Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, 13266-13278 [2021-04115]
Download as PDF
13266
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
rulemaking does not involve technical
standards; and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the proposed rule does not
have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart AA—Missouri
Dated: February 22, 2021.
Edward H. Chu,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.
■
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:
§ 52.1320
2. In § 52.1320, the table in paragraph
(c) is amended by revising the entry
‘‘10–5.530’’ to read as follows:
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA-APPROVED MISSOURI REGULATIONS
Missouri citation
State
effective
date
Title
EPA approval date
Explanation
Missouri Department of Natural Resources
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Chapter 5—Air Quality Standards and Air Pollution Control Regulations for the St. Louis Metropolitan Area
*
10–5.530 ...........
*
*
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2021–04031 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 25, 27 and 101
[WT Docket No. 20–443, GN Docket No. 17–
183, RM–11768 (Proceeding Terminated);
FCC 21–13; FRS 17479]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2–
12.7 GHz Band
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
it could add a new Mobile allocation or
expanded terrestrial service rights in
500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum
between 12.2–12.7 GHz (12 GHz band)
without causing harmful interference to
incumbent licensees. Assuming the
Commission could do so, it seeks
comment on whether that action would
promote or hinder the delivery of nextgeneration services in the 12 GHz band
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
*
2/28/2019
*
*
*
[Date of publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register], [Federal Register citation of the final rule].
*
given the existing and emergent services
offered by incumbent licensees. The
Commission proceeds mindful of the
significant investments made by
incumbents and values the public
interest benefits that could flow from
investments made to provide satellite
broadband services, particularly in rural
and other underserved communities
that might be more expensive to serve
through other technologies. The
Commission believes that it is
appropriate, however, to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to allow
interested parties to address whether
additional operations can be
accommodated in the band while
protecting incumbent operations from
harmful interference and for the
Commission to assess the public interest
considerations associated with adding a
new allocation.
DATES: Comments due on or before
April 7, 2021 and reply comments due
on or before May 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WT Docket No. 20–443
and GN Docket No. 17–183, by any of
the following methods:
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
*
*
*
accessing the ECFS: https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing. If more than one
docket or rulemaking number appears in
the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for
each additional docket or rulemaking
number.
Filings can be sent by commercial
overnight courier, or by first-class or
overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All
filings must be addressed to the
Commission’s Secretary, Office of the
Secretary, Federal Communications
Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other
than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail
and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, and Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until
further notice, the Commission no
longer accepts any hand or messenger
delivered filings. This is a temporary
measure taken to help protect the health
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
and safety of individuals, and to
mitigate the transmission of COVID–19.
• During the time the Commission’s
building is closed to the general public
and until further notice, if more than
one docket or rulemaking number
appears in the caption of a proceeding,
paper filers need not submit two
additional copies for each additional
docket or rulemaking number; an
original and one copy are sufficient.
People with Disabilities: To request
materials in accessible formats for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format),
send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call
the Consumer & Governmental Affairs
Bureau at 202–418–0530 (voice), 202–
418–0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau,
Broadband Division, at 202–418–1466
or Madelaine.Maior@fcc.gov; or Simon
Banyai of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau,
Broadband Division, at 202–418–1443
or Simon.Banyai@fcc.gov.
This is a
summary of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT
Docket No. 20–443; FCC 21–13, adopted
on January 2, 2021 and released on
January 15, 2021. The full text of this
document is available electronically via
the FCC’s website at https://
docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC21-13A1.pdf or via the FCC’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS) website
at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents
will be available electronically in ASCII,
Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.)
Alternative formats are available for
people with disabilities (braille, large
print, electronic files, audio format), by
sending an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or
calling the Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (voice), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of
1980, as amended (RFA), requires that a
regulatory flexibility analysis be
prepared for notice and comment
rulemaking proceedings, unless the
agency certifies that ‘‘the rule will not,
if promulgated, have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.’’ Accordingly,
the Commission has prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA)
concerning potential rule and policy
changes contained in this NPRM. The
IRFA is set forth in Appendix A, visit
https://www.fcc.gov/edocs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM may contain potential
new or revised information collection
requirements. Therefore, the
Commission seeks comment on
potential new or revised information
collections subject to the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995. If the
Commission adopts any new or revised
information collection requirements, the
Commission will publish a notice in the
Federal Register inviting the general
public and the Office of Management
and Budget to comment on the
information collection requirements, as
required by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In
addition, pursuant to the Small
Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002,
Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks
specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information
collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Ex Parte Rules
Pursuant to § 1.1200(a) of the
Commission’s rules, this NPRM shall be
treated as a ‘‘permit-but-disclose’’
proceeding in accordance with the
Commission’s ex parte rules. Persons
making ex parte presentations must file
a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral
presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different
deadline applicable to the Sunshine
period applies). Persons making oral ex
parte presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentation must (1) list all persons
attending or otherwise participating in
the meeting at which the ex parte
presentation was made, and (2)
summarize all data presented and
arguments made during the
presentation. If the presentation
consisted in whole or in part of the
presentation of data or arguments
already reflected in the presenter’s
written comments, memoranda or other
filings in the proceeding, the presenter
may provide citations to such data or
arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying
the relevant page and/or paragraph
numbers where such data or arguments
can be found) in lieu of summarizing
them in the memorandum. Documents
shown or given to Commission staff
during ex parte meetings are deemed to
be written ex parte presentations and
must be filed consistent with rule
1.1206(b). In proceedings governed by
rule 1.49(f) or for which the
Commission has made available a
method of electronic filing, written ex
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13267
parte presentations and memoranda
summarizing oral ex parte
presentations, and all attachments
thereto, must be filed through the
electronic comment filing system
available for that proceeding, and must
be filed in their native format (e.g., .doc,
.xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf). Participants
in this proceeding should familiarize
themselves with the Commission’s ex
parte rules.
Synopsis
I. Background
1. In the United States, the 12 GHz
band is allocated on a primary basis for
non-Federal use for Broadcasting
Satellite Service (BSS) (referred to
domestically in the band as Direct
Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Fixed
Satellite Service (space-to-Earth) limited
to non-geostationary orbit systems
(NGSO FSS), and Fixed Service.1 While
these three services are co-primary,
NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are
allocated on a non-harmful interference
basis with respect to BSS.2
1 See 47 CFR 2.106, United States Table of
Frequency Allocations, non-Federal Table for the
band 12.2–12.7 GHz. NGSO FSS (space-to-Earth)
operations are authorized pursuant to international
footnote 5.487A, which provides additional
allocations including in Region 2 as follows:
[The 12.2–12.7 GHz is] allocated to the fixedsatellite service (space-to-Earth) on a primary basis,
limited to non-geostationary systems and subject to
application of the provisions of [ITU Radio
Regulations] No. 9.12 for coordination with other
non-geostationary-satellite systems in the fixedsatellite service. Non-geostationary-satellite systems
in the fixed-satellite service shall not claim
protection from geostationary-satellite networks in
the broadcasting-satellite service operating in
accordance with the Radio Regulations, irrespective
of the dates of receipt by the [ITU
Radiocommunication] Bureau of the complete
coordination or notification information, as
appropriate, for the non-geostationary-satellite
systems in the fixed-satellite service and of the
complete coordination or notification information,
as appropriate, for the geostationary-satellite
networks, and [international footnote] No. 5.43A
does not apply. Non-geostationary-satellite systems
in the fixed-satellite service in the [12 GHz band]
shall be operated in such a way that any
unacceptable interference that may occur during
their operation shall be rapidly eliminated.
47 CFR 2.106, n.5.487A. When an international
footnote is applicable without modification to nonFederal operations, the Commission places the
footnote on the non-Federal Table. See 47 CFR
2.105(d)(5).
2 See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International
Footnote). In Region 2, in the 12.2–12.7 GHz band,
existing and future terrestrial radiocommunication
services shall not cause harmful interference to the
space services operating in conformity with the
broadcasting satellite Plan for Region 2 contained
in Appendix 30. ‘‘Harmful Interference’’ is defined
under the Commission’s rules as ‘‘[i]nterference
which endangers the functioning of a
radionavigation service or of other safety services or
seriously degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly
interrupts a radiocommunication service operating
in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations.’’ 47
CFR 2.1(c).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
13268
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
2. NGSO FSS operators also have a
non-federal co-primary downlink
allocation and access to the 10.7–12.2
GHz band on a co-primary basis with
Fixed Service in 10.7–11.7 GHz and on
a primary basis from 11.7–12.2 GHz.3
Meanwhile, the adjacent frequencies
above the band, 12.7–12.75 GHz, are
allocated for non-federal Fixed Service,
FSS, and Mobile Service.
3. Currently there are three services
authorized and operating in the band:
DBS providers operating under the
primary BSS allocation, Multi-Channel
Video and Data Distribution Service
(MVDDS) licensees operating on a nonharmful interference basis to DBS under
the co-primary Fixed Service allocation,
and NGSO licensees operating on a nonharmful interference basis to DBS under
the co-primary NGSO FSS allocation.
The Commission’s rules enable sharing
between co-primary NGSO FSS and
MVDDS using a combination of
technical limitations, information
sharing, and first-in-time procedures.4
4. The Commission added the DBS
allocation in the early 1980s 5 and DBS
service began in 1994.6 In 1996 and
2004, some of these licenses were
awarded by competitive bidding.7 In
3 See 47 CFR 2.106. See also Update to Parts 2
and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary, FixedSatellite Service Systems and Related Matters,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017) (2017 NGSO
Order). FSS is co-primary with Fixed Service for
individually licensed earth stations. Individually
licensed FSS earth stations require coordination
with co-primary Fixed Service. The 2017 NGSO
Order also adopted rules to allow blanket earth
station licensing for NGSOs in the 10.7–11.7 GHz
band on an unprotected basis relative to terrestrial
Fixed Service. As a result, blanket earth station
licenses for NGSOs cannot claim interference
protection from terrestrial Fixed Service in the
band. Id. at 7817, paras. 24–25.
4 See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, 101.147(p).
5 See Inquiry into the Development of Regulatory
Policy in Regard to Direct Broadcast Satellites for
the Period Following the 1983 Regional
Administrative Radio Conference, Report and
Order, 90 FCC2d 676 (1982), recon. denied, 53
RR2d 1637 (1983).
6 See Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct
Broadcast Satellite Service, Report and Order, 11
FCC 9712 (1995). DBS operations are subject to the
International Telecommunication (ITU) Radio
Regulations BSS and Feeder Link Plans contained
in Appendices 30 and 30A.
7 In 1996 the Commission held two auctions for
DBS orbital slots at 110° and 148° in 1996. See, e.g.,
https://www.fcc.gov/auction/8; https://
www.fcc.gov/auction/9. In 2004, the Commission
held an auction for three licenses for certain
channels at DBS orbital slots at 175,° 166° and 157°
but this auction was nullified. See Direct Broadcast
Satellite (DBS) Service Auction Nullified:
Commission Sets Forth Refund Procedures for
Auction No. 52 Winning Bidders and Adopts a
Freeze on All New DBS Service Applications, Public
Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 20618, 20618 & n.3 (2005)
(citing Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v. FCC, 412
F.3d 145 (DC Cir. 2005)). In its decision, the
Appellate Court vacated and remanded the section
of the DBS Auction Order that concluded that DBS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
2000, the Commission permitted a new
terrestrial service, MVDDS, to operate in
the 12 GHz band under the existing
Fixed Service allocation on a coprimary, non-harmful interference basis
to the incumbent DBS providers, and on
a co-primary basis to NGSO FSS.8 The
Commission also adopted rules to
permit NGSO FSS operations in the 12
GHz band at this same time.9
5. The service rules for MVDDS
permit one-way digital fixed nonbroadcast service, including one-way
direct-to-home/office wireless service.10
To protect DBS, the Commission
adopted technical rules to ensure that
MVDDS stations would not cause
harmful interference to DBS and
imposed extensive coordination
requirements on MVDDS licensees for
each proposed station.11 These rules
include detailed frequency coordination
procedures, interference protection
criteria, and limitations on signal
emissions, transmitter power levels, and
transmitter locations.12 In particular, the
rules limit the effective isotropic
radiated power (EIRP) for MVDDS
is not subject to the auction prohibition of the
Open-Market Reorganization for the Betterment of
International Telecommunications Act, Public Law
106–180, 114 Stat. 48 section 647 (enacted Mar. 12,
2000), codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f (ORBIT Act). Id.
at n.3
8 See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the
Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO
FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency
Range, Amendment of the Commission’s Rules to
Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the 12.2–
12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite
Licensees and Their Affiliates; and Applications of
Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband Corporation, and
Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed Service
in the 12.2–12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98–206,
First Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC Rcd 4096, 4177,
para. 213 (2000) (First R&O and FNPRM).
9 Id. at 4099–4100, para. 2; see also Establishment
of Policies and Service Rules for the NonGeostationary Satellite Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service
in the Ku-band, IB Docket No. 01–96, Report and
Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7841 (2002).
10 See 47 CFR 101.1407 (two-way services can be
provided using spectrum in other bands for the
return link). See also Amendment of Parts 2 and 25
of the Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of
NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency
Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Second Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002)
(MVDDS Second Report and Order) (aff’d
Northpoint Technology, LTD et al. v. FCC, 414 F.3d
61 (DC Cir. 2005)).
11 See 47 CFR 101.1440.
12 See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report & Order, 17
FCC Rcd at 9634–9664 paras. 53–125; 9690–9695
paras. 196–209; 47 CFR 25.139 (NGSO FSS
coordination and information sharing between
MVDDS licensees in the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz
band); 25.208(k) (Power flux density limits);
101.103 (Frequency coordination procedures);
101.105 (Interference protection criteria); 101.111
(Emission limitations); 101.113 (Transmitter power
limitations); 101.129 (Transmitter location);
101.1409 (Treatment of incumbent licensees);
101.1440 (MVDDS protection of DBS).
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
stations to 14.0 dBm per 24 megahertz
(¥16.0 dBW per 24 megahertz).13
6. To accommodate co-primary DBS
earth stations that must be protected
from interference caused by MVDDS, an
MVDDS licensee may not begin
operation unless it can ensure that the
equivalent power flux density (EPFD) 14
from a proposed transmitting antenna
does not exceed the applicable EPFD
limit at any DBS subscriber location.15
Specifically, an MVDDS licensee cannot
begin operation in the 12 GHz band
unless it can ensure that the signal from
its proposed transmitting antenna will
not exceed certain specified EPFD limits
at the receive antennas of any DBS
customers of record (i.e., those who
have had their antenna installed either
before or within 30 days after the
MVDDS licensee provides 90-days
notice to DBS licensees of its intent to
commence operations).16 Accordingly,
when an MVDDS licensee is proposing
to deploy a transmitting antenna, it
must conduct a survey of the area
around its proposed transmitting
antenna site to determine the location of
all DBS customers of record that may
potentially be affected by its service.17
After coordinating a proposed
transmitter with DBS licensees, the
MVDDS licensee must remediate all
complaints of interference to DBS
customers of record for one year after it
begins operating the transmitter.18
Going forward, the burden shifts to DBS
licensees for new customers (and after
one year for the customers of record) to
take into account the presence of the
MVDDS operations and ensure that DBS
subscribers do not suffer interference
from previously coordinated MVDDS
stations.19 The Commission found that
these and the other technical
requirements would ensure that any
interference caused to DBS customers
13 See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p). The
EIRP limit for MVDDS is expressed as a power
spectral density, i.e., 14 dBm per 24 megahertz of
spectrum. Herein the Commission occasionally
refers to EIRP levels in shorthand, e.g., ‘‘14 dBm.’’
The Commission clarifies that these shorthand
references are for convenience only.
14 The EPFD is the power flux density produced
at a DBS receive earth station, taking into account
shielding effects and the off-axis discrimination of
the receiving antenna assumed to be pointing at the
appropriate DBS satellite(s) from the transmitting
antenna of a MVDDS transmit station. 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).
15 The Commission established different EPFD
limits in four regions of the U.S., see 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B), mainly due to differences in
rainfall in each region. See, e.g., MVDDS Second
Report & Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197.
16 See 47 CFR 101.1440(a).
17 See 47 CFR 101.1440(b).
18 See 47 CFR 101.1440(g).
19 See 47 CFR 101.1440(e) & (g).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
will not exceed a level that is
considered permissible.20
7. The Commission also enabled
sharing between co-primary NGSO FSS
and MVDDS using a combination of
technical limitations, information
sharing, and first-in-time procedures.21
Specifically, these two services gain
priority based on a first-in-time, first-inright approach, under which NGSO FSS
receivers and MVDDS transmitting
systems are afforded priority in the 12
GHz band portion of spectrum vis-a`-vis
each other based on which deployed
earlier.22
8. Most recently, in 2016 and 2017,
proponents of a new generation of
NGSO FSS systems sought Commission
authority for planned constellations of
hundreds or thousands of small
satellites using several frequency bands,
including the 12 GHz band, and in 2017,
the Commission updated its rules to
enable the deployment of these
emerging systems.23
9. Two U.S.-licensed DBS providers,
DISH Network L.L.C. (DISH) and
DIRECTV 24 use the band throughout the
US to provide DBS directly from
geostationary-orbit (GSO) satellites to
relatively small dish antennas at tens of
millions of individual homes and
businesses. DIRECTV and DISH
Network had over 22 million combined
subscribers as of the third quarter of
2020.25 Meanwhile, eight companies (10
legal entities) currently hold 191 of 214
MVDDS licenses.26
10. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G
Coalition, which included eleven of the
twelve MVDDS licensees at that time,
filed a Petition for Rulemaking
requesting reforms to the rules for the 12
GHz band.27 The Petition seeks
commencement of a rulemaking
proceeding to: (i) Add a Mobile
allocation at 12.2–12.7 GHz to the NonFederal Table of Frequency Allocations,
(ii) delete or demote to secondary the
‘‘unused’’ NGSO FSS allocation in this
band from the Non-Federal Table of
Frequency Allocations, (iii) allow
MVDDS licensees to provide two-way,
point-to-point or mobile broadband
service, (iv) eliminate the MVDDS
effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP)
limit, and (v) seek comment on easing
the four regional equivalent power flux
density (EPFD) limits.
11. The Coalition contended that the
(then) 15-year-old MVDDS rules did not
account for the ‘‘urgent national
priority’’ to make additional spectrum
available for 5G mobile services or the
intervening technological developments
that would now make it feasible to
provide two-way mobile broadband
services in the band while
simultaneously protecting DBS from
harmful interference.28 The Coalition
stated that ‘‘5G services have unique
attributes that facilitate sharing in high
frequency bands, such as the MVDDS
band, since they can be used in a
localized way to provide capacity relief
in urban canyons and indoors.’’ 29 In
20 See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report & Order, 17
FCC Rcd at 9640–9663 paras. 67–125, 9691–92, 198;
see also 47 CFR 2.1 (defining harmful interference).
21 See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p).
22 See 47 CFR 101.103(f)(1); see also 47 CFR
101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD level beyond 3 km
from an MVDDS station to ¥135 dBW/m2 in any
4 kHz measured and/or calculated at the surface of
the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting location of
MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 km of any
qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent mutual
agreement of the licensees).
23 See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning NonGeostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and
Related Matters, Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809
(2017) (recon. pending).
24 DIRECTV became a subsidiary of AT&T in July
2015. See, e.g., Applications of AT&T, Inc. and
DIRECTV for Consent to Assign or Transfer Control
of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No. 14–
90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd
9131 (2015). Herein the Commission refers to AT&T
and DIRECTV interchangeably.
25 See S&P Market Intelligence, Multichannel
Operators by DMA (Q3 2020).
26 The remaining 23 licenses automatically
terminated for failure to meet the buildout
requirement. See Requests of Three Licensees of 22
Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data
Distribution Service for Extension of Time to Meet
the Final Buildout Requirement for Providing
Substantial Service under § 101.1413 of the
Commission’s Rules, Applications of Three
Licensees for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the
Multichannel Video and Data Distribution Service,
Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757 (WTB BD Oct. 29, 2018).
See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign WQAR709
(Terminated July 26, 2014).
27 Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for
Rulemaking, RM–11768, filed Apr. 26, 2016
(MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See also Petition
for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice, Report No.
