17.8 GHz band. In addition, the NPRM recognized significant
interference potential from both adjacent band and secondary in-band
government radar systems at frequencies just above 17.3 GHz. DIRECTV
cautions that higher frequencies correspond with higher reliability for
TT&C operations due to their separation from government radar systems.
For these reasons, we believe that operators should be afforded
sufficient bandwidth, particularly at higher frequencies, to provide
for flexibility and reliability in planning their TT&C operations.
65. Moreover, we are not convinced that TT&C transmissions will
present a significant interference problem to the communications
transmissions of adjacent satellite operators using the 17.7-17.8 GHz
band. The worst interference case likely will occur into small-diameter
earth station antennas that receive off-axis telemetry signal
transmissions from nearby 17/24 GHz BSS satellites. However, TT&C
transmissions are relatively narrow-band--typically a few megahertz--
and the resulting interference would be averaged across the much wider
bandwidth of the typical BSS signal. In addition, at four degrees or
greater of orbital separation the interfering telemetry signal power
should be significantly reduced. A somewhat analogous situation occurs
in the extended Ku-bands between 11.45-11.7 GHz and the standard Ku-
band between 11.7-12.2 GHz. Although the adjacent, extended Ku-band
(11.45-11.7 GHz) may be used to provide international service, and many
operators choose to make use of the entire 11.45-12.2 GHz bandwidth,
the Commission does not preclude TT&C operations at frequencies just
above 11.7 GHz. Accordingly, we will not prohibit TT&C operations at
frequencies just below 17.7 GHz.
66. Orbital Spacing: The NPRM sought comment on whether the
Commission should adopt an orbital spacing policy in the 17/24 GHz BSS,
and if so, what separation would be appropriate. We asked specifically
how best to balance our conflicting goals of making available the
maximum GSO orbital capacity while simultaneously minimizing
interference into small-diameter receiving antennas. Most commenters
recognize the importance of adopting a well-considered orbital spacing
policy, noting the critical role that spacing plays in determining
required receive antenna diameters, quality of service, efficiency of
design and types of services possible to deliver that result as a
consequence of orbital separation. Only Bermuda differs in its view,
advocating that the Commission should remove the minimum orbital
separation requirement from all services, including DBS services, and
instead should allow operators to coordinate their services using the
procedures in the ITU Radio Regulations. Bermuda does not address how
operators within the same administration should reconcile instances of
interference arising among each other, which is a primary objective we
seek to address by developing appropriate requirements within this
proceeding.
67. In their comments, DIRECTV, SES Americom, and Intelsat all
propose orbital-separation schemes of four degrees, expressing a
preference for alignment with existing Ku- and Ka-band FSS locations,
some of which are currently used to provide DTH-FSS services. DIRECTV
maintains that four degrees of orbital separation will support
deployment of the 60 cm diameter antennas it plans to implement. SES
Americom and Intelsat maintain that a four-degree separation scheme
will permit their planned use of 45 cm antennas. DIRECTV also argues
that a separation scheme of four degrees will facilitate use of hybrid
BSS-FSS satellites enabling operators to capture the inherent
efficiencies associated with these platforms thereby significantly
reducing the cost of providing services. Intelsat supports a four-
degree orbital separation scheme, stating that it offers a good balance
between the use of small diameter antennas and the need to achieve good
coverage of the United States from a reasonable number of orbital
positions.
68. In contrast, EchoStar, in its comments, advocates a 4.5-degree
orbital separation scheme centered upon current DBS locations. EchoStar
plans to employ low-cost single-feed, dual-frequency (12/17 GHz) 45 cm
diameter subscriber antennas, utilizing a system design predicated upon
near co-location with its DBS satellites. EchoStar argues that a
spacing scheme based on four degrees is not workable due to heavy use
of many of the integer orbital locations for FSS satellites, and that
non-integer (constant offset) spacing would be incompatible with Region
2 BSS Plan assignments used by DBS satellites at many orbital
locations. However, in its Reply Comments, EchoStar relaxes its
position, stating that what is of primary importance is near co-
location with conventional DBS positions, and that the differences
between four-degree and 4.5-degree spacing can easily be reconciled.
69. To this end, EchoStar and SES Americom propose a mutually-
agreed orbital assignment framework for the portion of the
geostationary arc between 56.9[deg] W.L. and 147.6[deg] W.L. This
proposal seeks to reconcile the differing business models, system
designs and accompanying concerns raised by the various commenters. The
proposed orbital locations place new 17/24 GHz BSS satellites close
enough to selected U.S. DBS locations to permit single-feed earth
stations to simultaneously access downlink transmissions from both.
Additionally, the proposal seeks to provide sufficient flexibility to
allow alignment with FSS orbital positions as well as to permit any
adjustments necessary to avoid other presumed unsuitable satellite
positions, including those designated for non-U.S. DBS satellites. The
orbital positions proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom range from
4[deg] to 5.9[deg] in separation. In contrast, DIRECTV submits a
proposal for the portion of the geostationary arc between 83[deg] W.L.
and 123[deg] W.L. that assigns in-orbit satellites at four-degree
spacing intervals. DIRECTV argues that this framework
[[Page 50010]]
accommodates most commenters' proposals to co-locate 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites with FSS satellites. DIRECTV also submits that its proposed
framework would preserve the flexibility to locate 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites near certain U.S. DBS locations while avoiding orbital
locations that are too close to Appendices 30 and 30A Plan assignments
of other Region 2 administrations. Intelsat similarly supports
assigning satellites at four-degree spacing. Later, in an ex parte
statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed another spacing
scheme, in which the proposed orbital positions ranged from 4[deg] to
6.5[deg] in separation between 81[deg] and 124[deg] W.L.
70. All operators agree that orbital separations as small as four
degrees are feasible and will permit deployment of consumer antennas of
a size consistent with their system designs and marketing strategies.
