Proposed Rule2025-10799
Modernizing Spectrum Sharing for Satellite Broadband
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
June 13, 2025
Issuing agencies
Federal Communications Commission
Abstract
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or we) seeks comment on modernizing spectrum sharing between geostationary (GSO) and non-geostationary (NGSO) satellite systems operating in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz frequency bands in which equivalent power-flux density (EPFD) limits apply.
Full Text
<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 90 Issue 113 (Friday, June 13, 2025)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 113 (Friday, June 13, 2025)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25007-25016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2025-10799]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 25
[SB Docket No. 25-157; FCC 25-23; FR ID 294294]
Modernizing Spectrum Sharing for Satellite Broadband
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission
(Commission or we) seeks comment on modernizing spectrum sharing
between geostationary (GSO) and non-geostationary (NGSO) satellite
systems operating in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz
frequency bands in which equivalent power-flux density (EPFD) limits
apply.
DATES: Comments are due July 28, 2025. Reply comments are due August
27, 2025.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by SB Docket No. 25-157,
by any of the following methods:
<bullet> FCC website: <a href="https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
<bullet> People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8dcbceceb8bdb9cdebeeeea3eae2fb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c2848181f7f2f682a4a1a1eca5adb4">[email protected]</span></a> or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Clay DeCell, 202-418-0803,
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#98dbf4f9e1b6dcfddbfdf4f4d8fefbfbb6fff7ee"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="76351a170f58321335131a1a3610151558111900">[email protected]</span></a>.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's Notice
of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), FCC 25-23, adopted April 28, 2025, and
released April 29, 2025. The full text is available online at <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-23A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-23A1.pdf</a>. The document is also
available for inspection and copying during business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. To request
materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities, send an
email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bcfaffff898c88fcdadfdf92dbd3ca"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ccacfcfb9bcb8cceaefefa2ebe3fa">[email protected]</span></a> or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
[[Page 25008]]
Procedural Matters
Comment Filing Requirements
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or
before the dates indicated in the DATES section above. Comments may be
filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
<bullet> Electronic Filers. Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: <a href="https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs">https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs</a>.
<bullet> Paper Filers. Parties who file by paper must include an
original and one copy of each filing.
[cir] Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by
first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
[cir] Hand-delivered or messenger-delivered paper filings for the
Commission's Secretary are accepted between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. by
the FCC's mailing contractor at 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701. All hand deliveries must be held together with
rubber bands or fasteners. Any envelopes and boxes must be disposed of
before entering the building.
[cir] Commercial courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S.
Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis
Junction, MD 20701.
[cir] Filings sent by U.S. Postal Service First-Class Mail,
Priority Mail, and Priority Mail Express, must be sent to 45 L Street
NE, Washington, DC 20554.
<bullet> People with Disabilities. To request materials in
accessible formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), send an email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7e181d1d4b4e4a3e181d1d50191108">[email protected]</a> or
call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530
(voice), 202-418-0432 (TTY).
Ex Parte Presentations
Pursuant to 47 CFR 1.1200(a), this proceeding will 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. 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 47 CFR 1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
47 CFR 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). Participants in this proceeding
should familiarize themselves with the Commission's ex parte rules.
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that an agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for notice-
and-comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that
``the rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the
Commission has prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
(IRFA) concerning the possible impact of potential rule and policy
changes contained in the NPRM on small entities. The IRFA is set forth
in Appendix A of the Commission document, <a href="https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-23A1.pdf">https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-25-23A1.pdf</a>. The Commission invites the general public,
in particular small businesses, to comment on the IRFA. Comments must
be filed by the deadlines for comments indicated on the first page of
this document and must have a separate and distinct heading designating
them as responses to the IRFA.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This document does not contain proposed information collections
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-
13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any new or modified
information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act
of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).
Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act
Consistent with the Providing Accountability Through Transparency
Act, Public Law 118-9, a summary of this document will be available on
<a href="https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings">https://www.fcc.gov/proposed-rulemakings</a>.
Synopsis
I. Introduction
1. The United States' pursuit of space leadership demands that the
Commission's rules stay ahead of the rapidly unfolding space
innovations that are providing massive consumer benefit to Americans.
Our nation's commercial space industry is already delivering services
that are changing lives, from connecting rural families with high-
speed, low latency broadband to enabling life-saving communications in
rural places as well as forests, mountains, and wilderness areas. And
every indication is that this is only at the beginning. In a matter of
years--with the right framework in place--the U.S. space industry will
be delivering even faster high-speed services, will bring more
competition and choice for consumers, and will support entirely new
categories of innovation to keep America the strongest and safest
nation on Earth. It is imperative the Commission does everything
possible to clear the way for American innovation and investment in
space excellence.
2. With this goal at the forefront, in the NPRM, we initiate a
review of the decades-old spectrum sharing regime between geostationary
(GSO) and non-geostationary (NGSO) satellite systems operating in the
10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands that represents the
single most constraining regulatory requirement on NGSO satellite
systems currently deploying at breakneck speed. By taking a fresh look
at today's satellite technology and operations, this proceeding will
ensure highly efficient and effective use of the shared spectrum, and
support a more efficient and competitive market for satellite broadband
and other in-demand services while uncapping the potential of satellite
constellations that were unthinkable when the current regime was
developed, to the ultimate benefit of American consumers.
[[Page 25009]]
II. Background
3. Overview. Recent years have witnessed unprecedented growth and
innovation in the satellite marketplace. New NGSO satellite operators
have launched thousands of satellites in the span of a few years, and
have begun to offer high-speed, low-latency broadband services.
Established GSO satellite operators continue to deploy powerful, new
satellites with enhanced capabilities. By one estimate, the supply of
high-throughput satellite capacity tripled between 2021 and 2023, with
NGSO operators accounting for over 90% of the net supply. GSO and NGSO
satellites are helping bridge the digital divide.