3042 (May 9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice). In its
most recent filing, the Coalition’s members were
reported to be: Cass Cable TV, Inc. (Cass Cable),
DISH Network L.L.C., Go Long Wireless, LTD. (Go
Long Wireless), MDS Operations, Inc., MVD
Number 53 Partners, Satellite Receivers, Ltd.,
SOUTH.COM LLC, Story Communications, LLC,
and Vision Broadband, LLC (Vision Broadband).
See Letter from Chad Winters, Cass Cable, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–
11768, at 1 (filed May. 28, 2019) (MVDDS 5G
Coalition May 28, 2019 Ex Parte). The Commission
notes that MDS Operations subsequently assigned
its remaining 60 MVDDS licenses to RS Access.
28 See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 17–18;
MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 3.
29 MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 3. The Coalition
notes that, ‘‘with the emergence of 5G, higher
spectrum bands can be used to provide much
needed broadband capacity relief using targeted,
small cell deployments (such as in buildings and
at urban street level locations) that present a lower
interference potential than traditional wide-area
macrocell deployments in lower frequency bands.
Additionally, advanced antenna techniques like
‘‘beamforming’’ and ‘‘beamsteering’’ allow better
control of transmitter energy, enabling
transmissions to be more narrowly focused to
desired locations (and away from receivers with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13269
conjunction with its Petition, the
Coalition provided two Coexistence
Studies that it claimed illustrate that the
new rules it was proposing would
protect DBS operators in the band but
that they would be incompatible with
NGSO FSS.30
12. In the intervening four years, the
Commission has taken action to make
additional spectrum available for 5G
services.31 In 2020, the Commission
initiated a proceeding to consider rule
changes to allow the provision of 5G
backhaul and broadband to ships and
aircraft in motion in the 70/80/90 GHz
bands. Additionally in 2020, the
Commission took action to make
available 280 megahertz of 3.7–4.2 GHz
band spectrum while relocating existing
satellite operations to the upper part of
the band. Also in 2020 the Commission
modernized certain rules governing the
800 MHz and took action to expand
unlicensed broadband opportunities in
the 6 GHz band. In 2019 the
Commission completed Auction 101,
licensing 850 megahertz of spectrum for
flexible use in the 28 GHz band. In
which they might interfere) dynamically.’’ MVDDS
5G Coalition Petition at 18.
30 MVDDDS 5G Coalition Comments, Attach. 1,
MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHz Co-Primary Service
Coexistence (Coexistence 1) and MVDDS 5G
Coalition Reply, Appx. A, MVDDS 12.2–12.7 GHZ
Co-Primary Service Coexistence II (Coexistence 2)
(collectively, Coexistence Studies).
31 Since the Petition was filed in 2016, the
Commission has taken action in several proceedings
to make more than six gigahertz of spectrum
available for 5G service, including 4,950 megahertz
of high-band spectrum, over 500 megahertz of midband spectrum, and several swaths of low-band
spectrum. See e.g., Modernizing and Expanding
Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, et al, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039
(2020); Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band;
Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum
Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Report and Order, 35 FCC
Rcd 3852 (2020); Review of the Commission’s Rules
Governing the 896–901/935–940 MHz Band, Report
and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 5183 (2020); Improving
Public Safety Communications in the 800 MHz
Band, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 4935 (2020);
Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and
47 GHz Bands for Next-Generation Wireless
Services Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for
Auction 103, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2015
(2020); Winning Bidders Announced for Auction of
28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
Licenses (Auction 101), Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd
4279 (2019); Auction of 24 GHz Upper Microwave
Flexible Use Service Licenses Closes; Winning
Bidders Announced for Auction 102, Public Notice,
34 FCC Rcd 4296 (2019); Transforming the 2.5 GHz
Band, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd
4687 (2018); Promoting Investment in the 3550–
3700 MHz Band, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd
10598 (2018); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to
4.2 GHz Band, Order and Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 6915 (2018); Incentive
Auction Task Force and Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau Grant 600 MHz
Licenses, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 869 (2018). See
also Federal Communications Commission, The
FCC’s 5G FAST Plan, https://www.fcc.gov/5G (last
visited Jan. 7, 2021).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
13270
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Auction 102, the Commission licensed
700 megahertz of spectrum for flexible
use in the 24 GHz band. In Auction 103
the Commission licensed 3,400
megahertz of spectrum for flexible use
in the upper 37 GHz band, the 39 GHz
band, and the 47 GHz band. Also in
2019, the Commission proposed to
reconfigure the 900 MHz band to
facilitate the development of broadband
technologies and services.32 The
Commission has also taken steps to
provide new opportunities for
innovators and experimenters between
95 GHz and 3 THz.33 In 2018, the
Commission proposed providing greater
flexibility to current EBS licensees and
new opportunities to obtain unused
spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band 34 and
changed the rules governing Priority
Access Licenses (PALs) to spur 5G
investment and deployment in the 3.5
GHz band. In 2017, the Commission
completed Auction 1002, licensing 70
megahertz of spectrum for flexible use
in the 600 MHz band.
13. The MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition
also preceded a 2016 processing round
to accept NGSO FSS applications and
petitions for market access in several
frequency bands and the Commission’s
reforms to its NGSO FSS rules.35 In
2017, the Commission granted the first
of the new generation requests—a
petition for market access by WorldVu
Satellites Limited (OneWeb) for a
planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO
satellite system of 720 satellites
authorized by the United Kingdom in
the 10.7–12.7 GHz Band (in addition to
several other bands).36 The Commission
concluded that ‘‘the pendency of the
MVDDS 5G Coalition’s Petition for
Rulemaking was not a sufficient reason
to delay or deny these requests to use
the band under the existing NGSO FSS
allocation and service rules.’’ 37 In
granting this request, however, the
Commission conditioned access to the
32 Review of the Commission’s Rules Governing
the 896–901/935–940 MHz Band, Report and Order,
35 FCC Rcd 5183 (2020).
33 FCC Opens Spectrum Horizons for New
Services & Technologies, Report and Order, 34 FCC
Rcd 1605 (2019).
34 Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 4687 (2018).
35 See Satellite Policy Branch Information;
OneWeb Petition Accepted for Filing (IBFS File No.
SAT–LOI–20160428–00041), Cut-Off Established for
Additional NGSO-Like Satellite Applications or
Petitions for Operations in the 10.7–12.7 GHz, 14.0–
14.5 GHz, 17.8–18.6 GHz, 18.8–19.3 GHz, 27.5–
28.35 GHz, 28.35–29.1 GHz, and 29.5–30.0 GHz
Bands, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 7666 (IB July 15,
2016).
36 See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for
Declaratory Ruling Granting Access to the U.S.
Market for the OneWeb NGSO FSS System, Order
and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 (2017)
(OneWeb Order).
37 Id. at 5369 para. 6.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
12 GHz band on the outcome of the
MVDDS 5G Coalition’s Petition and any
other rulemaking initiated on the
Commission’s own motion.38 The
Commission also agreed with comments
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that
MVDDS should not have to protect any
non-fixed NGSO–FSS operations in the
band, if authorized in the future,
because such operations had not been
contemplated under the longstanding
first-in-time MVDDS/NGSO FSS sharing
approach.39
14. The Commission subsequently
granted five additional NGSO FSS
requests to use bands that include 12
GHz band (among others).40 Each grant
is subject to modification to bring it into
conformance with any rules or policies
adopted by the Commission in the
future; the market-access grants to Space
Norway, Kepler, and Theia also state
that this condition includes any earth
station licenses granted in the future. In
all but the Space Norway Order, the
Commission expressly stated that the
any investments made toward
operations in the bands authorized in
the United States assume the risk that
operations may be subject to additional
conditions or requirements as a result of
any future Commission actions, and all
of the orders directly or indirectly
referenced the MVDDS 5G Coalition
Petition.41 Parties disagree about the
38 Id. at 5378, para. 26 (‘‘This grant of U.S. market
access and any earth station licenses granted in the
future are subject to modification to bring them into
conformance with any rules or policies adopted by
the Commission in the future.’’). See also id. at
5369, para. 6 (‘‘Accordingly, any investment made
toward operations in this band by OneWeb in the
United States assume the risk that operations may
be subject to additional conditions or requirements
as a result of such Commission actions.’’).
39 Id. at 5370 para. 8.
40 Space Norway AS, Petition for a Declaratory
Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the
Arctic Satellite Broadband Mission, Order and
Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2018) (Space
Norway Order); Karousel Satellite LLC, Application
for Authority to Launch and Operate a NonGeostationary Earth Orbit Satellite System in the
Fixed Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion,
Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 8485 (2018)
(Karousel Order), Space Exploration Holdings, LLC
Application For Approval for Orbital Deployment
and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO
Satellite System, Memorandum Opinion Order and
Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391 (2018) (SpaceX
Order), Kepler Communications Inc. Petition for
Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S.
Market for Kepler’s NGSO FSS System, Order, 33
FCC Rcd 11453, (2018) (Kepler Order), Theia
Holdings A, Inc. Request for Authority to Launch
and Operate a Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit
System in the Fixed-Satellite Service, MobileSatellite Service, and Earth-Exploration Satellite
Service, Memorandum, Opinion and Authorization,
34 FCC Rcd 3526 (2019) (Theia Order).
41 See Space Norway Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9655,
9611, paras. 13, 27 (2017); Karousel Order, 33 FCC
Rcd at 8486–87, paras. 3, n.14, 25(v) (2018); SpaceX
Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 3399, 3401–02, 3407, paras.
19, 26, 40(r) (2018); Kepler Order, 33 FCC Rcd at
PO 00000
Frm 00054
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
scope and applicability of these
conditions.42
15. Since the Commission granted
these requests, OneWeb, Kepler
Communications (Kepler) and SpaceX
have launched the first satellites of their
authorized constellations and additional
launches are scheduled in 2021. To
date, OneWeb has launched 110
satellites and Kepler has launched 2
satellites. SpaceX has deployed more
than 900 satellites that use the 12 GHz
band among other bands, which now
makes it the largest satellite
constellation in the world.43 In addition,
through the Commission’s Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund reverse auction,
SpaceX received $88.5 million in
annual support for ten years (or $885
million total) to provide broadband
service to 642,925 locations.44 SpaceX
claims that its service is capable of
providing downlink/uplink speeds of
103/42 megabits-per-second and a
consistently observed median latency of
30 milliseconds.
16. In its most recent filing, the
MVDDS 5G Coalition continues to ask
the Commission to consider
modernizing MVDDS rules and to
protect MVDDS interests in the band.
While the MVDDS 5G Coalition
originally contended that 5G terrestrial
use and NGSO FSS use are
incompatible, other proponents of
flexible use (such as two-way mobile)—
including some of the members of the
MVDDS 5G Coalition—recently have
11455, 11462–63, paras. 4–5, 29 (2018), Theia
Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3539–40, 3548, paras. 36, 58
(2019).
42 Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX)
argues that its authorizations are not conditional in
12 GHz band. See, e.g., Letter from David Goldman,
Director of Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, at 2
(filed Nov. 5, 2020) (SpaceX Nov. 5, 2020 Ex Parte).
DISH argues that ‘‘every . . . Ku-band authorization
is conditioned on the outcome of the 12 GHz
petition.’’ Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive
Vice President, External and Legislative Affairs,
DISH, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket
No. RM–11768, at 2 (filed Nov. 12, 2020) (DISH
Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte); see also id. at 1–2 citing
SpaceX Order, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, n.88.
43 In a March 2020 NGSO FSS processing round,
these four companies filed additional applications
to use the 12 GHz band. See SpaceX, SAT–LOA–
20200526–00055; OneWeb, SAT–MPL–20200526–
00062; New Spectrum Satellite, SAT–LOA–
20200526–00060; Kepler, SAT–PDR–20200526–
00059. These companies have also filed several
applications for earth stations. See, e.g., SpaceX
Application File No. SES–LIC–20190211–00151;
SpaceX File Nos. SES–LIC–20190402–00425, SES–
LIC–20190402–00426, SES–LIC–20190402–00427,
SES–LIC–20190402–00450, SES–LIC–20190402–
00451, SES–LIC–20190405–00453; OneWeb
Application File No. SES–LIC–20190930–01217;
OneWeb Application File No. SES–LIC–20190930–
01237.
44 Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I
Auction (Auction 904) Closes: Winning Bidders
Announced, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 13888,
Appx. A. (2020).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
suggested the possibility of sharing in
the band.45 Meanwhile, OneWeb, AT&T
Services, Inc. (AT&T), SpaceX, Intelsat
License LLC (Intelsat), SES S.A. (SES),
Kepler, and others contend that sharing
remains impossible between NGSO FSS
and terrestrial two-way mobile
operations.
II. Discussion
17. The Commission has long been
committed to ensuring that spectrum is
put to its highest and best use. As such,
the Commission commence this
rulemaking proceeding to consider
whether the current rules for the use of
12 GHz best serve the public interest. As
a threshold matter, therefore, the
Commission seeks comment on how to
weigh the spectrum the Commission has
already made available for 5G over the
past four years and the hundreds of
satellites that have been launched by the
NGSO FSS operators in considering
whether it is technically feasible to add
additional or expanded spectrum rights
in the 12 GHz band without causing
harmful interference to incumbent
licensees (and, if so, whether a
balancing of public interest benefits
would support taking that step). In the
sections below, the Commission seeks
comment on two potential approaches
to future use of the 12 GHz band:
Increasing terrestrial use of the shared
band or continuing with the current
framework. The Commission seeks
comment on each approach, including
the costs and benefits, in order to
pursue the Commission’s goals of
putting spectrum to its highest-value
and most efficient use while protecting
incumbent operations in the band from
harmful interference.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Enhanced Opportunities for Shared
Use of the Band
18. First, the Commission seeks
comment on whether it can increase
opportunities for shared use of the band
while protecting incumbents from
harmful interference. The MVDDS 5G
Coalition argues that technological
advances since the creation of MVDDS
in 2000 justify revisiting the rules for
terrestrial use of the band. Specifically,
the MVDDS 5G Coalition asserts that
45 See e.g., Letter from Martha Suarez, President,
Dynamic Spectrum Alliance (DSA), to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, at 2
(filed Aug. 21, 2020) (DSA Aug. 21, 2020 Ex Parte);
Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel, RS Access, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–
11768, at 2–3 (filed Sept. 21, 2020) (RS Access Sept.
21, 2020 Ex Parte); DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte
at 4 (stating that ‘‘since the 2016 studies,
developments in the satellite industry indicate that
NGSO FSS constellations possess geostationary-like
functions and properties that could prove more
compatible with 5G services in the 12 GHz Band
than the last-generation NGSO earth stations.’’).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
terrestrial flexible use service is
compatible with DBS service due to
technological advances, such as targeted
small-cell deployments and advanced
antenna techniques like beamforming
and beamsteering, which allow better
control of transmitter energy and
therefore can protect DBS. Other
proponents of terrestrial, flexible use of
the band similarly argue that
developments since the MVDDS
Petition was submitted in 2016 open up
the possibility of coexistence between
DBS, terrestrial flexible use, and NGSO
FSS operations, and they maintain that
the complex technical issues this raises
warrant a new Commission rulemaking.
As such, the Commission seeks
comment on adding a mobile service
allocation throughout the 12 GHz band,
whether coexistence between and
among these competing services is
technically achievable and, if so, what
mechanisms the Commission might
consider in facilitating such
coexistence.
19. The Commission notes that
section 303(y) provides the Commission
with authority to provide for flexible
use operations only if: ‘‘(1) such use is
consistent with international
agreements to which the United States
is a party; and (2) the Commission finds,
after notice and opportunity for public
comment, that (A) such an allocation
would be in the public interest; (B) such
use would not deter investment in
communications services and systems,
or technology development; and (C)
such use would not result in harmful
interference among users.’’ 46 The
Commission seeks comment on whether
adding a mobile allocation to the 12
GHz band to allow flexible, terrestrial
use is consistent with this provision.47
In particular, the Commission seeks
information on the status of
technologies that have been developed
or are currently in development that
would allow for two-way mobile
communications in the 12 GHz band,
whether standards have been set related
46 Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105–
33, 111 Stat 251, 268–69 sec. 3005 Flexible Use of
Electromagnetic Spectrum (codified at 47 U.S.C.
303(y)). See also 47 CFR 2.106, 27.2, 27.3.
47 The Commission notes the 12 GHz band has
not been proposed at the International
Telecommunication Union (ITU) for 5G or
International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT)
use at this time. Intelsat Opposition at 3; MVDDS
5G Coalition Reply at 6; Letter From Grover G.
Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, et
al., to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket
No. RM–11768, at 3 (filed Oct. 16, 2020) (ATR Oct.
16, 2020 Ex Parte); Letter from Thomas A. Schatz,
President, Citizens Against Government Waste, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–
11768, at 3 (filed Oct. 22, 2020) (CAGW Oct. 22,
2020 Ex Parte). The Commission seeks comment on
the pertinence of this observation.
PO 00000
Frm 00055
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13271
to such technologies, whether there are
any international agreements on a band
plan or air interface for the 12 GHz
band, and the impact (if any) on
international rights for U.S.-licensed
systems that might be affected as a
result of its providing for expanded
shared use of the band.48
1. Protecting Satellite Incumbents From
Harmful Interference
20. The Commission seeks comment
on the technical parameters that could
allow additional terrestrial use of the
band without causing harmful
interference to incumbent operators.
Among other things, the Commission
seeks comment on whether it should
allow two-way communications and
flexible use of the band as well as what
technical parameters would be
appropriate for such new terrestrial
operations. For example, assuming
existing MVDDS service rules as the
baseline, should the Commission
eliminate or modify the EIRP restriction
for terrestrial operators of 14.0 dBm per
24 megahertz (¥16.0 dBW per 24
megahertz)?
21. Protecting DBS Operations. The
MVDDS 5G Coalition and others assert
that coexistence is feasible between
those conducting two-way mobile
operations and existing and future DBS
receivers. They maintain that terrestrial
operators could apply existing
technology profiles and newly available
ultra-high resolution imagery, neither of
which was available in 2002, with
modest adjustments to terrestrial site
locations and radio frequency design
parameters. The Commission seeks
comment on whether, and to what
extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition’s
proposed licensing of two-way, mobile
operations in the band, and its proposed
elimination of the EIRP limit, would
substantially redefine the scope of DBS
operators’ obligations and potential
burdens under the current regime. If
flexible use is authorized in the band,
should the burden of avoiding or
correcting for interference to existing or
future DBS subscribers be revised? Or
should two-way and/or mobile licensees
be subject to the same requirements for
protecting DBS subscribers that
currently apply to other services in the
band? How could other factors—such as
geographic separation, transmitter
power constraints on terrestrial
operations, and other siting parameters
48 See Letter from David Goldman, Director of
Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM–11768, Attach. A,
Questions Necessary to Balance the 12 GHz NPRM,
at 3–4 (filed Jan. 6, 2021) (SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex
Parte).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
13272
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
for flexible-use base stations—minimize
the risk of interference to DBS users?
22. The MVDDS 5G Coalition asserts
that sharing between two-way, higher
EIRP mobile operations and DBS, is
possible through careful selection of
areas to deploy mobile broadband,
modest adjustments to radiofrequency
design parameters, elimination of
interference through geographic
separation, absorption in the clutter,
transmitter power constraints on
terrestrial operations, and other
mechanisms. The Commission seeks
comment on whether such an approach
is feasible, both as a technical and a
practical manner. The Commission
seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of such an approach.
23. The MVDDS 5G Coalition also
suggests that keeping terrestrial signals
below the applicable EPFD limit at all
DBS antenna locations generally could
avoid harmful interference to existing
DBS subscribers regardless of the EIRP
or whether the operations are fixed or
mobile, or one- or two-way.49 Do
commenters agree? AT&T notes that
DBS customers can install dishes
anywhere on their premises and
sometimes even on moving vehicles,
and that DBS operators do not have
access to granular location data for their
receive terminal installations. Does the
Coalition’s proposed solution resolve
that concern? Can cell-site EIRP or
location be engineered to mitigate any
potential interference? What are
appropriate EIRP considerations for base
and mobile stations? Given that all DBS
earth stations look toward the southern
sky for communication with GSO space
stations orbiting at the equatorial plane,
and given that high-gain antennas are
necessary for base stations, can base
station location and/or antenna
orientation be situated to provide
greater protection to DBS earth stations?