Even EchoStar, who initially argued for a 4.5-degree separation
requirement, agrees that four degrees of separation can be implemented
if we allow some flexibility and in this context supports use of 45 cm
antennas. After studying the technical discussions presented, we concur
that a minimum orbital separation of four degrees between 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites is feasible, and that it best affords all applicants the
flexibility to design and deploy systems consistent with their stated
plans. Moreover, we believe that such a minimum spacing requirement
realizes our mutual goals of maximizing orbital capacity while
accommodating small-diameter receiving antennas. Accordingly, we will
require that BSS satellite networks operating in the 17/24 GHz BSS be
capable of operating at four-degree orbital spacing.
71. In discussing orbital spacing policy, all commenters stress the
need for some flexibility relative to mandating adherence to a rigid
in-orbit spacing grid. While we agree that some flexibility is
beneficial, uniform orbital spacings maximize use of scarce orbital
resources and opportunities for competitive entry. Indeed, uniform two-
degree spacing has been the cornerstone of the Commission's licensing
framework for GSO FSS satellites since 1983, and has served to create a
competitive and interference-free operating environment. Therefore, we
will require 17/24 GHz BSS licensees to place their satellites in orbit
so that all 17/24 GHz BSS satellites are placed at multiples of four
degrees away from each other, as set forth in Appendix F of this Order.
Allowing complete flexibility in orbital spacing would result in
inefficient use of scarce geostationary satellite orbit resources and
limit opportunities for competitive entry.
72. Parties opposing uniform four-degree orbital spacing do not
provide adequate justification for their positions. First, we find
concerns regarding co-location with DBS to be unpersuasive. In the
FNPRM below, we note that commenters argue that DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS
satellites should be able to operate as close as 0.2[deg] to 0.4[deg]
away from each other. Furthermore, we find concerns that the orbital
assignment plan may need revision in the future to be speculative at
best. In any case, the potential need for revision at some time in the
future does not warrant allowing inefficient use of the geostationary
orbit and limiting opportunities for competitive entry in the interim.
Finally, we conclude that parties' concerns regarding potential
physical interference between satellites operating with overlapping
station-keeping volumes are misplaced. 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
licensees will be able to offset their satellites in order to address
any undesirable operational constraints arising from satellite co-
location.
73. Consequently, we will adopt the orbital spacing framework set
forth in Appendix F of this Order. This orbital spacing scheme is
consistent with the locations of FSS satellites in the Ku-band and Ka-
band, as recommended by DIRECTV and Intelsat. Moreover, we agree with
DIRECTV that this framework will accommodate most commenters' proposals
for the portion of the geostationary arc between 83[deg] W.L. and
123[deg] W.L. No one has suggested in the record another four-degree
spacing configuration that accommodates other commenters' proposals
better than DIRECTV's proposal.
74. However, we also agree to some extent with the commenters who
argue for some flexibility in orbital assignments. In particular, we
recognize that it may not be possible to locate a 17/24 GHz BSS
satellite precisely at some of the orbital locations specified in
Appendix F, e.g., because there are undesirable operational constraints
required to coordinate physical operations with co-located satellites,
or because there is a DBS or other ITU Region 2 BSS satellite receiving
feeder-link signals in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band at or very near that
location. Thus, we will not require that 17/24 GHz BSS satellites be
located precisely at the orbital locations specified in Appendix F.
However, an applicant seeking an authorization to operate a 17/24 GHz
BSS satellite at a location offset from an orbital location specified
in Appendix F will be required to make a technical showing that the
proposed satellite will not cause any more interference to any 17/24
GHz BSS satellite operating at a location specified in Appendix F, and
in compliance with the rules for this service, than if the proposed
satellite were positioned precisely at the Appendix F orbital location.
In addition, such applicants must also agree to accept any increased
interference that may result from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations
that are operating in compliance with the rules for this service. As
with all applicants, such applicants must also make a technical showing
demonstrating that their system design accommodates any additional
interference from adjacent 17/24 GHz BSS space stations operating at
the maximum allowed pfd levels, and otherwise in compliance with the
rules for this service, that may result from the location offset of
their proposed satellite. Applicants that have reached a coordination
agreement with an operator at an Appendix F 17/24 GHz BSS orbital
location up to 10[deg] away from the location listed in Appendix F from
which their proposed satellite is offset to allow that operator to
exceed the pfd levels specified in the rules for this service must use
those higher pfd levels for the purposes of this showing.
75. DIRECTV's Reference Interference Baseline Not Adopted: In its
reply comments, DIRECTV advocates a broad approach proposing that the
Commission define a ``reference interference baseline'' for the 17/24
GHz BSS. Under this proposal, we would establish routine processing
standards for satellite applications. A 17/24 GHz BSS satellite
applicant would be allowed to receive routine processing even if it
deviates from standard parameters set forward in the rules, provided it
makes offsetting changes to create no additional interference beyond
the reference situation. DIRECTV also advocates that applicants be able
to receive routine processing by obtaining consent through coordination
to operate outside of the reference situation parameters, and that more
flexible requirements would apply outside of the domestic arc (i.e., at
least four degrees below 83[deg] W.L. or above 123[deg] W.L.). DIRECTV
argues that this approach would create opportunities for individual
flexibility, eliminate the burden and delay of unnecessary coordination
while maintaining the stability of the overall environment.
76. We decline to adopt DIRECTV's approach of defining a reference
interference baseline to be used for routine processing of satellite
[[Page 50011]]
applications in this proceeding. There is little information or comment
on the record to develop or to support what would amount to a rather
extensive set of interdependent values. Nor is DIRECTV specific in its
proposal other than to say that the baseline should assume four-degree
spacing and receiving antennas compliant with ITU Recommendation
BO.1213. Accordingly, we find that DIRECTV has not adequately supported
its proposal.
