The FCC denied the Independent MultiFamily Communications Council’s (IMCC) petition for reconsideration of the 2nd order on reconsideration involving the reallocation of the 18 GHz band. Specifically, the order reallocated the 18.3-18.58 GHz band for fixed satellite service (FSS) operators on a primary basis and clarified migration of fixed service (FS) operators from the band to the upper and lower cable audio relay service (CARS) bands, in addition to reimbursement of FS operators for the move. The IMCC had asked the Commission to reconsider the order and provide emergency relief. IMCC also said the decision was based on a flawed study from the Office of Engineering & Technology (OET). The FCC said IMCC didn’t provide a “compelling basis upon which” relief could be granted. The Commission said its decision to reallocate the band wasn’t solely based on the OET study, but also the public interest and the long-term goal of spectrum efficiency. The OET study showed that private cable operator (PCO) links in the band could be accommodated in the CARS band. The Commission said while IMCC submitted a study which contradicted OET’s results, the Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) submitted a study that challenged IMCC. “We are not persuaded that the OET CARS Band study is flawed such that it could not be reasonably relied upon to identify capacity for displaced [multichannel video program distributor (MVPD)] licensees… We are not persuaded that reconsideration is required because the results of the study were but one of the many factors we considered in determining that the public interest favored reallocation of the 18.3-18.58 GHz band for FSS.” The Commission said the rules it adopted for relocation are also adequate to address issues IMCC brought up concerning disruption of existing services. The FCC said its rules will allow incumbent FS operators to continue operating until reaching either a sharing or relocation agreement with the FSS operators. If no agreement is reached, the satellite operator must pay all relocation costs or operate within FS interference constraints. The FCC said it also addressed IMCC’s concern -- that incumbents couldn’t make system modifications -- by allowing waiver requests prior to relocation: “We believe that the availability of these procedures, coupled with the opportunity to relocate to new portions of the network in previously unavailable spectrum, and the Commission’s relocation policies enhance the ability of PCO operators to compete in the marketplace.”
NAB’s digital audio radio service (SDARS) petition is a “clear violation of the principle of technology neutrality in the delivery of consumer services,” the Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) told the FCC in a letter. NAB had asked the FCC to clarify that XM and Sirius can’t provide locally oriented programming. SIA said the petition attempts to force the Commission to choose “one industry over another” without considering the public interest. Dismissal of the petition would “affirm that [the FCC] will not endorse the type of technology-based economic protectionism NAB seeks.” Meanwhile, XM and Sirius jointly asked for denial of the petition and said they “already have consented to NAB’s demand and do not insert local content at satellite DARS repeaters.” If the Commission considers a ban on the contested traffic and weather services, a hearing is necessary under the Communications Act, they said.
Tyco’s regulatory fee proposal should be “expanded to encompass all international bearer circuits, without regard to whether they are provided via submarine cable or via satellite,” the Satellite Industry Assn. told the FCC. A number of communications providers submitted comments to the FCC concerning regulatory fees proposed for fiscal year 2004 (CD April 26 p3). Tyco said private submarine cable operators should pay less in fees than facilities-based common carriers because private operators aren’t as regulated as the common carriers. “Tyco’s proposal, however, does not go far enough, because the operators of private submarine cables are not the only private carriers that are subject to international bearer circuit fees,” SIA said. If satellite operators aren’t included in the new fee category, it “would force non-common carrier satellite service providers to shoulder an even greater proportion of common carrier costs, while exempting the essentially equivalent private submarine cable service from those costs.”
Boeing told the FCC it would support licensing rules for aeronautical mobile satellite service (AMSS) and earth stations aboard vessels (ESVs) if they were based on an off- axis effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) approach. Boeing filed a petition for rulemaking on AMSS asking for routine processing similar to the approach taken for new Ka- band earth stations, it said. The Commission proposed rules for ESVs which would license the earth stations similar to VSATs and C-band small aperture terminals (CSATs), Boeing said. Nonconforming Ku-band ESVs have to comply with established power levels and antenna performance standards, and C-band ESVs can’t cause unacceptable interference. While Boeing said it agrees fundamentally with the proposals, it said using the off-axis EIRP approach would recognize “the unique operational characteristics of the service and is the same as the approach adopted by the ITU.” In response to the Commission’s proposal to streamline rules in Part 25 using off-axis EIRP, the Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) based its proposal on enhanced antenna pointing accuracy for CSATs and VSATs but didn’t “contemplate application of its Part 25 proposals to AMSS or ESV systems,” Boeing said: “AMSS and ESV systems are distinct from traditional CSATs/VSATs… Shoehorning ESV or AMSS rules into the CSAT/VSAT licensing rules is inappropriate.”
With an eye toward expanding rural wireless broadband access, the FCC proposed rule changes Thurs. that would let unlicensed devices operate at 3.6 GHz at higher power levels than under Part 15. The proposal, unanimously adopted at the open meeting, also posed questions about using 3650-3700 MHz for licensed use. While an earlier inquiry had considered opening TV broadcast bands for some unlicensed operations, Office of Engineering & Technology (OET) Chief Edmond Thomas said the agency would deal with that issue soon on a separate track.