What is the impact of base station height
with respect to interference? Will lower
base station height reduce the potential
for interference to both DBS and NGSO?
What are the potential costs associated
with this solution?
24. AT&T counters that although oneway services currently permitted under
49 See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 19;
MVDDS 5G Coalition Comments at 6 & n.21 (citing
Coexistence 1 at 4). AT&T had argued that there
may be potential statutory issues including whether
proposed two-way, mobile use of the band would
require an independent technical analysis showing
that DBS would be protected. AT&T Opposition at
2 & n.4 (citing section 1012 of the LOCAL TV Act).
In December 2018, however, this provision the
LOCAL TV Act was stricken. Public Law 106–553,
114 Stat. 2762, 265–66 sec. 1012 Prevention of
Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services,
stricken by Public Law 115–334, 132 Stat. 4490,
4777–78 sec. 6603 Amendments to Local TV Act.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
MVDDS licenses may coexist with DBS,
two-way mobile service would create an
untenable interference environment for
DBS subscribers. Specifically, AT&T
contends that enabling two-way, mobile
use—which would include transient
signals from unpredictable locations
and angles—would make it impossible
to model and avoid interference to DBS
receivers, and that it would be
‘‘exceptionally difficult for the DBS
operator to trace or identify’’ the cause
of interference as the signal moved. The
Commission seeks comment on this
view.
25. Protecting NGSO FSS Operations.
SpaceX asserts the technical studies
submitted by the MVDDS 5G Coalition
demonstrate that ‘‘while coexistence
between DBS and 5G MVDDS would
prove feasible within limits, coexistence
between NGSO FSS and 5G MVDDS
would not prove feasible, without
substantial constraints on one or both
services,’’ and that ‘‘MVDDS licensees
cannot deploy two way 5G services in
the 12.2–12.7 GHz band without
overwhelming NGSO FSS operations,
even under the current rules,
notwithstanding new 5G deployment
architectures and newly available highresolution ground-obstacle data.’’
SpaceX also points out that one such
2016 study assumes ‘‘an overly
optimistic 30dB of NGSO user antenna
discrimination toward the horizon and
still determines that extreme
interference (C/I = 0dB) into the NGSO
receiver will occur from a single 5G
mobile device that is 1,000 meters away
operating at EIRP of 23dBm per 24MHz
in free space conditions.’’ SpaceX
argues that ‘‘[e]xtending this analysis to
a more relevant threshold of I/N of ¥6
to ¥12dB yields the conclusion that a
single 5G mobile device could cause
interference at a distance of greater than
10km in free space conditions,’’ and that
‘‘[m]ore than one 5G mobile device in
the vicinity would increase this
distance.’’ Accordingly, SpaceX asks
how DISH would ensure that its 5G
mobile users are always tens of
kilometers from the nearest NGSO user
antenna on the ground, or
approximately 10 kilometers away for
single 5G mobile devices, with larger
separation distances necessary for
multiple 5G devices? Furthermore, it
asks if such separation distances are
really a practical solution as NGSO FSS
users become ubiquitously deployed in
the near future? Finally, it inquires if
under this scheme, 5G operations in an
area would cease operations if notified
by an NGSO operator of observed
interference?
26. DISH asserts that technological
developments in the satellite industry
PO 00000
Frm 00056
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
may have increased the degree to which
NGSO FSS constellations and flexible
use, including two-way mobile service,
may coexist. Specifically, DISH
maintains that current-generation NGSO
FSS constellations possess
geostationary-like functions and
properties that could prove more
compatible with flexible use than lastgeneration NGSO earth stations. DISH
asserts that to the extent NGSO FSS
satellites maintain a highly elliptical
orbit and time their active operations to
align with the perigee of their orbit in
a manner intended to simulate the
operation of a GSO system,50 such
operations presumably would be in a
better position to coexist with flexible
use operations than a standard NGSO
FSS system. DISH further contends that,
given the large number of satellites
contemplated by these systems, an
NGSO FSS antenna should be expected
to operate with a much narrower field
of view as opposed to one encompassing
all realistic azimuths and elevation
angles. Thus, DISH asserts that, at some
level of concentration, large numbers of
NGSO FSS satellites could operate for
interference purposes like fixed DBS
licensees, because the receiving earth
stations would be directed at a limited
number of proximate points in lowEarth orbit instead of at a nearly
limitless array of different points
throughout the sky.
27. The Commission seeks comment
on the technical analyses submitted to
date, as well as further information and
studies related to the feasibility, costs,
and benefits of sharing among these
services. To what extent does NGSO
satellite systems operate in a manner
described by DISH? In other words, do
all NGSO systems operate in highly
elliptical orbits or with earth stations
pointed toward fixed locations in the
sky? If not, are there plans for NGSO
system operators to modify their
systems in this manner? What would be
the implication on latency for end users
if NGSO FSS systems were modified to
highly elliptical orbits? What is the
practical range of azimuth and elevation
angles over which NGSO earth stations
are expected to operate? SpaceX notes
that existing NGSO FSS systems are
authorized to operate down to 10-degree
elevation angles in the U.S. and
questions whether terrestrial uses could
be added to the band while still
protecting NGSO licensees that use
these elevation angles. What level of
50 A highly elliptical orbit is a highly eccentrical
orbit with a low perigee and a high apogee. Perigee
is the point in a satellite’s orbit closest to the earth,
while apogee is the point in orbit farthest from the
earth. The orbital pattern follows the curve on an
ellipse.
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
NGSO FSS satellite concentration
would ensure that NGSO receiving earth
stations would be directed at a limited
number of proximate points in lowEarth orbit? How many earth stations do
NGSO operators expect to deploy? What
methods can base and mobile stations
use to avoid causing harmful
interference to NGSO receive stations?
Commenters that contend that
coexistence is feasible should address
whether, given the existing technical
rules, sufficient spectrum will be
available to support new terrestrial
service and describe the potential costs
associated with any solution.
28. The Commission notes that NGSO
interests and various other parties argue
that expanding terrestrial rights to
include flexible use, including two-way,
mobile service in the 12 GHz band,
could create harmful interference that
would jeopardize their offerings, and
undermine the investments that they
have made in the band. The
Commission seeks comment on the
appropriate technical criteria that would
be necessary to protect NGSO FSS from
harmful interference from higher-power,
two-way mobile operations. Would the
existing interference criteria in the
MVDDS rules be sufficient? 51 How
would an NGSO FSS operator or
subscriber identify the source of any
interference received in the event that
mobile operations are authorized in the
band? SpaceX argues that, because the
Commission has permitted blanket
authorizations for earth stations in the
band (enabling millions of consumer
earth stations to ubiquitously
proliferate), it would be impossible to
track these consumer deployments in
real-time, much less prevent harmful
interference to them by transient and
unpredictable mobile operations.
SpaceX also points out that the sharing
studies submitted by the MVDDS
Coalition confirm that 5G use would
clearly overwhelm NGSO FSS
operations. Given the potential for
NGSO FSS operations to provide much
needed service in rural and other
underserved areas, The Commission
seeks comment on the costs and benefits
of adding terrestrial two-way mobile
services to the band.
29. In response to the assertions from
SpaceX and other NGSO operators about
the potential for harmful interference,
DISH argues that NGSO FSS service is
not dependent on the 12 GHz band; it
contends that, ‘‘[i]f the FCC were to
repurpose the 12 GHz band for
terrestrial 5G services, SpaceX would
retain nearly 97% of all spectrum and
nearly 94% of all space-to-earth
spectrum made available for its
proposed NGSO FSS system.’’ In
response, several NGSO operators argue
that the entirety of the two gigahertz of
spectrum from 10.7 GHz to 12.7 GHz
currently licensed to several NGSO FSS
operators for downlink operations is
necessary for NGSO FSS deployment.
SpaceX argues there are additional
constraints in the other portions of
10.95–12.2; for example, 10.95–11.7 has
further non-harmful interference
protections due to terrestrial being
primary, which could affect consumer
earth stations in this portion of the
band. Others argue that harmful
interference to NGSO operators in the
500 megahertz of the 12 GHz band
would negatively affect NGSO
operators’ ability to split equally the
remaining 1.5 gigahertz of spectrum
during in-line interference events. The
Commission seeks comment on these
views, but reiterate that it is focused on
protecting incumbent licensees,
including incumbent NGSO operators,
from harmful interference in this
proceeding.
30. Other Technical Means of
Protecting Satellite Incumbents. One
additional approach to protecting
incumbents would be to restrict new
terrestrial operations to indoor use. The
Commission has adopted this approach
to permit unlicensed devices to share
spectrum with licensed services in
several bands.52 Such indoor devices
could be used for providing internet
connectivity as well as connecting
internet-of-things devices in both
consumer and industrial applications.
The Commission’s Technological
Advisory Council 5G/IoT/O–RAN
working group recommended that the
Commission consider private spectrum
for enterprise internet-of-things devices
in locations such as confined geographic
areas, buildings, and campuses. Could
indoor 12 GHz unlicensed devices meet
this need? Would restricting new
terrestrial devices to indoor uses enable
them to co-exist with satellite services?
What power level would the indoor
devices need to be limited to avoid
causing harmful interference to satellite
51 See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, (f)(1); 101.147(p).
See also 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD
level beyond 3 km from an MVDDS station to ¥135
dBW/m2 in any 4 kHz measured and/or calculated
at the surface of the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting
location of MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10
km of any qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent
mutual agreement of the licensees).
52 47 CFR 15.407(d)(3); Unlicensed Use of the 6
GHz Band, Report and Order and Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 3852, 3888–89,
paras. 98–103(2020); Use of the 5.850–5.925 GHz
Band, First Report and Order, Further Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, and Order of Proposed
Modification, ET Docket No. 19–138, FCC 20–164,
para. 61 (adopted Nov. 18, 2020).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00057
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13273
services (and would it be materially
higher than if the Commission assumes
outdoor use for the new terrestrial
operations)? What would be the costs
and benefits of this approach?
2. Assigning New Terrestrial Use Rights
31. The Commission next seeks
comment on how it should assign any
new terrestrial service rights. Given that
MVDDS licensees themselves have
terrestrial usage rights in large
geographic areas across the United
States, the Commission seeks comment
on three approaches to authorize any
new terrestrial rights in the band: (1)
Modifying the licenses of existing
licensees under section 316 of the
Communications Act, (2) auctioning off
overlay licenses in the band, and (3)
authorizing underlay use of the band.
32. First, should the Commission
consider modifying existing incumbent
licenses using its section 316 authority
to allow increased terrestrial operational
flexibility? In this band, because there
are several types of existing
incumbents—DBS, MVDDS, and
NGSO—there are several potential
options for expanding terrestrial rights.
One option would be to expand the
rights of existing terrestrial licensees to
allow them to provide 5G terrestrial
services. For instance, when the
Commission authorized mobile use in
the 28 GHz band, it granted mobile
rights to existing fixed licensees, after
finding that such an approach would
expedite service, and that separating
‘‘fixed’’ and ‘‘mobile’’ rights into
different bundles could create
unnecessary complexity and potential
for interference. Similarly, the
Commission has modified other licenses
in the past to increase the flexibility
afforded to incumbents to put spectrum
to its highest and best use.53 Do similar
reasons support modifying the MVDDS
licenses to incorporate greater
flexibility? Or are there distinctions that
suggest the Commission should adopt a
different approach here?
33. Another option would be to grant
flexible terrestrial use rights to the
incumbent satellite operators. As
53 See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless
Services in the 2000–2020 MHz and 2180–2200
MHz Bands (2 GHz bands), WT Docket Nos. 12–70
and 04–356, ET Docket No. 10–142, Report and
Order and Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC
Rcd 16102, 16220–22, 16224, paras. 319–21, 331–
32, (2012) (modifying incumbent MSS licensees to
allow widespread terrestrial authorizations);
Amendment of Part 27 of the Commission’s Rules
to Govern the Operation of Wireless
Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT
Docket No. 07–293, Report and Order and Second
Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710, 11712, 11723,
paras. 2, 29 (2010) (modifying rules to enable the
deployment of mobile broadband services by
incumbent terrestrial licensees).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
13274
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
SpaceX notes, the Commission granted
terrestrial rights to the AWS–4 band to
existing satellite licensees based on an
assumption that closely coordinated
satellite and terrestrial operations would
be necessary to overcome interference
issues. Would affording flexible use
rights to incumbent satellite operators
best ensure that these services do not
experience harmful interference?
34. Under the current regulatory
regime in the band, DBS operators have
priority over the other services,
including both MVDDS and NGSO
licensees. Should the Commission grant
flexible terrestrial use rights to DBS
licensees based on their priority status?
One of the potential challenges to such
an approach, however, involves the
different ways in which DBS rights and
terrestrial rights are generally assigned.
While the DBS operators have exclusive
rights to transmit from each of their
orbital slots, they have non-exclusive
rights in terms of geographic coverage
(i.e., they jointly share the right to
transmit across the United States using
the 12.2–12.7 GHz band). In contrast, in
order to encourage investment and
innovation by terrestrial licensees, the
Commission generally assigns new
terrestrial use licenses on an exclusive
geographic basis. Given that each DBS
operator in the band uses the full 12
GHz band on a shared basis with the
other DBS operator, if the Commission
awarded flexible terrestrial use rights to
both incumbents, how should the
flexible terrestrial use rights be
awarded? Could the Commission leave
this matter to commercial negotiations
between the parties? If so, would such
an approach lead to an efficient
outcome? If the Commission cannot rely
solely on negotiation between the DBS
operators, how would it reconcile
conflicts between the DBS operators
over how to apportion terrestrial rights?
The Commission notes that, under
section 309(j) of the Communications
Act of 1934, as amended, if mutually
exclusive applications for initial
licenses are received, it must use
competitive bidding to resolve the
mutual exclusivity. The Commission
seeks comment on whether, and how,
the process of negotiating and assigning
terrestrial rights to DBS operators could
occur without triggering this
requirement.
35. Alternatively, the Commission
could grant flexible terrestrial use rights
to NGSO operators in addition to DBS
operators. The Commission notes that
this option would create at least two
complications. First, there would need
to be negotiations between a
significantly larger number of
operators—there are currently only two
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
DBS operators, while there have been
six NGSO authorizations granted for use
of the 12 GHz band. Second, the
apportionment of terrestrial rights
would be further complicated by the
fact that one set of operators (DBS)
currently has superior rights to the other
set of operators (NGSO). Could the
Commission rely on commercial
negotiations to achieve an efficient
outcome between these operators, and if
not, would it be possible to resolve
differences in a manner that both
comports with section 309(j) and
achieves an efficient and expeditious
outcome?
36. Second, should the Commission
auction overlay licenses for the band?
Some commenters argue that this
approach would ensure that the new
flexible-use licenses are assigned to
entities that are capable of rapidly
deploying in the band. If the
Commission was to adopt this overlay
license approach, it expects that new
licensees would not be able to deploy
operations that would cause harmful
interference to incumbent operations
absent an agreement to the contrary.
What rights, if any, should overlay
licensees have to relocate incumbent
operations? Specifically, should the
Commission authorize only voluntary
relocation of incumbent operations,
either for a limited period or in
perpetuity? 54 Or should the
Commission allow mandatory relocation
of such operations, either immediately
or after some period of time to allow
negotiations? If the Commission was to
authorize mandatory relocation, should
the new licensees be responsible for
finding or consolidating incumbent
operations (while ensuring such
operators can continue with
substantially similar operations and are
held harmless financially)? Or should
the Commission designate some portion
of the 12 GHz band or another spectrum
band for such relocation? What
parameters would the Commission need
to put down to ensure efficient use of
new overlay licenses while protecting
incumbents? Would a transition
mechanism like the one used in 3.7–4.2
GHz, including accelerated relocation
payments for incumbents to encourage
them to voluntarily make the spectrum
available for two-way mobile flexible
54 In the 900 MHz Report and Order, the
Commission realigned the band and established a
transition mechanism based primarily on
negotiations between prospective broadband
licensees and existing narrowband incumbent
licensees. Review of the Commission’s Rules
Governing the 896–901/935–940 MHz Band, Report
and Order, Order of Proposed Modification, and
Orders, WT Docket No. 17–200, FCC 20–67, (May
14, 2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00058
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
use in an expeditious manner, be
appropriate for some or all incumbents
in this band? 55
37. Third, should new terrestrial
operations come in the form of an
underlay? Under this type of approach,
any additional terrestrial operations
likely would need to be authorized at
low power and would need to operate
on an opportunistic basis, not causing
harmful interference to—nor seeking
protection from harmful interference
by—the incumbent primary services in
the band. For example, if the technical
analysis were to show only that lowpower, two-way operations were
feasible, would a low-power, unlicensed
underlay make the most sense, as
advocated by Public Knowledge?
Specifically, Public Knowledge argues
that making 500 megahertz of spectrum
available on an unlicensed or licensedby-rule basis could allow for new Wi-Fi
6 uses which the Commission has
previously supported in the 6 GHz
proceeding. If the Commission adopts
such an approach, could it rely on its
traditional part 15 rules for such an
underlay? Alternatively, should the
Commission consider the auctioning of
underlay licenses or licensing underlay
use by rule? The Commission notes that
any users of such an underlay would be
required to fully protect all DBS, NGSO
FSS, and MVDDS operations. Given this
requirement, the Commission seeks
comment on the costs and benefits of an
underlay approach.
38. In deciding how to assign new
terrestrial rights, the Commission notes
that several commenters contend that
MVDDS licensees have failed to provide
meaningful commercial service in the
band. As a construction requirement,
MVDDS licensees must make a showing
of substantial service at the end of five
years into the license period and ten
years into the license period.56 The
Commission established a safe harbor
for MVDDS of actual delivery of service
to customers via four separate
transmitting locations per million
55 See 47 CFR 27.1411–27.1424, Expanding
Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket
No. 18–122, Report and Order and Order of
Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020).
See also AT&T Aug. 6, 2020 Ex Parte at 6.
56 47 CFR 101.1413(b) (‘‘The substantial service
requirement is defined as a service that is sound,
favorable, and substantially above a level of
mediocre service which might minimally warrant
renewal.’’). At the end of each period, ‘‘the
Commission will consider factors such as: (1)
whether the licensee’s operations service niche
markets or focus on serving populations outside of
areas serviced by other MVDDS licensees; (2)
whether the licensee’s operations serve populations
with limited access to telecommunications services;
and (3) a demonstration of service to a significant
portion of the population or land area of the
licensed area.’’ Id.
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
population in their license area.57 The
Commission is aware of only one
current wide-area commercial MVDDS
deployment, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.58 Apart from the showing for
the Albuquerque license, other licensees
report meeting the Commission’s
substantial service construction
requirement for each license based on
the safe harbor for MVDDS. Although
MVDDS licensees point out that they
met the required construction
benchmarks and claim that they have
plans for future service, these licensees
also contend that the current technical
rules for MVDDS are prohibitively
restrictive. Should the Commission
delay expanding flexible-use rights in
the 12 GHz band until such time as the
Bureau resolves any issues associated
with MVDDS licensee’s substantial
showing filings, as suggested by
SpaceX? While the Commission expects
that the Bureau will carefully examine
the licensees’ filings for compliance
with the applicable rules, it also seeks
comment on the current status of
MVDDS network construction. In what
areas are MVDDS licensees currently
providing services and in what areas do
licensees anticipate offering services in
the near term?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Approaches to Sharing
39. If coexistence among the coprimary services, i.e., DBS, NGSO FSS,
MVDDS incumbents, and the proposed
flexible-use service (i.e., two-way,
mobile service) is technically feasible
without resulting in harmful
interference to any incumbent service,
the Commission next seeks comment on
the appropriate means to facilitate such
shared use. The Commission recognizes
that its technical analysis as well as
public interest considerations will guide
its approach to sharing, and it seeks
comment on whether particular
approaches to sharing depend on certain
57 See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the
Commission’s Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO
FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency
Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and
Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98–206,
17 FCC Rcd 9612, para. 177 (2002).
58 The MVDDS licensee in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, reports that it has deployed a large-scale
broadband internet service offering that reaches
more than 900,000 people (or approximately 50
percent of the population) in the Albuquerque
geographic license area. See RS Access, LLC, ULS
File No. 0008742312, Required Notification for Call
Sign WQAR 561, Substantial Service Showing
Supplement at 43–49. ‘‘To build a high-speed, highpower broadband network, RSA/MDS required a
waiver from the FCC of certain MVDDS operating
constraints—namely, the EIRP levels.’’ Id. at 43
(note omitted). RS Access states that the waiver
allows a single transmitter to replicate the service
quality of multiple MVDDS transmitters operating
elsewhere without a waiver. Id. at 43.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
results of its technical analysis (for
example, is one approach more
appropriate than another if it kept a
maximum EIRP for terrestrial
operations?).