77. Minimum Antenna Diameter and Performance Standards--45 cm/ITU-R
Recommendation BO.1213-1 Minimum Antenna Standards Adopted: The NPRM
sought comment on what minimum diameter earth stations the Commission
should seek to accommodate in formulating service rules for the 17/24
GHz BSS. In addition, the NPRM also asked whether we should afford
interference protection to 17/24 GHz BSS systems only to the extent
that they meet certain receive-antenna performance characteristics. The
Commission also noted that it has typically chosen not to explicitly
regulate receive-only antenna characteristics, but rather has opted to
regulate other characteristics shaping the interference environment,
thereby leaving the choice of antenna characteristics to the operator.
However, the NPRM recognized that receiving earth station antenna off-
axis discrimination performance will affect the interference
experienced by BSS subscribers arising from other systems and we asked
whether in this instance we should depart from our established policy.
In particular, the NPRM requested comment on what types of antenna
performance regulation, if any, might be appropriate.
78. Most commenters support accommodating a minimum antenna
diameter of 45 cm and Intelsat proposes that the Commission adopt a
specific 45 cm minimum antenna size requirement. EchoStar and SES
Americom advocate less stringent approaches, urging the Commission to
adopt rules and policies that would facilitate the deployment of
receiving antennas as small as 45 cm or afford interference protection
only to receiving antennas no smaller than 45 cm. DIRECTV expressed the
view that 60 cm is the minimum antenna diameter that the Commission
should accommodate when considering an orbital spacing policy. DIRECTV
notes that 60 cm dishes have become more prevalent in recent years and
have long been the consumer standard in Europe and elsewhere. DIRECTV
states further that BSS operators needing to combine capacity from
multiple orbital locations will likely require multi-feed receive
antennas with an effective diameter greater than 60 cm. Alternatively,
SES Americom argues that limiting interference protection to 17/24 GHz
BSS receiving antennas that are greater than 45 cm would preclude new
BSS entrants from successfully competing with established DBS operators
for a customer base. SES Americom asserts that affording interference
protection to receiving antennas as small as those commonly used for
DBS today (45 cm) is critical to ensuring the usefulness of the band
for new competition.
79. As a general matter, commenters also favor adoption of
reference antenna performance characteristics that will ensure
sufficient interference protection for subscriber antennas and to
establish a baseline for protection in licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS
systems. Although advocating different minimum antenna diameters, SES
Americom, DIRECTV, and Intelsat all propose that the reference antenna
pattern given in ITU-R Recommendation BO.1213-1 be used as an
appropriate standard for the protection of receiving antennas in the
17/24 GHz BSS. DIRECTV cautions that while protection should be granted
only to the extent that receiving antennas conform to the ITU-R
standard, the Commission should continue its policy of letting
operators retain the discretion to determine the characteristics of
their equipment. As such, DIRECTV believes operators should remain free
to deploy non-conforming antennas, but with the understanding that they
must accept any resulting increase in interference levels. Bermuda, in
contrast, argues that the Commission should not regulate 17/24 GHz BSS
receiving antenna performance characteristics, but rather that they
should be determined by the requirements of the system in which they
are deployed.
80. Although the Commission has historically chosen not to regulate
the antenna performance characteristics of non-transmitting earth
stations, we recognize that the 17/24 GHz BSS confronts an operating
environment different from the one in which most other GSO satellite
services, must operate. In particular, the reverse-band sharing
situation that exists between BSS receiving antennas and transmitting
DBS feeder link earth stations in the 17 GHz band creates significant
potential for interference from sources other than neighboring co-
frequency space stations. Such an interference environment may not be
as satisfactorily managed by the Commission's more traditional approach
to regulating the downlink interference environment by establishing an
orbital separation scheme and accompanying pfd limits, particularly
given the widespread deployment of such small-diameter receiving
antennas in a four-degree spacing environment. We agree with DIRECTV
that establishing performance standards for receiving antennas could
help to create a more stable and predictable interference environment.
Moreover, we note that the majority of commenters concur as evidenced
by their support for inclusion of the ITU antenna performance standards
of Rec. BO.1213-1 in the Commission's rules. Accordingly, we adopt a
rule that 17/24 GHz BSS receiving earth stations 45 cm or greater in
diameter may claim protection from interference, but only to the extent
that they meet the antenna performance characteristics given in ITU-R
Recommendation BO.1213-1. This rule does not apply to 17/24 GHz BSS
telemetry earth stations that are subject to the antenna performance
requirements of Sec. 25.209.
81. In adopting this rule, we recognize that we have already
bounded the downlink interference environment by establishing a minimum
orbital separation requirement in combination with the downlink pfd
limits addressed in section III.E. Thus, by specifying a minimum
antenna diameter and reference antenna pattern for interference
protection, we are departing from past practice in our treatment of
receive-only earth stations and adding an additional interference
mitigation requirement. However, as discussed above, we concur with
commenters' concerns regarding the need to establish a predictable
environment, particularly in light of the unique reverse-band frequency
operations in the 17 GHz band. In addition we support DIRECTV's request
to preserve operator discretion with regard to choice of antenna
characteristics. We note that this new antenna performance standard
does not preclude operators from deploying receiving earth stations
smaller than 45 cm, or antennas that do not conform to the reference
patterns in the ITU-R Recommendation. However, the operator must accept
the additional levels of interference that results from its use of the
non-conforming antenna.
82. Technical Requirements for Intra-Service Operations--Uplink
Power Levels. Standards For Routine/Non-Routine Licensing of Feeder
Link Antennas Adopted: In the NPRM, the Commission stated that
successful implementation of any orbital spacing scheme in the 17/24
GHz BSS will likely require adoption of uplink power density and
antenna off-axis performance standards similar to those established for
the FSS. However, we
[[Page 50012]]
also recognized that space stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS are likely to
operate at orbital separations greater than those existing in the FSS,
and that feeder uplink earth stations typically operate with larger
diameter antennas that exhibit good off-axis rejection properties. Both
of these factors will tend to mitigate the problem of off-axis
interference into neighboring space stations. Consequently, we sought
comment on the need to establish uplink off-axis power limits for this
service. Additionally, the Commission's rules currently provide for
routine licensing of FSS earth stations when specific antenna
performance standards and uplink power levels are met. The NPRM sought
comment on whether analogous criteria might be developed to expedite
licensing of 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations, and if so, what
criteria might be appropriate.