4. These services rely on a spectrum access system predicated on
different systems--satellite as well as terrestrial--sharing the same
spectrum bands and rules that enable them to coexist. In frequency
bands between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz, NGSO fixed-satellite service (FSS)
systems share FSS allocations with GSO FSS networks, and must also
operate compatibly with broadcasting-satellite service (BSS) networks
and stations in other services, including terrestrial services. NGSO
FSS systems must comply with power limits expressed in equivalent
power-flux density (EPFD) to protect GSO FSS and BSS networks, and
separate power limits expressed in power-flux density (PFD) to protect
terrestrial services. Within the 10.7-30 GHz range, NGSO FSS EPFD
downlink limits apply in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-
20.2 GHz bands in the United States. Applicants for NGSO FSS space
station licenses, and non-U.S.-licensed satellite operators seeking
access to the U.S. market, must certify that they will comply with the
specified EPFD limits. Prior to initiating service, NGSO FSS operators'
EPFD showings submitted to the International Telecommunication Union
(ITU) must receive a ``favorable'' or ``qualified favorable'' finding
by the ITU Radiocommunication Bureau (BR).
5. EPFD History. Early proponents of NGSO FSS systems in the 1990s
prompted the international community, and the Commission, to develop
sharing criteria for NGSO FSS systems to share frequencies with
incumbent GSO networks. In 1997, the ITU World Radiocommunication
Conference (WRC) first adopted provisional EPFD limits for NGSO FSS
systems operating in the Ku-band and Ka-band. These preliminary EPFD
limits were studied during the 1998-2000 ITU-R study period. Final EPFD
limits were adopted at WRC-2000. The Commission added the ITU's Ku-band
EPFD limits to its rules in 2000, incorporated the Ka-band EPFD limits
into its rules in 2017, and extended EPFD limits to new NGSO FSS
operations in the 17.3-17.8 GHz band in 2024.
6. In 2019, the international community again considered sharing
criteria among GSO and NGSO FSS systems, this time in the higher Q- and
V-bands between 37.5 GHz and 51.4 GHz. WRC-19 did not adopt EPFD limits
in these bands, however. Instead, it required NGSO FSS systems to
protect GSO networks under specific short-term and long-term protection
criteria that incorporate a degraded throughput methodology.
7. Current ITU Work. WRC-23 considered a proposal from the Inter-
American Telecommunication Commission (CITEL) co-signed by ten member
states, including the United States, to review the EPFD limits under a
future agenda item for WRC-27. While the proposed agenda item was not
adopted, WRC-23 invited ITU-R to conduct technical studies on the EPFD
limits and to inform WRC-27 of the results of the studies, without any
regulatory consequences. These studies are being carried out in ITU-R
Working Party (WP) 4A.
8. Petition for Rulemaking. On August 9, 2024, SpaceX filed a
petition for rulemaking asking the Commission to revisit the NGSO-GSO
sharing regime in downlink frequency bands between 10.7 GHz and 30 GHz
that are subject to EPFD limits and to amend Sec. Sec. 25.146 and
25.289 of the Commission's rules. SpaceX argues that the EPFD limits
referenced in these rule sections are based on ``flawed and outdated
assumptions'' that result in inefficient spectrum sharing between GSO
and NGSO systems. SpaceX states that compliance with EPFD limits
imposes ``wide-ranging constraints and costs on virtually all aspects
of next-generation'' NGSO FSS systems. SpaceX asks that the Commission
develop an updated sharing framework, with appropriate short-term and
long-term GSO protection criteria and realistic GSO reference links,
that NGSO FSS operators could use in the United States as an
alternative to compliance with the current EPFD limits in these bands.
9. The Commission sought comment on the Petition on October 2,
2024. Seven comments, two oppositions, and eight reply comments were
filed. Most parties support a review of the current EPFD limits.
Several argue the Commission should initiate a rulemaking now, while
others suggest the Commission postpone until further ITU developments.
Viasat, which has previously urged the Commission to rethink the Ka-
band EPFD limits, opposes the Petition and argues that current EPFD
limits must be preserved. EchoStar cites particular concerns regarding
the BSS and terrestrial operations in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band in its
opposition to the Petition.
III. Discussion
A. SpaceX Petition for Rulemaking
10. Given the Commission's obligation ``to make available, so far
as possible, to all the people of the United States . . . world-wide
wire and radio communication service'' and given the slow pace of
international progress relative to the rapid sprint at which the
American space industry is operating, we recognize that now is the time
for us to act to ensure America leads the way to the future of space.
Therefore, after review of the Petition and the comments and
oppositions filed, we conclude that the record on the Petition
discloses sufficient reasons to justify initiating a rulemaking
proceeding seeking further comment on the proposal. Indeed, the time is
ripe to revisit the NGSO-GSO sharing regime in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-
18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz frequency bands developed a quarter century
ago. Modern NGSO satellite constellations delivering high-speed
broadband connectivity bear little resemblance to the theoretical NGSO
systems considered in the 1990s. Satellite technologies and spectrum
management techniques have evolved. NGSO modeling has improved. GSO
networks have continued to innovate.
11. Despite the ongoing revolution in the FSS marketplace,
compliance with EPFD limits based on 90s-era system designs
significantly limits the services offered by NGSO broadband satellite
constellations today. To comply with these limits, NGSO system
designers state that they adjust four key operational parameters of
their systems, each of which can affect the quality of service
experienced by the end user. First, they limit radiated power levels
(effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)), reducing signal quality on
the ground and making it harder to ensure a consistently high level of
service. Second, they implement wide ``avoidance angles'' of the
geostationary arc, which can reduce the coverage of the entire system
as other satellites are diverted to fill in the gap created by
satellites that may not transmit because they fall within the
``avoidance angle.'' Third, they restrict the number of satellites
simultaneously serving a particular location on the ground (Nco),
constraining the number of co-frequency beams that an NGSO system may
place
[[Page 25010]]
in one area and thereby limiting its ability to increase capacity
resulting in less efficient spectrum sharing. And fourth, they employ
higher earth station antenna minimum elevation angles, which, in
combination with GSO avoidance angles, reduce the area of the sky above
these earth stations that NGSO operators have available, affecting
service as well as coordination options with other NGSO operators.
