CTIA, the Telecom Industry Assn. and the Satellite Industry Assn. raised concerns to NTIA Tues. on how some of the FCC’s spectrum reform ideas were being presented to international regulators. The groups said they backed the efforts of the Spectrum Policy Task Force, which delivered a report to the FCC last fall. But they said they were “alarmed” that recent U.S. submissions to the ITU could be misinterpreted as formal FCC policy rather than a staff report.
The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) urged the FCC to adopt the -10 dB interference-to-noise (I/N) ratio that it proposed instead of a 0 dB I/N ratio put forward by XtremeSpectrum for ultra-wideband systems. While Xtreme’s ratio came from the ITU’s Radio Regulations, that ratio is only for short-term interference to determine the coordination distance from terrestrial fixed stations, SIA said. It said Xtreme’s technical statement actually supported a ratio of -6 dB and a correction of methodological errors actually brought the number closer to SIA: “Xtreme’s satellite link degradation calculation was erroneous, because it failed to take international interference standards into account… Taken into account, Xtreme’s analysis would yield an I/N ratio between -10 and -20 dB -- the same I/N ratio that the SIA supports.”
The bond requirement for future satellite licensees still is a major concern among satellite manufacturers and operators, based on comments filed with the FCC on its new licensing order. A joint filing by 7 satellite companies says the Commission has “gone too far” in establishing the requirement and asks that it be eliminated. The bond proposal was a part of the Commission’s space station licensing order adopted in April that established new licensing methods (CD April 24 p6). The FCC has questioned whether the original proposal of $7.5 million bond for nongeostationary and $5 million for geostationary should be lowered and whether companies should have the option of establishing an escrow account instead.
The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) asked the FCC to extend the deadline for reply comments in an ultrawideband (UWB) rulemaking proceeding asking for comments on revising the UWB rules. SIA proposed extending the deadline by 7 days, ending on Sept. 26. The extra time is needed to respond properly to comments submitted by XtremeSpectrum, SIA said. Xtreme’s comments included new engineering data which SIA intends to analyze for a thorough response, but it will take more than the 10 days allowed in the rules, the organization said.
The FCC should deny Vista Control’s request for a waiver of ultra wideband (UWB) rules governing power levels, the Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) said. While SIA has supported UWB development, it said, interference to fixed and mobile satellite systems has to be considered. Vista has proposed to operate at 40 dB higher than the standard limit, SIA said: “UWB devices operating in compliance with the rules… pose an interference threat to C-band reception. If Vista’s waiver were granted, Vista’s systems would expose C-band earth stations to power levels 10,000 times that permitted under the UWB rules.” The company hasn’t justified the power increases, has provided only unreliable testing and has limited its interference analysis to GPS services, SIA said, when the C-band is heavily used for FSS services such as program distribution, military broadband communications, commercial weather data, and position location and status for trucking fleets. The Commission should proceed cautiously and avoid jeopardizing the investment in C-band infrastructure, it said.
The telecom industry was disappointed at the collapse of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Cancun that ended Sun., as “no progress” was made on the services side, including telecom, industry officials said. However, Patricia Paoletta, attorney at Wiley, Rein & Fielding, said the results weren’t surprising as “nobody expected any breakthrough” on the telecom side, with progress on agriculture issues being a “precondition for telecom services [issues] to move” forward.
Executives of member companies of the European Satellite Operators Assn. (ESOA) and the Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) at a meeting in Paris Mon. discussed the role of satellites in both European and American society. This first meeting of the 2 associations focused on satellite broadband objectives of different countries, they said, including the importance of broadband for rural communities and developing countries. The organizations also discussed obstacles to providing service in other countries, including fees and newly adopted regulatory measures, they said. “We clearly have an interest in working together to further the level of understanding by public bodies of satellite issues and in particular how essential they are for rural communities,” ESOA Secy. Gen. Fulvio Sansone said. The organizations will hold their next meeting in Washington next year.
Satellite operators rushed the FCC in the wee hours of Wed. morning in seeking to be the first new applicants following publication of the space station licensing rules in the Federal Register. The new rules, adopted in April, established a queue for geostationary satellite orbit (GSO) and non-GSO (NGSO) applications (CD April 24 p6). The application freeze that was in effect could be lifted only by publication of the rules in the Federal Register. While the Commission hadn’t revealed when publication would be, FCC International Bureau (IB) Asst. Chief Thomas Sullivan said early applicants knew to look at the Federal Register preview on the Website or the IB Electronic Filing System (IBFS) site.