40. Service-Rule Sharing. The
Commission first seeks comment on
whether the operating parameters
proposed by the MVDDS 5G Coalition—
specifically modifying the power levels
available to terrestrial operations and
modifying some of the coordination
requirements—are sufficient to enable
new terrestrial operations. What are the
maximum power levels and the most
flexibility that could be granted to new
terrestrial operations with simple
service-rule sharing while still
protecting incumbents from harmful
interference? Commenters should
discuss the potential benefits and value
of terrestrial operations under these
conditions.
41. Geographic Sharing. Would
geographic sharing protect and facilitate
use of DBS and NGSO FSS in some
areas without precluding new flexibleuse deployment elsewhere? Would
geographic sharing allow higher-power
terrestrial operations in certain areas
rather than others? How should such
geographic sharing be structured? Do
subscribers of satellite services typically
receive these services in more rural
areas? What are the propagation
characteristics of this band with respect
to mobile system coverage? What is the
cell size? Like other, higher-frequency
5G bands, will cell size be limited to a
few hundred meters based on line-ofsite conditions? Can smaller sized cells
provide the flexibility necessary to
mitigate any potential interference with
respect to DBS (or NGSO) satellite
service operations either before or after
deployment of the network? What are
the potential costs and benefits of
geographic sharing?
42. According to AT&T, the MVDDS
5G Coalition’s proposal would result in
‘‘some fixed, low-power base stations in
‘unique geographic conditions’ away
from the millions of DBS users
sprinkled through virtually every
community, perhaps in ‘urban canyons’
or other places where satellites might
not reach.’’ The Commission seeks
comment on this view.
43. Dynamic Sharing Between Full
Power Terrestrial and Satellite.
Federated Wireless claims that
‘‘industry [has] confidence in the ability
of dynamic spectrum sharing
technologies to enable new and
innovative uses in [ ] spectrum, while
protecting incumbent operations.’’
Parties such as DISH, DSA, Federated
Wireless, Public Knowledge, RS Access,
and WeLink argue that new dynamic
PO 00000
Frm 00059
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13275
spectrum sharing techniques, such as
spectrum access systems (SASs) that
were developed for the Citizens
Broadband Radio Service and the
automated frequency coordination
(AFC) approach established for
unlicensed access in the 6 GHz band,
could facilitate increased terrestrial use
of the 12 GHz band. How could
dynamic sharing mechanisms facilitate
continued use by DBS, NGSO FSS, and
MVDDS incumbents, while also
accommodating potential new uses such
as two-way mobile service?
44. What improvements have there
been in dynamic spectrum technology
that might enable flexible use and
sharing among these services? For
example, are database-based
coordination systems sophisticated
enough to account for earth stations’
receiving data from both thousands of
NGSO satellites as well as DBS
receivers, thus permitting mobile
terrestrial use while preventing harmful
interference to all incumbent users?
How would such a system work? Is
there any history of successful dynamic
spectrum sharing involving widely
deployed satellites and ubiquitous
terrestrial services?
45. How long would it take to develop
an automated frequency coordination
mechanism for the services in this
band? To what extent could the
Commission leverage existing
technologies (either the SASs created for
the 3.5 GHz band or the AFC being
developed for the 6 GHz band) to
perform these functions? Would an
entirely new system need to be
developed? To the extent the
Commission could repurpose an
existing system, what benefits or tradeoffs would there be between using an
existing system versus creating an
entirely new dynamic-use system
specifically tailored to the 12 GHz band?
Would such a spectrum sharing system
be able to satisfy the spectrum access
needs for all the current and potential
future satellite and terrestrial operators?
If so, would it be worth the cost and
burden of such a system to the
respective services?
46. If the Commission choose a
dynamic sharing approach, it would
propose to follow the existing
prioritization of services for protection,
with DBS continuing to receive the
highest protection, followed by NGSO
FSS and MVDDS. How should the
Commission assign priority under this
approach to new terrestrial operations?
And should the Commission assign
priority between NGSO FSS and
MVDDS uses? Should the Commission
continue to apply a ‘‘first-in-time’’
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
13276
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
approach in the context of a more
dynamic sharing environment?
47. The Commission seeks comment
on how a dynamic sharing mechanism
would incorporate legacy DBS
consumer equipment? AT&T has
expressed concern that DBS is unlike a
fixed service because DBS receivers are
deployed ubiquitously, with some
installed on vehicles and thus
effectively mobile, and because exact
geographic coordinates are not known.59
Could these conditions be remedied and
could the Commission seek information
to obtain greater granularity of location,
information on DBS end-user
equipment, the height of such
equipment at the installation location
and any technical aspects relevant for
coordination? How would a dynamic
frequency sharing coordination
mechanism determine the presence and
potential for interference from terrestrial
services to DBS? How would such a
mechanism incorporate legacy NGSO
FSS consumer terminals? If current DBS
or NGSO FSS end-user equipment or
databases are not able to support some
type of coordination mechanism, should
the Commission adopt a requirement to
incorporate such equipment going
forward? Should legacy equipment be
grandfathered and allowed to operate
until a specified end date? The
Commission notes that to receive
protection from new proposed MVDDS
transmitters, NGSO FSS licensees must
already maintain a database of fixed
subscriber earth stations, in a format
that can be readily shared with MVDDS
licensees.60 Would such a database
similarly facilitate protection from new
terrestrial mobile two-way services?
How should the Commission address
59 AT&T Oct. 16, 2020 Ex Parte at 2. According
to AT&T, DBS receivers are tied to subscriber
addresses, not specific coordinates, and subscribers
have the right to move their dish from one location
to another on their property without no notification
requirement. Id.
60 See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.139(a) (requiring NGSO
FSS licensees to maintain a subscriber database in
a format that can be readily shared with MVDDS
licensees for the purpose of determining
compliance with the MVDDS transmitting antenna
spacing requirement relating to qualifying existing
NGSO FSS subscriber receivers set forth in
§ 101.129); 101.103(f)(1) (prior to the construction
or addition of an MVDDS transmitting antenna, the
MVDDS licensee shall provide notice of intent to
construct the proposed antenna site to NGSO FSS
licensees operating in the 12 GHz band and
maintain an internet website of all existing
transmitting sites and transmitting antennas that are
scheduled for operation within one year, including
the ‘‘in-service’’ dates); 101.129(b) (MVDDS
licensees must not locate transmitting antennas
within 10 km of any qualifying NGSO FSS
receiver); 101.1440(b) (for each proposed
transmitter, MVDDS licensees must conduct a
survey to determine the location of all DBS
customers of record that may potentially be affected
by the introduction of its MVDDS service).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
any consumer privacy concerns, or
protection of proprietary and
confidential business information, that
might arise from the use of one or more
databases to facilitate shared use among
competing services? 61
48. If the Commission decides to give
priority to new terrestrial flexible-use
services, vis-a`-vis NGSO FSS or
MVDDS, should it consider an approach
similar to that taken in the 3.5 GHz
band, in which it auctioned Priority
Access Licenses (PALs) to promote
innovative use while protecting
incumbents? Federated Wireless argues
that the auction of PALs in 3.5 GHz
band could serve as a model for how to
facilitate shared use in the 12 GHz band.
SpaceX, however, argues that there are
important distinctions between the 3.5
GHz band and the 12 GHz band that
make it infeasible to auction PALs in
this band. For example, SpaceX asserts
that there are far fewer earth stations in
the 3.5 GHz band than the 12 GHz band
because FSS use in the former is limited
to international inter-continental
systems and is subject to case-by-case
electromagnetic compatibility analysis.
In addition, according to SpaceX,
blanket earth station licensing in 12
GHz means that there are many more
receivers in the band that cannot be
adequately tracked (including DBS
receivers). The Commission seeks
comment on these views.
49. More broadly, how would
dynamic spectrum sharing affect
existing services? Would it reduce the
incentives of existing operators to invest
in deployment? During the period in
which a sharing technology was
developed, would it prevent the band
from being put to its most productive
use? Or would it facilitate new
investment and innovation in this band?
50. Opportunistic Use of the Band.
Are there other approaches the
Commission could adopt to enable
operation of opportunistic use of the 12
GHz band? What technical and
operational rules would be needed to
ensure such systems do not cause
harmful interference to incumbent
systems? Considering the spectral needs
of DBS, MVDDS, NGSO FSS, would
there be usable spectrum in enough
geographic areas to allow for more than
de minimis opportunistic use? Would
there be enough interest in such use to
spur equipment manufacturing?
Commenters that believe there is a
potential approach should specifically
address the potential value created
through sharing and costs of the
proposed solution.
61 SpaceX
Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte, Attach. A at 2–
3.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
51. DSA argues that the Commission
could promote far more intensive use of
the band by authorizing coordinated
access to vacant 12 GHz spectrum on a
secondary basis. It contends that such
an approach would ‘‘provide spectrumas-infrastructure to fixed wireless ISPs
and other broadband network providers
[that operate] in underserved’’ areas,
including rural and tribal communities.
DSA argues that the Commission could
adopt rules for opportunistic access to
locally vacant spectrum in the 12 GHz
band that operate in much the same way
as the 3.5 GHz band rules authorize
General Authorized Access (GAA) to
unused PAL spectrum. Should
coordinated, shared use of the band for
high-capacity fixed wireless services be
authorized on an opportunistic,
unlicensed, or licensed-by-rule basis?
52. Could the 12 GHz band support
opportunistic use of unused spectrum
on a localized basis, such as for highcapacity fixed wireless in rural and less
densely populated areas? What
technical and operational rules would
be needed for such usage to ensure that
incumbent services are protected from
harmful interference? Would the
benefits of opportunistic use outweigh
the costs, such as the complexity it
would create and the coordination
burden it would place on incumbents?
53. Could such operation be permitted
based on sensing technology or a
database (such as a SAS)? What
provisions would be needed under
either type of regime to prevent harmful
interference to other services?
B. Maintaining the Current Framework
54. Next, the Commission seeks
comment on whether the costs of
accommodating new services in the
band, including the potential for
adverse impact or additional burden on
existing services, exceed the benefits.
Several commenters argue that the
existing rules and services in the band
allow for intense and efficient use of
this spectrum, and that changes to the
band are therefore unnecessary. For
example, SpaceX’s Starlink system has
commenced testing of its service in
multiple states, and SpaceX asserts it
will begin commercial broadband
service to rural users by the end of 2020.
SpaceX cites support from several
organizations for its Starlink system,
such as the Hoh Indian Tribe in
Washington who has stated that
‘‘because of NGSO service, the tribe
‘finally has broadband, distributed to its
community in only a matter of weeks’
and that the Commission should
‘maintain the careful and successful
balance that allows the 12 GHz
frequency band to provide this
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
service.’ ’’ SpaceX was a winning bidder
in the Rural Digital Opportunity Fund
Phase I auction, where it won $888.5
million to deploy high-speed broadband
to unserved homes and businesses over
a ten-year period. SpaceX claims that its
service is capable of providing
downlink/uplink speeds of 103/42
megabits-per-second and a consistently
observed median latency of 30
milliseconds. According to SpaceX,
making changes to the band potentially
could threaten its planned operations
while doing little to close the digital
divide. How might this uncertainty
affect future investment in new systems,
whether in 12 GHz or in other frequency
bands? What actions can the
Commission take in this proceeding to
ensure that the locations successfully
bid for through the RDOF process get
access to the broadband internet access
service committed to through that
program? SpaceX further claims that
NGSO systems have the potential to
provide low latency 5G backhaul using
12 GHz band spectrum. Could
maintaining the current framework
allow NGSO-provided backhaul to
proliferate? Alternatively, would
allowing terrestrial mobile service in the
band harm NGSOs’ ability to provide
backhaul? If terrestrial mobile and
satellite-based backhaul services cannot
both be provided in the band, then
which service would best serve the
public interest?
55. AT&T has repeatedly argued that
adopting the proposals of the MVDDS
5G Coalition would not adequately
protect DBS operations in the 12 GHz
band, which potentially could result in
‘‘an untenable interference
environment’’ for the tens of millions of
DBS subscribers receiving programming
via the 12 GHz Band. DISH, which is the
other DBS provider in the band,
disagrees and contends that MVDDS 5G
Coalition’s two technical studies have
demonstrated that geographic
separation, transmitter power
constraints on MVDDS operations, and
other siting parameters, as well as
absorption due to clutter, can ensure
that interference from terrestrial base
stations to DBS users would rarely, if
ever, occur. If the Commission
maintains the current framework, then
NGSO FSS and Fixed Service would
continue to operate on a co-primary,
non-harmful interference basis to
DBS.62 In that case, neither DBS nor
62 Under the approach that the Commission
adopted for NGSO FSS and MVDDS sharing, first
in-time NGSO FSS receivers and first in-time
MVDDS transmitting systems are afforded more and
easier use of the shared 12 GHz band than
subsequent deployments. The Commission
concluded that such a result is equitable and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
NGSO FSS would be subjected to the
uncertainty of new rules adopted for the
band. Are the potential benefits of
further action to facilitate flexible use
for terrestrial services in the 12 GHz
band outweighed by the potential
uncertainty and the costs caused by
granting terrestrial, flexible-use rights in
this band? Should the Commission
conclude that the appropriate balance
between satellite and terrestrial use has
already been struck by the framework
currently in place, such that few or no
revisions to the service rules are
required?
56. As noted above, the Commission
has made a substantial amount of
spectrum available for 5G services in the
period since the 5G MVDDS Coalition
filed its Petition. In particular, since that
time, the Commission completed the
post-auction transition of the 600 MHz
band, making 70 megahertz of low-band
spectrum available for 5G. The
Commission completed three auctions
of millimeter-wave spectrum, putting
nearly five gigahertz of high-band
spectrum into the market. At least one
nationwide service provider has
characterized this spectrum as
instrumental to its 5G deployment
plans. As for mid-band spectrum, the
Commission has repurposed 480
megahertz between 3550 and 3980 MHz
and is on track to potentially repurpose
an additional adjacent 100 megahertz in
the 3.45 GHz band.63 Have intervening
developments over the past four years,
including the Commission’s work to
make additional spectrum resources
available for 5G and the number of
NGSO systems that have been
authorized to operate using 12 GHz
band spectrum, counsel against making
changes to the current framework for the
12 GHz band? The Commission values
the public interest benefits that could
flow from NGSOs offering an affordable
solution for delivering high-speed
internet services to communities that
might be more expensive to serve
through other technologies. How should
the potential public interest benefits of
those services be balanced by the
Commission as it proceeds with this
rulemaking?
consistent with the co-primary status of NGSO FSS
and MVDDS. See MVDDS Second Report & Order,
17 FCC Rcd at 9659, para. 111; see also OneWeb
Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 5370 para. 8.
63 Auction of Priority Access Licenses in the
3550–3650 MHz Band Closes; Winning Bidders
Announced for Auction 105, Public Notice, 35 FCC
Rcd 9287 (2020); Expanding Flexible Use in the 3.7–
4.2 GHz Band, Report and Order, Order Proposing
Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020), Facilitating
Shared Use in the 3100–3550 MHz Band, Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 35 FCC Rcd 11078 (2020).
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13277
57. The Commission noted in the
OneWeb Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5366
(2017), that NGSO FSS operators have
access to other frequency bands, ‘‘such
that even if NGSO FSS systems were
precluded entirely from the 12.2–12.7
GHz band,’’ OneWeb would still retain
a measure of flexibility to provide its
proposed services. Given the
proliferation of NGSO authorizations
and ongoing deployments, the
Commission seeks comment on whether
this remains the case, as well as the
costs and benefits of maintaining the
current framework. Additionally, the
Commission adopted similar, though
not identical, conditions in the various
NGSO authorizations for use of the 12
GHz band. The Commission seeks
comment on the various conditions
included in the NGSO authorizations
and what effect (if any) these variations
should have on its analysis.
58. If the Commission maintains the
current framework, should it make any
revisions to the MVDDS technical rules
within the existing regulatory
framework so as to facilitate more robust
terrestrial operations without causing
harmful interference to satellite
operations in the band? 64 The
Commission notes that it contemplated
that MVDDS service providers might
petition for waivers of the technical
rules and that, in denying a petition for
reconsideration to increase the power
limit for all MVDDS licenses, it was not
prejudging whether a rationale for
higher EIRP and EPFD limits in rural
areas might have some technical merit
in certain very specific circumstances.
The Commission also stated that after it
gained experience with MVDDS
operations, it would entertain requests
to modify the general EPFD and EIRP
limits, if such experience provided
sufficient justification for such action.
The Commission invites comment on
whether there are any other changes it
could adopt in revising its existing rules
that would improve the efficiency of
incumbent use of the band.
III. Ordering Clauses
59. It is ordered, pursuant to the
authority found in sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,
7, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and
316 of the Communications Act of 1934,
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157,
301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and
64 See, e.g., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Seeks Comment on Petitions of Seven Licensees for
Waiver of Multichannel Video Distribution and
Data Service Technical Rules, WT Docket No. 15–
218, Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 9953 (WTB BD
2015) (petitioners seek waivers of 47 CFR 101.113
note 11, 101.147(p), 101.1407, and 101.1411(a), to
use the 12 GHz band for two-way, point-to-point
operation at an EIRP up to 55 dBm).
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
13278
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 43 / Monday, March 8, 2021 / Proposed Rules
316, and §§ 1.407 and 1.411 of the
Commission’s rules, 47 CFR 1.407,
1.411, the petition for rulemaking filed
by the MVDDS 5G Coalition, RM–11768,
is granted to the extent discussed herein
and otherwise terminated, and this
NPRM in the captioned docket(s) is
adopted.
60. It is further ordered that the
Commission’s Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference
Information Center, shall send a copy of
this NPRM, including the IRAF, to the
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small
Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021–04115 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MB Docket No. 21–49; RM–11874; DA 21–
158; FR ID 17525]
Television Broadcasting Services
Augusta, Georgia
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Video Division has before
it a petition for rulemaking filed
November 27, 2020 (Petition) by Gray
Television Licensee, LLC (Petitioner),
the licensee of WRDW–TV (CBS),
channel 12 (WRDW–TV or Station),
Augusta, Georgia. The Petitioner
requests the substitution of channel 27
for channel 12 at Augusta, Georgia in
the DTV Table of Allotments.
In support of its channel substitution
request, the Petitioner states that the
Commission has recognized that VHF
channels have certain propagation
characteristics which may cause
reception issues for some viewers, and
also that the ‘‘reception of VHF signals
require larger antennas . . . relative to
UHF channels.’’ According to the
Petitioner, ‘‘many of its viewers
experience significant difficulty
receiving WRDW–TV’s signal’’ and its
channel substitution proposal will allow
WRDW ‘‘to deliver a more reliable overthe-air signal to viewers.’’ The Petitioner
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:28 Mar 05, 2021
Jkt 253001
further states that operation on channel
27 will not result in any predicted loss
of service and would result in a
substantial increase in signal
receivability for WRDW viewers.
We believe that the Petitioner’s
channel substitution proposal warrants
consideration. Channel 27 can be
substituted for channel 12 at Augusta,
Georgia as proposed, in compliance
with the principal community coverage
requirements of section 73.625(a) of the
Commission’s rules at coordinates 33–
24–37.0 N and 81–50–36.0 W. In
addition, we find that this channel
change meets the technical
requirements set forth in sections 73.616
and 73.623 of the rules.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or
before April 7, 2021 and reply
comments on or before April 22, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Federal Communications
Commission, Office of the Secretary, 45
L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554. In
addition to filing comments with the
FCC, interested parties should serve
counsel for petitioner as follows: Joan
Stewart, Esq., Wiley Rein LLP, 1776
Street NW, Washington, DC 20006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andrew Manley, Media Bureau, at (202)
418–0596 or Andrew.Manley@fcc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking, MB Docket No.