Under current ITU regulations, EPFD limits must be met at every
location on Earth, even locations in which a GSO network has no earth
stations present. As a result, some percentage of NGSO satellites and
their capacity cannot be utilized to serve consumers even where there
is no risk of harmful downlink interference to GSO networks. Current
NGSO systems, however, can be flexible in controlling the amount of
power transmitted in each beam and precise in how those beams are
directed to a particular location on the ground as the satellite
traverses its orbit. In total, compliance with the current EPFD limits
constrains NGSO systems and directly degrades the efficiency of
spectrum use by these systems.
12. Beyond their significant impact on burgeoning NGSO systems, the
particular EPFD limits themselves have raised questions as to whether
they constitute the most efficient spectrum sharing regime for GSO and
NGSO systems in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz
bands. As an illustrative example in the Ku-band, one initial study has
indicated that if GSO satellite operators were required to meet the
current NGSO FSS EPFD limits with respect to other GSO operators, it
would require an orbital separation of between 25-30 degrees between
GSO satellites, which is four-to-five times more restrictive than the
six-degree separation that GSO operators have determined would lead to
negligible interference internationally, and 12-to-15 times more
restrictive than the longstanding two-degree spacing rules the
Commission has determined promotes more efficient GSO FSS operations in
the United States. Similarly, in the Ka-band, if the current NGSO FSS
EPFD limits that apply in the 19.7-20.2 GHz band had to be met among
GSO FSS operators, it could require GSO orbital separations of 46
degrees--more than five times the GSO separation of eight degrees used
internationally, and 23 times the GSO separation used for service in
the United States. Potential internal inconsistencies in the NGSO FSS
EPFD limits also stand out. In the Ka-band, the NGSO FSS EPFD limit in
the upper portion of the band is 15 dB (31.6 times) lower than the NGSO
FSS EPFD limit in the lower portion of the band, despite only a 1.1
gigahertz separation between the two. And the overall methodology used
to derive the current NGSO FSS EPFD limits, including whether it
incorporated an appropriate long-term protection criteria, or used
unrealistic GSO reference links, has also been questioned by parties.
13. Initiating a review of the current NGSO-GSO sharing regime in
the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands in the United
States is consistent with longstanding Commission precedent and
priorities. Indeed, the cornerstone of Commission policy on GSO-GSO FSS
spectrum sharing, premised on two-degree orbital spacing between GSO
satellites, resulted from independent Commission consideration and is a
departure from more conservative spacings of six degrees or greater
applied internationally. Our closer-spacing allowances for GSO FSS
satellites have enabled more satellites to serve the United States for
decades, enhancing competition and service offerings for American
consumers. More recently, the Commission has adopted clear rules for
NGSO-NGSO FSS spectrum sharing while comparable international guidance
remains long under development. Even when adopting the current Ka-band
EPFD limits into our rules, the Commission noted that they ``were not
developed with the most advanced modern GSO networks in mind'' but it
concluded that, in the absence of any alternative limits proposed on
the record, ``it would not be advisable to remain without Ka-band EPFD
limits in our rules pending such deliberations.'' Similarly, last year
when the Commission adopted EPFD limits on new NGSO FSS operation in
the 17.3-17.8 GHz band, consistent with decisions taken at WRC-23, the
Commission noted international efforts to modernize EPFD limits and
stated that it may reevaluate its rules considering international
technical developments. This rulemaking will provide a dedicated forum
for the Commission to reassess the complex technical issues associated
with NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-
20.2 GHz bands, including any international technical developments.
14. The status of international work in this area also supports a
review by the Commission for services in the United States of the
current NGSO-GSO sharing regime reflected in EPFD limits. ITU-R studies
are ongoing, as they have been for years. There is no explicit item on
the agenda for WRC-27 to review EPFD limits, and the invitation for
ITU-R study of the matter during the current study period includes the
phrase ``without any regulatory consequences.'' Initiating our review
of the NGSO-GSO sharing regime now will enable us to have a full record
to make any needed changes to our rules for the benefits of any revised
NGSO-GSO sharing regime to American consumers in a timely manner. While
we move forward on behalf of consumers in the United States, we will
continue to monitor and participate in international studies and share
our experience with other countries. We anticipate a Commission
rulemaking may spur additional discussion and technical analyses that
benefit international deliberations as well. We are happy to lead in
this way and encourage the international community to modernize their
domestic as well as international frameworks. As we start this
proceeding, however, our primary focus will be on developing a domestic
record that will enable the Commission to make an informed decision
with the best interests of American consumers in mind. International
updates can be done in due course.
15. While the suitability of existing NGSO FSS EPFD limits to the
modern satellite environment is therefore in need of a fresh review,
the fundamental importance of ensuring compatibility between NGSO FSS
systems and GSO FSS and BSS networks remains unchanged. Modern
satellites in GSO and NGSO orbits are helping bridge the digital divide
across the United States, particularly in the most rural areas of the
country where it may be uneconomical to build terrestrial networks. GSO
and NGSO FSS satellites currently under construction are expected to
offer broadband connectivity at fiber-like speeds. At the same time,
GSO BSS satellites continue to serve millions of satellite television
subscribers.
16. GSO and NGSO satellites also coexist in shared and adjacent
spectrum environments with other services, including terrestrial and
radio astronomy services. This proceeding will not change the existing
PFD limits that apply to GSO and NGSO systems to protect terrestrial
services. However, we will consider how any modifications to the NGSO-
GSO sharing regime might affect terrestrial and radio astronomy
stations.