XM and Sirius asked the FCC to refrain from allowing ultra-wideband (UWB) vehicular radar systems to operate in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band. The 2 satellite radio companies were among several satellite industry groups replying to issues raised in a petition by Siemens VDO Automotive AG asking the FCC to make changes in the rules adopted for UWB devices. XM and Sirius, authorized to operate in the 2332.5-2345 MHz and the 2320-2332.5 MHz bands, respectively, said UWB vehicular radar systems were likely to cause interference to satellite radios in vehicles due to proximity but because they were “currently restricted to the 22-29 GHz band… the Commission and the satellite radio licensees have assumed that these systems would not present an interference concern.” The addition of UWB vehicular radar systems to the 3.1-10.6 GHz band would make the former assumption invalid, particularly as there was no technical analysis of potential interference, they said: “While vehicle manufacturers will likely engineer radar systems to avoid interference to satellite radio operating within the same vehicle, this does not address a situation in which a radar system in one car is directly pointed at a trunk- or roof-mounted satellite radio antenna in an adjacent vehicle.” XM and Sirius asked the Commission to either require additional technical analysis to address the issues or, if the rule were changed, to allow the parties ample time to object to equipment certification applications. The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) also asked the Commission not to allow vehicular radars in the band, saying they were likely to increase the potential for harmful interference to fixed satellite service (FSS) earth station receivers in the band. It said nothing “in the record shows a need for additional spectrum for UWB vehicular radars, while the SIA has made substantial showings of the risk of harmful interference from such devices in the 3.1-10.6 GHz band.” Northrop Grumman and Raytheon submitted joint comments telling the FCC it shouldn’t approve the radars “near or in the 23.6-24.0 GHz band without adopting strict limits to reduce the potential for increased interference that likely will result under standards being proposed by manufacturers.” Both companies are contractors for the National Polar- Orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) that, when operational, will use that band to provide “space- based, remotely sensed environmental data,” they said: “While the parties recognize the potential benefits from vehicular radars,… protection against harmful interference to remote passive sensors deployed by NPOESS is important… because the capabilities of [NPOESS] to offer significant safety-of-life benefits, support for homeland security and defense objectives.” Meanwhile, Siemens VDO said opposition to its proposal by the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) were based on a concern that its radars were more likely to cause harmful interference to earth exploration satellite service (EESS) sensors in the 23.6-24 GHz band, which it said was untrue: “CORF fails to acknowledge that any threat of future interference to EESS will be reduced due to existing rules that, starting in 2010, require all UWB vehicular radar devices to sharply attenuate emissions appearing 30 degrees or more above the horizontal plane.” Siemens said its device wouldn’t increase the interference potential any more than pure pulsed devices.
The FCC shouldn’t adopt new receiver interference immunity performance specifications for fixed satellite service (FSS) dishes at the risk of affecting the market negatively, PanAmSat said: “Attempting to impose receiver standards in a dynamic environment or in bands shared by users with different characteristics can undermine market incentives, stifle innovation and raise costs for consumers.” PanAmSat said existing receiver requirements the FCC had adopted for adjacent satellite interference at 2 degrees spacing determined receiver specifications, creating an incentive for manufacturers to protect their own devices. However, additional requirements will increase manufacturing and equipment costs and possibly stifle innovation, PanAmSat said. If the Commission must create new parameters, the company said, directionality of receivers should be taken into account. The Satellite Industry Assn. (SIA) agreed with PanAmSat saying in its own comments that new requirements could “freeze” the development of satellite technology: “Satellite operators should be free to implement new technologies and improve the quality of their service. Otherwise, they may lose the ability to provide services that are competitive with terrestrial offerings and available throughout the U.S. at prices that are distance insensitive.” Meanwhile, Mobile Satellite Ventures (MSV) told the Commission that it should consider adopting standards, particularly in the L-band (1-2 GHz), based on concerns raised in the ancillary terrestrial component (ATC) proceeding. The company said Inmarsat’s opposition to the implementation of ATC was based on the fact that its mobile terminals were particularly sensitive to interference: “Because the Commission has not established performance standards for L-band mobile terminals, Inmarsat can claim any overload threshold for its terminals in order to needlessly restrict the power and location of its competitors’ base stations.” MSV proposed 2 solutions: (1) Adoption of a minimum overload threshold for L-band mobile terminals by using a “best practices” overload threshold. The mobile terminal least susceptible to interference would be used as the “best practices” terminal and no interference protection could be sought when exceeding the overload threshold. (2) Claims of certain overload thresholds must be proved with testing data: “By floating such exaggerated claims of overload susceptibility before the Commission without any technical support, opponents of spectrum flexibility place the Commission and other proponents of spectrum flexibility in the difficult position of having to disprove these claims.”