83. Because, by definition, feeder links operate in the FSS, the
NPRM stated that the antenna performance standards of Sec. 25.209, See
47 CFR 25.209, could be applied to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link earth
stations. The Commission proposed to apply these off-axis performance
standards in combination with the highest uplink Equivalent
Isotropically Radiated Power (EIRP) density proposed by an applicant,
i.e., 5.6 dBW/Hz. We sought comment on this proposal, recognizing that
absent a clearly defined orbital separation scheme at that time, the
resulting contribution to adjacent satellite interference would be
difficult to determine. We also asked what form any uplink off-axis
power density requirement should take, and whether it would be most
appropriate to specify separate off-axis antenna performance standards
and uplink power density requirements, or a single composite off-axis
EIRP density curve.
84. Commenters in general acknowledge the need to apply uplink off-
axis uplink EIRP limits to 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link stations,
recognizing that such limits would help to address off-axis
interference concerns as well as facilitate coordination with other
services. Intelsat initially stated that such requirements were
unnecessary, but, in its reply comments, provides off-axis EIRP density
limits that it believes would be adequate.
85. Commenters addressing this issue support applying the Ka-band
FSS uplink off-axis power density requirements contained in Sec.
25.138(a)(1)--(4), See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(1)-(4), of our rules to feeder
link earth stations in the 17/24 GHz BSS. Commenters assert that this
rule has been effective in the Ka-band, sets limits that are consistent
with levels proposed in applications already before the Commission, and
will successfully address adjacent satellite interference concerns.
Commenters also agree that in the case of the 17/24 GHz BSS, these
values should be scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth rather than the
40 kHz resolution specified in our current rule. In addition,
commenters suggest expressing the requirement as a limit on the off-
axis EIRP density (rather than as separate off-axis antenna
requirements and uplink power density limits) such that the operators
must meet this EIRP density value regardless of on-axis absolute EIRP
or actual antenna performance.
86. Although the off-axis EIRP density limits favored by commenters
are approximately 3 dB greater than those tentatively proposed by the
Commission, we agree with the commenters that the higher level has
proven effective in the Ka-band FSS two-degree spacing environment and
will effectively mitigate adjacent satellite interference in the 17/24
GHz BSS four-degree spacing environment. Accordingly, for routine
processing of feeder link antennas transmitting to GSO satellites in
the 24.75-25.25 GHz band, we adopt the off-axis antenna performance
requirements of Sec. 25.138(a) scaled to a 1 MHz reference bandwidth
as follows:
(1) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral
density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following
values, within 3[deg] of the GSO arc, under clear sky
conditions:
32.5-25log([thgr]).......... dBW/MHz............. for 2[deg] < = [thgr]
< = 7[deg]
11.4........................ dBW/MHz............. for 7[deg] < = [thgr]
< = 9.2[deg]
35.5-25log([thgr]).......... dBW/MHz............. for 9.2[deg] < =
[thgr] < = 48[deg]
3.5......................... dBW/MHz............. for 48[deg] < =
[thgr] < = 180[deg]
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main
lobe.
(2) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral
density for co-polarized signals shall not exceed the following
values, for all directions other than within 3[deg] of
the GSO arc, under clear sky conditions:
35.5-25log([thgr]).......... dBW/MHz............. for 2[deg] < = [thgr]
< = 7[deg]
14.4........................ dBW/MHz............. for 7[deg] < = [thgr]
< = 9.2[deg]
38.5-25log([thgr]).......... dBW/MHz............. for 9.2[deg] < =
[thgr] < = 48[deg]
6.5......................... dBW/MHz............. for 48[deg] < =
[thgr] < = 180[deg]
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main
lobe.
(3) The values given in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section may be exceeded by 3 dB, for values of [thgr] > 10[deg],
provided that the total angular range over which this occurs does
not exceed 20[deg] when measured along both sides of the GSO arc.
(4) 17/24 GHz BSS earth station antenna off-axis EIRP spectral
density for cross-polarized signals shall not exceed the following
values, in all directions other relative to the GSO arc, under clear
sky conditions:
22.5-25log([thgr]).......... dBW/MHz............. for 2[deg] < = [thgr]
< = 7[deg]
1.4......................... dBW/MHz............. for 7[deg] < = [thgr]
< = 9.2[deg]
Where [thgr] is the angle in degrees from the axis of the main
lobe.
87. The off-axis EIRP density curves given in Sec. 25.138(a)(1)-
(4) of our rules, See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(1)-(4), include the term N,
which is defined as the likely maximum number of simultaneously
transmitting co-frequency earth stations in the receive beam of the
satellite. Commenters do not include this term in their proposed
formulae and we have chosen not to include it in our rules. Section
25.138 addresses blanket licensing of FSS earth stations where a number
of co-frequency earth stations may be transmitting simultaneously in
cases where contention protocols or CDMA may be used. We do not
anticipate multiple simultaneous co-frequency transmissions from 17/24
GHz BSS feeder link earth stations, and
[[Page 50013]]
as a consequence, these access schemes likely will not be relevant.
Commenters do not explicitly address EIRP density envelopes for
directions other than within 3 degrees of the GSO arc. Neither do they
specifically address envelopes for cross-polarized signals or allowable
exceedences, as contained in other parts of Sec. 25.138. Rather, they
make more general references to a rule modeled on the framework of
Sec. 25.138. We include these requirements here on the strength of
those comments, and also because they are consistent with the
Commission's approach to off-axis EIRP density limits in general.