17. While NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing conditions vary in different
portions of the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands,
this proceeding will provide a single U.S. forum for the complex
technical
[[Page 25011]]
discussions that underlie NGSO-GSO sharing in all of the bands, as well
as flexibility to consider operations in different frequency segments
individually. We believe that initiating multiple NGSO-GSO sharing
proceedings based on different frequency bands would risk
multiplication of the substantial technical work and discussions
necessary to evaluate this difficult issue. Particular concerns
associated with any potential alternative frameworks will be considered
based on this record.
18. In light of the above, the oppositions to the Petition do not
justify its dismissal or denial. Contrary to Viasat's claims,
initiating a domestic review of the NGSO-GSO sharing regime is fully
consistent with Commission precedent promoting efficient spectrum
sharing in the United States. Echostar's objections do not counsel
against initiating a rulemaking given that it would have an opportunity
to submit comments and contribute to developing the technical record in
this rulemaking. Domestic rulemaking will enhance, not ``jeopardize,''
ongoing international discussions. Developing a technical record in
this proceeding, without any proposed rules, also does not constitute
``rash action.'' There is no inconsistency between the Commission's
prior decision not to have its staff duplicate the time-consuming
technical review of EPFD showings that is already performed by the
staff of the ITU BR, using ITU-approved software, and our decision to
revisit the sharing regime itself, which could substantially improve
efficiency and competition. Nor will including the 12.2-12.7 GHz band
in this rulemaking prejudge the outcome of the separate 12 GHz band
rulemaking; on the contrary, excluding the band here would forgo the
important technical record to be developed in this proceeding. Finally,
EchoStar's assertion that derogation from international EPFD limits
``prior to an ITU consensus would also result in harmful interference
and disruption of service'' cannot simply be accepted. Such a claim
must specify in detail what the change would be, and the Commission
must analyze these claims. However, in any event, the concerns EchoStar
raises can be fully evaluated in the context of this rulemaking prior
to any decision on a potential alternative NGSO-GSO sharing framework.
Accordingly, we deny the oppositions to initiating a rulemaking on
these issues.
B. NPRM
19. Overview. The NPRM seeks to develop a substantial technical
record concerning modern and efficient spectrum sharing among NGSO FSS
systems and GSO FSS and BSS networks in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and
19.7-20.2 GHz bands, while ensuring that any rule changes do not affect
the continued protection of co-frequency terrestrial services. We seek
comment on how the satellite industry has changed since ITU EPFD limits
were adopted in 2000; how the current limits protect GSO networks and
impact NGSO systems; what a modern, realistic set of GSO reference
links would be; what short-term and long-term GSO protection criteria
would be appropriate; methodological considerations; alternative NGSO-
GSO sharing frameworks; information sharing; aggregate interference;
protection of terrestrial stations and radio astronomy; cross-border
considerations; compliance; costs and benefits; NGSO-GSO sharing in
additional frequency bands; and transitional measures. A robust record
developed from these inquiries will assist the Commission in promoting
a more competitive and efficient marketplace for satellite broadband
and other services in these bands.
20. Changes since 2000. As an initial matter, we invite comment on
what relevant changes have taken place in the satellite industry since
the adoption of EPFD limits by the ITU in 2000. How have the
assumptions underlying this NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing regime changed?
How have the capabilities and techniques of current and future GSO
networks changed regarding their ability to share spectrum? How has
NGSO system design changed? Are the modeling assumptions used in the
verification of compliance with EPFD limits, such as continuous
transmission at maximum power or the use of a worst-case geometry
algorithm, realistic with respect to current NGSO operations? Are the
protection criteria (e.g., interference-to-noise (I/N) ratios)
assumptions still valid or do current satellite technology and design
warrant different criteria?
21. Current EPFD Protection of GSOs. Next, we invite comment on
whether the current NGSO EPFD limits may overprotect modern GSO
networks. What levels of protection (short-term and long-term) do GSO
networks reasonably require? Are the current EPFD limits appropriate
for those requirements? What levels of protection do the current EPFD
limits offer to GSO networks? If a modern NGSO system is compliant with
the EPFD limits, what is the expected loss in throughput or increase in
unavailability for a modern GSO satellite link that relies on Adaptive
Coding and Modulation (ACM)? Does this expected level of degradation
vary for gateways and user terminal earth stations? What is the level
of short-term protection provided by current NGSO EPFD limits to GSO
satellite links that do not rely on ACM? How do these levels of
protection compare to other sources of interference, such as
attenuation due to atmospheric conditions such as rain or interference
from other GSO networks? How do these levels of protection compare to
any triggers for coordination? Are the protection criteria on which the
EPFD limits are based (e.g., I/N ratios) still valid?
22. Current Impact on NGSOs. At the same time, do the current EPFD
limits overly restrict modern NGSO operations? What are the impacts of
the operational changes that NGSO FSS systems make to comply with the
current EPFD limits on the quality or availability of service within
the United States? To what extent would NGSO systems be able to offer
higher capacity or better service in certain areas with less
restrictive limits? We encourage commenters to submit studies showing
the impact of less restrictive limits on capacity and other measures of
service quality.
23. What GSO arc avoidance angles, or restrictions on where NGSO
FSS systems can steer their antenna beams to prevent in-line
interference events with GSO satellite networks, are NGSO operators
adopting to comply with current EPFD limits, and how do those differ
from the angles they could operate with under less restrictive limits?
How do they differ from the equivalent separation angles used by GSO
satellites for inter-arc sharing? How much must NGSO operators restrict
their power levels to ensure compliance with EPFD limits and how do
they implement such power level changes? Do they need to restrict their
power levels differently in different bands given the EPFD limits? What
Nco, representing the number of co-frequency, co-polarization satellite
beams transmitting to a given point on the Earth's surface
simultaneously, must NGSO operators adopt to comply with the EPFD
limits? What Nco could NGSO operators adopt if these limits were not in
place, and how would that change their available capacity? Given how
the EPFD limits were designed, how well do modern NGSO operations map
onto the EPFD limits? Is it plausible for a modern NGSO operator to
take full advantage of the required masks, or are the masks more
restrictive than they appear? How do these levels of restriction differ
in the Ku-band and the Ka-band?
