Satellite Two-Degree Spacing Rules Seen Likely To Survive
The FCC likely will tweak its two-degree satellite spacing rules but not do away with them altogether when commissioners vote Thursday on Part 25 rule changes at their December meeting, one lawyer with a satellite client told us. Much of the industry's lobbying efforts in recent months have involved two-degree spacing, the most contested issue in the agency's array of proposed Part 25 changes (see 1508050034).
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Communications Daily is required reading for senior executives at top telecom corporations, law firms, lobbying organizations, associations and government agencies (including the FCC). Join them today!
The proposed Part 25 rule changes -- in docket 12-267 -- include amendments such as less-burdensome options for milestones and bonds that have been used to deter satellite companies from squatting on assigned spectrum and setting minimum earth station antenna diameter requirements for the routine processing of earth stations. Commissioners likely will streamline the milestone process, reducing the amount of paperwork that must be filed for verification, and amend their filing system procedures so a preliminary submission to the FCC also generates an automatic filing to the ITU, the lawyer said. That would change a procedure that had discouraged filing for a satellite license in the U.S. out of fear someone could see the public data in an FCC filing and leapfrog that filer by submitting an application to the ITU first, the lawyer said. Though the agency proposed setting limits on aggregate equivalent isotropically radiated power density, it likely will opt to do otherwise, reflecting Satellite Industry Association consensus on the issue, Jennifer Manner, EchoStar vice president-regulatory affairs, told us.
Various satellite companies are making last-ditch lobbying efforts on two-degree spacing. In ex parte filings (see here and here) posted Thursday in the docket, Intelsat said company representatives met with Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel and with staff of Commissioner Michael O'Rielly to talk about Part 25 changes, including repeating its oft-made argument for eliminating the two-degree spacing rule or, at the very least, allowing operations to continue at previously coordinated levels (see 1510150041).
Intelsat also said it backed the proposal to require ITU filings before filing for a U.S. satellite license application. "ITU filings are essentially real estate in space," Intelsat said. "The U.S. should want to ensure it has access to these vital assets through adoption of regulatory policies that encourage operators to seek U.S. licenses and enable U.S. licensees to compete globally on an equitable basis." SES met with staff of Chairman Tom Wheeler and of Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Ajit Pai, plus O'Rielly, to argue the opposite, it said in a filing posted Thursday. "Preserving the guarantee that new satellites can operate at reasonable levels pending coordination is critical to prevent a freeze or even reversal of the competitive benefits two-degree spacing has produced," it said, saying every party that commented on spacing -- except Intelsat -- supports preserving the spacing status quo.
The two-degree push by Intelsat is “self-serving” because Intelsat has “the oldest filings in the world and the largest number of them," Gerry Oberst, SES senior vice president-global regulatory and governmental strategy, told us. The proposed change “would be almost solely to their advantage,” Oberst said. The current rules “allow more efficient entry into the market and some assurances” about getting into the market, Oberst said. A reliance on ITU could mean proceedings held up for years as an applicant waits for slower ITU processes, Oberst said. Intelsat didn't comment.
JSAT also is backing a revision to the two-degree spacing rules that would guarantee operation at earlier coordinated levels with respect to any subsequent operator. The current spacing rules "do not protect long-standing, previously coordinated operations," JSAT International President Ryuji Sasaki said in a letter posted Wednesday in the docket.
The NPRM adopted in September 2014 (see 1410010048) follows a separate set of Part 25 rule changes made in 2013 (see 1308120027) that were more generally agreed upon by the satellite industry, one industry official told us. More contentious items were deferred, with the NPRM representing that. The aim of the current batch of Part 25 amendments is "significantly reducing regulatory burdens and costs," Wheeler said this month (see 1511270046), and do hold close to that goal, EchoStar's Manner said. Further proposed Part 25 amendments are inevitable, because those regulations are almost constantly under review for changes, one lawyer said.