Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-13503

Rule2023-13503

Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

July 10, 2023

Effective

July 10, 2023

Issuing agencies

Federal Communications Commission

Abstract

In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) finds that it is not in the public interest to add a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G service in the 12.2 GHz band based on the current record.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 130 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43462-43476]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13503]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 2, 25, 27, and 101

[GN Docket No. 22-253; FCC 23-36; FR ID 149901]

Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final report and order.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or FCC) finds that it is not in the public interest to add
a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G service in the
12.2 GHz band based on the current record.

DATES: The report and order is effective on July 10, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a3cec2c7c6cfc2cacdc68dcec2caccd1e3c5c0c08dc4ccd5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97faf6f3f2fbf6fef9f2b9faf6fef8e5d7f1f4f4b9f0f8e1">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or 202-418-1466; Simon Banyai of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4c3f25212322622e2d22352d250c2a2f2f622b233a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99eaf0f4f6f7b7fbf8f7e0f8f0d9fffafab7fef6ef">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-1443;
or Nick Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fa9493999295969b89d495889589ba9c9999d49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d03040e0502010c1e43021f021e2d0b0e0e430a021b">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or (202) 418-2099.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This a summary of the Commission's Report
and Order (R&O) in WT Docket No. 20-443 included in the Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order, FCC 23-36, adopted on May 18, 2023 and released
May 19, 2023. The full text of this document is available at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-36A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-23-36A1.pdf</a>. The R&O and the
Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (WT Docket No. 20-443), and the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the Order (GN Docket No. 22-352),
i.e., the four FCC actions in FCC 23-36, are published separately in
the Rules and Regulations and the Proposed Rules sections, as
applicable, of this issue of the Federal Register.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats (braille, large print, computer diskettes, or audio
recordings), please send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f4f1f1878286f2d4d1d19cd5ddc4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="51171212646165113732327f363e27">[email&#160;protected]</span></a> or call the
Consumer & Government Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (VOICE), (202)
418-0432 (TTY).
Regulatory Flexibility Act: The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980,
as amended (RFA), requires that an agency prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for notice-and-comment rulemakings, unless the
agency certifies that ``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.'' In the Report and Order, the Commission declines to adopt
rule changes and, therefore a Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis has
not been performed.
Congressional Review Act: The Commission will not send a copy of
the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), see 5 U.S.C.
801(a)(1)(A), because it does not adopt any rule as defined in the
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(3).
Ex Parte Rules: This proceeding shall be treated as a ``permit-but-
disclose'' proceeding in accordance with the Commission's ex parte
rules. Persons making ex parte presentations must file a copy of any
written presentation or a memorandum summarizing any oral presentation
within two business days after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine period applies). Persons making
oral ex parte presentations are reminded that memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons attending or otherwise
participating in the meeting at which the ex parte presentation was
made, and (2) summarize all data presented and arguments made during
the presentation. If the presentation consisted in whole or in part of
the presentation of data or arguments already reflected in the
presenter's written comments, memoranda, or other filings in the
proceeding, the presenter may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments, memoranda, or other filings
(specifying the relevant page and/or paragraph numbers where such data
or arguments can be found) in lieu of summarizing them in the
memorandum. In proceedings governed by Sec. 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a method of electronic filing, written ex
parte presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system available for that proceeding, and
must be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt,
searchable .pdf). Documents shown or given to Commission staff during
ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with Sec. 1.1206(b). Participants in this
proceeding should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte
rules.

Synopsis

I. Report and Order

A. Background

1. In this R&O, the Commission takes steps to ensure current and
future satellite services relied upon by millions of people across the
country are preserved and protected in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band (12.2 GHz
band) \1\ The Commission finds that authorizing two-way, high-powered
terrestrial mobile service in the 12.2 GHz band would impose a
significant risk of harmful interference to existing and emergent
services in the band, including satellite services. Such interference
could undermine investments made by incumbent licensees and jeopardize
their potential to provide new services to underserved communities,
including rural communities. The 12.2 GHz band is allocated on a
primary basis for non-Federal use for Broadcasting Satellite Service
(BSS) (referred to domestically as Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS)),
Fixed Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) limited to non-
geostationary orbit systems (NGSO FSS), and Fixed Service.\2\ While the
three services are

[[Page 43463]]

co-primary, NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are allocated on a non-harmful
interference basis to DBS.\3\ Currently there are three services
operating in the band: DBS providers operating under the primary BSS
allocation, NGSO FSS licensees operating under the co-primary NGSO FSS
allocation, and Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service
(MVDDS) licensees operating under the co-primary Fixed Service
allocation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ In order to distinguish references to the bands in this
item, the Commission refers to the 12.2-12.7 GHz band as the 12.2
GHz band throughout. See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz
Band, WT Docket Nos. 20-443 et al., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
36 FCC Rcd 606 (2021), (86 FR 13266 (March 8, 2021)) (12.2 NPRM).
\2\ See 47 CFR 2.106, United States Table of Frequency
Allocations, non-Federal Table for the band 12.2-12.7 GHz. NGSO FSS
(space-to-Earth) operations are authorized pursuant to international
footnote 5.487A (revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318,
June 7, 2023, effective July 7, 2023), which provides additional
allocations including in Region 2 as follows ``[The 12.2-12.7 GHz
is] allocated to the fixed-satellite service (space-to-Earth) on a
primary basis, limited to non-geostationary systems and subject to
application of the provisions of [International Telecommunication
Union (ITU) Radio Regulations] No. 9.12 for coordination with other
non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service.
Non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service
shall not claim protection from geostationary-satellite networks in
the broadcasting-satellite service operating in accordance with the
Radio Regulations, irrespective of the dates of receipt by the [ITU
Radiocommunication] Bureau of the complete coordination or
notification information, as appropriate, for the non-geostationary-
satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service and of the complete
coordination or notification information, as appropriate, for the
geostationary-satellite networks, and [ITU Regulations] No. 5.43A
does not apply. Non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixed-
satellite service in the [12 GHz band] shall be operated in such a
way that any unacceptable interference that may occur during their
operation shall be rapidly eliminated.''
47 CFR 2.106, n.5.487A (n.5.487A revised as 47 CFR
2.106(b)(487)(i), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023, effective July 7,
2023). When an international footnote is applicable without
modification to non-Federal operations, the Commission places the
footnote on the non-Federal Table. See 47 CFR 2.105(d)(5).
\3\ See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International Footnote) (n.5.490
revised as 47 CFR 2.106(b)(490), at 88 FR 37318, June 7, 2023,
effective July 7, 2023). In Region 2, in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band,
existing and future terrestrial radiocommunication services shall
not cause harmful interference to the space services operating in
conformity with the broadcasting satellite Plan for Region 2
contained in Appendix 30. ``Harmful Interference'' is defined under
the Commission's rules as ``[i]nterference which endangers the
functioning of a radionavigation service or of other safety services
or seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a
radiocommunication service operating in accordance with the ITU
Radio Regulations.'' 47 CFR 2.1(c). See also Annex to the
Constitution of the ITU, 1003 (defining harmful interference).
\4\ 47 CFR 101.147(a) n.31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. While DBS service began in 1994, and NGSO FSS systems were
authorized in the early 2000s, the Commission permitted MVDDS to
operate in the 12.2 GHz band starting in 2004 under technical rules to
ensure that MVDDS stations do not cause harmful interference to DBS or
earlier-in-time NGSO FSS fixed subscriber receivers.\5\ To that end,
MVDDS service was limited to a relatively low power, one-way, digital
fixed non-broadcast service, including one-way direct-to-home/office
wireless service with each proposed transmitter subject to detailed
prior coordination requirements.\6\ In April 2016, a coalition of MVDDS
licensees filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting reforms to the
12.2 GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS licensees to use the
band for two-way mobile broadband services.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range, Amendment of the
Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the
12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their
Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband
Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, First
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC
Rcd 4096, 4177, para. 213 (2000) (First Report and Order and FNPRM).
\6\ See 47 CFR 101.1407 (two-way services can be provided using
spectrum in other bands for the return link). See also Amendment of
Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO
FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-
Band Frequency Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (MVDDS Second Report and Order)
(aff'd Northpoint Technology, LTD et al. v. FCC, 414 F.3d 61 (D.C.
Cir. 2005)).
\7\ Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking, RM-
11768, at 17-18 (filed Apr. 26, 2016), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60001658886/1">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/60001658886/1</a> (MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See also
Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 3042, at
8, 17-18 (May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Later in 2016, the International Bureau opened a processing
round to accept NGSO FSS applications and petitions for market access
in several frequency bands \8\ and the Commission reformed its NGSO FSS
rules.\9\ In 2017, the Commission granted the first of the new
generation NGSO FSS requests--a petition for market access by WorldVu
Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO
FSS satellite system of 720 satellites authorized by the United Kingdom
in the 10.7-12.7 GHz Band (in addition to several other bands).\10\ The
Commission concluded that ``the pendency of the MVDDS 5G Coalition's
Petition for Rulemaking was not a sufficient reason to delay or deny
these requests to use the band under the existing NGSO FSS allocation
and service rules.'' \11\ In granting this request, however, the
Commission conditioned access to the 12 GHz band on the outcome of the
MVDDS 5G Coalition's Petition and any other rulemaking initiated on the
Commission's own motion.\12\ The Commission also agreed with comments
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that MVDDS should not have to protect any
NGSO FSS earth stations in motion operations in the band, if authorized
in the future, because such operations had not been contemplated under
the longstanding first-in-time MVDDS/NGSO FSS sharing approach.\13\ The
NGSO FSS Report and Order adopted, among other things, spectrum sharing
rules and a more flexible milestone schedule for NGSO FSS systems.\14\
The Commission subsequently granted five additional NGSO FSS requests
to use bands that include the 12.2 GHz band (among others).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ See Satellite Policy Branch Information; OneWeb Petition
Accepted for Filing (IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041), Cut-Off
Established for Additional NGSO-Like Satellite Applications or
Petitions for Operations in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 14.0-14.5 GHz, 17.8-
18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 28.35-29.1 GHz, and 29.5-
30.0 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 7666 (IB July 15, 2016).
\9\ In September 2017, the Commission adopted the NGSO FSS
Report and Order, updating several rules and policies governing NGSO
FSS systems. See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-
Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters,
Report and Order (82 FR 59972 (Dec. 18, 2017)) and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (82 FR 52869 (Nov. 15, 20217)), 32 FCC Rcd 7809
(2017) (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
\10\ See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory
Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the OneWeb NGSO FSS
System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 (2017) (OneWeb
Order).
\11\ Id. at 5369, para. 6.
\12\ Id. at 5378, para. 26 (``This grant of U.S. market access
and any earth station licenses granted in the future are subject to
modification to bring them into conformance with any rules or
policies adopted by the Commission in the future.''). See also id.
at 5369, para. 6 (``Accordingly, any investment made toward
operations in this band by OneWeb in the United States assume the
risk that operations may be subject to additional conditions or
requirements as a result of such Commission actions.'').
\13\ Id. at 5370, para. 8.
\14\ See NGSO FSS Report and Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 7821-31,
paras. 37-68.
\15\ Space Norway AS, Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Granting
Access to the U.S. Market for the Arctic Satellite Broadband
Mission, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2018) (Space
Norway Order); Karousel Satellite LLC, Application for Authority to
Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Earth Orbit Satellite System
in the Fixed Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion, Order and
Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 8485 (2018) (Karousel Order), Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC Application For Approval for Orbital
Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite
System, Memorandum Opinion Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391
(2018) (SpaceX Order), Kepler Communications Inc. Petition for
Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. Market for Kepler's
NGSO FSS System, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 11453, (2018) (Kepler Order),
Theia Holdings A, Inc. Request for Authority to Launch and Operate a
Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in the Fixed-Satellite
Service, Mobile-Satellite Service, and Earth-Exploration Satellite
Service, Memorandum, Opinion and Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 3526
(2019) (Theia Order).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. NGSO FSS systems have continued to deploy. In particular, SpaceX
received modified authority for its first generation (Gen 1) system to
decrease the altitude from the 1,100-1,300 km to the 540-570 km range
for 2,814 satellites as well as approval of its updated orbital debris
mitigation plan.\16\ To date, SpaceX has deployed