24. GSO Reference Links. We also seek input on developing a set of
[[Page 25012]]
modern GSO reference links to be used for analysis. What are the most
representative GSO links used in the United States today? What is an
appropriate set of GSO FSS reference links in these bands? What is an
appropriate set of GSO BSS reference links in these bands? Which of
these links use ACM, and which do not? What is the actual antenna
pattern performance for these GSO earth stations? How many locations
should be used in analyzing GSO reference links, and how can the
Commission ensure that those analyzed appropriately reflect the impact
of differing geographies on performance? What would be appropriate rain
and interference margin for proposed links, and what would be their
carrier-to-noise (C/N) below which the GSO link is lost? What is the
receive system noise temperature of these reference links? What
criteria should be used for evaluating the potential for harmful
interference? What, if anything, should be apportioned for margin above
that criteria? Are there any additional costs associated with
developing the GSO reference links? If so, we seek estimates of these
costs.
25. Protection of GSOs That Use ACM. What is the appropriate
methodology for protecting GSO operations that use ACM? In the NGSO-
NGSO sharing context, the Commission has made use of a degraded
throughput methodology, with a long-term protection criterion
representing a percentage of time-weighted average throughput
degradation and a short-term protection criterion representing a
percentage of absolute increase in link unavailability. A degraded
throughput methodology could be implemented by requiring NGSO FSS
operators to demonstrate that they will comply with short-term and
long-term protection criteria for GSO FSS and GSO BSS networks. We
tentatively conclude that degraded throughput is a more appropriate
methodology to use in the context of NGSO-GSO sharing when the GSO
satellite uses ACM. What are the appropriate protection criteria? Is
there any reason to think those criteria should be higher or lower, or
should differ between gateways and user terminals or based on whether
the earth station is using the Ku-band, the lower Ka-band, or the upper
Ka-band? Is there a better methodology available to establish the
actual impact an NGSO operator is likely to have on a GSO link that
uses ACM? In establishing a methodology and thresholds, how should the
Commission balance the need for protection of GSO incumbents with
maximizing the benefits of NGSO systems? Should the Commission provide
NGSO operators with the same flexibility it did in the NGSO-NGSO
sharing context to adjust their operations to meet the new methodology
and thresholds?
26. Protection of GSOs That Do Not Use ACM. What is the appropriate
methodology for protecting GSO operations that do not use ACM? Is a
degraded throughput methodology appropriate for such links, and if so,
what changes would be needed to the methodology to account for the lack
of ACM? Should the only criterion be a short-term protection criterion?
If so, what would an appropriate short-term protection criterion be?
Alternatively, would an I/N threshold be a more appropriate long-term
protection criterion for GSO links that do not use ACM? If the
Commission were to adopt an I/N threshold, what should it be and how
can the Commission ensure that such a threshold reflects the necessary
protection requirements of GSO operations? If the Commission were to
adopt an I/N threshold, what should be the associated percentage of
time? If the Commission were to adopt such a long-term threshold, what
should the short-term protection criterion be for such links, if any?
Finally, what is the approximate number and percentage of FSS, BSS GSO
satellites that currently do not use ACM?
27. Methodology. What modeling assumptions should underlie any
methodology? For example, should the Commission adopt a minimum link
availability threshold to guard against the risk of low-performing
links? Should the Commission adopt standardized reference C/N threshold
values to account for the performance of efficient, modern modems and
receivers? Should the Commission adopt a minimum receiver performance
standard, such as a limit on the receiver noise temperature? Should the
Commission incorporate interference from other GSO operations into the
baseline calculations for any methodology? What is the level of static
interference that a GSO network should accept from its neighboring GSO
satellites? Should the Commission require the use of particular rain-
fade characteristics, such as those found in Recommendations ITU-R
P.618 or P.676?
28. Alternative NGSO-GSO Sharing Frameworks. More generally, we
seek comment on what NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing framework should apply
in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 17.3-18.6 GHz, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. In light
of the Commission's recent decision to use a degraded throughput
methodology when assessing inter-round interference among NGSO FSS
systems, and international adoption of a degraded throughput
methodology for the protection of GSO networks from NGSO systems in in
bands between 37.5 GHz and 51.4 GHz, we tentatively conclude that a
similar degraded throughput methodology would offer a more efficient
alternative to spectrum sharing among NGSO and GSO systems that use ACM
and operate in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. To
that end, we propose that the Commission ultimately adopt backstop
short-term and long-term interference protection criteria against which
to assess interference into modern, realistic and validated GSO
reference links. Consistent with the NGSO-NGSO sharing regime, we
believe any short-term interference protection criterion should assess
the absolute change in unavailability against a minimum availability
threshold and any long-term interference protection criterion for GSO
reference links using ACM should use a degraded throughput methodology.
We also tentatively conclude that allowing NGSO systems to operate at a
minimum avoidance angle from operational satellites in the GSO arc,
such as four degrees, may provide a reasonable backstop in cases where
realistic GSO reference links are unavailable for evaluating possible
interference. We seek comment on the foregoing. In addition, should the
Commission require GSO and NGSO operators to coordinate in good faith
in these bands? Should the Commission continue to require NGSO
operators not to cause unacceptable interference into GSO networks,
absent coordination? Should the Commission instead require GSO
operators to not cause unacceptable interference into NGSO systems in
these bands, absent coordination, as the Commission requires in the
18.8-19.3 GHz downlink band, and what would be the benefits and costs
of this alternative to both GSO and NGSO operations? Should any
protections offered to GSO operations be uniform in scope, or should
they be tailored to the actual usage in particular orbital slots?