88. The NPRM also recognized that in some instances applicants
might seek to operate at higher EIRP density levels than those
permitted under the above requirement. Our current rules provide a
mechanism for licensing such non-conforming systems operating in the
FSS by placing the burden on the applicant to provide a technical
showing to the Commission, and to coordinate its non-conforming
operations with adjacent operators. We proposed a similar approach to
licensing non-conforming systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS and sought
comment on whether our proposal was appropriate to adopt. We also asked
over what angular distance coordination should be required, recognizing
that the orbital spacing in the 17/24 GHz service could very likely be
greater than the two-degree separation typical of the FSS.
89. Commenters consistently favor allowing a mechanism by which
operators could be licensed for non-conforming systems seeking to
operate at higher off-axis power levels than those permitted for
routine licensing. All commenters favor the general approach employed
for FSS systems whereby applicants for non-conforming earth stations
must submit the necessary technical showing to the Commission and
coordinate their non-conforming operations with adjacent space station
operators. At present, our rules require non-compliant FSS operators to
coordinate with potentially affected neighboring operations over an
angular arc of six degrees, corresponding to up to three adjacent
positions on each side. At an orbital separation of six degrees, off-
axis power levels are decreased by nearly 12 dB relative to those at
the nearest neighbor at two degrees, and at a separation of eight
degrees, power levels relative to the two-degree neighbor are decreased
by more than 13 dB. These values are true for an antenna that complies
with FSS antenna gain envelope rules of 29-25*log10([thgr]).
Accordingly, we believe that an angular arc of 8 degrees,
which in a four-degree spacing environment corresponds to the two
nearest possible neighboring co-frequency space stations, is
sufficient.
90. Commenters differ somewhat on the precise angular separation
over which operators should be required to coordinate their non-
conforming operations. DIRECTV and SES Americom, both of whom favor a
four-degree orbital spacing scheme, propose coordination arcs of < plus-
minus>8 degrees and 9 degrees, respectively. EchoStar
proposes a slightly more complex coordination arc requirement whereby
operators would be required to obtain the agreement only of the
immediate neighboring satellites (spaced at approximately four degrees
away) for exceedences up to 3 dB, with the additional agreement of the
second adjacent operator for exceedences up to 6 dB; no exceedence
greater than 6 dB would be permitted. We find that EchoStar's proposal
affords significant interference protection to adjacent co-frequency
satellites, while reducing the coordination burden on both the
conforming and non-conforming parties. However, we also recognize that
space stations may not always be located along a perfectly spaced four-
degree grid, but sometimes may be offset from the orbital locations
specified in Appendix F. To accommodate such instances, we will extend
the angular coordination distance proposed by EchoStar by two degrees.
91. Accordingly, we will adopt a requirement that each applicant
for an earth station license that proposes off-axis EIRP density levels
in excess of those defined above shall certify that all potentially
affected parties acknowledge and do not object to the use of the
applicant's higher power densities. For proposed power levels less than
3 dB in excess of the limits defined above, the affected parties shall
be those co-frequency operators authorized to provide service to the
U.S. at up to 6 degrees away; for excesses of greater than
3 dB and up to 6 dB, affected parties shall be all those co-frequency
U.S. licensed operators at up to 10 degrees away. We will
not permit exceedences greater than 6 dB above the limits defined
above. Although we take a slightly more flexible approach with regard
to coordination of downlink pfd excedeences, we believe that the
sharing situation with 24 GHz fixed service systems requires a somewhat
more conservative approach. In addition, we require non-compliant
operators to coordinate with any future applicants or licenses over
these same orbital separation distances. We also require a non-
compliant licensee to reduce its power levels should a coordination
agreement not be reached. In addition, non-conforming applicants will
be required to submit link budget analyses of the operations proposed
along with a detailed written explanation of how they have derived each
uplink and each transmitted satellite carrier density figure.
Applicants will also be required to submit a narrative summary that
must indicate whether there are margin shortfalls in any other
licensee's current baseline services as a result of the addition the
applicant's higher power service, and if so, how the applicant intends
to resolve those margin shortfalls.
92. The NPRM also sought comment on the need for uplink adaptive
power control, particularly in presence of rain fade, noting that Sec.
25.204(g) of our rules, See 47 CFR 25.204(g), requires all Ka-band FSS
earth stations to employ adaptive power control or other methods of
rain fade compensation. Commenters recognize the need for uplink power
control in the event of rain fade and cite the specification already
contained in our rules, See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.138(a)(5), as appropriate
for the 17/24 GHz BSS. We realize that systems operating in the 24 GHz
band can suffer significant signal attenuation in the event of
precipitation and concur that some provision for adaptive uplink power
control is necessary. Accordingly, we amend our rules to require 17/24
GHz BSS earth stations to employ adaptive uplink power control or other
methods of fade compensation. We also adopt a requirement for the 17/24
GHz BSS analogous to the Ka-band FSS requirement of Sec. 25.138(a)(5),
47 CFR 25.138(a)(5). This rules provides that (1) The required clear-
sky uplink off-axis power limits may be exceeded by up to 20 dB in the
presence of uplink fading due to precipitation; (2) that the amount of
this increase relative to the excess attenuation over the clear sky
propagation conditions shall not exceed 1.5 dB or 15% of the actual
amount, whichever is greater; and (3) that this should occur with a
confidence level of 90% except for transient periods of no more than
0.5% during which the excess shall be no more than 4.0 dB.