[[Page 43464]]

approximately 4,000 satellites.\17\ The Commission also recently issued
a partial grant to SpaceX to begin deploying its second generation (Gen
2) system, with a grant approving up to 7,500 satellites to operate in
the Ka- and Ku-frequency bands.\18\ OneWeb also recently received
modified authority for its constellation \19\ and, to date, it has
deployed over 580 satellites.\20\ On June 30, 2022, the International
Bureau authorized SpaceX and Kepler to serve earth stations in motion
(ESIMs) in the 12.2 GHz band on an unprotected, non-harmful
interference basis.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Modification
of the Authorization for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, Order and
Authorization, 36 FCC Rcd 7995 (2021).
\17\ See, e.g., Mike Wall, SpaceX launches 56 Starlink
satellites, lands rocket at sea, <a href="http://space.com">space.com</a> (``SpaceX has now lofted
more than 4,200 Starlink satellites overall, according to
astrophysicist and satellite tracker Jonathan McDowell.'') (Mar. 29,
2023), https://www.space.com/spacex-starlink-group-5-10-
launch#:~:text=SpaceX%20launched%20another%20big%20batch,p.m.%20EDT%2
0(2001%20GMT).
\18\ Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Request for Orbital
Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX Gen2 NGSO
Satellite System, IBFS File No. SAT-LOA-20200526-00055 and SAT-AMD-
20210818-00105, Order and Authorization, FCC 22-91, 2022 WL
17413767, at *54, para. 135(ii) (Dec. 1, 2022) (SpaceX Gen2 Order)
(stating that the ``authorization is subject to modification to
bring it into conformance with any rules or policies adopted by the
Commission in the future. [And, that] . . . any investments made
toward operations in the bands authorized [by the] Order by SpaceX
in the United States assume the risk that operations may be subject
to additional conditions or requirements as a result of any future
Commission actions . . . [including, but not limited to] . . . any
conditions or requirements resulting from any action in the
proceedings associated with. . .WTB Docket 20-443. . .'').
\19\ WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory Ruling
to Modify the U.S. Market Access Grant for the OneWeb Ku-band and
Ka-Band NGSO FSS System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, DA 22-970
(IB, rel. Sept. 16, 2022) (petition to modify grant of U.S. market
access granted in part and deferred in part to approve minor
adjustments to number of satellites per plane without exceeding
previously-approved total of 720 satellites).
\20\ See, e.g., Letter from Kimberly M. Baum, Vice President,
Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites Limited, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket Nos. 20-443 et al. at 1
(filed Mar. 20, 2023); <a href="https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb-confirms-successful-deployment-40-satellites-launched-spacex-1">https://oneweb.net/resources/oneweb-confirms-successful-deployment-40-satellites-launched-spacex-1</a> (``OneWeb
confirms successful deployment of 40 satellites launched with
SpaceX. Launch 17 brings the total OneWeb constellation to 582
satellites. Third launch with SpaceX makes penultimate mission to
achieving global coverage.'').
\21\ SpaceX Services, Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization
of Next- Generation Ku-Band Earth Stations in Motion et al.; Kepler
Communications Inc. Application for Blanket Authorization of Ku-Band
Earth Stations on Vessels, Order and Authorization, DA 22-695 (IB
June 30, 2022) (ESIMs Authorizations). DISH and RS Access had argued
that granting these applications would constrain the Commission's
decision-making in the instant 12.2 GHz band rulemaking proceeding
by injecting new ESIM encumbrances into the 12.2 GHz band. ESIMs
Authorizations at 11-12, para. 22. DISH and RS Access also argued
that authorizing ESIMs in the band on an unprotected basis would
likely result in primary users in the band being required to assume
the costs to prevent service interruptions to SpaceX customers. Id.
at 11, para. 18. The International Bureau found that granting the
applications served the public interest but also recognized that the
introduction of a potentially significant number of additional end
users in motion could affect the 12 GHz spectrum environment.
Therefore the Bureau imposed conditions to ensure grant of those
applications would not materially impact the outcome of the 12 GHz
rulemaking proceeding. ESIMs Authorizations at 12-13, paras. 23-27.
The Bureau imposed conditions on the grants related to the 12.2 GHz
band including: (1) requiring operations to be on a non-interference
basis; (2) subjecting the operations to the outcome of any future
rulemaking including the instant 12.2 GHz band GHz proceeding, with
the understanding that the presence of ESIMs is not anticipated to
materially affect the analysis therein, and subject to modification
to conform to any rules or policies adopted, including in the
instant 12.2 GHz band proceeding, and assumption of this risk; (3)
subjecting the grant to the applicants' representations, including
that their NGSO systems have been engineered to achieve a high
degree of flexibility to facilitate spectrum sharing with other
authorized satellite and terrestrial systems. Id. In addition, the
Bureau explained that its case-by-case analysis was limited to the
applications before it and have no broader applicability. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released a notice of
proposed rulemaking (12.2 NPRM) to allow interested parties to address
whether it could add a mobile allocation and make other changes to
expand terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band without causing harmful
interference to incumbent licensees and, if so, whether such action
would promote or hinder the delivery of next-generation services in the
12.2 GHz band given the existing and emergent services offered by
incumbent licensees.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. 5G Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band

6. By this R&O, the Commission finds that it is not in the public
interest to add a mobile allocation to permit a two-way terrestrial 5G
service in the 12.2 GHz band based on the current record.\23\ The
Commission finds that a new ubiquitous terrestrial 5G service
introduced throughout the band would create a significant risk of
harmful interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) and Fixed
Satellite Service (FSS) (space-to-Earth) limited to non-geostationary
orbit systems (NGSO FSS) operators. Although the Commission declines to
authorize two-way, high-powered terrestrial mobile use, the Commission
seeks further comment in its related further notice of proposed
rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 (see FCC 23-36, paras. 48-57) (FR
2023-13501), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register,
on how best to maximize use of this 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum.
The Commission takes these actions with respect to the 12.2-12.7 GHz
band in conjunction with its related action to issue a notice of
proposed rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 (see FCC 23-36, paras. 58-
142) (FR 2023-13500), published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, proposing to expand the use of the 12.7-13.25 GHz band for
mobile broadband or other expanded use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ In this R&O, record references and citations refer to WT
Docket No. 20-443, unless otherwise noted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, which included eleven of
the twelve Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS)
licensees at that time, filed a Petition for Rulemaking requesting
reforms to the 12.2 GHz band rules, including permitting MVDDS
licensees to use the band for two-way mobile 5G broadband services.\24\
In support of the Petition, the Coalition also provided two Coexistence
Studies that it claimed illustrated that a new 5G service could coexist
with DBS operators in the band but would be incompatible with NGSO
FSS.\25\ Subsequently, however, some members of the MVDDS 5G Coalition
suggested the possibility of 5G terrestrial use and NGSO FSS sharing in
the band.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ For brevity and convenience, the Commission refers to
terrestrial, 2-way, high-power mobile operations herein as ``5G.''
\25\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments, Attach.
1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHz Co-Primary Service Coexistence (Coexistence
1) and MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply, Appx. A,
MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHZ Co-Primary Service Coexistence II (Coexistence
2) (collectively, Coexistence Studies).
\26\ See e.g., Letter from Martha Suarez, President, Dynamic
Spectrum Alliance (DSA), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
Docket No. RM-11768, at 2 (filed Aug. 21, 2020) (DSA Aug. 21, 2020
Ex Parte); Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel, RS Access, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 2-3 (filed Sept.
21, 2020) (RS Access Sept. 21, 2020 Ex Parte); Letter from Jeffrey
Blum, Executive Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at
4 (filed Nov. 12, 2020) (DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte) (stating that
``since the 2016 studies, developments in the satellite industry
indicate that NGSO FSS constellations possess geostationary-like
functions and properties that could prove more compatible with 5G
services in the 12 GHz Band than the last-generation NGSO earth
stations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

8. On January 15, 2021, the Commission released its 12.2 NPRM to
allow interested parties to address whether it could add a mobile
allocation and make other changes to expand terrestrial use of the 12.2
GHz band without causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees
and, if so, whether such action would promote or hinder the delivery of
next-generation services in the 12.2 GHz band given the existing and
emergent services offered by incumbent licensees.\27\ In the 12.2 NPRM,
the Commission stated that it would proceed mindful of the

[[Page 43465]]

significant investments made by incumbents and that it valued the
public interest benefits that could flow from investments made to
provide satellite broadband services, particularly in rural and other
underserved communities that might be more expensive to serve through
other technologies. The Commission initiated the instant 12.2 GHz band
proceeding to allow interested parties to address whether additional
operations can be accommodated in the band while protecting incumbent
operations from harmful interference and to provide an opportunity for
the Commission to assess the public interest considerations associated
with adding a new mobile allocation.\28\ In particular, the Commission
sought information on the status of technologies that have been
developed or are currently in development that would allow for two-way
mobile communications in the 12.2 GHz band; whether standards have been
set related to such technologies; whether there are any international
agreements on a band plan or air interface for the 12.2 GHz band; and
the impact (if any) on international rights for U.S.-licensed systems
that might be affected as a result of the U.S. providing for expanded
shared use of the band.\29\ Comments were due May 7, 2021, reply
comments were due July 7, 2021, and interested parties have added many
ex parte filings to the rulemaking dockets since the comment
deadlines.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 614, para. 2.
\28\ See, e.g., id. Additionally, the Commission explained that
Section 303(y) provides the Commission with authority to provide for
flexible use operations only if: ``(1) such use is consistent with
international agreements to which the United States is a party; and
(2) the Commission finds, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, that (A) such an allocation would be in the public
interest; (B) such use would not deter investment in communications
services and systems, or technology development; and (C) such use
would not result in harmful interference among users.'' Balanced
Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat 251, 268-69 sec.
3005 Flexible Use of Electromagnetic Spectrum (codified at 47 U.S.C.
303(y)). See also 47 CFR 2.106, 27.2, 27.3.
\29\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 21, n.67 (citing
Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, Attach. A,
Questions Necessary to Balance the 12 GHz NPRM, at 3-4 (filed Jan.
6, 2021) (SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte)).
\30\ See Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et
al., WT Docket No. 20-443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 6534 (WTB
2021); Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, et. al., WT
Docket No. 20-443, et. al., Order, 36 FCC Rcd 9531 (WTB 2021); see
generally WT Docket No. 20-443 and GN Docket 17-183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. In response to the 12.2 NPRM, several of the MVDDS licensees,
and one DBS provider that is also a major MVDDS licensee, contend that
5G terrestrial and incumbent services can coexist in the band, the
other DBS provider and the NGSO FSS commenters contend that such
coexistence is not yet technically feasible. Multiple technical
analyses were submitted into the record that purport to model the
potential interference between a new 5G mobile terrestrial service and
incumbent satellite services in the band.\31\ These models rely on
various technical assumptions about which the parties greatly disagree.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\31\ RS Access Comment, Appendix A, Assessment of Feasibility of
Coexistence between NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G Operations in the
12.2-12.7 GHz Band, at 6 (filed May 7, 2021) (RS Access Comment RKF
Study I); Letter from Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, The Effect
of 5G Deployment on NGSO FSS Downlink Operations in the 12.2-12.7
GHz Band (filed May 19, 2022) (RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II);
Letter from David Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, Space
Exploration Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, SpaceX Analysis of the Effect
of Terrestrial Mobile Deployment on NGSO FSS Earth Stations and 5G
Operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band (filed June 21, 2022) (SpaceX
June 21, 2022 Analysis); Letter from V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS
Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443,
Attach. A, Analysis of Starlink Submission Regarding the Effect of
5G Deployment on NGSO FSS (filed July 15, 2022) (RS Access July 15,
2022 RKF Response Study); Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice
President, External Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, 12 GHz Co-Frequency
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into DBS (filed July 18, 2022)
(DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis); Letter from Kimberly M. Baum,
Vice President, Spectrum Engineering & Strategy, WorldVu Satellites
Limited, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443,
Annex, Monte Carlo Analyses of the Potential Impact of an Expanded
Terrestrial Service on NGSO FSS Systems in the 12 GHz Band (filed
July 11, 2022) (OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses); Letter from David
Goldman, Senior Director, Satellite Policy, Space Exploration
Technologies Corp., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 20-443, Exh. A, Evaluation of SpaceX Study Related to 12 GHz
Interference from Terrestrial Mobile into Starlink (filed Oct. 4,
2022) (SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

10. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds
that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with
DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk
of harmful interference. The Commission is not persuaded by the
assurances of one of the two nationwide DBS providers that DBS will be
protected,\32\ particularly given that the other nationwide DBS
provider raises significant concerns.\33\ The Commission finds that the
study submitted by the 5G advocates is based on unsupported assumptions
that undermine its reliability. As explained below, the 5G proponents
have not demonstrated that a new 5G service will be able to meet the
Equivalent Power Flux Density (EPFD) limits required to protect DBS
receivers in the 12.2 GHz band. Also, the Commission finds that the 5G
proponents have not adequately addressed the issues raised both in the
12.2 NPRM and by commenters regarding the applicability of burden-
shifting protection obligations, lower earth-station elevation angles,
power limits, EPFD limits and receiver location information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\32\ DISH states that the presence of higher-power two-way
mobile and fixed services at 12 GHz are possible and fully
consistent with protecting DBS in the band. See DISH Comment at 1.
\33\ AT&T has argued on behalf of DirecTV that RKF has not
established that expanded terrestrial mobile operations could be
added without causing harmful interference to DBS operations--a
service which RKF's Study completely ignores, and a factor which
alone, it argues, should nullify the study. See AT&T Reply at 14.
AT&T asserts exclusion and/or coordination zones are neither
practical nor feasible in the 12 GHz band as a means of protecting
DBS because millions of DBS receivers are spread throughout the U.S.
and are constantly being added, moved, or relocated. See id. at 26.
AT&T states its concerns are not lessened just because DISH is not
concerned about the possibility of harmful interference posed by
terrestrial mobile operations. See id. at 22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