21–49; RM–11874; DA 21–158, adopted
February 12, 2021, and released
February 12, 2021. The full text of this
document is available for download at
https://www.fcc.gov/edocs. To request
materials in accessible formats (braille,
large print, computer diskettes, or audio
recordings), please send an email to
FCC504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer &
Government Affairs Bureau at (202)
418–0530 (VOICE), (202) 418–0432
(TTY).
This document does not contain
information collection requirements
subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995, Public Law 104–13. In addition,
therefore, it does not contain any
proposed information collection burden
‘‘for small business concerns with fewer
than 25 employees,’’ pursuant to the
Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of
2002, Public Law 107–198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4). Provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–
612, do not apply to this proceeding.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
Members of the public should note
that all ex parte contacts are prohibited
from the time a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking is issued to the time the
matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court
review, see 47 CFR 1.1208. There are,
however, exceptions to this prohibition,
which can be found in Section 1.1204(a)
of the Commission’s rules, 47 CFR
1.1204(a).
See Sections 1.415 and 1.420 of the
Commission’s rules for information
regarding the proper filing procedures
for comments, 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Television.
Federal Communications Commission.
Thomas Horan,
Chief of Staff, Media Bureau.
Proposed Rule
For the reasons discussed in the
preamble, the Federal Communications
Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR
part 73 as follows:
PART 73—RADIO BROADCAST
SERVICE
1. The authority citation for part 73
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303,
307, 309, 310, 334, 336, and 339.
2. In § 73.622 in paragraph (i) amend
the Post-Transition Table of DTV
Allotments under Illinois by revising
the entry for Superior and York to read
as follows:
■
§ 73.622 Digital television table of
allotments.
*
*
*
(i) * * *
*
*
Community
*
Channel No.
*
*
*
*
Georgia
*
*
*
Augusta .........................
*
*
*
*
*
27, 30, 31, 42
*
[FR Doc. 2021–04719 Filed 3–5–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
E:\FR\FM\08MRP1.SGM
08MRP1
*
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 43 (Monday, March 8, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 13266-13278]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-04115]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 2, 15, 25, 27 and 101
[WT Docket No. 20-443, GN Docket No. 17-183, RM-11768 (Proceeding
Terminated); FCC 21-13; FRS 17479]
Expanding Flexible Use of the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission seeks comment on whether it
could add a new Mobile allocation or expanded terrestrial service
rights in 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum between 12.2-12.7 GHz (12
GHz band) without causing harmful interference to incumbent licensees.
Assuming the Commission could do so, it seeks comment on whether that
action would promote or hinder the delivery of next-generation services
in the 12 GHz band given the existing and emergent services offered by
incumbent licensees. The Commission proceeds mindful of the significant
investments made by incumbents and values the public interest benefits
that could flow from investments made to provide satellite broadband
services, particularly in rural and other underserved communities that
might be more expensive to serve through other technologies. The
Commission believes that it is appropriate, however, to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to allow interested parties to address whether
additional operations can be accommodated in the band while protecting
incumbent operations from harmful interference and for the Commission
to assess the public interest considerations associated with adding a
new allocation.
DATES: Comments due on or before April 7, 2021 and reply comments due
on or before May 7, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by WT Docket No. 20-443
and GN Docket No. 17-183, by any of the following methods:
Electronic Filers: Comments may be filed electronically
using the internet by accessing the ECFS: https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs.
Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must
file an original and one copy of each filing. If more than one docket
or rulemaking number appears in the caption of this proceeding, filers
must submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number.
Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-
class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission.
Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service
Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive,
Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority
mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington DC 20554.
Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings.
This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health
[[Page 13267]]
and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-
19.
During the time the Commission's building is closed to the
general public and until further notice, if more than one docket or
rulemaking number appears in the caption of a proceeding, paper filers
need not submit two additional copies for each additional docket or
rulemaking number; an original and one copy are sufficient.
People with Disabilities: To request materials in accessible
formats for people with disabilities (braille, large print, electronic
files, audio format), send an email to [email protected] or call the
Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau at 202-418-0530 (voice), 202-
418-0432 (tty).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madelaine Maior of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1466 or
[email protected]; or Simon Banyai of the Wireless
Telecommunications Bureau, Broadband Division, at 202-418-1443 or
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), in WT Docket No. 20-443; FCC 21-
13, adopted on January 2, 2021 and released on January 15, 2021. The
full text of this document is available electronically via the FCC's
website at https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-21-13A1.pdf or
via the FCC's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) website at https://www.fcc.gov/ecfs. (Documents will be available electronically in
ASCII, Microsoft Word, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) Alternative formats are
available for people with disabilities (braille, large print,
electronic files, audio format), by sending an email to [email protected]
or calling the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at
(202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), requires
that a regulatory flexibility analysis be prepared for notice and
comment rulemaking proceedings, unless the agency certifies that ``the
rule will not, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.'' Accordingly, the Commission has
prepared an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) concerning
potential rule and policy changes contained in this NPRM. The IRFA is
set forth in Appendix A, visit https://www.fcc.gov/edocs.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM may contain potential new or revised information
collection requirements. Therefore, the Commission seeks comment on
potential new or revised information collections subject to the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. If the Commission adopts any new or
revised information collection requirements, the Commission will
publish a notice in the Federal Register inviting the general public
and the Office of Management and Budget to comment on the information
collection requirements, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(4), the Commission seeks specific comment on how it might
further reduce the information collection burden for small business
concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Ex Parte Rules
Pursuant to Sec. 1.1200(a) of the Commission's rules, this NPRM
shall be treated as a ``permit-but-disclose'' proceeding in accordance
with the Commission's ex parte rules. Persons making ex parte
presentations must file a copy of any written presentation or a
memorandum summarizing any oral presentation within two business days
after the presentation (unless a different deadline applicable to the
Sunshine period applies). Persons making oral ex parte presentations
are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must (1) list
all persons attending or otherwise participating in the meeting at
which the ex parte presentation was made, and (2) summarize all data
presented and arguments made during the presentation. If the
presentation consisted in whole or in part of the presentation of data
or arguments already reflected in the presenter's written comments,
memoranda or other filings in the proceeding, the presenter may provide
citations to such data or arguments in his or her prior comments,
memoranda, or other filings (specifying the relevant page and/or
paragraph numbers where such data or arguments can be found) in lieu of
summarizing them in the memorandum. Documents shown or given to
Commission staff during ex parte meetings are deemed to be written ex
parte presentations and must be filed consistent with rule 1.1206(b).
In proceedings governed by rule 1.49(f) or for which the Commission has
made available a method of electronic filing, written ex parte
presentations and memoranda summarizing oral ex parte presentations,
and all attachments thereto, must be filed through the electronic
comment filing system available for that proceeding, and must be filed
in their native format (e.g., .doc, .xml, .ppt, searchable .pdf).
Participants in this proceeding should familiarize themselves with the
Commission's ex parte rules.
Synopsis
I. Background
1. In the United States, the 12 GHz band is allocated on a primary
basis for non-Federal use for Broadcasting Satellite Service (BSS)
(referred to domestically in the band as Direct Broadcast Satellite
(DBS), Fixed Satellite Service (space-to-Earth) limited to non-
geostationary orbit systems (NGSO FSS), and Fixed Service.\1\ While
these three services are co-primary, NGSO FSS and Fixed Service are
allocated on a non-harmful interference basis with respect to BSS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See 47 CFR 2.106, United States Table of Frequency
Allocations, non-Federal Table for the band 12.2-12.7 GHz. NGSO FSS
(space-to-Earth) operations are authorized pursuant to international
footnote 5.487A, which provides additional allocations including in
Region 2 as follows:
[The 12.2-12.7 GHz is] allocated to the fixed-satellite service
(space-to-Earth) on a primary basis, limited to non-geostationary
systems and subject to application of the provisions of [ITU Radio
Regulations] No. 9.12 for coordination with other non-geostationary-
satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service. Non-geostationary-
satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service shall not claim
protection from geostationary-satellite networks in the
broadcasting-satellite service operating in accordance with the
Radio Regulations, irrespective of the dates of receipt by the [ITU
Radiocommunication] Bureau of the complete coordination or
notification information, as appropriate, for the non-geostationary-
satellite systems in the fixed-satellite service and of the complete
coordination or notification information, as appropriate, for the
geostationary-satellite networks, and [international footnote] No.
5.43A does not apply. Non-geostationary-satellite systems in the
fixed-satellite service in the [12 GHz band] shall be operated in
such a way that any unacceptable interference that may occur during
their operation shall be rapidly eliminated.
47 CFR 2.106, n.5.487A. When an international footnote is
applicable without modification to non-Federal operations, the
Commission places the footnote on the non-Federal Table. See 47 CFR
2.105(d)(5).
\2\ See 47 CFR 2.106, n.5.490 (International Footnote). In
Region 2, in the 12.2-12.7 GHz band, existing and future terrestrial
radiocommunication services shall not cause harmful interference to
the space services operating in conformity with the broadcasting
satellite Plan for Region 2 contained in Appendix 30. ``Harmful
Interference'' is defined under the Commission's rules as
``[i]nterference which endangers the functioning of a
radionavigation service or of other safety services or seriously
degrades, obstructs, or repeatedly interrupts a radiocommunication
service operating in accordance with the ITU Radio Regulations.'' 47
CFR 2.1(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 13268]]
2. NGSO FSS operators also have a non-federal co-primary downlink
allocation and access to the 10.7-12.2 GHz band on a co-primary basis
with Fixed Service in 10.7-11.7 GHz and on a primary basis from 11.7-
12.2 GHz.\3\ Meanwhile, the adjacent frequencies above the band, 12.7-
12.75 GHz, are allocated for non-federal Fixed Service, FSS, and Mobile
Service.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 47 CFR 2.106. See also Update to Parts 2 and 25
Concerning Non-Geostationary, Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and
Related Matters, Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809 (2017) (2017 NGSO Order). FSS is co-
primary with Fixed Service for individually licensed earth stations.
Individually licensed FSS earth stations require coordination with
co-primary Fixed Service. The 2017 NGSO Order also adopted rules to
allow blanket earth station licensing for NGSOs in the 10.7-11.7 GHz
band on an unprotected basis relative to terrestrial Fixed Service.
As a result, blanket earth station licenses for NGSOs cannot claim
interference protection from terrestrial Fixed Service in the band.
Id. at 7817, paras. 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Currently there are three services authorized and operating in
the band: DBS providers operating under the primary BSS allocation,
Multi-Channel Video and Data Distribution Service (MVDDS) licensees
operating on a non-harmful interference basis to DBS under the co-
primary Fixed Service allocation, and NGSO licensees operating on a
non-harmful interference basis to DBS under the co-primary NGSO FSS
allocation. The Commission's rules enable sharing between co-primary
NGSO FSS and MVDDS using a combination of technical limitations,
information sharing, and first-in-time procedures.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, 101.147(p).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. The Commission added the DBS allocation in the early 1980s \5\
and DBS service began in 1994.\6\ In 1996 and 2004, some of these
licenses were awarded by competitive bidding.\7\ In 2000, the
Commission permitted a new terrestrial service, MVDDS, to operate in
the 12 GHz band under the existing Fixed Service allocation on a co-
primary, non-harmful interference basis to the incumbent DBS providers,
and on a co-primary basis to NGSO FSS.\8\ The Commission also adopted
rules to permit NGSO FSS operations in the 12 GHz band at this same
time.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Inquiry into the Development of Regulatory Policy in
Regard to Direct Broadcast Satellites for the Period Following the
1983 Regional Administrative Radio Conference, Report and Order, 90
FCC2d 676 (1982), recon. denied, 53 RR2d 1637 (1983).
\6\ See Revision of Rules and Policies for the Direct Broadcast
Satellite Service, Report and Order, 11 FCC 9712 (1995). DBS
operations are subject to the International Telecommunication (ITU)
Radio Regulations BSS and Feeder Link Plans contained in Appendices
30 and 30A.
\7\ In 1996 the Commission held two auctions for DBS orbital
slots at 110[deg] and 148[deg] in 1996. See, e.g., https://www.fcc.gov/auction/8; https://www.fcc.gov/auction/9. In 2004, the
Commission held an auction for three licenses for certain channels
at DBS orbital slots at 175,[deg] 166[deg] and 157[deg] but this
auction was nullified. See Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS) Service
Auction Nullified: Commission Sets Forth Refund Procedures for
Auction No. 52 Winning Bidders and Adopts a Freeze on All New DBS
Service Applications, Public Notice, 20 FCC Rcd 20618, 20618 & n.3
(2005) (citing Northpoint Technology, Ltd. v. FCC, 412 F.3d 145 (DC
Cir. 2005)). In its decision, the Appellate Court vacated and
remanded the section of the DBS Auction Order that concluded that
DBS is not subject to the auction prohibition of the Open-Market
Reorganization for the Betterment of International
Telecommunications Act, Public Law 106-180, 114 Stat. 48 section 647
(enacted Mar. 12, 2000), codified at 47 U.S.C. 765f (ORBIT Act). Id.
at n.3
\8\ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to
Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range, Amendment of the
Commission's Rules to Authorize Subsidiary Terrestrial Use of the
12.2-12.7 GHz Band by Direct Broadcast Satellite Licensees and Their
Affiliates; and Applications of Broadwave USA, PDC Broadband
Corporation, and Satellite Receivers, Ltd. to Provide A Fixed
Service in the 12.2-12.7 GHz Band, ET Docket No. 98-206, First
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, 16 FCC
Rcd 4096, 4177, para. 213 (2000) (First R&O and FNPRM).
\9\ Id. at 4099-4100, para. 2; see also Establishment of
Policies and Service Rules for the Non-Geostationary Satellite
Orbit, Fixed Satellite Service in the Ku-band, IB Docket No. 01-96,
Report and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 7841 (2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. The service rules for MVDDS permit one-way digital fixed non-
broadcast service, including one-way direct-to-home/office wireless
service.\10\ To protect DBS, the Commission adopted technical rules to
ensure that MVDDS stations would not cause harmful interference to DBS
and imposed extensive coordination requirements on MVDDS licensees for
each proposed station.\11\ These rules include detailed frequency
coordination procedures, interference protection criteria, and
limitations on signal emissions, transmitter power levels, and
transmitter locations.\12\ In particular, the rules limit the effective
isotropic radiated power (EIRP) for MVDDS stations to 14.0 dBm per 24
megahertz (-16.0 dBW per 24 megahertz).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ See 47 CFR 101.1407 (two-way services can be provided using
spectrum in other bands for the return link). See also Amendment of
Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules to Permit Operation of NGSO
FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-
Band Frequency Range, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Second Report
and Order, 17 FCC Rcd 9614 (2002) (MVDDS Second Report and Order)
(aff'd Northpoint Technology, LTD et al. v. FCC, 414 F.3d 61 (DC
Cir. 2005)).
\11\ See 47 CFR 101.1440.
\12\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report & Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9634-
9664 paras. 53-125; 9690-9695 paras. 196-209; 47 CFR 25.139 (NGSO
FSS coordination and information sharing between MVDDS licensees in
the 12.2 GHz to 12.7 GHz band); 25.208(k) (Power flux density
limits); 101.103 (Frequency coordination procedures); 101.105
(Interference protection criteria); 101.111 (Emission limitations);
101.113 (Transmitter power limitations); 101.129 (Transmitter
location); 101.1409 (Treatment of incumbent licensees); 101.1440
(MVDDS protection of DBS).
\13\ See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p). The EIRP limit for
MVDDS is expressed as a power spectral density, i.e., 14 dBm per 24
megahertz of spectrum. Herein the Commission occasionally refers to
EIRP levels in shorthand, e.g., ``14 dBm.'' The Commission clarifies
that these shorthand references are for convenience only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. To accommodate co-primary DBS earth stations that must be
protected from interference caused by MVDDS, an MVDDS licensee may not
begin operation unless it can ensure that the equivalent power flux
density (EPFD) \14\ from a proposed transmitting antenna does not
exceed the applicable EPFD limit at any DBS subscriber location.\15\
Specifically, an MVDDS licensee cannot begin operation in the 12 GHz
band unless it can ensure that the signal from its proposed
transmitting antenna will not exceed certain specified EPFD limits at
the receive antennas of any DBS customers of record (i.e., those who
have had their antenna installed either before or within 30 days after
the MVDDS licensee provides 90-days notice to DBS licensees of its
intent to commence operations).\16\ Accordingly, when an MVDDS licensee
is proposing to deploy a transmitting antenna, it must conduct a survey
of the area around its proposed transmitting antenna site to determine
the location of all DBS customers of record that may potentially be
affected by its service.\17\ After coordinating a proposed transmitter
with DBS licensees, the MVDDS licensee must remediate all complaints of
interference to DBS customers of record for one year after it begins
operating the transmitter.\18\ Going forward, the burden shifts to DBS
licensees for new customers (and after one year for the customers of
record) to take into account the presence of the MVDDS operations and
ensure that DBS subscribers do not suffer interference from previously
coordinated MVDDS stations.\19\ The Commission found that these and the
other technical requirements would ensure that any interference caused
to DBS customers
[[Page 13269]]
will not exceed a level that is considered permissible.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The EPFD is the power flux density produced at a DBS
receive earth station, taking into account shielding effects and the
off-axis discrimination of the receiving antenna assumed to be
pointing at the appropriate DBS satellite(s) from the transmitting
antenna of a MVDDS transmit station. 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii)(A).
\15\ The Commission established different EPFD limits in four
regions of the U.S., see 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(ii)(B), mainly due to
differences in rainfall in each region. See, e.g., MVDDS Second
Report & Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9691, para. 197.
\16\ See 47 CFR 101.1440(a).
\17\ See 47 CFR 101.1440(b).
\18\ See 47 CFR 101.1440(g).
\19\ See 47 CFR 101.1440(e) & (g).
\20\ See, e.g., MVDDS Second Report & Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9640-
9663 paras. 67-125, 9691-92, 198; see also 47 CFR 2.1 (defining
harmful interference).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. The Commission also enabled sharing between co-primary NGSO FSS
and MVDDS using a combination of technical limitations, information
sharing, and first-in-time procedures.\21\ Specifically, these two
services gain priority based on a first-in-time, first-in-right
approach, under which NGSO FSS receivers and MVDDS transmitting systems
are afforded priority in the 12 GHz band portion of spectrum vis-
[agrave]-vis each other based on which deployed earlier.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11; 101.147(p).
\22\ See 47 CFR 101.103(f)(1); see also 47 CFR 101.105(a)(4)(i)
(limiting the PFD level beyond 3 km from an MVDDS station to -135
dBW/m\2\ in any 4 kHz measured and/or calculated at the surface of
the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting location of MVDDS transmitting
antennas within 10 km of any qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent
mutual agreement of the licensees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Most recently, in 2016 and 2017, proponents of a new generation
of NGSO FSS systems sought Commission authority for planned
constellations of hundreds or thousands of small satellites using
several frequency bands, including the 12 GHz band, and in 2017, the
Commission updated its rules to enable the deployment of these emerging
systems.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ See Update to Parts 2 and 25 Concerning Non-Geostationary,
Fixed-Satellite Service Systems and Related Matters, Report and
Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 32 FCC Rcd 7809
(2017) (recon. pending).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
9. Two U.S.-licensed DBS providers, DISH Network L.L.C. (DISH) and
DIRECTV \24\ use the band throughout the US to provide DBS directly
from geostationary-orbit (GSO) satellites to relatively small dish
antennas at tens of millions of individual homes and businesses.
DIRECTV and DISH Network had over 22 million combined subscribers as of
the third quarter of 2020.\25\ Meanwhile, eight companies (10 legal
entities) currently hold 191 of 214 MVDDS licenses.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ DIRECTV became a subsidiary of AT&T in July 2015. See,
e.g., Applications of AT&T, Inc. and DIRECTV for Consent to Assign
or Transfer Control of Licenses and Authorizations, MB Docket No.
14-90, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 30 FCC Rcd 9131 (2015). Herein
the Commission refers to AT&T and DIRECTV interchangeably.
\25\ See S&P Market Intelligence, Multichannel Operators by DMA
(Q3 2020).
\26\ The remaining 23 licenses automatically terminated for
failure to meet the buildout requirement. See Requests of Three
Licensees of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data
Distribution Service for Extension of Time to Meet the Final
Buildout Requirement for Providing Substantial Service under Sec.