A new Satellite Industry Assn. pres. could be named within a month, said SIA Chmn. Kalpak Gude. The position was officially vacated March 31 when former pres. Richard DalBello became the pres. for the Satellite Bcstg. & Communications Assn. (CD March 18 p4). Gude said the board is still collecting names and talking to potential candidates, “but it’s something the board is aggressively pushing. We hope to have some decision maybe as early as mid-May.” Gude told us the board’s search hasn’t been limited to the satellite industry. “Satellite experience is nice and important, but I wouldn’t say that’s a deal-breaker off the top.” He said the ideal candidate would grow into the position: “We would like someone who has demonstrated skills at building consensus, talking and communication with senior level govt. officials from a variety of departments and agencies… We're trying to cast a wide net.”
There’s stark disagreement on whether the FCC should extend CALEA requirements to VoIP services, comments filed with the FCC Mon. showed. While acknowledging the importance of ensuring that law enforcement is able to prevent crime using electronic surveillance, ISPs opposed the petition filed by the Dept. of Justice (DoJ), the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) with the FCC. They said the proposal had no legal basis, and the CALEA rules would cripple the Internet. Bells generally shared the concerns of the law enforcement but said some modifications are needed. Law enforcement agencies strongly supported the petition, urging the Commission to adopt it expeditiously.
The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) told the FCC last week it was “extremely concerned” about the potential for interference posed by unlicensed use of the 3650-3700 MHz band. The FCC plans to take up at its Thurs. meeting a proposal on the use of 3650-3700 MHz for unlicensed uses (CD April 9 p8). The FCC in Nov. launched an inquiry on making additional spectrum available for unlicensed devices, including Wi-Fi, that can use frequency-agile radios to share spectrum with incumbents. The inquiry sought feedback on whether unlicensed devices should be able to operate in bands beyond those allowed under Part 15, including TV broadcast spectrum and at 3650-3700 MHz. The NOI sought comment on the feasibility of allowing unlicensed devices to operate in bands such as 3650-3700 MHz at power levels substantially higher than the maximum allowed in other bands, with technical requirements to avoid interference to licensed and incumbent services. The FCC has viewed such spectrum uses as particularly promising for underserved rural areas. The NPRM that’s on the Thurs. agenda addresses only the 3.6 GHz spectrum. An FCC source said that although the proposal doesn’t tee up broadcast spectrum issues, they simply aren’t being addressed in this item. SIA reiterated concerns in last week’s filing that 3650-3700 MHz is “a very important band for international satellite services because other countries use this portion of the global primary FSS [fixed satellite service] allocation. Existing use of the band is concentrated along the East and West Coast, comprising the most densely populated regions of the United States.” It said new earth stations, however, aren’t necessarily geographically limited. SIA said FSS operators already use the 3650-3700 MHz band extensively to provide international communications services and commercial and govt. communications. The licensing of new earth stations on a secondary basis must now be protected by unlicensed users, SIA said. “Subsequent deployment of earth stations in an area with unlicensed links may require the links to shut down,” SIA said. In other areas, it warned that adaptive frequency hopping to avoid interference may not work. SIA said that because there’s no standard uplink channel associated with a downlink channel, unlicensed devices don’t know where to “listen” before transmitting. “Receive-only earth stations, or earth stations with asymmetrical transmissions, may be subjected to interference because [there is] no transmit channel associated with receive frequencies,” SIA said.
The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) and some members told the FCC they were concerned that use of unlicensed devices in the 3650-3700 MHz band would cause interference to fixed satellite service (FSS) operators. In a letter to the Commission, SIA said the band isn’t needed only for U.S. commercial and govt. use, but for international satellite services because the band is globally allocated for FSS operations on a primary basis. SIA said new earth station licensees authorized in the band on a secondary basis should also be protected from unlicensed users, by shutting down unlicensed links if necessary. Even some proposed solutions, like adaptive frequency hopping to avoid interference, might not work, SIA said: “No standard uplink channel associated with a downlink channel means that unlicensed devices don’t know where to ‘listen’ before transmitting. Receive-only earth stations, or earth stations with asymmetrical transmissions may be subjected to interference because no transmit channel [is] associated with receive frequencies.” SIA said requiring registration for high power, fixed point- to-point transmitters could help earth station operators locate the unlicensed devices if interference occurs.
The European Satellite Operators’ Assn. (ESOA) rededicated itself to regulatory and trade issues, at a meeting Wed. in London. The group said it planned to encourage the inclusion of satellite services in European policy as it relates to broadband communications and closing the digital divide. Additionally, ESOA said it wanted to create an efficient and competitive environment for satellite services through changes to regulatory conditions and to address trade issues related to global market access for satellite services. ESOA was formed in March 2002. The group met with the Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) in Europe in Sept. and plans to meet with the group this year in Washington, D.C. (CD Sept 11 p13).