11. Further, the Commission also finds that ubiquitous two-way
mobile broadband 5G service is likely to create a significant risk of
harmful interference to ubiquitous NGSO FSS operations. The 5G
terrestrial advocates' analysis rests on the speculative assumption
that 5G and NGSO FSS operations will not be geographically near each
other (i.e., 5G advocates offer studies that assume NGSO FSS will
largely serve rural areas, and 5G will serve urban/suburban markets)
without pointing to any basis for this assumption. The Commission finds
that this unsupported assumption, which is not in line with current
deployment practices and plans, renders the technical studies offered
by the 5G advocates unpersuasive, and therefore such studies cannot
serve as a basis on which to conclude that the public interest would be
best served by allowing a new, ubiquitous 5G service into the band at
this time. The Commission specifically asked whether geographic sharing
could allow higher-power terrestrial operations in certain areas, and
if so, how such geographic sharing should be structured.\34\ But apart
from studies based on non-binding, hypothetical assumptions, the
Commission notes that 5G proponents did not offer any rules to limit
their proposed 5G operations to less than all of the geographic areas
authorized by their MVDDS licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\34\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. 5G Interference to DBS
12. As a threshold matter, the Commission finds that a new
ubiquitous

[[Page 43466]]

5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with DBS operations in the
band without a significant increase in the risk of harmful
interference. As noted above, pursuant to the Table of Allocations,
both terrestrial and NGSO FSS services are obligated to protect DBS
from harmful interference.\35\ The Commission has long recognized the
public interest benefits that incumbent DBS services provide to
millions of subscribers, and has required the other co-primary services
in 12.2 GHz band to operate on a non-harmful interference basis with
respect to DBS.\36\ Congress, too, sought to ensure that DBS would not
be subject to harmful interference from any new terrestrial service by
requiring that the Commission ``provide for an independent technical
demonstration of any terrestrial service technology proposed by any
entity that has filed an application to provide terrestrial service in
the direct broadcast satellite frequency band to determine whether the
terrestrial service technology proposed to be provided by that entity
will cause harmful interference to any direct broadcast satellite
service.'' \37\ The Commission ultimately adopted rules for MVDDS based
on the extensive record of a multi-year rulemaking proceeding,\38\
which included the statutory mandates to avoid harmful interference to
DBS \39\ and an independent analysis \40\ of potential MVDDS
interference to DBS.\41\ These rules include detailed frequency
coordination procedures that require an MVDDS licensee to ensure that
the EPFD \42\ from a proposed transmitting antenna does not exceed the
applicable EPFD limit \43\ at any DBS receiving antenna of a ``customer
of record.'' \44\ The MVDDS rules also include other limitations on
signal emissions, transmitter power levels, and transmitter
locations.\45\ When an MVDDS licensee proposes a new station,
coordination with DBS is necessary to demonstrate that the relevant
EPFD limit will not be exceeded at the DBS antenna of any DBS
subscriber of record.\46\ Once an MVDDS station has been successfully
coordinated, however, the burden to ensure that DBS subscribers do not
suffer interference from that MVDDS station shifts to the DBS
operator--immediately for new subscribers \47\ and after one year for
customers of record.\48\ The Commission determined that shifting this
burden to DBS from MVDDS--only after successful coordination by the
MVDDS operator in the first instance--was reasonable in light of the
one-way, relatively low-power limit on MVDDS. In doing so, the
Commission did not alter its previous finding that allowing two-way
MVDDS operations in the band ``would unnecessarily complicate the
sharing scenario'' and ``significantly raise the potential for
instances of interference among the operations'' sharing the band.\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\35\ See supra para. 1 & n.3.
\36\ See generally MVDDS Second Report and Order.
\37\ See Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast
Satellite Services, Public Law 106-553, App. B., Title. X, 1012, 114
Stat. 2762, 2762A-128, 2762A-141 (2000) (LOCAL TV Act 1012); see
also Rural Local Broadcast Signal Act, Public Law 106-113, App. I.,
Title II, sec. 2002, 113 Stat. 1501, 1501A-544 (1999). In December
2018, however, this provision the LOCAL TV Act was stricken. Public
Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 265-66, sec. 1012, Prevention of
Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services, stricken by
Public Law 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777-78, sec. 6603, Amendments
to Local TV Act.
\38\ See ET Docket No. 98-206.
\39\ See LOCAL TV Act 1012(a).
\40\ Id.
\41\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
9635, para. 56 (citing MITRE Corporation, ``Analysis of Potential
MVDDS Interference to DBS in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band'' (Apr. 18,
2001) (MITRE Report)).
\42\ The EPFD is the power flux density produced at a DBS
receive earth station, taking into account shielding effects and the
off-axis discrimination of the receiving antenna assumed to be
pointing at the appropriate DBS satellite(s) from the transmitting
antenna of a MVDDS transmit station. See 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).
\43\ The Commission established different EPFD limits in four
regions of the U.S., see 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B), mainly due to
differences in rainfall in each region. See, e.g., MVDDS Second
Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197.
\44\ See 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii) (referencing the procedures
listed in 47 CFR 101.1440). Among other things, an MVDDS licensee
must conduct a survey of the area around its proposed transmitting
antenna site to determine the location of all DBS customers of
record that may potentially be affected by the introduction of its
MVDDS service and must coordinate with DBS. See 47 CFR 101.1440(a)-
(d).
\45\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
9634-9664, paras. 53-125; 9690-9695, paras. 196-209; 47 CFR 25.139
(NGSO FSS coordination and information sharing between MVDDS
licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz band); 25.208(k); 101.103;
101.105; 101.111; 101.113; 101.129; 101.1409; 101.1440. Notably, the
rules limit the EIRP for MVDDS stations to 14 dBm per 24 megahertz.
See 47 CFR 101.113(a) note 11; 101.147(p). In the MVDDS Second
Report and Order, the Commission explained that ``placing a limit on
MVDDS EIRP will ensure that DBS entities are not unduly hindered in
their ability to acquire customers in areas in close proximity to
MVDDS transmit facilities. Thus, we are not permitting higher powers
over areas containing mountain ridges or over presently unpopulated
regions because the higher power may cause too great of an exclusion
zone for future DBS and NGSO FSS subscribers. The Commission
recognizes that a higher power benefit for MVDDS providers would not
offset the potential constraints placed on other service subscribers
in the 12 GHz band. MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at
9691-92, para. 198.''
See also id. at 9653, para. 88 (discussing the EIRP limit as a
factor in adopting DBS mitigation obligations because ``this power
limit will not inhibit the introduction of new DBS customers [near]
the MVDDS transmitting system, i.e., later-installed DBS receive
antennas can be properly sited and shielded from the MVDDS
signal'').
\46\ ``DBS customers of record are those who had their DBS
receive antennas installed prior to or within the 30 day period
after notification to the DBS operator by the MVDDS licensee of the
proposed MVDDS transmitting antenna site.'' 47 CFR 101.1440(a).
\47\ ``DBS licensees are responsible for providing information
they deem necessary for those entities who install all future DBS
receive antennas on its system to take into account the presence of
MVDDS operations so that these DBS receive antennas can be located
in such a way as to avoid the MVDDS signal. These later installed
DBS receive antennas shall have no further rights of complaint
against the notified MVDDS transmitting antenna(s).'' 47 CFR
101.1440(e).
\48\ Once the new MVDDS station is coordinated and begins
operating, the MVDDS licensee must satisfy all complaints of
interference to DBS customers of record received during a one-year
period. 47 CFR 101.1440(g).
\49\ MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9668, para.
137.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

13. In its 2016 Petition for Rulemaking, the MVDDS 5G Coalition
proposed that a new 5G mobile terrestrial service could also share with
existing DBS in the 12.2 GHz band.\50\ The Coalition provided two
Coexistence studies that--through careful selection of mobile
deployment areas, adjustments to radio frequency design parameters, use
of geographic separation, clutter loss, and transmitter power
constraints on terrestrial operations--purported to show that sharing
with DBS would be possible.\51\ In the first Coexistence Study, which
studied three potential 5G use cases including point-to-point
communications, mobile broadband, and indoor mobile use, the Coalition
asserted that these potential uses could be engineered such that
terrestrial users would not exceed the existing EPFD limit for
MVDDS.\52\ In its subsequent Coexistence 2 study, the Coalition studied
a different building environment to show that even in a ``more
challenging'' sharing environment, a new 5G service could protect DBS
up to the level it ``enjoys

[[Page 43467]]

today from MVDDS licensees.'' \53\ In the 12.2 NPRM, the Commission
sought comment on whether the approach proposed by the MVDDS 5G
Coalition in the 2016 Coexistence studies was feasible and the costs
and benefits of such an approach.\54\ The Commission sought comment on
whether, and to what extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition's proposals to
license two-way, mobile operations in the band, and to eliminate the
equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit, would substantially
redefine the scope of DBS operators' obligations and potential burdens
under the current regime.\55\ Additionally, the Commission asked how
other factors--such as geographic separation, transmitter power
constraints on terrestrial operations, and other siting parameters for
flexible-use base stations--could minimize the risk of interference to
DBS users.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\50\ See supra para. 7.
\51\ See, e.g., Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive Vice
President, External and Legislative Affairs, DISH, to Marlene
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3 (filed Sept. 22,
2020) (DISH Sept. 22, 2020 Letter). See also Coexistence 1 at 35
(finding that ``coexistence between MVDDS 5G operations and DBS
receivers is possible with modest adjustments to MVDDS site
locations and radiofrequency design parameters''); Coexistence 2
(revalidating the original coexistence study in different
topological use-cases); Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition for Petition
to Deny, WT Docket No. 10-112, Exh. 1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHz NGSO
Coexistence Study (filed Aug. 15, 2016), <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10816077623256/1">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/10816077623256/1</a> (Coexistence 3 Aug. 15, 2016 Study).
\52\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4-6.
\53\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Reply at 8-9.
\54\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616-617, para. 24.
\55\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
\56\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 616, para. 23.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

14. The advocates for a new 5G service in the band did not directly
address the 12.2 NPRM questions but instead continued to rely on the
2016 Coexistence studies. Specifically, DISH stated that ``the
feasibility of sharing between DBS and 5G is demonstrated by two
studies commissioned by the MVDDS 5G Coalition and prepared by [an]
expert satellite engineer.'' \57\ Similarly, RS Access stated that,
``the coexistence studies submitted in the petition for rulemaking
proceeding demonstrated that coexistence between DBS and terrestrial 5G
is possible, even under a worst-case scenario.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\57\ DISH Comment at 3.
\58\ RS Access Comment at 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

15. Opponents of the Coalition's proposals responded to the 12.2
NPRM by criticizing the Coexistence studies. AT&T, which owned DIRECTV,
the only current DBS operator that does not hold MVDDS licenses, argued
that the 2016 Coexistence studies, ``too narrowly and simplistically
defined the areas in which a DBS receiver could establish a direct
line-of-sight path with DBS satellite orbital locations.'' \59\
Moreover, AT&T argued that ``these studies made inaccurate baseline
assumptions regarding the nature of deployments and relied upon cherry-
picked use cases that are not representative of real-world
deployments.'' \60\ Subsequently, DIRECTV, which AT&T spun off in
2021,\61\ argued that the 2016 Coexistence studies are ``outdated or
irrelevant, and thus do not accurately reflect the characteristics of
either a ubiquitous, modern, high-power terrestrial mobile service or
DIRECTV's DBS service.'' \62\ Moreover, SAVID LLC (SAVID), an
engineering firm that DIRECTV hired to analyze 5G-DBS coexistence,
found that, even if it made favorable assumptions of the terrestrial
mobile systems, 5G service in the band would ``cause extensive harmful
interference to DIRECTV receivers, exceeding the limits currently in
place to protect DBS customers by a factor of 100 to 100,000 over areas
extending well beyond the intended coverage area of the mobile base
stations.'' \63\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\59\ AT&T Reply at 11.
\60\ AT&T Comment at 8.
\61\ See AT&T, AT&T & TPG Close DIRECTV Transaction (Aug. 2,
2021), <a href="https://about.att.com/story/2021/att_directv.html">https://about.att.com/story/2021/att_directv.html</a>; AT&T, AT&T
Completes Acquisition of DIRECTV (July 24, 2015), <a href="https://about.att.com/story/att_completes_acquisition_of_directv.html">https://about.att.com/story/att_completes_acquisition_of_directv.html</a>.
\62\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
\63\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