93. Some commenters also object to requiring applicants to provide
measured radiation patterns as specified in Sec. 25.138(d), 47 CFR
25.138(d), of our rules as a means of demonstrating compliance with
off-axis EIRP limits. Intelsat argues that the requirement to provide
measured radiation patterns for antennas not yet built is often not
practical and unduly burdens the applicant. Intelsat asserts that,
instead, the Commission's evaluation process for earth stations in the
17/24 GHz service
[[Page 50014]]
should follow the approach for earth stations on vessels (ESVs)
contained in Sec. 25.221, 47 CFR 25.221. That approach requires the
applicant to submit a series of charts or tables calculated for a
production earth station antenna, based on measurements taken on a
calibrated antenna range. DIRECTV agrees that it is impractical to
submit measured data, and argues further that because these very large
feeder link antennas are typically assembled on site, it is simply not
necessary to test these antennas on a range. Instead, DIRECTV proposes
that 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link antennas be tested as they are built,
using in-orbit satellite resources, with the earth station operator
responsible for certifying after licensing that the tests were
satisfactorily performed, as part of its notification to the Commission
that construction has been completed. DIRECTV's proposed approach is
based on a proposal submitted by the Satellite Industry Association in
the Biennial Review docket, and are founded in part upon existing rules
for large C- and Ku-band earth stations.
94. At present, our rules extend different earth station licensing
requirements to different satellite services. Typically, C- and Ku-band
GSO FSS applicants are required to meet the antenna performance
requirements of Sec. 25.209, 47 CFR 25.109, and may not exceed
specified uplink power density levels and minimum antenna diameters.
Those C- and Ku-band applicants who do not meet these requirements may
still be licensed via the rules outlined in Sec. 25.220, 47 CFR
25.220. In contrast, Ka-band earth station applicants must meet the
off-axis EIRP density requirements of Sec. 25.138(a)(1)-(4), 47 CFR
25.138(a)(4) and demonstrate such by providing the antenna radiation
pattern measurements specified in Sec. 25.138(d), 47 CFR 25.138(d).
The earth station licensing requirement to submit with its application
a series of measured test values over a range of frequencies is applied
to any FSS earth station other than ESVs not meeting the antenna
performance requirements of Sec. 25.209, as well as to all earth
stations operating in the 20/30 GHz service. We find that it will be
generally unnecessary to constrain feeder link earth stations
applicants in the 24 GHz band in this manner, particularly since such
large-diameter earth stations generally comply easily with existing
antenna performance requirements. Moreover, we agree with commenters
that such a requirement could be both impractical and burdensome for
very large diameter antennas typically used for feeder link operations.
Accordingly, we do not restrict 17/24 GHz BSS earth station applicants
to the approach of Sec. 25.138(d). However, we will retain the option
to allow non-compliant applicants to submit measured data.
95. We will require applicants for feeder link earth station
licenses operating in the 24.75-25.25 GHz band to provide the
particulars of operation identified on Form 312 and associated Schedule
B, which may include an affirmative response that the earth station
antenna conforms to the gain pattern criteria of Sec. 25.209(a) and
(b) and that combined with the input power density entered in schedule
B, demonstrates that the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set
forth above will be met. Alternately, an applicant that does not meet
the antenna performance requirements of Sec. 25.209(a) and (b) may
demonstrate that it meets the required off-axis EIRP spectral density
requirements by providing: (i) A copy of the manufacturer's range test
plots of the antenna gain patterns as specified in Sec. 25.132(b)(3)
as revised in this Order; and (ii) a series of EIRP density charts or
tables similar to the current requirements for ESVs as set forth in
Sec. 25.222(b)(1), 47 CFR 25.222(b)(1). Finally, an applicant that
meets the antenna performance requirements of Sec. 25.209(a) and (b),
but does not provide an input power density value in schedule B that
will satisfy the off-axis EIRP spectral density envelope set forth
above, may also demonstrate its compliance by providing a series of
EIRP density charts or tables. Applicants seeking to operate with off-
axis power density values in excess of the specified envelope are
subject to the coordination process discussed above.
96. In addition, Sec. 25.132 of our rules sets forth the process
for verification of earth station performance requirements. This rule
is applicable to earth stations operating in the 24 GHz uplink band.
Paragraph (a)(1) of this rule requires applicants to submit
manufacturer certification of measurements demonstrating that the
antenna is compliant with the requirements of Sec. 25.209, and
stipulates that the applicant be prepared to demonstrate these
measurements to the Commission upon request. For non-compliant
antennas, as discussed above, the requirements of Sec. 25.132(b)(3),
as revised in Appendix B of this Order, will apply. Finally, Paragraphs
(c) and (d) of this section recognize that while testing is typically
performed at the manufacturer's facility, very large earth stations
that are assembled on-site may require on-site measurements. Paragraph
(d) specifies the on-site verification measurements that must be
performed for each new or modified transmitting antenna over three
meters in diameter. Thus, for large-diameter 17/24 GHz BSS feeder link
antennas, applicants must submit on-site verification measurements to
the Commission as part of the notification of completion of the
construction process as required in Sec. 25.133, 47 CFR 25.133.
97. Downlink Power Limits. Geographical Downlink PFD Limits
Adopted: The downlink power levels transmitted by adjacent co-frequency
satellites, when combined with the off-axis performance characteristics
of the receiving antenna will determine the carrier-to-interference (C/
I) value resulting from adjacent satellite interference. The NPRM
sought comment on whether we should adopt pfd or other downlink power
limits in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band to ensure that receiving antennas are
not subject to unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference,
particularly as newer-generation, higher-powered satellites are brought
into use. The NPRM asked, in particular, whether the ITU Radio
Regulations' pfd limit applicable to FSS systems in the 17.7-19.7 GHz
band would be appropriate for BSS transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz
band.
