Satellite Interests Push for Broader Part 25 Rules Changes
The FCC doesn't go far enough in proposed unified licensing for satellites and earth stations in the same geostationary orbit (GSO) network, satellite operators and allies said in docket 18-314 comments this week. Many backed other agency suggestions for streamlining Part 25 rules. One area of contention is a proposal to allow applicants to correct application omissions or errors without losing their place in line. Replies are due April 16.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
Rather than just for GSO fixed satellite service operations in specific Ku- and Ka-band frequencies, the dual licensing should be available for all GSO networks, both fixed satellite services and non-FSS, EchoStar/Hughes said, posted Tuesday. It said terrestrial wireless licensees long have enjoyed regulatory flexibility and certainty of unified licensing, and doing so for satellite would put the industry "on a more equal footing."
OneWeb and Maxar Technologies backed expanding the FCC's proposed authorization for geostationary orbit FSS systems and said earth station operations should be expanded to also include non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) systems (see here and here). Like GSO FSS, the NGSO FSS environment has power limits and spectrum sharing rules, and thus "is no less suited to unified licensing," OneWeb said.
ViaSat urged unified authorizations allowed in requests for market access and for satellite networks using shared frequencies. It said most satellite operators wouldn't be able to use the unified licensing approach if it was limited to specific Ku and Ka bands. Eutelsat said the unified license process should be open to non-U.S.-licensed satellites and not replace existing authorizations. Intelsat backed a unified license option, saying the FCC should address the possibility of warehousing that idea creates through bond requirements on earth station buildouts. It supports the FCC's creating a new licensing fee that reflects the earth station and satellite elements of the license, instead of just using satellite application fees.
Penalizing applicants "for obvious 'foot-faults' is unnecessarily punitive" given the consequences of losing place in a processing round or first-come, first-severed queue, said ViaSat, one of several seeking more time to correct application deficiencies to avoid losing a place. ViaSat added the FCC should make clear those corrections and modifications can't constitute major modifications.
SES/O3b opposed changes to the FCC standards and timetable for determining if a Part 25 application is acceptable, saying it would create incentives for trying "to game [agency] processes" by filing practically bare forms as placeholders. SES/O3b said the current standard of having to file substantially complete Form 312s "may not be perfect, but it is infinitely superior to ... no standard at all." Echoed Intelsat, satellite operators "are generally sophisticated applicants" and no one can point to an instance where an application was dismissed due to minor errors or omissions, and there are dangers of gamesmanship with placeholder applications.
Many urged eliminating annual reporting requirements under Section 25.170 and the notification requirements for minor earth station modifications. Eutelsat said having to annually confirm point of contact information is also duplicative and unnecessary and urged it be eliminated. The Section 25.170 annual reports -- which disclose authorized satellites or spectrum unavailable for service and construction progress on replacements -- take up "substantial resources and employee time," Maxar said. Many backed adopting ITU international standards for out-of-band emissions, new buildout deadlines for individually licensed earth stations.
The National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Radio Frequencies, noting how ITU rules protect passive bands from out-of-band-emissions, said those protection levels should be part of new satellite OOBE rules. It said language about OOBE standards is unclear and could lead to eliminating limits on spurious satellite emissions.