16. Based on the record in this proceeding, the Commission finds
that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial mobile service cannot coexist with
DBS operations in the band without a significant increase in the risk
of harmful interference to the DBS operations. In particular, 5G
advocates have not shown how such new mobile operations could meet or
exceed the metric upon which the Commission based regional EPFD limits
(ranging from -172.1 to -168.4 dBW/m\2\/4kHz) that the FCC adopted to
protect DBS from a fixed, lower power MVDDS service at every existing
DBS subscriber's dish. In addition, because MVDDS is a fixed service,
the rules were able to take advantage of the discrimination between
southern facing DBS antennas and MVDDS antennas; a mobile service does
not provide for such accommodations and results in a much more
challenging interference environment than MVDDS. Moreover, to meet the
existing EPFD limits, it appears that a mobile terrestrial service
would need to be restricted to such low power levels that it is
unlikely that any given base station could provide substantial
geographic coverage or significant 5G service.\64\ According to the
Coexistence 1 study, 5G services could meet these EPFD limits only when
using ``newly available spectrum planning tools, and careful
engineering of MVDDS systems'' to isolate them from DBS receivers,
either through geographic separation or terrain blocking.\65\ Given the
careful and exacting engineering that would be needed to meet these
conditions, it is not apparent that terrestrial mobile systems, if
installed, could be expanded by adding new base station locations in
the future to meet increased consumer demands without significantly
impacting DBS service. It is not reasonable to assume that ubiquitous
two-way 5G mobile terrestrial service would meet these conditions
consistently with respect to ubiquitous DBS which serves millions of
customers in all areas of the United States where the location of 5G
mobile units could be anywhere in the operator's service area,
including right next to the DBS antenna.\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\64\ See, e.g., DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6. Largely
to protect DBS receivers installed after an MVDDS transmitter is
successfully coordinated with DBS, the MVDDS transmit power limit is
14 dBm/24 MHz (or 20 dBm/100 MHz). By comparison, the 2016 MVDDS 5G
Coalition coexistence study assumed two-way terrestrial operations
at 48 dBm/100 MHz, and the most recent RKF Study assumed a new 5G
system would operate at 65 dBm/100 MHz, however, 5G advocates have
not proposed any rules regarding power limits that they would deem
reasonable to provide 5G service while still protecting incumbent
DBS subscribers. The Commission notes that a 28-45dB higher transmit
power for the proposed 5G service would make meeting the regional
EPFD limits to existing DBS subscribers much more challenging and
would significantly increase the burden on DBS operators to protect
new or modified DBS subscriber receivers.
\65\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition Public Notice Comments at 4-6.
\66\ See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1 (the
assumptions made by the Coexistence Studies ``do not accurately
reflect the characteristics of either an ubiquitous, modern, high-
power terrestrial mobile service or DIRECTV's DBS service.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

17. When DIRECTV commissioned a study from SAVID using what it
deemed more reasonable assumptions than those of the 5G advocates, that
study found that at power levels of 69 dBm/100 MHz \67\ ``mobile
operations in the band would cause extensive and harmful interference
to DIRECTV receivers.'' \68\ DISH raises several criticisms of the
SAVID study,\69\ but even the MVDDS 5G Coalition's own study found that
at 48 dBm/100 MHz in certain small areas actual harmful interference
could occur if a DBS receive antenna were present.\70\ The Commission
notes that the power levels used in the Coexistence studies

[[Page 43468]]

are substantially lower than the 62 dBm/MHz (82 dBm/100 MHz) generally
permitted in most other terrestrial mobile bands which operate at lower
frequencies with more favorable propagation characteristics and even
less than the maximum 47 dBm/10 MHz (57 dBm/100 MHz) permitted in the
Citizens Broadband Radio Service (CBRS) service designed specifically
for small cell coverage. While the Coexistence studies and the SAVID
study do not reach identical conclusions due to differing assumptions,
collectively they illustrate that two-way mobile terrestrial 5G
operations could not ubiquitously meet the regional EPFD limits that
the FCC adopted to protect DBS. As DBS receivers may be located
anywhere (and can be either roof-mounted or installed on the ground),
and as the Coalition's own Coexistence studies shows the potential for
harmful interference from 5G into DBS in some instances, the Commission
finds that a new 5G service cannot adequately protect incumbent DBS
operators in the band from a significant risk of harmful interference.
Moreover, the Commission notes that DISH and other 5G advocates have
not proposed or agreed to rules or limits on 5G operations (such as
horizon nulling) that DISH suggests might reduce some risk of harmful
interference into DBS. However, even if the 5G advocates agreed to use
advanced techniques for interference mitigation, that would not solve
the underlying problem that a new ubiquitous 5G terrestrial service
poses a significant risk of harmful interference to DBS given the
ubiquitous nature of both the existing DBS service and the proposed 5G
service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\67\ The base station EIRP is 75 dBm/100 MHz but the base
station EIRP density is reduced by the base station TDD activity
factor of 75% to 69dBm/100 MHz. See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS
Analysis at 4-5.
\68\ DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 1.
\69\ See Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 2-3
(filed August 8, 2022) (DISH Aug. 8, 2022 Letter). Among other
things, DISH questioned SAVID's assumptions about 5G transmit power
and DBS dish location; its decision to ``ignore'' the potential for
horizon nulling and time variability; and its failure to use LIDAR
data to accurately account for clutter loss. Id. at 2-3.
\70\ Coexistence 1 at 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

18. The 5G advocates do not address the increased coordination and
DBS interference mitigation burdens that would be placed on DIRECTV and
its tens of millions of subscribers if the Commission was to permit
mobile 5G operations in the 12.2 GHz band.\71\ The original Coexistence
study proposed to eliminate the MVDDS EIRP limit as duplicative of the
EPFD limits, suggesting that keeping terrestrial signals below the
applicable EPFD limit at all DBS antenna locations generally could
avoid harmful interference to existing DBS subscribers regardless of
the EIRP or whether the terrestrial operations were fixed or mobile, or
one- or two-way.\72\ However, the proposal to eliminate the EIRP limit
would substantially redefine the scope of the burden on DBS operators,
particularly for the deployment of additional DBS antennas in the
future. While the current rules place the burden to ensure that new DBS
subscribers do not suffer interference from previously coordinated
MVDDS stations on DBS operators, the Commission is not convinced that
similarly shifting this burden from 5G to DBS, going forward, would be
reasonable because protecting DBS receivers installed in the future
from previously coordinated higher-power, two-way, 5G base and mobile
stations would be significantly more burdensome--and in some scenarios
impossible--than protecting new DBS receivers from previously
coordinated, one-way, low-power, fixed MVDDS transmitters. Due to the
mobile nature of the proposed 5G service, the location of devices
cannot be determined and therefore cannot be avoided through
coordination. Also, a two-way service requires the DBS operator to
consider both incoming and outgoing signals. Finally, at higher powers,
even using advanced techniques, a DBS receiver might not be able to
coordinate operation near a 5G base station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\71\ See Letter from Michael P. Goggin, Assistant Vice
President--Senior Legal Counsel, AT&T, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, Appx. A, AT&T Response to the
MVDDS 5G Coalition Technical Studies, at 4 (filed June 14, 2018)
(AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte) (arguing that eliminating the EIRP
limit would render the EPFD analysis impossible to model and have
the effect of shifting the burden of interference mitigation from
MVDDS licensees to DBS licensees because the EIRP limits were
established specifically to mitigate the potential impact of MVDDS
operations on future DBS customers).
\72\ See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 19; MVDDS 5G Coalition
Comments at 6, n.21 (citing Coexistence 1 at 4). AT&T had argued
that there may be potential statutory issues including whether
proposed two-way, mobile use of the band would require an
independent technical analysis showing that DBS would be protected.
AT&T Opposition at 2, n.4 (citing section 1012 of the LOCAL TV Act).
In December 2018, however, this provision of the LOCAL TV Act was
stricken. Public Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 265-66, sec. 1012,
Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services,
stricken by Public Law 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777-78, sec. 6603,
Amendments to Local TV Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

19. Additionally, given that all DBS earth stations look toward the
southern sky for communication with geostationary orbit (GSO) space
stations orbiting at the equatorial plane, and given that high-gain
antennas are necessary for base stations, the 12.2 NPRM sought comment
on whether base station location or antenna orientation can be adjusted
to provide greater protection to DBS earth stations.\73\ The 5G
advocates did not address this issue in their comments, replies, or
additional studies, though DIRECTV, in its SAVID study, pointed out
that lower earth-station elevation angles generally increase the
potential for harmful interference from line-of-sight terrestrial
transmitters while higher angles generally result in off-axis
attenuation.\74\ 5G terrestrial advocates did not address how DBS
subscribers in the far northern U.S. could be protected from 5G
interference, given the relatively low elevation angles required for
subscriber dishes in these regions to point at DBS GSO satellites over
the equator. For example, to point a dish in Fairbanks, AK, at a
DIRECTV satellite at 95.1[deg] W, an elevation angle of 6.47[deg] is
required. Even if the Commission excluded Alaska (as it did in
addressing the 3.7 GHz band), an elevation angle of 12.21[deg] is
required to point a customer's dish in Bangor, ME, at a DISH satellite
at 129[deg] W, and an elevation angle of 17.67[deg] is required in
Seattle, WA, to point at a DISH satellite at 72.7[deg] W. That failure
of the 5G advocates to acknowledge or address the challenge of
adequately protecting DBS customers whose location may render them
uniquely susceptible to interference from 5G adds weight to the
Commission's conclusion that the record does not support a finding that
5G can coexist with ubiquitous DBS dishes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\73\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 617, para. 25.
\74\ See DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at 6 (noting SAVID's
Study assumed that all DBS antennas were pointed toward DIRECTV's
central orbital location at 101[deg] W.L.--an assumption that
ensures high elevation angles and does not, like the Peters Studies,
seek out the worst possible angle over the full range of DBS orbital
locations available); see also DIRECTV July 18, 2022 DBS Analysis at
3 (noting its deployments were modeled at Orlando, FL, which has
high elevation angles to DBS satellites, adding conservatism to the
analysis by tending to reduce indicated interference levels).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. RS Access and DISH contend that concerns about interference to
DBS should be given little weight because DISH is one of the country's
two DBS providers and one of the advocates of a new 5G terrestrial
service in the band. As such, RS Access and DISH state, ``DISH would
not join a proposal that endangers its own service to about 14 million
households.'' \75\ Admittedly, DISH expresses willingness to accept any
resultant increase in coordination and DBS interference mitigation
burdens in return for new authority to use its 82 MVDDS licenses for
two-way mobile broadband.\76\ This is not a case,

[[Page 43469]]

however, where the Commission can conclude--as with DISH's position as
the sole licensee with respect to both services in connection with
Advanced Wireless Services (AWS)-4 service--that the concerns about
harmful interference are capable of resolution by one party. Here, as
previously noted, DISH is not the only DBS provider in the band.\77\
DISH's support for a new 5G service in the band does not address the
potential for harmful interference to DIRECTV's tens of millions of
subscribers. For instance, the Commission notes that DISH and DIRECTV
dishes may not have an equal susceptibility to harmful interference in
any given locale, because their respective subscribers may use
different types of dishes (e.g., varying in size) aimed at one or
several satellites at different orbital slots in the GSO arc. In short,
DISH's DBS system architecture and structure, not to mention its
motivations and business plans, may be very different from DIRECTV's.
Thus, DISH's lack of concern about and/or willingness to work around
potential harmful interference from 5G service in the band cannot be
viewed as probative of the question of likely interference to DBS
service.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\75\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 4.
\76\ AT&T June 14, 2018 Ex Parte at 5-6 (arguing that because
DISH holds MVDDS licenses in most of the major markets and has
developed an alternative means of video distribution that does not
require DBS capabilities, DISH may have less incentive to protect
DBS operations than it once did). ``At a minimum, DISH would now
balance the impact of the Coalition's proposals on its existing and
future DBS subscriber base against the advantages--arguably very
profitable ones for existing MVDDS licensees--that would flow to its
other services if the request is granted.'' Id. at 6. The Coalition
responds that ``DISH would have never been member of the Coalition
if 5G terrestrial mobile services posed a meaningful risk of harmful
interference to its DBS operations.'' Letter from MVDDS 5G Coalition
to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3-4
(filed Aug. 29, 2018) (MVDDS 5G Coalition Aug. 29, 2018 Ex Parte).
\77\ In the 12.2 GHz band, as one of two DBS providers, DISH is
in a different position than in the 2000-2020 and 2180-2200 GHz
bands, where in 2011 it became the only Mobile Satellite Service
(MSS) authorization holder. See Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands, WT Docket 12-
70, Report and Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd
16102, 16109-16110, para. 14 (2012). In that context, despite
concerns that multiple satellite and terrestrial operators could not
coexist in the same frequency band without interference, the
Commission granted DISH authorization to use the 2 GHz MSS bands for
terrestrial mobile operations, reasoning that a single operator
could manage potential interference between two different systems in
the band. See id. at 16165-16167, paras. 164-168.
\78\ See AT&T Reply at 22 (``the fact that DISH may not worry
about harmful interference from terrestrial, mobile, flexible-use
operations does not lessen AT&T's concerns.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

