SATELLITE INTERESTS CONCERNED ON REALLOCATION OF GLOBAL MSS

The 10 MHz of globally allocated spectrum from 1990-2000 MHz could have been saved if the Commission had decided to take the nonglobally allocated spectrum from 2010-2020 MHz instead, SIA said. By making that decision, it said, “the Commission appears to have abandoned its longstanding support for global spectrum allocations,” even though it has said that consistencies between domestic and global allocations would “help ensure truly universal service.” The Commission said a PCS allocation at 1990-2000 would create “new economies for potential new entrants” with minimal alterations to equipment, but SIA said the same equipment probably would work in the 2010-2020 MHz band, too.

The FCC had cited potential interference as another justification of reallocation, and SIA again disagreed. It said there had been no documented concerns about interference except to the contrary. A wireless network operator presented the Commission with technical analysis that said interference between adjacent PCS networks was more likely than between adjacent PCS and MSS operators using ancillary terrestrial components (ATC), SIA said: “Even if [out of band (OOB)] interference was a valid concern, however, the issue was addressed fully by the Commission through its decision to adopt stringent OOB limits on MSS ATC operations.”

ICO’s petition for reconsideration said the reallocation would cause MSS operators more problems than it would create benefits for others. ICO said that when the Commission asked for an adjustment of the global MSS allocation at the World Radiocommunications Conference (WRC) in 1995, MSS licensees altered their designs to work in the appropriate frequencies. By making this decision, the Commission is about to make the same mistake and “cause enormous practical problems for MSS operators in general and ICO in particular,” ICO said. The company’s “selected assignment” is 1990-1993.88 MHz, which will be eliminated with the reallocation, it said, a problem that the Commission’s decision didn’t take into account or justify in its order.

Celsat said the decision actually did take ICO’s selected assignment into account: “[T]he sole reason the Commission declined to adopt the ‘pairing’ requirement [was] due to the concerns of ICO that the requirement might hinder its ability to share spectrum with incumbent licensees.” Since ICO plans to use ATC, “no public interest benefit will be served by permitting nonpaired selected assignments,” it said.

CTIA’s only complaint was that the FCC hadn’t reallocated all unassigned MSS spectrum: “It does not make sense for such valuable spectrum to lie fallow or be underutilized when other terrestrial services have significant need for additional spectrum.” CTIA also expressed concern that there was additional unused spectrum that the Commission planned to reallocate to remaining licensees. Not only does CTIA consider the decision to be a “subsidization of the failing MSS industry,” it said, but it would serve no public interest or any expressed need from MSS licensees for additional spectrum: “There simply is no justification for dedicating such a large amount of valuable spectrum to remaining MSS licensees, particularly as the number of licensees falls due to missed milestones.” The MSS industry has “serious financial problems” and giving an “unproven service” additional resources doesn’t help, CTIA said.