The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) Board of Directors elected on Jan. 14 Bill Weller of Space Systems/Loral to serve as chairman for the coming year, SIA said in a press release. The board also elected Stacy Fuller of DirecTV as vice chairman and Jennifer Manner of EchoStar as treasurer.
The Satellite Industry Association urged the FCC not to allocate the entire allotment of 1 percent rise-over-thermal to a secondary Aeronautical Mobile Service allocation if it decides to proceed with such as allocation. Doing so would be inconsistent with an International Telecommunication Union recommendation, “which makes it clear that the 1 percent allotment is for all non-primary sources interference and not any single interfering service,” it said in an ex parte filing in docket 13-114 (http://bit.ly/IPF8qH). The filing recounts a meeting with members of the International and Wireless bureaus and the Office of Engineering and Technology on Qualcomm’s proposal to implement a new secondary AMS allocation in the 14.0-14.5 GHz band, it said. Since there are already other secondary services in various parts of the band, “and there is a realistic possibility of at least one future secondary service ... the proposed AMS should be allotted only a third of the 1% budget,” it said. SIA stressed the need for technical rules for any potential AMS service using realistic antenna gain-to-noise-temperature values for existing current and future fixed satellite services satellites, “and deriving actual and enforceable power limits on any new secondary service that are sufficient to keep the interference caused by this system below 0.33%,” it said.
DigitalGlobe joined the Satellite Industry Association. DigitalGlobe provides high-resolution earth observation and advanced geospatial services and solutions, SIA said in a press release.
The Satellite Industry Association repeated that the FCC grant spectrum allocation changes for federal earth station facilities, but that there isn’t a need “to adopt a co-primary non-Federal allocation in frequencies currently available for launch operations,” in reply comments in docket 13-115 (http://bit.ly/16UH9Gz). The proceeding is to determine whether federal earth stations are to have full protection from interference when operating with commercial satellites (CD May 6 p5). The FCC should adopt SIA’s proposal for enhancing the current status of federal earth stations, it said: Because the FCC would have sole regulatory authority over the space segment of satellite systems operating in the fixed satellite services and mobile satellite services bands, “it can establish conclusively at the outset that its rules will apply to federal government operations, and that the bands will not be shared for regulatory purposes.” Boeing suggested that, to improve non-federal operators’ access to launch spectrum, the FCC should issue two-year experimental licenses instead of six-month special temporary authorizations, it said (http://bit.ly/GzJEIK). The company agreed it isn’t necessary for the FCC to re-engineer the current process by introducing a new co-primary non-federal allocation and associated rules, it said. Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum agreed with Comsearch’s concern that federal use of the extended satellite bands “should not be upgraded from secondary to co-primary, because these bands are extensively used by point-to-point terrestrial microwave stations,” it said (http://bit.ly/16e9onZ). Allowing federal downlinks in these bands that were no longer secondary “would give those sites super primary status because of the commission policy of protecting downlinks on all possible channels and all possible look angles,” EIBASS said. The group objects to allowing federal stations co-primary status in the extended Ku-band segment of 10.7-11.7 GHz, which is heavily used by Part 101 terrestrial FSS stations, it said. The Fixed Wireless Communications Coalition doesn’t object to federal access to non-federal satellite spectrum as long as federal users comply with all established frequency coordination procedures and industry practices, it said (http://bit.ly/171vIhd). FWCC supported Comsearch’s proposals, including requiring federal earth station users seeking to operate in shared non-federal bands to follow the same frequency coordination procedures and industry best practices currently required for non-federal users, it said. The FCC also should delete the extended Ku downlink band “from its proposed policy to provide federal earth stations with protected status, so as to preserve the 10.7-11.7 GHz band for badly needed FSS links,” it said.
Satellite companies and manufacturers urged the FCC to adopt a rule giving federal earth stations operating with commercial satellites full protection from interference. The Satellite Industry Association urged the commission to state in the allocation table that the primary federal allocation for fixed satellite services is limited to earth stations only and that the FCC “has exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over these co-primary allocations ... with NTIA responsible for assignments for federal earth stations that are authorized to operate in these bands,” the SIA said in its comments in docket 13-115 (http://bit.ly/1dHC7pp). There’s no need for change to the spectrum allocations used to support space launches, it said. The association’s launch service providers “are satisfied with access to spectrum for launch services pursuant to special temporary authority as the frequencies have been traditionally specified by the federal launch ranges,” SIA said. EchoStar also urged the FCC to require federal earth station operators “to follow the same rules that govern non-federal earth station licensees, including licensing, coordination, interference protection, technical and ex parte requirements,” it said (http://bit.ly/1dQqIV8). Boeing urged the FCC to increase interference protection for federal earth stations “as long as the chosen approach provides adequate assurances to non-federal users,” it said (http://bit.ly/1fzH0NT). Because such an allocation approach may increase uncertainty over who’s the regulator of the satellite systems operating in these bands, “it may be preferable to avoid the regulatory status questions raised by a co-primary allocation altogether and instead proceed under the proposed interference protection approach via a footnote to the allocation table,” it said. The commission also should avoid limiting the ability of non-federal launches to use the same frequencies as federal launches, “because many launch systems need to support both federal and non-federal missions without costly redesign or replacement of communications hardware,” Boeing said. Lockheed Martin supported SIA’s concern with respect to determining whether a given launch is federal or non-federal for purposes of launch spectrum licensing. The FCC “should avoid inconsistency on this well-settled matter by continuing to follow the FAA’s [Federal Aviation Administration] practice, such that only launches that require FAA licenses are deemed ‘commercial,'” it said (http://bit.ly/17vaYgW).