21. Finally, DISH argues that DIRECTV does not use the 12.2 GHz
band extensively and mostly relies on other spectrum bands to provide
service to its customers. Specifically, DISH claims that ``[a] review
of DIRECTV's satellites and orbital slots suggests that DIRECTV has
more bandwidth outside the 12 GHz band than DISH has in the 12 GHz
band.'' \79\ DISH goes on to claim that DIRECTV serves its customers
mainly using the Ka-band and Reverse Band working Broadcasting-
Satellite Service payloads on its satellites at 99[deg], 101[deg], and
103[deg] W.L. slots.\80\ DIRECTV responds to this claim by pointing out
that it ``continues to rely heavily on the 12 GHz band'' for delivery
of its video service to a majority of its DBS customers throughout all
fifty states, including customers receiving services on aircraft, boats
and RVs, as well as through set-top boxes.\81\ The record reflects that
DIRECTV continues to use the 12.2 GHz band, having deployed a ``12 GHz
payload on a relatively new T16 satellite at 101[deg] W.L.'' \82\
Similarly, the Commission finds DISH's arguments about the recent
decline of DBS subscribers--both DISH and DIRECTV--unavailing.\83\
Regardless of overall subscription trends, each DBS operator continues
to add new subscribers that can be located anywhere in the United
States, and there continue to be millions of existing DBS customers
whose service is entitled to protection from harmful interference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\79\ Letter from Pantelis Michalopoulos, Counsel, DISH, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, at 1 (filed
Apr. 4, 2022); DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
\80\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 7.
\81\ Letter from Stacy Fuller, Senior Vice President, External
Affairs, DIRECTV, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, WT Docket
No. 20-443, at 2 (filed May 3, 2022).
\82\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 8.
\83\ DISH Aug. 8, 2022 letter at 6-7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. 5G Interference to NGSO FSS
22. The Commission also finds that ubiquitous two-way mobile
broadband 5G service is likely to create a significant risk of harmful
interference to ubiquitous and increasing NGSO FSS operations.\84\
While deployment of NGSO FSS service in the 12.2 GHz band is still
developing, terrestrial 5G service in the band is hypothetical. For
this reason, the 5G advocates supported their arguments by submitting
Monte Carlo simulation analyses that attempt to model the coexistence
of the two services.\85\ However, 5G advocates did not then use the
assumptions underlying their models as a basis for proposing specific
rules that would enable coexistence. NGSO FSS operators responded by
submitting their own Monte Carlo analyses which sought to correct
various assumptions they claim to be erroneous. While the studies
provided by the opposing sides contain many contradictory assumptions,
ultimately they all agree on the fundamental point that there will be a
significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS operations without
some geographic separation between a new two-way mobile broadband 5G
service and NGSO FSS. The 5G advocates, however, do not propose to
limit such new 5G terrestrial service geographically, nor is it clear
how such limitations could be consistent with the nature of the 5G
service for which they seek authorization. Neither are the
authorizations granted to existing NGSO FSS operators limited to
specific geographic areas. The Commission therefore finds it would not
be in the public interest to allow for a new 5G service in the band as
it would cause a significant risk of harmful interference to NGSO FSS
where these services are deployed ubiquitously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\84\ See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 2 (``Regardless of the
assumptions made with respect to NGSO FSS and two-way terrestrial
deployments, harmful interference from the proposed terrestrial
service will not only exceed the existing interference envelope for
MVDDS in the 12 GHz band, but will cause additional harmful
interference''); See also SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2 (``Yet
even with . . . favorable assumptions, SpaceX customers could expect
to experience harmful interference in the 12 GHz band the vast
majority of the time, which would essentially preclude a consumer-
oriented commercial satellite service in the band'').
\85\ A Monte Carlo (probabilistic) analysis is a simulation that
uses random sampling and statistical modeling to estimate
mathematical functions and mimic the operations of complex systems.
RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 3, n.8 (citation omitted).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

23. Significantly, the Commission notes that initially, the MVDDS
5G Coalition (i.e., the petitioners for a new 5G service in the 12.2
GHz band) argued that coexistence with NGSO FSS was not possible.
Specifically, the Coexistence studies concluded that 5G terrestrial
operations and NGSO FSS operations could not co-exist in the 12.2 GHz
band and therefore, the MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition proposed to delete
or demote the NGSO FSS allocation to a lower regulatory status with
respect to 5G.\86\ 5G advocates subsequently shifted their argument to
claim that co-existence is possible with the new generation of NGSO FSS
systems.\87\ When the Commission issued the 12.2 Notice in response to
the Petition, it noted the public interest in protecting the
significant investments made by NGSO FSS operators in the band. To
determine whether NGSO FSS operations could coexist with a new 5G
service, the 12.2 Notice sought comment on what technical criteria
would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS from harmful interference from
high-powered, two-way mobile operations.\88\

[[Page 43470]]

Specifically, the 12.2 NPRM asked which maximum power levels could be
granted to new terrestrial operations within a framework of service-
rule sharing that would still protect incumbents from harmful
interference.\89\ The 12.2 NPRM further inquired as to whether applying
the existing MVDDS interference criteria \90\ to new terrestrial
systems would be sufficient to protect NGSO FSS operations.\91\
Notably, it specifically inquired about whether subscribers of
satellite services were typically located in more rural areas, the
propagation characteristics and cell coverage areas that could be
expected from 5G base stations in the band, and whether smaller-sized
cells could mitigate potential interference from terrestrial services
into DBS and NGSO FSS services.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\86\ The earlier MVDDS 5G Coalition studies found ``MVDDS and
NGSO [FSS] cannot effectively share the [12] GHz band, either under
the current rules or under any new rules that may be added in
response to the Coalition's petition.'' See Coexistence 3 Aug. 15,
2016 Study at 18.
\87\ See supra paras. 3-4 for a discussion of NGSO FSS systems
authorized by the Commission in recent years.
\88\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619-620, para. 30.
\89\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 42.
\90\ See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, (f)(1); 101.147(p). See also 47
CFR 101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD level beyond 3 km from an
MVDDS station to -135 dBW/m\2\ in any 4 kHz measured and/or
calculated at the surface of the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting
location of MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 km of any
qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent mutual agreement of the
licensees).
\91\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 619-620, para. 30.
\92\ See 12.2 NPRM, 36 FCC Rcd at 624, para. 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

24. In response to the questions raised in the 12.2 NPRM, RS Access
commissioned RKF, a systems engineering firm, to conduct a nationwide
simulation of how NGSO FSS and terrestrial 5G systems might
interact.\93\ Ultimately, RKF provided two studies, both probabilistic
Monte Carlo analyses meant to show that terrestrial 5G can coexist with
NGSO FSS. In its first study, submitted in May 2021, RKF used the 406
Partial Economic Area (PEA) geographic license areas \94\ in the
contiguous United States (``CONUS'') to define where the 5G network
will be deployed, and broke these into urban, suburban, and rural based
on their population density thresholds.\95\ Because the May 2021 RKF
Monte Carlo analysis assumed the new 12.2 GHz terrestrial 5G service
was likely to be deployed in the most densely populated areas with high
demand for broadband service, RKF modeled deployment of 5G in census
tracts with a population density greater than 7,500 people per square
mile in each PEA. It explained, however, that if deployment in these
``urban'' density census tracts did not result in deployment to areas
that encompassed 10% of a market's population, it added the most
densely populated census tracts in each PEA until the area of
deployment covered 10% of the market population.\96\ RKF's terrestrial
model assumed a 5G network of 49,997 terrestrial macro-cell base
stations,\97\ 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations,\98\ 1,949,760
simultaneously active mobile devices \99\ and 6,999 point-to-point
backhaul links across CONUS.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\93\ RS Access Comment at 33.
\94\ See Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Provides Details
About Partial Economic Areas, GN Docket No. 12-268, Public Notice,
29 FCC Rcd 6491 (2014).
\95\ Urban has a population more than 7,500, suburban between
7,500 and 600, and rural fewer than 600. RS Access Comment RKF Study
I at 6.
\96\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 26-27.
\97\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 13. Macro cells were
deployed by multiplying the capped total of almost 50,000 macro
cells by the ratio of the high population density area in a given
PEA divided by the total such population in 12.2 GHz eligible areas
in all PEAS--i.e., each PEA got a percentage of Macro-cell base
stations equal to its proportion of the high population density
areas across CONUS. Id. at 31. The model deployed Macro-cell base
stations in three consecutive waves of decreasing inter site
distances between them ranging from 500 meters to 200 meters between
base stations for urban areas and 1732 meters between base stations
for rural areas. Id. at 32.
\98\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 34. Small cell base
stations were deployed in the same manner as the macro cell base
stations but with smaller distances between these and other small-
cell base stations and or macro-cell base stations. See id. at 34-
35.
\99\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 38. The mobile devices
were dropped uniformly but randomly within the base stations'
coverage areas, and 80% of the mobile devices were assigned as
indoor and 20% as outdoor. Id. at 37. Outdoor mobile devices were
assumed to have a height above ground level (HAGL) of 1.5m. Id. at
37.
\100\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at i, 39. The Study
estimated that there were a total of 2,500 macro-cell base stations
and 4,499 small-cell base stations without fiber access and required
microwave backhaul via the 12.2 GHz band, for a total of 6,999
links. See id. at 39. The Study assumed that in 2025, less than 5%
of the cell-sites will use microwave backhaul in the 7 GHz to 40 GHz
band and hence it distributed such use so that 5% of rural macro-
cell base stations, 5% of other macro-cell base stations and 5% of
small-cell base stations all use microwave backhaul. See id. at 38-
39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

25. RKF then modeled the distribution of only SpaceX's NGSO FSS
satellite terminals, although there are multiple NGSO FSS operators in
the band. RKF's satellite model assumed SpaceX would deploy 2,500,000
satellite user terminals in both urban and rural areas,\101\ but for
this model, it used a different definition of rural and urban areas
than it did for modeling terrestrial 5G operations.\102\ RKF assumed
the majority of NGSO FSS systems, or 1.65 million Starlink user
terminals, would be dropped in random locations in non-metropolitan
Rural Digital Opportunity Fund (RDOF) blocks \103\ either won by
Starlink or won by another bidder,\104\ and that the remaining 850,000
Starlink terminals would be deployed in non-RDOF but also `rural
areas.' \105\ Starlink terminals were allowed to be within 5 meters of
5G base stations, and the possibility technically exists that RKF's
modeling could place NGSO FSS user terminals near 5G terrestrial base
stations.\106\ However, such proximity appears unlikely because the
study endeavored to separate terrestrial 5G and satellite equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\101\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 16-17.
\102\ Compare RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 6 with id. at 8.
RKF adopted the Census Bureau's definition of metropolitan areas as
``urban areas'' which include both cities and surrounding suburbs
and it assumed and weighted deployment of satellite terminals to
whatever was not metropolitan but instead a ``rural'' area. RS
Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
\103\ RDOF blocks are census blocks made available by the
Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund auction where no
provider is offering, or has committed to offer service of at least
25/3 Mbps. See FCC, Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Auction
Information, Fact Sheet, https://www.fcc.gov/auction/
904#:~:text=The%20Rural%20Digital%20Opportunity%20Fund%20will%20ensur
e%20that%20networks%20stand,applications%20as%20well%20as%20today's.
\104\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 17. RKF states that for
purposes of this analysis, the study assumes that SpaceX would have
a penetration rate of 60% in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or 327,511
terminals) in which they won funding. Id. Likewise, the study
assumes a 30% penetration rate in non-metropolitan RDOF areas (or
1.3 million Starlink terminals) where another auction participant
won funding. Id. For those metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX won,
the study assumes a penetration rate of 15%, which amounts to an
assumed 14,600 total Starlink terminals. Id. These assumptions,
along with metropolitan RDOF areas that SpaceX did not win, resulted
in an assumed 1.65 million Starlink terminal deployments. Id.
\105\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. In this case of NGSO
FSS terminals dropped over ``non-RDOF'' rural areas, `rural' is
defined for NGSO FSS operations the same as for 5G terrestrial
deployments--less than 600 people per square mile. Id. at 17. NGSO
FSS terminals are placed using the Gridded Population of the World
(GPW) population density database in proportion to the population
density in more populous rural areas, which is similar to how the
model sites 12 GHz terrestrial base stations. Id. In other words,
the model's siting methodology for Starlink terminals in non-RDOF
regions is more likely to place terminals in the more populous
census tracts in rural areas, where they are deployed in proportion
to the population therein using a population density database
similar to the method used for siting terrestrial 5G equipment. Id.
at 17-18, n.39.
\106\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 18. 5G terrestrial base
stations and NGSO FSS user terminals could be near each other, for
example if the latter were placed in `non-urban' areas from a Census
Bureau perspective but if these areas still had populations greater
than 7,500 persons and were ``urban'' under RKF's standards and
therefore also receiving terrestrial 5G equipment. Id. at 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