Should any protections offered to GSO operations be the same for earth
stations in motion as those offered to fixed earth stations?
Alternatively, should the Commission revise the current spectrum
sharing methodology, which relies on EPFD limits?
29. Information Sharing. What information, if any, should GSO
operators be required to share to facilitate efficient spectrum use?
Should GSO operators be required to share the
[[Page 25013]]
actual antenna patterns of their deployed earth stations to the extent
they differ from those in public records? Should GSO operators be
required to share their actual power levels or other system
characteristics that could impact their baseline operations? Should GSO
operators be required to share the actual spectrum used or spectrum
usage patterns of particular satellites to maximize spectral
efficiency? Should GSO operators be required to identify links that
require particular interference protection as well as the basis for any
such heightened need? Should GSO operators be required to share whether
their networks rely on ACM and, if not, the link budgets they use? To
the extent a GSO network has blanket-authorized earth stations (such as
user terminals), should a GSO operator be required to share whether any
such stations are in a given area (so as to avoid protecting stations
that do not exist)? What confidentiality measures may be needed to
facilitate information sharing when viewing potentially commercially
sensitive operational data? What are the estimated costs associated
with information sharing?
30. Aggregate Interference. How should we address the potential for
aggregate interference from multiple NGSO systems into a GSO network?
Should we continue to rely on an approach similar to ITU-R Resolution
76 or ITU-R Resolution 769? How should we address any implementation
issues regarding aggregate limits? Is an aggregate limit on NGSO-GSO
interference in fact necessary to prevent harmful interference, or
might the cost of such regulation outweigh its benefits and create an
unjustified obstacle to NGSO deployment? In the context of NGSO-NGSO
spectrum sharing, the Commission declined to create an aggregate
interference threshold. Should we follow a similar approach here?
Should we rely on coordination among NGSO and GSO operators to resolve
potential issues of aggregate interference?
31. Protection of Terrestrial Operations. How would any changes to
the NGSO-GSO sharing regime affect co-frequency terrestrial operations?
If current EPFD limits are not met, would any additional constraints on
NGSO FSS operation be necessary to protect terrestrial wireless
operations, beyond the existing PFD limits? How should the Commission
ensure that terrestrial services in different portions of the 10.7-
12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands are not adversely impacted?
32. Radio Astronomy. We note the extensive recent record of
successful coordination and cooperation between radio astronomy systems
and satellite systems, facilitated in part by previous FCC rulemakings.
Would any additional considerations with respect to NGSO FSS operation
be necessary to protect radio astronomy operations, beyond the existing
PFD limits? How would any changes to the NGSO-GSO sharing regime affect
co-frequency or adjacent-band radio astronomy operations, and how
should the Commission ensure that successful coordination continue?
33. Cross-Border Considerations. We invite comments on cross-border
considerations and any safeguards that may be needed to protect GSO
operations in neighboring countries. We seek comment on any needed
bilateral engagements to alleviate cross-border interference concerns
in our region and share our experience, the record of this proceeding,
and our findings. How should the Commission coordinate operations near
the borders of Canada and Mexico, and how close to the border would
NGSO operations need to be to qualify for such coordination? Are there
any other jurisdictions that the Commission would need to coordinate
with? We will continue to work with our regional and international
partners and participate in international studies in various venues. We
believe that this rulemaking may spur additional discussion and
technical analyses that benefit the international deliberations. With
respect to cross-border considerations, commenters should identify the
concerns and provide qualitative and quantitative analysis of their
proposals.
34. Compliance. How should the Commission assess compliance with
any new NGSO-GSO sharing framework? Would such a framework require
additional monitoring and enforcement on the part of the Commission?
What additional compliance costs would be associated with such
monitoring and enforcement? Should NGSO operators be required to
demonstrate compliance in their initial application or should
authorization be conditional on later showings of compliance? Should
NGSO operators be allowed to use information gathered through
coordination discussions with other operators, or required to use
public information? Are there any incremental costs that NGSO and GSO
operators may incur with a new NGSO-GSO sharing framework that moves
away from requiring NGSO operators receiving a ``favorable'' or
``qualified favorable'' finding by the ITU BR prior to initiating
service? Are confidentiality protections needed for such filings, for
example if they rely on proprietary or competitively sensitive
information?
35. Costs and Benefits. We seek specific information on the
benefits and costs associated with any proposals for alternative NGSO-
GSO sharing frameworks. What are the economic benefits of less
restrictive limits on NGSO operations for U.S. consumers and the
aggregate economy of the United States? What costs could less
restrictive limits potentially impose on GSO services provided to U.S.
consumers or for terrestrial services in the United States? Would less
restrictive limits lead to increased compliance and monitoring costs
near the borders of Canada and Mexico? Would an alternative NGSO-GSO
sharing framework incur additional compliance and monitoring costs? We
also seek comment on any additional costs or benefits not outlined
above.
36. Additional Frequency Bands. Beyond seeking comment on revisions
to the NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing regime in the FSS downlink frequency
bands 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz, we also seek comment on
whether the Commission should explore updates to the NGSO-GSO sharing
regime in other frequency bands subject to ITU EPFD limits, as well as
in V-band frequencies. How would the analyses for each of the
categories of inquiry described above change for each additional
frequency band? How would consideration of any additional frequency
bands affect the timing of potential action on the request in the
SpaceX Petition to revisit NGSO-GSO sharing in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-
18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands?
37. Transition to New Rules. Finally, we propose that the current
GSO protections in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands
must ultimately sunset to ensure they do not unduly limit competition,
innovation, and spectral efficiency among next-generation NGSO systems
that deliver high-speed, low-latency broadband to consumers. With that
ultimate goal in mind, how should we transition to a new NGSO-GSO
sharing framework in the United States? What time frame(s) would be
reasonable? Under what circumstances would an immediate transition be
appropriate? Are there any particular technologies or services that
would require a longer period of protection under the current EPFD
limits? How should we address existing license conditions that may
conflict with any new rules we adopt? Should we offer current licensees
and market access grantees a simple process to request modification of
their authorizations to conform with any new rules, for example via
letter request?