101.1413 of the Commission's Rules, Applications of Three Licensees
for Renewal of 22 Licenses in the Multichannel Video and Data
Distribution Service, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 10757 (WTB BD Oct. 29,
2018). See also Blumenthal DTV LLC, Call Sign WQAR709 (Terminated
July 26, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
10. In April 2016, the MVDDS 5G Coalition, which included eleven of
the twelve MVDDS licensees at that time, filed a Petition for
Rulemaking requesting reforms to the rules for the 12 GHz band.\27\ The
Petition seeks commencement of a rulemaking proceeding to: (i) Add a
Mobile allocation at 12.2-12.7 GHz to the Non-Federal Table of
Frequency Allocations, (ii) delete or demote to secondary the
``unused'' NGSO FSS allocation in this band from the Non-Federal Table
of Frequency Allocations, (iii) allow MVDDS licensees to provide two-
way, point-to-point or mobile broadband service, (iv) eliminate the
MVDDS effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) limit, and (v) seek
comment on easing the four regional equivalent power flux density
(EPFD) limits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Petition of MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition for Rulemaking, RM-
11768, filed Apr. 26, 2016 (MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition). See also
Petition for Rulemakings Filed, Public Notice, Report No. 3042 (May
9, 2016) (Petition Public Notice). In its most recent filing, the
Coalition's members were reported to be: Cass Cable TV, Inc. (Cass
Cable), DISH Network L.L.C., Go Long Wireless, LTD. (Go Long
Wireless), MDS Operations, Inc., MVD Number 53 Partners, Satellite
Receivers, Ltd., SOUTH.COM LLC, Story Communications, LLC, and
Vision Broadband, LLC (Vision Broadband). See Letter from Chad
Winters, Cass Cable, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket
No. RM-11768, at 1 (filed May. 28, 2019) (MVDDS 5G Coalition May 28,
2019 Ex Parte). The Commission notes that MDS Operations
subsequently assigned its remaining 60 MVDDS licenses to RS Access.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
11. The Coalition contended that the (then) 15-year-old MVDDS rules
did not account for the ``urgent national priority'' to make additional
spectrum available for 5G mobile services or the intervening
technological developments that would now make it feasible to provide
two-way mobile broadband services in the band while simultaneously
protecting DBS from harmful interference.\28\ The Coalition stated that
``5G services have unique attributes that facilitate sharing in high
frequency bands, such as the MVDDS band, since they can be used in a
localized way to provide capacity relief in urban canyons and
indoors.'' \29\ In conjunction with its Petition, the Coalition
provided two Coexistence Studies that it claimed illustrate that the
new rules it was proposing would protect DBS operators in the band but
that they would be incompatible with NGSO FSS.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 17-18; MVDDS 5G
Coalition Reply at 3.
\29\ MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 3. The Coalition notes that,
``with the emergence of 5G, higher spectrum bands can be used to
provide much needed broadband capacity relief using targeted, small
cell deployments (such as in buildings and at urban street level
locations) that present a lower interference potential than
traditional wide-area macrocell deployments in lower frequency
bands. Additionally, advanced antenna techniques like
``beamforming'' and ``beamsteering'' allow better control of
transmitter energy, enabling transmissions to be more narrowly
focused to desired locations (and away from receivers with which
they might interfere) dynamically.'' MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at
18.
\30\ MVDDDS 5G Coalition Comments, Attach. 1, MVDDS 12.2-12.7
GHz Co-Primary Service Coexistence (Coexistence 1) and MVDDS 5G
Coalition Reply, Appx. A, MVDDS 12.2-12.7 GHZ Co-Primary Service
Coexistence II (Coexistence 2) (collectively, Coexistence Studies).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
12. In the intervening four years, the Commission has taken action
to make additional spectrum available for 5G services.\31\ In 2020, the
Commission initiated a proceeding to consider rule changes to allow the
provision of 5G backhaul and broadband to ships and aircraft in motion
in the 70/80/90 GHz bands. Additionally in 2020, the Commission took
action to make available 280 megahertz of 3.7-4.2 GHz band spectrum
while relocating existing satellite operations to the upper part of the
band. Also in 2020 the Commission modernized certain rules governing
the 800 MHz and took action to expand unlicensed broadband
opportunities in the 6 GHz band. In 2019 the Commission completed
Auction 101, licensing 850 megahertz of spectrum for flexible use in
the 28 GHz band. In
[[Page 13270]]
Auction 102, the Commission licensed 700 megahertz of spectrum for
flexible use in the 24 GHz band. In Auction 103 the Commission licensed
3,400 megahertz of spectrum for flexible use in the upper 37 GHz band,
the 39 GHz band, and the 47 GHz band. Also in 2019, the Commission
proposed to reconfigure the 900 MHz band to facilitate the development
of broadband technologies and services.\32\ The Commission has also
taken steps to provide new opportunities for innovators and
experimenters between 95 GHz and 3 THz.\33\ In 2018, the Commission
proposed providing greater flexibility to current EBS licensees and new
opportunities to obtain unused spectrum in the 2.5 GHz band \34\ and
changed the rules governing Priority Access Licenses (PALs) to spur 5G
investment and deployment in the 3.5 GHz band. In 2017, the Commission
completed Auction 1002, licensing 70 megahertz of spectrum for flexible
use in the 600 MHz band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ Since the Petition was filed in 2016, the Commission has
taken action in several proceedings to make more than six gigahertz
of spectrum available for 5G service, including 4,950 megahertz of
high-band spectrum, over 500 megahertz of mid-band spectrum, and
several swaths of low-band spectrum. See e.g., Modernizing and
Expanding Access to the 70/80/90 GHz Bands, et al, Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 6039 (2020); Unlicensed
Use of the 6 GHz Band; Expanding Flexible Use in Mid-Band Spectrum
Between 3.7 and 24 GHz, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 3852 (2020);
Review of the Commission's Rules Governing the 896-901/935-940 MHz
Band, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 5183 (2020); Improving Public
Safety Communications in the 800 MHz Band, Report and Order, 35 FCC
Rcd 4935 (2020); Incentive Auction of Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service Licenses in the Upper 37 GHz, 39 GHz, and 47 GHz Bands for
Next-Generation Wireless Services Closes; Winning Bidders Announced
for Auction 103, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 2015 (2020); Winning
Bidders Announced for Auction of 28 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use
Service Licenses (Auction 101), Public Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 4279
(2019); Auction of 24 GHz Upper Microwave Flexible Use Service
Licenses Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 102, Public
Notice, 34 FCC Rcd 4296 (2019); Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band,
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 4687 (2018); Promoting
Investment in the 3550-3700 MHz Band, Report and Order, 33 FCC Rcd
10598 (2018); Expanding Flexible Use of the 3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band,
Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 6915 (2018);
Incentive Auction Task Force and Wireless Telecommunications Bureau
Grant 600 MHz Licenses, Public Notice, 33 FCC Rcd 869 (2018). See
also Federal Communications Commission, The FCC's 5G FAST Plan,
https://www.fcc.gov/5G (last visited Jan. 7, 2021).
\32\ Review of the Commission's Rules Governing the 896-901/935-
940 MHz Band, Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 5183 (2020).
\33\ FCC Opens Spectrum Horizons for New Services &
Technologies, Report and Order, 34 FCC Rcd 1605 (2019).
\34\ Transforming the 2.5 GHz Band, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, 33 FCC Rcd 4687 (2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. The MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition also preceded a 2016 processing
round to accept NGSO FSS applications and petitions for market access
in several frequency bands and the Commission's reforms to its NGSO FSS
rules.\35\ In 2017, the Commission granted the first of the new
generation requests--a petition for market access by WorldVu Satellites
Limited (OneWeb) for a planned Low Earth Orbit (LEO) NGSO satellite
system of 720 satellites authorized by the United Kingdom in the 10.7-
12.7 GHz Band (in addition to several other bands).\36\ The Commission
concluded that ``the pendency of the MVDDS 5G Coalition's Petition for
Rulemaking was not a sufficient reason to delay or deny these requests
to use the band under the existing NGSO FSS allocation and service
rules.'' \37\ In granting this request, however, the Commission
conditioned access to the 12 GHz band on the outcome of the MVDDS 5G
Coalition's Petition and any other rulemaking initiated on the
Commission's own motion.\38\ The Commission also agreed with comments
of the MVDDS 5G Coalition that MVDDS should not have to protect any
non-fixed NGSO-FSS operations in the band, if authorized in the future,
because such operations had not been contemplated under the
longstanding first-in-time MVDDS/NGSO FSS sharing approach.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See Satellite Policy Branch Information; OneWeb Petition
Accepted for Filing (IBFS File No. SAT-LOI-20160428-00041), Cut-Off
Established for Additional NGSO-Like Satellite Applications or
Petitions for Operations in the 10.7-12.7 GHz, 14.0-14.5 GHz, 17.8-
18.6 GHz, 18.8-19.3 GHz, 27.5-28.35 GHz, 28.35-29.1 GHz, and 29.5-
30.0 GHz Bands, Public Notice, 31 FCC Rcd 7666 (IB July 15, 2016).
\36\ See WorldVu Satellites Limited, Petition for Declaratory
Ruling Granting Access to the U.S. Market for the OneWeb NGSO FSS
System, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 5366 (2017) (OneWeb
Order).
\37\ Id. at 5369 para. 6.
\38\ Id. at 5378, para. 26 (``This grant of U.S. market access
and any earth station licenses granted in the future are subject to
modification to bring them into conformance with any rules or
policies adopted by the Commission in the future.''). See also id.
at 5369, para. 6 (``Accordingly, any investment made toward
operations in this band by OneWeb in the United States assume the
risk that operations may be subject to additional conditions or
requirements as a result of such Commission actions.'').
\39\ Id. at 5370 para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. The Commission subsequently granted five additional NGSO FSS
requests to use bands that include 12 GHz band (among others).\40\ Each
grant is subject to modification to bring it into conformance with any
rules or policies adopted by the Commission in the future; the market-
access grants to Space Norway, Kepler, and Theia also state that this
condition includes any earth station licenses granted in the future. In
all but the Space Norway Order, the Commission expressly stated that
the any investments made toward operations in the bands authorized in
the United States assume the risk that operations may be subject to
additional conditions or requirements as a result of any future
Commission actions, and all of the orders directly or indirectly
referenced the MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition.\41\ Parties disagree about
the scope and applicability of these conditions.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Space Norway AS, Petition for a Declaratory Ruling Granting
Access to the U.S. Market for the Arctic Satellite Broadband
Mission, Order and Declaratory Ruling, 32 FCC Rcd 9649 (2018) (Space
Norway Order); Karousel Satellite LLC, Application for Authority to
Launch and Operate a Non-Geostationary Earth Orbit Satellite System
in the Fixed Satellite Service, Memorandum Opinion, Order and
Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 8485 (2018) (Karousel Order), Space
Exploration Holdings, LLC Application For Approval for Orbital
Deployment and Operating Authority for the SpaceX NGSO Satellite
System, Memorandum Opinion Order and Authorization, 33 FCC Rcd 3391
(2018) (SpaceX Order), Kepler Communications Inc. Petition for
Declaratory Ruling to Grant Access to the U.S. Market for Kepler's
NGSO FSS System, Order, 33 FCC Rcd 11453, (2018) (Kepler Order),
Theia Holdings A, Inc. Request for Authority to Launch and Operate a
Non-Geostationary Satellite Orbit System in the Fixed-Satellite
Service, Mobile-Satellite Service, and Earth-Exploration Satellite
Service, Memorandum, Opinion and Authorization, 34 FCC Rcd 3526
(2019) (Theia Order).
\41\ See Space Norway Order, 32 FCC Rcd at 9655, 9611, paras.
13, 27 (2017); Karousel Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 8486-87, paras. 3,
n.14, 25(v) (2018); SpaceX Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 3399, 3401-02, 3407,
paras. 19, 26, 40(r) (2018); Kepler Order, 33 FCC Rcd at 11455,
11462-63, paras. 4-5, 29 (2018), Theia Order, 34 FCC Rcd at 3539-40,
3548, paras. 36, 58 (2019).
\42\ Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) argues that
its authorizations are not conditional in 12 GHz band. See, e.g.,
Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite Policy, SpaceX, to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 2 (filed
Nov. 5, 2020) (SpaceX Nov. 5, 2020 Ex Parte). DISH argues that
``every . . . Ku-band authorization is conditioned on the outcome of
the 12 GHz petition.'' Letter from Jeffrey H. Blum, Executive Vice
President, External and Legislative Affairs, DISH, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 2 (filed Nov. 12,
2020) (DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex Parte); see also id. at 1-2 citing
SpaceX Order, 33 FCC Rcd 3391, n.88.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Since the Commission granted these requests, OneWeb, Kepler
Communications (Kepler) and SpaceX have launched the first satellites
of their authorized constellations and additional launches are
scheduled in 2021. To date, OneWeb has launched 110 satellites and
Kepler has launched 2 satellites. SpaceX has deployed more than 900
satellites that use the 12 GHz band among other bands, which now makes
it the largest satellite constellation in the world.\43\ In addition,
through the Commission's Rural Digital Opportunity Fund reverse
auction, SpaceX received $88.5 million in annual support for ten years
(or $885 million total) to provide broadband service to 642,925
locations.\44\ SpaceX claims that its service is capable of providing
downlink/uplink speeds of 103/42 megabits-per-second and a consistently
observed median latency of 30 milliseconds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ In a March 2020 NGSO FSS processing round, these four
companies filed additional applications to use the 12 GHz band. See
SpaceX, SAT-LOA-20200526-00055; OneWeb, SAT-MPL-20200526-00062; New
Spectrum Satellite, SAT-LOA-20200526-00060; Kepler, SAT-PDR-
20200526-00059. These companies have also filed several applications
for earth stations. See, e.g., SpaceX Application File No. SES-LIC-
20190211-00151; SpaceX File Nos. SES-LIC-20190402-00425, SES-LIC-
20190402-00426, SES-LIC-20190402-00427, SES-LIC-20190402-00450, SES-
LIC-20190402-00451, SES-LIC-20190405-00453; OneWeb Application File
No. SES-LIC-20190930-01217; OneWeb Application File No. SES-LIC-
20190930-01237.
\44\ Rural Digital Opportunity Fund Phase I Auction (Auction
904) Closes: Winning Bidders Announced, Public Notice, 35 FCC Rcd
13888, Appx. A. (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
16. In its most recent filing, the MVDDS 5G Coalition continues to
ask the Commission to consider modernizing MVDDS rules and to protect
MVDDS interests in the band. While the MVDDS 5G Coalition originally
contended that 5G terrestrial use and NGSO FSS use are incompatible,
other proponents of flexible use (such as two-way mobile)--including
some of the members of the MVDDS 5G Coalition--recently have
[[Page 13271]]
suggested the possibility of sharing in the band.\45\ Meanwhile,
OneWeb, AT&T Services, Inc. (AT&T), SpaceX, Intelsat License LLC
(Intelsat), SES S.A. (SES), Kepler, and others contend that sharing
remains impossible between NGSO FSS and terrestrial two-way mobile
operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ See e.g., Letter from Martha Suarez, President, Dynamic
Spectrum Alliance (DSA), to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC,
Docket No. RM-11768, at 2 (filed Aug. 21, 2020) (DSA Aug. 21, 2020
Ex Parte); Letter from Trey Hanbury, Counsel, RS Access, to Marlene
H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 2-3 (filed Sept.
21, 2020) (RS Access Sept. 21, 2020 Ex Parte); DISH Nov. 12, 2020 Ex
Parte at 4 (stating that ``since the 2016 studies, developments in
the satellite industry indicate that NGSO FSS constellations possess
geostationary-like functions and properties that could prove more
compatible with 5G services in the 12 GHz Band than the last-
generation NGSO earth stations.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion
17. The Commission has long been committed to ensuring that
spectrum is put to its highest and best use. As such, the Commission
commence this rulemaking proceeding to consider whether the current
rules for the use of 12 GHz best serve the public interest. As a
threshold matter, therefore, the Commission seeks comment on how to
weigh the spectrum the Commission has already made available for 5G
over the past four years and the hundreds of satellites that have been
launched by the NGSO FSS operators in considering whether it is
technically feasible to add additional or expanded spectrum rights in
the 12 GHz band without causing harmful interference to incumbent
licensees (and, if so, whether a balancing of public interest benefits
would support taking that step). In the sections below, the Commission
seeks comment on two potential approaches to future use of the 12 GHz
band: Increasing terrestrial use of the shared band or continuing with
the current framework. The Commission seeks comment on each approach,
including the costs and benefits, in order to pursue the Commission's
goals of putting spectrum to its highest-value and most efficient use
while protecting incumbent operations in the band from harmful
interference.
A. Enhanced Opportunities for Shared Use of the Band
18. First, the Commission seeks comment on whether it can increase
opportunities for shared use of the band while protecting incumbents
from harmful interference. The MVDDS 5G Coalition argues that
technological advances since the creation of MVDDS in 2000 justify
revisiting the rules for terrestrial use of the band. Specifically, the
MVDDS 5G Coalition asserts that terrestrial flexible use service is
compatible with DBS service due to technological advances, such as
targeted small-cell deployments and advanced antenna techniques like
beamforming and beamsteering, which allow better control of transmitter
energy and therefore can protect DBS. Other proponents of terrestrial,
flexible use of the band similarly argue that developments since the
MVDDS Petition was submitted in 2016 open up the possibility of
coexistence between DBS, terrestrial flexible use, and NGSO FSS
operations, and they maintain that the complex technical issues this
raises warrant a new Commission rulemaking. As such, the Commission
seeks comment on adding a mobile service allocation throughout the 12
GHz band, whether coexistence between and among these competing
services is technically achievable and, if so, what mechanisms the
Commission might consider in facilitating such coexistence.
19. The Commission notes that section 303(y) provides the
Commission with authority to provide for flexible use operations only
if: ``(1) such use is consistent with international agreements to which
the United States is a party; and (2) the Commission finds, after
notice and opportunity for public comment, that (A) such an allocation
would be in the public interest; (B) such use would not deter
investment in communications services and systems, or technology
development; and (C) such use would not result in harmful interference
among users.'' \46\ The Commission seeks comment on whether adding a
mobile allocation to the 12 GHz band to allow flexible, terrestrial use
is consistent with this provision.\47\ In particular, the Commission
seeks information on the status of technologies that have been
developed or are currently in development that would allow for two-way
mobile communications in the 12 GHz band, whether standards have been
set related to such technologies, whether there are any international
agreements on a band plan or air interface for the 12 GHz band, and the
impact (if any) on international rights for U.S.-licensed systems that
might be affected as a result of its providing for expanded shared use
of the band.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Public Law 105-33, 111 Stat
251, 268-69 sec. 3005 Flexible Use of Electromagnetic Spectrum
(codified at 47 U.S.C. 303(y)). See also 47 CFR 2.106, 27.2, 27.3.
\47\ The Commission notes the 12 GHz band has not been proposed
at the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) for 5G or
International Mobile Telecommunications (IMT) use at this time.
Intelsat Opposition at 3; MVDDS 5G Coalition Reply at 6; Letter From
Grover G. Norquist, President, Americans for Tax Reform, et al., to
Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3 (filed
Oct. 16, 2020) (ATR Oct. 16, 2020 Ex Parte); Letter from Thomas A.
Schatz, President, Citizens Against Government Waste, to Marlene H.
Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-11768, at 3 (filed Oct. 22,
2020) (CAGW Oct. 22, 2020 Ex Parte). The Commission seeks comment on
the pertinence of this observation.
\48\ See Letter from David Goldman, Director of Satellite
Policy, SpaceX, to Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary, FCC, Docket No. RM-
11768, Attach. A, Questions Necessary to Balance the 12 GHz NPRM, at
3-4 (filed Jan. 6, 2021) (SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Protecting Satellite Incumbents From Harmful Interference
20. The Commission seeks comment on the technical parameters that
could allow additional terrestrial use of the band without causing
harmful interference to incumbent operators. Among other things, the
Commission seeks comment on whether it should allow two-way
communications and flexible use of the band as well as what technical
parameters would be appropriate for such new terrestrial operations.
For example, assuming existing MVDDS service rules as the baseline,
should the Commission eliminate or modify the EIRP restriction for
terrestrial operators of 14.0 dBm per 24 megahertz (-16.0 dBW per 24
megahertz)?