26. In RKF's study, the potential for harmful interference to NGSO
FSS from multiple elements of 5G systems is aggregated.\107\ With
respect to each of

[[Page 43471]]

the NGSO FSS terminals modeled, RKF computed the aggregate interference
power from all 5G emitters within 50 km, and compared the result to the
interference-to-noise ratio (I/N) threshold to determine the extent to
which the threshold would be exceeded.\108\ RKF asserted the objective
of the simulation was to model a large number of statistically
significant interference paths to evaluate the risk of interference to
the Starlink terminals.\109\ Initially, RKF found that about 0.888% of
Starlink user terminals over CONUS could experience an event that
exceeded a nominal ITU threshold of -8.5 dB.\110\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\107\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Each macro-cell base
station beamforms a narrow beam toward each mobile device, and 5G
transmissions are assumed to operate in time-division-duplex (TDD)
mode with all the base stations coordinated such that uplink and
downlink transmissions are synchronized. Id. The study assumes 5G
backhaul operates in frequency-division-duplex (FDD) mode, and both
uplink and downlink paths transmit continuously. Id. The base
station antenna has 256 elements with a peak gain of 27.7 dBi which
beamforms toward each mobile device but is constrained by the
minimum antenna down tilt levels designed so that the gain directed
toward a mobile device at 1.5m HAGL at the edge of coverage of the
cell is 10 dB below the peak gain--allowing service at the edge of
coverage; smalls cells have a peak gain of 15 dBi. RS Access May 19,
2022 RKF Study II at 11. Starlink terminal selects a random pointing
direction from the distribution of simulated pointing directions. RS
Access Comment RKF Study I at 13. Then the aggregate interference
from all simultaneously active macro base station beams and small-
cells on the downlink or all active mobile devices on the uplink, as
well as the point-to-point backhaul uplink and downlink
transmissions to each of the Starlink terminal receivers within 50
kilometers is computed. Id. RKF states the model calculates the
emissions from macro-cell base stations as they beamform a
transmission path toward each mobile device within the coverage area
of each base station. Small-cell emissions are also calculated;
these emissions are not beamformed to specific mobile devices, but
are instead transmitted omnidirectionally with fixed down tilt and
nulling. RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9. Then the model
performs two separate aggregate interference power calculations: (1)
from all simultaneously active macro base station beams, all small
cells on the downlink, and all point-to-point backhaul
transmissions, which continually transmit in FDD mode in both
directions; and (2) from all active mobile devices on the uplink and
all point-to-point backhaul transmissions. Id. at 9-10.
\108\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 9-10.
\109\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 10.
\110\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

27. NGSO FSS operators, especially SpaceX, criticized many of the
assumptions underlying RKF's 2021 study. As a result, in May 2022, RS
Access submitted a revised study from RKF that modified certain
parameters and specific assumptions to respond to the criticism.\111\
RKF's revised study still relied heavily on geographic separation to
find that a new 5G service could avoid causing harmful interference to
incumbent NGSO FSS operations. The study still assumed that new 12.2
GHz 5G deployment and satellite terminals would have limited geographic
overlap due to RKF's assessment of their respective use-cases--namely,
that 12.2 GHz 5G services will be deployed most heavily in denser
population centers, while satellite services are most useful in lower
density population centers.\112\ RKF's second study modeled the same
number of base stations, mobile devices and point-to-point links,\113\
and reached the conclusion that there would be no impact to 99.85% of
NGSO FSS terminals by the terrestrial deployment it modeled. In
particular, it asserted its study now found that only 0.15% of Starlink
terminals which might hypothetically be deployed in the future
throughout CONUS experienced an exceedance of the ITU's I/N threshold
of -8.5 dB I/N from 5G operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz portion of the
NGSO FSS downlink band.\114\ RKF asserted that several other factors
contributed to the ``highly favorable environment'' for the coexistence
of NGSO FSS and 5G systems, including the large antenna discrimination
resulting from NGSO FSS antennas pointing with high elevation angle and
the 5G base stations down tilted; interference mitigation achieved
through 5G base station sidelobe suppression and antenna nulling toward
the horizon; and, relatively localized 5G coverage due to the 12.2 GHz
band's propagation characteristics.\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\111\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 6.
\112\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at iii.
\113\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 2-3.
\114\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25. RKF asserts
that the exceedance threshold of -12.2 dB, suggested by some
critics, would not materially affect this study's findings. Id. at
26. Furthermore, it noted that any exceedance event that might occur
would also affect no more than two of the up to eight available 250-
megahertz Ku-band NGSO FSS channels at 10.7-12.7 GHz. Id. at 5, 25.
\115\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 7. There are
several additional differences from the May 2021 and 2022 RKF
Studies, albeit RKF emphasized three. First, whereas in its 2021
Study, RKF assumed Starlink terminals would point at satellites with
look angles or elevation angels between 55[deg] and 85[deg], in
response to Starlink criticism, it assumes terminals will more
frequently employ a lower elevation angle closer to the minimum
authorized angle of 25[deg]. Id. at 19. Second, RKF has changed the
height above ground level for Starlink terminals from 20% sited at
4.5 meters and 80% at 1.5 meters, instead to 55% at 4.5 meters and
45% at 1.5 meters, in response to claims by Starlink that most users
install their terminals ``as high as possible.'' Id. at 20. Third,
in response to a Starlink claim, a maximum off-axis antenna gain
pattern from an European Telecommunications Standards Institute
(ETSI) standard for user terminals is used even though RKF asserts
no party expressly claims that Starlink terminals perform at this
standard and ETSI formulas results in a larger assumed off-axis
gain, which in turn makes Starlink terminals more prone to
exceedance events. Id. at 21-22. Other differences between the two
studies include changes in the macro-cell and small-cell base
station antenna patterns used, the peak EIRP of the macro cells
decreased from 75 dBm/100 MHz to 65 dBm/100 MHz with gain of 27.7
dBi (small-cell base stations likewise increased their EIRP from 45
to 48 dBm/100 MHz but with an increased gain of 18 dBi and not 15
dBi which is accomplished through including horizon nulling and
beamforming technologies), and the application of end-point clutter
loss at the user equipment (UEs) with an HAGL of less than 3m and at
small-cell base stations (typically deployed on poles in the
vicinity of buildings), incorporating horizon nulling into macro
cell base stations. Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

28. Both SpaceX and OneWeb submitted Monte Carlo analyses in
response to the May 2022 RKF study commissioned by RS Access. SpaceX's
Monte Carlo study modified certain key assumptions including basing
buildout in an actual SpaceX market area in Las Vegas, Nevada upon its
own asserted user data,\116\ and buildout requirement for terrestrial
mobile services of 70 percent of population, among other
assertions.\117\ SpaceX asserted its study showed an impact from
interference from terrestrial mobile service that would degrade service
to SpaceX's Starlink broadband terminals operating in the 12.2 GHz band
more than 77 percent of the time, resulting in full outages 74 percent
of the time.\118\ Furthermore, SpaceX stated its study showed the
impact of this harmful interference would extend at least 21 km (more
than 13 miles) from the macro base station in unobstructed conditions
even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe coupling.\119\ SpaceX
used an antenna receiver pattern based upon the applicable ETSI
standard (ETSI_EN_303_981 Class B WBES),\120\ and the SpaceX analysis
is based on seven 240 megahertz channels with 250 megahertz spacing
from 10.95-12.7 GHz.\121\ OneWeb's study similarly concluded that NGSO
FSS user terminals cannot be deployed within the coverage area of a
suburban macro-cell base station deployment without suffering from very
high probability of harmful interference.\122\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\116\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
\117\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
\118\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 2.
\119\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 3.
\120\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
\121\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
\122\ See OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 8-9.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

29. While the analyses submitted by SpaceX and OneWeb have very
little accord with the RKF analyses, all of these analyses agree, on
some level, on one point: NGSO FSS user terminals will suffer harmful
interference if they are operating in close proximity to 5G
transmissions in the 12.2 GHz band. The RKF analyses come to this
conclusion tacitly because rather than providing a calculation of the
separation distance that would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS
terminals from harmful emissions from 5G transmitters, these RKF
analyses simply assume that in most situations 5G and NGSO FSS services
will not be used by consumers

[[Page 43472]]

in the same locations. Specifically, the RKF studies assume that 5G
will most likely operate only in denser, more urban markets and NGSO
FSS services will most likely serve only more rural subscribers.
Satellite operators, and other parties in the record, have provided
more express analyses than RKF of the potential for harmful
interference to NGSO FSS operations from 5G operations in close
proximity. For example, Google noted in its reply comments that
although RKF's report did not separately present the potential
interfering impact of a single UE (handset) located in the vicinity of
a satellite terminal--because it assumed it was unlikely a handset
would be near a satellite terminal--Google's calculations showed that
when such a situation inevitably occurs, harmful interference can be
expected out to a distance of as much as 0.2-1 km under realistic
propagation assumptions, and as far as 3 km under worst-case
conditions.\123\ For its part, SpaceX asserted that satellite user
terminals would be subjected to significant interference whenever
located in the line of sight of a 5G base station. Further, SpaceX
states that even for best-case far-sidelobe-to-far-sidelobe coupling,
the effect of harmful interference (I/N > -12.2dB) between these two
operations will extend up to 21.4 km (more than 13 miles) from the
macro base station in unobstructed conditions.\124\ According to
SpaceX, its satellite user terminal is about 16 dB more sensitive to
the interfering signal coming into its far sidelobes than the mobile UE
is for its desired signal.\125\ As a result, if a SpaceX user terminal
is located in an area where a mobile device can receive a signal from
the base station, the interfering signal its terminal receives will be
much stronger than the desired signal received by the user device.\126\
Because of their sensitivity, SpaceX states that even if its satellite
terminal antennas are pointing only at high elevation angles so that
terrestrial mobile signals are only received at large off-axis angles,
interference will be overwhelming within the coverage area of a
terrestrial base station.\127\ SpaceX asserts that RKF recognized this
point when it admitted that ``Starlink terminals within the 5G coverage
area typically suffered an exceedance.'' \128\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\123\ Google Reply at 14.
\124\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 11. SpaceX used RKF's
assumption that the macro base station has an input power of 41.3
dBW per 100 MHz per user and that the SpaceX user terminal has a -2
dBi far sidelobe gain and 200 K system noise temperature. SpaceX
also assumed that the far sidelobe level of the macro base station
is -2.3 dBi. RKF assumed a -30 dBi sidelobe performance for macro
base stations. And, in its later Monte Carlo simulation, SpaceX used
the same -30 dBi sidelobe floor for an individual sector antenna
pattern, although SpaceX states this value is highly optimistic. Id.
\125\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
\126\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13. SpaceX argues that
even for a mobile UE with a very modest signal-to-noise ratio of
only 0 dB (i.e., at the UE noise floor), for the SpaceX user
terminal, this mobile signal becomes an interferer that is 16 dB
above the noise floor of the user terminal (I/N = 16 dB) and
completely wipes out the desired signal. Id.
\127\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13.
\128\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 13-14 (citing Letter from
V. Noah Campbell, CEO, RS Access, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary,
FCC, WT Docket No. 20-443, Attach. A, Bringing 5G to the 12 GHz
Band, at 11 (filed June 1, 2022)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