[[Page 25014]]
IV. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
38. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the
Federal Communications Commission has prepared an IRFA of the possible
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
by the policies and rules proposed in the NPRM. The Commission requests
written public comments on the IRFA. Comments must be identified as
responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines provided on
the first page of the NPRM. The Commission will send a copy of the
NPRM, including the IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the NPRM and IRFA (or
summaries thereof) will be published in the Federal Register.
A. Need for, and Objectives of, the Proposed Rules
39. The NPRM launches a much needed review of the long-standing
spectrum sharing regime between GSO and NGSO satellite systems
operating in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands. The
decades-old spectrum sharing regime constitutes the primary restrictive
regulatory requirement on NGSO satellite systems currently deploying at
breakneck speed. Innovation in the satellite industry has witnessed new
NGSO satellite operators launching thousands of satellites in the short
span of a few years, and these operators are beginning to offer high-
speed, low-latency broadband services. The industry has also seen
existing GSO satellite operators are continuing to deploy powerful, new
satellites with enhanced capabilities. As innovation continues, the
Commission's rules must be at the forefront of the quickly evolving
space industry, encourage investment, and further the objectives of
space leadership by the United States. By taking a fresh look at
today's satellite technology and operations, the NPRM will support a
more efficient and competitive market for satellite broadband and other
in-demand services while uncapping the potential of satellite
constellations that were unthinkable when the current regime was
developed, to the ultimate benefit of American consumers.
40. The NPRM seeks comment to develop a substantial technical
record concerning modern and efficient spectrum sharing among NGSO FSS
systems, GSO FSS, and BSS networks in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6, and
19.7-20.2 GHz bands, while ensuring that any rule changes continue to
safeguard and maintain the protection of co-frequency terrestrial
services. More specifically, the NPRM seeks comment on how the
satellite industry has changed since ITU EPFD limits were adopted in
2000, how the current limits protect GSO networks and impact NGSO
systems, what a modern, realistic set of GSO reference links would be,
what short-term and long-term GSO protection criteria would be
appropriate, methodological considerations, alternative NGSO-GSO
sharing frameworks, information sharing, aggregate interference,
compliance, protection of terrestrial stations, cross-border
considerations, costs and benefits, and transitional measures. A robust
record developed from these inquiries will assist the Commission in
promoting a more competitive and efficient satellite marketplace that
can deliver more high-speed broadband services and choices to the
American public.
B. Legal Basis
41. The proposed action is authorized pursuant to sections 4(i),
7(a), 303, 308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as
amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316.
C. Description and Estimate of the Number of Small Entities To Which
the Proposed Rules Will Apply
42. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where
feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be
affected by the proposed rules and policies, if adopted. The RFA
generally defines the term ``small entity'' as having the same meaning
as the terms ``small business,'' ``small organization,'' and ``small
governmental jurisdiction.'' In addition, the term ``small business''
has the same meaning as the term ``small business concern'' under the
Small Business Act. A ``small business concern'' is one which: (1) is
independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of
operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the
SBA.
43. Satellite Telecommunications. This industry comprises firms
``primarily engaged in providing telecommunications services to other
establishments in the telecommunications and broadcasting industries by
forwarding and receiving communications signals via a system of
satellites or reselling satellite telecommunications.'' Satellite
telecommunications service providers include satellite and earth
station operators. The SBA small business size standard for this
industry classifies a business with $44 million or less in annual
receipts as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that 275 firms
in this industry operated for the entire year. Of this number, 242
firms had revenue of less than $25 million. Consequently, using the
SBA's small business size standard most satellite telecommunications
service providers can be considered small entities. The Commission
notes however, that the SBA's revenue small business size standard is
applicable to a broad scope of satellite telecommunications providers
included in the U.S. Census Bureau's Satellite Telecommunications
industry definition. Additionally, the Commission neither requests nor
collects annual revenue information from satellite telecommunications
providers, and is therefore unable to more accurately estimate the
number of satellite telecommunications providers that would be
classified as a small business under the SBA size standard.
44. All Other Telecommunications. This industry is comprised of
establishments primarily engaged in providing specialized
telecommunications services, such as satellite tracking, communications
telemetry, and radar station operation. This industry also includes
establishments primarily engaged in providing satellite terminal
stations and associated facilities connected with one or more
terrestrial systems and capable of transmitting telecommunications to,
and receiving telecommunications from, satellite systems. Providers of
internet services (e.g., dial-up ISPs) or Voice over Internet Protocol
(VoIP) services, via client-supplied telecommunications connections are
also included in this industry. The SBA small business size standard
for this industry classifies firms with annual receipts of $40 million
or less as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were
1,079 firms in this industry that operated for the entire year. Of
those firms, 1,039 had revenue of less than $25 million. Based on this
data, the Commission estimates that the majority of ``All Other
Telecommunications'' firms can be considered small.
D. Description of Economic Impact and Projected Reporting,
Recordkeeping, and Other Compliance Requirements for Small Entities
45. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of the
projected reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements of
the proposed rule, including an estimate of the classes of small
entities which will be subject to the requirement and the type of
professional skills necessary for preparation of the report or record.
[[Page 25015]]
46. The NPRM seeks to develop a robust technical record on the
current NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing regime in the 10.7-12.7, 17.3-18.6,
and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, and how it might be updated or improved in
light of modern satellite technologies and spectrum management
techniques. The NPRM does not propose any reporting, recordkeeping, or
other compliance requirements. However, matters upon which the NPRM
seeks comment could result in new and/or modified reporting,
recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements for small and other
NGSO and GSO operators. For example, the NPRM seeks comment on what, if
any, information GSO operators should be required to share to
facilitate the efficient use of spectrum, and whether NGSO operators
should be required to demonstrate compliance with any new NGSO-GSO
sharing framework that may be adopted in their initial application or
whether authorization should be conditional on later showings of
compliance.