21. Protecting DBS Operations. The MVDDS 5G Coalition and others
assert that coexistence is feasible between those conducting two-way
mobile operations and existing and future DBS receivers. They maintain
that terrestrial operators could apply existing technology profiles and
newly available ultra-high resolution imagery, neither of which was
available in 2002, with modest adjustments to terrestrial site
locations and radio frequency design parameters. The Commission seeks
comment on whether, and to what extent, the MVDDS 5G Coalition's
proposed licensing of two-way, mobile operations in the band, and its
proposed elimination of the EIRP limit, would substantially redefine
the scope of DBS operators' obligations and potential burdens under the
current regime. If flexible use is authorized in the band, should the
burden of avoiding or correcting for interference to existing or future
DBS subscribers be revised? Or should two-way and/or mobile licensees
be subject to the same requirements for protecting DBS subscribers that
currently apply to other services in the band? How could other
factors--such as geographic separation, transmitter power constraints
on terrestrial operations, and other siting parameters
[[Page 13272]]
for flexible-use base stations--minimize the risk of interference to
DBS users?
22. The MVDDS 5G Coalition asserts that sharing between two-way,
higher EIRP mobile operations and DBS, is possible through careful
selection of areas to deploy mobile broadband, modest adjustments to
radiofrequency design parameters, elimination of interference through
geographic separation, absorption in the clutter, transmitter power
constraints on terrestrial operations, and other mechanisms. The
Commission seeks comment on whether such an approach is feasible, both
as a technical and a practical manner. The Commission seeks comment on
the costs and benefits of such an approach.
23. The MVDDS 5G Coalition also suggests that keeping terrestrial
signals below the applicable EPFD limit at all DBS antenna locations
generally could avoid harmful interference to existing DBS subscribers
regardless of the EIRP or whether the operations are fixed or mobile,
or one- or two-way.\49\ Do commenters agree? AT&T notes that DBS
customers can install dishes anywhere on their premises and sometimes
even on moving vehicles, and that DBS operators do not have access to
granular location data for their receive terminal installations. Does
the Coalition's proposed solution resolve that concern? Can cell-site
EIRP or location be engineered to mitigate any potential interference?
What are appropriate EIRP considerations for base and mobile stations?
Given that all DBS earth stations look toward the southern sky for
communication with GSO space stations orbiting at the equatorial plane,
and given that high-gain antennas are necessary for base stations, can
base station location and/or antenna orientation be situated to provide
greater protection to DBS earth stations? What is the impact of base
station height with respect to interference? Will lower base station
height reduce the potential for interference to both DBS and NGSO? What
are the potential costs associated with this solution?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See MVDDS 5G Coalition Petition at 19; MVDDS 5G Coalition
Comments at 6 & n.21 (citing Coexistence 1 at 4). AT&T had argued
that there may be potential statutory issues including whether
proposed two-way, mobile use of the band would require an
independent technical analysis showing that DBS would be protected.
AT&T Opposition at 2 & n.4 (citing section 1012 of the LOCAL TV
Act). In December 2018, however, this provision the LOCAL TV Act was
stricken. Public Law 106-553, 114 Stat. 2762, 265-66 sec. 1012
Prevention of Interference to Direct Broadcast Satellite Services,
stricken by Public Law 115-334, 132 Stat. 4490, 4777-78 sec. 6603
Amendments to Local TV Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
24. AT&T counters that although one-way services currently
permitted under MVDDS licenses may coexist with DBS, two-way mobile
service would create an untenable interference environment for DBS
subscribers. Specifically, AT&T contends that enabling two-way, mobile
use--which would include transient signals from unpredictable locations
and angles--would make it impossible to model and avoid interference to
DBS receivers, and that it would be ``exceptionally difficult for the
DBS operator to trace or identify'' the cause of interference as the
signal moved. The Commission seeks comment on this view.
25. Protecting NGSO FSS Operations. SpaceX asserts the technical
studies submitted by the MVDDS 5G Coalition demonstrate that ``while
coexistence between DBS and 5G MVDDS would prove feasible within
limits, coexistence between NGSO FSS and 5G MVDDS would not prove
feasible, without substantial constraints on one or both services,''
and that ``MVDDS licensees cannot deploy two way 5G services in the
12.2-12.7 GHz band without overwhelming NGSO FSS operations, even under
the current rules, notwithstanding new 5G deployment architectures and
newly available high-resolution ground-obstacle data.'' SpaceX also
points out that one such 2016 study assumes ``an overly optimistic 30dB
of NGSO user antenna discrimination toward the horizon and still
determines that extreme interference (C/I = 0dB) into the NGSO receiver
will occur from a single 5G mobile device that is 1,000 meters away
operating at EIRP of 23dBm per 24MHz in free space conditions.'' SpaceX
argues that ``[e]xtending this analysis to a more relevant threshold of
I/N of -6 to -12dB yields the conclusion that a single 5G mobile device
could cause interference at a distance of greater than 10km in free
space conditions,'' and that ``[m]ore than one 5G mobile device in the
vicinity would increase this distance.'' Accordingly, SpaceX asks how
DISH would ensure that its 5G mobile users are always tens of
kilometers from the nearest NGSO user antenna on the ground, or
approximately 10 kilometers away for single 5G mobile devices, with
larger separation distances necessary for multiple 5G devices?
Furthermore, it asks if such separation distances are really a
practical solution as NGSO FSS users become ubiquitously deployed in
the near future? Finally, it inquires if under this scheme, 5G
operations in an area would cease operations if notified by an NGSO
operator of observed interference?
26. DISH asserts that technological developments in the satellite
industry may have increased the degree to which NGSO FSS constellations
and flexible use, including two-way mobile service, may coexist.
Specifically, DISH maintains that current-generation NGSO FSS
constellations possess geostationary-like functions and properties that
could prove more compatible with flexible use than last-generation NGSO
earth stations. DISH asserts that to the extent NGSO FSS satellites
maintain a highly elliptical orbit and time their active operations to
align with the perigee of their orbit in a manner intended to simulate
the operation of a GSO system,\50\ such operations presumably would be
in a better position to coexist with flexible use operations than a
standard NGSO FSS system. DISH further contends that, given the large
number of satellites contemplated by these systems, an NGSO FSS antenna
should be expected to operate with a much narrower field of view as
opposed to one encompassing all realistic azimuths and elevation
angles. Thus, DISH asserts that, at some level of concentration, large
numbers of NGSO FSS satellites could operate for interference purposes
like fixed DBS licensees, because the receiving earth stations would be
directed at a limited number of proximate points in low-Earth orbit
instead of at a nearly limitless array of different points throughout
the sky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ A highly elliptical orbit is a highly eccentrical orbit
with a low perigee and a high apogee. Perigee is the point in a
satellite's orbit closest to the earth, while apogee is the point in
orbit farthest from the earth. The orbital pattern follows the curve
on an ellipse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
27. The Commission seeks comment on the technical analyses
submitted to date, as well as further information and studies related
to the feasibility, costs, and benefits of sharing among these
services. To what extent does NGSO satellite systems operate in a
manner described by DISH? In other words, do all NGSO systems operate
in highly elliptical orbits or with earth stations pointed toward fixed
locations in the sky? If not, are there plans for NGSO system operators
to modify their systems in this manner? What would be the implication
on latency for end users if NGSO FSS systems were modified to highly
elliptical orbits? What is the practical range of azimuth and elevation
angles over which NGSO earth stations are expected to operate? SpaceX
notes that existing NGSO FSS systems are authorized to operate down to
10-degree elevation angles in the U.S. and questions whether
terrestrial uses could be added to the band while still protecting NGSO
licensees that use these elevation angles. What level of
[[Page 13273]]
NGSO FSS satellite concentration would ensure that NGSO receiving earth
stations would be directed at a limited number of proximate points in
low-Earth orbit? How many earth stations do NGSO operators expect to
deploy? What methods can base and mobile stations use to avoid causing
harmful interference to NGSO receive stations? Commenters that contend
that coexistence is feasible should address whether, given the existing
technical rules, sufficient spectrum will be available to support new
terrestrial service and describe the potential costs associated with
any solution.
28. The Commission notes that NGSO interests and various other
parties argue that expanding terrestrial rights to include flexible
use, including two-way, mobile service in the 12 GHz band, could create
harmful interference that would jeopardize their offerings, and
undermine the investments that they have made in the band. The
Commission seeks comment on the appropriate technical criteria that
would be necessary to protect NGSO FSS from harmful interference from
higher-power, two-way mobile operations. Would the existing
interference criteria in the MVDDS rules be sufficient? \51\ How would
an NGSO FSS operator or subscriber identify the source of any
interference received in the event that mobile operations are
authorized in the band? SpaceX argues that, because the Commission has
permitted blanket authorizations for earth stations in the band
(enabling millions of consumer earth stations to ubiquitously
proliferate), it would be impossible to track these consumer
deployments in real-time, much less prevent harmful interference to
them by transient and unpredictable mobile operations. SpaceX also
points out that the sharing studies submitted by the MVDDS Coalition
confirm that 5G use would clearly overwhelm NGSO FSS operations. Given
the potential for NGSO FSS operations to provide much needed service in
rural and other underserved areas, The Commission seeks comment on the
costs and benefits of adding terrestrial two-way mobile services to the
band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ See 47 CFR 101.113(a) n.11, (f)(1); 101.147(p). See also 47
CFR 101.105(a)(4)(i) (limiting the PFD level beyond 3 km from an
MVDDS station to -135 dBW/m\2\ in any 4 kHz measured and/or
calculated at the surface of the earth), 101.129(b) (prohibiting
location of MVDDS transmitting antennas within 10 km of any
qualifying NGSO FSS receiver absent mutual agreement of the
licensees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
29. In response to the assertions from SpaceX and other NGSO
operators about the potential for harmful interference, DISH argues
that NGSO FSS service is not dependent on the 12 GHz band; it contends
that, ``[i]f the FCC were to repurpose the 12 GHz band for terrestrial
5G services, SpaceX would retain nearly 97% of all spectrum and nearly
94% of all space-to-earth spectrum made available for its proposed NGSO
FSS system.'' In response, several NGSO operators argue that the
entirety of the two gigahertz of spectrum from 10.7 GHz to 12.7 GHz
currently licensed to several NGSO FSS operators for downlink
operations is necessary for NGSO FSS deployment. SpaceX argues there
are additional constraints in the other portions of 10.95-12.2; for
example, 10.95-11.7 has further non-harmful interference protections
due to terrestrial being primary, which could affect consumer earth
stations in this portion of the band. Others argue that harmful
interference to NGSO operators in the 500 megahertz of the 12 GHz band
would negatively affect NGSO operators' ability to split equally the
remaining 1.5 gigahertz of spectrum during in-line interference events.
The Commission seeks comment on these views, but reiterate that it is
focused on protecting incumbent licensees, including incumbent NGSO
operators, from harmful interference in this proceeding.
30. Other Technical Means of Protecting Satellite Incumbents. One
additional approach to protecting incumbents would be to restrict new
terrestrial operations to indoor use. The Commission has adopted this
approach to permit unlicensed devices to share spectrum with licensed
services in several bands.\52\ Such indoor devices could be used for
providing internet connectivity as well as connecting internet-of-
things devices in both consumer and industrial applications. The
Commission's Technological Advisory Council 5G/IoT/O-RAN working group
recommended that the Commission consider private spectrum for
enterprise internet-of-things devices in locations such as confined
geographic areas, buildings, and campuses. Could indoor 12 GHz
unlicensed devices meet this need? Would restricting new terrestrial
devices to indoor uses enable them to co-exist with satellite services?
What power level would the indoor devices need to be limited to avoid
causing harmful interference to satellite services (and would it be
materially higher than if the Commission assumes outdoor use for the
new terrestrial operations)? What would be the costs and benefits of
this approach?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 47 CFR 15.407(d)(3); Unlicensed Use of the 6 GHz Band,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC
Rcd 3852, 3888-89, paras. 98-103(2020); Use of the 5.850-5.925 GHz
Band, First Report and Order, Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,
and Order of Proposed Modification, ET Docket No. 19-138, FCC 20-
164, para. 61 (adopted Nov. 18, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Assigning New Terrestrial Use Rights
31. The Commission next seeks comment on how it should assign any
new terrestrial service rights. Given that MVDDS licensees themselves
have terrestrial usage rights in large geographic areas across the
United States, the Commission seeks comment on three approaches to
authorize any new terrestrial rights in the band: (1) Modifying the
licenses of existing licensees under section 316 of the Communications
Act, (2) auctioning off overlay licenses in the band, and (3)
authorizing underlay use of the band.
32. First, should the Commission consider modifying existing
incumbent licenses using its section 316 authority to allow increased
terrestrial operational flexibility? In this band, because there are
several types of existing incumbents--DBS, MVDDS, and NGSO--there are
several potential options for expanding terrestrial rights. One option
would be to expand the rights of existing terrestrial licensees to
allow them to provide 5G terrestrial services. For instance, when the
Commission authorized mobile use in the 28 GHz band, it granted mobile
rights to existing fixed licensees, after finding that such an approach
would expedite service, and that separating ``fixed'' and ``mobile''
rights into different bundles could create unnecessary complexity and
potential for interference. Similarly, the Commission has modified
other licenses in the past to increase the flexibility afforded to
incumbents to put spectrum to its highest and best use.\53\ Do similar
reasons support modifying the MVDDS licenses to incorporate greater
flexibility? Or are there distinctions that suggest the Commission
should adopt a different approach here?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See, e.g., Service Rules for Advanced Wireless Services in
the 2000-2020 MHz and 2180-2200 MHz Bands (2 GHz bands), WT Docket
Nos. 12-70 and 04-356, ET Docket No. 10-142, Report and Order and
Order of Proposed Modification, 27 FCC Rcd 16102, 16220-22, 16224,
paras. 319-21, 331-32, (2012) (modifying incumbent MSS licensees to
allow widespread terrestrial authorizations); Amendment of Part 27
of the Commission's Rules to Govern the Operation of Wireless
Communications Services in the 2.3 GHz Band, WT Docket No. 07-293,
Report and Order and Second Report and Order, 25 FCC Rcd 11710,
11712, 11723, paras. 2, 29 (2010) (modifying rules to enable the
deployment of mobile broadband services by incumbent terrestrial
licensees).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
33. Another option would be to grant flexible terrestrial use
rights to the incumbent satellite operators. As
[[Page 13274]]
SpaceX notes, the Commission granted terrestrial rights to the AWS-4
band to existing satellite licensees based on an assumption that
closely coordinated satellite and terrestrial operations would be
necessary to overcome interference issues. Would affording flexible use
rights to incumbent satellite operators best ensure that these services
do not experience harmful interference?
34. Under the current regulatory regime in the band, DBS operators
have priority over the other services, including both MVDDS and NGSO
licensees. Should the Commission grant flexible terrestrial use rights
to DBS licensees based on their priority status? One of the potential
challenges to such an approach, however, involves the different ways in
which DBS rights and terrestrial rights are generally assigned. While
the DBS operators have exclusive rights to transmit from each of their
orbital slots, they have non-exclusive rights in terms of geographic
coverage (i.e., they jointly share the right to transmit across the
United States using the 12.2-12.7 GHz band). In contrast, in order to
encourage investment and innovation by terrestrial licensees, the
Commission generally assigns new terrestrial use licenses on an
exclusive geographic basis. Given that each DBS operator in the band
uses the full 12 GHz band on a shared basis with the other DBS
operator, if the Commission awarded flexible terrestrial use rights to
both incumbents, how should the flexible terrestrial use rights be
awarded? Could the Commission leave this matter to commercial
negotiations between the parties? If so, would such an approach lead to
an efficient outcome? If the Commission cannot rely solely on
negotiation between the DBS operators, how would it reconcile conflicts
between the DBS operators over how to apportion terrestrial rights? The
Commission notes that, under section 309(j) of the Communications Act
of 1934, as amended, if mutually exclusive applications for initial
licenses are received, it must use competitive bidding to resolve the
mutual exclusivity. The Commission seeks comment on whether, and how,
the process of negotiating and assigning terrestrial rights to DBS
operators could occur without triggering this requirement.
35. Alternatively, the Commission could grant flexible terrestrial
use rights to NGSO operators in addition to DBS operators. The
Commission notes that this option would create at least two
complications. First, there would need to be negotiations between a
significantly larger number of operators--there are currently only two
DBS operators, while there have been six NGSO authorizations granted
for use of the 12 GHz band. Second, the apportionment of terrestrial
rights would be further complicated by the fact that one set of
operators (DBS) currently has superior rights to the other set of
operators (NGSO). Could the Commission rely on commercial negotiations
to achieve an efficient outcome between these operators, and if not,
would it be possible to resolve differences in a manner that both
comports with section 309(j) and achieves an efficient and expeditious
outcome?
36. Second, should the Commission auction overlay licenses for the
band? Some commenters argue that this approach would ensure that the
new flexible-use licenses are assigned to entities that are capable of
rapidly deploying in the band. If the Commission was to adopt this
overlay license approach, it expects that new licensees would not be
able to deploy operations that would cause harmful interference to
incumbent operations absent an agreement to the contrary. What rights,
if any, should overlay licensees have to relocate incumbent operations?
Specifically, should the Commission authorize only voluntary relocation
of incumbent operations, either for a limited period or in perpetuity?
\54\ Or should the Commission allow mandatory relocation of such
operations, either immediately or after some period of time to allow
negotiations? If the Commission was to authorize mandatory relocation,
should the new licensees be responsible for finding or consolidating
incumbent operations (while ensuring such operators can continue with
substantially similar operations and are held harmless financially)? Or
should the Commission designate some portion of the 12 GHz band or
another spectrum band for such relocation? What parameters would the
Commission need to put down to ensure efficient use of new overlay
licenses while protecting incumbents? Would a transition mechanism like
the one used in 3.7-4.2 GHz, including accelerated relocation payments
for incumbents to encourage them to voluntarily make the spectrum
available for two-way mobile flexible use in an expeditious manner, be
appropriate for some or all incumbents in this band? \55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ In the 900 MHz Report and Order, the Commission realigned
the band and established a transition mechanism based primarily on
negotiations between prospective broadband licensees and existing
narrowband incumbent licensees. Review of the Commission's Rules
Governing the 896-901/935-940 MHz Band, Report and Order, Order of
Proposed Modification, and Orders, WT Docket No. 17-200, FCC 20-67,
(May 14, 2020).
\55\ See 47 CFR 27.1411-27.1424, Expanding Flexible Use of the
3.7 to 4.2 GHz Band, GN Docket No. 18-122, Report and Order and
Order of Proposed Modification, 35 FCC Rcd 2343 (2020). See also
AT&T Aug. 6, 2020 Ex Parte at 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
37. Third, should new terrestrial operations come in the form of an
underlay? Under this type of approach, any additional terrestrial
operations likely would need to be authorized at low power and would
need to operate on an opportunistic basis, not causing harmful
interference to--nor seeking protection from harmful interference by--
the incumbent primary services in the band. For example, if the
technical analysis were to show only that low-power, two-way operations
were feasible, would a low-power, unlicensed underlay make the most
sense, as advocated by Public Knowledge? Specifically, Public Knowledge
argues that making 500 megahertz of spectrum available on an unlicensed
or licensed-by-rule basis could allow for new Wi-Fi 6 uses which the
Commission has previously supported in the 6 GHz proceeding. If the
Commission adopts such an approach, could it rely on its traditional
part 15 rules for such an underlay? Alternatively, should the
Commission consider the auctioning of underlay licenses or licensing
underlay use by rule? The Commission notes that any users of such an
underlay would be required to fully protect all DBS, NGSO FSS, and
MVDDS operations. Given this requirement, the Commission seeks comment
on the costs and benefits of an underlay approach.