30. Although RKF did not provide specific analysis of the
separation distances necessary to protect NGSO FSS user terminals from
5G transmissions, it argued that there would be a natural geographic
separation between the two services, based on constraints on the number
of user terminals an NGSO FSS system can deploy to one area. For
example, the RKF study asserted that while an NGSO FSS licensee can
deploy terminals in metropolitan areas, such as New York City or Los
Angeles, satellite capacity constraints limit the total number of
terminals NGSO FSS licensees can support in any one of these densely
populated zones.\129\ To illustrate this point, RKF has pointed to
statements by Starlink's CEO that its service is not well suited to
urban areas.\130\ SpaceX does not directly address RKF's capacity
argument but it responds that in the very few areas where RKF does
consider terrestrial and NGSO FSS systems operating in close proximity,
its model finds I/N ratios of 50 dB or more.\131\ Furthermore, SpaceX
argues that, by assuming only 1.07 percent of SpaceX user terminals
would be deployed in urban areas, RKF significantly underestimated the
effect of the proposed system on the existing Starlink customers.\132\
OneWeb agrees that terrestrial separation of NGSO FSS and 5G terminals
is an unrealistic assumption,\133\ and states that it intends to focus
its initial service on enterprise, government, and mobile network
operator customers, which will require connectivity across
metropolitan, suburban, and rural areas.\134\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\129\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 8.
\130\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 25, n.65 (citing
Jon Brodkin, Elon Musk: Starlink latency will be good enough for
competitive gaming, Ars Technica (Mar. 10, 2020), <a href="https://bit.ly/3dUrbbu">https://bit.ly/3dUrbbu</a> (quoting Elon Musk: ``The challenge for anything that is
space-based is that the size of the cell is gigantic . . . it's not
good for high-density situations. We'll have some small number of
customers in LA. But we can't do a lot of customers in LA because
the bandwidth per cell is simply not high enough.'')).
\131\ SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 3,
n.9 (citing RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 27 and Fig. 3-3).
\132\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9. SpaceX argues its
actual distribution as based on the Las Vegas PEA is places 17% in
urban areas, 37% in suburban areas and 46% in rural areas. Id.
\133\ OneWeb has argued that suburban macro-cell base station
deployments will result in harmful interference to NGSO FSS User
Terminals when considering real world deployment scenarios. Letter
from Brian D. Weimer, Counsel, OneWeb, to Marlene H. Dortch, WT
Docket No. 20-443, Attach. B, 12 GHz NGSO FSS Earth station and
Terrestrial Study, at 10 (filed Oct. 7, 2022). See also OneWeb July
11, 2022 Analyses at 3 (notes omitted) (``The principle defect of
the [RKF Study attached to Comments of] RS Access] is the assumption
of geographical separation: that NGSO FSS user terminals will be
deployed with a heavy bias towards rural areas while mobile base
stations and devices will be heavily skewed towards urban areas.
There is no real world justification for this bias.'').
\134\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 3, n.8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

31. The Commission finds that the 5G proponents' arguments that a
new 5G service could adequately protect NGSO FSS operations from
harmful interference rely too heavily on the unsupported assumption
that there will be geographic separation between the services. Neither
the FCC's rules governing NGSO FSS operations in the band nor the
authorizations that the FCC has granted to NGSO FSS operators place any
limitations of the sort assumed by 5G proponents on where these NGSO
FSS services may operate.\135\ NGSO FSS systems are not restricted to
rural areas; indeed, SpaceX is currently authorized to deploy
satellites throughout CONUS and for an unlimited number of its second-
generation user terminals anywhere within the United States.\136\ At
this time, satellite operators' plans for, and rollout of service
using, this band are still in the early stages, and operators have
stated their intentions to serve urban and suburban areas.\137\ Based
on the current record, and the Commission's experience, the Commission
concludes that authorizing separate, ubiquitous satellite and
terrestrial mobile systems in the same band would be significantly
likely to result in harmful interference. Although the technical
analyses that 5G advocates submitted made a number of

[[Page 43473]]

hypothetical assumptions about how both a new 5G service and NGSO FSS
service would be deployed, including 5G operating parameters that could
reduce or mitigate interference, 5G proponents did not propose or agree
to be bound by any specific rules to codify these assumptions. Given
the Commission's conclusion that NGSO FSS terminals will experience
harmful interference if placed in close proximity to terrestrial 5G
deployment, and the lack of apparent disagreement by 5G advocates, the
Commission declines to authorize a new terrestrial 5G service in the
12.2 GHz band based on the current record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\135\ See, e.g., Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-
Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC
Rcd 7809 (2017), recon. pending (NGSO FSS Report and Order).
\136\ See Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Application For
Approval for Orbital Deployment and Operating Authority for the
SpaceX NGSO Satellite System, et al., Memorandum Opinion and Order
and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, para. 1 (2018); SpaceX June 21,
2022 Analysis at 14, n.41 (citing Radio Station Authorization, Call
Sign E210127 (issued Nov. 10, 2021)).
\137\ See, e.g., supra para. 30.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

32. As noted, the Monte Carlo analyses provided by the 5G advocates
incorporate a set of assumed operating parameters intended, in addition
to geographic separation, to reduce the possibility of harmful
interference to NGSO FSS user terminals. These assumptions have become
objects of criticism from NGSO FSS interests who argue that their
adjustment can skew the interference picture away from showing the
significant risk of harmful interference NGSO FSS systems would suffer.
Below, the Commission discusses some of the major disagreements on
assumptions the parties have raised in the record. The Commission
cautions, however, that these assumptions do not change the
Commission's bottom-line decision declining to permit 5G operations in
the 12.2 GHz band, due to the risks of harmful interference into NGSO
FSS user terminals when the two services are in close proximity.
Accordingly, other than in a few instances where the Commission has
pointed out that certain debates about assumptions may be missing
critical information, the Commission declines to weigh in concerning
the relative merits of particular assumptions.
33. Ignoring Access to Other Bands and Other NGSO Deployments. The
RKF study assumed that Starlink is assigned eight 250 MHz channels from
10.7-12.7 GHz.\138\ SpaceX argues its model did not incorporate use of
the 10.7-10.95 GHz portion of the band due to regulatory constraints
imposed to protect Radio Astronomy activity in the adjacent 10.6-10.7
GHz band.\139\ Accordingly, the SpaceX analysis is based on seven 240
MHz channels with 250 MHz spacing from 10.95-12.7 GHz, whereas RKF
appears to assume access to all bands. RS Access argues SpaceX's
failure to incorporate the entire 10.7-12.7 GHz range into its
calculations, and its use of only the 12.2-12.7 band for downlink
increases the probability of interference exceedance experienced by
Starlink terminals by a factor of four. RS Access finds this one of the
most critical assumptions causing SpaceX's interference results to
differ from its own. Furthermore, SpaceX argues RKF only models SpaceX
terminal deployments and omits studies of any interference created by
deployment of other NGSO FSS operations.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\138\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 11. Thus, a ``fully
loaded'' 12 GHz sector can serve a maximum of 20 mobile devices
simultaneously. Id.
\139\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9.
\140\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

34. Height of Fixed Subscriber Antennas. The height at which users
mount their SpaceX user terminals has a dramatic effect on the
interference to which they are subject--higher placement also means
that they are more likely to receive more direct interference from
mobile system base stations and UEs.\141\ The May 2021 RKF Study
assumed a distribution of NGSO FSS fixed subscriber terminals more
heavily weighted toward ground installations--80% of Starlink terminals
would have an HAGL at 1.5m, and 20% would have an HAGL of 4.5m. RKF's
May 2022 study modified this assumption and instead assumed that 45% of
Starlink terminals would be installed near ground level with an HAGL of
1.5m, and 55% of Starlink terminals would be installed on rooftops with
an HAGL of 4.5m.\142\ In response, SpaceX argued this modification
still failed to reflect that the majority of SpaceX's customers
deployed their antennas on rooftops to avoid obstructions, which
significantly increases the likelihood of an unobstructed path for
interference from a mobile service base station.\143\ SpaceX argued its
own informal customer surveys showed that most consumers mounted their
antennas on a roof, and accordingly, SpaceX argued that 10% of its user
terminals would be deployed at a height of 1.5m and 90% would be
deployed at a height of 4.5m.\144\ OneWeb agrees most NGSO FSS user
terminals are expected to be deployed on rooftops and that such
installation practices are consistent with decades of satellite
infrastructure deployments.\145\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\141\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 7.
\142\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 20.
\143\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
\144\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 8.
\145\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

35. Number of Macro Cells Deployed. RKF's May 2022 study models
49,997 5G macro base stations throughout CONUS, distributed in the most
densely populated areas of each PEA, comprising at least 10% of the
population of the PEA.\146\ SpaceX has criticized RKF's 10% coverage,
contending that RKF's 10% minimum buildout assumption falls far below
the 70% to 80% population coverage requirement the Commission has
routinely applied to other recently allocated flexible use spectrum,
and it asserts the lower percentage buildout results in less
interference, thus skewing the results of RKF's study.\147\ SpaceX
assumed 3,215 macro base stations in the Las Vegas market in its
study,\148\ which RKF criticized as being a vast overestimation of
typical 5G deployment.\149\ However, SAVID, which SpaceX hired to
review the RKF studies, later argued that the number of macro base
stations assumed in the SpaceX analysis did not have a material impact
on the interference analysis results.\150\ The Commission notes that
looking at the Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service (UMFUS)
requirements for bands such as 24 GHz and above, licensees may fulfill
their performance requirements in various ways, including providing
mobile service to 40% of the population of the license area or by
demonstrating coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic
area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or receiving
on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census

[[Page 43474]]

tracts within the license area.\151\ Accordingly, the relevant
percentage buildout that would be required at 12 GHz may be different
than either side's assumptions.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\146\ RS Access Comment RKF Study I at 9.
\147\ SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 2.
SpaceX has argued RKF's 10% buildout is also inconsistent with the
economic study submitted by terrestrial mobile proponents, which
``assume the terrestrial mobile operations in the 12 GHz band will
be available ubiquitously''[. . .]and is also inconsistent with the
public interests claimed by members of its coalition that mobile
services in 12 GHz band be required to serve rural customers, left
behind by other 5G deployments.'' SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at
11 (notes omitted).
\148\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 15.
\149\ See RS Access July 15, 2022 RKF Response Study at 9-10
(``If a 5G operator sought to meet Starlink's assumptions and built-
out a nationwide 5G network that scaled the 540 POPs per cell
Starlink modeled, the operator would have to deploy 610,000 base
stations. By contrast, AT&T uses approximately 75,000 towers . . .
to support a fully nationwide network . . . .''). However, RKF also
modeled 89,970 fixed small-cell base stations. RS Access Comment RKF
Study I at 34. OneWeb notes that 12 GHz terrestrial mobile
deployments, should they be allowed, would mostly be on small-cell
base stations like the C-band and Ka-band flexible-use deployments
for in-fill where more capacity is desired, and according to CTIA,
up to 800,000 small cells could be deployed within the next 5 years.
See OneWeb Reply at 19-20. OneWeb states that even if half of these
projected small cells included the 12 GHz band, it would represent a
five-fold increase over the RKF study's small-cell deployment
assumptions, and the number of affected Starlink terminals could be
9 times higher than predicted for the small-cell base stations. Id.
at 20-21.
\150\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 12.
\151\ See Use of Spectrum Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio
Services, et al., Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 31 FCC Rcd 8014, 8088, para. 206 (2016) (stating that a
licensee providing mobile service must provide coverage to 40
percent of the population of the license area); Use of Spectrum
Bands Above 24 GHz For Mobile Radio Services, et al., Third Report
and Order, Memorandum Opinion and Order, and Third Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 5576, 5580, para. 8 (2018) (stating
that licensees may fulfill the requirements of [the geographic area
performance] metric either by demonstrating mobile or point-to-
multipoint coverage of at least 25% of their license's geographic
area, or by showing the presence of equipment transmitting or
receiving on the licensed spectrum in at least 25% of census tracts
within the license area . . . maintain[ing] parity with the 40%
population coverage metric.).
\152\ See, e.g., Notice of Proposed Rulemaking at section V.C.6
(Performance Requirements) (seeking comment on the appropriate
coverage percentages for the 12.7 GHz band) in associated GN Docket
No. 22-352 (FCC 23-36).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