NAB proposed regulatory language to protect broadcasters and users of Fixed-Satellite Service earth-to-space communications, in a filing at the FCC Monday, if the FCC approves use of the 14 GHz band, on a secondary basis, for better wireless broadband on commercial flights. The Satellite Industry Association questioned whether the band is well suited to in-flight broadband given the interference risks for FSS. In May, the FCC launched a rulemaking seeking comment on a Qualcomm proposal for a terrestrial-based air-ground mobile broadband service in the band (CD May 10 p5).
NAB proposed regulatory language to protect broadcasters and users of Fixed-Satellite Service earth-to-space communications, at a filing at the FCC Monday, if the FCC approves use of the 14 GHz band, on a secondary basis, for better wireless broadband on commercial flights. The Satellite Industry Association questioned whether the band is well suited to in-flight broadband given the interference risks for FSS. In May, the FCC launched a rulemaking seeking comment on a Qualcomm proposal for a terrestrial-based air-ground mobile broadband service in the band (WID May 10 p3).
EchoStar, Intelsat, SES and the Satellite Industry Association urged the FCC to forego action on allegations that incumbent satellite operators are harming competition and warehousing their spectrum. The companies supported dismissing the claims, in reply comments to a notice of inquiry into whether incumbent satellite operators are operating in ways that inhibit competition (CD June 10 p8). The NOI’s proposals “would deter future investment and cast a regulatory cloud over the deployment of new satellites and assets,” SIA said in comments in docket 13-147 (http://bit.ly/12mBk6V). The NOI is premised on misplaced concerns that alleged satellite warehousing practices are restricting consumers’ access to new services and “preventing newer more efficient spacecraft technologies from entering the market,” it said: The industry is highly competitive, “with many providers ... aggressively competing to serve customers in the U.S and abroad.” Unused capacity exists in all terrestrial and satellite communications networks, and for many good reasons, it said. EchoStar agreed, saying unused capacity “benefits consumers by ensuring that supply exceeds demand, thus placing inherent limits on price” (http://bit.ly/172u55P). EchoStar suggested the FCC open a rulemaking proceeding, instead, “to provide satellite licensees with greater flexibility to manage their fleets and implement their systems,” it said. The allegations of vertical foreclosure don’t warrant FCC action, SES said (http://bit.ly/14TMQUn). There is “simply no evidence that would warrant revision of the commission’s policies,” it said. The premise that any slot not occupied by a satellite “operating across all available frequencies and substantially full is being warehoused and restricting competition is totally wrong,” Intelsat said (http://bit.ly/14TOxB0). “If warehousing is to be considered as a competitive constraint, the commission must develop evidence that some enhanced operation is in fact being impeded by less than full utilization of existing licenses.” The NOI stemmed from allegations by Artel, Spacenet and other integrators against Intelsat (CD May 9 p3).
Satellite companies and manufacturers supported the Obama Administration's draft proposals to update the satellite export control regime in comments to the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). The proposals address the transfer of satellite systems and their components from the U.S. munitions list (USML) to the Commerce Control List (CCL). Items controlled under the USML are critical to national security, while the CCL is less restrictive and includes items that are less critical. Comments were due and posted this week (see 13071122). SES, Intelsat, Boeing and other companies approved of the proposals but asked for clarifications to export control classification numbers (ECCN) that identify items.
The Utilities Telecom Council and startup Winchester Cator fired back at the two parties opposed to reconsideration of their petition asking that utilities be allowed to use the 14.0-14.5 GHz band on a secondary basis for fixed point-to-point and point-to-multipoint services. The Satellite Industry Association and EchoStar were alone in asking the FCC to reject the recon petition (CD July 2 p6). “SIA’s response to this issue is curious: Far from disputing it, SIA seeks to defend the fundamental inconsistency of the decisions by asserting that the judicial standard for review of an agency’s action is so lax as to make their failure to apply a consistent standard essentially non-reviewable,” UTC and Cator said (http://bit.ly/15yYMyH). “SIA is wrong both as a matter of Commission rule and policy and as to judicial review.” SIA ignores the “methods proposed by UTC/Winchester to avoid interference with primary satellite operations, including a five degree exclusion angle, that are more protective of primary satellite operations than currently imposed upon secondary operations in the band,” they said. The two also struck back at EchoStar: “EchoStar’s reading of the Order to suggest that every terrestrial station must be individually coordinated with every operating satellite to take into account its ‘particular sensitivities’ would undermine the very notion of an aggregate interference threshold."