38. In deciding how to assign new terrestrial rights, the
Commission notes that several commenters contend that MVDDS licensees
have failed to provide meaningful commercial service in the band. As a
construction requirement, MVDDS licensees must make a showing of
substantial service at the end of five years into the license period
and ten years into the license period.\56\ The Commission established a
safe harbor for MVDDS of actual delivery of service to customers via
four separate transmitting locations per million
[[Page 13275]]
population in their license area.\57\ The Commission is aware of only
one current wide-area commercial MVDDS deployment, in Albuquerque, New
Mexico.\58\ Apart from the showing for the Albuquerque license, other
licensees report meeting the Commission's substantial service
construction requirement for each license based on the safe harbor for
MVDDS. Although MVDDS licensees point out that they met the required
construction benchmarks and claim that they have plans for future
service, these licensees also contend that the current technical rules
for MVDDS are prohibitively restrictive. Should the Commission delay
expanding flexible-use rights in the 12 GHz band until such time as the
Bureau resolves any issues associated with MVDDS licensee's substantial
showing filings, as suggested by SpaceX? While the Commission expects
that the Bureau will carefully examine the licensees' filings for
compliance with the applicable rules, it also seeks comment on the
current status of MVDDS network construction. In what areas are MVDDS
licensees currently providing services and in what areas do licensees
anticipate offering services in the near term?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 47 CFR 101.1413(b) (``The substantial service requirement
is defined as a service that is sound, favorable, and substantially
above a level of mediocre service which might minimally warrant
renewal.''). At the end of each period, ``the Commission will
consider factors such as: (1) whether the licensee's operations
service niche markets or focus on serving populations outside of
areas serviced by other MVDDS licensees; (2) whether the licensee's
operations serve populations with limited access to
telecommunications services; and (3) a demonstration of service to a
significant portion of the population or land area of the licensed
area.'' Id.
\57\ See Amendment of Parts 2 and 25 of the Commission's Rules
to Permit Operation of NGSO FSS Systems Co-Frequency with GSO and
Terrestrial Systems in the Ku-Band Frequency Range, Memorandum
Opinion and Order and Second Report and Order, ET Docket No. 98-206,
17 FCC Rcd 9612, para. 177 (2002).
\58\ The MVDDS licensee in Albuquerque, New Mexico, reports that
it has deployed a large-scale broadband internet service offering
that reaches more than 900,000 people (or approximately 50 percent
of the population) in the Albuquerque geographic license area. See
RS Access, LLC, ULS File No. 0008742312, Required Notification for
Call Sign WQAR 561, Substantial Service Showing Supplement at 43-49.
``To build a high-speed, high-power broadband network, RSA/MDS
required a waiver from the FCC of certain MVDDS operating
constraints--namely, the EIRP levels.'' Id. at 43 (note omitted). RS
Access states that the waiver allows a single transmitter to
replicate the service quality of multiple MVDDS transmitters
operating elsewhere without a waiver. Id. at 43.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Approaches to Sharing
39. If coexistence among the co-primary services, i.e., DBS, NGSO
FSS, MVDDS incumbents, and the proposed flexible-use service (i.e.,
two-way, mobile service) is technically feasible without resulting in
harmful interference to any incumbent service, the Commission next
seeks comment on the appropriate means to facilitate such shared use.
The Commission recognizes that its technical analysis as well as public
interest considerations will guide its approach to sharing, and it
seeks comment on whether particular approaches to sharing depend on
certain results of its technical analysis (for example, is one approach
more appropriate than another if it kept a maximum EIRP for terrestrial
operations?).
40. Service-Rule Sharing. The Commission first seeks comment on
whether the operating parameters proposed by the MVDDS 5G Coalition--
specifically modifying the power levels available to terrestrial
operations and modifying some of the coordination requirements--are
sufficient to enable new terrestrial operations. What are the maximum
power levels and the most flexibility that could be granted to new
terrestrial operations with simple service-rule sharing while still
protecting incumbents from harmful interference? Commenters should
discuss the potential benefits and value of terrestrial operations
under these conditions.
41. Geographic Sharing. Would geographic sharing protect and
facilitate use of DBS and NGSO FSS in some areas without precluding new
flexible-use deployment elsewhere? Would geographic sharing allow
higher-power terrestrial operations in certain areas rather than
others? How should such geographic sharing be structured? Do
subscribers of satellite services typically receive these services in
more rural areas? What are the propagation characteristics of this band
with respect to mobile system coverage? What is the cell size? Like
other, higher-frequency 5G bands, will cell size be limited to a few
hundred meters based on line-of-site conditions? Can smaller sized
cells provide the flexibility necessary to mitigate any potential
interference with respect to DBS (or NGSO) satellite service operations
either before or after deployment of the network? What are the
potential costs and benefits of geographic sharing?
42. According to AT&T, the MVDDS 5G Coalition's proposal would
result in ``some fixed, low-power base stations in `unique geographic
conditions' away from the millions of DBS users sprinkled through
virtually every community, perhaps in `urban canyons' or other places
where satellites might not reach.'' The Commission seeks comment on
this view.
43. Dynamic Sharing Between Full Power Terrestrial and Satellite.
Federated Wireless claims that ``industry [has] confidence in the
ability of dynamic spectrum sharing technologies to enable new and
innovative uses in [ ] spectrum, while protecting incumbent
operations.'' Parties such as DISH, DSA, Federated Wireless, Public
Knowledge, RS Access, and WeLink argue that new dynamic spectrum
sharing techniques, such as spectrum access systems (SASs) that were
developed for the Citizens Broadband Radio Service and the automated
frequency coordination (AFC) approach established for unlicensed access
in the 6 GHz band, could facilitate increased terrestrial use of the 12
GHz band. How could dynamic sharing mechanisms facilitate continued use
by DBS, NGSO FSS, and MVDDS incumbents, while also accommodating
potential new uses such as two-way mobile service?
44. What improvements have there been in dynamic spectrum
technology that might enable flexible use and sharing among these
services? For example, are database-based coordination systems
sophisticated enough to account for earth stations' receiving data from
both thousands of NGSO satellites as well as DBS receivers, thus
permitting mobile terrestrial use while preventing harmful interference
to all incumbent users? How would such a system work? Is there any
history of successful dynamic spectrum sharing involving widely
deployed satellites and ubiquitous terrestrial services?
45. How long would it take to develop an automated frequency
coordination mechanism for the services in this band? To what extent
could the Commission leverage existing technologies (either the SASs
created for the 3.5 GHz band or the AFC being developed for the 6 GHz
band) to perform these functions? Would an entirely new system need to
be developed? To the extent the Commission could repurpose an existing
system, what benefits or trade-offs would there be between using an
existing system versus creating an entirely new dynamic-use system
specifically tailored to the 12 GHz band? Would such a spectrum sharing
system be able to satisfy the spectrum access needs for all the current
and potential future satellite and terrestrial operators? If so, would
it be worth the cost and burden of such a system to the respective
services?
46. If the Commission choose a dynamic sharing approach, it would
propose to follow the existing prioritization of services for
protection, with DBS continuing to receive the highest protection,
followed by NGSO FSS and MVDDS. How should the Commission assign
priority under this approach to new terrestrial operations? And should
the Commission assign priority between NGSO FSS and MVDDS uses? Should
the Commission continue to apply a ``first-in-time''
[[Page 13276]]
approach in the context of a more dynamic sharing environment?
47. The Commission seeks comment on how a dynamic sharing mechanism
would incorporate legacy DBS consumer equipment? AT&T has expressed
concern that DBS is unlike a fixed service because DBS receivers are
deployed ubiquitously, with some installed on vehicles and thus
effectively mobile, and because exact geographic coordinates are not
known.\59\ Could these conditions be remedied and could the Commission
seek information to obtain greater granularity of location, information
on DBS end-user equipment, the height of such equipment at the
installation location and any technical aspects relevant for
coordination? How would a dynamic frequency sharing coordination
mechanism determine the presence and potential for interference from
terrestrial services to DBS? How would such a mechanism incorporate
legacy NGSO FSS consumer terminals? If current DBS or NGSO FSS end-user
equipment or databases are not able to support some type of
coordination mechanism, should the Commission adopt a requirement to
incorporate such equipment going forward? Should legacy equipment be
grandfathered and allowed to operate until a specified end date? The
Commission notes that to receive protection from new proposed MVDDS
transmitters, NGSO FSS licensees must already maintain a database of
fixed subscriber earth stations, in a format that can be readily shared
with MVDDS licensees.\60\ Would such a database similarly facilitate
protection from new terrestrial mobile two-way services? How should the
Commission address any consumer privacy concerns, or protection of
proprietary and confidential business information, that might arise
from the use of one or more databases to facilitate shared use among
competing services? \61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ AT&T Oct. 16, 2020 Ex Parte at 2. According to AT&T, DBS
receivers are tied to subscriber addresses, not specific
coordinates, and subscribers have the right to move their dish from
one location to another on their property without no notification
requirement. Id.
\60\ See, e.g., 47 CFR 25.139(a) (requiring NGSO FSS licensees
to maintain a subscriber database in a format that can be readily
shared with MVDDS licensees for the purpose of determining
compliance with the MVDDS transmitting antenna spacing requirement
relating to qualifying existing NGSO FSS subscriber receivers set
forth in Sec. 101.129); 101.103(f)(1) (prior to the construction or
addition of an MVDDS transmitting antenna, the MVDDS licensee shall
provide notice of intent to construct the proposed antenna site to
NGSO FSS licensees operating in the 12 GHz band and maintain an
internet website of all existing transmitting sites and transmitting
antennas that are scheduled for operation within one year, including
the ``in-service'' dates); 101.129(b) (MVDDS licensees must not
locate transmitting antennas within 10 km of any qualifying NGSO FSS
receiver); 101.1440(b) (for each proposed transmitter, MVDDS
licensees must conduct a survey to determine the location of all DBS
customers of record that may potentially be affected by the
introduction of its MVDDS service).
\61\ SpaceX Jan. 6, 2021 Ex Parte, Attach. A at 2-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
48. If the Commission decides to give priority to new terrestrial
flexible-use services, vis-[agrave]-vis NGSO FSS or MVDDS, should it
consider an approach similar to that taken in the 3.5 GHz band, in
which it auctioned Priority Access Licenses (PALs) to promote
innovative use while protecting incumbents? Federated Wireless argues
that the auction of PALs in 3.5 GHz band could serve as a model for how
to facilitate shared use in the 12 GHz band. SpaceX, however, argues
that there are important distinctions between the 3.5 GHz band and the
12 GHz band that make it infeasible to auction PALs in this band. For
example, SpaceX asserts that there are far fewer earth stations in the
3.5 GHz band than the 12 GHz band because FSS use in the former is
limited to international inter-continental systems and is subject to
case-by-case electromagnetic compatibility analysis. In addition,
according to SpaceX, blanket earth station licensing in 12 GHz means
that there are many more receivers in the band that cannot be
adequately tracked (including DBS receivers). The Commission seeks
comment on these views.
49. More broadly, how would dynamic spectrum sharing affect
existing services? Would it reduce the incentives of existing operators
to invest in deployment? During the period in which a sharing
technology was developed, would it prevent the band from being put to
its most productive use? Or would it facilitate new investment and
innovation in this band?
50. Opportunistic Use of the Band. Are there other approaches the
Commission could adopt to enable operation of opportunistic use of the
12 GHz band? What technical and operational rules would be needed to
ensure such systems do not cause harmful interference to incumbent
systems? Considering the spectral needs of DBS, MVDDS, NGSO FSS, would
there be usable spectrum in enough geographic areas to allow for more
than de minimis opportunistic use? Would there be enough interest in
such use to spur equipment manufacturing? Commenters that believe there
is a potential approach should specifically address the potential value
created through sharing and costs of the proposed solution.
51. DSA argues that the Commission could promote far more intensive
use of the band by authorizing coordinated access to vacant 12 GHz
spectrum on a secondary basis. It contends that such an approach would
``provide spectrum-as-infrastructure to fixed wireless ISPs and other
broadband network providers [that operate] in underserved'' areas,
including rural and tribal communities. DSA argues that the Commission
could adopt rules for opportunistic access to locally vacant spectrum
in the 12 GHz band that operate in much the same way as the 3.5 GHz
band rules authorize General Authorized Access (GAA) to unused PAL
spectrum. Should coordinated, shared use of the band for high-capacity
fixed wireless services be authorized on an opportunistic, unlicensed,
or licensed-by-rule basis?
52. Could the 12 GHz band support opportunistic use of unused
spectrum on a localized basis, such as for high-capacity fixed wireless
in rural and less densely populated areas? What technical and
operational rules would be needed for such usage to ensure that
incumbent services are protected from harmful interference? Would the
benefits of opportunistic use outweigh the costs, such as the
complexity it would create and the coordination burden it would place
on incumbents?
53. Could such operation be permitted based on sensing technology
or a database (such as a SAS)? What provisions would be needed under
either type of regime to prevent harmful interference to other
services?
B. Maintaining the Current Framework
54. Next, the Commission seeks comment on whether the costs of
accommodating new services in the band, including the potential for
adverse impact or additional burden on existing services, exceed the
benefits. Several commenters argue that the existing rules and services
in the band allow for intense and efficient use of this spectrum, and
that changes to the band are therefore unnecessary. For example,
SpaceX's Starlink system has commenced testing of its service in
multiple states, and SpaceX asserts it will begin commercial broadband
service to rural users by the end of 2020. SpaceX cites support from
several organizations for its Starlink system, such as the Hoh Indian
Tribe in Washington who has stated that ``because of NGSO service, the
tribe `finally has broadband, distributed to its community in only a
matter of weeks' and that the Commission should `maintain the careful
and successful balance that allows the 12 GHz frequency band to provide
this
[[Page 13277]]
service.' '' SpaceX was a winning bidder in the Rural Digital
Opportunity Fund Phase I auction, where it won $888.5 million to deploy
high-speed broadband to unserved homes and businesses over a ten-year
period. SpaceX claims that its service is capable of providing
downlink/uplink speeds of 103/42 megabits-per-second and a consistently
observed median latency of 30 milliseconds. According to SpaceX, making
changes to the band potentially could threaten its planned operations
while doing little to close the digital divide. How might this
uncertainty affect future investment in new systems, whether in 12 GHz
or in other frequency bands? What actions can the Commission take in
this proceeding to ensure that the locations successfully bid for
through the RDOF process get access to the broadband internet access
service committed to through that program? SpaceX further claims that
NGSO systems have the potential to provide low latency 5G backhaul
using 12 GHz band spectrum. Could maintaining the current framework
allow NGSO-provided backhaul to proliferate? Alternatively, would
allowing terrestrial mobile service in the band harm NGSOs' ability to
provide backhaul? If terrestrial mobile and satellite-based backhaul
services cannot both be provided in the band, then which service would
best serve the public interest?
55. AT&T has repeatedly argued that adopting the proposals of the
MVDDS 5G Coalition would not adequately protect DBS operations in the
12 GHz band, which potentially could result in ``an untenable
interference environment'' for the tens of millions of DBS subscribers
receiving programming via the 12 GHz Band. DISH, which is the other DBS
provider in the band, disagrees and contends that MVDDS 5G Coalition's
two technical studies have demonstrated that geographic separation,
transmitter power constraints on MVDDS operations, and other siting
parameters, as well as absorption due to clutter, can ensure that
interference from terrestrial base stations to DBS users would rarely,
if ever, occur. If the Commission maintains the current framework, then
NGSO FSS and Fixed Service would continue to operate on a co-primary,
non-harmful interference basis to DBS.\62\ In that case, neither DBS
nor NGSO FSS would be subjected to the uncertainty of new rules adopted
for the band. Are the potential benefits of further action to
facilitate flexible use for terrestrial services in the 12 GHz band
outweighed by the potential uncertainty and the costs caused by
granting terrestrial, flexible-use rights in this band? Should the
Commission conclude that the appropriate balance between satellite and
terrestrial use has already been struck by the framework currently in
place, such that few or no revisions to the service rules are required?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\ Under the approach that the Commission adopted for NGSO FSS
and MVDDS sharing, first in-time NGSO FSS receivers and first in-
time MVDDS transmitting systems are afforded more and easier use of
the shared 12 GHz band than subsequent deployments. The Commission
concluded that such a result is equitable and consistent with the
co-primary status of NGSO FSS and MVDDS. See MVDDS Second Report &
Order, 17 FCC Rcd at 9659, para. 111; see also OneWeb Order, 32 FCC
Rcd at 5370 para. 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
56. As noted above, the Commission has made a substantial amount of
spectrum available for 5G services in the period since the 5G MVDDS
Coalition filed its Petition. In particular, since that time, the
Commission completed the post-auction transition of the 600 MHz band,
making 70 megahertz of low-band spectrum available for 5G. The
Commission completed three auctions of millimeter-wave spectrum,
putting nearly five gigahertz of high-band spectrum into the market. At
least one nationwide service provider has characterized this spectrum
as instrumental to its 5G deployment plans. As for mid-band spectrum,
the Commission has repurposed 480 megahertz between 3550 and 3980 MHz
and is on track to potentially repurpose an additional adjacent 100
megahertz in the 3.45 GHz band.\63\ Have intervening developments over
the past four years, including the Commission's work to make additional
spectrum resources available for 5G and the number of NGSO systems that
have been authorized to operate using 12 GHz band spectrum, counsel
against making changes to the current framework for the 12 GHz band?
The Commission values the public interest benefits that could flow from
NGSOs offering an affordable solution for delivering high-speed
internet services to communities that might be more expensive to serve
through other technologies. How should the potential public interest
benefits of those services be balanced by the Commission as it proceeds
with this rulemaking?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\63\ Auction of Priority Access Licenses in the 3550-3650 MHz
Band Closes; Winning Bidders Announced for Auction 105, Public
Notice, 35 FCC Rcd 9287 (2020); Expanding Flexible Use in the 3.7-
4.2 GHz Band, Report and Order, Order Proposing Modification, 35 FCC
Rcd 2343 (2020), Facilitating Shared Use in the 3100-3550 MHz Band,
Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 35 FCC
Rcd 11078 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
57. The Commission noted in the OneWeb Order, 32 FCC Rcd 5366
(2017), that NGSO FSS operators have access to other frequency bands,
``such that even if NGSO FSS systems were precluded entirely from the
12.2-12.7 GHz band,'' OneWeb would still retain a measure of
flexibility to provide its proposed services. Given the proliferation
of NGSO authorizations and ongoing deployments, the Commission seeks
comment on whether this remains the case, as well as the costs and
benefits of maintaining the current framework. Additionally, the
Commission adopted similar, though not identical, conditions in the
various NGSO authorizations for use of the 12 GHz band. The Commission
seeks comment on the various conditions included in the NGSO
authorizations and what effect (if any) these variations should have on
its analysis.
58. If the Commission maintains the current framework, should it
make any revisions to the MVDDS technical rules within the existing
regulatory framework so as to facilitate more robust terrestrial
operations without causing harmful interference to satellite operations
in the band? \64\ The Commission notes that it contemplated that MVDDS
service providers might petition for waivers of the technical rules and
that, in denying a petition for reconsideration to increase the power
limit for all MVDDS licenses, it was not prejudging whether a rationale
for higher EIRP and EPFD limits in rural areas might have some
technical merit in certain very specific circumstances. The Commission
also stated that after it gained experience with MVDDS operations, it
would entertain requests to modify the general EPFD and EIRP limits, if
such experience provided sufficient justification for such action. The
Commission invites comment on whether there are any other changes it
could adopt in revising its existing rules that would improve the
efficiency of incumbent use of the band.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\64\ See, e.g., Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Seeks Comment
on Petitions of Seven Licensees for Waiver of Multichannel Video
Distribution and Data Service Technical Rules, WT Docket No. 15-218,
Public Notice, 30 FCC Rcd 9953 (WTB BD 2015) (petitioners seek
waivers of 47 CFR 101.113 note 11, 101.147(p), 101.1407, and
101.1411(a), to use the 12 GHz band for two-way, point-to-point
operation at an EIRP up to 55 dBm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Ordering Clauses
59. It is ordered, pursuant to the authority found in sections 1,
2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and 316 of the
Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 157,
301, 302, 303, 304, 307, 309, 310, and
[[Page 13278]]
316, and Sec. Sec. 1.407 and 1.411 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR
1.407, 1.411, the petition for rulemaking filed by the MVDDS 5G
Coalition, RM-11768, is granted to the extent discussed herein and
otherwise terminated, and this NPRM in the captioned docket(s) is
adopted.
60. It is further ordered that the Commission's Consumer and
Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a
copy of this NPRM, including the IRAF, to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene Dortch,
Secretary, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-04115 Filed 3-5-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P