36. Technical Advancements. SpaceX argues that the RKF studies
incorporated unreasonable technical advancements into their models of
5G handsets, lowering the estimated interference received. For example,
the May 2022 RKF study incorporated horizon nulling into the
performance of 5G macro-cell base stations whereby 5G antennas can null
the gain pattern at the horizon at all azimuth angles to mitigate
ground-based interference to NGSO FSS terminals.\153\ SpaceX argued
``[this] is a neat trick when the terrestrial operator does not know
where the NGSO FSS antennas are located.'' \154\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\153\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
\154\ SpaceX argues RKF assumptions about nulling technology
rely on letters from NOKIA, Ericsson, and Samsung, but it states
that first none of these materials refer to any specific level of
sidelobe suppression capability from nulling and only Samsung
mentions nulling at all, and only as a means of avoiding
interference to other mobile user equipment. SpaceX June 3, 2022
Response to Revised RKF Report at 5, n.23 (discussing RS Access May
19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12, n.40 (citing Letter from Jeffrey Marks,
Vice President, Nokia, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, GN
Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 21, 2021); Letter from Mark Racek,
Sr. Director of Spectrum Policy, Ericsson, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 13, 2021); Letter
from Robert Kubik, Sr. Director, Samsung, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, GN Docket No. 18-122 (filed Sept. 20, 2021)).
Second, SpaceX argues these letters were filed in the C-band
proceeding and that RKF provides no explanation to justify its
approach to scaling for the much higher frequencies at 12 GHz.
SpaceX June 3, 2022 Response to Revised RKF Report at 5.
Furthermore, SpaceX notes there is no 12 GHz equipment and no ITU,
3GPP, or other performance standard for 12 GHz and RKF does not
explain how it came up with its assumptions for this band. Id.
Third, SpaceX argues the letters from Ericsson and Samsung mention
grating lobes, but RKF does not consider their effects in its model.
Id. Fourth, even if nulling were feasible in the 12 GHz band, SpaceX
argues it is expensive technology that operators are unlikely to
deploy voluntarily--yet no one has proposed to make such technology
a regulatory requirement, making RKF's assumption that it will be
deployed facially unreasonable. Id. And SpaceX argues that, fifth,
RKF assumes that the macro base stations use a 256-element antenna,
while both Nokia and Ericsson indicate that they contemplated the
use of much smaller 96-element antennas, which would result in lower
gain, wider beam width, worse sidelobes, and reduced nulling
ability. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

37. Transmitter Power and Path Loss. As noted previously, RKF
changed its transmitter power from 75 dBm to 65 dBm in its second
study.\155\ SpaceX has supplied its own engineering report arguing that
ITU WP 5D which studied terrestrial mobile in the 10-11 GHz bands also
assumes 72.6 dBm/100 MHz as a typical base station EIRP value, making
75 dBm the more likely number.\156\ OneWeb agrees that 75 dBm/100 MHz
is more realistic.\157\ Furthermore, the OneWeb study uses the
probabilistic clutter model found in Recommendation ITU-R P.2108, which
provides a clutter assumption that is expected to be greater than
predicted in 10% of the cases, and applies clutter only at the user
terminals and only for those terminals deployed at ground level (as
opposed to those presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops). Tailored in
this manner, OneWeb can temper the recommendation's potentially overly
aggressive prediction of clutter losses, yet model expected clutter
losses at a range of geographic locations.\158\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\155\ RS Access May 19, 2022 RKF Study II at 12.
\156\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 4 (citing Report on
the 38th meeting of Working Party 5D (e-Meeting 7-18 June 2021),
Annex 4.4 to Document 5D/716-E, <a href="https://www.itu.int/dms_ties/itu-r/md/19/wp5d/c/R19-WP5D-C-0716!H4-N4.04!MSW-E.docx">https://www.itu.int/dms_ties/itu-r/md/19/wp5d/c/R19-WP5D-C-0716!H4-N4.04!MSW-E.docx</a>, Table 3-1 entry
4.5 applicable to the 10-11 GHz band refers to Table 10 entry 1.9
which defines the typical values for antenna element input power of
22 dBm. Using the array parameters in Table 10 results in a typical
BS EIRP of 72.6 dBm (in 100 MHz) which is comparable to the 75 dBm/
100 MHz maximum EIRP density used in this analysis based on the FCC
limit defined in 47 CFR 30.202(a)).
\157\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 6.
\158\ OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

38. Furthermore, both the RKF and SpaceX analyses model path loss
using 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Specification 38.901,
applying the Urban Macro-Cell model for both urban and suburban macro-
cells at 30 meters to 1 km distance, the Rural Macro-Cell model for
rural macro-cells at 30 meters to 5 km, and the Micro-Cell (``Umi'')
model for small-cells at 30 meter to 1 km distance.\159\ However,
SpaceX argues, RKF subtly understates the high interference line of
sight cases in the 3GPP 38.901 model by using a single weighted average
between NLOS (non-line of sight) and LOS (line of sight) path loss to
represent both cases.\160\ SpaceX argues RKF's approach of employing a
weighted average to represent two distinctly different cases
dramatically understates the line of sight cases that would actually
occur under the 3GPP 38.901 model.\161\ SAVID asserts that while the
parties debate either -8.5 dBm or -12.2 dBm I/N, an alternative
interference protection criterion based on the Power Flux Density (PFD)
limit set by 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)15 should be considered.\162\ In this
regard, SAVID points out that the FCC specifically set the maximum PFD
limit from an MVDDS service transmitting antenna in NGSO FSS stations
at 12.2-12.7 GHz at -135 dBW/m2 in 4 kHz at 3 km, which is the
equivalent of an I/N threshold of -10.8 dB.\163\ SAVID asserts this
means that even for Starlink terminals in the most favorable location
in the BS antenna pattern, there must be at least 25.5 dB of clutter
loss to meet the FCC MVDDS PFD limit at 3 km separation.\164\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\159\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 9-10.
\160\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
\161\ SpaceX June 21, 2022 Analysis at 10.
\162\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 5-6.
\163\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6.
\164\ SpaceX Oct. 4, 2022 SAVID Report at 6. OneWeb stated its
OneWeb July 11, 2022 Analyses uses the probabilistic clutter model
found in Recommendation ITU-R P.2108, which provides a clutter
assumption that is expected to be greater than predicted in 10% of
the cases, and applies clutter only at the user terminals and only
for those terminals deployed at ground level (as opposed to those
presumed to be clutter-free on rooftops). OneWeb July 11, 2022
Analyses at 5-6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

39. The parties' disagreements about the above assumptions
underlying how two-way 5G mobile broadband and NGSO FSS user terminals
should be modeled does not change the Commission's fundamental
conclusion that there will be a significant risk of harmful
interference to NGSO FSS where these services are deployed without
adequate geographic separation. Even if the parties could agree about
the values that should be assigned to each of the models' more minor
assumptions, it would not change the models' more fundamental flawed
assumption that the 5G and NGSO FSS services will be geographically
separated. Rather, these disagreements present even more evidence of
the difference in opinion between the parties as to the envisioned
technical specifications of their respective operations. NGSO FSS
continues to evolve and there is not enough data in the record on how
these systems are currently configured and how the technical parameters
will change over time as NGSO FSS systems add additional subscribers
and continue to refine satellite technology.

[[Page 43475]]

Furthermore, this band is not internationally harmonized for
terrestrial 5G use and there is significant disagreement about what an
operable 5G system would look like in this band. 5G terrestrial
advocates have not demonstrated that it is in the public interest to
restrict or impact NGSO FSS operations in urban/suburban markets--
especially given that NGSO FSS systems are already serving customers.
At this time, the Commission does not see a path forward for adding a
terrestrial mobile allocation to the band that adequately protects the
incumbent satellite operators.

C. MVDDS Construction Filings

40. While the Commission declines to adopt service rules to allow
5G terrestrial use of the 12.2 GHz band as originally proposed by the
MVDDS coalition, the Commission recognizes that many of the MVDDS
licensees in the band have filed the required buildout showings for the
licenses they hold under the current framework. In the accompanying
further notice of proposed rulemaking (WT Docket No. 20-443) (FR 2023-
13501) in FCC 23-36, the Commission seeks comment, among other things,
on the possibility of changes to the existing framework. The Commission
finds it's appropriate at this juncture to address any uncertainty as
to the status of the existing MVDDS licenses under the current rules.
41. Eight companies (10 legal entities) hold 191 MVDDS licenses:
two DISH subsidiaries hold 82 licenses; RS Access, a subsidiary of a
Dell investment fund, holds 60 licenses; two Go Long Wireless entities
hold a total of 25 licenses; and five smaller companies hold a total of
24 licenses.\165\ As a construction requirement, MVDDS licensees must
make a showing of substantial service at the end of five years into the
license period and ten years into the license period.\166\ The
Commission is aware of only one current commercial MVDDS
deployment,\167\ and most MVDDS licensees received two extensions of
the MVDDS buildout requirement, which resulted in final deadlines in
2019.\168\ All of the existing licensees have had buildout showings
pending since 2019 for each of their licenses, which are available to
view in the Commission's Universal Licensing System (ULS).\169\ In the
191 pending filings, each licensee reports that it met the 2019
buildout requirement for each license, mostly by satisfying the safe
harbor that the Commission established for MVDDS in 2002 of operating
at least four transmitters per one million pops in each license
area.\170\ The Wireless Telecommunications Bureau staff's preliminary
review of these construction filings is that they likely meet the safe
harbor standard. Accordingly, the Commission directs the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau to finalize the determination of whether the
construction filings meet the safer harbor standard and if so to accept
each of the pending MVDDS construction filings subject to the following
condition: the Commission reserves the right to adopt additional
buildout requirements for MVDDS if appropriate based on any revisions
to the MVDDS rules adopted in response to the further notice of
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\165\ The remaining 23 licenses automatically terminated for
failure to meet the buildout requirement. See Requests of Three
Licensees of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data
Distribution Service for Extension of Time to Meet the Final
Buildout Requirement for Providing Substantial Service under Section
101.1413 of the Commission's Rules, Applications of Three Licensees
for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data
Distribution Service, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757 (WTB BD 2018), recons.
pending. See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign WQAR709 (Terminated
July 26, 2014).
\166\ 47 CFR 101.1413.
\167\ The licensee uses one station that transmits towards the
relatively distant urban market and surrounding suburbs from a
unique site, geographically and topographically, that allowed the
Commission to waive certain technical rules without increasing
harmful interference to DBS or significantly increasing the area in
which future NGSO FSS receivers would be precluded by this MVDDS
transmitter. See MDS Operations Inc., Request for Waiver of Certain
Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules for
One Station in Sandia Part, New Mexico, Order, 25 FCC Rcd 7963,
7968-69, paras. 13-14 (WTB 2010). From 2011 to 2013, a former MVDDS
licensee offered fixed wireless broadband and voice service in
Florida's Broward and Palm Beach counties. See, e.g., <a href="http://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/cablevision-completes-omgfast-shutdown/271409">http://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/cablevision-completes-omgfast-shutdown/271409</a>.
\168\ See, e.g., Requests of Ten Licensees of 191 Licenses in
the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Waiver of
the Five-Year Deadline for Providing Substantial Service, Order, 25
FCC Rcd 10097 (WTB 2010).
\169\ See <a href="https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/searchAppl.jsp">https://wireless2.fcc.gov/UlsApp/ApplicationSearch/searchAppl.jsp</a>. Click on ``Advanced Application Search'' and select
the following: Radio Service Code: ``DV,'' Status: ``2-Pending,''
Purpose: ``NT.'' Scroll to bottom of page, Customize Your Results,
and click on ``Search.'' Ninety-five of the 191 filings were amended
in 2020.
\170\ See id. See also MVDDS Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd
at 9684, para. 177.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

42. The Commission further directs the Bureau to reconsider its
denials of 2016 requests to extend buildout deadlines for 22 MVDDS
licenses, and to extend the buildout deadlines for these licenses for
18 months from the effective date of this item, subject to the same
condition above.\171\ The Commission believes that the unique
circumstances of this proceeding, namely the uncertainty created by the
MVDDS 5G Coalition's request for 5G terrestrial use, makes strict
application of the buildout deadlines contrary to the public
interest.\172\ Eliminating the uncertainty over these 22 MVDDS licenses
will best serve the public interest by promoting fuller participation
in the record to be developed in response to the Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking as well as by providing additional certainty
regarding the status of these MVDDS licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\171\ See Requests of Three Licensees of 22 Licenses in the
Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service for Extension of
Time to Meet the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing
Substantial Service under Section 101.1413 of the Commission's
Rules, Applications of Three Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in
the Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service, Order, 33 FCC
Rcd 10757 (WTB BD 2018), recons. pending.
\172\ See 47 CFR 1.925(b)(3)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Ordering Clauses

43. It is ordered that, pursuant to sections 1, 2, 4, 5, 301, 302,
303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, 47
U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 155, 301, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, 316, and
Sec. 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.411, the Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking and Order in the captioned dockets is adopted.
44. The inquiry in Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum
Between 3.7-24 GHz, GN Docket No. 17-183, is terminated as to the mid-
band spectrum between 12.2 GHz and 13.25 GHz.
45. It is further ordered that, pursuant to applicable procedures
set forth in Sec. Sec. 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comment on the Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WT Docket No. 20-443 and the Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking in GN Docket No. 22-352 on or before the number of
days shown on the first page of this document after publication in the
Federal Register, and reply comment on or before the number of days
shown on the first page of this document after publication in the
Federal Register.

[[Page 43476]]

46. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking and Order, including the associated Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analyses, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration.

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13503 Filed 7-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on July 10, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.