98. Commenters favor adopting pfd limits in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band
to protect against unforeseen levels of adjacent satellite interference
and to obviate the need for time-consuming coordination among co-
frequency networks. Intelsat favors adopting the ITU FSS pfd limits and
maintains that these limits would satisfy the operational requirements
in the band, provided that they are no more restrictive than the FSS
pfd limits of Article 21 of the ITU Radio Regulations. All other
commenters advocate adopting a system of graduated pfd limits. Under
this approach, pfd limits would vary over different geographic regions
of the United States, primarily to allow for the resulting signal
attenuation arising from the variation in rainfall in different regions
of the country. In formulating this approach, commenters considered the
planned deployment of both wide-area beams, and more localized, high-
power spot beams by 17/24 GHz BSS operators. Due to the expected higher
antenna gain for spot beams, in a given geographic area, EIRP
imbalances of 10 dB or more may be anticipated between adjacent
satellite transmissions. Potentially, the resulting interference could
significantly affect quality of service to those consumers receiving
[[Page 50015]]
lower-power, wide-area beam signals. The various proposals' utilization
of graduated pfd levels in differing regions seeks to balance the
competing goals of permitting sufficient flexibility to spot beam
operations while simultaneously protecting wide-area beams from
unacceptable interference levels. This approach also considers the need
to allow higher-power downlink transmissions in regions of the country
where they are most needed in order to overcome rain fade effects. As a
result, all proposals to adopt graduated power levels for downlink
transmissions in the 17/24 GHz BSS recognize the need for the highest
power limits in the Southeastern region of the United States, with
lower levels in the Northeast and the lowest levels in the West.
99. Although the various proposals to adopt graduated pfd limits
are similar in their general approach, they differ in certain respects.
EchoStar's proposal advocates four geographic regions with the highest
pfd level in the Southeast of -113 dBW/m2/MHz; -114.5 dBW/
m2/MHz in the Northeast; -116 dBW/m2/MHz in the
Upper Midwest; and -118 dBW/m2/MHz in the West. The
westernmost region is defined by the 103[deg] West Longitude line; the
northern regions are above the 40[deg] North Latitude line; and the
85[deg] West Longitude line divides the Northeast Region from the Upper
Midwest Region. For areas outside of the Contiguous United States
(CONUS) including Alaska, Hawaii and Puerto Rico, the pfd limit would
be -113 dBW/m2/MHz. EchoStar notes that its proposal does
not differ significantly from that of DIRECTV, discussed further below,
and maintains that the somewhat lower power limits proposed by DIRECTV
result from its plan to offer service using 60 cm diameter antennas
contrasted with the 45 cm antennas planned by EchoStar, SES Americom
and Intelsat. Accordingly, EchoStar urges the Commission to accommodate
the requirements of all operators and to permit pfd levels on the
higher side. SES Americom supports EchoStar's proposal.
100. DIRECTV proposes adopting three geographic regions, with the
highest power level in the Southeast of -115 dBW/m2/MHz; -
118 dBW/m2/MHz in the Northeast; and -121 dBW/m2/
MHz in the West. In DIRECTV's proposal the far western region is
defined by the 100[deg] West Longitude line and the Northeast and
Southeast Regions are divided by the 38[deg] North Latitude line.
DIRECTV argues that its somewhat lower pfd levels are more appropriate
because CONUS beams cannot match the higher power levels of -113 dBW/
m2/MHz proposed by EchoStar and SES Americom, and should the
Commission adopt pfd values this high, the result would only be to
codify the power disparity between wide-area and spot beams. Later, in
an ex parte statement, DIRECTV, EchoStar, and Intelsat proposed a
jointly-agreed scheme, which proposed geographic regions and pfd levels
in a four-degree spacing environment consistent with the values
proposed in DIRECTV's original proposal as discussed above. This new
scheme also proposes a formula by which pfd levels could be allowed to
vary as a function of orbital separation.
101. We agree that there is merit in considering graduated pfd
limits in differing regions of the country. We recognize the need to
employ both wide-area and spot beams in the 17/24 GHz BSS and
appreciate the inherent difficulties encountered in attempting to
balance the requirements of both applications. While we wish to protect
the more vulnerable wide-area beam receivers from adjacent satellite
downlink interference, we also want to permit licensees the flexibility
to achieve the power and spectral efficiencies attainable with spot
beam transmissions, particularly when broadcasting local programming to
restricted geographic areas. We concur with DIRECTV, EchoStar and SES
Americom that the use of regional pfd values best balances these
competing goals. Although it presents a somewhat more complex
regulatory mechanism than does a uniform pfd limit, this approach has
been applied to other services, notably MVDDS. Thus, after carefully
considering the various regional pfd schemes, and recognizing the
agreement among many of the commenting parties with regard to the
regional boundaries and pfd levels, we believe that the proposal
originally put forward by DIRECTV most successfully balances our goals
of accommodating both beam technologies while best meeting the needs of
all operators. Accordingly, we adopt the three-region graduated pfd
plan presented by DIRECTV. We note that a key difference between
DIRECTV's proposal and the approach contained in the Joint Ex Parte
Statement, is the proposed use of formulae to determine the variation
in pfd levels that would be permitted as a function of orbital
separation. We decline to adopt this approach. Rather, we will adopt
pfd levels consistent with a four-degree spacing environment, but will
permit licensees to operate at higher levels subject to coordination,
as discussed below.
102. In most cases, commenters propose pfd limits for the entire
17.3-17.8 GHz band and do not separate the question of pfd limits in
the 17.7-17.8 GHz band from the issue of pfd limits for BSS downlink
transmissions in the 17.3-17.7 GHz band. In adopting the graduated pfd
scheme discussed above, the Commission seeks to facilitate intra-
service operations by establishing a relatively homogeneous
transmitting environment that will accommodate both wide-area and spot
beam operations. Because U.S. domestic service is not allocated in the
17.7-17.8 GHz band, we do not believe these intra-service sharing
challenges will be present to the same extent. In contrast, pfd limits
in the 17.7-17.8 GHz band are intended to facilitate inter-service
sharing by protecting terrestrial service receivers from satellite
transmissions serving other Region 2 countries, but that may illuminate
portions of the United States. We believe that the pfd limits that are
adopted in section III.C. of this Order, that vary as a function of
elevation angle, will best accomplish that goal. Accordingly, we
clarify here that the graduated pfd limits adopted above will apply
only to the 17.3-17.7 GHz band, and that the elevation-angle-based pfd
limits adopted in section III.C. will apply in the 17.7-17.8 GHz BSS
GHz band.