47. With regard to the compliance costs for small entities, the
NPRM initiates a review to take a ``fresh-look'' at current technology
and operations in the satellite industry, thus, at this time the record
does not include sufficient cost and/or economic analyses to allow the
Commission to quantify the costs of compliance for small entities,
including whether it will be necessary for small entities to hire
professionals to comply with any rules that may be adopted in this
proceeding. Information the Commission receives in comments may include
analyses of the costs and benefits of various alternative NGSO-GSO
sharing frameworks and their associated requirements which should help
the Commission assess any compliance costs for small entities. Industry
input should also allow the Commission to identify and evaluate
additional matters and burdens relevant to small entities that may
result from the inquiries we make in this proceeding.
E. Discussion of Significant Alternatives That Minimize the Significant
Economic Impact on Small Entities
48. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of any
significant alternatives to the proposed rules that would accomplish
the stated objectives of applicable statutes, and minimize any
significant economic impact on small entities. The discussion is
required to include alternatives such as: ``(1) the establishment of
differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take
into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the
clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and
reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the
use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption
from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small
entities.''
49. The NPRM seeks comment on various alternatives to develop the
most efficient and effective use of the shared spectrum in the 10.7-
12.7, 17.3-18.6, and 19.7-20.2 GHz bands, and to assess any alternative
NGSO-GSO sharing framework in the these bands proposed by commenters on
the NPRM. For example, the NPRM seeking input on the appropriate
methodology for protecting GSO operations that use ACM inquires whether
NGSO operators should be afforded the same flexibility to adjust their
operations to meet any new methodology and thresholds similar to what
the Commission provided in the NGSO-NGSO sharing context. The NPRM also
seeks to explore the appropriate methodology for protecting GSO
operations that do not use ACM and requests comment on whether short-
term protection criterion should be the only protection criterion, or
alternatively, whether a long-term protection criterion such as an
interference-to-noise (I/N) threshold may be a more appropriate
threshold for GSO links that do not use ACM. Regarding what modeling
assumptions should underlie any methodology, the NPRM raises
alternatives such as whether the Commission should adopt a minimum link
availability threshold to guard against risk of low-performing links;
adopt standardized reference C/N threshold values to account for the
performance of efficient, modern modems and receivers; adopt a minimum
receiver performance standard, such as a limit on the receiver noise
temperature; incorporate interference from other GSO operations into
the baseline calculations for any methodology; or require the use of
particular rain-fade characteristics, such as those found in
Recommendations ITU-R P.618 or P.676.
50. The alternative NGSO-GSO spectrum sharing framework inquiry in
the NPRM requests input on whether the Commission should continue to
require NGSO operators not to cause unacceptable interference into GSO
networks, absent coordination, or in the alternative require GSO
operators to not cause unacceptable interference into NGSO systems,
absent coordination. The NPRM also seeks comment on whether any
protections offered to GSO operations should be uniform in scope, or
should they be tailored to the actual usage in particular orbital
slots. As part of the record the Commission seeks to develop on
information sharing, and what if any, information GSO operators should
be required to share to facilitate the efficient use of spectrum, the
NPRM also inquires whether GSO operators should be required to share
certain information including the actual antenna patterns of their
deployed earth stations to the extent they differ from those in public
records; their actual power levels or other system characteristics that
could impact their baseline operations; the actual spectrum used or
spectrum usage patterns of particular satellites to maximize spectral
efficiency; the identity of links that require particular interference
protection as well as the basis for any such heightened need; and
whether their networks rely on ACM and, if not, the link budgets they
use.
51. Finally, the NPRM's request for comment involving compliance
with, and the transition to, any new NGSO-GSO sharing framework seeks
feedback on whether NGSO operators should be required to demonstrate
compliance in their initial application, or instead should
authorization be conditional on later showings of compliance; whether
the Commission should sunset any protections for inefficient or
outdated technologies or services; and whether to offer current
licensees and market access grantees a simple process to request
modification of their authorizations to conform with any new rules
adopted, such as allowing requests to be made by letter. All of the
above alternatives upon which comment is sought could result in
requirements that have an economic impact on small entities.
52. The Commission expects to fully consider any proposals, and
comments, including costs analyses submitted on the record in response
to the NPRM, and assess whether they would have a significant economic
impact on small entities. Information from industry stakeholders to
create a robust technical record and provide responses to the inquiries
in the NPRM will allow the Commission to better evaluate options and
alternatives for minimization of any significant economic impact on
small entities. The Commission's evaluation of this information will
shape the final alternatives it considers to minimize any significant
economic impact that may occur on small entities, the final conclusions
it reaches, and any final rules it promulgates in this proceeding.
F. Federal Rules That May Duplicate, Overlap, or Conflict With the
Proposed Rules
53. None.
[[Page 25016]]
V. Ordering Clauses
54. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Sec. 1.407 of the
Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.407, that the petition for rulemaking
filed by Space Exploration Holdings, LLC, Revision of the Commission's
Rules to Establish More Efficient Spectrum Sharing between NGSO and GSO
Satellite Systems, RM-11990, is granted, and the oppositions filed by
Viasat, Inc., and EchoStar Corporation are denied.
55. It is further ordered, pursuant to sections 4(i), 7(a), 303,
308(b), and 316 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. 154(i), 157(a), 303, 308(b), 316, that this Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is adopted.
56. It is further ordered that the Commission's Office of the
Secretary shall send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
including the Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief
Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2025-10799 Filed 6-12-25; 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>Indexed from Federal Register on June 13, 2025.
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.