103. Commenters also advocate applying the pfd levels in the 17.3-
17.7 GHz band in a manner similar to the Ka-band FSS requirement in
Sec. 25.138(a)(6), See 47 CFR 25.138(a)(6). Under this approach an
applicant seeking to operate outside the required pfd levels must
submit a technical showing to the Commission that includes detailed
link budgets and a narrative summary indicating whether there are
margin shortfalls resulting from the applicant's higher powers, and if
so, an explanation of how these shortfalls will be addressed. In
addition, a non-conforming applicant must certify that its operations
have been coordinated with all affected parties. EchoStar proposes that
for non-conforming 17/24 GHz BSS operations, the angular separation
over which coordination is required should be linked to the magnitude
of the power excess. Specifically, EchoStar proposes that given the
wider orbital spacing in the 17/24 GHz BSS as compared to the Ka-band
FSS, the agreement of the immediately adjacent operators should be
sufficient for excesses of no greater than 3 dB, and that coordination
with the second adjacent neighboring satellite should also be required
for
[[Page 50016]]
excesses between 3 dB and 6 dB. EchoStar also proposes prohibiting
power levels greater than 6 dB. DIRECTV and SES Americom support
EchoStar's proposal, although DIRECTV argues that power exceedences of
greater than 6 dB should be permitted if a coordination agreement can
be reached, however unlikely that may be.
104. The Commission has always sought to afford satellite operators
the maximum flexibility to design and operate their systems while
simultaneously protecting other licensees from unacceptable levels of
interference. Thus, we concur with commenter's proposals to provide a
mechanism for licensing and coordinating systems operating with non-
compliant pfd levels. We also agree that there are advantages in
linking the angular separation over which coordination is required to
the degree of the power excess, as this approach may avoid placing an
unnecessary coordination requirement on the parties. Accordingly, we
adopt a requirement for non-compliant systems in the 17/24 GHz BSS
similar to the Ka-band requirement of Sec. 25.138(b). However, to
account for the different orbital spacing rules that we adopt for the
17/24 GHz BSS environment, as well as the possibility of offset from
the locations specified in Appendix F, we will require applicants to
coordinate with adjacent satellites within an angular separation of
6 degrees for exceedences of up to 3 dB, and to coordinate
with adjacent operators within an angular separation of 10
degrees for exceedences of more than 3 dB. In addition, consistent with
the Ka-band FSS requirement of Sec. 25.138(c), we require non-
compliant operators to coordinate with any future applicants or
licensees over these same orbital separation distances. We also require
a non-compliant licensee to reduce its power levels should a
coordination agreement not be reached.
105. Other Technical Requirements: The NPRM sought comment on
several additional technical matters, including issues relating to
Tracking Telemetry and Control (TT&C) frequencies, full frequency re-
use, polarization requirements, cross-polarization isolation
requirements, and channelization requirements.
106. Tracking, Telemetry and Command (TT&C) Frequencies. No
Additional Rules Adopted: With regard to TT&C frequencies, the NPRM
recognized the present lack of 17/24 GHz ground facilities to support
launch, transfer and testing operations, and sought comment on how best
to address the issue. Commenters suggest that the Commission should
take a flexible approach toward TT&C requirements, particularly
recognizing the absence of the ground network necessary for support
during critical launch and early operation phases. DIRECTV also points
out that because the 17/24 GHz bands are not allocated for use by BSS
satellites outside of Region 2, it is unlikely that such facilities
will be deployed in other parts of the world. Commenters generally
encourage the Commission to consider requests to use alternate TT&C
frequencies on the merits of each individual application, but maintain
that applicants should demonstrate their need for such non-standard
uses and must coordinate their operations. Accordingly, we make no
changes to our existing rules, but will consider the merits and needs
for 17/24 GHz BSS systems to use alternate TT&C frequencies on a case-
by-case waiver basis. Applicants seeking alternative TT&C frequencies
should include a request for waiver in their applications.
107. The NPRM also sought comment on the problem of reverse-band
interference between receiving 17 GHz telemetry stations and DBS feeder
uplink transmissions, and in particular on the ramifications to TT&C
operations when such operations are co-located or located in close
proximity to one another. DIRECTV states that with careful planning it
is possible to coordinate the operations of the two services, even to
the point that the earth stations may be co-located. Thus, DIRECTV
requests that the Commission not limit operator flexibility by
precluding such co-location, or by requiring a minimum separation
distance. Rather, DIRECTV supports the Commission's proposal to require
that applicants submit a technical showing demonstrating its ability to
maintain sufficient telemetry link margin in the presence of the
interfering DBS signal. Bermuda also supports this proposal, stating
that the applicant could demonstrate compliance through a technical
showing and urges the Commission not to preclude the possibility of co-
locating DBS feeder link earth stations with 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry
stations. EchoStar also argues that interference can be avoided by
careful frequency planning.
108. At this time, we will not modify our rules to preclude co-
location of DBS and 17/24 GHz BSS TT&C facilities, nor will we require
a minimum separation distance between TT&C facilities for the two
services. Although there was support for our proposal to require a
technical showing on the part of applicants seeking to operate co-
located earth stations, we are not prepared to adopt such a requirement
at this time. Rather, we recognize that the question of interference
into 17/24 GHz BSS telemetry receivers from DBS feeder link
transmissions is not separate from the larger issue of reverse-band,
ground path interference into 17/24 GHz BSS receiving antennas in
general. For this reason, we will not adopt specific rules concerning
the question of DBS ground path interference into 17/24 GHz BSS
telemetry station